FCC comments on broadband

[TBolt]

Neither one of those are a source as you put it. Gee, do you think it possible that I could just be conservative all by myself without being told what to think? I also think Glenn Beck is a little too much "there is a boogeyman" under every bed for my likes.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Wasn't even referring to you, cigar.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[TBolt]

If there is a need/want for it, then the market will solve the problem in the best and most economical way because someone is out there read to make money on it if it is possible. The government would only waste our money to go in some blind direct that more than likely will choke the market in the long run.

Well I guess that is unless you consider all the amazing solar panel tech that our billions of dollars have produced... O wait?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

I never intended to insinuate that the government should spearhead execution; however, when it comes to infrastructure on a national scale, like it or not, government involvement is always needed to some degree. Interstate highway system, anyone?

A new FCC definition of broadband and an updated understanding of what the country's needs will really be is a government concern. The OP seemed to insist that improvement is unrealistic & perhaps even unnecessary. I disagree 1000%.




Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Cigar-Junkie]

Wasn't even referring to you, cigar.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Sorry, its hard to keep all this sorted out. I am very conservative but don't take marching orders from the normal suspect channels. I didn't mean to offend, my apologies. Rock on!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[twolastnames]

Considering you're speaking about Glenn Beck & Fox News as if they are legitimate news sources, I can see who I'm talking to. Not wasting my time....

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Wait, so I'm a complete idiot for using the only profitable "internet" tv station, and one of the biggest cable channels? My point, since I need to spell it out, as of right now, it costs about $10 a channel for ala' cart. That has been pretty much the point of cable companies for years, and why they don't offer it. The second, was that if things are forced to ala' cart, only the biggest companies will survive, and they will buy up all the small ones. It will be like the way cars were in the 90's. You had GM with Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, GMC, Oldsmobile, Saab.... and what ever else. Ford owned a bunch, and poor Chrysler had it's 3 companies.

Also, stop the stupid political talk. I have a place to to about politics, and it ain't here.

 

[twolastnames]

Talk to most anyone under the age of 25 and you'll find that if they can't get it on demand they won't watch it. The internet based services are going to gain exponentially as the "old ways" die off with their users. I pay for cable TV but I don't watch it(other than football and hockey). Anything else I stream or flat out download.

I have the feeling that the push to true digital is coming, and with that the standard OTA TV medium dies as well.

I would tend to agree with this, but I see how stupid people are, in there house. It's amazing the things people buy and don't know how to use. They bury their Blu Ray player deep inside a huge entertainment center, and wonder why netflix doesn't stream over wifi.

I'm not so sure the younger crowd is all that hip to the internet tv thing. Ya, movies, but as soon as a young person gets a hold of any money (gets a job) the first thing they do is get cable. The only real thing that has changed, is the internet is the last thing people ditch when they run out of money.

As to the last thing, the government and the networks are what is in the way from full digital services. Cable companies don't want anything to do with analog services, but its the law up through basic and expanded cable. You can try to get a waiver, but it's been proven to be a pain in the ass. My company is getting ready to do things over IP, but the tech is not nearly as reliable ATM as the current way of delivering video. The networks get all whiny when companies change delivery, and sue, so the whole process gets held up in the courts for year. Best current example is Comcast. They want to store your DVR content on their servers, and you just stream what you record on a normal cable box. Was on for a day I think and then they had to lawyer up.

I guarantee OTA tv is around until we die. Somebody will cry about the poor people not getting to watch tv forever, and it will stay law forever.

 

[TBolt]

Wait, so I'm a complete idiot for using the only profitable "internet" tv station, and one of the biggest cable channels?

Also, stop the stupid political talk. I have a place to to about politics, and it ain't here.

Yes, it's amazing what kind of crap turns a profit.

And, agreed on the final comment.

 

[twolastnames]

I never intended to insinuate that the government should spearhead execution; however, when it comes to infrastructure on a national scale, like it or not, government involvement is always needed to some degree. Interstate highway system, anyone?

A new FCC definition of broadband and an updated understanding of what the country's needs will really be is a government concern. The OP seemed to insist that improvement is unrealistic & perhaps even unnecessary. I disagree 1000%.




Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

It is unnecessary for the government to get involved. Why does a house need a 1gps internet connection at this point in time? Why does your phone need it? There is pretty much unlimited bandwidth for hospitals and business, as long they are willing to pay for it, which they do. I know a company that has a fiber pipe from Atlanta to San Diego and owns a vast majority of fiber under quite a few cities along the way providing an amazing amount of bandwidth to whomever wants it. All done with private money.

My point is if the government sets a bar, and that's where everyone races to, at first, it seems like a race to the top, but at some point, it's a race to the status quo. The interstate system is a great example... of how crappy a job the government does. One of the big reasons the Autobahn kills less people than our interstate system, is it's not straight. People don't get bored when driving and don't die. They also make it twice as thick so it doesn't crack as bad, and when it's busted, they fix it right, by pouring a whole new pad. Now in 1960 it was a marvel, but now it just kinda what we have to use.

The internet is fine without the government, leave it alone to evolve as it will.

 

[NoYankees44]

I never intended to insinuate that the government should spearhead execution; however, when it comes to infrastructure on a national scale, like it or not, government involvement is always needed to some degree. Interstate highway system, anyone?

A new FCC definition of broadband and an updated understanding of what the country's needs will really be is a government concern. The OP seemed to insist that improvement is unrealistic & perhaps even unnecessary. I disagree 1000%.




Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

I get your point, but things like the interstate are run and controlled by the government for defense purposes. Them provide use for citizens is only a happy by product. They could facilitate the growth of infrastructure if the desire was there, but should not provide incentives for any one section of the market or company. What I mean by this is like allowing the space for telephone poles and government land equally to all mediums that could use it and not just for certain mediums

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

 

[318sugarhill]

Solar and wind get massive subsidies, they aren't profitable and work only under ideal conditions. Oil companies don't get subsidies but do get the same tax breaks my company gets and yes when multiplied they are huge. Oil, coal, and gas are very efficient at driving the engines of our economy, I say let the free market sort it out. History has already proven that central command and control is not the answer. The invisible hand will show the way unless someone stops it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Actually, they only get SOME subsidies. Oil and gas get HUGE subsidies, and massive tax breaks. Check again. Sen Bernie Sanders can break it down for you.

To say they are not profitable is the REASON they need the subsidies. Once it is profitable, it no longer needs the subsidy. I don't know where you live, but Solar is popping up everywhere in my area.

 

[NoYankees44]

Actually, they only get SOME subsidies. Oil and gas get HUGE subsidies, and massive tax breaks. Check again. Sen Bernie Sanders can break it down for you.

To say they are not profitable is the REASON they need the subsidies. Once it is profitable, it no longer needs the subsidy. I don't know where you live, but Solar is popping up everywhere in my area.

If they need subsidies,then they dont need to exist because the market does not yet want to suport them. When other energy goes too high to pay for or solar tech becomes more affordable, someone will will take advantage and it will enter the market without our money being pissed into the wind for something that is not ready for good use. Again i would rather choose where MY money goes instead of the Fed doing it for me. But that choice is something that ppl either dont want or dont believe they have anymore which is the saddest thing i have ever seen. Its like they think that the government owns them, when the reality is they own it, and it is an expenditure that should be kept in check.

Plus solar tech right now is TERRIBLE if you look at lifetime energy production. Most modern panels will never produce the amount of energy it took to make them and have a negative energy yield.

I am not going to argue about the about it, but everything i have ever read about oil companies is that they get tax breaks and NOT subsidies

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T

 

[Cigar-Junkie]

To say they are not profitable is the REASON they need the subsidies. Once it is profitable, it no longer needs the subsidy.

So if it will never be profitable then I must subsidize it forever..... I rest my case.

I honestly think the success of the internet is due to the lack of government involvement. Once the Camel's nose gets under the tent don't expect it to stop there.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MrSmith317]

Damn this got really political really fast....anyway you guys understand that part of the reason the government subsidizes things is to keep them cheap. The best example being corn. The government has long subsidized the production of corn, and therefore farmers sell it cheaper. This leads to cheaper corn based products such as HFC which in turn makes your soft drink that much cheaper. Now ask me why ethanol cost so much...

 

[Cigar-Junkie]

The government can't make anything cheap, it can only change who pays for it.

Okay, I agree, this is getting more political then android related so I'll try to stop.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

 

[TBolt]

If they need subsidies,then they dont need to exist because the market does not yet want to suport them.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T

Many WANT to utilize energy innovation methods but CAN'T for various reasons - for the most part, cost is a real deterrent. This isn't exactly the right time to spend for most Americans. The consumer has its hands tied by uncertainty, unemployment, underemployment. Therefore, the providers of new energy tech don't have a market in which to begin producing at a large enough scale to bring the cost down.

Deadlock ... Just like in Congress.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[xxfallacyxx]

Solar and wind get massive subsidies, they aren't profitable and work only under ideal conditions.

Wind can be profitable. In fact, a local town just built a brand new GE windmill. I've read through the documentation on it, and interestingly enough just like a small business venture it's expected to earn no profit for around the first 10 years. After that however, it is expected to turn a profit. On top of that, "ideal" conditions is probably a wider range than you give the technology credit for. Modern wind mills have gearboxes in them to drive the generators at appropriate speeds so long as the blades are spinning. On top of that, due to wind gradient the winds above treelines and the like are faster overall, so while we may not feel much on the ground there is almost always wind a couple hundred feet up.

If they need subsidies,then they dont need to exist because the market does not yet want to suport them.

That statement makes me think that you don't know that there was almost $200,000,000 in tobacco subsidies given out in 2011. I'm sure we can all agree that there is a vast market for tobacco and tobacco products in the US alone, never mind the rest of the world.

What about the vast amount of subsidies given to the oil industry?

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Oil_Industry_Subsidies.pdf

Subsidies are probably just not that easy to define what they do and do not apply to. Industries from all spectrum of profitability benefit (and many abuse) subsidies, and they don't only apply to business which are not profitable or do not have market support.

 

[NoYankees44]

Many WANT to utilize energy innovation methods but CAN'T for various reasons - for the most part, cost is a real deterrent. This isn't exactly the right time to spend for most Americans. The consumer has its hands tied by uncertainty, unemployment, underemployment. Therefore, the providers of new energy tech don't have a market in which to begin producing at a large enough scale to bring the cost down.

Deadlock ... Just like in Congress.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

So then you wait until the current ways of providing energy become too high or the solar/whatever industry is affordable relative to currently used methods. Then it will have a place, but not until.

I don't know many ppl that WANT to double their electric bill for several years just to know that the same electricity is coming from the sun instead of coal or water or whatever.

I want there to be money invested in solar/wind/nuclear/oil/coal/everything because no one really knows what will work yet and the most likely answer is a combination of everything, but it should be handled by the private sector because the private sector is where it has to strive or fail. Taking my money and dumping it into failing markets is not the answer. If I want to invest in an idea/industry, then I want to do it and not have the fed decide where it should go for me.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

 

[NoYankees44]

Wind can be profitable. In fact, a local town just built a brand new GE windmill. I've read through the documentation on it, and interestingly enough just like a small business venture it's expected to earn no profit for around the first 10 years. After that however, it is expected to turn a profit. On top of that, "ideal" conditions is probably a wider range than you give the technology credit for. Modern wind mills have gearboxes in them to drive the generators at appropriate speeds so long as the blades are spinning. On top of that, due to wind gradient the winds above treelines and the like are faster overall, so while we may not feel much on the ground there is almost always wind a couple hundred feet up.



That statement makes me think that you don't know that there was almost $200,000,000 in tobacco subsidies given out in 2011. I'm sure we can all agree that there is a vast market for tobacco and tobacco products in the US alone, never mind the rest of the world.

What about the vast amount of subsidies given to the oil industry?

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Oil_Industry_Subsidies.pdf

Subsidies are probably just not that easy to define what they do and do not apply to. Industries from all spectrum of profitability benefit (and many abuse) subsidies, and they don't only apply to business which are not profitable or do not have market support.

Why can't we slowly phase out all subsidies? I mean it's one thing to give tax breaks to encourage growth or lower prices, but to take money out of my pocket for every product/unit sold in a market just so I can then spend less on it in a store is stupid. Let me keep my money and spend it how I choose

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

 

[xxfallacyxx]

Why can't we slowly phase out all subsidies? I mean it's one thing to give tax breaks to encourage growth or lower prices, but to take money out of my pocket for every product/unit sold in a market just so I can then spend less on it in a store is stupid. Let me keep my money and spend it how I choose

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

I can certainly agree with you on the ideal, but I'm not properly educated on the possible consequences of removing all these subsidies.

 

[MrSmith317]

I can certainly agree with you on the ideal, but I'm not properly educated on the possible consequences of removing all these subsidies.

The cause is greed, so the end result in removing subsidies would be that we all spend a lot more on everything...just like Europe. But they control their own destinies.

Think of it this way. If Verizon removed phone subsidies, they wouldn't lower the standard billing. We'd still pay the largest mobile bills in all of America AND pay $700 for our smartphones instead of $200 or $300.

 

[xxfallacyxx]

Haha very good metaphor, very fitting considering the forum.

Verizon would also start to make more money on the phones as well, considering they initially have to buy the units from the manufacturers and then subsidize the phone prices as an incentive for customers/potential customers to get the phone they want at a price said customer can justify to themselves.