Slashdot Mirror
Democrats May Promise Broadband for All
andyring writes "According to CNS News Service, the Democrat Party will have an agenda that guarantees every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years as part of their 2006 election year agenda, according to Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader. Absent, of course, are any details as to how they will accomplish it when they are the party out of power in Congress."
For the most part I understand where you're coming from, but I must take issue with the idea that we have Choices.
We have no choices. There are only two parties, each of which has about 25% of a supportable platform, as far as I am concerned. What kind of a choice is that?
There seems to be an inverse relationship between importance and choice. I can select from literally hundreds of breakfast cereals, but only two presidential candidates? Where are the people who represent MY views?
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Everyone needs to remember something here. Every single person in Washington that is in a position of power is not from the same reality as you and I.
$80.00 a month broadband is to them "affordable" Hell they blow that much a day on lunch. They need to keep their hands out of the whole thing and let the market fist fight it out.
Comcast here is $60.00 a month for their lowest speed and $85.00 a month for their highest speed. Verizon is offering DSL for $14.99 a month and up to $49.99 a month. and yes these are normal prices not "special" prices. the 1.5M 384K DSL is absolutely perfect for most anyone. Hell I run 3 VOIP lines over one with far less problems than the Pro level Comcast Cable modem and honestly can not see or "feel" the difference between the two when surfing the web... the one thing that 90% of all users only do on their internet. Places like slashdot are no faster over a pair of load balancing DS3's with a crapload of bandwidth or a low end DSL connection. This is what users see.
The market will fight it out. when Comcast starts losing customers to DSL they will lower prices, it will all settle down to a price that makes companies a modest profit, costs very little to buyers and makes everyone pretty much happy.
Comcast right now makes obscene amounts of profit off of their Cable modem service, and they are reluctiant to give up that cash cow.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes, leaving out the word 'major' or perhaps 'viable' was a mistake on my part.
However, I stand by my point. I've "thrown my vote away" numerous times voting for a "third party candidate", knowing each time that it was nothing more than an act of protest which would be drowned out by the bickering tribes of Reps and Dems.
And tribalism is precisely what we have here. What we see for the most part is not logical, reasoned positions but merely 'we vs. they'.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
And that is *precisely* what I fear.
I'm essentially kept out of being part of the solution, because I cannot agree with either of the two empowered sides who are *entirely* unable to create solutions for the problems we have.
Both major parties are full of incompetent boobs, but they are incompetent boobs who set all the rules for the rest of us. And this is self-reinforcing, because anyone who shows tendencies towards thoughtfulness or considered opinion these days is painted as indecisive, wishy-washy, or as a 'flip-flopper'. Imagine that: Someone who is capable of realizing they've made a mistake, someone who can change their mind to cope with new facts, realities or understanding, is attacked viciously by those who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they can never change.
The system is badly broken, and it's damned difficult to try and change it, either from within or without. That being said, I am trying to do my part. I must say: The form letters one gets back after contacting legislators tends to be very depressing. One is generally either thanked for supporting some position which one has never mentioned, or given a paragraph along the lines of 'thanks for your opinion, but mine won't change'.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
This country has two parties for a reason, and they need to keep each other in check.
George Washington must have been a prophet, and must be reeling now:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."
also:
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
George Washington, farwell address, 1796. He makes a lot of other poignant observations in this address(foreign affairs, relation of religion & government, national debt) that we have completely gone the opposite way from.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Sorry, but there is no such animal.
You mean it couldn't be free like amateur radio? You buy your equipment and you're online? All we need is a good chunk of the useful spectrum and a decent mesh protocol and we could, in theory, have a completely wireless Internet.
Of course the current wireless carries would lobby with everything they could to prevent it, but is it possible?
So you'd be against spending $40 less each month with that being offset by government spending?
Would you also to pay tolls for every road that you use?
How about paying a tax every time you cross state lines on each good that you purchase?
How about paying into a private militia to protect you and your family from rival factions?
You like to be in charge of collecting and purifying your own drinking water?
What will happen is that my tax dollars will be used for that and that my friend is just wrong.
What has happened is certain legislators have realized that broadband has become a necessary and basic right. As an American citizen, you're forced to pay for certain things for yours and others benefit. This is win-win and you're a crybaby.
Sure. But rolling out universal broadband access really isn't as hard as, say, transforming the middle east into a haven for democracy. It isn't even as hard as sending a man to Mars.
To exhume the corpse of an old political metaphor, it's more like building an interstate highway system. While there may be some issues of scaling, and challenging issues of security and regulation, the technology exists today and is mature. There are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of engineers in the country who could sketch out a workable outline for how to do it, and if we lookd at those outlines they'd probably boil down to no more than handful of similar designs. In fact, if anything the job is technologically easier, since highways have to deal with unique geographic obstacles along every mile.
The only thing you need to do this is money, and while in the grand scheme of federal spending it'd be a major project, it would not be anything like the actual highway spending.
The reason it will never happen is the very same reason that we don't have single payer health insurance. There are companies that are making money today under the status quo. These companies will open their checkbooks and fight this to their last penny, because a Federal program along the lines of the Eisenhower Interstate System would be tantamount to a bill of attainder. So, what will happen is they politicians will try to create a complicated system that works around the concerns of these companies, resulting in something that is nearly incomprehensible and probably unworkable. In other words the network equivalent of the Clinton health plan.
And even then, the companies won't like it. The only difference is that politically speaking, it will be like demolishing a house of cards with a squib.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Your tax dollars already paid for the internet. They paid for its developement and continue to pay for the high-level infrastructure. Unfortunately, a bunch of monopolies (and duopolies) control the last few miles from the backbone to your house. How would you like it if there was a 'free' 12-lane interstate highway out there that your tax dollars paid for, but some local cartel charges you $50 per month to drive on their dirt road from your driveway to the interstate on-ramp? I know I'd be pissed.
Oh yeah, and that cartel is now considering limiting what kind of cars can drive on their road, probably only the cars that they sell at a huge markup. And dispite the fact that you give them $50 per month for 2-way access on their road, they want to charge extra to FedEx and UPS for using their road to deliver stuff to you. And they also want two speed limits; 10mph for people who pay $50 per month and 100mph for people who pay $100 per month. And they're not doing any maintainance on the road so if you hit potholes and can only drive 5mph, don't expect a rebate on your $100.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.