Obama Unveils Plan To Bring About Faster Internet In the US 417
An anonymous reader writes: President Obama is rolling out a new plan to boost the speed of internet connections throughout the U.S. For one, he'll be asking the FCC for assistance in neutralizing state laws (PDF) that prevent cities from building municipal broadband services. "At speeds of 4 Mbps or less, 75 percent of consumers have a choice between two or more fixed providers, and 15 percent can select among three or more ISPs. However, in the market for Internet service that can deliver 25 Mbps downstream—the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access—three out of four Americans do not have a choice between providers." The state laws laws restrict competition and give the major ISPs no incentive to invest and innovate.
Obama will also be directing other federal agencies to increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects. "Any effort by the FCC to preempt anti-muni-broadband laws will likely focus on a controversial part of the FCC's congressional charter known as "Section 706." That part of the law recognizes the FCC's authority to stimulate broadband deployment, which supporters of preemption argue the tactic would promote. If Section 706 sounds familiar, that's because it's also the legal tool some say should be used to promote net neutrality, or the principle that broadband companies shouldn't speed up or slow down some Web sites over others."
Obama will also be directing other federal agencies to increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects. "Any effort by the FCC to preempt anti-muni-broadband laws will likely focus on a controversial part of the FCC's congressional charter known as "Section 706." That part of the law recognizes the FCC's authority to stimulate broadband deployment, which supporters of preemption argue the tactic would promote. If Section 706 sounds familiar, that's because it's also the legal tool some say should be used to promote net neutrality, or the principle that broadband companies shouldn't speed up or slow down some Web sites over others."
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
More robust competition at the local level will raise speeds and lower prices. And one day, one bright, glorious day, I can tell Comcast to take a hike.
Re: (Score:2)
What "more robust competition" is this?
What he's proposing is ALLOWING cities to build municipal broadband networks. He's not requiring it, and he's not paying for it.
So, maybe, a city decides to build such a thing. They're going to let a contract to...a broadband company to build it, then the broadband company is going to sell it. Sort of like now, with either the city taking an extra cut of the profits, or the city raising taxes to pay for it.
Main reason for lack of competition is the cost. That co
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost? You mean that every time a local community decides to foot the cost themselves, Comcast and co go get laws passed at the state level to stop the community from being able to build the network, because obviously they're just interested in the local community not overspending : /
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Why yes. That ishow our local communities decide. Why do you hate democratically-elected officials making decisions so much? Would you rather have no elections? Or no government? Since the last two seem to not lead to anything but suffering, perhaps you have some novel idea as to how to structure government so as not to have these problems. I'd love to hear your ideas, unless you're just a complaining asshat.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
A state essentially granting a monopoly / exclusive right of way to one company is not free enterprise either. So what exactly is your point?
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
So let the communities manage the natural monopoly part, which is the cable/fiber and networking hardware, and allow the private companies to sell internet access on it. The currency of interest to the municipality is votes, so they can't afford to cherry pick the neighborhoods where they roll out service.
Larger customer base for the ISPs, actual competition between players, uniform network access across the entire municipality. Everybody wins and nobody's delicate ideology is offended.
Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there are many non compete clauses in cable fiefdoms. This would allow for pole access, and competition in areas where there cannot be one, and or it it is slowed at every turn due to red tape and ground/pole contracts. NYC would benefit greatly by getting verizon out of he way.
Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)
Considering how poorly private companies are doing in the broadband area, why not let the government take a swing at it? It can't get any worse.
Besides, as we've seen in those cities which have implemented broadband service through utilities (government regulated) or by themselves, the service is better and the price is lower. How is that a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
/sarcasm:on
THAT MEANS LESS PROFIT FOR BIG CORPORATIONS!!!!!! Less gouging of the public!!!!!! /sarcasm:off
Re: (Score:2)
More robust competition at the local level will raise speeds and lower prices. And one day, one bright, glorious day, I can tell Comcast to take a hike.
You could do that now. Then get all cozy with QWest/CenturyLink, TWC, Cox, etc...
About time (Score:3)
>More robust competition at the local level will raise speeds and lower prices.
We used to have something like that in the US until the ISP deregulation of the late 90s removed requirements for allowing subleasing bandwidth and last mile connectivity. (Of the sort the UK uses to proliferate enviable cost competition.)
Government Infrastructure, Private Enterprise for. (Score:3)
In general I would be happier with a split model. The municipal governments will pay for the network infrastructure, those fiber lines, wide area wireless, in general the big stuff that needs to go to the last mile. just like they pay to keep our roads operational, and will go to our homes, where they will plow, and maintain it to a particular quality level.
However with that municipal government infrastructure. We should be able to choose ISP who will offer the internet services, who can offer us differen
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
take the partisan glasses off
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Using teams, such as Obamacare, as part of a justification for an argument shows the way someone leans. Rather than use that, use the Actual name, it makes reading the statement a better view, than seeing it as nothing but a Flamebait comment. So regardless of his INTENT, he showed his disdain for Obama and the democratic party..... Just saying.
Or, maybe not [thehill.com].
Re: (Score:3)
The term Obamacare is used almost exclusively by everyone to reference the new system. I wouldn't say you are advertising a product when you say "Just Google it". The term has become synonymous with searching, like kleenex had become synonymous with tissue..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Millennial morons have a problem. You want free stuff as long as you don't pay for it. Obama was/is/will ever be incompetent. #WorstPresidentEver Obama phones, free housing, free college, unearned income tax credit, immigration and other Obama/Great Society programs drained the Social Security Trust Fund, 95% of which was Democrat spending. Republicans are doing a refinance so it doesn't die from more freak shows cashing in at the public trough. So sorry, no Certificate of Appreciation for you my shallow, millennial friend. You are a lamb, bleating leftist slogans on your way economic slauter.
First of all buddy, I'm not a mellennial. I'm a GenXer who makes 6 figures. I came out of college debt free, because my tuition was cheap. I could pay off most of my yearly tuition working a minimum wage job and a summer job. These days, kids don't have a hope of doing the same. So, I think it's fair that our children (because they are coming of college age so I and other adults) would like to see lower tuition rates just like we did.
So I would like to see our next generation have the same opportunitie
Re: (Score:3)
The internet is useless without access to it...
Who are the interviewing??? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot get anything close to 4M. It is either dial up, ISDN or a T1. There are no other services. And frankly, I am not so far from a reasonably large town.
Are you really sure you don't have LoS to a WISP? I live in the sticks and I've got that. I get a whoppin' 5Mbps for around fifty bucks a month. It's unreliable and whatever they're doing for fair queueing instead of just handing out what they've got via round-robin (to make sure you don't get more than you paid for, I presume) causes weird buffering problems on occasion, but they usually fade out after the stream has been going for a moment or two.
IOW, yes, I would also badly like some improvement in my in
Re: (Score:3)
This is because the way the telecoms provide coverage data, which the FCC has typically been too scared to challenge because of the revolving door of politician to telecom employer (pretty much every FCC head has joined a major telecom, or telecom related lobby after leaving office for a shit ton of money), and they don't want to rock the boat.
Surprisingly, the current FCC head appears to have a pair of balls... although they are small, at least he is doing more than anyone else ever has.
As for why the offe
Re: Who are the interviewing??? (Score:2)
And frankly, I am not so far from a reasonably large town
Re:Who are the interviewing??? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, yes, yes I do. Go read this https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
But here is an excerpt from the story in case you are too lazy to go read.
A decade ago, we wrote about how Verizon had made an agreement in Pennsylvania in 1994 that it would wire up the state with fiber optic cables to every home in exchange for tax breaks equalling $2.1 billion. In exchange for such a massive tax break, Verizon promised that all homes and businesses would have access to 45Mbps symmetrical fiber by 2015. By 2004, the deal was that 50% of all homes were supposed to have that. In reality, 0% did, and some people started asking for their money back. That never happened, and it appeared that Verizon learned a valuable lesson: it can flat out lie to governments, promise 100% fiber coverage in exchange for subsidies, then not deliver, and no one will do a damn thing about it.
Same exact promise in NJ, Verizon backed out of that as well, and managed to avoid a 45B fine http://www.dslreports.com/show... [dslreports.com]
Oh hey, look, NY City has the same problem... http://www.theverge.com/2013/1... [theverge.com]
So yes, I do expect Verizon to wire every single household in a particular area. They made billions of dollars on tax breaks, cities, counties and states gutted consumer protections and franchise laws to appease the likes of Verizon, ATT and Comcast, and those companies turn around, and screw the residents.
Re: (Score:2)
Edit: Damnit, I hate having to reply to my own post, I got the fine value wrong, it was not 45B, I just cannot find the value right now.
If you want faster last mile (Score:2)
Stop giving money to mega companies and tailor your government "cheese" giveaway to companies who will build to new areas. The last stimulus scam that they tried contained so many impossible conditions that no small/start-up company could comply with them. The main deal breaker being giving the government first lien. Foolish to think any company wouldn't have a loan or two out there with a bank that isn't going to give up their lien. So either the people who draft those programs are fools or they are in
Now, every problem must have a federal response (Score:2, Insightful)
The President has sent his people out over the land, finding things that don't work very well. He will now spend the rest of his tenure urging various federal agencies and Congress to "stop doin' stupid stuff", accompanied, if possible, by some form of federal largess. Rinse. Relather. Repeat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, don't you just hate it when a President shows leadership. Next thing you know, he'll be scheming with other heads of state to coordinate efforts on global issues like climate change - in fact, I think he even pulled that stunt recently with the Chinese at some sort of "summit meeting". And I bet he even sits at the head of the table at those pretentious "cabinet meetings" he holds. Of all the nerve...
Dear Obama.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You need to do 3 things.
1 - Make "franchise agreements" in cities, towns and states ILLEGAL. Paying a kickback to the government to keep out competition and to just do business is wrong. time to smack the hands of all these scumbag politicians.
2 - Government funded and OWNED fiber everywhere. Dont let AT&T own it or Comcast. It's all government ownd so that a company can come into town and set up shop as an ISP without having to spend millions to run fibers right next to all the other competition. Plus this allows you to force regulate ISP's from being dicks and only offering their service to the rich parts of town.
3 - FORCE HONEST PRICING make Service Contracts ILLEGAL.. you can not find anywhere on comcasts website the real prices of internet, only their special sale prices that go up from 100 to 600% at a later date. No more of this bullshit, honest prices prominently displayed. no Contracts allowed in any way for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have it owned by taxpayers/municipalities or the people than the government. Not entirely unlike BLM land. Public broadband of the people for the people and by the people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
News flash. Owned by taxpayers = Government.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. the tax payers DO own the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, they're one and the same - the utility owned by taxpayers/municipalities IS owned by the government! Public services are provided by government or under contract by the government.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that Franchise Agreements are not necessarily bad. They are typically a double edged sword, both protecting consumers in that locality, but also providing (in some cases stupidly long term, 1 VA area did a 100 year agreement) a monopoly to a particular content/broadband provider.
VZ, ATT and Comcast have all lobbied the crap out of those localities, and gutted the franchise agreements, removing requirements like they have to wire up the entire area, and removing consumer protections such as l
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast already gives everything you do directly to them. Why do you think it will be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear Obama.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You got it backwards, because that's the way public planning often works: for every new provider, the road gets dug up, cities, utilities, or companies put in a new wire, and then they close it. Often, they come back a few weeks later and do it again. Last place I lived, they even had the gall to send special assessments to home owners to fix up the street afterwards. The problem there is precisely that government owns the roads, they make the rules, and they generally have no interest in coming up with a less idiotic scheme of deploying wires and infrastructure efficiently; why should they give a f*ck about how much tax payer money they are wasting with such inefficient methods? They aren't rewarded for saving money with better ideas; coming up with something better is just going to be a lot of work and probably is going to be killed anyway.
What are better arrangements? There are plenty, and some places are using them: you can have tunnels, pipes, and utility poles, and you lease out space on them. You can also start connecting a neighborhood via laser or microwave, and then only as the density increases go to wired.
The problem with our infrastructure isn't that government isn't running more of it, the problem is that it is almost entirely under government control and the people responsible for it in government lack the financial incentives to do a better and more efficient job than they are doing.
No, surveillance isn't the worry. The worry is that once the government owns the infrastructure, it doesn't just engage in clandestine surveillance, it can actually write the terms of service and impose them on service providers. As an equivalent of FCC rules for broadcasting, if the wires are owned by the government, they might impose the rule that any Internet service provider using their lines needs to terminate the account of anyone posting foul language publicly.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Need competition out in the sticks too (Score:2)
"The state laws laws restrict competition and give the major ISPs no incentive to invest and innovate."
True. And out in the rural areas this is far worse with far higher costs and far lower speeds. A lot of the existing infrastructure that could be used is hoarded by those who have control of it such as tower space and poll space. Vast amounts of money is spent on ultra high speed to urban areas while rural areas are left out creating more of a digital divide which in turns pushes more people to the cities
hold on to your wallets (Score:2)
This initiative may well make faster Internet speeds available at seemingly moderate increases in monthly payments. But you are likely going to see low end Internet plans cut, forcing people to upgrade to high speed plans they don't want or need, and you are going to see massive direct and indirect subsidies to telecom companies.
I'm on a 50 Mbps plan, and to my provider's credit, that's what they deliver. What they aren't giving me is a 5 Mbps plan at a fraction of the price, which is really all I want.
Reagan's Third Phase (Score:2)
Reagan: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
>> increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects
I'd say we're in Reagan's third phase with ISPs, wouldn't you?
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how "the market" is going to work in this case. The major players in this market have already bought enough votes to pass local laws preventing competition in the regions where they operate.
At a minimum, these laws that have basically created government sponsored broadband monopolies need to be overturned to allow competition from smaller providers to occur.
Re: (Score:3)
Good idea and long overdue.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
3. TWC will always respond to outages because they want your money and don't want to get sued (yes, they do it in an incompetent manner). The government pretty much doesn't care.
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
Resources will go to Electric, Water, Gas, and Storm drains first.
If you're talking about something like a natural disaster, then yes, you're right, and that's how it should be. Most people's Internet connections won't work very well without electricity anyway, and running water and drainage are far more important than your Netflix movies.
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
This. When the "market" consists of only a few providers, then all of the assumptions of profit-minimizing competition go out the window.
Libertarians should hate monopolies fiercely and should support their dissolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Monopolies exist as the end-game of unregulated capitalism.
I guess you're right in that businesses as we know them couldn't exist without government...
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies do not exist without a gun.
Neither does rule of law, a necessary pre-condition for any civilized society, libertarian or not. Only anarchists think that we can do away with the state and not end up with Mad Max / Somalia instead of happy peaceful cooperation land. Yes, government involvement does tend to favor larger players, no that effect cannot be completely eliminated, yes where possible we should try to create rules and systems that limit the damage. Less regulation is better until it's not, there is a certain minimum level of rules required to ensure a level playing field and orderly operation.
Re: Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:3)
You lost it on your second sentence : "absent collusion"
There will always be collusion in limited markets. Perhaps not immediately, but over the course of a few years, it will creep in and become status quo. At that point, getting rid of the collusion takes an act of congress, or in this case, a presidential decree.
Only by opening up the market, can you eliminate collusion, by making it cost prohibitive.
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Informative)
It's both State created, and locally supported.
Take Texas for example. The State, many moons ago, put in place law against 'municipal' broadband creations: i.e., cities/neighborhoods/citizen groups can't form to create and implement infrastructure as an ISP. While private businesses can implement such, with pole tack and co-lo. barring agreements, you are at the resolve of local municipality, city public works, to get it installed since they're REQUIRED to do the work. Here's the kicker: there is no time frame required for them to get it done in, once you put a request in. Assuming you get the ok from the city officials, they schedule and complete the request, at their own time frame. You can't force their hand to get it done.
Source: tried to start an ISP with a friend, to provide DSL to under-utilized areas. Had capital, but after looking at the details, the city, and lawyers to try and force their hand, would have bled us dry before even getting a bucket truck next to a pole. Why? They're in bed with the well known phone monoply starting with the letter V.
For the area in question, there is no competition for DSL. It IS a monopoly. There is cable Internet, but on then it is 1 provider. There are a few WISPS. All in all, it's DSL, vs. Cable, vs. WISP, in that area. I guess you could call it competition...
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that precisely what is being proposed by Obama? To eliminate those sanctioned monopolies and to prevent state laws which seek to prevent civic or competitive broadband projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:4, Interesting)
I vote republican the vast majority of the time and am no fan of Obama. However, I am excited about this, because I agree the market is failing us in this sector and there is no real competition between ISPs. I'm also skeptical, but still hopeful it'll be done right.
Re: Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
The market is not failing us; there is no market. This is a step towards creating one.
Re: (Score:2)
If one had a scenario where different companies are laying out their own independent infrastructure, be it fiber or cable or towers, one could make a case that there was competition. In the current scenario, where you have multiple media monopolys - say TWC on cable vs AT&T on DSL vs the 4 wireless carriers on air, and the remaining providers just leasing their equipment, it's tough to make a case that there is real competition
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The market-driven model always fails on big markets (oil, telcos, banks, etc). Free-market economists quickly realized that there is a tendency for monopolies and oligopolies.
Please describe how utilities and cable fit in a "market-driven model." As I said; there is not and never was a market. The government picked a winner and banned the rest from operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there was a market for utilities and in some places there there still are some. See the history of phone companies for what happens when utilities are left to a market. Dozens of providers with incompatible systems followed by a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
The deregulation of the phone lines that led to multiple phone providers was an absolute success. You have and still have multiple options, each one vying for your services by pricing and value-add. And each one of them alone is miles away better than the old status quo of Big Bell charging you whatever the hell it felt like and ramming you up the ass on long distance charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of thumb, it's not good enough until you forget it's even there. I don't want to look at a screen and say "that's looks better", I want to forget there is a s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Informative)
It's about High Definition Video. It's about Video Conferencing. It's about VOIP. It's about Telecommuting for your employers. It's about being competitive on the global market. It's about consuming more information faster to better perform in the global workplace. Cat videos are tertiary to this as EVERYONE needs downtime as well to maintain maximum productivity over the longest course of time. As broadband speeds go, America as a whole is falling into quicksand and the Broadband monopolies have shown that they have no intention of letting America do anything but sink. The whole Land Mass excuse hasn't been viable for a long time and now it's just becoming a complete embarassment.
Both China and Russia have more landmass than the US and while we're JUST edging them out in overall average speed (32.1mbps US, 24.2 CN, 27 RU) our cost per Megabit per second is through the roof by comparison ($3.51 US, $1.76 CN, $0.69 RU (all values reflected in USD) [These values were aquired from netindex.com [netindex.com]]. Seriously. Stop being a fucking apologist for these assholes!
Globally we're still on fair ground but we could be doing so much better, and we need to be. We used to be the bastion of technology not even very long ago. For the longest while we could truly say "We're Number 1!" but now it's beginning to ring out more like "We're Numb!" and we need to wake up as a country. The President's statement was a start, now we need to follow through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if stupid or just trolling.
"The market" cannot work because of laws that have been pushed by politicians who have been basically bought by lobbyists. Lobbying is just another word for bribery. This used to be illegal and I'm not sure how or why it became legal in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Fairly certain it was a sarcastic statement.
Re: (Score:2)
"The market" cannot work because of laws that have been pushed by politicians who have been basically bought by lobbyists. Lobbying is just another word for bribery. This used to be illegal and I'm not sure how or why it became legal in the first place.
It's called the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lobbying is just another word for bribery. This used to be illegal and I'm not sure how or why it became legal in the first place.
Your right to bring your concerns to your elected representatives and executives is preserved, very carefully and deliberately, in the constitution. Likewise is your right to assemble in a group to get things done.
... net neutrality? gun control? immigration? whatever) should be illegal? Why do you think that? "Lobbying" is the act (historically) of waiting in the lobby of a building to for
So, you think that a visit to your congressional representative's office to explain your position on (pick a topic
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
So present day "lobbying" is ok because of what "lobbying" used to consist of as a strict textbook definition?
Stuff that.
Present day lobbying isn't lobbying, it is bribery.
There is a vast gulf of difference between "bringing forth your concerns" and "bringing forth your concerns, and oh btw here's a bunch o'money for your re-election."
Your post is irrelevant drivel.
Re: (Score:3)
There are also occasional favors that avoid the whole bag-of-cash problem.
Perfectly okay: A lawyer hired by a large corporation going to Washington and saying, "Hey, Mr. Senator, we should talk about this legislation t
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
If it was as simple as petitioning government, why would they need 8 or 9 figure annual budgets?
Because the same PR firms aren't ONLY putting together lobbying efforts that go directly to legislators, regulators and executives - they also put together expensive, long-running PR campaigns aimed the voters themselves. Is this where you say that they shouldn't be allowed to run ads in newspapers, or use direct mail or the web to deliver their messages? Why?
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:4, Interesting)
What should be illegal is politicians taking large sums of money from these "lobbyists"
So I'll ask you the same question as I did the GP. Do you have evidence of politicians taking large sums of money and not being prosecuted for that? As an example, the former governor of Virginia is about to go jail for doing that. Prosecutors are standing by to pursue other politicians who do the same. Which politicians do you know of who are taking large sums of money and not being prosecuted? Please list them.
Or are you referring to donations to campaigns, which have to be reported, publicly, down to the penny - as the money comes into the campaign fund, as as each penny is spent. Are you aware of politicians who are personally raiding those campaign funds and not being prosecuted? It does happen sometimes, that idiot politicians get greedy and hit those funds. And the audit trail makes that plainly obvious, and they are prosecuted. If you know of cases where they've taken such cash out of their campaign funds, but prosecutors are not aware, why aren't you saying something about it?
politicians are supposed to do whats best for the people they represent, not what's best for whoever can pay them the most money!
That sounds pretty serious! Which politicians are taking the money? If you have new information, it will be front page news tomorrow. Because that means that you've identified people who are someone handling money that career auditors with local, state, and federal election commissions are unable to see, even though they have complete access to the bank records, tax filings, and other information for every one of them. You must have some serious inside scoop! Please, share.
Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Market" DOES NOT work in this case.
The "Market" only expands if they can sign exclusivity contracts.
The "Market" RARELY expands into rural areas and never into poor rural areas.
The "Market" overcharges depending on what zip code you are in.
The "Market" redefines words like UNLIMITED in ways that are completely opposite to the meaning of the actual word.
The "Market" wants to throttle us based on what we want to do.
Re: (Score:3)
The "Market" RARELY expands into rural areas and never into poor rural areas.
Funny thing. A lot of my family live in rural areas around the country, and many of these areas are gaining faster fiber than what's available in the cities. The common pattern that I'm seeing is the metro areas are taken over by incumbents and the incumbents are staying or running away from rural like the plague. Even with little to no competition in rural areas, they're starting to see faster, cheaper, more reliable internet because these areas are being serviced by ISPs less greedy than incumbents.
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of that is the rural areas have virtually nothing, so as they are just getting broadband they are getting a newer infrastructure as a starting point.
Then agin in rural areas where only cable and sattelite or just only satellite is feasable those guys get gouged pretty good.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no market, at least not in the "free" sense that people tend to mean. The ISP landscape is a patchwork of franchises, gentleman's agreements, or both. There is nothing resembling a competitive market where consumers may choose a provider based on price, or quality, or any other vector; or where competitors can reasonably be expected to enter.
Re:Obama: please stop helping us! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama adds regulation: "Stupid Obama the Market will fix the problems!"
Obama removes regulation: "Stupid Obama the Market will fix the problems!"
Obama hands all regulatory decisions over to "the Market": "Stupid Obama what he is doing is unconstitutional!"
Obama does nothing: "Stupid Obama Why can't he just lead!"
I'm glad you enjoy being enraged so much, and also that you can always find a reason to be enraged, I hope that your high blood pressure removes you from the voting pool very soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Fox news disproves your point.
Re:And what about privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you noticed the European nations lining up to trade the last remnants of internet privacy for more security?
Je suis l'etat de surveillance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's as if it's all just political posturing or something...
There will only be political posturing for the next two years. The Republicans won the battle for Congress, but they are fucked. They have no options. Obama has dictatorial powers now, and is exercising them
If Congress passes any laws that Obama doesn't like, he will simply veto them.
Even if Congress musters the required majority to override the veto, Obama can simply use his Executive Discretion to not enforce the law. This is the tool that he has used to stop illegal immigrant deportations. Hell, O
Re: (Score:2)
Blame will get placed on Obama. The same thing happened to Bush when Democrats took control in 2007, everything bad that happened after that point in time was blamed on him.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, the Democrats will still be blaming stuff on Bush in 2038 . . . that's when the 32 bit C Epoch ends. If there are any computer glitches then, the Democrats will blame them on Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
As for not carrying out judicial orders, this has been a thing at least since Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall has made his decision; now l
Re: (Score:2)
The president is part of the EXECUTIVE branch, EXECUTIVE orders can only tell the EXECUTIVE branch what to do. He has absolutely no power to directly tell the JUSTICE department how to operate.
Brilliant point, except that the JUSTICE department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch. Did you sleep through high school civics?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, funny how now that he's a lame duck he's suddenly trying to play the hero. Pretty easy to propose bold and radical ideas when you face no risks for doing do and know that none of them will ever actually pass. When he actually had control of Congress, all this "hero" could do was to fall all over himself championing even more heavy-handed domestic spying programs and other evil shit than his shitheel predecessor. Now that he has no power, he suddenly wants to pretend that he gives a shit about the Amer
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying that broadband competition is a bad thing because Obama is a lame duck? Or is it just Obama's particular implementation that is bad?
Re:Love how he had all these great ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
Mind you, every right-thinking person ought to find the scales just about even with this domestic spying bullshit. The man was a Constitutional professor, and instead of thinking like an academic -- who would have known the direction SCOTUS was heading and that bullshit like the third party doctrine had no place justifying the disclosure of involuntarily produced records -- and instead thinks like a lawyer -- who did something because there was no case law directly on point that said he couldn't. That's a dick move. Even if Bush put it in place, Obama defended it. Total dick move.
Re:Love how he had all these great ideas (Score:4, Informative)
July 8, 2009: Al Franken was sworn in as the 60th senator to caucus with the Democrats.
August 25, 2009: Ted Kennedy passes away, removing the supermajority (59 / 99 votes is less than 3 / 5)
September 25, 2009: Paul Kirk is appointed to temporarily fill Ted Kennedy's seat, returning the supermajority to the Democrats
February 4, 2010: Scott Brown is sworn in to Ted Kennedy's former seat, thus removing the supermajority for the Democrats for good
That adds up to about 6 months of a theoretical supermajority, and that includes part of a summer break and a long winter break when the Senate was not in session. A large number of Democratic Senators were also "Blue Dog" Democrats, meaning that they voted with Republicans quite a lot. But despite all of this and the Republican's use of every procedural delay and obstruction tactic in the book, this brief supermajority still managed to pass the most important health care legislation in the last 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
the House of Representatives has been under GOP control since 2010, which is the last time he could get bills through a friendly Congress.
Yeah, it's called "checks and balances."
He's had the Senate all that time, until he lost it. And he used THAT friendly house of congress to make sure that anything he didn't like, but didn't want to be seen vetoing, died on Harry Reid's desk. It goes both ways. The GOP had one house of congress, and Obama had the other house of congress and his own veto power to kill anything he didn't like that came out of that lower house. We don't elect a president to make laws, we elect him to EXECUTE the laws after
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Can't do shit" with 6Mbps and no data cap?
You got plenty of valid options, sir. Please shut the fuck up.
Signed,
a Canadian stuck with the local monopoly at 2Mbps with a 35GB monthly data cap.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe he runs a server, or maybe he is a developer pushing out udpated ISO's every night or every few hours.. Or maybe he lives in a house with 5 roommates who all constantly play games and stream movies...
Or maybe, he just works from home and transfers allot of data between his home office and his corporate office...
Don't be a dick..
Re:Obama is not PRO consumer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obama is not PRO consumer (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a classic example of some people just hating on Obama, because he's Obama.
In 2014, Republicans were mad at Obama for pushing net neutrality. All we needed to do was to end the city and state laws preventing cities from creating municipal broadband. Let the market work!
In 2015, some of them (not all, but many) will be mad at him for sticking the fed's nose into state and city laws, forcing them to ... You get the idea.
And once again, our great socialist democrat commy leader does EXACTLY what Republicans would have done(cough war, gitmo, bailouts, etc). And they probably won't be happy with it, because it's Obama....
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate Verizon (and I do really hate Verizon, but not as much as I hate Comcast), Verizon offers fixed LTE (http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/lte-internet-installed/) It's not cheap mind you, but it at least uses the same network and bands as their LTE phones, so if you get LTE phone service from VZ where you live, you should be able to get their home LTE service.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that is what he is trying to do... Give you, and your neighbors the choice and opportunity to build your own (well vote to have someone build it for you) broadband network. The reason he is getting involved is that there are about 20 or so states that have laws on the book, written by the telecoms themselves, that outright ban cities, counties, municipalities, etc from building out there own network should the populace decide they want to, or puts restrictions in place that make is almost i