If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AEI Ideas)   The FCC's proposal for nationwide free wi-fi is cyber-socialism   (aei-ideas.org) divider line 228
    More: Obvious, internet service provider, wireless broadband, Wi-Fi, tech, private ownership, National Broadband Plan  
•       •       •

5722 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2013 at 8:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 07:43:47 AM
Good.  The derpsters at the AEI could use an opportunity to learn what socialism actually means.
 
2013-02-05 08:29:45 AM
imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-02-05 08:29:59 AM
So we can ALL share in the same low quality of service?  Sweet....
 
2013-02-05 08:30:45 AM
Wish they'd implement Wimax instead. I have this feature built into my PC, and I've never gotten the chance to use it.
 
2013-02-05 08:31:02 AM
Thanks Obama
 
2013-02-05 08:31:53 AM

vpb: Good.  The derpsters at the AEI could use an opportunity to learn what socialism actually means.


Why should I have to provide them with a free education?
Wait...
 
2013-02-05 08:32:10 AM
Maybe this will finally persuade the cell companies to stop charging an arm and a leg for text messaging and pull the cap off of 'unlimited' data.
 
2013-02-05 08:32:42 AM

computerguyUT: So we can ALL share in the same low quality of service?  Sweet....


socialized pain FTW!
 
2013-02-05 08:33:48 AM
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-02-05 08:35:06 AM

joness0154: Maybe this will finally persuade the cell companies to stop charging an arm and a leg for text messaging and pull the cap off of 'unlimited' data.


oddlovescompany.com
 
2013-02-05 08:35:50 AM
Am I paying the bill for everyone? That's just regular old fasioned socialism.
 
2013-02-05 08:37:11 AM
Wow - the commentators nailed him pretty succinctly.  Definitely an /thread worthy exchange.
 
2013-02-05 08:37:34 AM

computerguyUT: So we can ALL share in the same low quality of service?  Sweet....


Is the FCC proposing we eliminate private ISPs, or just proposing a 'public option' in addition to private ISPs?
 
2013-02-05 08:38:07 AM

badhatharry: Am I paying the bill for everyone? That's just regular old fasioned socialism.


If one person is paying the bill for everyone, that's kind of the opposite of socialism.

/Awful nice of you though.
//I'll plant a tree for you in Israel, if I ever become Jewish and move to Israel.
 
2013-02-05 08:38:11 AM

badhatharry: Am I paying the bill for everyone? That's just regular old fasioned socialism.


Not everyone, just me.  I'll forward you my receipt now.
 
2013-02-05 08:38:46 AM
Great idea.  The federal government can regulate the Internet and, in doing so, freeze the development of that technology dead in its tracks, like the way it did with its radio licensing scheme in the 1920s, and the way it did with socialized electricity in the 1890s.

Some other, more free society will move ahead of us technologically, and in 20 or 30 years when the gates of the US are unlocked again, they will see how we've been stuck in a time warp, the way that East Germany looked to us when its collectivist government collapsed in 1989 -- as though it had gotten stuck in 1968 or so.

Yeah, Progressivism!  Hindering progress since 1885!
 
2013-02-05 08:39:38 AM

badhatharry: Am I paying the bill for everyone? That's just regular old fasioned socialism.


Actually the politicians will give a huge contract it out to one of their connected friends so it's more like old fasioned national socialism.
 
2013-02-05 08:40:24 AM
which are designed to transfer 120 MHz of broadcast television spectrum to wireless broadband providers, who need it to meet exploding demand.

Um, what? Really? Was the building crash of the past few years a myth or something? Are there that many existing living spaces that are not currently wired for television?
 
2013-02-05 08:40:26 AM
I'm starting to like this whole "socialism" thing.
 
2013-02-05 08:41:25 AM

badhatharry: Am I paying the bill for everyone? That's just regular old fasioned socialism.


So I take it you object to taxes and/or a government that builds infrastructure in general?
 
2013-02-05 08:42:01 AM
If you think internet is expensive now, wait until it is "free".
 
2013-02-05 08:42:41 AM

vpb: Good.  The derpsters at the AEI could use an opportunity to learn what socialism actually means.


But it's kind of nice when they put these pieces out, because they always end up making socialism more attractive.
 
2013-02-05 08:43:18 AM

Phinn: Great idea.  The federal government can regulate the Internet and, in doing so, freeze the development of that technology dead in its tracks, like the way it did with its radio licensing scheme in the 1920s, and the way it did with socialized electricity in the 1890s.

Some other, more free society will move ahead of us technologically, and in 20 or 30 years when the gates of the US are unlocked again, they will see how we've been stuck in a time warp, the way that East Germany looked to us when its collectivist government collapsed in 1989 -- as though it had gotten stuck in 1968 or so.

Yeah, Progressivism!  Hindering progress since 1885!


Again, is the FCC proposing the elimination of private ISPs, or merely a government-run 'public option' as an alternative to private ISPs?
 
2013-02-05 08:44:18 AM

HotWingConspiracy: But it's kind of nice when they put these pieces out, because they always end up making socialism more attractive.


It's attractive to freeloaders, parasites and layabouts.

Until the host runs out of money, of course.
 
2013-02-05 08:44:46 AM
I'd just like to see broadband speeds similar to what most areas in western Europe and Asia see. At least in the cities. Heck, even in Greece- Back when I was there in 2006, my dad's friend in Athens was getting around 50 mbps for around the equivalent of $30/ month. I'm going again in April- I hear the average is even faster now. Meanwhile, here in Columbus, OH I pay like $35 for 11mbps. WTF?
 
2013-02-05 08:44:54 AM
Capitalism won't be happy until it can stick a few commercials into your browser every few minutes.

Believe it or not, there was a time that any citizen with a private transmitter could broadcast a television or radio show.  You try that now and you'll be waking up from the concussion grenade with a German Shepard in a bulletproof vest gnawing your nuts off.  What changed?  The FCC took control of the electromagnetic waves under the guise of "organizing" and "regulating" the resource.  And what did we get out of that?  We got a promising venue of education and discourse monetized into a revenue stream that the government gets to dip their thirsty cocks into with licensing fees and fines.

The internet poses a greater challenge because there's a lot more bandwidth to go around, but you have to believe that the government is working on a way to take complete control of it and turn into a profit machine.  Look at the footsteps - it started as an educational resource for sharing information and it's now turning into a glorified television.  The American people - like any other mass of society - are just a bunch of farm animals, milling around, producing little and consuming a lot.  They will eat whatever slop you put in their trough.  The government (a term that I use interchangeably with corporation) is licking its chops thinking about the number of eyeballs they can sell to.

Coast-to-coast wifi is just another way to pocket more marketshare.  Don't but into it and take action against any transponders they build near your neighborhoods.
 
2013-02-05 08:46:21 AM
I don't get the "free" part.  That's never been the way the US has handled the expansion of utility services.  We've had government funding of the  infrastructure but the actual usage has been metered and billed.  The government spends a million bucks electrificationing some village up in the hills and the local utility bills the new customers for usage and maintains the equipment.  Same with phone service.
 
2013-02-05 08:46:39 AM
FTA : The story is almost entirely fiction.

The FCC has not proposed large public Wi-Fi networks

incentive auctions... designed to transfer 120 MHz of broadcast television spectrum to wireless broadband providers

The proposal exists only in the rich imaginations of a handful of cyber-socialists, who just can't come to terms with the fact that America's largely market-based communications policies are working
 
2013-02-05 08:47:24 AM

Phinn: HotWingConspiracy: But it's kind of nice when they put these pieces out, because they always end up making socialism more attractive.

It's attractive to freeloaders, parasites and layabouts.

Until the host runs out of money, of course.


And unregulated capitalism is only attractive to greedy sociopaths like Ayn Rand.
 
2013-02-05 08:47:46 AM
I would be satisfied if the feds just banned data caps and the blocking of websites.

...Of course, they won't do that, either. I'm sure the free wifi would be censored as hell.

Conclusion: both private enterprise AND government such in this country.
 
2013-02-05 08:48:06 AM

Phinn: HotWingConspiracy: But it's kind of nice when they put these pieces out, because they always end up making socialism more attractive.

It's attractive to freeloaders, parasites and layabouts.

Until the host runs out of money, of course.


You don't know what socialism is.
 
2013-02-05 08:48:24 AM
Suck = suck.

Damnit.
 
2013-02-05 08:48:56 AM

LordJiro: Again, is the FCC proposing the elimination of private ISPs, or merely a government-run 'public option' as an alternative to private ISPs?


Nominally private companies have a tough time competing against a facsimile of a company -- a simulated business enterprise that has no obligation to make a profit, or adjust its production to meet consumer preferences, and can get a fat bailout anytime it experiences a massive loss.  They end up dragging the entire market segment down, the way that state-run insurers have destroyed the once-private insurance business.

Government enterprises are designed to lose money.  They are built to fail, and yet be impervious to the usual consequences of failure.  If they could be run in a way that does not experience regular losses, then other people would be doing it.
 
2013-02-05 08:50:26 AM

Phinn: Some other, more free society will move ahead of us technologically...


Oh yes, look at all of these socialist countries  with terrible internet access.
 
2013-02-05 08:51:03 AM
Whats with all the hang wrininging about how public WiFi is the governments way of putting black helicopters in your brain and turing the US into a gulag. Relax guys.

If anyone bothered to read the article (it was short too), there has been no proposal for nationwide, free WiFi. The issue being discussed is the FCC having the authority to take part of the radio spectrum that is currently used for commercial television, and converting it to unlicensed frequency to expand the availalble spectrum for wireless data transmission. Faster networks with more users in larger areas will require this. This has nothing to do with the government providing internet.
 
2013-02-05 08:52:12 AM

LordJiro: Phinn: Great idea.  The federal government can regulate the Internet and, in doing so, freeze the development of that technology dead in its tracks, like the way it did with its radio licensing scheme in the 1920s, and the way it did with socialized electricity in the 1890s.

Some other, more free society will move ahead of us technologically, and in 20 or 30 years when the gates of the US are unlocked again, they will see how we've been stuck in a time warp, the way that East Germany looked to us when its collectivist government collapsed in 1989 -- as though it had gotten stuck in 1968 or so.

Yeah, Progressivism!  Hindering progress since 1885!

Again, is the FCC proposing the elimination of private ISPs, or merely a government-run 'public option' as an alternative to private ISPs?


after refrigerators  and air-conditioning, it is the next logical step
 
2013-02-05 08:52:25 AM
Odd place to find so many people willing to volunteer having their "private" communications monitored.
 
2013-02-05 08:54:52 AM

LordJiro: Phinn: Great idea.  The federal government can regulate the Internet and, in doing so, freeze the development of that technology dead in its tracks, like the way it did with its radio licensing scheme in the 1920s, and the way it did with socialized electricity in the 1890s.

Some other, more free society will move ahead of us technologically, and in 20 or 30 years when the gates of the US are unlocked again, they will see how we've been stuck in a time warp, the way that East Germany looked to us when its collectivist government collapsed in 1989 -- as though it had gotten stuck in 1968 or so.

Yeah, Progressivism!  Hindering progress since 1885!

Again, is the FCC proposing the elimination of private ISPs, or merely a government-run 'public option' as an alternative to private ISPs?


Public options for any goods or services people want are a threat to the very fabric of our society.  The Framers of the Constitution, in conjunction with Adam Smith, envisioned a nation in which every corporation is free to monopolize a sector and put up impenetrable barriers to entry for other likely competitors, thus ensuring maximum profits for minimal effort and quality.  The very idea that citizens living in an Information Age should have reasonable access to the tools and infrastructure of information is worse than ten sexy Hitlers banging nine sexy Hitlers.
 
2013-02-05 08:55:52 AM
Antennas will be too long in this part of the spectrum. Will be real hard to incorporate into a hand held device. But someone will try, and the devices will work like crap.
 
2013-02-05 08:55:59 AM

LordJiro: badhatharry: Am I paying the bill for everyone? That's just regular old fasioned socialism.

So I take it you object to taxes and/or a government that builds infrastructure in general?


The interstate highway system is pretty good.
 
2013-02-05 08:57:13 AM

LordJiro: And unregulated capitalism is only attractive to greedy sociopaths like Ayn Rand.


Right, because people working to provide goods and services that are more appealing to consumers than all others, and at a better price than any other producer is offering, and giving consumers the option of declining the offer at any time without fear of reprisal, is such a farking drag.

If a system of peaceful, voluntary trade of the best, lowest-cost goods and services that any other producer is offering is "greedy," then we ought to hope and pray that the world is so greedy.

HotWingConspiracy: You don't know what socialism is.


Unfortunately, I do.
 
2013-02-05 08:58:27 AM

Phinn: LordJiro: Again, is the FCC proposing the elimination of private ISPs, or merely a government-run 'public option' as an alternative to private ISPs?

Nominally private companies have a tough time competing against a facsimile of a company -- a simulated business enterprise that has no obligation to make a profit, or adjust its production to meet consumer preferences, and can get a fat bailout anytime it experiences a massive loss.  They end up dragging the entire market segment down, the way that state-run insurers have destroyed the once-private insurance business.


State run insurance generally is intended to cover things that are not profitable for private insurers. Insuring elderly people is not going to make a company a profit, hence medicare. Flooding causes way too much widespread damage to justify with an actuary table, hence federal flood insurance. These types of insurance are necessary to a functioning, healthy society. The consequences of old age and flooding would be far more pronounced without them. The Federal Government is constitutionally obligated to care for the welfare of it's citizinery.

Government enterprises are designed to lose money.  They are built to fail, and yet be impervious to the usual consequences of failure.  If they could be run in a way that does not experience regular losses, then other people would be doing it.

I don't think you are serious here. The government's programs are not designed to lose money. They are not designed to make money either though. They simply exist to provide a function or service.

But, you weren't really sincere about any of this anyway, were you.
 
2013-02-05 08:58:50 AM

Phinn: Unfortunately, I do.


No, you seriously have no idea. If we were the only nation on the planet you might be a little more convincing, but sadly for you that isn't the case.
 
2013-02-05 08:59:04 AM

badhatharry: The interstate highway system is pretty good.


Other than the part where it kills 100 people every day, sure.
 
2013-02-05 08:59:06 AM

Phinn: LordJiro: Again, is the FCC proposing the elimination of private ISPs, or merely a government-run 'public option' as an alternative to private ISPs?

Nominally private companies have a tough time competing against a facsimile of a company -- a simulated business enterprise that has no obligation to make a profit, or adjust its production to meet consumer preferences, and can get a fat bailout anytime it experiences a massive loss.  They end up dragging the entire market segment down, the way that state-run insurers have destroyed the once-private insurance business.

Government enterprises are designed to lose money.  They are built to fail, and yet be impervious to the usual consequences of failure.  If they could be run in a way that does not experience regular losses, then other people would be doing it.


Remember when the USPS destroyed the entire package-delivery industry?  That was awesome.
 
2013-02-05 08:59:25 AM
The proposal exists only in the rich imaginations of a handful of cyber-socialists, who just can't come to terms with the fact that America's largely market-based communications policies are working

If by "working" you mean "charging Americans the world's highest price for data connections", then yeah.
 
2013-02-05 08:59:55 AM

Phinn: Great idea.  The federal government can regulate the Internet and, in doing so, freeze the development of that technology dead in its tracks, like the way it did with its radio licensing scheme in the 1920s, and the way it did with socialized electricity in the 1890s.

Some other, more free society will move ahead of us technologically, and in 20 or 30 years when the gates of the US are unlocked again, they will see how we've been stuck in a time warp, the way that East Germany looked to us when its collectivist government collapsed in 1989 -- as though it had gotten stuck in 1968 or so.

Yeah, Progressivism!  Hindering progress since 1885!


Yeah because ISP's instituting data caps on broadband connections, when there isn't a need, is truly innovative.  What's more innovative is when you only have one choice for non-DSL broadband.   What's even better is when your choices are either ATT, Verizon, or Time Warner.   YAY for cartels, truly innovating the shiat out of our internet.
 
2013-02-05 09:00:03 AM
If I share my wireless connection with all my neighbors, my ISP would shut me down. But every hotel, restaurant and coffee shop down the block does exactly that.
 
2013-02-05 09:01:45 AM

Phinn: Right, because people working to provide goods and services that are more appealing to consumers than all others, and at a better price than any other producer is offering, and giving consumers the option of declining the offer at any time without fear of reprisal, is such a farking drag.


Ever heard of people not complaining about their ISPs like Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon or AT&T? ISPs typically aren't offering goods and services more appealing to consumers than all others because they hold regional monopolies written into state and local laws. Customers have nowhere else to go for better service short of moving to another state, which is an extreme solution.

ISPs have basically been coasting on their monopolies for years. They don't invest a lot of money to improve infrastructure because there's no other affordable way of getting home online service in most of their markets. Their networks are rife with congestion and their service is crap.
 
2013-02-05 09:02:17 AM

Phinn: badhatharry: The interstate highway system is pretty good.

Other than the part where it kills 100 people every day, sure.


The highway system kills people?
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report