Welcome to Gaia! ::


psychic stalker
This is where we disagree. Not wanting a national, regulated infrastructure is, to me, lunacy. Not believing that a Federally-subsidized infrastructure is feasible or desirable is also, to me, lunacy.
Look, this isn't really the right forum for political debate, so I'll make my point short and simple. When the Constitution was drafted, it was done in the aftermath of a long war with a government which had amassed too much power. our founding fathers realized that we needed a government. They realized that a government, if given too much power, could become abusive of its own citizens.

You're essentially telling me to put my faith in a strong central government. Hitler had that same idea, y'know.

Dedicated Man-Lover

10,550 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Invisibility 100
PandoraXero
psychic stalker
This is where we disagree. Not wanting a national, regulated infrastructure is, to me, lunacy. Not believing that a Federally-subsidized infrastructure is feasible or desirable is also, to me, lunacy.
Look, this isn't really the right forum for political debate, so I'll make my point short and simple. When the Constitution was drafted, it was done in the aftermath of a long war with a government which had amassed too much power. our founding fathers realized that we needed a government. They realized that a government, if given too much power, could become abusive of its own citizens.

You're essentially telling me to put my faith in a strong central government. Hitler had that same idea, y'know.
I was enjoying reading this debate til you pulled a Fox. :c

8,950 Points
  • Gaian 50
  • Member 100
  • Contributor 150
PandoraXero
I think investment in infrastructure is a good thing. Doing so at a Federal level, though, is a huge mistake.
Why is it a huge mistake at the Federal level? Both of the examples I just gave are examples of investment at the Federal level which produce huge benefits for the entire country.

At what level would you like it to happen at? Local? State? UN?

I've been working with communities, municipalities and state governments to push this notion of Internet as a utility and stricter regulation. The problem is that regulation of communications infrastructure is already something that has historically been the domain of the Federal government, and individual states, let alone municipalities, don't have the clout to affect any real change in the behavior of the major ISPs.

It needs to happen at the Federal level or it isn't going to happen at all. Why would you be against Federal investment in infrastructure when this is clearly a problem that falls in the Federal domain is baffling to me.


Your claim that we'd be building infrastructure to benefit "some" of us on the backs of "all of us" is specious. Just as with building the national highway system, you didn't have to own a car or ever travel on a Federally funded highway to reap benefits from it's very existence.

8,950 Points
  • Gaian 50
  • Member 100
  • Contributor 150
PandoraXero
psychic stalker
This is where we disagree. Not wanting a national, regulated infrastructure is, to me, lunacy. Not believing that a Federally-subsidized infrastructure is feasible or desirable is also, to me, lunacy.
Look, this isn't really the right forum for political debate, so I'll make my point short and simple. When the Constitution was drafted, it was done in the aftermath of a long war with a government which had amassed too much power. our founding fathers realized that we needed a government. They realized that a government, if given too much power, could become abusive of its own citizens.

You're essentially telling me to put my faith in a strong central government. Hitler had that same idea, y'know.
If you want to go back in time and rewrite the past 200 years of political history in this country to empower the state to set and enforce the kinds of regulation that we need to reign in the ISPs then please build your time machine and go do it.

Talk about living in a fantasy land.

Besides, the infrastructure that we're discussing here is intended to facilitate national and international trade and communication. That is explicitly within the domain of powers originally provided to the Federal government by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Pulling a Godwin will not win this argument.
PandoraXero
Sitwon
band-aid over a bullet wound.

The Internet is a public utility. It's time to acknowledge that and regulate it as one.
Seriously? and what are you gonna do on the interim? The unfortunate part about the whole situation is that it is difficult to BE proactive. Also, can you even FATHOM how PHENOMENALLY FURIOUS VPN companies would be if their services became blocked? Much as I love the place, Germany is NOT all about freedom of speech. If you happen to recklessly insert a band's music into one of your youtube videos, German viewers will likely get something like THIS:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/YouTube_blocked_Germany_GEMA_de.png
Is this fair? Depends on your perspective. From the perspective of the German music and movie industry, probably so. From mine, it was not. My use of a VPN was merely a holdover... a bypass route. I'm willing to bet 5 EUR that there's MORE THAN A COUPLE German citizens who do the SAME THING. These German citizens would likely make an argument to their government that such filtration is WRONG.

But until someone DOES something wrong, it's difficult to write legislation against it.

EDIT: Further, the internet may be a public utility, but we depend on private organizations in order to connect to it. Cojones y dinero, señor. No one's got the balls or the cash to build their own connection to the internet. Even if they did, it'd likely be for that one person only. Fiber is not cheap.
This "fight" between the GEMA and Youtube is pure show. Youtube has blocked videos that the GEMA has no interest in with this message. You may or may not agree with the GEMAs terms, others have (I've never seen a similar error message on Dailymotion). I think the only reason why this "fight" still keeps going on is because Google thinks they're big enough so they can demand things to go their way or no way. They are as much to blame as the other side in this.
PandoraXero
psychic stalker
This is where we disagree. Not wanting a national, regulated infrastructure is, to me, lunacy. Not believing that a Federally-subsidized infrastructure is feasible or desirable is also, to me, lunacy.
Look, this isn't really the right forum for political debate, so I'll make my point short and simple. When the Constitution was drafted, it was done in the aftermath of a long war with a government which had amassed too much power. our founding fathers realized that we needed a government. They realized that a government, if given too much power, could become abusive of its own citizens.

You're essentially telling me to put my faith in a strong central government. Hitler had that same idea, y'know.
At what point did I say that it should be a Federal product that is Federally-owned and Federally-administrated?

Are you really so delusional as to think I'm advocating a total dystopian dictatorship? You're insane.

I'm talking about a Federally subsidized infrastructure, which is privately owned but regulated as a public utility, just like power, water, and telecom.

And seriously, ******** your Hitler comparison. I'm not talking about a strong central government. That's tea party stupidity and libertarian lunacy.
psychic stalker
And seriously, ******** your Hitler comparison. I'm not talking about a strong central government. That's tea party stupidity and libertarian lunacy.
France has a strong central government, they didn't slide into a dystopian dictatorship yet. As far as i know anyways.
The20
psychic stalker
And seriously, ******** your Hitler comparison. I'm not talking about a strong central government. That's tea party stupidity and libertarian lunacy.
France has a strong central government, they didn't slide into a dystopian dictatorship yet. As far as i know anyways.
I should clarify: The idea that my suggestion advocates a strong central government is what is stupidity. It's the same kind of silly accusation that the so-called "Tea Party" Republicans make when anyone who doesn't align with their ideology suggests even the slightest bit of government involvement in something.

Newbie Noob

PandoraXero
psychic stalker
This is where we disagree. Not wanting a national, regulated infrastructure is, to me, lunacy. Not believing that a Federally-subsidized infrastructure is feasible or desirable is also, to me, lunacy.
Look, this isn't really the right forum for political debate, so I'll make my point short and simple. When the Constitution was drafted, it was done in the aftermath of a long war with a government which had amassed too much power. our founding fathers realized that we needed a government. They realized that a government, if given too much power, could become abusive of its own citizens.
They didn't really care about government having too much power, as long as that power was distributed among many people and could be stopped by the people.
psychic stalker
I should clarify: The idea that my suggestion advocates a strong central government is what is stupidity. It's the same kind of silly accusation that the so-called "Tea Party" Republicans make when anyone who doesn't align with their ideology suggests even the slightest bit of government involvement in something.
Then I should clarify as well. "Subsidized" usually also entails FUNDING. And what goes around, comes around. Like I got a $5000 loan to cover a used vehicle in decent condition. You think it's not going to cost me more in the long run, you're deeply delusional.

In the same way, having all the taxpayers pay for things like these will only serve to further damage our economy. There comes a time in every child's life where he's gotta stop sucking on mommy's tits. This is it. You can't keep coddling the economy forever, or it will never grow.
PandoraXero
In the same way, having all the taxpayers pay for things like these will only serve to further damage our economy.
This statement makes no sense at all.

It's well-known and well-established that government-funded infrastructure projects always result in a short-term stimulus to the economy in the form of new jobs. The creation of infrastructure always results in long-term stimulus to the economy in the form of long-term private business projects.

Here's an example: Construction of the national highway system in the US raised the GDP by a substantial amount through the creation of short-term (albeit over several years) jobs, which in turn injected money into the economy. Completion of the highway system then resulted in the development of new transport and freight services, which further raised the GDP through the creation of the long-term businesses in trucking, freight, and transportation, and was an unexpectedly huge boon to the auto industry. Our taxes pay for its maintenance and improvement.

All of this because the Federal Government invested in substantial construction projects.

Similar investment in a Public fiber infrastructure would have similar effects: Short-term construction jobs to manufacture and install the fiber, then long-term jobs in new ISPs that manage or lease the infrastructure. Secondarily, new Internet services will grow and create even more new jobs in the form of new services and websites, and major improvements to existing ones, and probably even new services we haven't thought of yet. The fees we pay on its use or instead possibly from taxes pay for its maintenance and improvement.

Similarly, large investments in NASA would again have similar effects: Short-term jobs in manufacturing of launch systems and orbital platforms. Those launch systems and orbital platforms make space-based services and technologies cheaper and more useful, in turn creating global secondary job growth.

We already know the existing ISPs refuse to grow their infrastructure when they can instead double-dip. If investment from the private sector is not forthcoming, then well-regulated investment from Federal infrastructure projects is often the only way to make it happen.

Moreover, we all use the Internet. We all pay for it. We should have a return on our money in the form of improved service. We're not getting that. Appropriate regulation (price controls, infrastructure grants, etc.) can solve that problem if people like you would actually let it happen.

This is not about government control. This is about using the money we already spend more wisely for our own benefit.
Psychic, I'll go ahead and let you have the last word on this debate. ...As I've already said, this is hardly the place for such discourse, even if it does relate to Computers, Technology, Networking, and others. I enjoy being right. And doing the right thing, such as leaving it at that, is part of being right. You'll have your opinions, I'll have mine.

I'll not argue with you on the importance of infrastructure. Nor would I argue with (God rest his Soul) Dwight D. Eisenhower.
PandoraXero
psychic stalker
I should clarify: The idea that my suggestion advocates a strong central government is what is stupidity. It's the same kind of silly accusation that the so-called "Tea Party" Republicans make when anyone who doesn't align with their ideology suggests even the slightest bit of government involvement in something.
Then I should clarify as well. "Subsidized" usually also entails FUNDING. And what goes around, comes around. Like I got a $5000 loan to cover a used vehicle in decent condition. You think it's not going to cost me more in the long run, you're deeply delusional.

In the same way, having all the taxpayers pay for things like these will only serve to further damage our economy. There comes a time in every child's life where he's gotta stop sucking on mommy's tits. This is it. You can't keep coddling the economy forever, or it will never grow.
So companies should start building their own roads now?

8,950 Points
  • Gaian 50
  • Member 100
  • Contributor 150
The US has some of the least public regulation of ISPs of any of any developed nation. And we pay for that by having some of the slowest and most expensive plans of any developed nation.

Seriously, we're near the bottom of the list in terms of availability of service, the average speeds available to consumers, and the cost of service. There's no good reason why Americans should be paying higher prices for less service than residents in nearly any other developed nation in the world.

Opposition to Federal regulation is holding back development of our national infrastructure and making our country less competitive in the digital economy.


@PandoraXero: For someone so well versed in European politics, I'm surprised you would be advocating for austerity after it just failed so hard over there and the EU was forced to back off on that strategy.
Sitwon
The US has some of the least public regulation of ISPs of any of any developed nation. And we pay for that by having some of the slowest and most expensive plans of any developed nation.

Seriously, we're near the bottom of the list in terms of availability of service, the average speeds available to consumers, and the cost of service. There's no good reason why Americans should be paying higher prices for less service than residents in nearly any other developed nation in the world.

Opposition to Federal regulation is holding back development of our national infrastructure and making our country less competitive in the digital economy.
How do areas with high population density compare to areas with low population density?
I'm willing to bet a good part of that problem is the low overall population density of the US compared to most other developed nations.

For example: we have good high speed coverage in metropolitan areas, but if you go rural not even 16MBit/second is available everywhere.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum