1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News A new year, new congress, and new laws?

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 29 Dec 2006.

  1. Da Dego

    Da Dego Brett Thomas

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    3,913
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Guest-23315

    Guest-23315 Guest

    hmmm seems very political for bit-tech....

    good ideas thought.....
     
  3. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    The net-neutrality issue may or may not be a big deal, hard to tell as yet. I fully support neutrality, but it's not completly clear that the alternative is the end of the world either.

    Banning municipal Wi-fi is just plain wrong though. If anything, it needs to be expanded and publicly funded. I think the way to go is a tiered service where 56k equivelant speed is available to everyone free and full speed is available at competitive cost. IIRC San Fransisco is going in somthing like this direction.
     
  4. speedfreek

    speedfreek New Member

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hopefully some of the copyright laws could get straightened out.
     
  5. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    If we start seeing publicly funded internet, though, there WILL be issues. All of the nanny-state parents complaining that their taxes are allowing their kids to look at porn (think of the children™! and all that) leading to censorship, etc.

    Or something to that effect. I like the idea, but problems like that make it just a bit less appealing to me.
     
  6. calking13

    calking13 New Member

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0

    Oh yeah, blame the GOP. It's always the GOP's fault. Like the liberals didn't play a negative role in the congressional drama. Granted the GOP did the most in support of the anti-net neturalilty bill. But quite a few democrats are to blame. One grand example is Indianapolis congress-woman Julia Carson, (D)-Indiana. While she expressed some support for the net-neutrality bill, she also voted in favor for the COPE act which passed in congress. Her excuse was that it would encourage compeition for telecomunication companies which is somewhat great (but all it's really to her is so she won't have to pay so much for cable and instead for once pay her taxes). But there's more to that bill than what she expressed in a responsive letter sent almost a month after inquiring about the issue over the phone.

    And according to the Bill results, sure Republicans reared their ugly head in this vote but lots of Democrats voiced their support to.

    My point here is that while the GOP didn't always look after the little guy, neither did the Democrats. Like the article mentioned, new year, new faces, new house, same issue, new hope. The liberals better have it right this time because while I generally support the GOP (although I can't vote b/c i'm 17) I will support whoever makes the right decisions that I know will affect me and everyone else in cyberspace.
     
  7. Da Dego

    Da Dego Brett Thomas

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    3,913
    Likes Received:
    1
    Eaaasy there...Though I don't think my political leanings are all that present in the article to begin with, just in case I'd like to state for the record I am a staunch independent and think BOTH parties are full of it. ;)

    That being said, I do stand behind what I wrote - the bill I was discussing was expected to be split right down party lines. COPE is another whole mess, and though certain voting is clearly inconsistent, I was discussing the particulars of the net neutrality bill.

    Next year is exactly as you summed up - new year, new faces, same issues. And I'm betting the exact same nada will get done ;) Except in patent law, at least

    But it will be an interesting fireworks show.
     
  8. Crazyglue

    Crazyglue New Member

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh god please let there be public wi-fi, i dont have my own internet connection, and i gotta ... well... "borrow" it from the neighbors
     
  9. Sea Shadow

    Sea Shadow aka "Panda"

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    614
    Likes Received:
    13
    It is not just municipal wi-fi that is on the line. It is the whole idea of municipal networks.

    Currently in my area several cities have gotten sick of the Comworst/Qworst monopoly and have decided to set up their own infrastructure. This entails running a fiber line to just about every home and business in the participating cities, with the available bandwidth to each establishment being 100Mb/s and 1000Mb/s. Then various companies could come in and license rights to use the network and provide services (internet, digital television, telecommunications, medical monitoring, distance learning, web hosting, home security, etc). This effectively allows smaller companies to offer a much more stable, higher bandwidth solution than Comcast or Qwest at a fraction of the price, with out having to invest millions of dollars into building their own infrastructure.

    Obviously Comcast and Qwest are not happy with the ideas of their multi-million dollar infrastructures made obsolete and have done everything in their power to stop it from happening. Now what they have done is legal, however in my opinion it is pretty low as far as ethics go. For example in the cities that already have some of the network up and running Comcast has cut their prices by over 50% for those that have access to the network and yet across the street they still charge full price for their services simply because those people just don't have the option yet to make use of the fiber network. Qwest has filed motions preventing the network from using their existing telephone poles. Both companies have spent exorbitant amounts of money bribing individuals and paying lobbyists to do their bidding and push their views while claiming to represent the communities.

    Now to be fair to Comcast and Qwest I can see why they would strongly oppose this as it threatens to obliterate this income source for them, and should the project prove to be successful it could cause them to face issues nation wide. However I am sick and tired of having to deal with overpriced shoddy connections that are constantly dropping for no real apparent reason. They wouldn't even have gotten into this mess if they had provided a decent service at a competitive price to begin with, and be able to address their customers concerns. But since they have been the only real options (until now) they kick back put up their heels and ignore all of the complaints and do not address any issues (or if they do it is aftery they get enough threats of service cancellation).

    I really look forward to when I can get a relatively fast connection at a decent price. As things stand my family pays around $60 a month for a 6Mb/s down (supposedly) and 384Kb/s up (don't even ask what we are paying for television). Most of the companies offering services on the municipal network are offering internet services with 15Mb/s down and up for ~$40 a month.

    Is it any wonder the US lags behind much of the modern world in so many things?
     
  10. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
  11. Ringold

    Ringold New Member

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eh, except, now you're getting it for free (stealing, technically, but I sympathize! just using the proper word), except, with municipal intarweb, you'll be paying for it in ultimately higher taxes. No free lunch!

    TechDirt had something on municipal wifi/internet that was interesting the other day. Apparently, municipalities are providing access to the poles and covering some varied costs, but private industry is by and large coming in and setting everything up, paying for just about it all, and assuming almost all the risk associated with the project. Still a pseudo-monopoly, but not as bad as the local government building and operating it themselves, definitely!

    They also said a much better idea would be municipal fiber. It's been done in a couple places with success and it sure beats waiting for Verizon to tunnel the fiber out here to the burbs. Unfortunately, fiber is one of those things that provide huge economic benefits yet is so expensive in the form of initial outlay of funds that only Verizon really here in the US does it and only then in the highest population density areas (exactly where a lot of us do not live). I'd hate to see it get outlawed entirely.

    I didn't see any political bias though in the article.. just said "Here's the parties, here's the problems, let the games begin and may the force be with us all!"
     
  12. Cobalt

    Cobalt New Member

    Joined:
    24 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Likes Received:
    2
    It was a statement of fact, it didn't blame anyone.
     
  13. speedfreek

    speedfreek New Member

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    1
    There has been fiber layed down in front of my house for more than 3 years now and there isnt anyone who will offer service with it, the rumor is that in a year or two verizon will start offering service but its all there now just sitting.
    If only an independent that couldnt be told what to do by their investors or political parties could win. Its a long shot but the interests of the people could be adressed.
     
  14. Sea Shadow

    Sea Shadow aka "Panda"

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    614
    Likes Received:
    13
    Sounds like that is dark fiber or the owner simply doesn't want to use it.

    Where as the UTOPIA project that is going on is really taking off in areas where it is accessibile.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page