jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
President Obama is diving deeper into the debate over Internet control, urging the Federal Communications Commission to pre-empt state laws that restrict local governments from building broadband services.
To promote it, he announced that his administration will provide technical and financial assistance to towns and cities that want to improve Internet service for their residents.
The White House also announced that the Commerce Department would promote greater broadband access by hosting regional workshops and offering technical assistance to communities. The Department of Agriculture also will provide grants and loans of $40 million to $50 million to assist rural areas.
I actually like this idea. It is allowing local communities to get the information and training they need to implement internet service if they so choose.
The administration is smart to frame this as a function of local versus state politics, as opposed to national politics versus state politics.
This looks like a nation-wide infrastructural improvement. I'm not seeing the problem here.
How could you be so blind?? It's Obama's idea, that is the problem.
Which hasn't stopped Fox from framing it as a Federal-vs-State issue anyway.
But of course. I want broadband, but not Obama broadband.
Why should a city not be able to setup it's own broadband? It is not forcing cities to create their own. It will add much needed competition to the telecomms industry.
Well, there's reason to do so. The President is attempting to wedge the Federal government in between the state's prohibitive law of local ISP control.
how ,exactly, does this add competition to the telecom industry?
It's ridiculous he even needs to frame the discussion in such ways just to improve the nation's infrastructure.
In politics you frame the issue in a manner consistent with the ethos of your society. You can try to shift the emphasis in another direction, but you can't not tailor your message to the standard thought processes.
I know. In my adorably naive way, though, infrastructure isn't left-vs-right, freedom-vs-tyranny, Federal-vs-state, it's just...infrastructure.
Nothing is just anything.
This looks like a nation-wide infrastructural improvement. I'm not seeing the problem here.
I'm not opposed to training and information.. govt's being informed and trained on how best to partner with private firms is in our best interests....
funding govt's to set up their own ISP's though?... nah, i'm not behind that at all.
Here it comes, the first roadblock in the internet, setup by the federal govt. And a violation of states rights. The govt has no power to control personal communications, certainly not to tell cities that they cant make laws prohibiting govts from running their own ISPs. And Obama wants to make YOU pay more taxes for it.
The result, much like with sewage, garbage, electricity, will be to drive private options out of business since govt can compete unfairly.
Obama pushes broadband plan, critics see
Um, okay. What are we talking about here, exactly?
In many markets, particularly small towns, there is only one broadband provider. A second provider, even if its a publicly owned one, is competition.
Why should a city not be able to setup it's own broadband? It is not forcing cities to create their own. It will add much needed competition to the telecomms industry.
Here it comes, the first roadblock in the internet, setup by the federal govt. And a violation of states rights. The govt has no power to control personal communications, certainly not to tell cities that they cant make laws prohibiting govts from running their own ISPs. And Obama wants to make YOU pay more taxes for it.
The result, much like with sewage, garbage, electricity, will be to drive private options out of business since govt can compete unfairly.
Obama pushes broadband plan, critics see
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?