[vmarks]

goMac, the free market would solve this issue, if there were a free market in place.

Unfortunately, there isn't a free market in place, having been regulated to death and monopolies granted, instituted by politicians. That's right: the monopolies were granted by politicians.

When Comcast comes in and says 'we want to lay/string up cable and deliver it, and we need the right of way to do so, who do they ask? They ask the county commissioners, city council, or other regional body that has the authority to grant the request. They typically do grant the request in exchange for some form of community access, like the late night shows where anyone can get on the air if they present a plan to the cable co.

Now, the cable cos tell us that they're in a free market when they have to compete with DSL for internet or Satellite for video services. But this isn't exactly so - DSL is its own monopoly and Satellite isn't a competitor when you can't put a dish on your home due to HOA.

So they tried to create a free-er market by requiring the owners of the copper to carry other people's internet services - which is why you can get a speakeasy dsl when ATT owns the lines, or earthlink when TimeWarner owns the cable. Except that this isn't a free market, because those offerings are susceptible and subservient to the owners of the copper, so if you have earthlink on a TimeWarner line and TimeWarner starts sending RST, it affects your earthlink connection.

Even so, Speakeasy does try their level best to be the example of what a real free market would do - they compete on selling a better service with fewer restrictions and more features at a lower price.

Imagine if you will, if you had three cable cos offering service in the same region what would happen? You'd get lower prices, more channels, and faster speeds until prices settled where they were all equally low or one put themselves out of business trying to be cheaper than their costs. You'd see none of the annual cost hikes, and dimishing channel lineups that you see today.

This mess was created by governments granting monopolies and then using the FCC to club them into mildly better behavior, rather than the elegant threat of removing the monopoly status. "Comcast, you'd like to insert RST and other things that customers find objectionable, even though you're doing it to try and maintain a service quality for all your customers? How would you like to share the market? We as a local government will allow your competitors to lay cable or fiber right along side yours and make it easy to switch over to other services." - I think you'd find pretty quickly that Comcast would struggle to find a way to pacify the situation and preserve their government granted monopoly rather than face a free market.

[besson3c]

vmarks: what you are saying makes sense, but again, look at my point about there being three sets of telephone wires going all over the city. There is some practical sense with there being a controlled monopoly, and not wheel reinvention running amuck.

You guys have managed to complicate my thinking here though, that's for sure. I don't know exactly where I stand now.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

...snip...

And creating government owned fiber would create the free market which would create competition between providers.

Even if the government allowed other companies to lay wire in a community, it's a long and expensive process. The cost of laying the wire would leave the incoming company unable to compete price wise with the existing company.

It also doesn't address the problem of consumer waste. Fiber has the fastest throughput until the speed of light is broken (I'm not holding my breath for that to happen any time soon). Therefore, no other kind of connection has an advantage over fiber, and one kind of fiber does not have an advantage over another. So there's really no point in having separate wired networks. It only puts the cost of a redundant network over on the consumer.

An ISP would never share their network willingly however. That would open the door to their own demise, something they would never be willing to do. The best way to deal with the problem is to just go straight to the point. Have the government run fiber once, and then allow any ISP to plug in.

The only differentiating factor between ISP's would be the routing gear, which would determine the actual speed of the connection over the fiber. And of course the ISP's would be responsible for their own routing gear, giving them an area to compete in and differentiate themselves. (Maybe a high end, more expensive ISP would maintain higher end routers for consumers needing ultra-fast connections.)

Why play around with a carrot and a stick when there is a simple and direct option? I'd rather pay for the government to lay a network once and get the job done rather than pay for the next 100 years for the government to play chicken with the ISPs. The government would lay the dumb wire, and there would be nothing that the feds would manage past that.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

And creating government owned fiber would create the free market which would create competition between providers.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't want government owned fiber. That's just shifting the monopoly to the government. That's not a free market either.

Even if the government allowed other companies to lay wire in a community, it's a long and expensive process. The cost of laying the wire would leave the incoming company unable to compete price wise with the existing company.

Not so. We have fiber here that was laid in the ground ten years ago and remains dark because the companies see no need to light it up when they can continue to charge high prices for low service. It took less than a year to cover the whole town in fiber, and the expense would have been completely paid back and profitable by now - but instead, it's dark.

The mistake I think you're making is similar to the one railroads made at the turn of last century - railroads became minimized, replaced by trucks, because they made the mistake of thinking they were in the train business rather than the transportation business. Companies aren't in the wire business, they're in the communications business.

It also doesn't address the problem of consumer waste. Fiber has the fastest throughput until the speed of light is broken (I'm not holding my breath for that to happen any time soon). Therefore, no other kind of connection has an advantage over fiber, and one kind of fiber does not have an advantage over another. So there's really no point in having separate wired networks. It only puts the cost of a redundant network over on the consumer.

An ISP would never share their network willingly however. That would open the door to their own demise, something they would never be willing to do. The best way to deal with the problem is to just go straight to the point. Have the government run fiber once, and then allow any ISP to plug in.

Community based networks fail. Municipal wi-fi is a failure.

Another interesting point is, do you really want the government in charge of your network connectivity? These are the same people who sniffed the network in ATT's com center, and you're handing over the keys so that they don't even need to get cooperation from the private entity - this seems anti-thetical to what I presume (the flaw in my position is right there) your position is on telecom immunity.

The only differentiating factor between ISP's would be the routing gear, which would determine the actual speed of the connection over the fiber. And of course the ISP's would be responsible for their own routing gear, giving them an area to compete in and differentiate themselves. (Maybe a high end, more expensive ISP would maintain higher end routers for consumers needing ultra-fast connections.)

Why play around with a carrot and a stick when there is a simple and direct option? I'd rather pay for the government to lay a network once and get the job done rather than pay for the next 100 years for the government to play chicken with the ISPs. The government would lay the dumb wire, and there would be nothing that the feds would manage past that.

Why is it a federal role? You need a constitutional amendment if you want the feds to do it. It's a state and local role, and you're handing over the keys to let them sniff the network all they please, because it's a govt. line.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't want government owned fiber. That's just shifting the monopoly to the government. That's not a free market either.

I didn't assume that you were supporting government owned fiber,

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Not so. We have fiber here that was laid in the ground ten years ago and remains dark because the companies see no need to light it up when they can continue to charge high prices for low service. It took less than a year to cover the whole town in fiber, and the expense would have been completely paid back and profitable by now - but instead, it's dark.

Isn't this a prime example of why we need government owned fiber? That fiber could serve the public very nicely. Even though the current ISP might not want to use it, I'm sure a local grown ISP could put it to very good use. Instead, because it's privately owned, it sits there dark and unused.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The mistake I think you're making is similar to the one railroads made at the turn of last century - railroads became minimized, replaced by trucks, because they made the mistake of thinking they were in the train business rather than the transportation business. Companies aren't in the wire business, they're in the communications business.

No one is pigeon holing internet companies into the wiring business here. But the wiring is a large hurdle to actually deploying your business.

A train company may not be in the rail business, but a train company can't provide transportation without rail, and like internet companies, actually laying the rail is a huge hurdle to overcome before you can start running trains. If the government owned the rail, and simply let anyone that wanted to on the rail, you'd have much more diverse competition between the rail companies because they'd be able to concentrate on service rather than running the same rail multiple times.

Of course rail is a little different because of the physical restrictions of sharing the same rail (whereas on the internet everyone would have their own fiber connections, so you wouldn't have the same problem) but the point still stands.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Community based networks fail. Municipal wi-fi is a failure.

Cite sources. Community based wifi fails for different reasons than community owned fiber. I have cited successful examples of community owned fiber (namely Chelan County). Please cite failed community fiber deployments.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Another interesting point is, do you really want the government in charge of your network connectivity? These are the same people who sniffed the network in ATT's com center, and you're handing over the keys so that they don't even need to get cooperation from the private entity - this seems anti-thetical to what I presume (the flaw in my position is right there) your position is on telecom immunity.

This is the same argument eBuddy made, and I have the same response. The government doesn't control the routers, so they can't route the traffic. Whether or not the fiber is in the hands of the ISP, that hasn't stopped the government from tapping the fiber, so separate legislation and oversight is needed either way, making that really a separate argument.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Why is it a federal role? You need a constitutional amendment if you want the feds to do it. It's a state and local role, and you're handing over the keys to let them sniff the network all they please, because it's a govt. line.

It could be done at the local level, but in addition to begging the question why the state and local governments are more trustworthy than the feds, you'd probably want standardization between data centers so that ISP's could rapidly deploy in data centers nation wide. That said, there is no reason why a federal works project couldn't be overseen by local governments once completed.

[goMac]

Remember the time the FCC told Comcast to stop blocking traffic? And it worked? And people hailed it as an example of how the government can stop these problems without introducing net neutrality? Well it's working reeeeaallllly great. Really great.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/08/22...-your-traffic/

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Remember the time the FCC told Comcast to stop blocking traffic? And it worked? And people hailed it as an example of how the government can stop these problems without introducing net neutrality? Well it's working reeeeaallllly great. Really great.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/08/22...-your-traffic/

Mark my words, Comcast will post a loss in market share soon enough and there are already civil action suits lodged against the company. This will be handled.

Besides, the government will ONLY RUN THE WIRES remember? THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE THE ISP! Nothing will change under net neutrality. Comcast customers have another choice and I suspect if they're not happy with their service, they'll be making another choice.

[vmarks]

If you want to separate the function of infrastructure and ISP, separate it out to two sep private entities. even then, if you restrict them from engaging in the other business, you don't have a free market.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Mark my words, Comcast will post a loss in market share soon enough and there are already civil action suits lodged against the company. This will be handled.

Market share lose to who? The magical ISP's run by unicorns that will simply sprout up?

ISP's are too expensive to run. I'll switch off of Comcast as soon as I have an alternative. But like most people, I don't, and that won't be changing soon.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Besides, the government will ONLY RUN THE WIRES remember? THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE THE ISP! Nothing will change under net neutrality. Comcast customers have another choice and I suspect if they're not happy with their service, they'll be making another choice.

If the government ran the wires, I'd have 16 choices for my ISP like they do in Chelan country, and Comcast wouldn't be able to pull this sort of crap. But such wires don't exist, so I don't.

But hey. If you'd like to pay for the redundant networks AND the feds to babysit the ISP's, be my guest.

[CharlesS]

Yeah, it's hard for the free market to handle anything when the invisible hand is tied behind its back.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Market share lose to who? The magical ISP's run by unicorns that will simply sprout up?

This depends on the area, but their stocks dropped over 4% amid 95,000 customers having defected as of July 2007. Another article; Comcast was the seventh-worst performer in the Nasdaq 100 Index in 2007 as a $6 billion investment in cable set-top boxes and networks failed to stem a slowdown in subscriber growth and customer defections to Verizon Communications Inc.

You can say Verizon is nothing more than a magical ISP run by unicorns, but I think they deserve a little more credit than that.

ISP's are too expensive to run. I'll switch off of Comcast as soon as I have an alternative. But like most people, I don't, and that won't be changing soon.

Your local representatives negotiated terms that do not work for you as is the case in many a government operation. This is exactly why you should be writing your governor and starting a grass-roots effort to have them lift their legislation and burdensome regulation in discouraging other providers in your area. This would certainly make more sense than asking a pedophile to address a groping problem at Toys-R-Us.

If the government ran the wires, I'd have 16 choices for my ISP like they do in Chelan country, and Comcast wouldn't be able to pull this sort of crap. But such wires don't exist, so I don't.

You mean like they do in parts of Chelan County. They're trying to connect a paltry 40,000 people and they're half-way done with the build in how long now? Why don't you give this a little more time. I think I've seen maybe three testimonials about how great this is. You can choose from 30 ISPs while waiting for your government build to be completed, upgraded, and the lock-box that you paid over 17% in monthly taxes to fund it raided for toilet seats in your State capital building. It won't matter. Your internet experience will suck even worse. You'll get to listen to the blowhard on the right argue with the blowhard on the left about how important your QoS is to you while the trunk and feeder lay on the ground under the foot of a squirrel pounding its chest.

But hey. If you'd like to pay for the redundant networks AND the feds to babysit the ISP's, be my guest.

I don't know why you'd say this as under your plan none of this changes one bit. Maybe it'd make more sense if I copy-pasted your bolded text from earlier?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No provider is sharing their last mile connections. Find one. You won't be able to.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Qwest (and the the other telcos) is required to make their lines available to other DSL providers. Here is the list for the Qwest area alone.
http://www.qwest.com/residential/internet/isp_list.html
There are over 50 just in Arizona

Took me awhile to find it
FCC rules Qwest must continue line discounts for competitors

The FCC hands smaller local-exchange carriers a big victory.

By STEVE ALEXANDER, Star Tribune

Last update: July 28, 2008 - 9:46 PM

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has denied Qwest's plea to raise prices for competitors who use its telephone lines, saying Qwest hasn't lost enough market share to justify it.

Qwest, claiming it has lost more than 40 percent of its Minnesota telephone lines to competitors in the past seven years, had sought to end the discounts the FCC requires it to give other phone companies that lease Qwest lines for "last mile" connections to their business customers.

[Snow-i]

Besson, goMac....

you want this government to have more control over your money AND internet access?

[besson3c]

No, I don't want a US government as we know it now to have this kind of control, we have every reason to mistrust them. What I do think though is that we should find ways to get more transparency and accountability out of them, as well as less corruption rather than just continuing to chip away at new ways to limit their paper and create more red tape for them.

It's sort of like a misbehaving child - rather than making them wear iron boots or something, it is better to reprimand them and take actions to prevent this misbehavior from occurring again, without taking away from their ability to do good and do the things that kids do.

Okay, that was a flawed example, but do you get my drift?

[Chongo]

Ah, then we just have to get the right people to run things.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, I don't want a US government as we know it now to have this kind of control, we have every reason to mistrust them. What I do think though is that we should find ways to get more transparency and accountability out of them, as well as less corruption rather than just continuing to chip away at new ways to limit their paper and create more red tape for them.

It's sort of like a misbehaving child - rather than making them wear iron boots or something, it is better to reprimand them and take actions to prevent this misbehavior from occurring again, without taking away from their ability to do good and do the things that kids do.

Okay, that was a flawed example, but do you get my drift?

We only have two ways to curb government behavior: through laws (red tape) and elections.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We only have two ways to curb government behavior: through laws (red tape) and elections.

And do you not see that as a problem?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And do you not see that as a problem?

Not especially, no.

What's your proposal? What specific measures would you employ?

[besson3c]

I've been talking about them in the Obama Youth thread.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Besson, goMac....

you want this government to have more control over your money AND internet access?

What kind of access would they have?

I've asked this repeatedly and no one has been able to come up with an answer. Again, the government wouldn't control the routing.

If you're worried about them tapping the fiber, that's already a problem, and we need to come up with a different way of dealing with the issue. The problem is just as bad with non-government run wires.

I also don't see how your red light camera example could be applied to this. If you're worried about the government laying wire correctly (which isn't that hard), I've already mentioned the government could contract Verizon to do it.

[Snow-i]

goMac. If they put the line down they'd own it. Once they own it they can do whatever they want and no one can do anything about it. They could pull from taxes, add more taxes, restrict what you can do with it...The bridge example I gave to besson is a perfect example of the government continuing to pull in revenue from something they promised they would not. Once they own the line...make no mistake...they WILL charge you continuously for MORE than a cable company would. There's no alternative once this happens so we're stuck paying for it with NO recourse. I'm not sure how you fail to see this concept. You're ideas are great in concept, but like communism...would never be a practical solution to get our desired results (i'm not likening it to communism, i'm simply giving an example of anither idea thats great in theory but fails in practice).

The red-light example is to show you what kind of government we have.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

goMac. If they put the line down they'd own it.

No, YOU own it. You pay the government to install it, they install it, it's your property. You can sell it with your house. This isn't a fluffy tax thing. You actually pay for the installation of the line, it's just a program managed by the feds.

This isn't mandatory. You could simply opt not to buy the line, and continuing getting service directly from an ISP if that floats your boat.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Once they own it they can do whatever they want and no one can do anything about it.

They don't own it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They could pull from taxes, add more taxes, restrict what you can do with it...

They don't control the routing.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The bridge example I gave to besson is a perfect example of the government continuing to pull in revenue from something they promised they would not.

They can't, because they don't own it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Once they own the line...make no mistake...they WILL charge you continuously for MORE than a cable company would.

They don't own the line, and they aren't an ISP.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There's no alternative once this happens so we're stuck paying for it with NO recourse.

Sure there is. Don't pay for it. Continue getting suckered by Comcast and their existing network.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure how you fail to see this concept. You're ideas are great in concept, but like communism...would never be a practical solution to get our desired results (i'm not likening it to communism, i'm simply giving an example of anither idea thats great in theory but fails in practice).

It works in Canada. It works in Chelan county. No one has cited an example so far of it NOT working.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There's no alternative once this happens so we're stuck paying for it with NO recourse.

Sure there is. Don't pay for it. Continue getting suckered by Comcast and their existing network.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The red-light example is to show you what kind of government we have.

And again, I'm not sure how this applies.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, YOU own it.

From the pole to the house. Big deal. That's not what snow-i is talking about and you know it.

You pay the government to install it, they install it, it's your property. You can sell it with your house. This isn't a fluffy tax thing. You actually pay for the installation of the line, it's just a program managed by the feds.

We're talking about the entire backbone infrastructure gomac, not just the drop to your house. It is a fluffy tax thing. I've shown you how it's a fluffy tax thing in all 17 countries that offer it to the tune of approximately 17.6% in taxes each month.

This isn't mandatory. You could simply opt not to buy the line, and continuing getting service directly from an ISP if that floats your boat.

Could I continue to get Broadband via coax through my ISP? In besson3c's net neutrality plan, there are no multiple providers off one pole. Is this your ideal net neutrality plan or besson3c's net neutrality plan?

They don't own it.

The entire backbone infrastructure gomac and again, you know what he's talking about. They would own it. If they didn't, there's absolutely no point to the plan.

They don't control the routing.

It doesn't matter, they own the infrastructure. They don't have to control the routing. I've given you 17 examples of taxes that show to the contrary and as far as content I've shown you examples of net policing using your examples.

They can't, because they don't own it.

Can you not look upon taxes or something? Is it magic pixie dust that just happens to equate to money out of your pocket that somehow doesn't count as long as the government is charging you? You're just repeating the same talking points whether they're relevant or not.

They don't own the line, and they aren't an ISP.

I have bananas in my ears. I can't hear you.

Sure there is. Don't pay for it. Continue getting suckered by Comcast and their existing network.

Again, this means that no one is taking down the current infrastructure? The government-owned fiber feeds from hub, to tap, to house will be on top of all the current providers?

It works in Canada. It works in Chelan county. No one has cited an example so far of it NOT working.

$5 dollars per month on EVERY account with wireless or internet. Two cellphones? $10. 2 cellphones and a computer with internet access? $15. The Chelan county build is not complete yet. I don't know that I'd advocate something for over 301 million people based on a 40,000 person build that's halfway complete.

Sure there is. Don't pay for it. Continue getting suckered by Comcast and their existing network.

So... is this the official net neutrality plan or gomac's ideal net neutrality plan? I want to clarify this again because in my plan everyone charges less and there are more options and everyone smiles every day. As long as we don't have to play by reality.

And again, I'm not sure how this applies.

This is more a willing blindness IMO.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

From the pole to the house. Big deal. That's not what snow-i is talking about and you know it.

No, you own the entire fiber.

With fiber, you can't just link up at the pole. The wire has to be run from the routing office to your house. So you'd own the wire from your home to the routing office.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We're talking about the entire backbone infrastructure gomac, not just the drop to your house. It is a fluffy tax thing. I've shown you how it's a fluffy tax thing in all 17 countries that offer it to the tune of approximately 17.6% in taxes each month.

And in Ottawa and Chelan county there aren't any extra taxes.

The other countries have taxes because the residents didn't pay for the laying of the line. Under the Chelan/Ottawa system, the residents pay for the line once. The cost of maintenance like accidental line breaks and power for the data centers could be passed onto the ISP's, and it could be mandated that the government is not allowed to make a profit. In addition, the local governments could run maintenance of the wire

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Could I continue to get Broadband via coax through my ISP? In besson3c's net neutrality plan, there are no multiple providers off one pole. Is this your ideal net neutrality plan or besson3c's net neutrality plan?

Huh? I'm simply suggesting what Chelan county and Ottawa do, so this isn't "my" plan, but no one would be forcing Comcast to use the federal wire. I've never suggested that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The entire backbone infrastructure gomac and again, you know what he's talking about. They would own it. If they didn't, there's absolutely no point to the plan.

What are you talking about? They wouldn't pay for it, they wouldn't own it. They're simply acting as the group laying the wire, or the contractor for the group laying the wire.

Does your plumber own your plumbing? This line of argument is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It doesn't matter, they own the infrastructure. They don't have to control the routing. I've given you 17 examples of taxes that show to the contrary and as far as content I've shown you examples of net policing using your examples.

Ah, so now you're switching from arguing a filtering perspective to a tax perspective. Simple. If you don't want the government to tax it for profit, write it into the law that would establish such a federal works project.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can you not look upon taxes or something? Is it magic pixie dust that just happens to equate to money out of your pocket that somehow doesn't count as long as the government is charging you?

Again, you own the wire from the house to the routing office. The only costs are power and maintenance of the line. This is not the same kind of deployment Korea and Japan are doing. In Ottawa and Chelan there are no additional taxes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're just repeating the same talking points whether they're relevant or not.

No, that's what you're doing. If you repeat the same questions I'm going to have the same answers.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, this means that no one is taking down the current infrastructure?

No. Why would anyone take it down?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The government-owned fiber feeds from hub, to tap, to house will be on top of all the current providers?

Depends. The government could buy out Verizon's existing deployment. Regardless, it wouldn't make sense to take the current networks down, not to mention, they're privately owned, so it wouldn't be legal either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

$5 dollars per month on EVERY account with wireless or internet. Two cellphones? $10. 2 cellphones and a computer with internet access? $15.

I say we get rid of shared water systems too. Too much potential for taxation there.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Chelan county build is not complete yet. I don't know that I'd advocate something for over 301 million people based on a 40,000 person build that's halfway complete.

Why wouldn't you, in all seriousness? I mean, if Verizon can do the same thing privately, then what is the problem here? Verizon has wired millions of homes with fiber, and while it's been a slow process, they haven't really run into any problems.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... is this the official net neutrality plan or gomac's ideal net neutrality plan? I want to clarify this again because in my plan everyone charges less and there are more options and everyone smiles every day. As long as we don't have to play by reality.

There is no "official plan", I'm just advocating the same solution used in Canada and Chelan County.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, you own the entire fiber.

With fiber, you can't just link up at the pole. The wire has to be run from the routing office to your house. So you'd own the wire from your home to the routing office.

AWESOME! When someone backhoes it, how much do I have to pay to get reconnected?

And in Ottawa and Chelan county there aren't any extra taxes.

It's paid for by fairy dust?

The other countries have taxes because the residents didn't pay for the laying of the line. Under the Chelan/Ottawa system, the residents pay for the line once.

Oh, so there's a digital divide problem. Poor folks won't have the means to cough up for the line, so we'll have to raise taxes to pay for theirs. got it. [quote]

I have never seen government be able to back away from taking more money. Usually tax cuts are tax raises that are framed as cuts for taking less than government anticipated taking. You cannot successfully mandate that government work the way you're suggesting it does and someone not get paid somewhere along the way. Someone's making money.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

AWESOME! When someone backhoes it, how much do I have to pay to get reconnected?

The same people would pay for it that pay for when a power line is cut accidently, when a gas pipe is breached, or when a water pipe is breached. Usually the person who did the deed, or the local community trust (as in Ottawa). If the local community trust has to pay for it, the cost is passed to the ISP's.

[QUOTE=vmarks;3713813]Oh, so there's a digital divide problem. Poor folks won't have the means to cough up for the line, so we'll have to raise taxes to pay for theirs. got it. [quote]

Poor people likely don't own homes, but if they do, it would be up to the local community to sponsor connecting people, it wouldn't be the problem of the feds.

And again, it's not as if existing dial up infrastructure disappears.

Apartments would be a bit more tricky. They could either individually wire each unit, or they could wire once to wiring room in the apartment complex, and then split the connection from there with a router.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I have never seen government be able to back away from taking more money. Usually tax cuts are tax raises that are framed as cuts for taking less than government anticipated taking. You cannot successfully mandate that government work the way you're suggesting it does and someone not get paid somewhere along the way. Someone's making money.

Most the infrastructure would be put back into the hands of local government afterwards. There wouldn't be much for the government to tax, but even so, what about the current system of ISP's makes it impossible for the government to tax internet connections? This entire line of argument is kind of a red herring because there is nothing about the current system that protects against this kind of taxation either.

[vmarks]

There is a service charge (TAX) placed in all phone and internet bills in the US by the feds, currently. There's nothing for them to tax (your words) but they do so anyway. This is in place to ensure that poverty level, schools, elderly, and rural areas are connected.

I do think it's interesting that your answer amounts to 'let them eat dial-up.'

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There is a service charge (TAX) placed in all phone and internet bills in the US by the feds, currently. There's nothing for them to tax (your words) but they do so anyway. This is in place to ensure that poverty level,

How does the current system address the issue of poverty levels?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

schools,

Schools are usually connected to the internet by states using (gasp) runs of fiber.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

elderly,

Same deal as the poor.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

and rural areas are connected.

Wouldn't fiber runs make connection in rural areas easier? It brings access into areas that ISP are unwilling to go to.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I do think it's interesting that your answer amounts to 'let them eat dial-up.'

From the first mention in this thread, I said the home owner would have to fork over the cost of the fiber. Why is this surprising?

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by gomac 

what about the current system of isp's makes it impossible for the government to tax internet connections? This entire line of argument is kind of a red herring because there is nothing about the current system that protects against this kind of taxation either.

qft