Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The answer is national minimum standards for what can be called broadband and no fastlanes, they brought this on themselves by sucking badly at managing a vital national interest. Internet infrastructure is almost infinitely scalable, they need to invest some of their huge monopoly profits into expansion rather than buying congressmen to scare Americans into accepting an extended future of second-rate service and ever increasing costs.Are you somehow unaware that coverage and speeds in America are increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world because the telecommunications companies are not building new capacity in spite of being one of the most lightly regulated and profitable sectors of the economy? Large regions of America have only one choice for an internet provider and download speeds generally suck when you get away from town. It's what happens when virtual monopolies are allowed to form. If the bastards had added capacity to keep up with the demands of their customers there would be no need to for premium fast lanes, they want to suck even more cash out of us and still not upgrade their systems.If the providers had up until now invested in keeping our nation's internet capacity up to what is possible then I would buy some of their arguments but they have allowed us to fall behind the world. They have been poor stewards of a vital piece of national infrastructure and so now must endure some added regulation and scrutiny.
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?
.
Fine . Start your own ISP.
But letting the motherfuckers cease control of the internet is NOT the answer.
.
So you can't answer that one either. Color me surprised.
Damn. And here I was hoping you'd start babbling about "there's no reference to broadcasting in the Constitution". Oh well. Can't have everything.
Here's you next lesson though son:
Broadcasters don't own the airwaves. WE do.
And we give it to them to milk however many millions they can off them, rent-free. How smart is that, right? Howdja like your town to provide you with a rent-free storefront where you could sell whatever you wanted? And if it didn't sell, hey, at least you're not paying rent.
"Privately-owned enterprises".... you're embarrassing yourself.
FASCIST Fallacy #1 — The airwaves are "public"
There are two aspects to this that must be addressed separately. First, the only reason the airwaves belong to "the public" is because the federal government declared them so as part of the Federal Radio Act of 1927. That's it. But the reality is that the airwaves themselves aren't any more "public" than the plot of land that composes your city or town. When it was first discovered that we could encode audio and transmit it via radio waves, the feds realized the potential military applications and seized about half the spectrum and reserved it for military use. They made the rest available for use by citizen operators. Yes, there is a limited amount of spectrum just as there is a limited amount of land in your community, for example. There is also a limited amount of gold, diamonds, water, gravel, iron ore, maple trees or whatever. Just because there is a limited amount of something doesn't mean the state is right to commandeer it all and then "lease" it to private citizens as long as they agree to use it the way other people would like to see them use it. Let's face it; there is a limited amount of just about everything.."
You going for some kind of record here boy?
I just told you --- we don't "lease" airwave space. We give it away. When you get a broadcast license, you get permission to use 101.7 or whatever frequency -- you don't pay for it. You get it from We the People, via the FCC, and then you're free to milk money from We the People.
Following this? We give you the storefront. For nothing. Regardless how much you can make off it.
And as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, before the FRC was created to corral all that, what was on the air was anarchy. All the FCC does is keep that anarchy from happening again by sorting out who gets permission where.
You really need better links. Everything you've posted here tonight is pure bullshit.
The answer is national minimum standards for what can be called broadband and no fastlanes, they brought this on themselves by sucking badly at managing a vital national interest. Internet infrastructure is almost infinitely scalable, they need to invest some of their huge monopoly profits into expansion rather than buying congressmen to scare Americans into accepting an extended future of second-rate service and ever increasing costs.Are you somehow unaware that coverage and speeds in America are increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world because the telecommunications companies are not building new capacity in spite of being one of the most lightly regulated and profitable sectors of the economy? Large regions of America have only one choice for an internet provider and download speeds generally suck when you get away from town. It's what happens when virtual monopolies are allowed to form. If the bastards had added capacity to keep up with the demands of their customers there would be no need to for premium fast lanes, they want to suck even more cash out of us and still not upgrade their systems.If the providers had up until now invested in keeping our nation's internet capacity up to what is possible then I would buy some of their arguments but they have allowed us to fall behind the world. They have been poor stewards of a vital piece of national infrastructure and so now must endure some added regulation and scrutiny.
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?
.
Fine . Start your own ISP.
But letting the motherfuckers cease control of the internet is NOT the answer.
.
Technically correct - no "lease".
Just a whole basket of fees.
Some of which are set according to service type (AM/FM/TV, etc.) and other factors like whether commercial/non commercial, economic factors.
I haven't been able to find a concrete fee schedule but did come across some good material on the myriad fees that must be paid by anyone wishing to put a signal on "the people's" airwaves:
FCC Application Fees Going Up By 8 - Effective June 6 2014 Broadcast Law Blog
But, no, they are not lease fees; not rent. Just innocent little "fees".
So you can't answer that one either. Color me surprised.
Damn. And here I was hoping you'd start babbling about "there's no reference to broadcasting in the Constitution". Oh well. Can't have everything.
Here's you next lesson though son:
Broadcasters don't own the airwaves. WE do.
And we give it to them to milk however many millions they can off them, rent-free. How smart is that, right? Howdja like your town to provide you with a rent-free storefront where you could sell whatever you wanted? And if it didn't sell, hey, at least you're not paying rent.
"Privately-owned enterprises".... you're embarrassing yourself.
FASCIST Fallacy #1 — The airwaves are "public"
There are two aspects to this that must be addressed separately. First, the only reason the airwaves belong to "the public" is because the federal government declared them so as part of the Federal Radio Act of 1927. That's it. But the reality is that the airwaves themselves aren't any more "public" than the plot of land that composes your city or town. When it was first discovered that we could encode audio and transmit it via radio waves, the feds realized the potential military applications and seized about half the spectrum and reserved it for military use. They made the rest available for use by citizen operators. Yes, there is a limited amount of spectrum just as there is a limited amount of land in your community, for example. There is also a limited amount of gold, diamonds, water, gravel, iron ore, maple trees or whatever. Just because there is a limited amount of something doesn't mean the state is right to commandeer it all and then "lease" it to private citizens as long as they agree to use it the way other people would like to see them use it. Let's face it; there is a limited amount of just about everything.."
You going for some kind of record here boy?
I just told you --- we don't "lease" airwave space. We give it away. When you get a broadcast license, you get permission to use 101.7 or whatever frequency -- you don't pay for it. You get it from We the People, via the FCC, and then you're free to milk money from We the People.
Following this? We give you the storefront. For nothing. Regardless how much you can make off it.
And as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, before the FRC was created to corral all that, what was on the air was anarchy. All the FCC does is keep that anarchy from happening again by sorting out who gets permission where.
You really need better links. Everything you've posted here tonight is pure bullshit.
The worst blind person is he who does not want to see.
You have been brainwashed into giving up freedom, accepting enslavement and tyranny as a way of life.
You are FUBR.
Technically correct - no "lease".
Just a whole basket of fees.
Some of which are set according to service type (AM/FM/TV, etc.) and other factors like whether commercial/non commercial, economic factors.
I haven't been able to find a concrete fee schedule but did come across some good material on the myriad fees that must be paid by anyone wishing to put a signal on "the people's" airwaves:
FCC Application Fees Going Up By 8 - Effective June 6 2014 Broadcast Law Blog
But, no, they are not lease fees; not rent. Just innocent little "fees".
Correct, there are processing fees. No one need explain to either of us how much work is involved in a frequency search.
I get a fee for my driver's license too. I'm fairly sure everyone does. But no one gives me a car. I'm kind of on my own there.
So you can't answer that one either. Color me surprised.
Damn. And here I was hoping you'd start babbling about "there's no reference to broadcasting in the Constitution". Oh well. Can't have everything.
Here's you next lesson though son:
Broadcasters don't own the airwaves. WE do.
And we give it to them to milk however many millions they can off them, rent-free. How smart is that, right? Howdja like your town to provide you with a rent-free storefront where you could sell whatever you wanted? And if it didn't sell, hey, at least you're not paying rent.
"Privately-owned enterprises".... you're embarrassing yourself.
FASCIST Fallacy #1 — The airwaves are "public"
There are two aspects to this that must be addressed separately. First, the only reason the airwaves belong to "the public" is because the federal government declared them so as part of the Federal Radio Act of 1927. That's it. But the reality is that the airwaves themselves aren't any more "public" than the plot of land that composes your city or town. When it was first discovered that we could encode audio and transmit it via radio waves, the feds realized the potential military applications and seized about half the spectrum and reserved it for military use. They made the rest available for use by citizen operators. Yes, there is a limited amount of spectrum just as there is a limited amount of land in your community, for example. There is also a limited amount of gold, diamonds, water, gravel, iron ore, maple trees or whatever. Just because there is a limited amount of something doesn't mean the state is right to commandeer it all and then "lease" it to private citizens as long as they agree to use it the way other people would like to see them use it. Let's face it; there is a limited amount of just about everything.."
You going for some kind of record here boy?
I just told you --- we don't "lease" airwave space. We give it away. When you get a broadcast license, you get permission to use 101.7 or whatever frequency -- you don't pay for it. You get it from We the People, via the FCC, and then you're free to milk money from We the People.
Following this? We give you the storefront. For nothing. Regardless how much you can make off it.
And as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, before the FRC was created to corral all that, what was on the air was anarchy. All the FCC does is keep that anarchy from happening again by sorting out who gets permission where.
You really need better links. Everything you've posted here tonight is pure bullshit.
The worst blind person is he who does not want to see.
You have been brainwashed into giving up freedom, accepting enslavement and tyranny as a way of life.
You are FUBR.
Then get off your Consumméed ass and find me some shred of something real that actually backs up ANY of the bullshit you've posted here from hair-on-fire Randbot reactionary sites.
It's no pretext it's the truth, our average speeds are dismal compared with the rest of the developed world. Why should anyone pay more for the same relatively slow service and no hope that it will get better anytime soon? Artificial shortages designed to drive up prices is not good business practice but it seems even this perversion of capitalism gets defended by republicans who do not know just how bad we are getting shafted by these companies.The answer is national minimum standards for what can be called broadband and no fastlanes, they brought this on themselves by sucking badly at managing a vital national interest. Internet infrastructure is almost infinitely scalable, they need to invest some of their huge monopoly profits into expansion rather than buying congressmen to scare Americans into accepting an extended future of second-rate service and ever increasing costs.Are you somehow unaware that coverage and speeds in America are increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world because the telecommunications companies are not building new capacity in spite of being one of the most lightly regulated and profitable sectors of the economy? Large regions of America have only one choice for an internet provider and download speeds generally suck when you get away from town. It's what happens when virtual monopolies are allowed to form. If the bastards had added capacity to keep up with the demands of their customers there would be no need to for premium fast lanes, they want to suck even more cash out of us and still not upgrade their systems.If the providers had up until now invested in keeping our nation's internet capacity up to what is possible then I would buy some of their arguments but they have allowed us to fall behind the world. They have been poor stewards of a vital piece of national infrastructure and so now must endure some added regulation and scrutiny.
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?
.
Fine . Start your own ISP.
But letting the motherfuckers cease control of the internet is NOT the answer.
.
That's a good pretext.
I am really surprise you didn't mention "saving the children from pornography" - that one is always a good one.
.
You'll like your new internet bill once this is in effect.
Preview?
Look at your landline phone bill (or ask someone who has a landline) and scan the list of taxes and fees that, when added up, typically total 1.4 times the basic cost of service.
So your $60 internet bill will become your $144 internet bill. But you will really enjoy knowing everybody is being treated equally.
There are ways to ensure net neutrality without opening the tax/fee box but you can count on this regime to avoid them.
I don't have cable TV. But 24% of my internet bill is charged because of that -- what I don't have.
That's not a tax -- it's the free market, penalizing me for not using one of its "services".
Fun fact.
It's no pretext it's the truth, our average speeds are dismal compared with the rest of the developed world. Why should anyone pay more for the same relatively slow service and no hope that it will get better anytime soon? Artificial shortages designed to drive up prices is not good business practice but it seems even this perversion of capitalism gets defended by republicans who do not know just how bad we are getting shafted by these companies.The answer is national minimum standards for what can be called broadband and no fastlanes, they brought this on themselves by sucking badly at managing a vital national interest. Internet infrastructure is almost infinitely scalable, they need to invest some of their huge monopoly profits into expansion rather than buying congressmen to scare Americans into accepting an extended future of second-rate service and ever increasing costs.Are you somehow unaware that coverage and speeds in America are increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world because the telecommunications companies are not building new capacity in spite of being one of the most lightly regulated and profitable sectors of the economy? Large regions of America have only one choice for an internet provider and download speeds generally suck when you get away from town. It's what happens when virtual monopolies are allowed to form. If the bastards had added capacity to keep up with the demands of their customers there would be no need to for premium fast lanes, they want to suck even more cash out of us and still not upgrade their systems.Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?
.
Fine . Start your own ISP.
But letting the motherfuckers cease control of the internet is NOT the answer.
.
That's a good pretext.
I am really surprise you didn't mention "saving the children from pornography" - that one is always a good one.
.
You'll like your new internet bill once this is in effect.
Preview?
Look at your landline phone bill (or ask someone who has a landline) and scan the list of taxes and fees that, when added up, typically total 1.4 times the basic cost of service.
So your $60 internet bill will become your $144 internet bill. But you will really enjoy knowing everybody is being treated equally.
There are ways to ensure net neutrality without opening the tax/fee box but you can count on this regime to avoid them.
I don't have cable TV. But 24% of my internet bill is charged because of that -- what I don't have.
That's not a tax -- it's the free market, penalizing me for not using one of its "services".
Fun fact.
I DO NOT GET INTERNET FROM A CABLE COMPANY.
CITIES GIVE CABLE COMPANIES MONOPOLIES FOR KICKBACKS. GOOGLE IS TRYING TO ROLL-OUT SUPER-HIGH SPEED INTERNET BUT THE CITIES WILL NOT ALLOW IT.
Like most Americans I have only one real choice for internet service and their speed sucks balls. If there was some actual competition there would be some pressure to upgrade and provide a quality service but it seems you people would rather have glorified dial up than require them to provide something on par with what they have in Thailand.It's no pretext it's the truth, our average speeds are dismal compared with the rest of the developed world. Why should anyone pay more for the same relatively slow service and no hope that it will get better anytime soon? Artificial shortages designed to drive up prices is not good business practice but it seems even this perversion of capitalism gets defended by republicans who do not know just how bad we are getting shafted by these companies.The answer is national minimum standards for what can be called broadband and no fastlanes, they brought this on themselves by sucking badly at managing a vital national interest. Internet infrastructure is almost infinitely scalable, they need to invest some of their huge monopoly profits into expansion rather than buying congressmen to scare Americans into accepting an extended future of second-rate service and ever increasing costs.Are you somehow unaware that coverage and speeds in America are increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world because the telecommunications companies are not building new capacity in spite of being one of the most lightly regulated and profitable sectors of the economy? Large regions of America have only one choice for an internet provider and download speeds generally suck when you get away from town. It's what happens when virtual monopolies are allowed to form. If the bastards had added capacity to keep up with the demands of their customers there would be no need to for premium fast lanes, they want to suck even more cash out of us and still not upgrade their systems.
Fine . Start your own ISP.
But letting the motherfuckers cease control of the internet is NOT the answer.
.
That's a good pretext.
I am really surprise you didn't mention "saving the children from pornography" - that one is always a good one.
.
Again, start your own ISP or conduct business with the ISP that satisfies your needs.
.
Like most Americans I have only one real choice for internet service and their speed sucks balls. If there was some actual competition there would be some pressure to upgrade and provide a quality service but it seems you people would rather have glorified dial up than require them to provide something on par with what they have in Thailand.It's no pretext it's the truth, our average speeds are dismal compared with the rest of the developed world. Why should anyone pay more for the same relatively slow service and no hope that it will get better anytime soon? Artificial shortages designed to drive up prices is not good business practice but it seems even this perversion of capitalism gets defended by republicans who do not know just how bad we are getting shafted by these companies.The answer is national minimum standards for what can be called broadband and no fastlanes, they brought this on themselves by sucking badly at managing a vital national interest. Internet infrastructure is almost infinitely scalable, they need to invest some of their huge monopoly profits into expansion rather than buying congressmen to scare Americans into accepting an extended future of second-rate service and ever increasing costs.Fine . Start your own ISP.
But letting the motherfuckers cease control of the internet is NOT the answer.
.
That's a good pretext.
I am really surprise you didn't mention "saving the children from pornography" - that one is always a good one.
.
Again, start your own ISP or conduct business with the ISP that satisfies your needs.
.
Yes it is, too bad it will happen only over the cold dead bodies of existing internet companies and their lawyers and pet politicians.Like most Americans I have only one real choice for internet service and their speed sucks balls. If there was some actual competition there would be some pressure to upgrade and provide a quality service but it seems you people would rather have glorified dial up than require them to provide something on par with what they have in Thailand.It's no pretext it's the truth, our average speeds are dismal compared with the rest of the developed world. Why should anyone pay more for the same relatively slow service and no hope that it will get better anytime soon? Artificial shortages designed to drive up prices is not good business practice but it seems even this perversion of capitalism gets defended by republicans who do not know just how bad we are getting shafted by these companies.The answer is national minimum standards for what can be called broadband and no fastlanes, they brought this on themselves by sucking badly at managing a vital national interest. Internet infrastructure is almost infinitely scalable, they need to invest some of their huge monopoly profits into expansion rather than buying congressmen to scare Americans into accepting an extended future of second-rate service and ever increasing costs.
That's a good pretext.
I am really surprise you didn't mention "saving the children from pornography" - that one is always a good one.
.
Again, start your own ISP or conduct business with the ISP that satisfies your needs.
.
The cure is the introduction of competition such as Google Fiber.
.
One factor concerning competition:
First out of the box has an advantage through having established a customer base. Any would-be newcomer has to "overbuild", duplicate existing cabling/stringing new fiber. That, particularly with fiber, requires setting up repeaters which typically are roadside metal boxes requiring not only connection to the incoming/outgoing fiber but also electricity to make 'em work AND local storage (batteries) to back up the repeater when power fails.
Unless the newbie has very deep pockets it's prohibitively expensive to do the overbuild with no guarantee of sufficient buyers. Google is big enough and probably has the legal talent on tap to secure rights-of-way and locations for repeaters but even they would find it prohibitive to do it in low-density areas
