(09-14-2015 01:53 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:50 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

Wait, you don't think they're making a profit with these regulations? Any source for that?

Because quite frankly, the fact that investment is going down could very easily just mean that the previous egregious profits being made are no longer there for the taking. I'm sure removing all regulations on casino games and their odds would result in booming investments for them, but that doesn't mean it's better overall for society.

You've already made your judgement, and you're simply looking for anything to support it.

Man I just can't get enough of those egregious profits.

Seriously how do you define egregious? There are some on the left of the political spectrum who consider any profit as egregious. There are more who think that if a corporation makes "any" profit they should be satisfied. Have you ever heard of the Risk Premium?

Perhaps a few examples might help more this along. Here's a comparison of net profit %:

Apple 22.62%
AT&T 4.2%
Google 20.45%
Comcast 12.58%
Facebook 18.7%
Time Warner 12.71%

So do tell, who be the egregian?

(09-14-2015 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet has reached the point in time that they need to be opened up to the public, just like roads, canals, phone lines, and more have done.

I will die a happy man as soon as Comcast goes broke, and WOW!. God I hate WOW!.

Problem,

Roads were mostly built by governments
Canals were mostly built by governments

The "Internet" was absolutely *NOT* built out by the government. The hardware that moved us from ARPANET to The Internet was all built by private capitol.

For that reason alone government ownership is at best dubios. Forget about the temptation of totalitarian fascism which a government owned internet would create.

(09-14-2015 03:55 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:53 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:50 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

Wait, you don't think they're making a profit with these regulations? Any source for that?

Because quite frankly, the fact that investment is going down could very easily just mean that the previous egregious profits being made are no longer there for the taking. I'm sure removing all regulations on casino games and their odds would result in booming investments for them, but that doesn't mean it's better overall for society.

You've already made your judgement, and you're simply looking for anything to support it.

Man I just can't get enough of those egregious profits.

Seriously how do you define egregious? There are some on the left of the political spectrum who consider any profit as egregious. There are more who think that if a corporation makes "any" profit they should be satisfied. Have you ever heard of the Risk Premium?

Perhaps a few examples might help more this along. Here's a comparison of net profit %:

Apple 22.62%
AT&T 4.2%
Google 20.45%
Comcast 12.58%
Facebook 18.7%
Time Warner 12.71%

So do tell, who be the egregian?

I was positing a point, a point in which you completely ignored. Address my point please.

(09-14-2015 04:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet has reached the point in time that they need to be opened up to the public, just like roads, canals, phone lines, and more have done.

I will die a happy man as soon as Comcast goes broke, and WOW!. God I hate WOW!.

Problem,

Roads were mostly built by governments
Canals were mostly built by governments

The "Internet" was absolutely *NOT* built out by the government. The hardware that moved us from ARPANET to The Internet was all built by private capitol.

For that reason alone government ownership is at best dubios. Forget about the temptation of totalitarian fascism which a government owned internet would create.

Go further back; the opposite is true in terms of roads and canals.

And, by the way, it isn't government ownership per se.

(09-14-2015 02:14 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:50 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

Broadband will switch to broadcast. If you can get cell reception, you'll be able to get broadband. It's no wonder why traditional ISPs are not investing in laying cable that will be largely obsolete within a decade.

yep. 5g is supposed to be faster than Google Fiber and they're going to roll it out in select areas in the not too distant future.

While there are some negatives to wireless compared to wired, it would be a poor financial decision to invest billions in upgrading wired infrastructure for residential use when you can deliver incredible speed wirelessly.

A shift is coming, and its not decades away.

That shift was already seen when it came to telephones in third world countries. They realized a long time ago that building cell phone towers is a lot cheaper than landlines.

Not sure how it will work with broadband, but I wouldn't be too surprised.

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Correlation is not causation. They weren't really investing anyway. Cables are rolling out DOCSIS 3 and DSV because they don't have to run fiber the last mile when they do it and it crushes DSL competition. Ma Bell is only just now running fiber to major junction boxes trying to offer competitive speeds. And they are both doing absolutely **** all nothing when it comes to getting fiber to the curb like Google. UNLESS ... Google is coming to the city they are in. Then .. poof .. suddenly they are interested!

The fact that you correlate and attribute causality of net neutrality with the behavior of major ISPs when it comes to infrastructure investment shows you have made your mind up on the matter and are merely looking for supporting evidence to reinforce your view. You are as wrong -- and as stubbornly looking for something to reinforce your error -- as the liberals on this board are with minimum wage.

Quote:The fact that you correlate and attribute causality of net neutrality with the behavior of major ISPs when it comes to infrastructure investment shows you have made your mind up on the matter and are merely looking for supporting evidence to reinforce your view.

Let's face it. The second Obama took a stance on this a significant chunk of the population decided that net neutrality is a terrible idea. We saw this exact same occurrence with the Denali fiasco. Only the Republicans can turn such a straight-forward no-brainer concept and turn it into a political lightning rod.

(09-15-2015 12:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Let's face it. The second Obama took a stance on this a significant chunk of the population decided that net neutrality is a terrible idea. We saw this exact same occurrence with the Denali fiasco. Only the Republicans can turn such a straight-forward no-brainer concept and turn it into a political lightning rod.

Aaaaaaaaaand your post is just as bad for going full partisan kool aid. Because the Democrats aren't totally full of sh*t too, amirite?

(09-14-2015 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 03:55 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:53 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:50 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

Wait, you don't think they're making a profit with these regulations? Any source for that?

Because quite frankly, the fact that investment is going down could very easily just mean that the previous egregious profits being made are no longer there for the taking. I'm sure removing all regulations on casino games and their odds would result in booming investments for them, but that doesn't mean it's better overall for society.

You've already made your judgement, and you're simply looking for anything to support it.

Man I just can't get enough of those egregious profits.

Seriously how do you define egregious? There are some on the left of the political spectrum who consider any profit as egregious. There are more who think that if a corporation makes "any" profit they should be satisfied. Have you ever heard of the Risk Premium?

Perhaps a few examples might help more this along. Here's a comparison of net profit %:

Apple 22.62%
AT&T 4.2%
Google 20.45%
Comcast 12.58%
Facebook 18.7%
Time Warner 12.71%

So do tell, who be the egregian?

I was positing a point, a point in which you completely ignored. Address my point please.

I did but you obviously had difficulty understanding my response.

(09-14-2015 03:55 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:53 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:50 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

Wait, you don't think they're making a profit with these regulations? Any source for that?

Because quite frankly, the fact that investment is going down could very easily just mean that the previous egregious profits being made are no longer there for the taking. I'm sure removing all regulations on casino games and their odds would result in booming investments for them, but that doesn't mean it's better overall for society.

You've already made your judgement, and you're simply looking for anything to support it.

Man I just can't get enough of those egregious profits.

Seriously how do you define egregious? There are some on the left of the political spectrum who consider any profit as egregious. There are more who think that if a corporation makes "any" profit they should be satisfied. Have you ever heard of the Risk Premium?

Perhaps a few examples might help more this along. Here's a comparison of net profit %:

Apple 22.62%
AT&T 4.2%
Google 20.45%
Comcast 12.58%
Facebook 18.7%
Time Warner 12.71%

So do tell, who be the egregian?

Broken out on its own, TWC's broadband arm has a profit margin of over 95%.

Their cable service is the low-margin burger. The broadband is the high-margin cheese.

(09-14-2015 04:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet has reached the point in time that they need to be opened up to the public, just like roads, canals, phone lines, and more have done.

I will die a happy man as soon as Comcast goes broke, and WOW!. God I hate WOW!.

Problem,

Roads were mostly built by governments
Canals were mostly built by governments

The "Internet" was absolutely *NOT* built out by the government. The hardware that moved us from ARPANET to The Internet was all built by private capitol.

For that reason alone government ownership is at best dubios. Forget about the temptation of totalitarian fascism which a government owned internet would create.

I don't think anyone here is advocating government run. Just that the gov't guarantee a profit level for companies such that they will expand the system and still achieve a decent ROI for shareholders. Again, there is already a model in place that works.

(09-15-2015 12:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:The fact that you correlate and attribute causality of net neutrality with the behavior of major ISPs when it comes to infrastructure investment shows you have made your mind up on the matter and are merely looking for supporting evidence to reinforce your view.

Let's face it. The second Obama took a stance on this a significant chunk of the population decided that net neutrality is a terrible idea. We saw this exact same occurrence with the Denali fiasco. Only the Republicans can turn such a straight-forward no-brainer concept and turn it into a political lightning rod.

In fairness, I have to agree.

Ted Cruz got out there and spouted off about "internet at the speed of government," which was moronic. And, people bought it en masse.

All the Republicans do is scream about government.

I don't like the government but at the same time there are legitimate areas for it to be involved in, and this is one.

(09-15-2015 03:36 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 12:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Let's face it. The second Obama took a stance on this a significant chunk of the population decided that net neutrality is a terrible idea. We saw this exact same occurrence with the Denali fiasco. Only the Republicans can turn such a straight-forward no-brainer concept and turn it into a political lightning rod.

Aaaaaaaaaand your post is just as bad for going full partisan kool aid. Because the Democrats aren't totally full of sh*t too, amirite?

can you point out an example when the reverse happened with Democrats?

(09-15-2015 05:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you point out an example when the reverse happened with Democrats?

Free trade.
Supporting war now that Obama is the one conducting it.
Cracking down on marijuana now that they're in office.
Obama deporting more people than any other President in history.
Being for transparency ........ until they're in office.

(09-15-2015 08:51 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think anyone here is advocating government run. Just that the gov't guarantee a profit level for companies such that they will expand the system and still achieve a decent ROI for shareholders. Again, there is already a model in place that works.

What model in place works? Utilities? Do we really want to make it the **FEDERAL** governments job to provide or subsidize high speed access to people?

(09-15-2015 08:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 05:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you point out an example when the reverse happened with Democrats?

Free trade.
Supporting war now that Obama is the one conducting it.
Cracking down on marijuana now that they're in office.
Obama deporting more people than any other President in history.
Being for transparency ........ until they're in office.

LOL none of those are comparable to this. Your best argument is pot but even that one is a total joke because in that scenario it was a lot like gay marriage where societal attitudes changed rapidly rather than people rallying around the flag. with pot it was largely about getting rid of misinformation and social stigma. It wasn't even an issue Obama was pushing, he's neutral on the subject and simply stays out of what the states are doing.

(09-15-2015 09:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 08:51 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think anyone here is advocating government run. Just that the gov't guarantee a profit level for companies such that they will expand the system and still achieve a decent ROI for shareholders. Again, there is already a model in place that works.

What model in place works? Utilities? Do we really want to make it the **FEDERAL** governments job to provide or subsidize high speed access to people?

Outside of TVA, the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Land Management, the power that you utilize everyday is generated by privately held companies. Because of their monopoly, utilities negotiate a rate with each state Public Service Commissioner. That rate is predicated on the investments the utility has made or needs to make towards modernization, what their annual earning are and overall service to the customer.

IMO the way this would work for broadband is for AT&T to go to the states' telcom PSC and present 4/8/12 year plans to get maximum coverage and what it would cost to do it while still turning a profit. The PSC picks the plan that is right for the state and the rate is fixed for that entire period. The ISP is able to get paid, the state has a stable tax source and customers get a price that is reasonable and a place to complain if service is not up par.

(09-15-2015 09:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 08:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 05:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you point out an example when the reverse happened with Democrats?

Free trade.
Supporting war now that Obama is the one conducting it.
Cracking down on marijuana now that they're in office.
Obama deporting more people than any other President in history.
Being for transparency ........ until they're in office.

LOL none of those are comparable to this. Your best argument is pot but even that one is a total joke because in that scenario it was a lot like gay marriage where societal attitudes changed rapidly rather than people rallying around the flag. with pot it was largely about getting rid of misinformation and social stigma. It wasn't even an issue Obama was pushing, he's neutral on the subject and simply stays out of what the states are doing.

Does the cognitive dissonance burn? The fact that people like you are in the majority when it comes to those in the major party structures is a huge part of why we as a country are f*cked politically.

(09-14-2015 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet has reached the point in time that they need to be opened up to the public, just like roads, canals, phone lines, and more have done.

I will die a happy man as soon as Comcast goes broke, and WOW!. God I hate WOW!.

Wow. As in

Wow it actually worked today