They are no longer pretending.
Comments
-
The federal government pays private companies to build and maintain federal roads. States still have states rights with federal roads in them. This is a totally different socialistic concept that would undoubtedly be a vehicle for liberals to control content and brain wash the country like they have done in many schools across the nation. Hell it was only a couple years ago when your leaders were trying to control content on television and radio so they could limit FOX and Conservative radio broadcasts. I would say this fits right in with their plan. Not to mention it is another give away by liberals to further enslave people to government programs.GDS said:Next thing you know they will want to build a nationwide freeway system. Fucking commies wanting to invest in infrastructure.
Life is lived just fine without free high speed internet.
Can you possibly be more of a shallow thinker? I didn't think so but you continue to surprise. -
Government surveillance and monitoring is BY FAR the biggest argument against government involvement in building out a better network. And rightfully so. However, that doesn't mean it's not a good idea or needed. It's absolutely needed, especially in rural areas.Bendintheriver said:
The federal government pays private companies to build and maintain federal roads. States still have states rights with federal roads in them. This is a totally different socialistic concept that would undoubtedly be a vehicle for liberals to control content and brain wash the country like they have done in many schools across the nation. Hell it was only a couple years ago when your leaders were trying to control content on television and radio so they could limit FOX and Conservative radio broadcasts. I would say this fits right in with their plan. Not to mention it is another give away by liberals to further enslave people to government programs.GDS said:Next thing you know they will want to build a nationwide freeway system. Fucking commies wanting to invest in infrastructure.
Life is lived just fine without free high speed internet.
Can you possibly be more of a shallow thinker? I didn't think so but you continue to surprise.
So, the question is not whether there is a need - the question is how fast can the need be filled and how to protect against intrusion into one's privacy?
If we? are smart enough to build out something as technologically advanced as 5G, 6G, 9G or whatever the latest and greatest is, we are certainly smart enough to figure out how to build in protections. To summarily dismiss is because it is government built is short-sighted. Without government intervention, there wouldn't be freeways, dams (WAR SALMON LADDERS!) or a public education system. It can be done - it has to be done. It just has to be done with individual's privacy and anonymity protected.
Like I said, the power company doesn't know when I plug in mydildophone charger. The internet provider doesn't need to know or record every single website I visit either. Though I'm fairly certain they already do.
-
I have a lake house in middle Georgia. It really doesn't get more rural than that and my Dish network provides ample internet speeds. There are already many other private services in rural areas that provide cheap internet service. The service is already there.
You mention dams, freeways etc. Totally different. Again, we already have service in all rural areas. There is no need. You also mentioned public schools and it is clearly over run by liberals so that is not a good example, you are making my point with that one.
There is no protection from democrats when they are in charge. They will use that internet service as a weapon. They have already tried to take control of the messaging through legislation but it fails every time. I don't want anything to do with it. Using the liberal garbage that we have now for search engines and home pages is bad enough.
On the guarantee privacy? I think we have seen how democrats treat ones privacy. Between these nutcases this week and BO's wiretapping of the White House and Fox Journalists, they can't be trusted. -
We'll agree to disagree as to adequate internet coverage. It's a whole different world between being able to stream Netflix off HughesNet and competing in the tech, robotics, AI and a host of other industries that we can't even imagine at this point. It's quite feasible that a physician at Fred Hutch could be performing surgery in podunk Wyoming via robots and uber-high-speed broadband as one example.Bendintheriver said:I have a lake house in middle Georgia. It really doesn't get more rural than that and my Dish network provides ample internet speeds. There are already many other private services in rural areas that provide cheap internet service. The service is already there.
You mention dams, freeways etc. Totally different. Again, we already have service in all rural areas. There is no need. You also mentioned public schools and it is clearly over run by liberals so that is not a good example, you are making my point with that one.
There is no protection from democrats when they are in charge. They will use that internet service as a weapon. They have already tried to take control of the messaging through legislation but it fails every time. I don't want anything to do with it. Using the liberal garbage that we have now for search engines and home pages is bad enough.
On the guarantee privacy? I think we have seen how democrats treat ones privacy. Between these nutcases this week and BO's wiretapping of the White House and Fox Journalists, they can't be trusted.
With the skyrocketing cost of housing in Seattle, SF and a number of other metro areas, why not give younger people the same tools as their big city counterparts and allow them to live off the grid or in Genesee, Idaho and live in a palace? That eases demand on housing (thus easing skyrocketing prices), reduces congestion and adds to the tax base of those less than privileged states that everyone always wants to point to as being subsidized year after year.
We will agree on the fact that government overreach (whether it's Republicans or Democrats, they both do it....you seem to forget this guy named Nixon wiretapping and Cheney/Bush wildly expanding the government's intrusion under the Patriot Act). THAT'S the crux of the matter.
Solutions needed, not uniform colors.
-
Bendintheriver said:
The federal government pays private companies to build and maintain federal roads. States still have states rights with federal roads in them. This is a totally different socialistic concept that would undoubtedly be a vehicle for liberals to control content and brain wash the country like they have done in many schools across the nation. Hell it was only a couple years ago when your leaders were trying to control content on television and radio so they could limit FOX and Conservative radio broadcasts. I would say this fits right in with their plan. Not to mention it is another give away by liberals to further enslave people to government programs.GDS said:Next thing you know they will want to build a nationwide freeway system. Fucking commies wanting to invest in infrastructure.
Life is lived just fine without free high speed internet.
Can you possibly be more of a shallow thinker? I didn't think so but you continue to surprise. -
Which you support.GDS said:
You realize you are describing SNAP administered by the USDA right...MikeDamone said:Tired of these giant food companies running away with taxpayer dollars. We need to invest the office of food access to make sure every home has food.
-
You know what else you often can't find in rural areas? Decent restaurants, entertainment and shopping options. I demand the Federal government provide these essential services.
-
Yes giving food to families with kids is fucking awful. They should starve.SFGbob said:
Which you support.GDS said:
You realize you are describing SNAP administered by the USDA right...MikeDamone said:Tired of these giant food companies running away with taxpayer dollars. We need to invest the office of food access to make sure every home has food.
-
Yes because creating a system that is ripe with $Billions in fraud and abuse that doesn't just go to kids with families and allows people to buy junk food and soda is fucking great.2001400ex said:
Yes giving food to families with kids is fucking awful. They should starve.SFGbob said:
Which you support.GDS said:
You realize you are describing SNAP administered by the USDA right...MikeDamone said:Tired of these giant food companies running away with taxpayer dollars. We need to invest the office of food access to make sure every home has food.
-
If you peer into Americans' grocery carts, you're unlikely to see a mix of foods and beverages that make for an ideal diet. And this is true for many of the nearly 42 million people who receive food stamps, too.
According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sweetened beverages, including soda, are among the most commonly purchased items by recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP.
But, but what about the starving children!!!!
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/29/659634119/food-stamps-for-soda-time-to-end-billion-dollar-subsidy-for-sugary-drinks -
Anyone who can't get broadband is not likely to change their lives once they get it for free. And it won't be free.GDS said:160 million Americans lack high speed terrestrial broadband. In today’s economy with the skills people need to gain that’s absolutely a collective need and puts us behind other world powers. We need to improve our infrastructure and broadband is absolutely part of that.
-
Shouldn’t be free. Bad precedent. Should be regulated like utilities.creepycoug said:
Anyone who can't get broadband is not likely to change their lives once they get it for free. And it won't be free.GDS said:160 million Americans lack high speed terrestrial broadband. In today’s economy with the skills people need to gain that’s absolutely a collective need and puts us behind other world powers. We need to improve our infrastructure and broadband is absolutely part of that.
God, I think I just went over the dark side from the right of the bell curve to the left of the bell curve.
I’m going give myself a timeout. 5 minutes, nose in corner. -
I honestly wouldn't mind some full blown communism.
Because it's a lie and the most corrupt motherfuckers get ahead. And that's my jam. -
Btw, this claim is pure crap. Most people “lack” broadband because they have chosen not to get it despite the fact that it’s available to them. Only a small percentage of the population lacks broadband because it’s not available.GDS said:160 million Americans lack high speed terrestrial broadband. In today’s economy with the skills people need to gain that’s absolutely a collective need and puts us behind other world powers. We need to improve our infrastructure and broadband is absolutely part of that.
-
LOL!PurpleThrobber said:
Shouldn’t be free. Bad precedent. Should be regulated like utilities.creepycoug said:
Anyone who can't get broadband is not likely to change their lives once they get it for free. And it won't be free.GDS said:160 million Americans lack high speed terrestrial broadband. In today’s economy with the skills people need to gain that’s absolutely a collective need and puts us behind other world powers. We need to improve our infrastructure and broadband is absolutely part of that.
God, I think I just went over the dark side from the right of the bell curve to the left of the bell curve.
I’m going give myself a timeout. 5 minutes, nose in corner. -
In Walmart two years ago behind two women (African American) who had 7 kids in tow and three shopping carts overflowing with absolute shit food. All 9 were obese. I mean it was every chip, sugar drink, donuts, cookies, and bags of frozen chitlins that you could think of. Zero vegetables. It was horrendous. They paid with three EBT cards (food stamps) and then pulled out three credit cards to finish paying. The cashier made the mistake of making a noise of disapproval while ringing up this pure crap (an elderly AA woman) and one of the horrible mothers snapped at her to shut her mouth. Now I always look at what the EBT cards are buying and literally 9 times out of 10 the carts are full of crap.SFGbob said:If you peer into Americans' grocery carts, you're unlikely to see a mix of foods and beverages that make for an ideal diet. And this is true for many of the nearly 42 million people who receive food stamps, too.
According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sweetened beverages, including soda, are among the most commonly purchased items by recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP.
But, but what about the starving children!!!!
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/29/659634119/food-stamps-for-soda-time-to-end-billion-dollar-subsidy-for-sugary-drinks -
the Report finds that approximately 19 million Americans—6 percent of the population—still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population —14.5 million people—lack access to this service. In tribal areas, nearly one-third of the population lacks access. Even in areas where broadband is available, approximately 100 million Americans still do not subscribe. The report concludes that until the Commission’s Connect America reforms are fully implemented, these gaps are unlikely to close. Because millions still lack access to or have not adopted broadband, the Report concludes broadband is not yet being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion.
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
-
"Oh but there's no way the private sector will ever have enough capital to do this without the government!"
[Starlink is a satellite constellation development project underway by American company SpaceX,[1][2] to develop a low-cost, high-performance satellite bus and requisite customer ground transceivers to implement a new space-based Internet communication system.[3][4] SpaceX also plans to sell satellites that use a satellite bus that may be used for military,[5] scientific or exploratory purposes.[6]
Starlink constellation, phase 1, first orbital shell: approximately 1,600 satellites at 550 km altitude
SpaceX has plans to deploy nearly 12,000 satellites in three orbital shells by the mid-2020s: initially placing approximately 1600 in a 550-kilometer (340 mi)-altitude shell, subsequently placing ~2800 Ku- and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,150 km (710 mi) and ~7500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi).[7] The total cost of the decade-long project to design, build and deploy such a network was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be on the order of US$10 billion.[8]
Product development began in 2015, and two prototype test-flight satellites were launched in February 2018. A second set of test satellites and the first large deployment of a piece of the constellation occurred on 24 May 2019 (UTC) when the first 60 operational satellites were launched.[1][9] Initial commercial operation of the constellation could begin in 2020.[10]
The SpaceX satellite development facility in Redmond, Washington, houses the research, development, manufacturing and on-orbit control operations for the satellite Internet project.]
Much like California's high speed rail, by the time the government gets around to actually building it after wasting trillions of dollars it will be obsolete. -
You guys live in the outer zone of food stamps too much when it comes to situations where government can actually do some good.
When I'm talking rural high speed access, I"m talking like farmers, ranchers, maybe young people who are techies and want to keep living Bumfuck, Montana and take care of grandpa instead of venturing to the godforsaken city of Seattle or San Fran.
Not everybody has a T-1 line or Google fiber running along their dirt road.
-
Yeah, see my above comment. Starlink is coming and going to make 81% of that shit obsolete anyways. Per usual, Warren is just pandering free shit for votes. Big surprise.PurpleThrobber said:You guys live in the outer zone of food stamps too much when it comes to situations where government can actually do some good.
When I'm talking rural high speed access, I"m talking like farmers, ranchers, maybe young people who are techies and want to keep living Bumfuck, Montana and take care of grandpa instead of venturing to the godforsaken city of Seattle or San Fran.
Not everybody has a T-1 line or Google fiber running along their dirt road. -
If that Tribal area has a casino it has broadband and I'm not even being a smartass
PBS had a 4 part series called Blue Skies about aerospace and space development in Southern California.UW_Doog_Bot said:
"Oh but there's no way the private sector will ever have enough capital to do this without the government!"
[Starlink is a satellite constellation development project underway by American company SpaceX,[1][2] to develop a low-cost, high-performance satellite bus and requisite customer ground transceivers to implement a new space-based Internet communication system.[3][4] SpaceX also plans to sell satellites that use a satellite bus that may be used for military,[5] scientific or exploratory purposes.[6]
Starlink constellation, phase 1, first orbital shell: approximately 1,600 satellites at 550 km altitude
SpaceX has plans to deploy nearly 12,000 satellites in three orbital shells by the mid-2020s: initially placing approximately 1600 in a 550-kilometer (340 mi)-altitude shell, subsequently placing ~2800 Ku- and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,150 km (710 mi) and ~7500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi).[7] The total cost of the decade-long project to design, build and deploy such a network was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be on the order of US$10 billion.[8]
Product development began in 2015, and two prototype test-flight satellites were launched in February 2018. A second set of test satellites and the first large deployment of a piece of the constellation occurred on 24 May 2019 (UTC) when the first 60 operational satellites were launched.[1][9] Initial commercial operation of the constellation could begin in 2020.[10]
The SpaceX satellite development facility in Redmond, Washington, houses the research, development, manufacturing and on-orbit control operations for the satellite Internet project.]
Much like California's high speed rail, by the time the government gets around to actually building it after wasting trillions of dollars it will be obsolete.
The last one was on current day and all the private firms doing the work. Space X gets the free pub but their are dozens of companies just like the good old days when there were 4 or 5 major government contractors.
Guess who is getting better results for less money?
-
I have some bad news for you.PurpleThrobber said:The purpose of government is to provide services, infrastructure and defense that the private sector can't or won't take on.
If the cost of providing essentially the national highway system of the 21st Century to rural areas, so be it. If the private sector is not providing comparable 'roads' and is cherry-picking only high volume/high traffic metropolitan areas without making any attempt to upgrade the rurals, that's a problem. We? need farmers and agrarians to feed the masses in the cities. We need them to want to stay in the wheatfields and ranches growing goddamned delicious food. A national high-speed network is something The Throbber can get behind.
Now, that said (and Jake Browning still does suck), the only caveat would be if the gubmint makes a concerted effort to track, monitor and prohibit interweb usage....that ain't cool. Treat it like a utility - and I'm 99.9% sure the power company doesn't know when I plug in mydildophone charger, I sure as fuck don't want Big Bro watching porn with me over my cyber-shoulder. -
Fiber or some other ditch digging connectivity to low population density Red State areas is stupid. And I'm sure it's exactly what WarrenNET would do. Fixed point wireless is what makes sense, be it satellite or 5G (obk?) or whatever. I will say, I had Hughes satellite 15 years ago or so and it was terrible. Unusable.
-
53 seconds -didn't see it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Yeah, see my above comment. Starlink is coming and going to make 81% of that shit obsolete anyways. Per usual, Warren is just pandering free shit for votes. Big surprise.PurpleThrobber said:You guys live in the outer zone of food stamps too much when it comes to situations where government can actually do some good.
When I'm talking rural high speed access, I"m talking like farmers, ranchers, maybe young people who are techies and want to keep living Bumfuck, Montana and take care of grandpa instead of venturing to the godforsaken city of Seattle or San Fran.
Not everybody has a T-1 line or Google fiber running along their dirt road.
I'll stick with my point. IF private enterprise doesn't step up, that's when the gubmint has to step up. Don't really care who or how - but strengthening the country's network should be A-1 priority.
I want goddamned 9G at my palatial inland lake lodge. All day every day.
-
6% of the population lacks access to high speed internet. How many of that 6% even wants high speed internet? There is no fucking way we should create a massive federal bureaucracy to satisfy the desire of 3% (and that number is being charitable) of the population. Part of living in the sticks is about the things you choose to go without and I say this as someone who grew up in the sticks and who still has relatives that live in areas that lack high speed internet.PurpleThrobber said:You guys live in the outer zone of food stamps too much when it comes to situations where government can actually do some good.
When I'm talking rural high speed access, I"m talking like farmers, ranchers, maybe young people who are techies and want to keep living Bumfuck, Montana and take care of grandpa instead of venturing to the godforsaken city of Seattle or San Fran.
Not everybody has a T-1 line or Google fiber running along their dirt road. -
Hondo bros gassed out of this thread earlier than usual
-
You clearly haven't read anything I posted.SFGbob said:
6% of the population lacks access to high speed internet. How many of that 6% even wants high speed internet? There is no fucking way we should create a massive federal bureaucracy to satisfy the desire of 3% (and that number is being charitable) of the population. Part of living in the sticks is about the things you choose to go without and I say this as someone who grew up in the sticks and who still has relatives that live in areas that lack high speed internet.PurpleThrobber said:You guys live in the outer zone of food stamps too much when it comes to situations where government can actually do some good.
When I'm talking rural high speed access, I"m talking like farmers, ranchers, maybe young people who are techies and want to keep living Bumfuck, Montana and take care of grandpa instead of venturing to the godforsaken city of Seattle or San Fran.
Not everybody has a T-1 line or Google fiber running along their dirt road.
You've got your Fios. Fuck those who live elsewhere or would consider living elsewhere than the mecca of tech.
Christ, now I have to go give myself another timeout. This sucks being on the left.
-
I read it.PurpleThrobber said:
You clearly haven't read anything I posted.SFGbob said:
6% of the population lacks access to high speed internet. How many of that 6% even wants high speed internet? There is no fucking way we should create a massive federal bureaucracy to satisfy the desire of 3% (and that number is being charitable) of the population. Part of living in the sticks is about the things you choose to go without and I say this as someone who grew up in the sticks and who still has relatives that live in areas that lack high speed internet.PurpleThrobber said:You guys live in the outer zone of food stamps too much when it comes to situations where government can actually do some good.
When I'm talking rural high speed access, I"m talking like farmers, ranchers, maybe young people who are techies and want to keep living Bumfuck, Montana and take care of grandpa instead of venturing to the godforsaken city of Seattle or San Fran.
Not everybody has a T-1 line or Google fiber running along their dirt road.
You've got your Fios. Fuck those who live elsewhere or would consider living elsewhere than the mecca of tech.
Christ, now I have to go give myself another timeout. This sucks being on the left.
The purpose of government is to provide services, infrastructure and defense that the private sector can't or won't take on.
If the cost of providing essentially the national highway system of the 21st Century to rural areas, so be it -
Tim for a walk to gain some perspective, and maybe a bar of LTE.PurpleThrobber said:
You clearly haven't read anything I posted.SFGbob said:
6% of the population lacks access to high speed internet. How many of that 6% even wants high speed internet? There is no fucking way we should create a massive federal bureaucracy to satisfy the desire of 3% (and that number is being charitable) of the population. Part of living in the sticks is about the things you choose to go without and I say this as someone who grew up in the sticks and who still has relatives that live in areas that lack high speed internet.PurpleThrobber said:You guys live in the outer zone of food stamps too much when it comes to situations where government can actually do some good.
When I'm talking rural high speed access, I"m talking like farmers, ranchers, maybe young people who are techies and want to keep living Bumfuck, Montana and take care of grandpa instead of venturing to the godforsaken city of Seattle or San Fran.
Not everybody has a T-1 line or Google fiber running along their dirt road.
You've got your Fios. Fuck those who live elsewhere or would consider living elsewhere than the mecca of tech.
Christ, now I have to go give myself another timeout. This sucks being on the left.
