DailyTech: Obama Pushes Ambitious Tech Agenda; Tops on List: Privacy, Fast Net

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I can say I'm surprised that this is even something he would be interested in. Most presidents turn their head or want to clamp down, but he wants to help? WTF? Gonna make it hard for me to not like you eh?

Obama Pushes Ambitious Tech Agenda; Tops on List: Privacy, Fast Net

Obama is recruiting a transition team of former tech executives will help to push his vision of low-cost, fast, private internet

President-elect Barack Obama has an ambitious and comprehensive national agenda that seeks to put into effect many initiatives and changes. To assist him in implementing this vision, he is recruiting top leaders to his transition team, which will prepare his plans and flesh out his plans, and ready them for proposal to the new House and Senate.

I'm glad to see this. Hopefully that's not the end either, I want to see multiple cable/internet providers in each area so that competition will decrease prices and improve services. This is a :thumbsup: move in my book.

unfortunately the economics of it really doesn't support a multi-provider system, at least not on a house my house business by business standpoint. Its kind of like having multiple competing sewer systems.

Verizon would disagree with you there with their FIOS product. They spent a lot of money building up an infrastructure in some areas that can compete with cable, and they are doing a very profitable job of being the second provider in a multi-provider system. Other companies are trying wireless internet. The economics work just fine if you can offer a better product.

It sure would be nice to have multiple competing FTTP providers though... I f'n HATE dealing with Verizon...

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Many of you are touting that internet prices are coming down and speeds are going up, but you completely miss the point that they can be faster than what they are if regulations/caps were removed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this point, you are a liar and and idiot, and I am screwed because of it.

And the State of Indiana I live in and AT&T is a perfect example.

For 30 or 40 damn years the monopoly phone provider had been belly aching to be deregulated and they promised to roll out broadband for everyone faster because of it. As it was they were basically required to get at least vanilla DSL to the State by 2008. But in 2006 Bush's man Mitch sucked in and deregulated them.

Now I live less than 35 miles from the State capital, but in a rural area. I still don't have dsl, I can't even get at&t to tell me when they plan to work on it, and all of at&t internet development dollars are going into only the big cities so they can roll out $100+ dollars a month packages combining TV, internet, and unlimited long distance at prices higher than one could commercially buy the sum of the parts.

My only hope will be wi-max, and while some providers are coming close to my location, I am still out of range.

Meanwhile, the only benefit I get is fairly cheap landline by the deregulation agreement. The second At&t get any slow dsl capacity to my exchange, the landline phone rates double, regardless if I opt for dsl or not. Meaning me and some of my non-internet using neighbors will howl when they finally get around to it.

Anyone who believes these companies can be trusted in any deregulation scheme is an idiot and needs a very large dope slap and a healthy dose of reality.

Meanwhile, can someone , anyone tell me what is the loose lips sink ships reason not to tell me when they plan to get at least vanilla dsl to my area. I do not want to make a 2+ year contract and buy a bunch of proprietary hardware from some company to provide some broadband only to be told at&t is finally ready to roll out vanilla dsl to my area tomorrow.

Well I wasn't talking about deregulating phone monopolies, but regulation regarding what you download and are legally liable for with regards to the RIAA and other organizations. As far as rollout of vanilla DSL to your area, it basically amounts to a profitability game that decides if you get it or not. They'll promise you the world to keep your business, whether they'll actually do anything is another thing entirely.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: alien42

you both really need to do some research on net neutrality - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

if you are happy with a 1984 (the book) style internet then stay ignorant.

Ahh yes, wikipedia...if I were worried about 1984 style anything then I might be a citizen of china...

I have fios, it is affordable and works well...what more could I ask for?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alien42

you both really need to do some research on net neutrality - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

if you are happy with a 1984 (the book) style internet then stay ignorant.

Ahh yes, wikipedia...if I were worried about 1984 style anything then I might be a citizen of china...

I have fios, it is affordable and works well...what more could I ask for?

That your fellow less bandwidth endowed AT members share in your wealth?

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I can say I'm surprised that this is even something he would be interested in. Most presidents turn their head or want to clamp down, but he wants to help? WTF? Gonna make it hard for me to not like you eh?

Obama Pushes Ambitious Tech Agenda; Tops on List: Privacy, Fast Net

Obama is recruiting a transition team of former tech executives will help to push his vision of low-cost, fast, private internet

President-elect Barack Obama has an ambitious and comprehensive national agenda that seeks to put into effect many initiatives and changes. To assist him in implementing this vision, he is recruiting top leaders to his transition team, which will prepare his plans and flesh out his plans, and ready them for proposal to the new House and Senate.

I'm glad to see this. Hopefully that's not the end either, I want to see multiple cable/internet providers in each area so that competition will decrease prices and improve services. This is a :thumbsup: move in my book.

unfortunately the economics of it really doesn't support a multi-provider system, at least not on a house my house business by business standpoint. Its kind of like having multiple competing sewer systems.

Verizon would disagree with you there with their FIOS product. They spent a lot of money building up an infrastructure in some areas that can compete with cable, and they are doing a very profitable job of being the second provider in a multi-provider system. Other companies are trying wireless internet. The economics work just fine if you can offer a better product.

In Hong Kong, I found something like 5 ISP's. There are cable internet, DSL, and wireless providers. Granted the high population density allows for a large return on the infrastructure invested, but it can be done. I get 10 Mb down 1.5 Mb up and basic cable for $20 a month. There are even packages for speeds up to 200 Mb cable internet here.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Verizon would disagree with you there with their FIOS product. They spent a lot of money building up an infrastructure in some areas that can compete with cable, and they are doing a very profitable job of being the second provider in a multi-provider system. Other companies are trying wireless internet. The economics work just fine if you can offer a better product.

FIOS is awesome -- 15meg download/5meg upload speeds are great for FPS video games, lol. The best part: ~$150/mo is my bill all in for internet, phone, and hi-def TV.

I'm lucky to live on a corner property -- I can get it since I tap into the secondary road but my neighbors on the terciary road aren't wired yet and probably won't be anytime soon. Poor bastards are stuck with Comcrap. Anyway, nice to have a choice...

What will you do when Verizon never realizes profitability on FIOS and jacks up the price or folds?

The same thing I'll do if that happens to any service provider I use? I haven't heard anything to suggest this is likely to happen with FIOS, and given how much better of a product they offer than the cable companies, I don't see it as a big concern.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I can say I'm surprised that this is even something he would be interested in. Most presidents turn their head or want to clamp down, but he wants to help? WTF? Gonna make it hard for me to not like you eh?

Obama Pushes Ambitious Tech Agenda; Tops on List: Privacy, Fast Net

Obama is recruiting a transition team of former tech executives will help to push his vision of low-cost, fast, private internet

President-elect Barack Obama has an ambitious and comprehensive national agenda that seeks to put into effect many initiatives and changes. To assist him in implementing this vision, he is recruiting top leaders to his transition team, which will prepare his plans and flesh out his plans, and ready them for proposal to the new House and Senate.

I'm glad to see this. Hopefully that's not the end either, I want to see multiple cable/internet providers in each area so that competition will decrease prices and improve services. This is a :thumbsup: move in my book.

unfortunately the economics of it really doesn't support a multi-provider system, at least not on a house my house business by business standpoint. Its kind of like having multiple competing sewer systems.

Verizon would disagree with you there with their FIOS product. They spent a lot of money building up an infrastructure in some areas that can compete with cable, and they are doing a very profitable job of being the second provider in a multi-provider system. Other companies are trying wireless internet. The economics work just fine if you can offer a better product.

It sure would be nice to have multiple competing FTTP providers though... I f'n HATE dealing with Verizon...

Oh I agree, which is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with them all that often. But if they can compete with cable, other folks can do it. The idea that Internet service is a natural monopoly is untrue, I think.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I can say I'm surprised that this is even something he would be interested in. Most presidents turn their head or want to clamp down, but he wants to help? WTF? Gonna make it hard for me to not like you eh?

Obama Pushes Ambitious Tech Agenda; Tops on List: Privacy, Fast Net

Obama is recruiting a transition team of former tech executives will help to push his vision of low-cost, fast, private internet

President-elect Barack Obama has an ambitious and comprehensive national agenda that seeks to put into effect many initiatives and changes. To assist him in implementing this vision, he is recruiting top leaders to his transition team, which will prepare his plans and flesh out his plans, and ready them for proposal to the new House and Senate.

I'm glad to see this. Hopefully that's not the end either, I want to see multiple cable/internet providers in each area so that competition will decrease prices and improve services. This is a :thumbsup: move in my book.

unfortunately the economics of it really doesn't support a multi-provider system, at least not on a house my house business by business standpoint. Its kind of like having multiple competing sewer systems.

Verizon would disagree with you there with their FIOS product. They spent a lot of money building up an infrastructure in some areas that can compete with cable, and they are doing a very profitable job of being the second provider in a multi-provider system. Other companies are trying wireless internet. The economics work just fine if you can offer a better product.

In Hong Kong, I found something like 5 ISP's. There are cable internet, DSL, and wireless providers. Granted the high population density allows for a large return on the infrastructure invested, but it can be done. I get 10 Mb down 1.5 Mb up and basic cable for $20 a month. There are even packages for speeds up to 200 Mb cable internet here.

I think we could do that in some areas of the US too, it's just a matter of working towards that instead of working towards making sure Comcast, etc have a monopoly in a given area, which seems to be the current method of doing business in the US. Even in New York City, an area with high enough population density to support the variety of ISPs you see in Hong Kong, you don't see that kind of service. I think this is something the government can, and should, help with. I'm not sure if the key is loosening regulations that make cable companies virtual monopolies, or providing some investment dollars to allow for building of more infrastructure, but I think once it's in place, both providers and consumers will ultimately benefit. Of course it might hurt the cable companies, but they are FAR too lazy as it is, they could use a little healthy competition.

 

[deftron]

Joe the AOL Tech Support Guy

is gonna be pissed.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I can say I'm surprised that this is even something he would be interested in. Most presidents turn their head or want to clamp down, but he wants to help? WTF? Gonna make it hard for me to not like you eh?

Obama Pushes Ambitious Tech Agenda; Tops on List: Privacy, Fast Net

Obama is recruiting a transition team of former tech executives will help to push his vision of low-cost, fast, private internet

President-elect Barack Obama has an ambitious and comprehensive national agenda that seeks to put into effect many initiatives and changes. To assist him in implementing this vision, he is recruiting top leaders to his transition team, which will prepare his plans and flesh out his plans, and ready them for proposal to the new House and Senate.

I'm glad to see this. Hopefully that's not the end either, I want to see multiple cable/internet providers in each area so that competition will decrease prices and improve services. This is a :thumbsup: move in my book.

unfortunately the economics of it really doesn't support a multi-provider system, at least not on a house my house business by business standpoint. Its kind of like having multiple competing sewer systems.

Verizon would disagree with you there with their FIOS product. They spent a lot of money building up an infrastructure in some areas that can compete with cable, and they are doing a very profitable job of being the second provider in a multi-provider system. Other companies are trying wireless internet. The economics work just fine if you can offer a better product.

Verizon FiOS hasn't proven to be a profitable venture (yet).
They have yet to break even on it. They won't break even on it for another few years.

 

[Duddy]

How can you NOT like this guy? Hopefully he can help get rid of the cap on my bandwidth.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alien42

you both really need to do some research on net neutrality - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

if you are happy with a 1984 (the book) style internet then stay ignorant.

Ahh yes, wikipedia...if I were worried about 1984 style anything then I might be a citizen of china...

I have fios, it is affordable and works well...what more could I ask for?

That your fellow less bandwidth endowed AT members share in your wealth?

:laugh:

 

[frostedflakes]

Nice to hear this is a priority for him. Call it wishful thinking, but maybe we'll finally see the end of Room 641A (and similar facilities across the US), as well as telco immunity.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80

low-cost, fast, private internet

So what do we have now?

High cost, low speed, unreliable private internet.

This should be a more heavily regulated area of commerce. Prices have risen almost as fast as pharmaceutical prices, but without a concomitant rise in quality or reliability. At least where I am. Too few real players and no price competition. Barriers are probably too high.

-Robert

When I moved to my currently location 6 years ago, the fastest speed available was 1.5meg. That got cranked up to 7 meg. As of monday they faster tier will be 18meg. That 18 meg will cost less than what i happened to pay for idsl 10 years ago. Prices have come down significantly and speed is is going up significantly in most places.

Yeah, but I bet your upload has stayed the same or barely increased.

Upload has doubled, could pay for triple(1.5m)