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

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JS80

low-cost, fast, private internet

So what do we have now?

Slow, expensive Internet with almost no privacy or consumer rights. Relative to many other countries in the world, it's like the stone age here. Sure, SOME areas have decent Internet (and I bet you live in one of them), but many areas of the US are behind the rest of the world by a large margin. And our consumer privacy laws are a fucking joke, the RIAA/MPAA/your ISP have more rights to your private information than you do.

It is not true that we are like the stone age. Our internet is considerably better than the vast majority of the countries in the world and it is probably the best out of all the "larger" countries. Hell, just compare our Internet to Canada. A large country like that with a low population has to deal with the same type of limitations as we do.

Just because smaller countries with high population density has faster and cheaper internet doesn't mean that we are that far behind them. Sure, we could do much better, and I think we have lagged a bit due to a few different reasons, but you statement was a vast pool of hyperbole.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JS80

low-cost, fast, private internet

So what do we have now?

Slow, expensive Internet with almost no privacy or consumer rights. Relative to many other countries in the world, it's like the stone age here. Sure, SOME areas have decent Internet (and I bet you live in one of them), but many areas of the US are behind the rest of the world by a large margin. And our consumer privacy laws are a fucking joke, the RIAA/MPAA/your ISP have more rights to your private information than you do.

It is not true that we are like the stone age. Our internet is considerably better than the vast majority of the countries in the world and it is probably the best out of all the "larger" countries. Hell, just compare our Internet to Canada. A large country like that with a low population has to deal with the same type of limitations as we do.

Just because smaller countries with high population density has faster and cheaper internet doesn't mean that we are that far behind them. Sure, we could do much better, and I think we have lagged a bit due to a few different reasons, but you statement was a vast pool of hyperbole.

internet is cheap, there is no reason that were are not at the forefront.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of our citizens live in large metropolitan areas, so there really is no excuse.

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

on a theoretic basis, a single provider will always be cheaper. Unfortunately basic economy theory normally doesn't work out very well.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Ron Paul for President of the Internet!

The Cost of Gold Cable is prohibitive.

You're just plain mean, :laugh:

 

[charrison]

NO real need for intervention on internet speeds. All the telcos and cable companies are doing massive upgrades on their networks. It takes some time to rewire the entire nation with fiber. Getting the goverment involved is not going to make it faster or cheaper.


The only place where goverment might get involved is in the rural areas, but that is getting pretty well covered with wireless from the cell companies.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JS80

low-cost, fast, private internet

So what do we have now?

Slow, expensive Internet with almost no privacy or consumer rights. Relative to many other countries in the world, it's like the stone age here. Sure, SOME areas have decent Internet (and I bet you live in one of them), but many areas of the US are behind the rest of the world by a large margin. And our consumer privacy laws are a fucking joke, the RIAA/MPAA/your ISP have more rights to your private information than you do.

It is not true that we are like the stone age. Our internet is considerably better than the vast majority of the countries in the world and it is probably the best out of all the "larger" countries. Hell, just compare our Internet to Canada. A large country like that with a low population has to deal with the same type of limitations as we do.

Just because smaller countries with high population density has faster and cheaper internet doesn't mean that we are that far behind them. Sure, we could do much better, and I think we have lagged a bit due to a few different reasons, but you statement was a vast pool of hyperbole.

internet is cheap, there is no reason that were are not at the forefront.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of our citizens live in large metropolitan areas, so there really is no excuse.

And most large cities have very good internet service. I live in the burbs but I can still get 6 meg DSL. While it is not ideal... it is way better than what you find in Buenos Aires, Bogota, Caracas, or most other large cities in this hemisphere.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JS80

low-cost, fast, private internet

So what do we have now?

Slow, expensive Internet with almost no privacy or consumer rights. Relative to many other countries in the world, it's like the stone age here. Sure, SOME areas have decent Internet (and I bet you live in one of them), but many areas of the US are behind the rest of the world by a large margin. And our consumer privacy laws are a fucking joke, the RIAA/MPAA/your ISP have more rights to your private information than you do.

It is not true that we are like the stone age. Our internet is considerably better than the vast majority of the countries in the world and it is probably the best out of all the "larger" countries. Hell, just compare our Internet to Canada. A large country like that with a low population has to deal with the same type of limitations as we do.

Just because smaller countries with high population density has faster and cheaper internet doesn't mean that we are that far behind them. Sure, we could do much better, and I think we have lagged a bit due to a few different reasons, but you statement was a vast pool of hyperbole.

internet is cheap, there is no reason that were are not at the forefront.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of our citizens live in large metropolitan areas, so there really is no excuse.

And it is all getting rewired, it just takes time. Cable is going docsis 3. verizon fios, att is going vdsl, quest is going adsl2. All are generating significant speed boosts to the consumer when rolled out.

 

[First]

I like the idea, but it should be regulated carefully so that we don't get scum like Time Warner (formerly Comcast) hoarding and monopolizing their products (god I despise my cable service). As long as monopolization is protected against, I'm good with the plan. No reason South Korea and Japan should be so far and away ahead of us in delivering low cost high bandwidth solutions, superior cell phones, and superior wireless coverage. No excuse.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Evan
I like the idea, but it should be regulated carefully so that we don't get scum like Time Warner (formerly Comcast) hoarding and monopolizing their products (god I despise my cable service). As long as monopolization is protected against, I'm good with the plan. No reason South Korea and Japan should be so far and away ahead of us in delivering low cost high bandwidth solutions, superior cell phones, and superior wireless coverage. No excuse.

The cable monopolies are all but dead at this point. Franchise reform has been passed is many states and this point as we are beginning to see the fruits of these legislative changes.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: charrison
NO real need for intervention on internet speeds. All the telcos and cable companies are doing massive upgrades on their networks. It takes some time to rewire the entire nation with fiber. Getting the goverment involved is not going to make it faster or cheaper.


The only place where goverment might get involved is in the rural areas, but that is getting pretty well covered with wireless from the cell companies.

As someone living in a rural area and paying an arm and a leg for shitty controlled internet, I am going to have to disagree with ya there.

 

[jpeyton]

Broadband really needs to hit the $25/month or less mark to be affordable for everyone.

Comcast/Verizon charge $50/month in my area.

I think that's what Obama means; drive the costs down, expand the infrastructure, increase bandwidth and availability.

There was a reason Google CEO Schmidt latched onto Obama publicly; Google is a big proponent of expanding broadband penetration in the US.

 

[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...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Broadband really needs to hit the $25/month or less mark to be affordable for everyone.

Comcast/Verizon charge $50/month in my area.

I think that's what Obama means; drive the costs down, expand the infrastructure, increase bandwidth and availability.

There was a reason Google CEO Schmidt latched onto Obama publicly; Google is a big proponent of expanding broadband penetration in the US.

Looks like verizon charges 19.99 for 3 meg internet for $30 and 1 meg for $19. Seems more than reasonable.

all the telco and cable companies are ramping capabilties. When verizon start deploying fios ti cost about $2000 per house passed for new fiber. They have currently run that price down to about $850 per house passed.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: charrison
NO real need for intervention on internet speeds. All the telcos and cable companies are doing massive upgrades on their networks. It takes some time to rewire the entire nation with fiber. Getting the goverment involved is not going to make it faster or cheaper.


The only place where goverment might get involved is in the rural areas, but that is getting pretty well covered with wireless from the cell companies.

As someone living in a rural area and paying an arm and a leg for shitty controlled internet, I am going to have to disagree with ya there.

I agree the broadband that rural gets is pretty crummy compared to cities, but it is still available and getting more reasonable in cost.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Broadband really needs to hit the $25/month or less mark to be affordable for everyone.

Comcast/Verizon charge $50/month in my area.

I think that's what Obama means; drive the costs down, expand the infrastructure, increase bandwidth and availability.

There was a reason Google CEO Schmidt latched onto Obama publicly; Google is a big proponent of expanding broadband penetration in the US.

Looks like verizon charges 19.99 for 3 meg internet for $30 and 1 meg for $19. Seems more than reasonable.

all the telco and cable companies are ramping capabilties. When verizon start deploying fios ti cost about $2000 per house passed for new fiber. They have currently run that price down to about $850 per house passed.

Nobody offers broadband for $20/month in Oregon.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The funny thing about conservatives and McCain supporters is that they actually think we care about what they say, as if we need their approval on matters to move forward. Your party is a minority and will remain that way until they remove their heads from their asses.

 

[Mani]

Freaking awesome that we have a president not only tech savvy enough to understand this but who has actually prioritized it.

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

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.

Yeah I can't believe it myself. If he does stuff like this and stays away from paying people's mortgages, keeping gas in peoples' cars, then...well...I might take back what I've said about him.

I believe it was McCain who advocated $300B to buy up bad mortgages.

As for OP, I'm all for better service and more competition. Telecom is the worst industry to deal with for consumers. I just skimmed the article and it sounds like the campaign spoke out against companies giving less for more which is good to know.

I still think all the wiring and products should be from private companies. Maybe there can be credits or something for those smaller companies.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: JS80

low-cost, fast, private internet

So what do we have now?

Patriot Act.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: charrison

The only place where goverment might get involved is in the rural areas, but that is getting pretty well covered with wireless from the cell companies.

Oof, not really. Wireless internet coverage is usually in urban areas where there was already high-speed internet from other sources.

I assure you there are plenty of places in this country where a person's options are still only dial-up or really crappy satellite service.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Broadband really needs to hit the $25/month or less mark to be affordable for everyone.

Comcast/Verizon charge $50/month in my area.

I think that's what Obama means; drive the costs down, expand the infrastructure, increase bandwidth and availability.

There was a reason Google CEO Schmidt latched onto Obama publicly; Google is a big proponent of expanding broadband penetration in the US.

Even at $25/month people will still complain...where did you pull that magic number from peyton??

I don't make a ton of money, but I still find that what is charged for broadband is cheap compared to other things I pay for..heck my cleaning service was alot more than that and it was cheap as well.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JS80

low-cost, fast, private internet

So what do we have now?

Slow, expensive Internet with almost no privacy or consumer rights. Relative to many other countries in the world, it's like the stone age here. Sure, SOME areas have decent Internet (and I bet you live in one of them), but many areas of the US are behind the rest of the world by a large margin. And our consumer privacy laws are a fucking joke, the RIAA/MPAA/your ISP have more rights to your private information than you do.

It is not true that we are like the stone age. Our internet is considerably better than the vast majority of the countries in the world and it is probably the best out of all the "larger" countries. Hell, just compare our Internet to Canada. A large country like that with a low population has to deal with the same type of limitations as we do.

Just because smaller countries with high population density has faster and cheaper internet doesn't mean that we are that far behind them. Sure, we could do much better, and I think we have lagged a bit due to a few different reasons, but you statement was a vast pool of hyperbole.

internet is cheap, there is no reason that were are not at the forefront.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of our citizens live in large metropolitan areas, so there really is no excuse.

Define cheap and where.Infrastructure costs are high for laying cable and building an infrastructure that can handle the load. I believe Verizon's FIO's network has cost them about 25 billion so far and they have a limited coverage.

One of the biggest problem atm is an aged infrastrucuture. Using old copper lines dropped at the turn of the century. And I dont mean 2000.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
The funny thing about conservatives and McCain supporters is that they actually think we care about what they say, as if we need their approval on matters to move forward. Your party is a minority and will remain that way until they remove their heads from their asses.

I never heard this before lmao.