Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SDHornet wrote:I just see a thread of nothing but racists fucks hating on Team Brown.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote:I just see a thread of nothing but racists fucks hating on Team Brown.

Rubio is Team Monopoly. He doesn't want Team Brown to have affordable and fast internet.

kalm wrote:Internet is bad for business, but good for the Rubio campaign.

Marco Rubio Pushes to Block Low-Cost, High-Speed Broadband
Lee Fang

In a rare senatorial act, full-time Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio joined with a handful of fellow legislators on Friday in an attempt to block local municipalities from undercutting big telecom companies by providing cheap, fast internet service.

Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign, fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states to block municipal broadband services.

The letter was the latest salvo in a long-running effort by the major telecom companies to outlaw municipal broadband programs that have taken off in cities such as Lafayette, Louisiana, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, because they pose a threat to a business model that calls for slow, expensive internet access without competition.

In Chattanooga, for instance, city officials set up a service known as “The Gig,” a municipal broadband network that provides data transfers at one gigabit per second for less than $70 a month — a rate that is 50 times faster than the average speed American customers have available through private broadband networks.

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/14/mar ... broadband/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SDHornet wrote:Racism against Team Brown aside, I am getting a chuckle from all the "anti government expansion" conks who are all of a sudden supportive of governments competing against private companies in the (monopolized) internet provider industry. What happened to smaller government?

Hint: the answer to this question isn't government sponsored competition, it's deregulation...deregulation that the cable/internet industry has paid both sides to ensure stays away.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

kalm wrote:Internet is bad for business, but good for the Rubio campaign.

Marco Rubio Pushes to Block Low-Cost, High-Speed Broadband
Lee Fang

In a rare senatorial act, full-time Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio joined with a handful of fellow legislators on Friday in an attempt to block local municipalities from undercutting big telecom companies by providing cheap, fast internet service.

Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign, fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states to block municipal broadband services.

The letter was the latest salvo in a long-running effort by the major telecom companies to outlaw municipal broadband programs that have taken off in cities such as Lafayette, Louisiana, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, because they pose a threat to a business model that calls for slow, expensive internet access without competition.

In Chattanooga, for instance, city officials set up a service known as “The Gig,” a municipal broadband network that provides data transfers at one gigabit per second for less than $70 a month — a rate that is 50 times faster than the average speed American customers have available through private broadband networks.

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/14/mar ... broadband/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember that conversation we were having on the FCC being involved in this sort of shit years back?

Cluck U wrote:Rubio is a cvnt if he continues this direction.

On the other hand...our city wants to get high speed internet...and then give the poor people a break (meaning the rest of us will pay for their free internet). Fvck that.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Racism against Team Brown aside, I am getting a chuckle from all the "anti government expansion" conks who are all of a sudden supportive of governments competing against private companies in the (monopolized) internet provider industry. What happened to smaller government?

Hint: the answer to this question isn't government sponsored competition, it's deregulation...deregulation that the cable/internet industry has paid both sides to ensure stays away.

There are certain services that 1) are important enough to not require a profit, and/or 2) are so expensive from a build out standpoint, or low in profit margin to smaller populations that the "free market" will fall short in providing. The providers haven't paid to prevent deregulation, they've paid to enshrine monopolies, the prevention of which is one of the most crucial tasks of our government.

Conservatives used to (and a few of the more reasoned ones still do) recognize the need for government to play a roll in supporting the commons. High speed, low cost internet similar to roads, bridges, and the public airwaves is certainly a crucial resource that positively affects the entire country.

Certain cities have decided to do this through a democratic process. They deem it important enough. Who are you, Comcast, the state, or the feds to tell them they can't?

You're normally a well thought out moderate, Captain Brown, but I'm afraid you've downed a gallon of Randian bat shit crazy flavored neo-liberal Kool-Aid here.

BTW, reaganomics deregulation is what fucked a lot of these fly over towns to begin with.

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
There are certain services that 1) are important enough to not require a profit, and/or 2) are so expensive from a build out standpoint, or low in profit margin to smaller populations that the "free market" will fall short in providing. The providers haven't paid to prevent deregulation, they've paid to enshrine monopolies, the prevention of which is one of the most crucial tasks of our government.

Conservatives used to (and a few of the more reasoned ones still do) recognize the need for government to play a roll in supporting the commons. High speed, low cost internet similar to roads, bridges, and the public airwaves is certainly a crucial resource that positively affects the entire country.

Certain cities have decided to do this through a democratic process. They deem it important enough. Who are you, Comcast, the state, or the feds to tell them they can't?

You're normally a well thought out moderate, Captain Brown, but I'm afraid you've downed a gallon of Randian bat shit crazy flavored neo-liberal Kool-Aid here.

BTW, reaganomics deregulation is what fucked a lot of these fly over towns to begin with.

Not really. Oh and I’m guessing those local government setups probably had to contract out to some of those vile and evil internet providers for consulting services anyways. We all know government at every level is largely incompetent (the incompetence increases as you go up in jurisdiction)…and I am thoroughly entertained that the small government folks (obviously not you kalm) are jumping on board with the idea of government being competent enough to own, manage, and maintain its own internet network.

Newsflash morons: government at all levels already has no idea how to manage and maintain the services it already is responsible for (roads, water/wastewater infrastructure, social services). I know because I am making a living off if its incompetence and mismanagement. You’d be amazed at some of the shit I see for the simplest of infrastructure systems…and yet people think the gov should own and operate their local internet networks.

CID1990 wrote:This thread is pure-T Clizzoris bait


He must be sick or something

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:


Rubio is Team Monopoly. He doesn't want Team Brown to have affordable and fast internet.

Racist.


BTW if you haven't figured it out, I'm taking a page out of the Obama 2008 and 2012 playbook. Any dissenting opinions and points will be yelled down as racists. This election cycle is going to be so fun.

kalm wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Remember that conversation we were having on the FCC being involved in this sort of shit years back?

Yes. I thought of that conservation when I saw this. IIRC, we both landed a few solid punches in opposition to and support of the government's role but ended up pretty much agreeing on the matter.

CID1990 wrote:This thread is pure-T Clizzoris bait


He must be sick or something

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
There are certain services that 1) are important enough to not require a profit, and/or 2) are so expensive from a build out standpoint, or low in profit margin to smaller populations that the "free market" will fall short in providing. The providers haven't paid to prevent deregulation, they've paid to enshrine monopolies, the prevention of which is one of the most crucial tasks of our government.

Conservatives used to (and a few of the more reasoned ones still do) recognize the need for government to play a roll in supporting the commons. High speed, low cost internet similar to roads, bridges, and the public airwaves is certainly a crucial resource that positively affects the entire country.

Certain cities have decided to do this through a democratic process. They deem it important enough. Who are you, Comcast, the state, or the feds to tell them they can't?

You're normally a well thought out moderate, Captain Brown, but I'm afraid you've downed a gallon of Randian bat shit crazy flavored neo-liberal Kool-Aid here.

BTW, reaganomics deregulation is what fucked a lot of these fly over towns to begin with.

Not really. Oh and I’m guessing those local government setups probably had to contract out to some of those vile and evil internet providers for consulting services anyways. We all know government at every level is largely incompetent (the incompetence increases as you go up in jurisdiction)…and I am thoroughly entertained that the small government folks (obviously not you kalm) are jumping on board with the idea of government being competent enough to own, manage, and maintain its own internet network.

Newsflash morons: government at all levels already has no idea how to manage and maintain the services it already is responsible for (roads, water/wastewater infrastructure, social services). I know because I am making a living off if its incompetence and mismanagement. You’d be amazed at some of the shit I see for the simplest of infrastructure systems…and yet people think the gov should own and operate their local internet networks.

COSTLY AND DANGEROUS
In response, and recognizing that cheap, plentiful electricity was essential to economic development and quality of life, thousands of communities formed electric utilities of their own. Predictably, the private utilities claimed that public ownership of electrical utilities was “costly and dangerous” and “always a failure,” according to the November 1906 issue of Moody’s Magazine. Now more than 2,000 communities in the U.S., including Seattle, San Antonio and Los Angeles, provide their own electricity.

Today, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which advocates for community broadband initiatives, is tracking more than 60 municipal governments that have built or are building successful fiber networks, just as they created electric systems during the 20th century. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, the city’s publicly owned electric company provides fast, affordable and reliable fiber Internet access. Some businesses based in Knoxville -- 100 miles to the northeast -- are adding jobs in Chattanooga, where connectivity can cost an eighth as much.

Meanwhile, less than 8 percent of Americans currently receive fiber service to their homes, compared with more than 50 percent of households in South Korea, and almost 40 percent in Japan. Where it’s available, Americans pay five or six times as much for their fiber access as people in other countries do. Fully a third of Americans don’t subscribe to high-speed Internet access at all, and AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said last month that the company was “trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America, and we’re not finding one, to be quite candid.” America is rapidly losing the global race for high-speed connectivity.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes. I thought of that conservation when I saw this. IIRC, we both landed a few solid punches in opposition to and support of the government's role but ended up pretty much agreeing on the matter.

Indeed, as it normally happens. But this lies directly in the corner of one of my points so I wanted to get a little extra sugar out of this one.

Anything to do with the FCC is pretty much pure bullshit. Getting rid of those fucks and taking away any power from them and we're probably better off. Not that this wouldn't end up under some other bs agency to hold the sack of money though.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Racism against Team Brown aside, I am getting a chuckle from all the "anti government expansion" conks who are all of a sudden supportive of governments competing against private companies in the (monopolized) internet provider industry. What happened to smaller government?

Hint: the answer to this question isn't government sponsored competition, it's deregulation...deregulation that the cable/internet industry has paid both sides to ensure stays away.

There are certain services that 1) are important enough to not require a profit, and/or 2) are so expensive from a build out standpoint, or low in profit margin to smaller populations that the "free market" will fall short in providing. The providers haven't paid to prevent deregulation, they've paid to enshrine monopolies, the prevention of which is one of the most crucial tasks of our government.

Conservatives used to (and a few of the more reasoned ones still do) recognize the need for government to play a roll in supporting the commons. High speed, low cost internet similar to roads, bridges, and the public airwaves is certainly a crucial resource that positively affects the entire country.

Certain cities have decided to do this through a democratic process. They deem it important enough. Who are you, Comcast, the state, or the feds to tell them they can't?

You're normally a well thought out moderate, Captain Brown, but I'm afraid you've downed a gallon of Randian bat **** crazy flavored neo-liberal Kool-Aid here.

BTW, reaganomics deregulation is what **** a lot of these fly over towns to begin with.