Too bad the FCC isn't in charge. Are they even politically relevant any more?

Taint wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Too bad the FCC isn't in charge. Are they even politically relevant any more?

The next time Janet Jackson flashes a tit on live television, we'll find out.

Gack!

fnord wrote:

Internet speeds are faster in many countries than they are in America.  If the ISPs would concentrate on increasing the capacity of their infrastructure instead of scheming to reduce traffic while making more money from their limited capacity, they would be better off in the long run.

Actually we just discussed this today (as we are eyeing some aquisitions in that space).

On a comparable geographical level we are vastly more wired, the countries that currently rank ahead of us are urban centric and very small.  South Korea, The Netherlands, etc - those are not an apples to appless comparison.  Australia, China, Russia, Canada though which are geographically comparable are at the same level or below it.  Auz however does have a public works project on the table that should change that.

That being said we will not have a push like Auz is or we did with the rural telephone roll out as the "anti-socialist" would scream bloody murder; regardless how well that project worked out over the short and long term.

"Net neutrality" sounds good so long as it's not some Orwellian term like the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that eventually leads to a government agency which decides what qualifies as "fair", or in this case "neutral".

Emmeran wrote:

fnord wrote:

Internet speeds are faster in many countries than they are in America.  If the ISPs would concentrate on increasing the capacity of their infrastructure instead of scheming to reduce traffic while making more money from their limited capacity, they would be better off in the long run.

Actually we just discussed this today (as we are eyeing some aquisitions in that space).

On a comparable geographical level we are vastly more wired, the countries that currently rank ahead of us are urban centric and very small.  South Korea, The Netherlands, etc - those are not an apples to appless comparison.  Australia, China, Russia, Canada though which are geographically comparable are at the same level or below it.  Auz however does have a public works project on the table that should change that.

That being said we will not have a push like Auz is or we did with the rural telephone roll out as the "anti-socialist" would scream bloody murder; regardless how well that project worked out over the short and long term.

We benefited more than anyone could have predicted from the push in the 1970's to set up an extensive backbone network for intra-national communication.  It gave us a step up on ubiquitous Internet access, even though the availability of cheap long distance meant that we were a bit stunted when it came to cellular technology.

Emmeran wrote:

Yes, but that was pure, unadulterated socialism that trod upon the rights of our freedom loving corporations to compete without the interference of Big Government.

But of course.  People don't realize that the secret to fiber's bandwidth capacity is that each fiber is dipped in the blood of a capitalist prior to installation.

Dmtdust wrote:

Taint wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Too bad the FCC isn't in charge. Are they even politically relevant any more?

The next time Janet Jackson flashes a tit on live television, we'll find out.

Gack!

That moment changed history. Sorta like 9/11  !

And come on, Janet, a metal sun nipple ring? What is this 1994?

Last edited by kim (2009-08-27 12:50:38)

phreddy wrote:

Sales taxes are supposed to mitigate the use and reliance upon local infrastructure and services by the buyers and merchants .  If you receive your goods from out of state via FedEx, the local government deserves nothing.  However, I would support paying a sales tax to the jurisdiction from where the merchant sends the product.  This way states and cities could compete to attract distribution companies by offering them the best deals on sales tax.  Oregon has no sales taxes, so they could expect a huge influx of Internet sales companies.

Like any other tax, the reason's for it are varied and never quite what they seem.  But the arbitrary elimination of that revenue stream has hurt the municipalities and benefited the corps - Best Buy, Amazon, Walmart, UPS have all reaped huge benefits.

Congress inacting a blanket law usurps the rights of the citizens to tax themselves for their collective benefit.  For example Measure M in OC was a voluntary .5% sales tax to improve the freeways and the citizens are very happy with that spend, so happy that they just extended it.  A senator from Maine should not be allowed to void the decisions of the people of California particularly when the result is a loss of income for those same people at the benefit of a multi-national corporation.

phreddy wrote:

In most states, and maybe every state, taxes are supposed to be tied to real costs to local or state government.  For instance, taxes collected on your city water bill cannot be used to pave streets in your town.  They are dedicated for water plant and distribution improvements.  People still have the right to impose sales taxes upon themselves on products they buy locally, but why should they have the right to tax products from a company located in another state?

Phreddy, you live in California, don't you?  You can't really believe this.

phreddy wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

In most states, and maybe every state, taxes are supposed to be tied to real costs to local or state government.  For instance, taxes collected on your city water bill cannot be used to pave streets in your town.  They are dedicated for water plant and distribution improvements.  People still have the right to impose sales taxes upon themselves on products they buy locally, but why should they have the right to tax products from a company located in another state?

Phreddy, you live in California, don't you?  You can't really believe this.

I live in California and I know this to be a fact.

Then how do you explain the gas tax?

tojo2000 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Phreddy, you live in California, don't you?  You can't really believe this.

I live in California and I know this to be a fact.

Then how do you explain the gas tax?

All gas taxes collected in California are designated for road and transportation use only.  This goes for the money that rolls down to the counties and cities.  The state has "borrowed" from this fund to balance the budget, but local jurisdictions believe this is unconstitutional.

Phreddy - you're Momma called, she said it's time to stop playing make believe and time to start doing your homework.