Google and Verizon walked into a barrage of opposition from public
interest groups in Washington on Monday as they formally announced a
joint proposal for how traffic on the internet should be regulated.
The biggest US internet and telecommunications groups said their plan,
the first reports of which emerged last week, would ensure all services
on the internet were treated equally – “net neutrality” – and the web
would remain a fully open medium.
But they said network operators should be able to charge more for a
category of services that travel over a higher-quality connection
separate from the public internet. They also proposed that wireless
companies should be free to block individual internet services, provided
they disclosed their actions.
Services likely to travel over the communications “fast lanes” included
high-bandwidth content such as healthcare and education and
entertainment such as 3D video, said Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon chief
executive.
The greater freedoms proposed by Google and Verizon drew condemnation
from public interest groups that have supported the Obama
administration’s push for net neutrality.
Free Press claimed the plan would “divide the information superhighway,
creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the
little guy stranded on a winding dirt road.” The Center for Democracy
and Technology said that while it supported the rules that would prevent
discrimination, the extra freedoms the groups were proposing would
undermine the plan’s value.
Early reports of the joint proposal had already prompted strong attacks
on Google, with critics claiming it was backing away from its commitment
to net neutrality in favour of an approach that would mainly favour
rich, established groups.
Eric Schmidt, chief executive, defended his company’s position. Google
continued to believe in an open internet supporting future generations
of internet upstarts, he said. He said Google would not pay to be
carried on the new “fast lanes” it was proposing, but would use the
existing public internet for all its services, including YouTube.
Existing financial relationships between internet and communications
groups created enough incentives for network operators to keep investing
in the internet, he said.
The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
The White House, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission need
to push back against efforts by Verizon and Google and other Internet
service providers to discriminate against online content by rates and
fees
THE debate over preserving open, equal access to the Internet took a
hard, sharp turn away from the theoretical toward a grim future of toll
booths on the information superhighway.
The Associated Press confirmed Monday that Verizon and Google want to
allow Internet service providers to charge customers extra for premium
services over segregated networks. None of this, they claim, should come
at the expense of slowing, blocking or charging to prioritize regular
Internet traffic — however that gets defined. Brace for heavy eye rolls.
Columbia law professor Tim Wu, writing for Slate, likens the
"content-for-cash scheme" to an earlier scandal in another medium: "We
could term it 'Internet Payola' after the practice of record labels
paying radio stations to play their songs."
The agreement between Verizon and Google to pursue their line of
argument in Congress and with regulators should be an alarm bell for
consumers, lawmakers and the White House. This is a direct assault on
their pocketbooks, and a productive way of doing business.
Wake up Mr. President, reintroduce yourself to your campaign personas,
which was shocked and appalled by the potential tampering with a
technology that thrived, prospered and evolved thanks to open access for
new ideas, devices and software.
The next few days and weeks will introduce a brave, new world of murky
language about "managed services" and other contrivances by ISP
lobbyists to sell their plan not to treat all customers equally.
The moment is ripe for the Federal Communications Commission and chair
Julius Genachowski to reclaim the moral and legal authority to protect
American consumers. A judicial setback in the FCC's ability to regulate
broadband only means the agency's authority needs to be broadened and
affirmed by Congress.
The FCC has powerful allies, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who
chairs the Senate Commerce Committee. He knows firsthand how corporate
selectivity in service provision can hurt rural markets.
Wu, chair of the media-reform group Free Press, wonders if an
inadvertent casualty of the pay-to-play path will be Google's
credibility with customers who trusted the company as a corporate
expression of an open-Internet ethic.
Net neutrality is under assault and the consequences are real. The White
House, Congress and the FCC must take on a potent, well-financed,
politically adroit lobbying force to protect millions of ordinary
customers and voters.
What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. You can
read their framework for yourself here or go here to see Google twisting
itself in knots about this suddenly "thorny issue." But here are the
basics of what the two companies are proposing:
1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless
networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and
applications to pay-for-priority treatment.
2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is
so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of
BitTorrent would be allowed.
3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users
like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of
service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it
threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If
RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten
YouTube?)
4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two
pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a
pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the
proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane
reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the
cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.
5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into
a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but
unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to
unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to
decide what the rules should be.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
> The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>
America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
has anything to do with it.....
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ti71665jloo7fubhm12mdqr9vn50dbukt8@4ax.com:
> GOOGLE-VERIZON PACT: IT GETS WORSE
>
Sure glad I renewed my ham radio license.....
Looks like this puppy is doomed to become NETWORK TV.....
Very sad, indeed.
If we confiscated just half the money wasted killing Afghans and Iraqis,
every American could have 50Mbps internet service to every square inch of
the country, even sitting beside his rubber raft in the Grand Canyon by the
river.
The only viable solution is to cancel all the commercial data licenses and
use the military and NASA wasted budgets to make it happen OUR WAY. I
believe we will have enough ANGRY VOTERS to make that happen, Google and
Verizon. Just piss us off and screw with our net freedoms and let's test
it, once and for all.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DCFD815272D1noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
>
>> The Federal Communications Commission last week called
>> off talks aimed
>> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed
>> extending its
>> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>>
>
> America will never see free wireless internet as long as
> free enterprise
> has anything to do with it.....
Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay
for it directly or pay for it through taxes.
>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>> has anything to do with it.....
>
> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
> directly or pay for it through taxes.
The other thing that's been tried is paying for it through advertising
revenue. A company in the SF Bay Area, Metro-Fi tried that for several
cities, including mine, but it didn't work out financially. Google
provides free wireless in some cities, and it's the Google shareholders
that are ultimately paying for it I suppose.
The public entities that provide wireless do it with tax money, but it's
such an inconsequential cost that it's lost in the noise.
"David" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:i3qd6r$m57$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DCFD815272D1noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
>>
>>> The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
>>> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
>>> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>>>
>>
>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>> has anything to do with it.....
>
> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it directly
> or pay for it through taxes.
>
> David
>
>
We price discriminate in this country all the time. It's our system. In
principle, what's wrong with charging extra for premium services on a
segregated network. Your phone company does it (land line or mobile), your
television company does it (cable or satellite), and hundred upon hundreds
of other businesses do it. Electric drills with nylon bushings vs.
stainless steel ball bearings. Poly/cotton pants vs. gabardine. "Would you
like to SuperSize that?" Bet your Senator has better health care than you
do, at a much lower premium. My view is that the government's role should
be to insure that everyone has access to the basic service...or has the
internet become an entitlement now also? If so, what next, electric drills?
The government sets mileage, emissions and safety standards for car
maufacturers, but they don't require them to make a Mercedes and sell it at
a Ford price. There has to be some middle ground here.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:50:28 -0700, in
<4c60be5b$0$22173$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 09/08/10 7:23 PM, David wrote:
>
>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>
>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>
>The other thing that's been tried is paying for it through advertising
>revenue. A company in the SF Bay Area, Metro-Fi tried that for several
>cities, including mine, but it didn't work out financially. Google
>provides free wireless in some cities, and it's the Google shareholders
>that are ultimately paying for it I suppose.
>
>The public entities that provide wireless do it with tax money, but it's
>such an inconsequential cost that it's lost in the noise.
The cost of Wi-Fi service at (say) public libraries is actually a
significant measurable cost.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:52:58 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:50:28 -0700, in
><4c60be5b$0$22173$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 09/08/10 7:23 PM, David wrote:
>>
>>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>>
>>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>
>>The other thing that's been tried is paying for it through advertising
>>revenue. A company in the SF Bay Area, Metro-Fi tried that for several
>>cities, including mine, but it didn't work out financially. Google
>>provides free wireless in some cities, and it's the Google shareholders
>>that are ultimately paying for it I suppose.
>>
>>The public entities that provide wireless do it with tax money, but it's
>>such an inconsequential cost that it's lost in the noise.
>
>The cost of Wi-Fi service at (say) public libraries is actually a
>significant measurable cost.
Measurable, yes, but significant only if you get to define the word
'significant'. Otherwise it's barely a blip among the rest of the
operating expenses.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:20:09 -0500, in
<2pk166tp3c4f9021rgbse8kbpqoffqvmq7@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:52:58 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:50:28 -0700, in
>><4c60be5b$0$22173$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 09/08/10 7:23 PM, David wrote:
>>>
>>>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>>>
>>>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>>>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>>
>>>The other thing that's been tried is paying for it through advertising
>>>revenue. A company in the SF Bay Area, Metro-Fi tried that for several
>>>cities, including mine, but it didn't work out financially. Google
>>>provides free wireless in some cities, and it's the Google shareholders
>>>that are ultimately paying for it I suppose.
>>>
>>>The public entities that provide wireless do it with tax money, but it's
>>>such an inconsequential cost that it's lost in the noise.
>>
>>The cost of Wi-Fi service at (say) public libraries is actually a
>>significant measurable cost.
>
>Measurable, yes, but significant only if you get to define the word
>'significant'. Otherwise it's barely a blip among the rest of the
>operating expenses.
I take it you've never actually looked at a budget, or know how strapped
libraries are for operating funds.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:27:04 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:20:09 -0500, in
><2pk166tp3c4f9021rgbse8kbpqoffqvmq7@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:52:58 -0700, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:50:28 -0700, in
>>><4c60be5b$0$22173$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 09/08/10 7:23 PM, David wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>>>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>>>>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>>>
>>>>The other thing that's been tried is paying for it through advertising
>>>>revenue. A company in the SF Bay Area, Metro-Fi tried that for several
>>>>cities, including mine, but it didn't work out financially. Google
>>>>provides free wireless in some cities, and it's the Google shareholders
>>>>that are ultimately paying for it I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>The public entities that provide wireless do it with tax money, but it's
>>>>such an inconsequential cost that it's lost in the noise.
>>>
>>>The cost of Wi-Fi service at (say) public libraries is actually a
>>>significant measurable cost.
>>
>>Measurable, yes, but significant only if you get to define the word
>>'significant'. Otherwise it's barely a blip among the rest of the
>>operating expenses.
>
>I take it you've never actually looked at a budget, or know how strapped
>libraries are for operating funds.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:34:47 -0500, in
<pml166haqe4gkoi67j83v4k5f40rqhiroc@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:27:04 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:20:09 -0500, in
>><2pk166tp3c4f9021rgbse8kbpqoffqvmq7@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
>><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:52:58 -0700, John Navas
>>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:50:28 -0700, in
>>>><4c60be5b$0$22173$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 09/08/10 7:23 PM, David wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>>>>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>>>>>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>The other thing that's been tried is paying for it through advertising
>>>>>revenue. A company in the SF Bay Area, Metro-Fi tried that for several
>>>>>cities, including mine, but it didn't work out financially. Google
>>>>>provides free wireless in some cities, and it's the Google shareholders
>>>>>that are ultimately paying for it I suppose.
>>>>>
>>>>>The public entities that provide wireless do it with tax money, but it's
>>>>>such an inconsequential cost that it's lost in the noise.
>>>>
>>>>The cost of Wi-Fi service at (say) public libraries is actually a
>>>>significant measurable cost.
>>>
>>>Measurable, yes, but significant only if you get to define the word
>>>'significant'. Otherwise it's barely a blip among the rest of the
>>>operating expenses.
>>
>>I take it you've never actually looked at a budget, or know how strapped
>>libraries are for operating funds.
>
>Your guess is wrong, as usual.
Then which ones?
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On 8/9/2010 10:23 PM, David wrote:
>
>
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DCFD815272D1noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
>>
>>> The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
>>> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
>>> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>>>
>>
>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>> has anything to do with it.....
>
> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>
> David
>
>
He is one of those folks where "free" means the government forcibly
takes it out of someone elses pocket to pay for his service. Obviously
businesses are evil because he would have to pay to recover the billions
spent in infrastructure, salaries, licenses etc.
In article <i3reig$6ab$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
> > directly or pay for it through taxes.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> He is one of those folks where "free" means the government forcibly
> takes it out of someone elses pocket to pay for his service. Obviously
> businesses are evil because he would have to pay to recover the billions
> spent in infrastructure, salaries, licenses etc.
Interesting, too, given what is developing the regular superhighway.
More and more places with toll roads are developing speedier lanes that
base their tolls on demand. Thus, if you are in the lanes at the top of
rush hour, the toll can be 2-3 times what the guys next door in the
regular lanes are paying. You decide if the extra money is worth it to
you.
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist
George wrote on [Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:52:51 -0400]:
> On 8/9/2010 10:23 PM, David wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9DCFD815272D1noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
>>>> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
>>>> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>
>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> He is one of those folks where "free" means the government forcibly
> takes it out of someone elses pocket to pay for his service. Obviously
> businesses are evil because he would have to pay to recover the billions
> spent in infrastructure, salaries, licenses etc.
You mean the billions the telcos were subsidised by the govt to begin with?
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9b6dnaAWEds52_zRnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> In article <i3reig$6ab$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting, too, given what is developing the regular superhighway.
> More and more places with toll roads are developing speedier lanes that
> base their tolls on demand. Thus, if you are in the lanes at the top of
> rush hour, the toll can be 2-3 times what the guys next door in the
> regular lanes are paying. You decide if the extra money is worth it to
> you.
>
> --
> I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
> and name it after the IRS.
> Robert Bakker, paleontologist
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. I haven't seen that on the east
coast yet, but I don't travel too far outside the northeast all that much.
Justin wrote:
> George wrote on [Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:52:51 -0400]:
>> On 8/9/2010 10:23 PM, David wrote:
>>>
>>> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9DCFD815272D1noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>>> news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
>>>>> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
>>>>> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>>>>>
>>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>> He is one of those folks where "free" means the government forcibly
>> takes it out of someone elses pocket to pay for his service. Obviously
>> businesses are evil because he would have to pay to recover the billions
>> spent in infrastructure, salaries, licenses etc.
>
> You mean the billions the telcos were subsidised by the govt to begin with?
Just which billions are you talking about and to whom were they paid?
By whom were they paid? Please cite your sources along with dates,
amounts, name of payer, name of recipient, etc. Be specific and be
prepared to offer proof! "THEY" cuts no ice!!!
The Telcos are "regulated monopolies" and have been almost since Bell
said "Watson! Come here please, I need you!". Collectively, they have
an enormous investment in poles, wires, central office equipment, etc,
etc. And don't forget the battery backups and the gasoline/diesel
generators that kick in when the power company rolls over and dies. You
*HAVE* noticed that the phones mostly still work even when the lights don't?
In article <8cd3qkFucdU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Zeppo" <zeppo@hotmail.org> wrote:
> Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. I haven't seen that on the east
> coast yet, but I don't travel too far outside the northeast all that much.
>
> Jon
They are talking about it Indy. They have a couple areas in and around
Miami. I thought there was some talk in Boston.
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:52:51 -0400, in
<i3reig$6ab$1@news.eternal-september.org>, George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>On 8/9/2010 10:23 PM, David wrote:
>>
>> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9DCFD815272D1noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
>>>> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
>>>> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>>>
>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>
>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>
>He is one of those folks where "free" means the government forcibly
>takes it out of someone elses pocket to pay for his service. Obviously
>businesses are evil because he would have to pay to recover the billions
>spent in infrastructure, salaries, licenses etc.
Spectrum is free. It only becomes not free when government (we) decides
to sell it to a commercial entity.
Kurt Ullman wrote on [Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:52:53 -0400]:
> In article <8cd3qkFucdU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Zeppo" <zeppo@hotmail.org> wrote:
>
>> Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. I haven't seen that on the east
>> coast yet, but I don't travel too far outside the northeast all that much.
>>
>> Jon
>
> They are talking about it Indy. They have a couple areas in and around
Indy as in Indianapolis? Where? There's currently no toll roads here
In article <i3rqs7$qne$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote on [Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:52:53 -0400]:
> > In article <8cd3qkFucdU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Zeppo" <zeppo@hotmail.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. I haven't seen that on the
> >> east
> >> coast yet, but I don't travel too far outside the northeast all that much.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >
> > They are talking about it Indy. They have a couple areas in and around
>
> Indy as in Indianapolis? Where? There's currently no toll roads here
They have been talking about maybe making some of the new lane
construction on I-465 variable toll. The trial balloon just went up a
couple of weeks ago, so it is still in the future, if at all. The Star
had abig article on it.
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist
On 8/10/2010 11:46 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article<i3rqs7$qne$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Justin<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman wrote on [Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:52:53 -0400]:
>>> In article<8cd3qkFucdU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "Zeppo"<zeppo@hotmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. I haven't seen that on the
>>>> east
>>>> coast yet, but I don't travel too far outside the northeast all that much.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>
>>> They are talking about it Indy. They have a couple areas in and around
>>
>> Indy as in Indianapolis? Where? There's currently no toll roads here
>
> They have been talking about maybe making some of the new lane
> construction on I-465 variable toll. The trial balloon just went up a
> couple of weeks ago, so it is still in the future, if at all. The Star
> had abig article on it.
>
We have a different thing in PA. Our soon to be former governor really,
really, really wants to convert most major roads into turnpikes. The PA
turnpike is a giant stupendously bureaucratic inefficient organization
filled with political appointees.
So far he hasn't been able to advance his plan. The best part is we
already have a very efficient way to pay for roads in the form of the
liquid fuels tax.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:70n1661lvgnm5edm206tm8crmsotdo5e2a@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:34:47 -0500, in
> <pml166haqe4gkoi67j83v4k5f40rqhiroc@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
> <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:27:04 -0700, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:20:09 -0500, in
>>><2pk166tp3c4f9021rgbse8kbpqoffqvmq7@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
>>><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:52:58 -0700, John Navas
>>>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:50:28 -0700, in
>>>>><4c60be5b$0$22173$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>>><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 09/08/10 7:23 PM, David wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free
>>>>>>>> enterprise
>>>>>>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>>>>>>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The other thing that's been tried is paying for it through advertising
>>>>>>revenue. A company in the SF Bay Area, Metro-Fi tried that for several
>>>>>>cities, including mine, but it didn't work out financially. Google
>>>>>>provides free wireless in some cities, and it's the Google
>>>>>>shareholders
>>>>>>that are ultimately paying for it I suppose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The public entities that provide wireless do it with tax money, but
>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>such an inconsequential cost that it's lost in the noise.
>>>>>
>>>>>The cost of Wi-Fi service at (say) public libraries is actually a
>>>>>significant measurable cost.
>>>>
>>>>Measurable, yes, but significant only if you get to define the word
>>>>'significant'. Otherwise it's barely a blip among the rest of the
>>>>operating expenses.
>>>
>>>I take it you've never actually looked at a budget, or know how strapped
>>>libraries are for operating funds.
>>
>>Your guess is wrong, as usual.
>
> Then which ones?
>
> --
> John
>
> "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
> [Wethern's Law of Suspended Judgement]
Can either one of you provide a link to a library budget showing wi-fi
costs? If not, you're not likely to convince anyone.
BTW, I am aware of how libraries are feeling the pinch, & have made
suggestions at more that one as to how to increase revenue and/or cut costs.
--
Owen McKenzie
Pigeon Forge, TN
The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe
the people with their own money.
- Unsourced attribution to Alexander Fraser Tytler (often misattributed to
Alexis de Tocqueville)
On 8/10/2010 11:21 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:52:51 -0400, in
> <i3reig$6ab$1@news.eternal-september.org>, George
> <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 8/9/2010 10:23 PM, David wrote:
>>>
>>> "Larry"<noone@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9DCFD815272D1noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>>> John Navas<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>>> news:nu6166hvh7ouv35qht260vufb5lnbk8jug@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> The Federal Communications Commission last week called off talks aimed
>>>>> at agreeing rules for net neutrality, and has proposed extending its
>>>>> regulatory remit to enforce a set of internet rules.
>>>>
>>>> America will never see free wireless internet as long as free enterprise
>>>> has anything to do with it.....
>>>
>>> Are you smoking something? Nothing is free! Either you pay for it
>>> directly or pay for it through taxes.
>>>
>> He is one of those folks where "free" means the government forcibly
>> takes it out of someone elses pocket to pay for his service. Obviously
>> businesses are evil because he would have to pay to recover the billions
>> spent in infrastructure, salaries, licenses etc.
>
> Spectrum is free. It only becomes not free when government (we) decides
> to sell it to a commercial entity.
>
Absolutely, how do you propose we use the "free" spectrum to communicate
unless either a business spends the money to install a system or the
government removes money from the pockets of others to pay for a system?
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:50:15 -0400, in
<8cdea2FulmU1@mid.individual.net>, "Owen McKenzie"
<jomckenzie@escapees.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:70n1661lvgnm5edm206tm8crmsotdo5e2a@4ax.com.. .
>>>>>>The cost of Wi-Fi service at (say) public libraries is actually a
>>>>>>significant measurable cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>Measurable, yes, but significant only if you get to define the word
>>>>>'significant'. Otherwise it's barely a blip among the rest of the
>>>>>operating expenses.
>>>>
>>>>I take it you've never actually looked at a budget, or know how strapped
>>>>libraries are for operating funds.
>>>
>>>Your guess is wrong, as usual.
>>
>> Then which ones?
>
>Can either one of you provide a link to a library budget showing wi-fi
>costs? If not, you're not likely to convince anyone.
I'm not trying to convince anyone (especially in this forum) --
I'm just providing information (for those few with sincere interest).
The budgets I've worked with have all been in paper form during public
meetings. They may be online, but I don't offhand know where (and don't
have time to waste on a fool's errand).
>BTW, I am aware of how libraries are feeling the pinch, & have made
>suggestions at more that one as to how to increase revenue and/or cut costs.
Already tight budgets are being slashed further as cities desperately
try to solve budget problems, hours are being reduced, staff is being
laid off, acquisition budgets cut or even eliminated, and the (fully
loaded) cost of Internet service is large enough to make a difference.
"State budget cuts threaten free Internet service at 200 New Jersey
public libraries" <http://goo.gl/pw9E> Is that convincing enough?
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:53:07 -0400, in
<i3s05f$t14$2@news.eternal-september.org>, George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>On 8/10/2010 11:21 AM, John Navas wrote:
>> Spectrum is free. It only becomes not free when government (we) decides
>> to sell it to a commercial entity.
>
>Absolutely, how do you propose we use the "free" spectrum to communicate
>unless either a business spends the money to install a system or the
>government removes money from the pockets of others to pay for a system?
2-way radio works fine without those things.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y9WdnW6mG87S6fzRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> In article <i3rqs7$qne$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman wrote on [Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:52:53 -0400]:
>> > In article <8cd3qkFucdU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "Zeppo" <zeppo@hotmail.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. I haven't seen that on the
>> >> east
>> >> coast yet, but I don't travel too far outside the northeast all that
>> >> much.
>> >>
>> >> Jon
>> >
>> > They are talking about it Indy. They have a couple areas in and around
>>
>> Indy as in Indianapolis? Where? There's currently no toll roads here
>
> They have been talking about maybe making some of the new lane
> construction on I-465 variable toll. The trial balloon just went up a
> couple of weeks ago, so it is still in the future, if at all. The Star
> had abig article on it.
>
> --
> I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
> and name it after the IRS.
> Robert Bakker, paleontologist
They do this in Southern California on a limited basis. For example, the
91 Express (toll road) runs from Riverside to Orange County in the median of
the existing State "freeway". It has limited access, but includes access to
high-occupancy vehicles (used to be called car pools) and motorcycles.
There are no toll booths with fees being collected using the FasTrak system
(an RFID transponder). It costs about a dollar a mile to use and has been
hugely successful. The concept works well, but is mired in complicated
useage, ownership, funding and environmental issues.
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:53:07 -0400, in
> <i3s05f$t14$2@news.eternal-september.org>, George
> <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2010 11:21 AM, John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Spectrum is free. It only becomes not free when government (we) decides
>>> to sell it to a commercial entity.
>> Absolutely, how do you propose we use the "free" spectrum to communicate
>> unless either a business spends the money to install a system or the
>> government removes money from the pockets of others to pay for a system?
>
> 2-way radio works fine without those things.
>
It does? Do you, perhaps, remember the Citizens Band craze of about
thirty years ago? It was a real zoo for two or three years. I think I
still have a transceiver somewhere. At least a million people who had
nothing to say and insisted on talking anyway!!! The people "shooting
skip"? When conditions were just right your signal could be heard 2000,
or more, miles away. I think it finally choked on it's own waste products!
NEWS: Google and Verizon unveil Web plan 
Linear Mode
