The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: You think municipal wifi is "corporatist"?

(See in situ)

You think municipal wifi is "corporatist"?

You don't think we can have control over our government? Then why are you here? To writhe and complain and see others through to their fates as hapless victims? As for how you mentioned people "want" to be spied on, you're right, you weren't implying it--you flat out said it. You shouldn't be mad at me because *you* said something untrue. Even where you were joking, the joke itself is meaningless.

SPYING, IS what you end up with, regardless, inevitably
The internet's been around for two decades, and you're already throwing up a white flag, telling all that any instance of web traffic without ground-up surveillance is "impossible"? Do you have a crystal ball or are you grabbing axioms out of thin air based on how you want the world to be? On the matter of spying, corporations will always bow to the government if asked to cooperate, expecting reprieve like they saw back in 2006 with congress' retroactive immunity vote. Municipal wi-fi in the worst case is then effectively no different or worse than corporations doing it.

That you'd call municipal wi-fi "corporatist" belies a severe lack of understanding of the topic, or maybe the definition of the word. It is corporations (ISPs) who are perennially against municipal wi-fi, arguing that that "corporations shouldn't have to compete with the government", like Verizon argued in 2006 in response to motions in Philadelphia that would institute municipal wi-fi. Verizon had their drones in the legislature rush through a bill to snuff it. Their puppet, then-governor Ed Randall, hastily signed the bill. Would a corporation like Verizon have such qualms with a "corporatist" (as you put it) concept? Do you really think corporations buy senators in states like Georgia to shoot down municipal wifi because such wifi is *corporatist*? How does that make any sense at all?

But to argue that ISPs are "unwilling to lower prices into an affordable range" is a facetious econ argument.... Now, if you're making the argument that 'ISPs are unwilling to lower prices' in wasteland that's become of Detroit? That's a wholly other issue.

You're rushing to make all these free-market arguments about broadband, but in your haste you're trampling over the fact that we do not have a functioning free market for broadband in this country. Most people in the country have at most two options for broadband. Many only have one.

Other countries' broadband speeds leave us in the dust because they've tried different approaches to force the sedentary players to lower prices--like Time Warner, for example, who is now rushing to compete with google fiber in places like San Antonio, Texas, even though its CEO claimed people "don't want gigabit internet", or like Verizon, who has claimed the exact same thing.

Did you seriously just call my argument facetious while shortly thereafter listing an example of where it is true? ISPs don't give a damn what people want or can afford because, in most cases, they don't even have to compete with one another. I'll show how in a second.

Even in the poorest of areas of any major metropolis (if you are in fact referring to 'those' "inner cities"), prices are set NOT by block by block
On the contrary, in cases like we saw here in southern California, when an ISP collapses (as Adelphia did last decade), its competition (Time Warner and Comcast) gobbles up the former subscribers and arranges them into a patchwork to ensure they will not need to compete. What free market? You mean ISPs collude?! No wai.

or degenerate Rockefeller funded sister foundations ties

XFD It's ironic you'd mention the Rockefellers, because it is actually a Rockefeller (albeit one not running for re-election senate next year) who is now pushing legislation to limit ISPs' capability to throttle web trafic to sites like youtube and netflix, or give special treatment to traffic for their own services. Does that sound like a "free lunch" to you?

In the past Jay Rockefeller has also defended the FCC's network neutrality rules:

For the record, I generally won't trust a Rockefeller and I find it insulting one would be in politics, but this one has been an ally of network neutrality, which we direly need.

We agree on much else--I too think Hastings was murdered for example--but if the species will be around for much longer, the internet has a future that exists outside of the crumbling US empire, therefore it's foolish to make hasty statements about its future when it is still in its infancy.