j_b

Noticing that Larry the tool doesn't seem to work very hard and is getting fat behind the wheel doesn't mean that "big government" is the problem. The burden of adequate proof is on those who claim that "big government" is the issue. Everybody can anecdotally point at some waste but all organizations, including those for profit, generate waste and unless one can also show that eliminating it is possible and that it would enable to manage public land adequately without resorting to user fees, I don't see any objective reason to believe that this waste results in "big government" and that "smaller government" is desirable. People don't account for the fact that funding for public land management has been wholly inadequate for a long time and money has to come from somewhere. Without analyzing budget numbers it is impossible to tell whether additional sources of funds are absolutely needed today. Anybody knows whether Parks have answered the AAC and others' requests for financial data?.

Although a Denali mtn fee may be OK, I am in general against user fees on public land because it amounts to regressive taxation. I am only saying that if people don't want to pay taxes (usually what people mean by "small government"), the money to manage public land has to come from somewhere. The generalization of pay-to-play fees is due to the anti-tax vote but this discussion should probably take place in spray.

No private entity is going to build the infrastructure we need at such a high cost without guarantees. The free-marketeers' solution is sure to lead to sub-par networks and oligopolies. The best hope for high-tech networks and competition in telecoms is publicly owned infrastructure and operator licenses subject to regulation.

Hint: haven't you noticed the correlation between people bleating for "small government" and the appearance of pay-to-play fees? There are inefficiencies in most bureaucracies but nothing's free. If you don't pay for it through taxes, you'll pay for it as a user.

No. I know that Filipino sailors make up a disproportionate part of workers on boats and I gave you the first hit in a Google search because I wasn't going to spend any more time answering your drivel.

So, all you guys got is my spelling of Filipino? Wow, impressive.

the whole of Japan is a more significant data point than your cruise experience, jackass.

i seriously doubt they are using their own infrastructure.

'Filipino seafarers remain a top choice of Japanese ship owners' http://www.gmanews.tv/story/129907/Filipino-seafarers-remain-a-top-choice-of-Japanese-ship-owners

We could have a spelling contest and I'd punk your ass any day, jackass.

If we only talked about things over which we have real control we wouldn't discuss much about anything. Aren't you an educator? Don't you believe that knowledge is revolutionary?

much of shipping, cruises, etc.. is now staffed by philippinos workers. These people don't live in the US for the most part and they couldn't afford to do so on their wages. Which industry do you exactly plan on keeping in this country?

You are clueless. How many miles of fiber-optics do you need to lay down before you have a market large enough to make a buck? Are you going to start in your neighborhood like a boat builder would? How many parallel communication networks do you want to force real competition? is that really the way you define "efficiency"?

It'd be much better to fire all unionized ferry workers and replace them with equally capable people who are willing to do the same jobs at a much lower cost. that is blatantly false. Paying employees non-living wages isn't sustainable. We can now see all around us the results of 30 years pushing for the bottom labor costs: communities falling apart, middle class disappearing, etc ..

There's no more effective means of creating an oligopoly that stifles competition than bribing the government to rig the game on behalf of a few well connected players. You are not answering to the fact that Telecoms have a huge entry cost to do business, which as I said already once, make these not really amenable to market competition, i.e. they are natural monopolies. Until you learn to answer to the point there is little reason to try engaging you in a rational discussion. Ignoring what you can't answer isn't good enough.

Little did I know that people lived in rural area because they liked the country life. It's not like society needs people in the country to grow stuff and that it'd be advantageous to us if they were connected and could learn about sustainable agriculture (for example). I guess we'll have to wait for Monsanto to tell them about it. I mean why should we pay for culture in poor neighborhood since the peons manage pretty well spending all of their time at the factory or in front of TV?

Nonsense. The cost of entry in telecoms is so high that it is effectively a natural monopoly where competition is only limited to small parts of the market and momentarily. The cost of doing business and providing the nation with the communication networks it needs is the object of the article starting this thread and telecoms are refusing to pay that cost (pocketing the surcharge instead). It is precisely because it is a natural monopoly that it should be regulated. JayB talks from both corners of his mouth: on the one hand he cheers on media/telecom consolidations into oligopolies and on the other he claims to want competition.

That's probably me, which stands to reason since i am the constant object of vile content-free attacks by Libertardians. I think it's a sign of success when the morons gang up on you.

why should liberals or the government want to go back to >20 year technology? Another straw-man from billcoe.

That's because their mental age is about 16 yo or so. They are only capable of reproducing the social interactions they had in high school where calling someone a "whiner" or a "pussy" is supposed to establish one's dominance. Moreover, they especially don't want anyone to talk about the deregulatory disasters caused by their sociopathic ideology so they'd rather have the thread devolve into a sausage fest.

You are boring and your comments certainly don't make you look very smart.

fuck off, retard.

His whole life is spent wringing his hands about all the injustices of the world. Waaaaahh. that's rich coming from someone who never lost a night of sleep over having enabled Bush and his cohorts of locusts.

If you aren't, you should be.

"Telecom regulation suffers the same fate as did the banks under the watch-less eye of the Federal Reserve and BP drilling in the Gulf of Mexico under the Minerals Management Service. No regulator has jurisdiction over the phone bill, particularly state Public Utility Commissions. No regulator has actually examined all the charges on the phone bills. Hiding behind the claim that industry deregulation has taken place over the last quarter century, regulators argue that there’s market “competition” that fixes everything. This situation is likely to only get worse as further industry consolidation takes place and when the FCC’s introduces its new National Broadband plan. This plan is likely to raise customer telecom rates in five different ways. It will likely (i) increase the Universal Service fund tax is now 15.2 percent on all long distance calls (including wireless); (ii) increase the FCC Line Charge; (iii) increase local rates; (iv) add a new broadband tax, euphemistically dubbed the “Connect America” tax and (v) create a new “mobility” fund. The telecom fiber optics upgrade rip-off is one of the great scams perpetrated against the American people. Much of the “deregulation” that has occurred has been done to alleged upgrade the old copper wiring with fiber optics. While Verizon and AT&T have rolled out some broadband upgrade, the estimated $320 billion collected since the 1990’s has not been spent on upgrading their respective networks. According to the telecom’s industry’s most aggressive estimates, in 2009 approximately 15.1 million homes were “passed” (i.e., could access fiber) but only 4.4 million actually subscribed to fiber services. [RVA for the FTTH Council] And this is in a nation of 120 million households. The billions so far charged to American telecom customers for these upgrades were based on promises to enhance Internet connectivity at schools, libraries and hospitals. Sadly, little of this promise has taken place since Al Gore promised the “information superhighway” nearly two decades ago. All that telecom customers can count on is seeing their bills steadily rise. While the FCC is discussing reform, it’s clear it is unlikely to actually examine the companies receiving the money. Many of these telecoms uses these taxes and surcharges to fatten their balance sheets and don’t use the monies to improve customer services." The Great Telecom Rip-off