Print 81 comment(s) - last by rvertrees.. on Aug 16 at 5:40 PM

U.S. broadband coverage (click to enlarge)  (Source: FCC)
Public sentiment is that its best to leave 80 million Americans unconnected to "high speed" broadband

While it's hard to put an exact number on how many Americans have no internet coverage, there are still some regions of the country in which less than 5 percent of the population has access to the internet.  Depending on how you define "high speed", over 80 million Americans, or about a quarter of the population, have no access to the high speed broadband that the modern web relies on so heavily.

Interestingly, a public poll from the Pew Institute indicates that the majority of Americans aren't very concerned with pushing better coverage for these individuals.  The phone survey (which would only be conducted via landline phones) asked 2,252 adults (aged 18 and older) whether expanding affordable broadband should be a top priority for the government and 53 percent of those polled responded "No".

In total, 26 percent said the government should play no part in pushing out high-speed internet; 27 percent indicated they didn't care if it did, but that it was "not too important"; 30 percent said it was important, and 11 percent said it should be a 
top priority. 

The poll, which can be found here, also offered other interesting results -- for example, growth in internet use among African Americans is outpacing that of white Americans.

Aaron Smith, author of the Pew Internet Project's report, comments, "A debate has arisen about the role of government in stepping in to ensure availability to high-speed Internet access for all Americans.  The majority think not, and the surprise is that non-users are the least inclined to think government has a role in the spread of broadband."

The Federal Communications Commission -- led by appointees of U.S. President Barack Obama -- has made it clear that it thinks that broadband access 
should be a top priority.  It's in the process of deploying a scheme to offer high-speed 100 Mbps internet to 100M U.S. homes and to extend cable coverage to areas that currently cost to much to deploy to (according to the telecommunication companies).

If the recent poll is any indication, the FCC's plan may prove unpopular. 

The debate over internet coverage isn't just a U.S. one, though.  Internationally, the level of coverage, freedom of information, and net neutrality are hotly debated issues.  Finland recently propelled the debate to the forefront when it legislated broadband internet as an essential human right.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who thinks of these studies!
By solarrocker on 8/12/2010 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 5
growth in internet use among African Americans is outpacing that of white Americans.

Is it time yet to hunt people down that waste money on these kind of useless studies?

Mean, are they just sitting stoned on a couch trying to think of "new" studies to perform just so they get more money to waste away?

(And I'm going to get flamed for this one way or another)

By geddarkstorm on 8/12/2010 12:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
Mean, are they just sitting stoned on a couch trying to think of "new" studies to perform just so they get more money to waste away?


What more needs be said?

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By solarrocker on 8/12/2010 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 3
-New study shows,studies are largely useless, inaccurate and wastefull in both money and time!

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By axeman1957 on 8/12/2010 12:22:24 PM , Rating: 3
I question the accuracy of this study. Perhaps he should do a study on the accuracy of studding studies... I just had an aneurism

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By Quadrillity on 8/12/2010 12:24:18 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, it's kinda hard to live in a racist free society when EVERYTHING is still based off of it. What in God's name does race have anything to do with internet usage?

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By Motoman on 8/12/2010 10:50:34 PM , Rating: 3
That's an interesting question that might be worth studying.

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By 2bdetermine on 8/12/2010 12:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder who did they call? A tech savvy or illiterate.

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By chagrinnin on 8/12/2010 1:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
They should do a study to find out. :/

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 1:10:20 PM , Rating: 1
They called a random sample of adults (as do all reputable polls). By probability this included both the tech savvy and the not-so tech savvy. The N on the poll is definitely large enough to be a valid proxy for the US population as a whole.

RE: Who thinks of these studies!
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 1:08:01 PM , Rating: 5
Knowing the broadband penetration rate of the US is valuable information for both government and business and that information can be had extremely cheaply through polling like this. While the poll is being conducted, you can add in one extra question about the race of the respondents and analyze the data from a whole new direction at almost zero cost.

The point of the study was not to find out how many black people were using the internet, it was a broad based snapshot that told us a dozen different things about the current situation and future trends, many of which are quite useful to know from a business and policy perspective.

This isn't a flame, I just don't think you thought this through very well.

Of Course
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 12:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Federal Communications Commission -- led by appointees of U.S. President Barack Obama -- has made it clear that it thinks that broadband access should be a top priority.

Of course. Cause it's not like you ever had a clue what to do about the millions out of work. The recession or the economy. Let's focus on important things like getting all those unemployed people broadband access!!!

RE: Of Course
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 1:21:54 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, that quote is from the Federal Communications Commission . What did you think they were going to say? "Eh, communications aren't important, so screw it."?

Next SHOCKING UPDATE: Department of Defense advocates for better defense.

I know that you're an anti-Obama troll, but saying that the communications commission shouldn't say that communications should be a priority is just sad, sad desperation on your part.

RE: Of Course
By hsew on 8/12/2010 1:52:28 PM , Rating: 1
No, the fact is is that there are far more important things to worry about than High speed pr0n delivery for Americans. You know, something along the lines of the perpetually rising unemployment numbers, which will most likely jump AGAIN if something that grants internet access to all of America is put into effect. Something of that scale would put many people out of work. Why bother having a broadband department in ISP 123 when the government offers its own broadband solution? Hello layoffs!

RE: Of Course
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 2:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
But there AREN'T necessarily more important things for the Federal Communications Commission to worry about.

I'm not interested in debating your made up armchair economics that are based out of something you found in a fortune cookie. There's no point. My only gripe with our good friend Reclaimer's post was that he was pathetically reaching for something to attack Obama with by being angry that the FCC was talking about communications.

RE: Of Course
By clovell on 8/12/2010 2:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I honestly don't think this is a bad idea. When you consider how much of this sort of domestic funding we could feasibly accomplish if we tackled the bigger sh!t in the budget, I think it makes sense.

I just really hesitate to start taking a 'latte-factor' approach to government spending when it's more of the mortgage, credit-card debt, and car note type of things that are what's really killing us.

It's good that the FCC is making the most of what they have to work with.

RE: Of Course
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Of Course
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 3
I'm only condescending to people I have contempt for; those people who talk about things from a reasoned and informed perspective get the same in return, regardless of whether they agree with me or not. You and a few others behave extremely poorly on these forums however, and so you reap what you sow.

RE: Of Course
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 5:54:28 PM , Rating: 1
those people who talk about things from a reasoned and informed perspective get the same in return,

You aren't reasoned or informed yourself, so I honestly don't see how you could differentiate.

You and a few others behave extremely poorly

As you yourself say, only to people I have contempt for.

RE: Of Course
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 6:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
So you have contempt for the site itself? You frequently begin comment threads unprompted to derail the conversation and start political trolling.

I'm absolutely informed before I speak, and I take pains to make sure that my posts reflect that. Please try and do the same in the future.

RE: Of Course
By Lerianis on 8/13/2010 11:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why would it jump again just because internet access is given to all Americans? Actually, why SHOULDN'T we do this just because that is likely to happen?

If we said that, we wouldn't have made things like computerized assembly lines!

It's a STUPID argument, a very stupid one! The fact is that we could find OTHER things for all the Americans who would be put out of work by modernization to do IF WE WOULD TRY!

Unfortunately, most people are stupid enough to believe that "THE FREE MARKET IS THE ANSWER!" to that.... it is not, in any fashion/shape/etc., the answer to that problem.

There comes a time where you have to realize that free market puts more people out of work than it employs when you bring modernization and robotics into the discussion. Then, you have to find something for people to do to make money, and who is the best for that?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Which should be EXPANDING things like regulation jobs and other things in order to put some of these people back to work.

RE: Of Course
By rvertrees on 8/16/2010 5:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
*Brain Explodes*

Let me see here. The Government makes its money from taxes and taxes come from the citizens and citizens get there money from their jobs.

Tell me how is the federal government generating money by hiring more people for regulation jobs. First of all you are going to have to increase taxes to support that many jobs and the higher taxes go the less the citizens are payed and the less companies make.

On top of that new jobs in regulations require more regulations to be made. Regulations slow down the business and less efficient business means higher costs to the company.

RE: Of Course
By clovell on 8/12/2010 2:43:55 PM , Rating: 1
Aw, come on - Obama made a promise to reign in unemployment, didn't he? How the hell else is he supposed to deliver without creating jobs to get broadband to everyone? You're just another example of 'the man' keeping Obama down.

By JonInVA on 8/12/2010 12:39:17 PM , Rating: 4 is simply unavailable in certain rural areas. That is not the government's problem.

If you want to buy a boat, you buy a home near water. If you want to buy high speed Internet access, you buy a home in an area with a broadband provider.

It's not like this is news to anybody - especially those who choose to live in rural areas. You make certain lifestyle trade-offs to live in certain areas (easy access to hospitals, schools, retail locations, traffic, cost of living, etc). Access to high speed Internet access is one of those trade-offs that must be considered when choosing where to live.

Would tax dollars ever be used to put a Starbucks with a mile of everybody's house? Clearly not. Why then are we even having this debate about high speed Internet access? If I want it, I'll live where I can get it.

By Schrag4 on 8/12/2010 1:20:07 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, really. I take particular offense to the subtitle:

Public sentiment is that its best to leave 80 million Americans unconnected to "high speed" broadband

The article mentions that a large percentage of "unconnected" survey participants don't want the government to tackle broadband coverage as a "High Priority". It doesn't mean they don't want broadband coverage, it just means they understand that the government has a few other issues that should be higher priority since they affect them more than broadband coverage.

By clovell on 8/12/2010 2:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno - I think a lot of people stand to really benefit from it.

That's a pretty poor analogy, too - a boat is really a luxury. Internet usage has become ubiquitous in many common areas of American life - like education. A better analogy might be to relate it to availability of telephone lines.

By wempa on 8/13/2010 12:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If you want to live out in the middle of nowhere, then don't complain when you don't have all the conveniences of living in a city or suburb. Besides, EVERYBODY has access to some form of cheap internet, whether it be dial-up, wireless or satellite. It may not be ideal, but it's not like this lack of a good internet connection is causing them to starve or anything. As others have said, there are way more important things that should get higher priority.

By HoosierEngineer5 on 8/14/2010 8:16:27 PM , Rating: 3
Got news for you. MOST Americans built their homes BEFORE the Internet was widespread, and well before wideband became other than a luxury. In fact, I'll bet that a large percentage of individuals either assumed broadband would be available the same time copper was run, or would soon be available. In my case, the local cable company was clueless, and Fios was advertised as being available in the future. Also - can anyone answer why it's more expensive to provide a packet-switched data network (i.e. party line), as opposed to a dedicated interface (private line)?

Phone surveys - Landlines only!
By SergeC on 8/12/2010 12:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
You have to remember that any phone survey conducted is using only landlines. This skews polls to varying degrees, and I would think anything involving technology is by far the worst.

By metaltoiletry on 8/12/2010 12:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know anyone who actually takes surveys over the phone. Anytime someone asks me to take a survey, I immediately hang up, and that's if I decide the caller ID name is worth answering.

RE: Phone surveys - Landlines only!
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 1:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. If you read the link to the poll they specifically state:
The results in this report are based on data from telephone interviews conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International between April 29 and May 30, 2010, among a sample of 2,252 adults ages 18 and older, including 744 reached on a cell phone.

RE: Phone surveys - Landlines only!
By Silverel on 8/12/2010 1:24:44 PM , Rating: 3
I think his point is still valid.

66% of people contacted were on landlines. 33% were on cellphones.

Is this the kind of ratio for phone use that you find typical among the people you know? Speaking for myself, at least 90% of the people I know use a cellphone as their primary point of contact. Even if it isn't skewed 100% because they included some cellphones users, it certainly doesn't reflect the majority of the population. As such it does skew the study severely to the side of less technologically inclined than the average american.

By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 1:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not really how it goes though, 60% of Americans have both a cell phone and a land line.

Currently in America approximately 25% of households are cell phone only:

For cell phone primary people we can check the CDC's numbers:

Adjusting upward a bit for trends in the last 2 years, it's more like about 30% of households get either all or most of their calls on the cell phone, despite having a land line as well.

So no, it would appear that this study's methodology fits in very nicely with the breakdown of US society as a whole. It's most likely that you are younger than the average American and likely live in a more developed area than the average. Just about everyone I know uses their cell phone exclusively as well, but then again about 90% of the people I know have at least a 4 year degree when the percentage of the US population that has them is a bit over 25%.

Ie: our associations are probably not representative samples. This study however, appears to be.

RE: Phone surveys - Landlines only!
By bupkus on 8/12/2010 1:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
As such it does skew the study severely to the side of less technologically inclined than the average american.
All I can say to that is
I wonder...
Perhaps the survey should have included the question:
"Do you use an iPhone or a cell phone with the Android OS?"
Also, "did you buy your phone at Walgreens? and did you buy it for the bigger GBs?"
Lol... I think I can quite my anti-depressants now.

There's more in there than just one target...
By Wierdo on 8/13/2010 8:39:29 AM , Rating: 2

I think the pie chart showing how people rated importance of broadband alone is more useful than just concentrating on a single small piece of the whole thing imho.

By Wierdo on 8/13/2010 8:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
edit: "going boyond"

Sounds misinterpreted
By ZachDontScare on 8/12/2010 2:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
The 'conclusion' doesnt sound like its 'most people want the disconnected to stay disconnected', but rather 'it should be left up to private industry and not subsidized by the tax payers'.

Data is clearly flawed
By HighWing on 8/12/2010 3:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
I highly question the data of this study as there is one big glaring problem with how it was correlated. There should have been a break down between those that already have broadband, and those that do not, as that can drastically effect the answer they might give.

As a person who came from an area that has no broadband coverage, I can attest that many people in those areas would answer differently than those who live in areas that do have broadband. And maybe I'm just a little biased here, but it seems to me that it's the people who do not have broadband access who's voice should really be heard here as this directly affects them, and how a person might answer!

Also I would like to point out that the broadband map up there is defiantly wrong and must be counting dial-up as broadband! As I can mark large areas on the east coast that I know for a fact have no internet options other than dial-up!

How can it even be a question?
By BZDTemp on 8/12/2010 5:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
The business case for getting people on-line is a great one. There are huge savings just letting people deal with their taxes, pensions, building permits and more. It's efficient and convenient so cost goes down in government, state and county functions and on the same time people get better service. And that is just the public sector.

Thinking broadband is irrelevant is like saying reading and math does not matter!

By krazyderek on 8/13/2010 5:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
if more then half states are officially categorized as obese, then do people really even know what's best for themselves? if they can't eat right, what hope do they have trying to tell people that they're happier living in the stone ages?

Useless survey.
By FoxFour on 8/13/2010 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't believe that a sample size of 2252 and a land-line telephone-only delivery method provide a statistically valid basis for any conclusions whatsoever about the interests of 300,000,000 American citizens. Don't even get me started on sample selection/bias.

This is a joke.

By chang3d on 8/12/2010 2:44:04 PM , Rating: 1
Just because the majority believes in something doesn't make it right. Americans have proved that time and time again.

Heck, people all over proved that time and time again. Ever opened a history book?

By RealTheXev on 8/13/2010 4:52:49 PM , Rating: 1
I am part of the minority of this poll. I live in a place called Corry PA. If you don’t know where that is, look it up on Google maps. Holy crap, there are areas that rural on the east coast? Yeah. I don’t live in the town either; I live in the out skirts between Corry and Spartansburg PA. You can get REAL cable internet and Verizon’s subpar DSL in town Corry. In Spartansburg you can still choose to pay $50 a month for cheap, crappy 12 channel analog cable. Wait, didn’t they also have a date for the end of analog cable? Apparently, but I doubt the FCC is going to fly out here to drop the hammer on Time Warner any time soon.

Spartansburg finally got DSL last year, even though there had been demand on the outskirts that still can’t get DSL. Cable internet... well, as we covered above they can’t even get digital cable.

So here I am, stuck in between. “Why don’t you just move?” Well, I am a responsible human being that hasn’t shacked up with some women and popped out 2 babies to get Welfare cash assistance to have the money to move the hell out of here to find a job. Jobs are dead around here. Several people have suggested that I started up a IT consulting firm. Well, explain to me how in the hell I can do that on dialup?

“Why don’t you try to get a job at Geek Squad? You seem qualified for that.” Yeah, and I am, but companies like Best Buy practice something called “Credit discrimination.” It occurs when, a credit check is run for a job that has nothing to do with your credit! Should bank tellers need a credit check? Most likely, but should an IT guy need a credit check TO WORK? HELL NO!

So, what do I do? Go get killed in the US military where I will be serving someone else’s interest instead of my country? Why not join the National Guard if you want to serve your country? Oh wait, they are overseas too getting killed for the War on Oil.

Oh, and to add insult to injury, a buddy of mine with worse credit then mine is working as a bank teller. Yeah, I am praying I can find a way to move out of here. I applied for a retail job at a gas station… guess what, credit check required! I’ve got 4 years of retail experience, and there is nothing the people in the store can do about it, just like Best Buy. I should add to the 500+ tax payers that aren’t paying the school this year (and by not paying, I mean they moved too), but alas, I can’t move anywhere with no money to move on.

Oh, did I mention my parents have a bad reputation in this area, and my name isn’t a good one? Try living and getting a job with a sigma like that.

I hope all you people are enjoying your internet. I could actually make a dime with some.

I don't get it...
By hsew on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't get it...
By bupkus on 8/12/2010 1:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
I say, "Reject the stamp tax!"

Am I a little late to the party?

RE: I don't get it...
By hsew on 8/12/2010 1:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, you're one of the earlybirds.

RE: I don't get it...
By mcnabney on 8/12/2010 1:57:41 PM , Rating: 5
Please Google the Rural Electrification Act.

The reasoning behind this is that electrification drove the 20th century forward and the government believed that it was in the country's best interest to push power to everyone. The same is being considered for effective connectivity. Doing business offline, especially in more remote areas, is increasingly difficult. Newspapers are disappearing. Rural areas are already isolated from free TV in many areas.

RE: I don't get it...
By AEvangel on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't get it...
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Please provide objective sources that back up their claims which state the REA was a mistake to create.

I have seen arguments for the discontinuation of the REA in the 1990's (and that's what happened), but I have never seen a non-ideological case for the REA being a failure either on the whole or as implemented by FDR.

RE: I don't get it...
By tastyratz on 8/12/2010 4:20:49 PM , Rating: 1
I think the REA was great. We need internet access in some usable form in all areas of the country just as we need electricity. The problem is that the uneducated public could easily be swayed through presentation of this poll, especially could be based on location of residence.

Nobody considers the business requirements these days for online connectivity, and most people don't know just how neglected us coverage is compared to other countries. People take for granted their internet connections and the ones who don't? aren't online to bitch about it.

This poll just in! 92% of individuals in somalia believe food and water delivery should be top priority with the government. Individuals in california posted drastically different numbers. Researchers are still stumped.

RE: I don't get it...
By rcc on 8/13/2010 1:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be silly. Go run your poll in Hollywood. 92% of the population there probably agree that food and water in Somalia is a top priority. Even over correcting the problems we already have locally.

After all, it's all about image you know.

RE: I don't get it...
By tastyratz on 8/13/2010 1:51:35 PM , Rating: 3
thats just because in hollywood nobody eats. I just want to start whipping hamburgers every time a model yawns and hope for a direct hit before their ribcage tans like tiger stripes from the shadows in the depth.

RE: I don't get it...
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 2:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
hmm sounds alot like the stimulus creating or saving millions of governemnt jobs.

RE: I don't get it...
By HighWing on 8/12/2010 3:41:35 PM , Rating: 1
I would just like to point out that I know for a fact there "IS" a demand in many areas that do not have high-speed internet access, and there "IS" a profit to be made beyond one or two households. The problem is that there is usually stretch of no-profit zone that cable needs to be laid to reach those profit areas. Thus rising the cost of reaching certain areas.

RE: I don't get it...
By JediJeb on 8/12/2010 4:09:48 PM , Rating: 5
My parents live in a rural area of Ky, and they will soon have high speed internet there supplied by a local independent telephone company. This company has already laid fiber to most of the small towns in the area and is now running fiber out to the rest of its customers. If some small local phone company can do this without some government program, they why can't a big company like AT&T do it? This company is privately owned and has been for years. It supplied the rural areas there with phone service even before Bell came into the area to serve the larger towns back in the early 50s.

We don't need a government program to get high speed internet out to the rural areas, we just need to get the big companies like AT&T out of the way. The market is there, and in this case the company saw a way to make a profit from it and went for it.

RE: I don't get it...
By Lerianis on 8/13/2010 11:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. With the MASSIVE PROFITS that AT&T, Verizon, etc. post, they should be able to do 'last mile' stuff pretty damned much everywhere.

The only reason they moan and bitch about not being able to do it is because they are GREEDY to the extreme, and don't want to put out any money to improve their networks.

RE: I don't get it...
By HoosierEngineer5 on 8/14/2010 8:02:45 PM , Rating: 1
The real question remains - who 'owns' the last mile? If you pay for a gallon of milk, you own it. If you pay monthly charges for an Internet connection, why don't you own it?

RE: I don't get it...
By raumkrieger on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't get it...
By rcc on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: I don't get it...
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 3:59:11 PM , Rating: 1
False analogy. I have a friend who works for a rural provider and they are running fiber out to the middle of nowhere because of market demands. In cases where a provider can't reasonably supply it they should go satellite.

In this case the government needs to stay out. They are pushing internet for all, to keep from oppressing those who are isolated because internet is a right, sniffle sniffle. They do so regardless that those who live in rural communities choose to live there.

While they are pushing the emotional need for a simple service, not a right, they are slipping in massive controls over the internet. That is something completely different designed to garner power and control.
Newspapers are disappearing. Rural areas are already isolated from free TV in many areas.
So, it still does not justify for me to pay excessive tax increases to run fiber when satellite is available for internet, phone, and TV at competitive rates.

RE: I don't get it...
By spamreader1 on 8/12/2010 4:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
Inexpensive broadband is one the problem for rural areas.


Satelite internet is avialble damn near everywhere in the lower 48 stats. $99-$600 component and installation fees (depending on current promotions) with a 2 year contract of $79/mo. Many of these dish contracts however don't let you know upfront that if you go over your daily cap of ~100MB you will be throttled from 1.5mbps to 28kbps and in some cases charged additional fees.

I've met several people who consitantly have $300+ internet fees monthly. So it is readily available however not economically feasable. All that would need to be done is regulate the fees charged by rural high speed carriers. (cellular access is also often an available method,

I personnaly use an att aircard and just pay the $69.95/mo +$.05/MB fee over 5GB for ~$100-$200/mo internet access. I'm not 100% convinced it should be controlled by the government but I am not against pricing regulation.

RE: I don't get it...
By darkblade33 on 8/12/2010 4:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah you're right !

And the people who are online in these polls telling the govt not to worry ? Well sh*t they already have internet access! I guess they don't care about anyone else.

RE: I don't get it...
By darkblade33 on 8/12/2010 4:19:05 PM , Rating: 1
And further more, if they had spoken to people like my father who have no high speed access they would've gotten different answers. Problem is alot of these folks are in fact on 'calling list' because they are in big cities and/or have put themselves on these list via the internet marketing companies, and thus have high speed. SELFISH

RE: I don't get it...
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 4:32:02 PM , Rating: 3
And you live where... I know a number of people who live out in the middle of nowhere for a reason, nope getting the internet isn't one of them. For most they don't like, want or desire many of the "conveniences" that you deem mandatory.

So is it the selfish preventing them from getting it or is it elitist telling them they have to have it.

RE: I don't get it...
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 2:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah man, I don't get it either.

I mean sure, the people we elected to run the government explicitly stated as part of their campaign plank that their goal was to enact a health care plan very similar to the one Obama signed. Then, Americans elected them to one of the most overwhelming majorities that America has seen in decades. Who thought they would do what they said they were going to do!?!

I think from now on government officials should take a public poll every day and follow what the American People (TM) tell them to do. Therefore we should immediately scrap Obamacare and implement a single payer socialized insurance system for all Americans:

Since I imagine you oppose this, wouldn't it be far more responsible of you to allow elected officials to exercise their own judgment when elected, as the Constitution intended, as opposed to a ham fisted attempt to supplant it with mob rule when it suits your policy purposes?

RE: I don't get it...
By hsew on 8/12/2010 2:39:56 PM , Rating: 1
Just leave it to the private sector. Boom.

Because most Americans understand politics? Please.
(Correction: because most Obamabots understand politics? Please.)

They pushed the socialized health care under the guise that it would be a cheaper, better option for all Americans. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but they LIED. Imagine that! A deceitful politician? Who would have thought?

The reason they lied is simple. Not only are you going to have to pay MORE for health insurance, but you are going to have to pay the same rate for it as the fat slob who smokes cigarettes daily by the pack, eats chicken fat off of the FLOOR, and drinks like tomorrow may never come. And if you DON'T want Obamacare? You can escape the plan, but you'll have to pay a fine. Last I checked the fine was over $700 a year (which is about $60 a month, which will afford one a decently fast internet connection, by the way) on top of your health plan. Yay for bigger government! Do you find it rather peculiar that 27 states are filing a lawsuit against the big nice feds JUST BECAUSE OF THIS BILL? I sure do! And surely unemployment will rise (again) due to the fact that less people are buying private sector health insurance, so Insurance Provider 123 will have to start laying off employees.

And Time Magizine? Please. Bad move. That right there pretty much invalidated your argument.

RE: I don't get it...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 2:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Since I imagine you oppose this, wouldn't it be far more responsible of you to allow elected officials to exercise their own judgment when elected, as the Constitution intended, as opposed to a ham fisted attempt to supplant it with mob rule when it suits your policy purposes?

Are you a complete idiot? Obamacare is completely 100% unconstitutional. The federal government, especially now, is FAR outside the restraints of power placed on it by the Constitution. If this is how officials "exercise" their judgment, then it kind of makes you wonder why the Founders never built in checks and balances and separation of powers into the Constitution in the first place. Oh yeah, THEY DID!! For a reason, you moron!

Mob rule? The only mob rule going on right now is from the Democrats in office, all the way up the chain. It amazes me how you Liberals constantly create your own reality distortion field. Honestly, you're on your own little world. Come back to Earth.

The Constitution did not "intend" for the Federal government to consolidate all the power, in all the sectors, into itself. It prohibits it, in fact. Your argument is a complete straw man because you seem oblivious to this undeniable fact.

RE: I don't get it...
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 3:15:14 PM , Rating: 1
Well the majority of legal experts disagree with you on whether it's unconstitutional or not. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it comes out in the courts. I have a sneaking suspicion that the judiciary is going to disagree with you on that one.

Also, the system of checks and balances/separation of powers was created to prevent one particular branch from dominating the other two, not to limit the overall scope of government. You call me a moron while not even understanding the terms you're speaking of. Maybe you should spend more time taking a civics 101 class and less time ranting about Obama on the internet.

When the courts rule in favor of Obama on the health care issue, I don't want to see you here wringing your hands, shrieking about the conspiracy of the judges and the injustice of it all. If and when that time comes, do us all a favor and be a man about it, admit you were wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll do the same.

RE: I don't get it...
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 3:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, in all fairness I think you could say that the states dealing with purely internal matters vs. the feds dealing with overarching matters would be a separation of powers of a sort.

That is not how the term is commonly used however, and it most certainly isn't related to 'checks and balances', as the only check the states have against the federal government is taking them to the federal government's own courts and asking the federal judicial branch to check the other two for them.

RE: I don't get it...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 4:19:21 PM , Rating: 3
Well the majority of legal experts disagree with you on whether it's unconstitutional or not.

I guess those 16 states challenging Obamacare didn't get the memo about this "majority". There is no such majority. And you seriously need to look up Article 1 limits on federal powers. Because if you think the Federal Government has the power to force you to buy health insurance, then we might as well throw Article 1 in the garbage.

Obviously the Framers thought Article 1 was pretty important. You know, it being number ONE and all? And don't give us that "Commerce Clause" bullcrap. All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can't Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?

I suppose you also think that Financial Reform bill is Constitutional too? Please show me where in the Constitution was the Federal Government granted the power to limit how much a company can pay it's employees. And where, if the Government decided it was "failing", it was granted the power to take that company over to save it from itself. Well, I'm waiting. Go find me that and get back to me.

RE: I don't get it...
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 6:47:18 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting that you would attempt to refute my statement of a 'majority' of legal experts by citing the fact that a minority of states have challenged the health care law. Don't take my word for it, go read some legal analysis from objective sources. The majority, consensus opinion is that it is constitutional. Even if you don't agree with this opinion, any reasonably informed person would know that it is the case. (this will require you to go to sources that aren't Free Republic or Fox News however. If you feel uncomfortable, don't worry, that's natural)

As for your idea of what 'the founders' thought, such an opinion is nonsensical. 'The founders' didn't think much of anything, individual founders thought different things. The federalists believed as you said, that the bill of rights enumerated rights already in the constitution, but anti federalists such as Thomas Jefferson believed otherwise. That's why the bill of rights came into existence to begin with.

Other than that, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the US constitution. It is a general statement of principles, and there are loads of things it does not mention that are appropriate exertions of federal power. The argument that you are trying to make, that if it's not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that the fed can't control it, is an absurdity. The constitution never mentions an air force, only an army and a navy. Does that mean that the air force is unconstitutional? Of course not.

I'm not going to address your financial bill statement, because as usual you are attempting to veer the conversation off course into new territory that allows you to avoid addressing the substance of those arguing with you. You've repeatedly done this already with your poor attempts to rewrite US history and rewrite the constitution, but my patience with you is wearing thin.

You're more than welcome to believe whatever you want, but your positions don't appear to be based in the interpretation of the constitution of any legal authority that I am aware of. It's just extreme right wing politics attempting to masquerade as legal analysis. It might fly on right wing blogs, but in the real world where it counts you're going to be awfully disappointed.

RE: I don't get it...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 7:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
You really are thick. First off Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law's constitutionality, and I'm are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. So given this, for you to claim a "majority" when the legality of this wasn't even debated is a lie of the worst kind. There IS NO MAJORITY.

I just showed you that it wasn't Constitutional. Are you seriously arguing against Article 1?

Other than that, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the US constitution. It is a general statement of principles, and there are loads of things it does not mention that are appropriate exertions of federal power. The argument that you are trying to make, that if it's not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that the fed can't control it, is an absurdity. The constitution never mentions an air force, only an army and a navy. Does that mean that the air force is unconstitutional? Of course not.

Ha, I should have known. Another Liberal "breathing document" idiot. You clearly don't understand that the Constitution doesn't need to say everything the Government CAN'T do. It states the things it CAN. And my god, of course the Constitution provides for a military. Are you being serious with that Air Force bit? You have GOT to be trolling me.

Why do you think the bothered to build the Amendments system into the Constitution? Of course they knew there would be things they didn't think of. According to you and most liberals though, we can just throw that away too. The Government apparently can do anything it needs to do, regardless if it's "mentioned" or not.

The single greatest document in our nations, perhaps the worlds, history. The document behind every right, freedom, and responsibility our country is build upon. And you have reduced it to an optional reference at best. A guideline perhaps, no more. To be tossed aside when convenient.

So by your definition the Government has NO limits to what it can do, well of course Obamacare is Constitutional if you believe that. Why are you even debating what's Constitutional or not if you believe it's irrelevant in the first place?

The states also have a strong case with their claim that ObamaCare upsets the Constitution's federalist framework by converting the states into arms of the federal government. The bill requires states to spend billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and vastly expands who can enroll in Medicaid, whether or not states can afford it. But again, this apparently doesn't matter to you either.

(this will require you to go to sources that aren't Free Republic or Fox News however.

Translation: No such record of this "majority" exists, so I'll simply claim you aren't as "informed" as me.

RE: I don't get it...
By eskimospy on 8/12/2010 8:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell are you talking about? Why on earth would a legal consensus in the US require a finding by a congressional committee or the justice department? It might explain a lot that you search for partisan political bodies such as the committees for your legal advice. You can keep shrieking THERE IS NO MAJORITY all you want, but it won't change reality. Spend just a few minutes researching it on the internet, that's all it will take to educate yourself.


As to how the constitution works, you are simply wrong. There's really no other way to put it. The Constitution never mentions an air force; it explicitly mentions an army and a navy, but nothing else. You may THINK it means a military, but that's not what it says. So either we go strictly by the terms of it as you claim we should, or we don't. The constitution does not say that congress CAN make an air force, so how did we do it? I sure hope you aren't going to make the argument that the founders meant for congress to make whatever military was appropriate for the time, like one of those 'breathing constitution' commie 'libruls'. I am showing you this example to demonstrate to you the absurdity of your argument that if the constitution doesn't specifically authorize it, that it's not among the powers granted. Hopefully you understand how the constitution works better now.

Finally, I never said anything about the constitution needing to spell out what the fed can't do. It most certainly does spell out what it can, and that's my whole point. The courts determine what is permissible under the commerce clause, the power to tax, etc. I'm just telling you now that they are most likely going to disagree with you. Time to start facing up to the real world. Your pathetic attempt to strawman me by saying it can be tossed aside when convenient just shows how desperate you are.

This is my last post, because you aren't interested in actually debating the issue. You keep shrieking about the constitution and history and each time I shoot down a new falsehood you drop it, pretend it never happened, and then go make up another one. You're convinced that you're right, facts be damned. I can genuinely say that I've never had someone attempt to lecture me on the constitution who has gotten as many basic facts wrong as you have. Do you have ANY shame whatsoever? I already know that even when the courts rule against you, you won't think 'I guess I was wrong', you'll blame the judiciary for being part of the vast 'librul' conspiracy too. You are proudly ignorant and irrational, and you don't deserve any more of my time.

RE: I don't get it...
By knutjb on 8/13/2010 1:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have over-reached on the belief there is some sort of consensus, one way or the other. I have heard lawyers, both liberal and conservative, express for and against in about equal numbers.

The primary concern with the healthcare debacle and many other new programs is: are the legislative and executive branches exceeding their authority in regards to the commerce clause? That is no slam dunk.

I think they have exceeded their authority but that is merely an opinion until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
The Constitution never mentions an air force; it explicitly mentions an army and a navy, but nothing else. You may THINK it means a military, but that's not what it says.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Care to rethink that comment? They had no idea that man could fly but they left room for areas they knew they could not know of and room to deal with such.

The left loves the "general Welfare" part but conveniently miss/ignore the preceding statement. I think the current regime is placing their own selfish political greed over their well stated obligation to our "common Defence."

Try reading the Federalist Papers to gain the context of what they were after, #10 is my favorite.

RE: I don't get it...
By eskimospy on 8/13/2010 4:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Nice, now you're arguing against yourself. Obama's health care plan most certainly provides for the 'general welfare'. If you're going to accept the preceding clause, you have to accept the following one. I in no way wish to rethink it, because my point was exactly the one you're making. The founders left the constitution room to grow.

You're terrible at this, but thanks for helping my argument out anyway.

RE: I don't get it...
By knutjb on 8/14/2010 3:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
You are thicker than you think, I previously said that the government was over-stepping their role and in no way supports your assertion.

What I did imply is that the left is very selective on what they use, general Welfare, and your argument ignored the common defence part that allows for adding the Air Force, which was originally part of the Army, to the Army and Navy as equals. Over-stepping of common defence would be the Feds taking over local and state police functions. Like the Feds dictating healthcare is over-ridding states responsibilities.

We are United States made up of independent States not Federal States of submissive, dependent States.
Nice, now you're arguing against yourself. Obama's health care plan most certainly provides for the 'general welfare'.
Except that they are using the "Commerce" clause not the "general Welfare" clause as their reasoning. When they passed the bill they said it wasn't a "Tax" but now are using "Tax" to defend it in court under the "Commerce" clause.

Again, maybe you need to rethink your position...

RE: I don't get it...
By Donkey2008 on 8/12/2010 3:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Just a tip for your public speaking skills - when you start any sentence off with "You're an idiot!" it pretty muchs ensures that your entire argument will be ignored.

Just sayin.

RE: I don't get it...
By Lerianis on 8/13/2010 11:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
Only for you. Personally, even if someone starts their sentence with that, I still read their posting because they could still have a very good point to PROVE that someone is being an idiot.... which, honestly, is usually the case!

RE: I don't get it...
By Donkey2008 on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: I don't get it...
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 4:41:23 PM , Rating: 4
So how's the Kool-Aid taste? Go on and take a few crazies and use them as the example for an entire group, brilliant. You work for MSNBC?

You are right Obama did say what he was going to do and many thought he was just appeasing some far left crazies the way Clinton did just to get elected. Ooops.

While healthcare was his primary issue most of the rest of us would like to go back to work.

In other news...
By labbbby on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By bupkus on 8/12/2010 2:00:40 PM , Rating: 1
79% of Americans view online porn.*

*Actually, I just made up that percentage for the sake of comic license. Although I'll bet some of you figured that percentage as rather conservative.

Spock: Admiral, if we go "by the book". like Lieutenant Saavik, hours could seem like days.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki