Brewerfan.net to close its doors.

[Brian the Automator]

because the internet is dead and boring.

[JoeH33]

I saw that article this morning on Drudge, and I have to say I agree with Cuban to a certain extent. There was a lot of innovation when everyone started getting high speed connections (YouTube, sporting events on line, music videos on line, file sharing etc.) , now all that stuff is second nature to us. Or as Cuban stated the Internet is a utility. If we all got Internet connections that were (10) times faster, who knows what new applications could be developed.

[sgtcluels]

Tool?

 

Suggesting to the community, seriously? Does he not understand how fast our back bone networks would have to be? And on top of that, how insanely complex streaming 1gigabit content to millions of customers is, especially if it's on demand.

 

What's next, is he going to say Food is dead, because he suggested all our meals in Pill form?

 

Mr. Cubban, get over yourself. Technology evolves over time, some times slowly. I kind of hate that guy now.

[HebrewHammer]

I agree with him mainly. I still believe we should somehow publicly fund 10 gigabit up/down to every home in the USA regardless of location. Essentially make it a fundemental right for people to have an insanely high speed connection. With this guarantee, loads of new media companies would open. The Internet wouldn't just be for PC's any longer. We'd have so many devices made available that utilized this high speed. The air waves wouldn't be used to send TV signals any longer freeing up that bandwidth. there would be 100's of networks capable of competing with each other. There wouldn't have to be cable providers, etc. Anyone could start up an on demand media network.

 

Seriously, we'd have thousands of new businesses and the economy would boom like it never has before. Everything would change. Distribution channels would change, providing channels would change. Your typical information Website would change.

 

If we had some guarantee that everyone had an insane amount of bandwidth up and down to their house, entire new industries would be created.

 

It'll happen one day but not soon enough and probably not for awhile. It's not like it's a matter of technology. The technology is already there. But our priorities aren't and this is why it doesn't happen. Meanwhile, other countries are getting closer to this dream and America will surely be second rate one day in these markets.

 

Also, there is a lot of "dead bandwidth". That is, there is lots and lots of fiber that has been laid that isn't even being used. Google bought a ton of it awhile ago. Obviously more would have to be laid but it would be worth it. The country would be paid back this money 100 fold in new economy.

[don1481]

Brian.... I saw the title for this article and was worried that you had gone into bankruptcy and had to call the law offices of Peter Francis Geraci and he told you that you had to close this site down.

 

JoeH, if we got Internet connections that were 10 times faster, we'd get even less done than we do nowhttp://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

[sgtcluels]

I think my money would be better spent on things like Health Care instead of a 10gb network to provide a false economy where we just bailed out the companies who want to provide the service.

 

No way can that happen with current networking, not only would we have to go to IPV6 to handle the sudden increase in backbone, but how on earth can you transfer that much consoldated services? Hell an OC768 which is just emerging now can have a payload of 38GB, and I'm sure those cost millions a month.

[HebrewHammer]

IPv6 is inevitable anyways.

 

The money doesn't have to be taken out of health care. Where was this suggested?

 

I'm not sure how it's a false economy. There would be a new wild west/gold rush opened up. It would sustain as involvement in it is limited by ideas, not capital. Much like the modern Internet, but now with far more facilities. I'm not sure who is being bailed out.

 

I'm not worried about figuring out the technical specifications. The fact is the technology exists for this. It's a matter of designing and setting it up. There's plenty of computer scientists out there who could work it out.

[homer]

"I agree with him mainly. I still believe we should somehow publicly fund 10 gigabit up/down to every home in the USA regardless of location. Essentially make it a fundemental right for people to have an insanely high speed connection."

 

I've read the Constitution....no where is there an Unalienable Right to Insanely High Speed Internet Connections.

 

The private sector will do this just fine.

[HebrewHammer]

We have a right to communication. The private sector will drag its feet as long as possible. With a program like this, everyone wins. Tax payers pay for all this awesome bandwidth, old and new companies utilize this, the economy booms, more tax than ever is generated because of all this wealth, we have a ton of exports now creating more GNP and the country as a whole profits form this. Government only lays down the foundation. You know, the same way government builds roads and highways so we can get to private business?

 

Should the government stop building roads? Let the private sector build roads now where you pay to drive on them? (note, the government funds the building of roads and hires private companies often to build them, same would apply here). Roads pay for themselves because people can travel to and from places buying and selling, generating income and TAX. Cars are built and sold because we have roads. The government laid the foundation for the private sector to play in.

 

Plus, the whole leadership in the world thing. We would be well ahead of the curve, since we're well behind it right now.

[dadofandrew]

Heh. Yes, let's involve the gov't in a private matter...they are much more efficient at darn near everything.

 

What's that old saying, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

[HebrewHammer]

It's not a private matter, it's a public matter. The government creates the bandwidth to every house (roads), private business sells access (cars) and private business sets up shops, knowing that there are roads to get to it (tv networks, music networks, media networks of all types, web sites, infinite things no one has thought of yet.) There's a whole lot of new business created. The nation as a whole benefits and the cost of laying bandwidth pays for itself in economy created. It's really simple. You'd probably be able to cut taxes later because of all the new generated income in export technology/media/etc.

 

But this media can only sustain and be reasonable if there is a guarantee that everyone has access to it. The same way TV is. Everyone has access to signals that are broadcast OTA.

[homer]

I suppose infrastructure could be argued but it's a flimsy argument. The government doesn't lay phone lines.

 

And you can still communicate without insanely fast internet connections.

[Katuluu]

The City of Minneapolis is about to roll out city wide wireless. While it's a contractor who installed the routers all over town and will run the network, it was paid with public funds.

[Paul77]

We have a right to communication.

Right. But there is a difference betweens rights and privileges. Insanely fast connections sounds like a privilege.

[homer]

"While it's a contractor who installed the routers all over town and will run the network, it was paid with public funds."

 

As with Milwaukee's current plan, I'm pretty sure the city isn't spending any money on the project at all.

 

Under the Minneapolis plan, the network will be built, owned and operated by the winning bidder. No tax money will be used. That contrasts with a similar plan in Philadelphia, which will also spend no tax money on a plan to provide wireless service across its 135-square-mile area, where the city plan calls for establishing a not-for-profit foundation that will raise money from foundation grants, issue taxable bonds and seek low-interest loans to fund the project.

Both cities' plans reflect a trend in turning to outside sources to fund, deploy and manage the network. By not relying on taxpayer money, the cities avoid direct conflict with telecoms and cable companies that have fought such plans with well-financed ad and public relations campaigns claiming they waste taxpayer dollars.

 

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1785426,00.asp

[Fatter than Joey]

The government doesn't lay phone lines.

 

This is not entirely true -- The Rural Electrification Act says hello!

 

The building I currently lease was built on tax-payers dollars, to electrify and telephonify rural Wisconsin.

 

While the Gov't doesn't lay the lines, they have given money for companies to lay lines.

[sgtcluels]

Anyways my point was that to bring 1 or 10 gig to everyone via the public sector would take money away from programs like health care. The immense cost associated with this would be mind boggling.

[Katuluu]

homer wrote:.

As with Milwaukee's current plan, I'm pretty sure the city isn't spending any money on the project at all.

Whoops, you are correct. With all the talk about laying fiber optics, I must have gotten the two projects criss crossed.

[RU Rah Rah]

Well, you had a pretty good run.

[DuWayne Steurer]

We have to pay for water and electricity, and those are imminently more necessary than an insanely fast internet hookup.

[nBo Baseball]

Brian, NEVER JOKE ABOUT THAT!

What would I do without BREWERFAN? As for Cuban, HE'S A BONEHEAD!

[HebrewHammer]

We have to pay for water and electricity, and those are imminently more necessary than an insanely fast internet hookup.

You would pay for internet access. I don't think I ever said you wouldn't. The government would only lay the lines. Sort of like with water and electricity where the government paid for the pipe and lines (or large parts of it at one time or another) and you pay a provider for it every month. ISP's would still provide the routing and delivery of content to you for a price. You would only have the line to your house.

The point is all the industry it would create. It would pay for itself (as most government programs are pure expenses this would more or less be an investment) by creating a new industry with more jobs and exports thus more tax money and potential lower taxes for everyone. The only reason the government would do this is because it would guarantee that everyone had access to this new medium of communication/media/whatever else thus instantly creating whole new industries.

South Korea has already done this to an extent and is reaping the benefits already. Other countries are beginning to follow. Granted, we're not talking 10-gbit connections......but we're America!

[Invader3K]

I think Cuban has a point...and look at all the money he has made in internet ventures. I don't think he's off base.

 

I like the idea of national super-high speed internet...I'm not looking from it as some sort of "human right", which I think is silly. I think it's like when the government created the national highway system and interstates in the middle part of the last century. It really increased interstate and national commerce, and a national high speed internet system would essentially do the same thing. I wonder if some national telecom company could build and pay for it, although that would essentially create a national internet provider.

[HebrewHammer]

I like the idea of national super-high speed internet...I'm not looking from it as some sort of "human right", which I think is silly. I think it's like when the government created the national highway system and interstates in the middle part of the last century. It really increased interstate and national commerce, and a national high speed internet system would essentially do the same thing. I wonder if some national telecom company could build and pay for it, although that would essentially create a national internet provider.

 

Yeah, I wasn't too serious mentioning it's a right or anything. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

But the highway analogy is right on. Highways went up and it created all types of new industry along the way. It's something we take for granted I'd imagine. Could a private company have come along and built it and charged for it? Maybe, but it doesn't make sense to allow for a monopoly when it's something a large segment of society will use.

 

Same with a national high speed internet infrastructure. It would cost a lot to build and if somehow a single company (or group) could build it, they would have a strangle hold on the infrastructure everyone would eventually be using for countless things. This isn't good for we the people. It would destroy net neutrality.

 

If a national ultra high speed network were built by the people, the companies providing access to it would have to obey net neutrality principals and this benefits everyone. A national network operated privately and available to everyone would benefit everyone.

[dadofandrew]

Cuban is probably a step ahead once again. Compared to what it was 5 years ago, the internet is all but exactly the same, except with videos of people falling down. For those in the biz, there isn't a lot going on.