Of course...that is why i take the stance over com
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 04/02/2016 12:43:26 PM
Of course...that is why i take the stance over complete bull. I would and do take up the same argument.
Do we know for certain that a small Gov GOP would have 'supported' the build out of the Internet
A small GOP would have placed that issue with the States...hopefully. But I am not sure of your question...are you talking about the FCC spectrum auctions?
I followed the 2008 auction heavily for soecific reasons. the current one is what I have been waiting for..."low band" 600 MHz. Remember that free "over the air" internet talk years ago.....well...say good bye to that.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/fcc-opens-600-m...n-cm600645
I was tempted(but couldn't find the money...late to the gate..and..maybe just a pipe dream)...to buy a bunch of low band up back in the day via low band carrier broadcasters. But as you can see....the Government has more of an incentive than just helping all out given the fact that they banked a rough $45 Billion last year.
Do we know for certain that a small Gov GOP would have 'supported' the build out of the Internet
A small GOP would have placed that issue with the States...hopefully. But I am not sure of your question...are you talking about the FCC spectrum auctions?
I followed the 2008 auction heavily for soecific reasons. the current one is what I have been waiting for..."low band" 600 MHz. Remember that free "over the air" internet talk years ago.....well...say good bye to that.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/fcc-opens-600-m...n-cm600645
I was tempted(but couldn't find the money...late to the gate..and..maybe just a pipe dream)...to buy a bunch of low band up back in the day via low band carrier broadcasters. But as you can see....the Government has more of an incentive than just helping all out given the fact that they banked a rough $45 Billion last year.
(0)
(0)