decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN | lol
This tickles the crap outta me |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | poor guy
"said Drew Peterson".....I didnt know he got out of jail! 
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| Hmm.....
'"The lack of judicial action on the part of the Supreme Court will likely discourage other private enterprises from doing or expanding their business in Minnesota," said Drew Peterson'
Why would it discourage others from expanding there? I know they would be going up against the Gov but still. All they have to do is offer a better product maybe even lower prices, but it can be done. |
|
Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA | By 'private enterprises', he means ISPs only, and by 'doing or expanding their business', he means go to where a monopoly is to get easy money. |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
 ·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to me1212
said by me1212  :'"The lack of judicial action on the part of the Supreme Court will likely discourage other private enterprises from doing or expanding their business in Minnesota," said Drew Peterson' Why would it discourage others from expanding there? I guess he's saying that businesses will avoid having fiber connections, and will purposely seek out areas with less, slower, and/or more costly internet service.  |
|
ArkhmAsylm
Evrythng I need isn't really what I want
join:2006-02-22
Saint Paul, MN | Let the fun begin
It's been an interesting path, to say the least. I'm hoping that they're able to make it work for this small of a city.
--
*Tap, Tap, Tap* Is this thing on? |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Nothing some predatory pricing can't fix
Works for Comcast.
»'Discounted' Competition
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| trend
This shouldn't just happen in the state of Minnesota, but in places where AT&T and Verizon, Comcast & Time Warner refuse to deploy networks and seek to jettison rural and poor ROI geographies. All incentives should funnel to those who will build next generation infrastructure and serve the local customer base with 100% deployment, no cherry picking, no lobbying to create an unfair advantage in the market, etc. Municiapl networks don't have an unfair advantage if they are the only viable alternative left in their geographic region and areas are UNDERSERVED by any monopoly/duopoly. |
|
babystars_13
join:2009-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | ...
Good for them. Corporations shouldn't be telling anyone how to manage their own business as all there concerned at is how much money they make. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to me1212
Re: Hmm.....
They already have a huge advantage. They build a network that sells phone service and cable service. Then sell internet over it without having to pay for a new network.
They will of course be in Minnesota and will compete. It's just sad you have to invest in muni-broadband to force the big players to offer fair prices.
They really need to force these nation wide companies to offer standard prices statewide, or nation wide.
It's absurd that they can offer cheaper prices in areas with competition while somehow justifying the higher price in areas without competition. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Competition is what we need, and you are right is IS sad. I say we do local loop undundling, it worked in France and Japan why not here too. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| reply to tmc8080
Re: trend
That would work, but I think that they should try to find some1 who can do it for the muni like if there is a local wisp or just someone who know what they are doing and give them something like a Gov grant. That way they can keep the big dogs at bay, I mean how many of the big ISPs have taken Gov money b4, and how many are going to again with the stimulus package money? If they can get Gov money why not a smaller ISP? |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Does this mean all of Minnesto can?
If the State Supreme court says one city can why why can't others, with out having to go to the SC? Just sayin'. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to me1212
Re: Hmm.....
said by me1212 :I know they would be going up against the Gov but still. Since this is funded by private investment not government obligations, they are NOT competing with the government but a private group that the government has asked to do the work. This is the same as when the telco was given exclusive rights to service the town. In my opinion, failure to install fiber when requested makes the telco an non-interested party and makes them ineligible to oppose it in court (ie: When they tried to block it, they should have been ruled as someone who had no right to bring the suit in the first place). |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | That makes it even better. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to me1212
said by me1212 :Competition is what we need, and you are right is IS sad. I say we do local loop undundling, it worked in France and Japan why not here too. Local loop unbundling only works for private loops like that of the telco infrastructure built out on sub-Cat1 grade cabling.
Unbundling is generally only feasible at the major COs, but that limits the footprint of any data-based service to technologies that can operate with the distance of the CO. As of yet, it is still prohibitively expensive to unbundle remote terminals due to limited / non-existent cabinet space. Companies don't have the money to pour their own pad and get their own utility power to feed a remote terminal to only acquire a handful of customers from the incumbent LEC.
Competition only works if the companies can actually make a profit at the end of the day. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| said by espaeth :Competition only works if the companies can actually make a profit at the end of the day. Oh they easily make profits. The problem is they want unlimited growth of profits. So once an area is saturated, the only way to grow is to price gouge the customer you have. In duopolies where your competition has the same philosophy, you can raise your prices and they will match you. It's easy to collude when the competition shares your same wants and philosophies. Muni-broadband puts a cap on that really fast. As the goal is steady long term profits and not unlimited profit growth. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by insomniac84 :said by espaeth :Competition only works if the companies can actually make a profit at the end of the day. Oh they easily make profits. I believe espaeth was referring to the CLECs making a profit, which is much more challenging if they actually have to provide a portion of the facilities to include remote terminals and the power to feed them. |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
1 edit | Spread the FUD
Cue the corporate shills and their proclamations of doom and gloom for the citizens of Monticello. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to espaeth
Re: Hmm.....
said by espaeth :said by me1212 :Competition is what we need, and you are right is IS sad. I say we do local loop undundling, it worked in France and Japan why not here too. Local loop unbundling only works for private loops like that of the telco infrastructure built out on sub-Cat1 grade cabling. Unbundling is generally only feasible at the major COs, but that limits the footprint of any data-based service to technologies that can operate with the distance of the CO. As of yet, it is still prohibitively expensive to unbundle remote terminals due to limited / non-existent cabinet space. Companies don't have the money to pour their own pad and get their own utility power to feed a remote terminal to only acquire a handful of customers from the incumbent LEC. Competition only works if the companies can actually make a profit at the end of the day. What is being talked about is having the "Last Mile" separate from the Cable Company/ISP itself. The Cable Company/ISP peers at the central point where all the Last Mile runs end up (This is the equivalent of the Central Office/CO for Phones service/Dry Copper runs). |
|
