jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | FIOS not interested Verizon has made it clear recently that is it not interested in offering 100 mbps to the masses right now even though Cablevision and Comcast is currently offering it. |
|
| 100 Million? Yeah sure! Like that'll happen |
|
1 edit | you don't always get what you want and in another reality.....it happens.
the dmca is gone
copyright is sane at 10years people and society live much better off, the prices on internet are affordable to all and we all live in a star trek 60's universe.
...we interrupt this pipe dream for a reality check commercial brought to you buy HAIRBALL the new product that takes it out and dissolves the lil nastey.
only 99.99 NOW.
----------------
yea in our reality it will have a 5GB cap and cost 500000000000$
and will have DPI spyware out the yin yang. YA know that same kind that wired said the FBI was using real time on 100megabit lines. NOW after extensive testing and improvements you can now have 100megabit cause they can yes see you in your underwear at night ...oh the joy of panty wiping.
Message to the corporates ...time to share a lil a that wealth you have. NO debate DO IT. do not whine you aren't getting enough. DO not bother to lie , or use big long flagellant wording to obfuscate meaning and cajole the public. THEY TOO got an education , bet you wished you hadn't given them that now eh? |
|
|
|
| 100Mbps.. ..if you are lucky enough to live or do business in a VZ neighborhood. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | And how do you create that competition? »FCC Wants 100 Mbps For 100 MillionIf there's one thing you can be sure of, a truly worthwhile broadband plan would make competition its central theme, given competition organically cures many other problems (net neutrality, abusive pricing). And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished.
Is the way another few $100 billion dollars of taxpayer money and a gov't bureacracy like the TVA from the 1930'?
Tax breaks or subsidies to bribe existing companies to build where economics make it unprofitable(the USF shows how poorly that idea works).
Or the opposite of the above - confiscatory tax rates on the existing telcos to fund a gov't run competing telco?
And vastly expanded USF making everyone pay extra so that rural Idaho potato farmers can get Fios to the farmhouse?
Well, any viable ideas that won't cost the average taxpayer an arm & a leg? |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | How about you get me service above 5mbs first? Yes, I am shortly getting FiOS but many around me can only get one company that offers either Qwest or Verizon DSL maxing out at 5mbs |
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Linklist
Re: And how do you create that competition? Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator?
Or maybe MAGIC BEANS? |
|
| reply to jammmin
Re: AT&T also probably not interested. They'll need to abandon/upgrade their FTTN Uverse stuff to FTTH to even have a slim chance. I think I'm more likely to win the lottery than that happening. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to chronoss2009
Re: you don't always get what you want said by chronoss2009:Message to the corporates ...time to share a lil a that wealth you have. NO debate DO IT. And in a free market WORLDWIDE investment community, the investors pull their funds from those companies and go elsewhere. And the funds to do what you want disappear from the telcos and they stop funding the build-out of the infrastructure you want. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Linklist
Re: And how do you create that competition? said by Linklist:And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished. .... line sharing would be a good start. the Harvard study that recently came out recommended that.
it'll never happen, though, since all govt agencies are currently in the thrall of big business. until that changes, nothing will change, including broadband.
i'm lucky - I have FIOS and make enough money to afford it. I guess my attitude should be "who cares, I got mine!", but that's no way to run a country. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, said by Linklist:{stop there because I agree with that} use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? said by Linklist:{and instead return some of the money to the taxpayers in lower taxes; and use the rest to reduce the deficit. The improved economy can then create more investment to start paying for repairing the nations infrastructure - including telco fiber} |
|
| Creating a better economy through a lower deficit and trickle-down Reagonomics, and then just hoping the nation's networks achieve utopia organically doesn't strike me as very concrete.... |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by Linklist:And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished. .... line sharing would be a good start. the Harvard study that recently came out recommended that. Line sharing was tried and it failed. It will always fail unless price controls by the government on the wholesale rates are part of the deal. And price controls have their own downside - investors will take their money out of price controlled companies and go elsewhere. So this becomes unworkable unless government controls are extended to the whole economy. And even then, because the economy is international the US couldn't make it work because the price controls won't extend overseas. |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | reply to nasadude
Competion will not work in this case. It will create islands of incompatability to ensure profit maximization. For example, Comcast would prefer to only allow its subscribers have access to NBC content. If Verizon bought CBS, then you would need Verizon and Comcast to get NBC and CBS. (I know they cannot do this but they would really like to and as it should be).
There should be a combined Wired/Wireless infrastructure that is run as a utility. It just provides the pipes and everyone has access. Then, competion can be at the content level. I think that in many ways, this would make more money for all the companies. |
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Linklist
Line sharing wasn't "tried and failed" so much as it was implemented in a half-assed fashion, and then destroyed by a one-two punch of incompetent and corrupt regulators and incumbent ISP lobbyists.
Claiming line sharing was "tried and failed" in telecom historical context would be like telling a kid to go run a hundred yard dash, smashing his kneecaps, and then proclaiming that he tried and failed. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? That might only be a temporary solution. When we no longer have the ability to control and police the vast amounts of resources our nation uses, and we lose our position as a threat to those looking to take these resources for themselves, those trillions of dollars will drop off significantly. It's not that we are really all that powerful, as has been shown on several occasions, it's merely the projection of our perceived power that allows us to dominate many of the international markets and generate such a disproportionate amount of the world's income. We don't manufacturer anything nowadays, and our military might has become increasingly more important to our economic stability. Our dominance has already waned a great deal, and in the end we will most likely be fighting for our survival on someone else's terms if we drop our guard too much. Brush up on your Mandarin. 
I do agree that we have reached the point where we really need to seriously consider providing high speed communications services throughout the nation. Currently, the best option for any infrastructure that could endure the test of time would be a fiber network. We are nowhere near the point where we should be trying to make all rural points across the country have the same level of service as in the middle of a thriving metropolis, but these folks should not be expected to pay taxes and be completely shut out of the loop. There could be other means to compensate rural areas, such as with tax cuts and discounted wireless options, as an example. Perhaps a national Internet tax model based on population density would be appropriate? |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Line sharing wasn't "tried and failed" so much as it was implemented in a half-assed fashion, and then destroyed by a one-two punch of incompetent and corrupt regulators and incumbent ISP lobbyists. said by Linklist:I'm assuming, but correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, that if the gov't had set wholesale rates for line sharing, that you think line sharing would have worked. But if the Gov't had set wholesale rates, other financial mechanisms,including the flight of investor money in the telcos, would have killed it.
Something similar has worked in the EU to some extent. But the socialist minded; gov't bureaucracy directed economies of the EU are different from the US system. And that is a whole other msg thread to discuss whether the US economy should be run like some EU economies. |
|
VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Claiming line sharing was "tried and failed" in telecom historical context would be like telling a kid to go run a hundred yard dash, smashing his kneecaps, and then proclaiming that he tried and failed. I literally just smashed my knee last weekend
Thanks a lot |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? Or maybe MAGIC BEANS? We can't even do socialized medicine and you want socialized broadband? |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:8
 ·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to 45071419
Re: 100Mbps.. Agree speed of that magnitude are only going to happen with FTTP.
Investment cost aside most incumbents are terrified of these kinds of speed because it makes Internet delivery of multiple high definition program streams feasible. That means programming aggregator no longer needs a physical presence to deliver programming. This will stand Cable TV/Verizon TV biz model on its head.
/tom |
|
