2 recommendations |
!One word: Disgusting | |
|
 | | |
Re: DisgustingAgreed... but thats big business.. why take the government handout and service the nation properly for an affordable rate when you can force them all onto LTE for $15 per GB and rape them blind.
This even makes the caped wired service overages from ATT and comcast ( $10 per 50 GB) seem affordable. If those were the rates for wireless LTE ($10 per 50GB not for 1) there would not be as much uproar. heck ATT/Verizon you could even get away with your bogus $20 hotspot fee if the data was priced as above. | |
|
|  cdruGo Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
1 recommendation |
to ITALIAN926
Re: !Why is it "disgusting"? Mega-corporations refusing government handouts. Would you rather them accept the money and piss it away with something they are just going to abandon or otherwise not care about? Send the funds over to a telco that would actually use it. | |
|
| | | |
Re: !I do see your point and agree they would piss it away, however the mega-corps have made sure that any new telco operation ( Caugh... local municipal broadband) that would step in on there territory are sent the way of the DODO before they even get off the ground.
Its literally a loose-loose for the consumer anyway you look at it. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: !said by buddahbless:I do see your point and agree they would piss it away, however the mega-corps have made sure that any new telco operation ( Caugh... local municipal broadband) that would step in on there territory are sent the way of the DODO before they even get off the ground.
Its literally a loose-loose for the consumer anyway you look at it.
I was going to say this. Why do they block the towns from doing their own thing if they aren't interested? Because some day they might get around to offering something there and don't want any competition. Why would I buy their expensive / capped LTE service when my town offers much cheaper fiber? There are some interesting podcasts about this that I have recently listened to. » muninetworks.org/tags/ta ··· and-bits | |
|
| | | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
to buddahbless
said by buddahbless:I do see your point and agree they would piss it away, however the mega-corps have made sure that any new telco operation ( Caugh... local municipal broadband) that would step in on there territory are sent the way of the DODO before they even get off the ground.
Its literally a loose-loose for the consumer anyway you look at it.
Agreed, these companies really think wireless is a replacement and it is for their business but in the end it really isnt.. at the price of 4g with overages people are just gonna stick to sat.. (used it before at a friends house..) lets just say its not so fun, 4g priceing is outragous (I understand that it costs money to operate and profit is needed) but im startin to think for rural areas they should allow increased caps (due to lesser pop..) or at least let the citys that really want their own to make it.. | |
|
| |  maartenaElmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA |
to cdru
said by cdru:Why is it "disgusting"? Mega-corporations refusing government handouts. Would you rather them accept the money and piss it away with something they are just going to abandon or otherwise not care about? Send the funds over to a telco that would actually use it.
This is the issue I have with it.... there are quite a few "community broadband" projects going on. Some want to deploy their own fiber, others want to use the city light poles to deploy wifi, and again others are looking at some other affordable wireless alternative. These efforts are again and again being fought by AT&T and Verizon as they are afraid of competition, in some cases to such a point where they just send 20 lawyers @ $500 an hour, where limited city/community funds just can't fight the behemoth. If AT&T doesn't want to connect the rural areas, but a local ISP is willing to take it on, they should NOT be allowed to fight it if they refused money to do it themselves. | |
|
| |
| |  SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
1 recommendation |
Re: !said by Cabal:Still not a charity. You wouldn't be saying that if your options were dialup or satellite. | |
|
| openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to ITALIAN926
Disgusting that they don't want to leach off of the government's teat? You should be thankful that those evil big corporations aren't taking even more taxpayers' money. | |
|
| | | |
Re: !Yes, its disgusting. There are thousands, no, MILIIONS upon millions of people in this country that want FiOS / Uverse access, and they wont even build it with taxpayer money ! Yes, its truly disgusting. | |
|
| | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 9:57 pm
Re: !Then let another company leach off of the government. I'm still scratching my head why not taking government money is such a bad thing for a business. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: !I'll bet ya that if it was a billion dollars, they would have taken it. This was like Bill Gates walking by a $1 bill, and actually spending the time to pick it up.
Verizon is getting fined way more money by PSC's/ PUC's for inadequate phone service right now. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Jul-26 9:25 am
Re: !Ok. So the question still remains why are VZ and T being vilified for not taking the money? If indeed the amount of money was too small, we as taxpayers should be thankful that it's not being squandered any more than it already is.
How much if VZ being fined? | |
|
| | |
garrybussey to ITALIAN926
Anon
2012-Jul-30 7:42 am
to ITALIAN926
Google Fiber should light a fire under their asses. | |
|
| |
Os
Member
2012-Jul-25 12:28 pm
Backwards We GoMaybe it's time to have some sort of "use it or lose it" provision for these companies since their lines are in the public right-of-way.
Spend a certain percentage reinvesting in the lines or lose the right to own them. Don't upgrade the copper to fiber? It's ours now. | |
|
|  swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
1 recommendation |
swintec
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 12:38 pm
Re: Backwards We Gosaid by Os:Spend a certain percentage reinvesting in the lines or lose the right to own them. Don't upgrade the copper to fiber? It's ours now.
Why would "we" want the lines that appear to have no return on investments? If they were worth a damn they would be invested in and upgraded by the phone company. Not sure why you think the government at any level would make them suddenly worthwhile. | |
|
| | | |
Os
Member
2012-Jul-25 1:16 pm
Re: Backwards We GoTelecommunications service is clearly within the public interest.
If the companies who were granted right-of-way and given in many cases with these rural areas funds to invest in them have no interest in providing a viable service, then we can't just let them milk these people for all they're worth as a digital divide sets up.
The government wouldn't take them to monetize them, the government would take control of them to give these people something worth a damn no private company seems interested in doing. | |
|
| | | |
to swintec
AT&T might actually be better off if their most-deteriorated lines are taken by the government using eminent domain.
Eminent domain has favorable tax treatment, in that you can reinvest the proceeds in like property without capital gains taxes. Thus, AT&T could spend the money it receives from losing its worst-performing lines on upgrading its better-performing lines to U-verse.
That's not such a bad outcome, considering that AT&T has been unable to find a private buyer for those lines ... | |
|
| | | Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
Re: Backwards We Gosaid by tanzam75:AT&T might actually be better off if their most-deteriorated lines are taken by the government using eminent domain.
Eminent domain has favorable tax treatment, in that you can reinvest the proceeds in like property without capital gains taxes. Thus, AT&T could spend the money it receives from losing its worst-performing lines on upgrading its better-performing lines to U-verse.
That's not such a bad outcome, considering that AT&T has been unable to find a private buyer for those lines ...
interesting you brought that up.., that could be possible.. wouldnt that mean then the government would run it? (I cant see them expanding it..) | |
|
| | | |
to swintec
Because towns and regional ISPs would deliver meaningful high speed connection at reasonable prices. That can easily happen without the burden of demands for high ROI from big ISPs. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Backwards We GoAgreed. there is one provision that was enacted decades ago by the US government that every residence in the 48 states ( with in reason) should have 2 basic services. 1) telephone line 2) electricity. For 2015 that should be updated to 1)some sort of fiber optic line "as copper is now an outdated standard" 2) electricity. | |
|
| | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
to swintec
We are told quite often that they have no return on investment but that is not true. The reason they don't invest in it is because they get more of an ROI on wireless.
While taking their copper is a little extreme, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to stop community development projects. Jcondo8 is absolutely right, the only reason they sue to block such projects is because it will out-sell their capped 4g. Since they are clearly (and vocally) stating they do not want broadband or FIOS (for Verizon) they should loose the right to claim unfair competition. | |
|
|  skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
3 recommendations |
skeechan to Os
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 12:57 pm
to Os
And who would run it, the gov't which mismanages and bankrupts everything they touch? | |
|
| | |
sparc to Os
Member
2012-Jul-25 1:06 pm
to Os
these companies want to to lose these rural lines. Verizon has already offloaded a bunch. AT&T is the one who couldn't find any takers since they started playing the game late. | |
|
|  NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
to Os
said by Os:Maybe it's time to have some sort of "use it or lose it" provision for these companies since their lines are in the public right-of-way.
Not so everywhere. The utility poles in my old neighborhood are on private property, not public right of ways. | |
|
| |
VZSUX
Anon
2012-Jul-25 12:30 pm
MMM FISHY!!Why Do i see Frontier and Century Link getting Verizon assests, why?> because VZ is going to be forced to divest Fios and their Landline networks after the Cable Spectrum deal goes though, They'll apply for the funding when they get control of those networks from VZ
Lowell'satool.com | |
|
 WFA
@ameritech.net |
WFA
Anon
2012-Jul-25 12:34 pm
corporate welfareSo now it's a bad thing when companies don't take corporate welfare? | |
|
|  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 3:23 pm
Re: corporate welfaresaid by WFA :So now it's a bad thing when companies don't take corporate welfare?
Yes, here in Karl Land, AT&T & Verizon get criticized for not taking an FCC handout as much as for taking it. | |
|
| |  David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
1 recommendation |
David
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 3:43 pm
Re: corporate welfaresaid by FFH5:Yes, here in Karl Land, AT&T & Verizon get criticized for not taking an FCC handout as much as for taking it.
YOU OWE ME A KEYBOARD! that was hilarious! | |
|
| | | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 8:53 pm
Re: corporate welfaresaid by David:said by FFH5:Yes, here in Karl Land, AT&T & Verizon get criticized for not taking an FCC handout as much as for taking it.
YOU OWE ME A KEYBOARD! that was hilarious! And you owe me a computer mouse and a free beer! Matt | |
|
| | |
to WFA
said by WFA :So now it's a bad thing when companies don't take corporate welfare?
It was a bad thing when they took the welfare and still is a bad thing... specially when corporations pocketed the money instead of spending it the way it was intended. As soon as their corporate puppet gets elected they'll go back to their old ways. | |
|
David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 12:36 pm
.well anyone that wants to be their own ISP should pipe up now and apply. There should be no excuses now. | |
|
|
•••• |
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2012-Jul-25 12:36 pm
LTE will probably be pretty good...I expect LTE will be a nice improvement. If you had to choose between Frontier and LTE in a rural area, which works better? Really, all the nice expectations we had for WiMax should apply to LTE also.
Really, what LTE needs is more wireless competitors. I expect that putting up a tower is a lot easier than wiring up a bunch of houses. AT&T and Verizon duopoly will stagnate by itself. That open 1GHz band from the white house advisers sounds like the ticket. | |
|
|
••••• |
 w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR |
w0g
Member
2012-Jul-25 12:36 pm
waste of moneythe FCC is paying to expand non-broadband options like DSL? waste of money entirely, any investment should be going toward fiber. DSL is so far behind except for the few close to the RT or CO, so in effect they're paying to deploy 1.5Mbps or less to people. cable and fios meanwhile are pushing 20Mbps as the standard, upto 300Mbps. should at least put that money towards something useful and non archaic. so tired of paying to maintainand build DSL and unshielded copper lines that serve little purpose outside of telephone service anymore. | |
|
| |
tmc8080
Member
2012-Jul-25 12:40 pm
block grants..apparently, these are 70 - 100 million $ block grants which are tied to deploying a next generation network (or at least one grade higher than what's currently there) to rural and under-served populations... and based on the specific requirements and the number of customers to be connected.. the big telcos are saying NO THANKS.. they'll just gouge the customers they have more to make up the 100 mil. difference.
so, why not give the grant to RCN, they can wire the rest of Boston, and spread out in Massachusetts.., or Queens, NY, etc..
Apparently the government thinks telecom companies can connect 350 - 400k people with just $70 - $100 million dollars...
really? Hmm...
Here's an idea.. give the 100 mil. to Google and expand that Kansas, Mo fiber out to the poorer suburbs outside KC!!! | |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 12:57 pm
CoolSo give the taxpayers their money back! | |
|
| SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: Coolsaid by skeechan:So give the taxpayers their money back! HA! Like that'll happen. Hell would freeze over first. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Jul-25 1:23 pm
Reality, again!The carriers are refusing the subsidy, because they know they'll still lose money.
Verizon can't get more than 1/3rd of their customers to buy Fios; Rural customers are more fickle - simply not interested in buying broadband at even urban market rates. | |
|
| | |
Re: Reality, again!Rural customers are not more fickle just more cautious on how they spend there cash.. If you gave rural customers the option of comcast at $40 per month for 3-6 mbps HSI @ or ATT DSL 1.5-3.0 mbps for $15 they would chose the ATT DSL and be happy with it, with not even a care in the world that there are pricier options for 20-100 mbps. A lot of people seem to forget there only option in rural areas is dial up for $9.95 + per month. Why would anyone pay $10 for 56k dial up if for just a few bucks more they could get at least DSL speeds.
Really what would you chose if you at least had the option but were on a budget. | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Jul-30 12:27 pm
Re: Reality, again!said by buddahbless:Rural customers are not more fickle just more cautious on how they spend there cash.. If you gave rural customers the option of comcast at $40 per month for 3-6 mbps HSI @ or ATT DSL 1.5-3.0 mbps for $15 they would chose the ATT DSL and be happy with it, with not even a care in the world that there are pricier options for 20-100 mbps. A lot of people seem to forget there only option in rural areas is dial up for $9.95 + per month. Why would anyone pay $10 for 56k dial up if for just a few bucks more they could get at least DSL speeds.
Really what would you chose if you at least had the option but were on a budget.
Fickle, cautious, frugal, conservative - you can call it what you like, the fact is simple, rural customers are less willing to part with their hard-earned dollars for broadband, at any speed. Urban DSL isn't $15. You have to buy dialtone, which takes even a $15 teaser rate to about $40, typically $50-60. Basic DSL rates run $25-40 before fees. | |
|
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
|
HeyNot to defend AT&T here, but the optomist in me thinks that maybe AT&T is trying to develop a plan to deal with their rual subs (that does not mean selling them off). They may be trying to get the metro areas upgraded 100% to u-verse system, and taking the old stuff out to the rual areas. And such dident want to be restricted to a timeline of doing this.
I know the odds of that being true are very razor slim, but shoot I can dream. | |
|
|
••• |
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
sadlyI think the only thing that will help rural areas in the long run is if the goverment is willing to use some of the whitespace for start up companies.., AND NOT TO AT&T AND VERIZON.. the companies want that more than anything and we all know this, If the whitespace was used for other providers to come in I think we would see wireless change big time but then again it would be costly | |
|
 Jon GebLong time member
join:2001-01-09
Howell, MI |
Can you really blame them?Why on earth would you continue to invest in a dead end technology, wired communication and entertainment is dying. The only need for wired infrastructure is for backhaul to towers. | |
|
|
••••••••••• |
rody_44
Premium Member
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA |
rody_44
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 9:21 pm
Oversight Along with accepting money in this program comes weekly visits to the job site by the federal government. Verizon cant afford to let that happen for any amount of money. Not with the amount of illegal mexicans they have doing the work. No rule against them from using it for fiber. But the rules do have a huge amount of monitoring done by the fed. It actually calls for weekly inspections and Obama created a agency for just that purpose. | |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA |
Where's that anti-trust?Why are these companies being allowed to continue in this way? What the hell! | |
|
chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA |
Declined Connect America SubsidiesPerhaps there were "strings" attached? | |
|
|
|
·
