spike010101
Premium
join:2003-11-28
Lacey, WA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Yay
Lets hope so! 
WinMX is back! - »www.winmxisback.com
»www.aresunlimited.net |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| lost commerce
regardless of who is pushing for fiber I still believe that the Telco's and Cable companies are holding back alot of revenue for other companies by limiting a huge chunk of the country from a reasonable speed of access to the people who are begging for it and wanting to give money to have the speeds. We don't all want a free ride never said that. There is just alot of commerce lost in this country due to the hold back of deploying technology in the broadband market. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| So?
Unless there are donations attached to the press release, or the major telcos get behind it, this press release will disappear with barely a ripple, having no effect at all.
Besides, I am sure there is a telco lobbyist somewhere that will inform our representatives that every home will have fiber soon, if only they could get rid of pesky regulation.
It's a nice thought, but don't expect this congress to do anything they are not paid to do. |
|
Eloquorius
Premium
join:2004-05-24
San Jose, CA
| Who cares who's pushing it?
Who cares if people/companies who stand to profit are pushing for fiber? Even if they can get us 20Mbps as a baseline standard that would still leave us behind Japan where you can get a symetrical 100Mbps connections for less than $35/month! Suddenly my cable connection doesn't feel so "comcastic" anymore. Yeah, so big companies will make money off their infrastructure investments. There are lots of reasons for the dismal state of broadband service is the U.S., so I don't wanna hear a blame game... I just want to see improvement. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to nasadude
Re: So?
FTTH Council Lobbies Congress
Notice the magic bribery word. The real question is: is it enough of a bribe to matter.
And a better question that will never get answered satisfactorily: why is bribery driving our government?
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| reply to shoan
Re: lost commerce
Why arent those companies losing revenue helping out the telcos and cable companies by contributing to thier build out fund? Its not the telco or cable companies job to build out infastructure so that other companies can make money off of it, it is thier job to build it out so that they can make money off of it since they own it. You state that a lot of commerce is lost due to the hold back of deploying technology in the broadband market yet you dont say who should be paying to deploy it. Again, if those companies losing revenue dont want to lose revenue, they are free to build out thier own techology and network to recoup that lost revenue, it is not up to the telco or cable companies to make sure other companies make money. |
|
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | Consumers have already payed for it... more than once. |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| and everytime they toss out numbers that say well it cost a few thousand dollars to pass a house. I know this is just a divided number of the total cost. But I would gladly pay the money to get hooked up never said otherwise. I know they made their copper network pay off for them over time same would happen with fiber. They get enough money from the government to "help with operating costs" in various forms and fashions that they can deploy more broadband to the people. And in turn having mre people online faster will have us using those sites more which raises the content providers bandwidth requirements which in turn raises their bill for bandwidth which is the increased profit. Then we have to upgrade to higher speeds to access all those goodies out there and then in turn pay more for higher bandwidth packages and increasing their profits on the consumer end again. So increased operations will pay for the network itself. Which is exactly what your asking for the users to help pay for the network. |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| reply to nasadude
Re: So?
if they could get rid of that pesky regulation AND get some more help from the tax-payers please oh please mister government give us more money to help us deploy what all the people want that we are just so strapped for cash to provide just think of how you will look like a political saint come election time if you help pay for us to provide service for a change. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to Eloquorius
Re: Who cares who's pushing it?
What would be interesting is to see a study on how much energy in the form of gasoline and diesel would be saved if a robust national broadband network enabled people to do more telecommuting and less driving to work and back.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
|  Good!
A lot of us stuck in AT&T's limbo la-la-land would give a limb for fiber with ~=>20Mbps. AT&T's retarded "project flavor-of-the-week" and it's 6Mbps (WTH?), is just ridiculous. Cable's waaaay past that in some places with just BASIC service! Besides, we all know AT&T will NEVER finish the deployment. They'll get a few places rolling, talk about how great they are and how much they are doing for their customers, they'll whine and complain about their competitors, and then without so much as a squeak, we will here nothing more about it, ever again All anyone needs to do is remember "project pronto" to know that. Same song, different verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to Tsume
Re: lost commerce
said by Tsume  :Consumers have already payed for it... more than once. That's like saying there shouldn't be a defense budget because we bought a lot of bullets back in 1942. |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | reply to spike010101
Re: Yay
When the Cable COs starting laying DOCSIS 3.0, maybe the Bells will get interested. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to footballdude
Re: lost commerce
No it's not. Come up with another stupid analogy will you. |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Consumers havent paid for any upgrades. In your monthly bill, you pay for your current services and to make sure your company makes a profit each quarter and if the company so deems it, puts away some for future upgrades. They dont have to save for future upgrades but most smart companies do but the majority of the monthly bill is to show a profit to make shareholders happy(remember, they are a FOR PROFIT company). Telco companies in almost all states are only required to service you with a dial tone so if you get dsl be happy about it. Cable is unregulated so no one can tell them what to do since local governments cant tell them what to do in negotioations anymore. No, consumers havent paid for anything but what you currently have. Again, its not the telco or cable companies job or responsiblity to make sure other companies make money. Remember, broadband is not required to live, its a total luxury, the excuse of..oh you need it for school and to do reseach and blah blah...that can all be done on dial up or at your local library where they have free computers with internet. |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| reply to Transmaster
Re: Who cares who's pushing it?
I understand your logic here but how is that the telcos responsiblity? Any employer can currently pay for a private connection between the office and the employees house with a T1 or other connection but they just dont want to pay for it. Again, its not the telcos job to make it more affordable for your employer to do this. Why does everyone look at the telcos and say...hey, if you do this we can save/make/earn more money but we arent going to help with the costs of making it happen, we just want to take advantage of your deep pockets? |
|
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
·Embarq
 ·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| reply to footballdude
Re: lost commerce
Right- except the money the people payed for bullets got spent mostly on bullets.
The money people were (forced) to pay in tax dollars in order to subsidize the telco deployment was quite obviously spent mainly on increasing profit instead of what it was intended to be spent on (current state of broadband affairs proves this quite nicely).
--
"True warriors do not follow paths, they make them. It is not just their desire, it is their nature." (Battletech) |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| "Spent mainly on increasing profit instead of what it was intended to be spent on" What was it intended to be spent on? From my understanding the tax untax we were forced to pay on our phone bills had nothing to do with broadband, it is for the phone portion of the telco business and it was not intended to be put into an upgrade fund, it was intended to help the phone companies maintain the network at hand and allow more people access to it. Again, you only have to be serviced with a dial tone and they have met the inteded purpose of the "tax not really a tax" fee since it has nothing to do with broadband but with dial tone. |
|
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
·Embarq
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Sadly the book is no longer available for download, but this and many more questions were answered inside the 200bn dollar broadband scandal book that there was a news article here about.
--
"True warriors do not follow paths, they make them. It is not just their desire, it is their nature." (Battletech) |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| reply to owenhome
Re: Good!
said by owenhome :A lot of us stuck in AT&T's limbo la-la-land would give a limb for fiber with ~=>20Mbps. AT&T's retarded "project flavor-of-the-week" and it's 6Mbps (WTH?), is just ridiculous. Cable's waaaay past that in some places with just BASIC service! Besides, we all know AT&T will NEVER finish the deployment. They'll get a few places rolling, talk about how great they are and how much they are doing for their customers, they'll whine and complain about their competitors, and then without so much as a squeak, we will here nothing more about it, ever again All anyone needs to do is remember "project pronto" to know that. Same song, different verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse. Project pronto still mananged to deliver dsl to the vast majority of those with landlines. I think the figure is greater than 80%. The only people that dont have dsl at this point are those that live in rural areas and those people are equally underserved by cable as well. |
|
