| Private vs. Public IMO, this is yet another one of the many debates that one has after someone, in times gone by, forgot the difference between infrastructure and the private sector. This slippery slope down which we find ourselves... well, slipping, could all have been avoided if someone was paying attention "back then."
Roads, for example, are infrastructure and are maintained by various levels of government. Electricity is infrastructure. oops. Telecommunications is infrastructure. oops again. Etc.
Now, it still gets tricky when one attempts to determine what level of service is to be provided, but beyond a certain point, it's up to the local people to decide. If they want fiber, let them light fiber. If the private sector wants to purchase access to that fiber, great.
Finally, there are no end of reasons to be angry at telcos. They do a lot of irritating stuff. But we did privatize them, and they exist in large part to make money. Given that, should we blame them for not investing their money where there is little or no return? Perhaps that last "are you capitalist or aren't you?" question is off topic...
Cheers. |
|
 ArchonXD40Docsis 3.0
join:2003-02-24
Bossier City, LA | dumb dumb dumb
I'm so tired of old dumb asses getting to decide everything.
--
More upload please! |
|
| said by ArchonXD40:dumb dumb dumb I'm so tired of old dumb asses getting to decide everything. We should let you decide then. You can start by instituting instant world peace and giving every citizen in the United States free 1000Mbps broadband to each room in the house.
Still want the job? Ah, and you have to convince the taxpayers that they should foot the bill for the broadband...even if only a few would even use it. |
|
| Tax payers are not paying for this network. Revenue pays for the network. |
|
| said by Fiber2home:Tax payers are not paying for this network. Revenue pays for the network. Umm, your exactly right...TAX REVENUE pays for the network. As do muni bonds, which could go toward improving emergency operations and other essential infrastructure issues that we actually need from the government.
In order for customer revenue to pay for a network, well, you kinda need customers 
--
Bizarro I Love You |
|
| Service revenue not tax revenue. They provide a service... I pay for it. Unlike a tax which is xx% of a sale or asset. |
|
| said by Fiber2home:Service revenue not tax revenue. They provide a service... I pay for it. Unlike a tax which is xx% of a sale or asset. What aren't you understanding about the service having to be in place before it can earn revenue? Do you expect them to sell vaporware? They have to utilize the bonds and tax revenue to implement the thing to actually MAKE THE CUSTOMER REVENUE.
--
Bizarro I Love You |
|
 ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA | reply to White Noise
Maybe we shouldn't have any municipal airports either... |
|
| said by ppcpunk:Maybe we shouldn't have any municipal airports either... You already tried that one in another thread. And it still doesn't wash. Airports have become essential infrastructure that otherwise wouldn't be developed. There is no "airport competition" to be stifled when we're talking municipal airports.
--
Bizarro I Love You |
|
|
|
| reply to ppcpunk
I'm not sure if I understand ppcpunk's reply to my comments suggesting we shouldn't have municipal airports. My goal was getting people to think about which assets are better managed by the public sector vs. the private. The question of what we should have or not have is beyond the scope of my post (and a HUGE topic all to itself, I think).
It's funny this came up because I almost mentioned air traffic control as an example of deregulated infrastructure. Ironically, all air traffic is regulated by the FAA (except for class echo airspace) even if the guy in the tower is not a government employee. This is also true if you fly out of a private airstrip, of which there are many.
Cheers.
Archer 6413C
Reid-Hillview Municipal Airport
San Jose, CA  |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA | reply to hailinfantry
I didn't try anything - I gave you an example and you refuse to get it. I can't force you to understand.
You really think airports would not have been developed had the government not stepped in?
Well I don't agree with that - I don't think the reason governments stepped in to build these airports was just to give these companies a free airport either - and I don't know exactly how they work that out it doesn't matter - I think part of the reason they did it was out of pure logistics. It doesn't make sense to have 6 airports all right next to each other just like it doesn't make sense to have 6 telecom companies having wires come to your house all for the same services when you can rent out the network to these companies just like the municipal airports do - at least I think they do.
You say there is no "airport competition" well I seriously doubt that - there had to have been private airports and still ones today in operation near these muni airports I am sure of it.
Stifled? Maybe - yeah they might make less money - who cares? Less money is still money to be made - I don't think I have to tell you about how well the cable companies and the like have done year over year. Also I told you in the other thread - they get to use the public rights of way and enjoy franchise agreements that the public lets them have as a privilege - not a right. |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA | reply to White Noise
I wasn't responding to your comments exclusively - I simply hit reply and because you started this thread it looks like I was replying directly to you - I have my setting to look different than the default for the comments - it looks like a forum to me not just one long page of comments.
I actually agree with you, sorry for the confusion. |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA | reply to hailinfantry
Yes we can't be having communities using their tax money as they see fit and paying back the money with interest. Why that would make sense! |
|
| said by ppcpunk:Yes we can't be having communities using their tax money as they see fit and paying back the money with interest. Why that would make sense! Well, I'm sure all communities are homogenous and all agree on where their tax dollars should be spent
You almost act as though I'm the policy maker. We're just discussing. Take a pill and calm down.
As far as the infrastructure of the muni being of a shared nature: it isn't. That's what you're having a problem understanding. IT'S BEING BUILT FOR THE MUNI AND ANY COMPANIES IT CONTRACTS WITH TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE, NOT THE INCUMBANTS. God damn, when are you going to understand that? The airports are, as you said, logistic in nature. Logistic and necessary. It also helps ensure consistency to some extent in control procedure among UNICOM and Tower-based traffic situations. You don't know anything about Municipal airports in the first place, so don't go there (I'm a private pilot, btw).
--
Bizarro I Love You |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA | Not all muni's are as you think you seem to think that all of them must be - they aren't and I think strictly private muni's are a bad idea - They should be open and let competition thrive.
You seem to understand logistics but in some cases you think it's perfectly ok to let many companies tear up local roads all over and possibly disrupt service of other services in the process instead of wiring one network and leasing port access to private companies providing actual content. I don't understand you at all - you seem to think because we let certain private companies wire up towns in the past that we have some obligation to them to continue to let them use the public rights of way and use predatory pricing on the people they serve with their virtual monopolies - WE DON'T - That is why we have agreements with them - they get to use our public rights of way and we get to decide if they are serving us as we want them to and if they aren't we get to tell them to buzz off. |
|
| said by ppcpunk:Not all muni's are as you think you seem to think that all of them must be - they aren't and I think strictly private muni's are a bad idea - They should be open and let competition thrive. You seem to understand logistics but in some cases you think it's perfectly ok to let many companies tear up local roads all over and possibly disrupt service of other services in the process instead of wiring one network and leasing port access to private companies providing actual content. I don't understand you at all - you seem to think because we let certain private companies wire up towns in the past that we have some obligation to them to continue to let them use the public rights of way and use predatory pricing on the people they serve with their virtual monopolies - WE DON'T - That is why we have agreements with them - they get to use our public rights of way and we get to decide if they are serving us as we want them to and if they aren't we get to tell them to buzz off. Problem is, you have no grasp of economics. No one wants these companies to "tear up roads." Unfortunately, unless the muni's have developed some way of transporting the molecules of the conduit into the ground without digging, then it'll be no different. The process doesn't change depending on the company.
Further, predatory pricing is when one company/entity continually undercuts another in an effort to eliminate competition, thus establishing a virtual monopoly.
Once again, read a basic high school economics or business text book and you'll be better off in this discussion.
--
Bizarro I Love You |
|
| reply to hailinfantry
Your icon is a clown face right. Utility services are not funded via tax dollars. They are managed through government. In Lafayette no tax dollars are allocated to the services provided by the utility company. The utility company gives dollars to the government. |
|
| said by Fiber2home:Your icon is a clown face right. Utility services are not funded via tax dollars. They are managed through government. In Lafayette no tax dollars are allocated to the services provided by the utility company. The utility company gives dollars to the government. Wow! You really are clueless as to how it works. For the startup costs (buildout, etc) the city will have to infuse funds. Either way, it will cost either the Utility's customers and/or the tax payers (who are usually also the customers).
--
Bizarro I Love You |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA | reply to hailinfantry
Maybe instead of just telling me how I have no grasp of economics you could actually explain what is wrong with what I am saying instead of trying to pretend like you give dissertations to Allen Greenspan on global economics as bed time stories.
Seems all you can do is make personal attacks and not very good ones at that.
You don't have to come up with some way to figure out how to not dig into the ground you have to come up with a way to dig up the ground one time and make it worth it - Which is why laying fiber and leasing port access to many companies is the best idea.
Once again you have this idea that we owe it to the corporations who have networks in place now(or in some cases no networks of any kind at all) to not do such things because they won't do as well - Well guess what - they won't give us the services we want because they don't want to invest in the infrastructure to do so or for whatever other reasons, so it is perfectly fine for us to pick up where they leave off and give the public what it wants and also what would ultimately serve it in a far better capacity logistically and economically, that is as long as the networks are open to any company that wants to provide service depending on the local government of course. |
|
| said by ppcpunk:Maybe instead of just telling me how I have no grasp of economics you could actually explain what is wrong with what I am saying instead of trying to pretend like you give dissertations to Allen Greenspan on global economics as bed time stories. Seems all you can do is make personal attacks and not very good ones at that. You don't have to come up with some way to figure out how to not dig into the ground you have to come up with a way to dig up the ground one time and make it worth it - Which is why laying fiber and leasing port access to many companies is the best idea. Once again you have this idea that we owe it to the corporations who have networks in place now(or in some cases no networks of any kind at all) to not do such things because they won't do as well - Well guess what - they won't give us the services we want because they don't want to invest in the infrastructure to do so or for whatever other reasons, so it is perfectly fine for us to pick up where they leave off and give the public what it wants and also what would ultimately serve it in a far better capacity logistically and economically, that is as long as the networks are open to any company that wants to provide service depending on the local government of course. It seems I have to resort to that sort of thing, because I did explain it...I have explained it SEVERAL TIMES in SEVERAL THREADS where you were posting, that you aren't correct in the operation of this system.
Your new argument is simply a cop-out.
--
Bizarro I Love You |
|
