 sweintzPremium
join:2002-03-01
Chester, CT | Lets tell this lobbyist how stupid he is! His name is John Ruddick.
Email and phone:
Phone: 304-344-7234
E-mail:john.r.ruddick@verizon.com
Maybe if the PUBLIC lobbies HIM to KNOCK IT OFF, Verizon will get the message?
So lets get at it!
Email him.
Call. him. |
|
| said by sweintz:His name is John Ruddick. Email and phone: Phone: 304-344-7234 E-mail:john.r.ruddick@verizon.com Maybe if the PUBLIC lobbies HIM to KNOCK IT OFF, Verizon will get the message? So lets get at it! Email him. Call. him. You guys obviously don't understand the real issues here for the telecom industry and technological innovation which benefits the consumer. Such is the gullible ignoramus...in the majority.
Produce legislation to subsidise Verizon's competition and you will never see them invest another dollar in their Fiber roll-out plans. They are a company that has to make a profit or go out of business.
Once this municipal network is up it will advance and be upgraded at a rate akin to standing still. Without the ability to leach off the technological advancements that capitalism produces munis will have to tax you at a rate of 10x your annual income to advance at the same rate.
Companies do R&D to beat their competition. If you think socialism will accomplish the same results then your a clueless fool. If this was implemented in 1995 you would not even know the internet as it exists today....you would still be on dialup. |
|
|
|
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Nonsense. If companies did R&D and then released the technology as soon as it were available I'd agree with you but...
Do Verizon offer 8Mbit/768kbit DSL (doesn't require any R+D, ADSL-1 does it right out of the box?. No? They artifically throttle it, even those lines which are capable. They could make all lines rate adaptive as BT over here appear to be planning to and allow customers to have whatever service their line will reliably support.
Do Verizon offer ADSL2 / ADSL2+ / VDSL?
Do Verizon offer 100% coverage of broadband services in their areas?
Sorry but if I'm a gullible ignoramus I'm no more gullible than you are for thinking that any company gives two hoots about R&D for the sake of improving services. It's focussed purely towards improving bottom lines, as is everything else private companies do.
At very least in the short - medium term a municpal company offering a higher rated DSL service will offer immediate advantages over Verizon, and for those in areas Verizon doesn't see fit to service it's going to be their only hope for a while.
Verizon's FIOS is a huge step in the right direction by the way... However the Passive Optical technology to support this service has again been around for some time.
Sorry but you appear to believe the lobbyists and the 'we're only looking out for you' sales pitches.
From the point of view of W Virginia this can only be a good thing should it proceed.
Quite horrifying from an outsider's point of view how much power corporations appear to have in the USA. Hope the kind of democracy that GWB is obsessed with spreading throughout the world isn't supposed to be sold by the dollar as his own countries apparently is. |
|
dsless
join:2001-05-16
Pittsburgh, PA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Sunburn
Please show me where Verizon has made a big investment in communications infrastructure in our state? Verizon has had a free hand to invest and deploy communications products. But for the most part the rural area of this state has received jack from Verizon. So your statement really doesn't stand here.
edit caus I can't type. |
|
 NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
1 edit | reply to Ignite
Dammit ....... I Second, Third and Fourth that.
Out Freakin Standing  |
|
| reply to Sunburn
Ok, cluestick time, as much as it pains me(not):
Q: What spurs advancement in a pure capitalistic society?
A: Competition
Q: Then why let the munis get into the mix?
A: Because what we have are regional and super-regional natural monopolies, that essentially function together like a cartel? They don't want their monopoly positions threatened.
Q: Aren't monopolies, by nature, anti-competition?
A: Very good. Yes they are.
Q: Why are they allowed to exist? Aren't monopolies illegal?
A: Where they are anti-competition in the marketplace? Yes. But there is a turd in the regulatory punchbowl: campaign contributions. No legislator or member of the executive branch wants to bite the hand that feeds it. So they give the incumbents a free pass.
Q: Well, why are the incumbents not engaging in capital investment, IE: rolling out new services and infrastructure?
A: Capital Investment, the engine that truly fires this US economy, is very down, across all segments of industry. This is because of the reliance on the quarterly report. Every three months, corporations that are publicly traded on the stock markets must present said reports. Said reports are them poured over by Wall Street Analysts. If the analysts do not like the amount of profit that company has made for the quarter, they downgrade the company's stock. Capital investments eat into a company's profit margin. So they do not invest, instead building up large amounts of money in the bank, which is used to buy out other corporations, in many cases. This is a closed-loop situation that provides nowhere near the benefit to the economy as would a robust capital investment climate. Especially when they buy companies and fire a few thousand souls.
Q: Well, to me, that seems like...
A: Yup. Municipalities and states are practicing economic self-determination. Entrepreneurship, if you will. They know that near-universal deployment of 21st century telecommunications infrastructure, into their areas, will present great economic and societal benefits. That said infrastructure must come in to their areas, if they are to grow new industry and new jobs. They know that they must do it if the incumbents won't, and to date, they haven't.
To the poster I was answering: Read this a few times, try to absorb the easy concepts and please, enough with the squawk radio economics. They are tired and broken, especially as regards this issue.
If the incumbents wish to live by the sword of their arcane and eldritch demographic and population density data, then they can die by said data. The people will just kick this thing in the ass on their own. |
|
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
2 edits | Holy BroadBand Bites Batman; Another Outstanding Post! |
|
| If you have any intelligence you'd realise that Verizon has not made an effort to come out in that area, Why should people be without broadband? Why can't that network their community? You honestly don't know what its like not having broadband, not being able to game, or download crap. I have friends who have broadband, you think I really want it? YES I'd love to have broadband, the fact is We as amercans have the right to choose, It would be as a matter afact unethical to block people from networking their community. Broadband is a service, which is becoming a necessity not only for Fire Dept, Schools, Town Governments, But if Im correct all of these HAVE T1 or soem sort of connectivity paid for by the government and our taxes. Which is good but couldn't we use our taxes to pay them to put a WiFi antenna or something there? Im sure a Fire DEPT nds T3, but most likely at most it'd use about 5 MBs of connectivity. Couldn't we pay for someone to put in a Remote Dslam and hook it up to a T3 line? We already pay for town government school ETC ETC's T1 and T3 lines. The fact is this, a town netowrking up would beneifit the residents, the company that provides the T3 or oc3 line, The Town itself because of the income from the service. |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
2 edits | reply to Sunburn
said by Sunburn:You guys obviously don't understand the real issues here for the telecom industry and technological innovation which benefits the consumer. Such is the gullible ignoramus...in the majority. We beg to differ.
said by Sunburn:Produce legislation to subsidise Verizon's competition and you will never see them invest another dollar in their Fiber roll-out plans. They are a company that has to make a profit or go out of business. And that is different from Verizon now in what way? Is not like they don't get billions in tax breaks only to fail to live up to their promises.
said by Sunburn:Once this municipal network is up it will advance and be upgraded at a rate akin to standing still. No, no, no. Let me fix this. Once this municipal network is up, verizon's network will advance and be upgraded at the rate of a crippled snail, up from the comatose snail speed. There, much better.said by Sunburn:Without the ability to leach off the technological advancements that capitalism produces munis will have to tax you at a rate of 10x your annual income to advance at the same rate. And the proof of that is in Verizon's own research. Is gotta be true!!!
said by Sunburn:Companies do R&D to beat their competition. If you think socialism will accomplish the same results then your a clueless fool. If this was implemented in 1995 you would not even know the internet as it exists today....you would still be on dialup. If this were implemented back in '95, we wouldn't be trailing all the other developed nations in broadband speeds or penetration. We all would be connected by fiber by now.
--
Jose A. Hernandez * IT Technician * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * My website: Zerochill |
|
| reply to Sunburn
said by Sunburn:You guys obviously don't understand the real issues here for the telecom industry and technological innovation which benefits the consumer. Such is the gullible ignoramus...in the majority. Produce legislation to subsidise Verizon's competition and you will never see them invest another dollar in their Fiber roll-out plans. They are a company that has to make a profit or go out of business. Once this municipal network is up it will advance and be upgraded at a rate akin to standing still. Without the ability to leach off the technological advancements that capitalism produces munis will have to tax you at a rate of 10x your annual income to advance at the same rate. Companies do R&D to beat their competition. If you think socialism will accomplish the same results then your a clueless fool. If this was implemented in 1995 you would not even know the internet as it exists today....you would still be on dialup. PLEASE....I have said this before and will continue to say it.
"If the Bells had developed broadband access that ANYONE could use and was as fast as cable, then there would be no contest."
However, they fell asleep and are trying to catch up. DSL, while an o.k. technology, is very distance sensitive. Unless you are close enough, you won't get max speeds.
If a muni system wants to deploy to an area THAT IS NOT SERVED BY THE LOCAL TELCO OR CABLE COMPANY, then let them. Otherwise, there will be nothing more than empty promises from the same telcos and cable companies.
Plus, the telcos had to be forced to deploy standard POTS everywhere.  |
|
sweintzPremium
join:2002-03-01
Chester, CT
2 edits | reply to TScheisskopf
said by TScheisskopf:Ok, cluestick time, as much as it pains me(not): Q: What spurs advancement in a pure capitalistic society? A: Competition Good post, and I agree with all you said, BUT I'd add:
Competition drives capitalism WHEN, and ONLY when, there is profit to be made. Rolling services out in rural areas where population is sparse usually produces a LOSS to private companies. Regardless of the state of the economy and the availability of cheap (ie: low interest) capital Even at 0% interest, this sort of thing is often a losing proposition for private enterprise, oftentimes with ROI's in the 3 digit range.
Frankly, i'd rather see the government pass equal access legislation for broadband - if you supply it for some areas you service, you need to supply it for ALL areas you service. Problem is, I think some companies would simply choose not to offer broadband at all then, once they ran the numbers.
Fact is sometimes there is a definite need for something that will NEVER be profitable to provide. That is where a purely capitalistic system fails.
I DO think the government has a bad habit of trying to fix things that do NOT need fixing, but I don't see this as one of those cases. |
|
sweintzPremium
join:2002-03-01
Chester, CT | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:Plus, the telcos had to be forced to deploy standard POTS everywhere. Yes. How soon we forget that. In a purely capitalistic system we would likely have at least 5-10% (maybe more? I'm blindly guessing here,...) of our population with no phone or electricity. Why run 20 miles of wire to service three people when the cost of doing so can't possibly be covered by what you can charge for those services? |
|
| reply to TScheisskopf
but socialism! ITS EVIL NO COMMIE BROADBAND PLEASE............ |
|
| reply to sweintz
Good question, but the problem for me is, in a town of 1,000 people, shouldn't I be able to get it? The problem is this, Verizon wont be upgrading DSL. FiOS is coming, some of us wont see it for 20 years, whats that mean? You're shit out of luck I living in Massachusetts may see FiOS earlier then you guys but then again this is Verizon we're talking about, So FiOS within 2 years for me is a reality, but it's gonna take longer for you guys, as soon as I get DSL Cable or FiOS, I will not even go to Broad Band reports, I've had to fight and argue for broadband for a long time as soon as I get it, XBOX LIVE TIME  . Until then these forums will be my home, I will argue and look at news articles and devise way to piss off verizon into giving me broadband MUHAHAHAHA. Also though the most applicable way to solve the shortage of broadband, is through cable, Cable the root of all evil in this world, is the easiest solution. My message to Verizon is "GIT R DONE!" |
|
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to Ignite
Well said. To quote another. . .
"Oh, you magnificient bastard!" --Apu |
|
fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to Sunburn
Hate to bring this up, but the U.S. already has "socialist" ideologies when it comes to certain utilities. Ever hear of an Electric Cooperative or more specifically the NRECA (»www.nreca.org/nreca/About_Us/Abo···_NRECA)?
That concept was established because the "for profit" utilities wouldn't take electricity to rural areas because it "wasn't profitable".
If programs like that hadn't developed, it's entirely likely there would STILL be farmers in rural America waiting for electricity. Now can you imagine what a hindrance to U.S. dominance it would be to have a large portion of our population still doing things by hand. Fast forward 60 years and imagine what kind of limitations we face against other advancing industrialized nations if significant portions of the U.S. don't have reasonable internet access for industry and business. Internet access isn't only about downloading pr0n for the residential user, many companies rely on it.
Also, since you don't see any huge nationwide Cooperatives taking over the likes of PJM, AEP, TVA, MECS, PG&E or any of a handful of other very large for profit utilities, obviously the concept isn't significantly hindering competition or bankrupting the IOUs.
--
When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other. |
|
