 Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to pnh102
Re: Put Up or Shut Up I think we can do one better: there should be three Internets.
One for educational purposes only, paid for by the sweat equity profit of pre-teens stringing fiber for nothing but water and bread for group number two.
Group two is for individuals earning over 50K, which is anything the BB company wants to charge because the CEOs have to keep earning 400 times what the average American worker earns (check the link for yourself).
And lastly, for everyone else, a system consisting of paper cups and twine running at about 1kbps, because since we're poor (and therefore worthless sloth-like vermin) don't deserve the vast information available via HSI that might enhance our ability to join either of the other groups. 
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
| How about you stop the moronic comments and think, instead?
We're a 2 man ISP, and if some public entity decides to deploy broadband to cover where I do, theyre' going to use 10X the amount I will, take my money from me, and then use that money to put me out of business.
Then they'll find they operate at a loss, can't afford to continue operations, shut it down, liquidate assets to some corporation at a huge loss, and then we're back where we started... No broadband, and I just lost everything I put into it.
But then again, isn't that the dream of socialists everywhere? Everyone dependent upon handouts and nobody making a profit? |
|
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| As it is now, you have no guarantee a private venture won't compete with you. I hope your business model isn't based on having no competition.
Competitors will distinguish themselves on many levels aside from price:
• reliability
• speed
• customer service
• "extras" (email, webspace, newsgroups, premium content)
Since you are operating with a profit, certainly you can excel in one or more of those areas. |
|
Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to neofast
said by neofast:How about you stop the moronic comments and think, instead? ((snipped)) But then again, isn't that the dream of socialists everywhere? Everyone dependent upon handouts and nobody making a profit? My, my. How did I know the socialist tag would come flying? BTW, I'm not a socialist; neither am I a dupe for cronyism.
And I don't think you need to worry about what I *think* with guys on your side telling us that "mom and pop" companies are a thing of the past.
I also don't *think* your 2 man business has anything to worry about from a municipal BB coming around to put you out of business.
If I were you, I'd *think* a lot more about a commercial enterprise (larger than 2 man, I assure you) burying you without a second thought and laughing like Enron and 'Aunt Millie' while they do it. If a Muni-bb DID threaten your livelihood, I *think* you'd at least get a word in edgewise and sympathy from your small-business brethren; good luck crying for salvation when a commercial outfit gobbles up your revenue customer by customer.
PS: I trust they'll use stronger words than "moron" while they're staking you out for slaughter. *Think* about that.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
| reply to neofast
We're a 2 man ISP, and if some public entity decides to deploy broadband to cover where I do, theyre' going to use 10X the amount I will, take my money from me, and then use that money to put me out of business.
I would like an example of any 2 man Broadband provider that is not just reselling a large corporations network. |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to Titus Pullo
Whether you want to admit it or not, your ideas are socialist. A look at your post history is all that's needed. You constantly say the government should help this or that person or suggest intervention(punishment) when someone turns an excellent profit.
Then anytime anyone uses strong words to refer to your ideas you go the "smart people don't use such words" route and ignore any other content. You did it to me the other day because I referred to your "stupid idea" (stupid because you had to ignore certain facts in order for it to make sense)
--
Beagles really should come in convienent 10 packs. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to neofast
Actually perfect competition, the ideal of capitalism, is based on ZERO economic profit for all competitors. Government is there to fill the inefficiencies in the free markets. I DON'T think there should be muni broadband in areas where private enterprise is already providing service though. |
|
|
|
| reply to Combat Chuck
quote:
You constantly say the government should help this or that person
So, you live on an island? Gov't doesn't help you at all? Are you your own police force, fire department, garbage collection...national defense? EPA? FTC? You've never used a student loan? Attended a public university? Driven on an interstate highway? Eaten food that's been inspected?
Somehow I doubt all of the above. Those who would question government's role in these matters hasn't really pondered what government does (and quite well) on a daily basis. I bet you're part of that "the government sucks" crowd that has it's collective head up its ASS in regards to facets of life we as Americans take for granted. |
|
Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck:Whether you want to admit it or not, your ideas are socialist. A look at your post history is all that's needed. You constantly say the government should help this or that person or suggest intervention(punishment) when someone turns an excellent profit. Then anytime anyone uses strong words to refer to your ideas you go the "smart people don't use such words" route and ignore any other content. You did it to me the other day because I referred to your "stupid idea" (stupid because you had to ignore certain facts in order for it to make sense) Feel free to use my post history to bolster your points; I've nothing to hide (I wouldn't post here if I did!).
I wish you'd back up SOMETHING you say with a fact or linked citation rather than with empty rhetoric. Feel free to do so on these points for practice. I'll be glad to reply to your accusations (what you put in quotes):
** You quote me with "smart people don't use such words"
Do I write that somewhere? Please provide a link to a post where I do.
** You write (as a quote) that, "[I] constantly say the government should help this or that person or suggest intervention(punishment) when someone turns an excellent profit."
Please provide examples of where I do just what you state.
The post / exchange you allude to is here:
Where YOU call my ideas stupid!
You see, I'll debate freely -- anytime, anywhere -- and if I'm incorrect with facts or wrong-headed in viewpoint I'll be the first to admit it. You haven't written anything to refute what I've said. Your idea of proving a point is to simply say someone else is wrong. I'm sorry, but it takes a bit more work than that 
Now, do I think that Muni broadband should simply be implemented because someone thinks it's the best course? No, I do not. However, I also think that rational discussion on the subject is warranted because the BB industry in this country is getting very rich while people pay higher prices and the country as a whole falls behind other countries in per capita BB usage. There are various reasons for the fall in rank, I admit, but I don't think my other charges are that far off the mark. Look at the current situation with oil/gas. Crude futures went skyward and pump prices went up. We were told prices were due to supply & demand problems. Yet ALL the major oil companies just posted HUGE profits for the 1st quarter. You may think this is fine, but there are many that do not. Moreover, calling people socialists or stupid doesn't further intelligent debate.
** Note: on the linked thread above, I provided a reply with 33 citations on wages and worker rights. I notice you never replied to that. I also notice that when facts or links to proof of a position are included in a reply to your views, you either don't address that portion of the post or you attack the messenger. If you do that often enough, people will put you on their ignore list and you'll be arguing with yourself. I'd think on that for a bit. It's just a discussion, no one HAS to win or lose, and various points of view are healthy. If you don't agree with what you think are "socialist [ideas]," then point out exactly why that particular idea is socialist and why it's not good in your opinion. Ad hominem or shallow 'what you did or said' arguing is a waste of time.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo:said by neofast:How about you stop the moronic comments and think, instead? ((snipped)) But then again, isn't that the dream of socialists everywhere? Everyone dependent upon handouts and nobody making a profit? My, my. How did I know the socialist tag would come flying? BTW, I'm not a socialist; neither am I a dupe for cronyism. And I don't think you need to worry about what I *think* with guys on your side telling us that "mom and pop" companies are a thing of the past. I also don't *think* your 2 man business has anything to worry about from a municipal BB coming around to put you out of business. If I were you, I'd *think* a lot more about a commercial enterprise (larger than 2 man, I assure you) burying you without a second thought and laughing like Enron and 'Aunt Millie' while they do it. If a Muni-bb DID threaten your livelihood, I *think* you'd at least get a word in edgewise and sympathy from your small-business brethren; good luck crying for salvation when a commercial outfit gobbles up your revenue customer by customer. PS: I trust they'll use stronger words than "moron" while they're staking you out for slaughter. *Think* about that. Well, first off, I'd agree that YOU DON'T THINK, but beyond that, you haven't said much that's intelligent.
First, we're a new wireless operation, with a statistically extrapolated 5000 possible customers... and over 1000 square miles of area coverage. Statistically, given today's "take" rates of around 10%, we expect our short term customer base to be around 500 broadband customers, and long term around 800. And my business model is NOT built on there being no competition. I have DSL, Cable, and 2 other wireless providers - both well funded, and I'm the small guy. The "David" against the "Goliaths", and I have no doubt we'll win... PRECISELY because we're small.
Our prices beat DSL, Cable, and the wireless providers, and our service beats them all, as well.
But that's because they lease thousands of square feet of the most expensive office space around, we use a home office. They hire ALL productive work done, and all the management does is collect paychecks. We do it all.
You see, grasshopper, size is not everything... efficiency is. Sizing your operation to the market is wisdom... You're spouting tripe. In your world, it's not real until it has massive overhead and fails in spectacularly large bankruptices that make the regional or national news.
We'll just keep smiling and loving life... because there's simply no way they can keep up with us... |
|
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
We're a 2 man ISP, and if some public entity decides to deploy broadband to cover where I do, theyre' going to use 10X the amount I will, take my money from me, and then use that money to put me out of business.
I would like an example of any 2 man Broadband provider that is not just reselling a large corporations network.
Fixed wireless.
Enough said. No need for a telco, millions of dollars, or spectacular bankruptcies in the news... |
|
| reply to Ahrenl
The problem with your idea, is that munis freeze out private enterprise, to the detriment of all. |
|
Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to garagerock
said by garagerock: quote:
You constantly say the government should help this or that person
So, you live on an island? Gov't doesn't help you at all? Are you your own police force, fire department, garbage collection...national defense? EPA? FTC? You've never used a student loan? Attended a public university? Driven on an interstate highway? Eaten food that's been inspected? Somehow I doubt all of the above. Those who would question government's role in these matters hasn't really pondered what government does (and quite well) on a daily basis. I bet you're part of that "the government sucks" crowd that has it's collective head up its ASS in regards to facets of life we as Americans take for granted. Good points 
Most, but not all, who argue against Muni-BB are using the 'socialist' cop-out as the basis for their stance. They advance less government because government is inept, yet I'd bet half or more of them just voted for an administration that currently has the largest and most inept government in recent history.
It's trying to have it both ways: government is so inept it can't get out of its own way :: you can't let government compete or provide services that private industry does because it'll put people out of business.
Which is it?
If govt is so damn inept then how is it exactly that they're able to put any enterprise out of business when they can't agree on anything or balance a budget?
This leaves the anti-munis to cherry pick positions in this regard: government is good as long as it stays out of the way of higher corporate profits or providing -- by whatever means -- a decent standard of living for its citizens. ostensibly because Government is supposed to work for the people and not against it: helping people is tantamount to creating a Welfare State where we'll all end up on the dole, crying and whining for handouts; and, competing with business is not in the best interests of a free market.
The problem I see with this theory is that Government is enmeshed with corporate america so deeply that lines are now blurred, making the traditional argument murky at best. We're moving from a mixed economy to a sort of hybrid where pure capitalism is wedded to government to create a corporate state with minimal oversight (I think that defines fascism when media is under the umbrella). Privatization is just what it implies: taking away basic checks and balances put in place and enforced by government that are a vital protection from the cronyism that leads to blatant exploitation at every turn. I can't help but see their argument as fear of true competition -- something lost due to collusion by the major players. The bottom line is rapacious profit. Look at what Comcast just announced for first quarter profts. And yet prices will go up sure as sunshine.
The muni debate, it seems to me, is one of pure ideology & hyperbole, when it should be a rational discussion about how to create more affordable Internet access for all that want it.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to neofast
Good reply, but your beef isn't with me, it's with people that would put you of business. I think what you're doing is great and I wish you nothing but success. I'm more concerned with profit seeking mega-providers fighting solutions before they're in a position to (other than with lawyers from afar).
We don't disagree on the basics -- you simply misread my argument.
Best of luck to you.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
| reply to JTRockville
JTRockville:
The problem with that rationale is that you're assuming that the muni project must also operate with a profit. If were both operating it the black, then competition will take place, and the customer will win. But most muni networks don't operate in the black, which means they can throw as much money as they want into the network, to drive the private companies out of business. And in the end all the customer gets is cheap internet in exchange for higher taxes, or maybe a higher phone or electric bill.
neofast:
Just watch out that your local government doesn't conveniently forget that you're there for a few months so they can justify taking on "The Big Corporations", by stealing all of your customers. And the figures are more like 100X the cost of a smartly done network.
Ok, let me hear the “They are profitable, it only takes a few years to pay off a 40 million dollar network by selling $20 internet” arguments. |
|
| reply to Orwell1984
Well, were a 5 man wireless ISP, and there are two others about our size in the area, does that still count? |
|
| reply to Titus Pullo
quote:
The muni debate, it seems to me, is one of pure ideology & hyperbole, when it should be a rational discussion about how to create more affordable Internet access for all that want it
Agreed. But the reactionaries that would deride these projects are saying just that-nobody should help anyone get affordable internet access, esp. the government...despite bond issues eating the upfront cost altogether.
I'm not sure I understand anyone who would stop anyone from getting into the broadband business, even if it is your local government. Utilities of all stripes started out life in most small towns being owned and ran by the local governments...why is this any different?
If the projects fail, fine. Pull the plug. Stop writing checks. What I fail to understand is why the attack dogs would stop anyone from even trying. But we're back again at the "don't help anyone with anything...unless it's me!" mentality. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by garagerock:If the projects fail, fine. Pull the plug. Stop writing checks. What I fail to understand is why the attack dogs would stop anyone from even trying. But we're back again at the "don't help anyone with anything...unless it's me!" mentality. I would agree with you if it was only that easy. Government programs can accomplish absolutely nothing for many, many years and still get regular funding increases. Once the government starts financing something, that something will do everything in its power to make sure it stays funded, no matter how bad of a job it does.
The only solution which provides full accountability is one that is not run by the government. If it fails, then the only people who are screwed are the shareholders of that venture. No one else's pocket would be picked to bail it out.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to neofast
Umm.. how's that a problem with my idea? I said to only have muni's where private enterprise deams its unprofitable, and therefore doesn't service. |
|
