 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Sounds Like a Whiner The telegraph companies could be giving away fiber access to poor people for the rest of eternity and this guy will find a way to whine about it. It really gets old after awhile, especially when you see the Bells trying to deploy this service as fast as they can while still running into roadblock after roadblock after roadblock.
The only thing that seems to be standing between the USA and what this guy thinks is "good" broadband is the government itself. Every town that Verizon has to cater to in order to get a franchise agreement is just another roadblock to the deployment of this service. Likewise, any town that decides to get in the way of AT&T's Project Lightspeed deployments is also guilty of holding back progress. Get the government out of the way, and you will see technology progress.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
| You drink too much telco Kool-Aid.
quote:
Likewise, any town that decides to get in the way of AT&T's Project Lightspeed deployments is also guilty of holding back progress. Get the people out of the way, and you will see technology progress.
I fixed your quote for you. |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | Funny how some people think the telcos are all for "technology progress", yet do nothing to shore up their own lagging internal bandwidth for their current customer base, and game the market against competition. The whole "innovation" argument is transparent. Give it up already. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Minister
said by Minister:You drink too much telco Kool-Aid. And if we do things Bruce's way, we'd have stayed on dialup. Heck, with all that whining, would we even have phone service to begin with?
Everything in this article is wrong... FIOS does not cost $200 a month, the top speed of DSL is not 768K. He deliberately confuses the issues of 1. ISPs wanting to create avenues for their own premium content and 2. ISPs wanting to charge content providers. He claims that Bells aren't spending any money to build out fiber service when this is not the case... where's all that money? What does he think pays for those companies to install this service? Pixie dust?
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow:The whole "innovation" argument is transparent. Give it up already. Then why spend the billions needed to build out this service in the first place? Is that not innovation and progress?
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:... Get the government out of the way, and you will see technology progress. Please remember your statement in a few years when the U.S. is further behind the rest of the world.
My prediction is that the U.S. will progress minimally in the next few years, if at all.
Unfortunately, with the government all but out of the way, we will see exactly what ZERO regulation of the ILECs gets us. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by nasadude:Please remember your statement in a few years when the U.S. is further behind the rest of the world. And just exactly how many countries have surpassed us economically because of great broadband service?
Zero.
It takes a lot more than just good broadband to create a good economy.
said by nasadude:Unfortunately, with the government all but out of the way, we will see exactly what ZERO regulation of the ILECs gets us. Every town that granted Verizon a franchise or allowed AT&T to build now either has or will have some fiber optic service. Every town that put up roadblocks to these companies doesn't have this service. This clearly shows that less regulation leads to more broadband.
We've even seen this example in the DSL world. Why won't telegraph companies expand DSL availability? Because they would have to share it with rivals. Why did they want to deploy fiber? So that they wouldn't be forced to share it. Same goes with cable companies... why did cable take off more than DSL? Because cable could deploy service anywhere it wanted to with no sharing requirements. Time and again, we see the failure of regulation, why do people still insist on trying an approach that will never work?
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
 tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to pnh102
Progress, yes. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to pnh102
Telco's and cable companies (as they exist today) have never innovated anything. It's either given to them, bought, or stolen. Every bit of innovation was spun off long ago. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Uhhh.. what? Maybe every town that Verizon came to and asked for a franchise agreement has some sort of plan for Fiber.. but it's still not many. There are plenty that are begging for it, that aren't getting it.
Copper is required to be shared because THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR IT. WE DID. The ability to own infrastructure, and provide service on that infrastructure should be seperated. There's just no way to create a real market without stringing up dozens of redundent networks, which is a very inefficient use of capital. That's why muni projects that don't provide service on their network, but allow the market to provide service are the way to go. Hopefully this will be discovered sooner rather than later.
As to your first point. If you measure "surpassed us economically" by growth in economy, then there are several. Otherwise, I'd argue, we had a VERY large head start BEFORE broadband even existed. |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Every town that granted Verizon a franchise or allowed AT&T to build now either has or will have some fiber optic service. Every town that put up roadblocks to these companies doesn't have this service. This clearly shows that less regulation leads to more broadband. Thats the most retarded statement I've read in a while. I guess if you keep repeating the same lie over and over it eventually becomes true. said by pnh102:We've even seen this example in the DSL world. Why won't telegraph companies expand DSL availability? Because they would have to share it with rivals. Why did they want to deploy fiber? So that they wouldn't be forced to share it. Same goes with cable companies... why did cable take off more than DSL? Because cable could deploy service anywhere it wanted to with no sharing requirements. Time and again, we see the failure of regulation, why do people still insist on trying an approach that will never work? They ILECS didn't seem to complain when GOVERNMENT REGULATION allowed them to build out their heavily government subsidized networks and sanctioned their monopolies.
I wonder what would long distance rates would be like without the government regulation intervention in breaking Ma Bell.
I wonder if DSL would have been deployed at all in the early 90's if Government regulation intervention hadn't allowed Covad to exist.
I honestly can't believe you can say less regulation = more broadband and expect to be taken seriously.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * IT Technician * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * My website: Zerochill |
|
| reply to pnh102
let me add one more fact about deregulation:
remember when cable was deregulated? I do and the thing I remember most is that everybody was saying how this would lead to lower prices for cable TV.
boy, that really worked out, didn't it? |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Ahrenl
Re: Sounds Like a Whiner said by Ahrenl:Telco's and cable companies (as they exist today) have never innovated anything. It's either given to them, bought, or stolen. Every bit of innovation was spun off long ago. As if any other company is totally angelic. The bottom line remains this. You want fiber based internet or not? Unless you roll it yourself, Fios or Lightspeed will be your only option. As long as the government stops Verizon and AT&T from deploying it, you won't get it.
End of story.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:remember when cable was deregulated? I do and the thing I remember most is that everybody was saying how this would lead to lower prices for cable TV. And you got cable broadband, cable service for cable ready TVs, and digital cable. Today's cable service isn't the same crappy analog garbage we had in the 1980s.
Cable companies only charge the maximum that their customers will pay for their service, anyone who doesn't like the pricing can always cancel and not pay a red cent to them.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to jhboricua
said by jhboricua:Thats the most retarded statement I've read in a while. I guess if you keep repeating the same lie over and over it eventually becomes true. And again you have failed to prove me wrong. Show me examples of Verizon and AT&T skipping towns because they didn't impose enough regulations. We've seen how regulation has stopped fiber deployments dead in their tracks. This is a hard fact, you cannot possibly state with any credibility that this same regulation is somehow good if you want to have fiber deployments.
said by jhboricua:They ILECS didn't seem to complain when GOVERNMENT REGULATION allowed them to build out their heavily government subsidized networks and sanctioned their monopolies. Again, what may have happened 100 years ago is no longer relevant today. Fiber networks are not being built with any form of subsidy.
said by jhboricua:I wonder what would long distance rates would be like without the government regulation intervention in breaking Ma Bell. Um, the breaking up of Ma Bell was an example of the ending of government regulation. We saw the results and they were good.
said by jhboricua:I wonder if DSL would have been deployed at all in the early 90's if Government regulation intervention hadn't allowed Covad to exist. Even if the Bells had driven Covad out of business, do you really think that no one else would have pushed them to offer DSL service? Cable Internet provided more of a threat to the Bells than Covad ever could.
said by jhboricua:I honestly can't believe you can say less regulation = more broadband and expect to be taken seriously. Your examples prove me correct. No one has proven that increasing regulation will lead to fiber deployment.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Sounds Like a Whiner quote:
That's why muni projects that don't provide service on their network, but allow the market to provide service are the way to go.
Wow. I'd never even considered that, but the point you raise is both brilliant and yet so obvious as the way to go that I'm surprised it never ocurred to me.
--
144 145 145 172 040 156 165 164 163 |
|
| reply to pnh102
Hrmm, if memory serves me correct just about everything you list exists becuase of government regulation and mandates. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl:Telco's and cable companies (as they exist today) have never innovated anything. It's either given to them, bought, or stolen. Every bit of innovation was spun off long ago. Spun off from what? Given to them by whom? How about some meat to go with them potatos?
And for the record, telephone has bell labs where much of the technology came from. Cable has cable labs and other groups that work on things.
Telephone in the last few years, have brought us caller ID and a few calling features. Call them innovation, I call them more to sell to your home line. They haven't done alot to detatch you from your home like voip does.
Cable, if you haven't seen any innovation, then I am sorry because you arne't looking too hard.
I have to give both industries credit that they have both moved forward in the last 10 years. Only, my biggest issue is that phone, the staple and backbone of this country, has not done as much growing as cable has, and certainly has had more opportunity to do so - but chose not to. |
|
