Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17203249 en Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:40:32 EDT Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:40:32 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210605 89707828 : Check out any BYO transport plan from AOL or any other ISP. Also, Verizon and Qwest have had similar plans, as does Time Warner cable.

The "bad year" could be equipment failures, storm damage, mismanagement or just plain old cost inflation. Your transport provider has no other source of revenue, so it will have to assess it's customers (that's you) for these costs, just like a condo association does, for example.

The "telecoms" have other sources, and even in Florida do not pass the entire cost of storm repair to their customers. I pay a small surcharge each month for hurricane damage cost recovery (a couple of bucks) which is shared statewide even with those areas which didn't take it in the shorts last year. Your local network operator will not have that option and will have to charge you the entire amount.

There is no guarantee of revenue, either. What about those who just don't feel the need to use the network? Are you going to force them to pay anyway (that's a tax).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210605 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:10:47 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210169 ieolus :
said by 89707828 See Profile :

The ISP part of the charge is trivial compared to the transport charges and they certainly are not going to absorb the cost of your network.
First of all, I would like for you to back that up.

said by 89707828 See Profile :

But, in your world there is no competition among transport providers, only ISPs. You have one "government or a neutral non-service providing company" owning the physical transport, and there is no competition or other revenue source there. If the "government or a neutral non-service providing company" has a particularly bad year and has to assess everyone for losses are you willing to pay 2, 3 or four times as much?
Correct, one pipe into each home, that is all that would ever be necessary. The pipe would be neutral to whatever service anyone is willing to provider over it (TV, phone, Internet, electricity? {probably not}).

So now in a theoretical bad year what would happen? Who knows, but what happens now if/when telecoms have a bad year.. they raise their rates. What the heck is the difference?

Btw, why would the pipe company have a bad year? They are basically guaranteed revenue since every home will be using that pipe, whether it is for 1 service or for 5.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210169 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:52:04 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210123 89707828 : But, in your world there is no competition among transport providers, only ISPs. You have one "government or a neutral non-service providing company" owning the physical transport, and there is no competition or other revenue source there. If the "government or a neutral non-service providing company" has a particularly bad year and has to assess everyone for losses are you willing to pay 2, 3 or four times as much? The ISP part of the charge is trivial compared to the transport charges and they certainly are not going to absorb the cost of your network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210123 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:44:11 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210093 ieolus : No, your original post was not clear, but thank you for explaining it in detail.

As to the answer, I say yes I am. Competition between service providers will drive the price enough to offset what you seem to think is a huge cost for a "non-subsidized" pipe.

As to the real reason why cable charges more for HSI-only service and telcos charge more for an unbundled loop... they are trying to encourage you to get their other service and make more revenue, end of story.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210093 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:39:10 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210033 89707828 : I was clear. Are you willing to pay the non-subsidized cost of delivering the service?

Today, a large chunk of the cost of delivering your multi-megabit cable or DSL connection is cross-subsidized by other services riding on the same medium like digital cable or POTS. That's why cable charges more for HSI-only and the telcos charge more for unbungled-loop DSL. And those are still cross-subsidized in that if a cable is cut (for example) you don't have to pay the cost of splicing it.

In your world, "the government or a neutral non-service providing company" would have to charge you (i.e. pass along) the costs of servicing your location since no other service would be helping with those direct costs. The only other way is to either use taxes or charge the ISPs. If they charge the ISPs you're right back where you are now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17210033 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:31:35 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17208833 ieolus : I don't understand what you mean by non-subsidized cost of delivering the service. Can you explain?

And heh, I noticed that TCH (aka TKJunkmail) didn't respond to me... wonder if that means he isn't after a free market for service providers after all.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17208833 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:13:28 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17208031 LilYoda : I'm guessing something like
- taxes pay for the infrastructure maintenance cost, *if* you elect to have internet access. If you don't want internet access, then no maintenance tax.
- then you pay the ISP for your service on top of the public lines. Since the ISP doesn't have any infrastructure maintenance cost, the subscription should be much lower.

Overall, the cost should be the same as any regular broadband, with the advantage that you have competition guaranteed on the lines, since there can't be any monopoly. You also have a 100% guaranteed coverage, since it's what munis usually go for.

The part that's harder to get people into is the initial deployment cost. If someone chooses not to pay for it, you can't choose to not wire his house. If the guy sells, the house would be valued less, if someone else from the city that paid the initial tax moves into a house, he expects to have the utility built in, etc... But on the other hand, you can't wire a person's house if he chose not to pay the tax for it.

The unpopular solution is to force the whole population to pay for the deployment. To get that done, I suppose you can put up a vote and require at least 75% of ppl that want the infrastructure?

Otherwise, there seems to be other solutions with bonds and stuff, but I don't understand any of it, so I'll stop before I say stupid stuff :)

But overall, I say that operation of a network should be run by a non-profit driven organisation, whereas commercial exploitation should always be run by private commercial entities competing on the same ground.

My 2 cents only
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17208031 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:38:30 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17205702 JakCrow : Oh yeah. The what? $9 billion the state of PA gave Verizon to supply...nothing! And allowed to keep the money in exchange for....nothing! Brilliant...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17205702 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:07:24 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204412 Noah Vail : Thanks, I'll read them.

NV]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204412 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:52:57 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204211 EAP : How about this:

»www.savetheinternet.com/blog/200···-telcos/

Why would a Senator do this? Cause the big telcos buy them (ummm, I mean lobby).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204211 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:22:34 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204133 EAP : Yes I can.

How about this for starters:

»Picture Perfect Deal

This was done due to Verizon having the state politicians in their pocket.

And this:

»www.freepress.net/news/5593

They get special laws passed just for them. How bogus is that. They wine and dine the politicians (which is really bribing them) in exchange for laws just for them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204133 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:08:23 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204085 Noah Vail : Could you post some specific evidence of that? It's not that I'm doubting you, but it's all rhetoric until the proof arrives.

NV
--
Abortion: Improves the Gene Pool!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17204085 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:00:10 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203976 89707828 : How do you plan to support that? Are you ready to pay the true, non-subsidized cost of delivering the service?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203976 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:41:22 EDT The Incumbents are also backed by taxes... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203442 anon : and subsidies, and right of way, and exclusive franchises, etc...

Which makes you point not wrong, but irrelevant.

In other words, the telcos are fine with big brother (when it suits them).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203442 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:05:57 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203326 CPM : Hold it. read this. »1Mbps Wireless Chicago]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203326 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:46:32 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203250 ieolus : How about if the government or a neutral non-service providing company owns the pipes to every home and lets ANY service provider compete and do their thing?

Surely a free marketer like yourself would not object to that?

--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203250 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:31:25 EDT Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203249 EAP : What private ones. Verizon and the like receive so much support from the gov't via loop holes and regulations, etc. -- they might as well be an arm of the gov't.

These companies aren't "private" in the sense that your local dry cleaners is private.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203249 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:31:19 EDT Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203218 TKJunkMail : Action Institute blogger makes the key point:
quote:
It’s hard to put it any simpler than this: government-run services are not part of “the organic free-market at work.”


There is nothing wrong with muni efforts as long as they aren't backed by taxes and also if the government doesn't give advantages to their endeavor over any private ones.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17203218 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:26:21 EDT