how-to block ads
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| What is wrong with discrimination? After all, the poor do not need AT&T, only the rich folk do. If you are poor you should be glad that AT&T is not taking your money. Unless you are a Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, or any any one of the many 'beautiful' people, you do not deserve to have certain services (and besides, you do not provide triple digit returns for the stockholders)
Discrimination is wonderful, as long as you are the one doing it and not the one receiving it.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  
Albatross6
join:2000-12-22
Dallas, TX
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? Right. And the reason that I had faster internet and IPTV available at my old house that was worth half of what my current house (where I don't have IPTV or fast DSL available) is . . .? Because clearly deployment decisionmaking is based on the income of neighborhoods and not on other things like, for example, the age of the existing infrastructure and other factors that ease deployment. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? said by Albatross6  :Right. And the reason that I had faster internet and IPTV available at my old house that was worth half of what my current house (where I don't have IPTV or fast DSL available) is . . .? Because clearly deployment decisionmaking is based on the income of neighborhoods and not on other things like, for example, the age of the existing infrastructure and other factors that ease deployment. According to AT&T, the potential return on certain neighborhoods did not warrant extending service to them. Comcast did not see it that way and are the cable provider in my town now. Both my area and the area not desired had to have completely new infrastructure, so the primary factor for AT&T was one area was poor and one area was upper middle class.
Your mileage may vary.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? What's next?
Tiffany has to build new stores in the slums for each new one it opens downtown?
Yeah, Tiffany is a luxury--but so is cable TV and, under current government policies, broadband. You want to make it a necessity? OK, then what's next?
Safeway or Kroger has to build one new store in a depressed area for each one it builds in the suburbs? Believe me, groceries are more of a "necessity" than broadband, in any comparison.
PIRG is just continuing its socialist stance--equivalency (read: mediocrity) for all, ignore capitalist concepts of "accomplishment" or "success", and support the "fellow travellers" on the left while you're at it--particularly through local "public interest channels" that carry leftist cr@p all day because the "social services" people who nurse at the teat of the public exchequer are the only ones who have time to babble on camera like pseudo-celebrities.
While "discrimination on the basis of ability to pay" may sound offensive to the leftists, it is not only generally legal, it is the primary motivation that gets people to work each day.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? said by calvoiper :What's next? Tiffany has to build new stores in the slums for each new one it opens downtown? calvoiper Hmm...I would not compare cable to Tiffany, I can't even afford to think about the store much less shop there so I just use one of the many options that give a better value for the cost. Many people here on DSLR seem to compare cable/internet more to Phone and Water. I know I need the internet just for my work personnel and financial activities, but unlike most of the lower paid workers here, I have one at my desk so I do not have to have internet at home unless I want to go over something with my wife.
I wonder what the people in the areas that have a hard time paying for electricity or do not use much electricity would think if you shut them down. After all, electricity is not really needed, so unless you can consume and pay for a lot you are a drag on the profit sheet. They can use candles and firewood, and walk to the store daily for perishables.
Oh and define slum, some people think our poorer areas are slums, but I have been in places in LA that make our 'slums' look like quality housing. Or do you consider a slum anyplace where you can not make triple digit return on your investment? That is apparently what AT&T thought since Comcast thought they could make money.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? First, you deliberately ignored my subsequent statements which do not treat broadband as a luxury--they point out the same fallacies in the "forced deployment" argument even if it is a "necessity".
Second, people who don't pay for electricity get shut off all the time--that's how utilities keep the money flowing in.
Third, trying to derail this discussion with an argument about the definition of "slum" is disingenuous, to say the least. Let's stay on point and not pick at my choice of words--feel free to substitute "economically disadvantaged residential area" for "slum" if you get off on politically correct euphemisms.
Finally, you need to realize you are (all?) saying that broadband should be considered a UTILITY, like gas, electricity, or water. Realize that the "utility" category assumes monopoly status--do you really want broadband only offered by a monopoly? If so, please develop a consensus on whether it should be cable or telco, then come back with those arguments.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? Hate to break this to you, but cable has been treated as a utility for over 40 years, at least in places I have lived. Just because new uses have come along that were only dreamed about in the 60's does not change that, even though it looks like politicians and laws are being bought to do so in various ways.
And talking about derails, I said said by RayW :I wonder what the people in the areas that have a hard time paying for electricity or do not use much electricity would think if you shut them down. After all, electricity is not really needed, so unless you can consume and pay for a lot you are a drag on the profit sheet. They can use candles and firewood, and walk to the store daily for perishables. Nothing about NON PAYMENT!, a totally different subject. Just referring to the fact that you might not get many of them (those in poor neighborhoods) and the ones that you do will get the cheap packages and not the big money makers. But like the other utilities when they too were luxuries, as more on-line access is required, more will eventually become customers. And like other utilities, you may have to take action and delete them (easier since right now cable is not a 'survival' issue).
Forced deployment, nothing wrong with that historically, for better or worse it helped get us to where we are today. Rural electrification was forced and in some cases done by the government, and telephones had requirements to go out to other areas that were not as lucrative.
Nothing is forcing your company to do what the franchise wants, but someone else will do it (AT&T vice Comcast is an example here). If you think being required to furnish service to areas (and to make sure you do not misunderstand again: and to get at least the minimum fees from those who partake even if they do not buy into the overpriced frills that make the executives rich) is too much trouble, then keep out of the way, just like AT&T eventually did here.
Oh, and I do not advocate going into areas where it is demonstrable hazardous to the installers and excessively hazardous to equipment. Might as while nip that argument. It might be useful socially, but the potential cost in life is too high.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? I'm missing your argument regarding electric service--it was in fact built out to rich neighborhoods first. For residential service, I don't think there are different "packages" that customers can buy. Eventually, over decades, electric service became near universal. Still, in rural areas, customers may face substantial costs to build out long service lines to new locations.
Regarding telephone service, telcos generally didn't "go out" to non-profitable areas until the Rural Electrification funds were expanded to include telephone service. (Note that this has now become a huge slush fund.) Some states still have areas where there is no telco available at all--only satellite service is possible. California has many such areas in the Sierra.
My point is that all this takes time, forcing the issue isn't necessarily a good idea, and today's subsidies become tomorrow's slush funds. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Re: What is wrong with discrimination? I know you are missing the point of the electrical service but that is ok, it is only history.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? It is history--and history has shown us that networks develop over time, are concentrated in certain areas first, and not everyone automatically can connect tomorrow.
This is, of course, offensive to those who believe that every person in the country should have exactly the same environment, regardless of where they live, how hard they work, or what they might want.
RayW, I'll agree that it's appropriate for me to subsidize broadband expansion in the suburbs of Salt Lake City around the same time you agree it's appropriate for you to subsidize the expansion of parking garages in San Francisco. We each made our choice of where to live and work, and we need to live with the consequences of those choices.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? said by calvoiper :It is history--and history has shown us that networks develop over time, are concentrated in certain areas first, and not everyone automatically can connect tomorrow. This is, of course, offensive to those who believe that every person in the country should have exactly the same environment, regardless of where they live, how hard they work, or what they might want. RayW, I'll agree that it's appropriate for me to subsidize broadband expansion in the suburbs of Salt Lake City around the same time you agree it's appropriate for you to subsidize the expansion of parking garages in San Francisco. We each made our choice of where to live and work, and we need to live with the consequences of those choices. calvoiper Parking garages? What does that have to do with Broad Band? And we do not need you to subsidize Broad Band out here, just keep your crappy company from suing our local government (and buying laws against) for trying to do what you could/would not.
If you can't do the job right, then get out of the business and let companies like Comcast or local governments do it. Your excuses of why you can not do it are just as bogus today as your predecessor's were 40 years ago (and I see that certain companies still made enough money to spend on buying laws despite the loss from wiring "poor" areas).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What is wrong with discrimination? Ray, there's no "you" here--I don't work for or represent in any fashion any telco. Please don't accuse me of not doing some job "right"--by your political standards.
I do however, reject the efforts by tin-pot dictatorships called local governments that try to manage competition, extort free broadband for government, require "public access" channels that run puff pieces on local politicians, and otherwise seek to turn business into their own little piggy bank.
Doing the job "right" means different things to different people--and in the case of local government, it all to often means kissing up to the cable company that has been distributing Christmas gifts to government honchos for years and sticking it to the telcos that have been regulated at the state level.
Requiring "build-out" by telco video competitors is one more ploy to delay video competition--a ploy that you are either part of, or deluded by.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by calvoiper :For residential service, I don't think there are different "packages" that customers can buy. That might depend on where you are. Here there are about a dozen different packages of electric service available with different types of billing and different "mixes" of energy sources. | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by calvoiper :What's next? Tiffany has to build new stores in the slums for each new one it opens downtown? Yeah, Tiffany is a luxury--but so is cable TV and, under current government policies, broadband. You want to make it a necessity? OK, then what's next? Safeway or Kroger has to build one new store in a depressed area for each one it builds in the suburbs? Believe me, groceries are more of a "necessity" than broadband, in any comparison. PIRG is just continuing its socialist stance--equivalency (read: mediocrity) for all, ignore capitalist concepts of "accomplishment" or "success", and support the "fellow travellers" on the left while you're at it--particularly through local "public interest channels" that carry leftist cr@p all day because the "social services" people who nurse at the teat of the public exchequer are the only ones who have time to babble on camera like pseudo-celebrities. While "discrimination on the basis of ability to pay" may sound offensive to the leftists, it is not only generally legal, it is the primary motivation that gets people to work each day. calvoiper You are comparing apples and oranges here. Tiffany, Safeway, and Kroger are still usable by depressed areas because of connecting transportation and mail networks.
Cable television and broadband are almost purely site based services. You can use a Safeway in the same town as you but 12 blocks away; you cannot use cable television in the same town but 12 blocks away.
And when Safeway and Kroger make use of public trust resources, they often do so with requirements to build in depressed areas. So, the Safeway/Kroger example actually reinforces the idea that companies making extensive use of the public trust should be required to match community needs in doing so. (I am not sure if the issue is the same for Tiffanys.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | |
|
