RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to nasadude
Re: WOW 7-2
Actually, it shows the fallacy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which started this "competition" farce.
While the FCC often has its head up its ass, in this case Congress shoved it up there. You might also remember it as the first attempt by Congress to regulate "obscenity" on cable TV pay channels.
Anyone who has even a slight grasp of economics knows this would never work under any kind of "free market" arrangement. Either it's heavily subsidized or outright built by tax money.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Then they should just nationalize the last mile to each home and let any service company that wants to provide service. There, free market competition at its finest.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Hardly. Why should someone who doesn't want to use it have to pay taxes to support that?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | You collect fess from the network services providers... Subscriber funded.
--
Prove it... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Which does that address, the chicken or the egg? The infrastructure has to be there before there are subscribers.
I don't disagree something needs to be done, but nationalizing utilities rarely works.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Maybe a form of regulation that states whoever owns the line only provisions the line. They can't offer content. That way all the line owner can do (and hope for) is to get as many competing companies to lease their lines as possible. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | As long as it applies to everyone, including cable and wireless, I see nothing wrong with that.
Of course, we both know the probability of that happening is -1.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc  :Which does that address, the chicken or the egg? The infrastructure has to be there before there are subscribers. A forced divestiture of the existing infrastructure... Sounds nasty, but really, its the only way to make the telecom arena truly competitive. It is nearly impossible to build out an entirely new work to compete against the existing giants. And of course, it is asinine to spend resources when the existing network could just be shared instead of having fifty different networks dangling from telephone poles.
I don't disagree something needs to be done, but nationalizing utilities rarely works.
The only other option is a not-for-profit operating corporation.
--
Prove it... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| If we are really serious about it we'd just give tax credits to those who own private networks, and shift it all over to some benevolent public-controlled overseer? Really?
Where has that ever really worked for anything? Maybe if you have central control and no private ownership there might be a chance you'd get close to the goal, but then what? Where does the money come from? Do you lease it all back to the original companies? How do you keep the government from fucking it up like they do everything else they control? We'll end up with another Amtrak.
The horse has been out of the barn so long it's died and its corpse been eaten by jackals. The time to do this was in 1981...I'm afraid there is no going back now.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :Actually, it shows the fallacy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which started this "competition" farce. While the FCC often has its head up its ass, in this case Congress shoved it up there. You might also remember it as the first attempt by Congress to regulate "obscenity" on cable TV pay channels. Anyone who has even a slight grasp of economics knows this would never work under any kind of "free market" arrangement. Either it's heavily subsidized or outright built by tax money. Funny, Playboy took the FCC to court over that "obscenity" law and won. Since then, the Congress doesn't touch "erotic" entertainment. It shouldn't have in the first place ala the 1st Ammendment.
The Bells competing is as stupid as those CLECs offering phone service. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to RadioDoc
At the drop of a hat our country can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in a country that has no real benefit to us and yet you would object to them using that kind of money in building a nationwide network?
I say build the damn network with our tax money as they have it to spend already and then lease the lines. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Try again, that made no sense. The tired "they can spend $$$ on war so why can't they spend $$$ on ______" is trite and intellectually lazy.
We already have a nationwide network. Several, in fact.
You say you're 35 years old. Do you pay taxes? Are you ready to pay enough extra to foot the bill for your shiny new network that has little actual benefit to anyone?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl :Funny, Playboy took the FCC to court over that "obscenity" law and won. Since then, the Congress doesn't touch "erotic" entertainment. It shouldn't have in the first place ala the 1st Ammendment. The Bells competing is as stupid as those CLECs offering phone service. Yep. Stupid is as stupid does. There's a lot of stupid inside the Beltway.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to RadioDoc
For the same reason that you pay taxes to fix a neighbors road that you probably never drive on. 
People ni this country used to do things to help each other. now they only do things to help make money. It's a horrible shame really. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :If we are really serious about it we'd just give tax credits to those who own private networks, and shift it all over to some benevolent public-controlled overseer? Really? Where has that ever really worked for anything? Maybe if you have central control and no private ownership there might be a chance you'd get close to the goal, but then what? Where does the money come from? Do you lease it all back to the original companies? How do you keep the government from fucking it up like they do everything else they control? We'll end up with another Amtrak. The horse has been out of the barn so long it's died and its corpse been eaten by jackals. The time to do this was in 1981...I'm afraid there is no going back now. You are 100% correct. The reality is that wired networks (at least copper) are going to to be slowly decommissioned over the next 50 to 100 years until they are left only in obscure locations. As much as everyone hates WIMAX, it or its successors (or variants, etc), will/do offer the chance for someone to build a truly new network to reach subscribers. Whether that person/company is willing to spend billions and then leave it open to competitors remains to be seen, but dont count on that either.
--
я люблю Денди! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to wentlanc
There is a big difference between paying to maintain a public road (or school or police department or fire department or...) and using tax dollars to take a private utility. Especially when the the motives of the government agency doing the taking are unclear, along with it having an absolutely horrid operating record. We're talking about nationalization of existing infrastructure, not some sleepy burg putting up their own fiber to play network operator on.
But more to your example, why should I pay tax money to take my neighbor's private road so it can be turned into a public road, just because someone else wants to use it? How about negotiating with my neighbor for an access easement? Maybe a lease? Maybe something not quite so oppressive?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| said by RadioDoc :How about negotiating with my neighbor for an access easement? Maybe a lease? Maybe something not quite so oppressive? For the last time, please STOP being fair and reasonable! What kind of a forum do you think this is??
--
я люблю Денди! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Sorry. I'll go watch O'Reilly and listen to Limbaugh to learn how to do it right...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :As long as it applies to everyone, including cable and wireless, I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, we both know the probability of that happening is -1. Heh. More like - 1 Billion
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Coming from a probusiness/monopoly person like you of course you call it lazy.
Again my point stands as we all pay enough taxes already that can easily be reallocated to this project just like they do for all their other special little pet projects. |
|
