mcmillan
join:2001-04-15
West Bloomfield, MI
|  This is an outrage!
"Why give [consumers] a Rolls Royce when a Chevrolet will do?"
Jerry Fenn in 2003
Why NOT,  Jerry?
THE LONG-TERM HARM TO CONSUMERS... WTF?
Can he at least demonstrate the HARM? It would be harmful for us if we could run servers and not pay him for symmetrical connection.
How is it possible that we allow these people to have so much control over our services. They give us scraps and charge us pile of money. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | It is quotes from executives like Fenn that just reinforce my belief that in modern US business, if you want to be an executive, a diagnosis of Sociopathy is a vital entry on your CV. |
|
spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
 ·SureWest Internet
·FrontierNet Intern..
| reply to mcmillan
said by mcmillan  :"Why give [consumers] a Rolls Royce when a Chevrolet will do?" Jerry Fenn in 2003 Why NOT, Jerry? THE LONG-TERM HARM TO CONSUMERS... WTF? Heck, he might as well go for broke: "If they build it, the terrorists will win". 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to mcmillan
said by mcmillan :"Why give [consumers] a Rolls Royce when a Chevrolet will do?" Jerry Fenn in 2003 Why NOT, Jerry? The operative word here is "give." I am sure Mr. Fenn will happily sell you a Rolls Royce (even in a metaphorical sense). But giving one away, even more most people... we'd probably be a bit stingy there.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
mcmillan
join:2001-04-15
West Bloomfield, MI
1 edit | Good point. Let me be clearer.
I understand that Mr. Fenn said,
"Why should the industry (Qwest?) provide customers with better , cheaper service when providing with inferior one will make the most of the customers happy enough"
My point is,
Why not provide people with the service which will not be overpriced. Competition is suppose to help customer not the company.
The people Mr. Fenn likes are the ones that use his service, paying according to his price-list. He implies that it is not proper to compete with the company.
I do not think Mr. Fenn meant "give" in a literal sense. He could not possibly have. Neither did I |
|
Bishounen
join:2007-04-29
Buffalo, NY
| reply to pnh102
The real problem here is not the GIVE part, since he's obviously not giving away service. The problem is that Mr. Fenn wants to CHARGE for a Rolls-Royce while supplying a Chevrolet. Most of us would call that a rip-off, which is exactly what the North American broadband market is today.
Utopia, and other Municipal broadband providers, seek to provide an alternative to this. Basically they provide broadband at prices based on the price structure of broadband in countries at the TOP of the broadband penetration list, rather than the US, which is somewhere around 27th in the world. The idea being that US citizens should have access to the same opportunities at a similar price-point as citizens of other developed nations. So they aren't getting a Rolls Royce, they are getting a Chevrolet, but only being CHARGED a Chevrolet price.
I'm not saying that State-run broadband is the way to go, goodness knows that socialism screws up more things than even the worst monopolist could. But there is nothing wrong per-se with taxpayers getting together cooperatively and deciding to start a community owned broadband company. Particularly in towns where there is either a monopoly or duopoly of broadband providers, creating a third option can often be to the taxpayers benefit, especially if it drives some of the exorbitant prices down.
Of course, this would have to be at the taxpayers behest. IE: a publicly voted on bill, managed by an elected board of trustees, and reauthorized every few years. This keeps the control in the hands of the voters, and an elected board keeps cost overruns down, as they are directly answerable to the people at a local level. I have no idea if this is how Utopia works, but that's how I would set it up if I had the option. |
|
jesse weber
@comcast.net
| I do agree with you that state-run broadband isn't the way to go either. The reason the folks in Utah (including myself) love this initiative so much, is that UTOPIA just provides the infrastructure so that new ISPs can come to the market and compete and thus drive innovation (not to mention lower prices). And thats really the problem that Utah has had previously. We used to only have Qwest or Comcast. If you didn't like them, you could have dial-up or nothing at all.
I don't know whether or not there was a bill voted on by the public, but I'm not sure if it would be necessary. The only money that the government is giving for this project is a low-interest loan. To pay back that loan, everything comes from the fees of using the service. So basically, the people are voting with their pocketbooks. |
|
