bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to chemaupr
Re: Public utilities should stay out of private competition
One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century linguistically was when communists started calling themselves socialists and socialists started calling themselves centrists.
Businesses price their services based on the market. You inject an artifically low service(because of taxpayer subsidization) you're not helping the marketplace. People advocate gov't intervention because of a complete misunderstanding of how the system works. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| no one is saying to price it below market. But if the industry do not wants to give you the latest technology, because they wont make money (which seems reasonable) what the local or state government should do? Just sit back and way for F** ATT or Verizon to change their mind. This is going to take some both private and government sectors. If there was a company willing to provide the latest services sure gov participation will be counter productive and a waste. But this is not the case. The companies are telling you what do you NEED and WANT.
And how the system works???? Tell you how, they want to maximize profits. Chattanooga will be a lost for decades if they deploy FTTH. They DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM. So what they will do, suck up the dsl and crappy cable? They could because that is what the SYSTEM is telling them to do. But they can tell the SYSTEM this is not what we want. Sure the whole project can go wrong, but it can also work.
But those that wait for the SYSTEM to WORK, those are the one that do not understand how it work. |
|
Emiya
join:2006-03-30
Southington, OH
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780  :One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century linguistically was when communists started calling themselves socialists and socialists started calling themselves centrists. Quoted for truth. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to chemaupr
'no one is saying to price it below market.'
Of course they are. If they priced it at fair market value they'd be more expensive than everyone else and the one thing I've learned from this site is people demand bandwidth for cheaper than it costs to provide it.
Why don't you demand the gov't run auto-dealers, grocery stores, and other assorted businesses? They cost far more than broadband and are more necessary than it. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
 ·Cox HSI
edit:
August 18th, @03:41PM
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century linguistically was when communists started calling themselves socialists and socialists started calling themselves centrists. And fascists started calling themselves conservatives... Forgot that one.
Businesses price their services based on the market. That assumes there is competition for there to be a "market". If there is only one provider, the market doesn't exist. No competition, no free market.
You inject an artifically low service(because of taxpayer subsidization) you're not helping the marketplace. That's a load of hogwash. It forces the existing players to reduce the price of their service to a price point more consistent with what services costs to deliver. No company is entitled to a profit margin, they are suppose to have to work for it, unfortunately, most companies forget that fact.
People advocate gov't intervention because of a complete misunderstanding of how the system works. You have a PhD in voodoonomics ?  Seriously, when providers fail to deliver services, there is absolutely no reason for the people of a locality or region not to decide to deliver it on their own... Okay, except for extremist thinking. The idea that people in regions should never get services because company X and company Y say so is ridiculous.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :'no one is saying to price it below market.' Why don't you demand the gov't run auto-dealers, grocery stores, and other assorted businesses? They cost far more than broadband and are more necessary than it. Becouse ther is no need...ther are many dealer, grocery stores and other assorted business providing the service. That is the point!!!! In this case no company in there area want provide them FTTH, so they are moving fwd. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to chemaupr
said by chemaupr :But those that wait for the SYSTEM to WORK, those are the one that do not understand how it work. How is that SunRocket working for you. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to bmn
Actually fascists were always a nationalistic branch of socialism. Some fascists did call themselves conservative...others called themselves other things. But it didn't rewrite the word the same way socialists did with liberal.
A lot of conservatives that are decidedly not fascists still are around.
'That assumes there is competition for there to be a "market". If there is only one provider, the market doesn't exist. No competition, no free market.'
The market is small but there still is a market.
'No company is entitled to a profit margin, they are suppose to have to work for it, unfortunately, most companies forget that fact.'
There is no way to make a profit on selling 20$ for 19$. When you're working against someone who can always undercut you, you're not going to do well. If the undercutting is through artificial means then the market suffers. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by bogey780 :Actually fascists were always a nationalistic branch of socialism. Some fascists did call themselves conservative...others called themselves other things. But it didn't rewrite the word the same way socialists did with liberal. I disagree... Socialism and Fascism are vastly different. Socialism is basically a lighter version of communism (small C, not the Soviet/Chinese Communism). On the other hand, Fascists are extremist with respect to capitalism, believing that the interests of business should be the end all and be all of government... Much like present day conservatives, seeking to advance the interest of business first.
A lot of conservatives that are decidedly not fascists still are around. That number is shrinking constantly... Barry Goldwater style conservatism is a dying thing.
'That assumes there is competition for there to be a "market". If there is only one provider, the market doesn't exist. No competition, no free market.'
The market is small but there still is a market. With one provider, that can't be a market in the strictest sense of the term. Without competition, the sole player dictates price without the affects of competition.
'No company is entitled to a profit margin, they are suppose to have to work for it, unfortunately, most companies forget that fact.'
There is no way to make a profit on selling 20$ for 19$. Of course not, but without evidence showing that is what is going to happen, it can't be used to determine the validity of the muni model. To presuppose that undercutting will take place is to jump the gun. The costs of transit bandwidth to a telco or MSO are the same price that a muni operation would pay. Equipment and labor will cost the same to. The only way that undercutting could take place is with tax subsidization and so far, that isn't a widespread phenomenon, more the exception to the rule than anything.
When you're working against someone who can always undercut you, you're not going to do well. If the undercutting is through artificial means then the market suffers. There are easy ways to prevent that from happening... The best model is the Utopia model, where the last mile infrastructure is an open network on which everyone can provide services if they want, even telcos and MSOs. Access providers then provide retail access to the network for businesses, small/home offices and ordinary consumers.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by bmn :said by bogey780 :Actually fascists were always a nationalistic branch of socialism. I disagree... Socialism and Fascism are vastly different. Socialism is basically a lighter version of communism (small C, not the Soviet/Chinese Communism). On the other hand, Fascists are extremist with respect to capitalism, believing that the interests of business should be the end all and be all of government... Some should have told Adolph Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist Party in Germany, the grandaddy of fascist government.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
edit:
August 18th, @08:36PM
| said by TK Junk Mail :Some should have told Adolph Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist Party in Germany, the grandaddy of fascist government. You want to try again... The founding-father of Fascism was Italian... Mussolini.
As well, if you do enough research, you will find that there are some major differences between Fascism and Nazism.
But if we want to argue specifics, then it could be said that conservatism has more in common with corporatism than fascism (corporatism's brother/sister/cousin/whatever).
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| There was little difference between Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. The whole corporatism was pretty much textbook socialism with a quirk. They merged corporate ownership with state control so the state was the owner of all industry by fiat. That's prety much socialism. The difference is they went with a central strongman instead of "the people" having the power. The chief difference between Nazism and Faschism was Nazism was racially centered. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
edit:
August 18th, @09:27PM
| said by bogey780 :There was little difference between Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. The whole corporatism was pretty much textbook socialism with a quirk. They merged corporate ownership with state control so the state was the owner of all industry by fiat. That's prety much socialism. No, because under socialism, there are no longer corporate owners. Socialism is total control of the economic system by a government, ie the government owns all industry. Corporatism is where government serves the interests of business at the expense of the citizen. Major difference.
The chief difference between Nazism and Faschism was Nazism was racially centered. Correct, however there are other significant difference. For example, there is the role of the class system which differs greatly according the the tenants of the two systems. Fascism believes in a strong class system and the tenant of the meritocracy. Nazism sought to destroy the concept of the class system, unifying the populace under their race, ignoring economic factors.
The ideas are similar, but the differences warrant a separation.
edit:typo
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| 'No, because under socialism, there are no longer corporate owners. Socialism is total control of the economic system by a government, ie the government owns all industry. Corporatism is where government serves the interests of business at the expense of the citizen. Major difference.'
6 or half dozen. Same thing. Under fascism the state would control who was in charge of what. Gov't and corporations became linked. The difference is really just semantical. |
|
Thespis
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to bmn
quote:
Fascists are extremist with respect to capitalism, believing that the interests of business should be the end all and be all of government... Much like present day conservatives, seeking to advance the interest of business first.
Hmmmm...
I think you have it backwards. In a fascist society, the interests of the state are expected to be the main concern of business; not the other way around.
From Webster's:
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
From Wikipedia:
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.
From PublicEye.org:
Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by Thespis :I think you have it backwards. In a fascist society, the interests of the state are expected to be the main concern of business; not the other way around. In other words, business running the country... What I was trying to say but clearly f*cked up on the delivery...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :'No, because under socialism, there are no longer corporate owners. Socialism is total control of the economic system by a government, ie the government owns all industry. Corporatism is where government serves the interests of business at the expense of the citizen. Major difference.' 6 or half dozen. Same thing. Under fascism the state would control who was in charge of what. Gov't and corporations became linked. The difference is really just semantical. When we come to the point where it gets to semantics we can just let the topic be... I think the best people for this type of discussion are the poli-sci folks. I don't know about you, but it is an area that I didn't spend a lot of time on...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to bmn
said by bmn : The best model is the Utopia model, Utopia is pissing away tax payers money and will never turn a profit. Government knows how to tax and spend not run a business. |
|
Thespis
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
·Verizon FIOS
edit:
August 19th, @02:28AM
| reply to bmn
quote:
In other words, business running the country...
No, in the words I used, the state running the businesses for the good of the state.
Communism, Socialism, and Fascism rely on all facets of society being devoted to the good of the government. Capitalism thrives with less government intervention, but left unregulated will sacrifice ethics for profit. It's not perfect, but it is open to change and improvement.
I don't really have a problem with municipalities getting into the broadband business if the people want it. It's their money... |
|
FairMarektWisher
@frontiernet.net
| reply to bogey780
said by Of course they are. If they priced it at fair market value they'd be more expensive than everyone else and the one thing I've learned from this site is people demand bandwidth for cheaper than it costs to provide it.[/BQUOTE :
How is it that the U.S. have the slowest broadband access compared to the rest of the developed countries? It's not fair market when there's only two or three high speed service providers in any market. From where I'm at there's either crappy Frontier, Comcast, or Direct TV.
I wish there were more competition so the govt. won't have to get involve. But until there is, I'll welcome any the govt. |
|
