 TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | Who Cares...Again... Like I wrote yesterday...who cares? It's their business, and network, and they can run it anyway they want as long as they do it legally. Any thing else is talking out of our a--. The consumer will eventually decide who is more sucessfull at it. |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | said by TechieZero:It's their business, and network, and they can run it anyway they want as long as they do it legally.
That's exactly the problem. As long as it's not feasible to run more wires to the end users, the "last mile" should be a public utility with providers given access on a competitive basis.
said by TechieZero: The consumer will eventually decide who is more sucessfull at it.
Not unless we someday start having real competition. Almost everywhere in the USA today, the only broadband alternatives are one cable company and one telephone company, and in many places only one or the other.
As long as they have oligopolies, they will squeeze the customers instead of improving infrastructure. In countries where there is regulation to make public interest superior to private profit (e.g. Japan, Scandinavia), they have big bandwidth, low prices and competition to please the customers. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by swhx7:That's exactly the problem. As long as it's not feasible to run more wires to the end users, the "last mile" should be a public utility with providers given access on a competitive basis. That's fine as long as the public utilities purchase the infrastructure from the corporate entities. But then you are talking expenditure of tax dollars which most constituents/consumers tend to shy away from.said by swhx7:As long as they have oligopolies, they will squeeze the customers instead of improving infrastructure. In countries where there is regulation to make public interest superior to private profit (e.g. Japan, Scandinavia), they have big bandwidth, low prices and competition to please the customers. I happen to enjoy private profit, and I'm guessing a majority of other capitalists in this country do as well. Competition is great, and I welcome it at any time, however I don't support government subsidizing. Government incentive, maybe. |
|
TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | reply to swhx7
GTE paid and built my last mile, why should others not do the same? |
|
| reply to swhx7
agreed. the only way market forces keep ISP's in check is if we have true competition. right now most of us can choose between a cable company and a phone company, and, competition-wise, that's not working out too well at the moment.
i like your suggestion, make the "last mile" public domain and let ISP's compete for customers. this seems to be working well for our friends across the pond, but i can guarantee you it will not happen here. incumbents will fight tooth and nail to stop any idea that makes them actually compete for the customer's dollar, not to mention our government representatives stand to make a killing from the lobbyist's bribes. it'll never happen. |
|
TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:As long as they have oligopolies, they will squeeze the customers instead of improving infrastructure. In countries where there is regulation to make public interest superior to private profit (e.g. Japan, Scandinavia), they have big bandwidth, low prices and competition to please the customers. This is BS as well. First it was the "monopolies" that are hurting us. Now it's the "oligopolies". Guess what? Even a "monopoly" has to respond to market influences, if you charge too much, you will get less customers to buy your --- in this case LUXURY. You want as many subscribers as possible so that you have a chance to bill as much as possible and cross-sell as many goods and services as possible.
You aren't happy w/ your current ISP? Get a few hundred ppl in your neiborhood to invest a few grand, get a ditchwitch, lots of some kind of data medium to dig in the ground, a bunch of switches in a shack, and hook to a trunk. Go create SWHX7 ISP co. and have fun. |
|
swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:That's fine as long as the public utilities purchase the infrastructure from the corporate entities. But then you are talking expenditure of tax dollars which most constituents/consumers tend to shy away from. ... Competition is great, and I welcome it at any time, however I don't support government subsidizing. Government incentive, maybe.
OK, let's estimate a market value for the "last mile", then subtract all that the telcos and cable companies have collected above a market rate due to their privileges (eminent domain to lay wires, for example) and local monopolies. Then also subtract subsidies paid by the federal government for them to build out fiber which they never did (or better yet, the value the public would have realized from fulfillment of that obligation). It'll be very cheap, or maybe a negative number.
Franchises - such as laws prohibiting anyone other than the favored company from operating a cable company in a designated area - and other barriers to entry, and forced easements, etc., are subsidies, so by your own statement you ought to be against them. Let's restore to the public what those subsidies have already cost. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Not sure what these companies have collected above market or how you would even begin to calculate it if even exists. Nice story on the "paid for fiber, but we never got it". The story I read doesn't show any subsidies being paid. Maybe I glanced over it, and if I did, I'll reread. Bottom line, the companies using the ROW paid to deploy the "last mile" and shouldn't be forced to "give" it to the government without being appropriately compensated.
Are there exclusive franchise agreements? I'm guessing that if there are, they are very few in numbers. If there's no exclusivity, where are the subsidies that you speak of? I'm against subsidizing private industry and I'm against preventing/limiting entrance of competition to the marketplace. I don't see a problem right now, beyond the fact that most companies don't want to spend money to enter a marketplace to compete. |
|
