wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to pnh102
Re: Shocking... said by pnh102:Government-provided broadband is comperable to the old state-run industries of the USSR. The USSR would pour tons of resources into its state-owned industries to keep them running and we described that as socialist. Uh, what's so hard to grasp about UTOPIA. Why is it that people like yourself can't understand the simple fact that private companies are the ones providing the service.
It works almost like SBC's DSL used to, only with fiber, and no profit motive on the underlying network. Any provider that can afford to get connected to the network can provide service over it. The government doesn't provide anything but the wire.
What's wrong with increased competition? Do you own stock in Qwest or Comcast?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | What exactly am I missing? UTOPIA is just another socialist broadband scheme that is a costing taxpayers more money than it takes in. This is no different than any other socialist broadband scheme tried anywhere else in the USA and it too is failing just like all of the others.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
|
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by pnh102:What exactly am I missing? UTOPIA is just another socialist broadband scheme that is a costing taxpayers more money than it takes in. This is no different than any other socialist broadband scheme tried anywhere else in the USA and it too is failing just like all of the others. I get it.
Like the interstate system.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:What exactly am I missing? UTOPIA is just another socialist broadband scheme that is a costing taxpayers more money than it takes in. This is no different than any other socialist broadband scheme tried anywhere else in the USA and it too is failing just like all of the others. You're missing that UTOPIA is only about the physical wire. Service can be provided by a large variety of third parties. (AT&T was one of the options until recently)
It's more like retail electricity deregulation. One company/cooperative/city owns and maintains the wire to your home. Another company sells you the electricity you receive over that wire, leaving you with the option of buying power from somebody who uses only renewable energy or buying power from a company that uses whatever happens to be cheap at the moment. Up to you.
That's a lot more competitive than the one or two companies who have a network in your town being able to sell you service, isn't it?
Edited to add: Of course it's costing more to operate than the money it's bringing in. It's not finished yet. I have yet to come across a project that made money before it was finished, in the corporate or government worlds.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:Like the interstate system. Wrong. The Interstate highway system in most states is funded by gas taxes, tolls, registration fees and other vehicle-related taxes. For the most part, only drivers pay these taxes directly. So much gas tax is collected that a fair amount is actually diverted from roads and into mass transit.
There is no comparison with UTOPIA, which results in higher taxes for everyone, even those who do not use it.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to wierdo
said by wierdo:It's more like retail electricity deregulation. One company/cooperative/city owns and maintains the wire to your home. And we saw how well that worked out. Rolling blackouts, skyrocketing rates, no real competition. Was deregulation ever really a good idea? I used to think so, now I don't. Come to think of it, I think there really was nothing wrong with the "old way" of selling power.
said by wierdo:Edited to add: Of course it's costing more to operate than the money it's bringing in. It's not finished yet. I have yet to come across a project that made money before it was finished, in the corporate or government worlds. The difference is that in private industry, expansions are done so that the value brought in by new customers exceeds the costs in acquiring them. That's why private ISPs don't just provide service anywhere. UTOPIA and other socialist broadband schemes, since they get unlimited taxpayer money, don't have to factor these constraints in. Because of that, it costs them more money to add each new customer.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by marigolds:Like the interstate system. Wrong. The Interstate highway system in most states is funded by gas taxes, tolls, registration fees and other vehicle-related taxes. For the most part, only drivers pay these taxes directly. So much gas tax is collected that a fair amount is actually diverted from roads and into mass transit. There is no comparison with UTOPIA, which results in higher taxes for everyone, even those who do not use it. Utopia is revenue bond funded. That has no impact on taxes.
That would seem to be very much like the highway system.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by marigolds:Utopia is revenue bond funded. That has no impact on taxes. That would seem to be very much like the highway system. Even if you were correct in UTOPIA having no impact on taxes (what pays the bondholders, its certainly not revenue from UTOPIA), taxes do indeed fund the highway system, so they are not at all alike.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by wierdo:It's more like retail electricity deregulation. One company/cooperative/city owns and maintains the wire to your home. And we saw how well that worked out. Rolling blackouts, skyrocketing rates, no real competition. Was deregulation ever really a good idea? I used to think so, now I don't. Come to think of it, I think there really was nothing wrong with the "old way" of selling power. No, we saw what happens when you deregulate wholesale electricity sales and allow certain actors to manipulate the price of energy so that the utilities cannot afford it.
Retail electricity sales are a completely different thing, and are often controlled by the government or a quasi-governmental authority.
said by pnh102:The difference is that in private industry, expansions are done so that the value brought in by new customers exceeds the costs in acquiring them. That's why private ISPs don't just provide service anywhere. UTOPIA and other socialist broadband schemes, since they get unlimited taxpayer money, don't have to factor these constraints in. Because of that, it costs them more money to add each new customer. No, the difference is that in private industry, there aren't a bunch of naysayers going around doomsaying before the project is even finished, or at least not any naysayers who can derail the project. We're not talking about an expansion, as you claim, but finishing the project as originally intended.
Besides, you seem to think providing everyone within a city with equal access to the network (like they are provided water, electricity, roads, police and fire protection, and so on) is somehow a bad thing. I disagree. Some cross-subsidization is a good thing here, IMO. I do agree that such a network should be self sustaining as far as operating costs go, and preferably make enough to fully cover capital costs.
I, for one, would be perfectly willing to have my tax dollars go to capital expenditure, even in the absence of any chance of paying it back, again, so long as the opex would be paid for from the network's revenue. It's good for the economy, it's good for the citizens, and it's good for competition. I understand not everybody feels that way, but you ought to at least let them finish building the network before saying it'll never be able to pay for itself. Moreover, you should keep in mind that the main reason they're asking for more money is because of malfeasance on the part of the federal government.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:The Interstate highway system in most states is funded by gas taxes, tolls, registration fees and other vehicle-related taxes. Highways and Interstates are also paid from general funds and other tax monies...
So let me see....
Government provided services and infrastructure, funded by taxes, IS NOT Socialist.... But Government provided services and infrastructure, funded by taxes, IS Socialist.
Congratulations. You just argued yourself into a paradox.
As for the "User Tax Pays" arguments, when the Interstates were first being built, hardly anyone used them yet, and yet everyone paid, too. So you just set a prime example of why Utopia should be allowed to grow and mature.
--
"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!) |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by KrK:said by pnh102:The Interstate highway system in most states is funded by gas taxes, tolls, registration fees and other vehicle-related taxes. Highways and Interstates are also paid from general funds and other tax monies... That only happens when states do not levy enough user fees to cover the costs of the roads. This isn't in many states though.
However, in just about every situation, socialist broadband has failed to pay for itself, and requires taxes either be raised, or money redirected from some other government expenditure, say schools or police, to cover the cost.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | It's not socialist broadband, it's modern infrastructure building... and it needs to be completed and nurtured before the inherent efficiency will kick in. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:However, in just about every situation, socialist broadband has failed to pay for itself, and requires taxes either be raised, or money redirected from some other government expenditure, say schools or police, to cover the cost. Do you have an example of a commercial broadband system that successfully paid for itself? |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by marigolds:said by pnh102:However, in just about every situation, socialist broadband has failed to pay for itself, and requires taxes either be raised, or money redirected from some other government expenditure, say schools or police, to cover the cost. Do you have an example of a commercial broadband system that successfully paid for itself? One could argue that every service provider currently not in bankruptcy has done so. Even those that are in debt can attribute that to growing their existing networks. Bottom line is if they werent profitable, they would all be out of business (or will be).
--
Весна прибыла |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by wifi4milez:said by marigolds:said by pnh102:However, in just about every situation, socialist broadband has failed to pay for itself, and requires taxes either be raised, or money redirected from some other government expenditure, say schools or police, to cover the cost. Do you have an example of a commercial broadband system that successfully paid for itself? One could argue that every service provider currently not in bankruptcy has done so. Even those that are in debt can attribute that to growing their existing networks. Bottom line is if they werent profitable, they would all be out of business (or will be). Not really, because few service providers actually provide their own network, and no network providers have made any money off of their broadband services (they all make their money elsewhere and use internet as a loss leader on those other services).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by marigolds:Not really, because few service providers actually provide their own network, and no network providers have made any money off of their broadband services (they all make their money elsewhere and use internet as a loss leader on those other services). If Internet is really a loss leader as you claim (I don't agree) then that's even more of a reason for the government not to get into it.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:Not really, because few service providers actually provide their own network, and no network providers have made any money off of their broadband services (they all make their money elsewhere and use internet as a loss leader on those other services). How do you figure that? Verizon uses their own network. ATT uses their own network. Time Warner Cable uses their own network. Comcast uses their own network. Cablevision uses their own network. Many, many other companies also use their own network as well, and thats just on the consumer side. Once you get into business class service, their are a whole host of other facilities based providers in play.
Lets not forget about the backbone providers like Level 3, Sprint, MCI (uunet), and all the others not mentioned.
--
Весна прибыла |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Let me rephrase...
relatively few 
Considering the tens of thousands ISPs that exist out there. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:said by marigolds:Not really, because few service providers actually provide their own network, and no network providers have made any money off of their broadband services (they all make their money elsewhere and use internet as a loss leader on those other services). How do you figure that? Verizon uses their own network. ATT uses their own network. Time Warner Cable uses their own network. Comcast uses their own network. Cablevision uses their own network. Many, many other companies also use their own network as well, and thats just on the consumer side. Once you get into business class service, their are a whole host of other facilities based providers in play. Lets not forget about the backbone providers like Level 3, Sprint, MCI (uunet), and all the others not mentioned. There aren't that many facilities based providers in most places, especially outside of core downtown areas. NYC is something of an aberration. In the rest of the country, most of the ISPs are stuck using the ILEC's DSL network.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by wierdo:said by wifi4milez:said by marigolds:Not really, because few service providers actually provide their own network, and no network providers have made any money off of their broadband services (they all make their money elsewhere and use internet as a loss leader on those other services). How do you figure that? Verizon uses their own network. ATT uses their own network. Time Warner Cable uses their own network. Comcast uses their own network. Cablevision uses their own network. Many, many other companies also use their own network as well, and thats just on the consumer side. Once you get into business class service, their are a whole host of other facilities based providers in play. Lets not forget about the backbone providers like Level 3, Sprint, MCI (uunet), and all the others not mentioned. There aren't that many facilities based providers in most places, especially outside of core downtown areas. NYC is something of an aberration. In the rest of the country, most of the ISPs are stuck using the ILEC's DSL network. Thats not true at all. Almost all areas are served by both a LEC DSL footprint as well as a cable ISP footprint. NYC is no different than anyplace else, its not like we have any other choices that people elsewhere dont.
--
Весна прибыла |
|
