Utopia Not So Picture Perfect > 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.

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.

said by marigolds:

Like the interstate system.

said by pnh102:

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.

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.

said by pnh102:

The Interstate highway system in most states is funded by gas taxes, tolls, registration fees and other vehicle-related taxes.

said by KrK:

Highways and Interstates are also paid from general funds and other tax monies...

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.

said by marigolds:

Do you have an example of a commercial broadband system that successfully paid for itself?

said by wifi4milez:

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).

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).

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).

said by wifi4milez:

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.

said by wierdo:

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.

said by wifi4milez:

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.

said by marigolds:

Okay, I will provide a concrete example.
Iowa City, Iowa.
One ILEC. One cable provider. Over 180 ISPs.
That would be less than 1.5%.

said by wifi4milez:

Fine, but lets be honest; thats a VERY unusual example.

said by wierdo:

Very few places (NYC is one of them, what with RCN, the Dolan empire, and Time Warner competing in various combinations around the city, not to mention Verizon) have more than two competitive facilities based providers for residential and small business service.

said by wifi4milez:

Firstly, RCN and Time Warner dont really compete in NYC. 99% of residential buildings have an agreement with only one, so you cant choose between the two. In fact, I have never once heard of any building being served by both. I would be willing to bet that the majority of residential customers has at minimum two facilities based providers to chose from. Once you move into business however, that dramatically changes. There are a number of facilities based business service providers, and so if you are in a decent sized city you likely have a choice between a few. Some examples are (not including the LEC cable ISP):

Level 3
MCI/Verizon Business
Time Warner Telecom
XO
Cogent
Yipes
Sprint
ATT (CLEC)
Keyspan
Hudson Valley Data Net (now Lightower)

These are just those available in my area, there are many more regional and local facilities based players around the country. While I dont disagree that residentail customers do have fewer choices, many businesses do have options depending on where they are located.

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.

said by wierdo:

It's more like retail electricity deregulation. One company/cooperative/city owns and maintains the wire to your home.

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.

said by pnh102:

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 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.