dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Sweet!
So like "roads and canals", "national parks", and "interstate highways", the American people will own the broadband infrastructure!!!
This is going to significantly reduce the cost of broadband by lowering the barrier to market entry, thus allowing for increased competition.
That is, unless I missed something...
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
|
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by dnoyeB  :... That is, unless I missed something... well, we don't know yet, but what you're probably missing is that whatever money gets spent will probably go to the incumbents and be wasted with little improvement to show for it. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to dnoyeB
said by dnoyeB :So like "roads and canals", "national parks", and "interstate highways", the American people will own the broadband infrastructure!!! This is going to significantly reduce the cost of broadband by lowering the barrier to market entry, thus allowing for increased competition. That is, unless I missed something... Yeah. Reality. Universal Broadband aint goin anywhere. And where's the incentive for future upgrades if the Feds own the infrastructure? You can bet your ass if we had done this 10 years ago our net backbone would still be DS1's and DS3's and at BEST OC-3's instead of OC768 like it is now. You see how long it takes the gubment to fix roads? Levies? Social Security? Do you see how much they overpay on national defense procurement? Can you imagine the lobbying push by telcos and such to "contract" out the work at high prices that they now have to do on their own? Can you imagine the government legislating what kind of content may or may not be on its network? Look at the FCC! No porn. No "questionable" speech. Government peering in on EVERYone by default (no more having to go through ATT and battle with Qwest!). No more P2P. No more usenet. Everyone has to RELY on the government for their free speech on the internet! The **AA's would have a freakin field day with that.
No. No. No. No way in hell I can support our wasteful government using my tax dollars to pay for anything that evolves as quickly as network backbones. And while I am sometimes infuriated by some network providers' lack of interest in updating their infrastructure, that's only a tiny percentage of the anger we would all feel towards the government if it managed our internet connections.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| reply to dnoyeB
Some company will take this a make money, lots and lots of money. The consumer will be pinched as always.
Look how long land-line phones have been around? Those aren't free or even nearly free.
This is just taxes paid in and used to either prop-up existing companies or create companies to make money.
It's like giving Wal-Mart an interest-free loan if they agree to reduce the cost of DVD's by 20% 
When gov't and businesses mix the businesses always win and the consumer loses.
BUT I do say that broadband, not DSL, shouldn't cost more than about $15 per month.. 
--
I have been very charitable while poor and kind to people even while undergoing enormous personal pain.
My only weakness is that I at times have placed trust in deceitful people.
I know that GOD will be my ONLY judge in this life or the next. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :well, we don't know yet, but what you're probably missing is that whatever money gets spent will probably go to the incumbents and be wasted with little improvement to show for it. What he said. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to tiger72
Um... And Deregulation works? Obviously, we need a fine balance between government intervention and private business. We see what Deregulation got us... The worst economy since almost the Great Depression. Nice work there Republicans in both houses for MAKING and APPROVING the bill. Thanks there Clinton for signing their stupid law. Bipartisan stupidity for the win. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to tiger72
It works fine in other countries like S. Korea where the government owns the infrastructure and leases it to companies to sell services on. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
4 edits | reply to jc100
Since the dems have blocked attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past seven or eight years, and since the dems gave us the community reinvestment act (CRA) which lead to the creation of subprime loans, and since the dems have blocked attempts to increase the energy supply leading to higher energy costs across the board, and since there was a law signed in 1999 that allowed banks to own investment firms, I'm curious what makes you think the economy will improve?
When you say "The worst economy since almost the Great Depression", my belief is you ain't seen nothing yet unless the above mentioned issues are rectified. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :whatever money gets spent will probably go to the incumbents and be wasted with little improvement to show for it. I agree. It's like a year ago when the Fed slashed interest rates as the credit crisis began. It was supposed to cause the banks to free up money for everyone else. Instead, banks created what's called a "carry trade." They borrowed the cheap Fed. Discount money and used it to invest in speculative (risky) investments to make money.
We, as a nation, have an uncanny way of giving money away to help business -- and at the same time claiming there can't be any societal expectation (to regulate how business uses the money) because that would violate "free market" principles. As if giving money to businesses is a "free market."
Mark |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to dnoyeB
said by dnoyeB :So like "roads and canals", "national parks", and "interstate highways", the American people will own the broadband infrastructure!!! This is going to significantly reduce the cost of broadband by lowering the barrier to market entry, thus allowing for increased competition. That is, unless I missed something... Yeah - you missed something... Government will fund it with debt and by printing money (bad) to kick start the economy (good) for much needed infrastructure improvements that would never come. The 'bad' part will come afterwards, when its 'sold' to private sector to run/manage/purchase it.
In essence.. we will never 'own' it, but pay for it.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Um... And Deregulation works? Obviously, we need a fine balance between government intervention and private business. We see what Deregulation got us... The worst economy since almost the Great Depression. Nice work there Republicans in both houses for MAKING and APPROVING the bill. Thanks there Clinton for signing their stupid law. Bipartisan stupidity for the win. Huh? I've seen my prices with time-warner in my market stay stable ever since I moved here 6 years ago. My speed has gone from 3mbps/384kbps to 15mbps/1mbps for the same price. Not even an increase due to inflation. Why? Because of competition. I, like 90% of Americans, don't live in Bumville, Nebraska. I, like most Americans who live in cities, have competition. I've got DSL, Wifi, Cable, and Wireless Cell competition. If Cable raises its rate, I'll call em and cancel and switch to DSL. If DSL raises theirs I can get a T-Mobile data card. It ain't great, but it's better than nothing. And I'll take that over what the government always provides: bad service, bad investment, and bad management because the tax payers get to eat up every loss.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to yabos
said by yabos :It works fine in other countries like S. Korea where the government owns the infrastructure and leases it to companies to sell services on. In a country that small and that densely populated, that's fine. But with the amount of lobbying and - dare i say - corruption in washington, All I see is the government paying out the ass. Seriously, there's no such thing as fiscal responsibility in Washington, and from a government that doesn't see a problem paying $600 for a toilet seat, do you think they'll make even remotely wise investments in broadband infrastructure? Their definition of "broadband" is 128kbps! Now you can at least switch to competition when you have it. If the government takes over you'll have blazing fast 128kbps for life! No more speed jumps from 3mbps-5mbps-8mbps-15mbps thanks to DSL price-competition. Nope. No competition other than on price. Which means no innovation for better technology.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC | reply to amigo_boy
You are absolutely correct. We must be a nation of fools to keep accepting this. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| said by TamaraB :You are absolutely correct. We must be a nation of fools to keep accepting this. We are a nation thats being feed propaganda at every angle. Theres major competition for your money, and that competition is polarizing the nation. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to amigo_boy
Do you just make this stuff up in your free time? That's not what happened at all, banks have been shedding risk as fast as they can since August 2007. That's the definition of a credit crunch. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Ahrenl :Do you just make this stuff up in your free time? That's not what happened at all, banks have been shedding risk as fast as they can since August 2007. That's the definition of a credit crunch. I can't tell what you were disputing, except generally from the post you replied to. The definition of a credit crunch is when banks stop lending to each other, and to corporations. There's nothing contradictory about that, and them taking Fed. Discount money (made available even through relatively unprecedented anonymous auctions) to trade in Credit Default Swaps.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to dnoyeB
said by dnoyeB :That is, unless I missed something... Yeah. Like reality.
Sorry to sound so cynical, it's not a criticism of your post, it's just more like a /sigh based on past experience that the chances of this happening actually approach zero.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to amigo_boy
quote:
I agree. It's like a year ago when the Fed slashed interest rates as the credit crisis began. It was supposed to cause the banks to free up money for everyone else. Instead, banks created what's called a "carry trade." They borrowed the cheap Fed. Discount money and used it to invest in speculative (risky) investments to make money.
We, as a nation, have an uncanny way of giving money away to help business -- and at the same time claiming there can't be any societal expectation (to regulate how business uses the money) because that would violate "free market" principles. As if giving money to businesses is a "free market."
Mark
Sorry, I usually use qreply, and don't hit the Auto Quote button.
If banks were borrowing Fed Discount Money and investing it in term "risky investments" (which is a big no no) then we wouldn't have a credit crunch as assets (risky investments) would be in high demand.
The problem right now is that even non risky-assets are under stress because there are too many of them. Off balance sheet vehicles and SIV's created too much demand, and as their collateral is siezed it is sold at fire-sale prices by collateral holders who only need cents on the dollar to be whole, which further depresses asset prices. Thus banks are keeping large balances AT THE FED in order to keep large liquidity positions to offset market price marks on assets are that are economically sound.
The way the Fed cutting rates helps banks, is bank liabilities (The prices banks pay to depositors) are fixed to fed funds/treasuries/swaps etc. which they can purchase assets, or make loans at rates that are much higher. The higher that spread, the greater margin is available to create more capital organically. This is because banks can reprice the rates on their deposits more easily than loans/assets can be repriced. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Ahrenl :The way the Fed cutting rates helps banks, is bank liabilities (The prices banks pay to depositors) are fixed to fed funds/treasuries/swaps etc. I'm talking about the Fed. Discount rate, and the Discount money made available at the discount window (and through the relatively unprecedented anonymous auctions after banks were afraid to use the window for fear it would mean something about their condition).
The stories I read a few months ago (from reputable organizations, not kook sites) was that banks were borrowing this Discount money and trading things like Credit Default Swaps.
That's not inconsistent with anything you've said (concerning the Fed. Funds rate. Two different things.).
Mark |
|
Zen6
@rr.com | reply to tiger72
If you voted democrat you are already supporting a waste of tax dollars. Simply look at the rider to the 700bil stimulus. I say we should vote out ALL incumbents. |
|
