 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to Mr Matt
Re: Make H. S. Broadband available where AC power is available. Socialist. |
|
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Do you say that because you think all roads should be privately owned? |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to baineschile
It could also be a turn towards ultimate capitalism. The "last mile" is the most expensive proposition for anyone in starting to provide broadband or any other communications service to consumers. If local, state and/or federal governments were to take on the "last mile" challenge it could in turn allow many more competitors in to the arenas in far less time. Fiber would be run from the consumers to centralized points where providers could then in turn cross-connect from their networks to the fibers running to the consumers. The initial costs would take decades to recover from line leasing fees, but governments usually (should) plan for the long term. I am not suggesting or desiring the government to get in to the video, broadband or telephone service business, but managing a shared resource does have a few advantages. Whether it be through private efforts, public or even a combination, that is the way the world is heading. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords:Do you say that because you think all roads should be privately owned? no, probably because he's a republican. their philosophy is govt spending should only go to corporations and rich people, and from there it trickles down to the rest of us.
anyone that thinks commoners deserve help from the govt is a socialist.
it should be noted that despite this, govt handouts are not socialism when they go to big business. however, I am confused as to why the republicans don't want any money thrown at the auto companies - maybe it's because they employ too many commoners.
on the other hand, maybe it's just snark. |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Actually, I am as liberal as they come. But when government controls an aspect of life for need as opposed to it being commercially run for profit, that is essentially the definition of socialism. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by baineschile:that is essentially the definition of socialism. Stay tuned as Mr. Baine explains to us how we shouldn't have SEC regulation of stock markets; banking regulations; food- and drug-quality laws (producing a level of quality a free market wouldn't); creation of corporate charters (a fictional, yet legal "person") by state legislatures; and zoning laws and building codes (which restrict how any individual may choose to dispose of their property).
We are properly called a society of socialized capitalism. Not absolute capitalism or socialism.
Mark |
|
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | reply to baineschile
How is it socialist to have SOME regulation on the safety and quality of our products? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by The Limit:How is it socialist to have SOME regulation on the safety and quality of our products? It's not what a "free market" would produce simply by buyers exercising their due diligence, exercising the calculus of their wants/needs?
The premise of food- and drug-quality laws is that it's "for everyone's benefit" or "in the interest of public welfare."
But, those are just socialistic terms (used to justify building codes, zoning laws, the SEC, banking regulations, state creation of corporate charters). In the end they deny willing buyers and sellers from engaging in certain activities which may be beneficial to them -- simply because the needs of the many outweigh their needs.
Socialism is a reality. We enjoy its benefits every day -- if you define socialism by the standards Conservatives usually employ. The same argument could be made that we have capitalism instead of pure socialism. In reality, we have mixture of both: socialized capitalism.
Mark |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| reply to AVonGauss
 AVonGauss, you explained my point even better than I did. In the days of dial up Internet access the customer could choose from a number of ISP's and simply program their dialler to connect to their account. Unfortunately in the current broadband market customers are limited to one or two service providers charging outrageous prices. A municipal broadband will give the customer more choices. |
|
| reply to AVonGauss
I have said for quite some time... there should be one fiber network built nationwide that connects every person and business that allows anyone that wants to deliver a product to reach any customer that wants to obtain the product.
We should not as a society be building multiple networks to reach the same customers when it would be much better to do it once and lease it to businesses that want to service customers. |
|
 jazzy_
join:2004-01-27
Charleston, SC | I'm a big believer in this. I used to be against it for the thought that private companies would roll out newer technologies sooner being that they are willing to take on more risk. But the need for broadband access in today's society is too great. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Skippy25
I'm a "reluctant believer," as I think that markets rather elegantly solve problems better than government does -- except for a few exceptions. I'm reluctantly becoming convinced that this might be one of those exceptions.
I don't see a reason that it has to be "one fiber network" any more (or less) than we have one roadway network. As long as they're all properly interconnected, then it shouldn't matter.
I'd really like these to be locally built rather than some huge large Haliburton-esque contract awarded to one company.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:Do you say that because you think all roads should be privately owned? No, no, no, they should be the property of People of the United States of Barack Obama. Obama can fly so he certainly can lay roads and fiber. Obama could probably finish that pipeline in Alaska in 24 hrs.
Compared to Bush who can barely read, Obama can do it all. He has the Godly talent of figuring it all out. Health care for everyone? No problem. Jobs for everyone? No problem. Banking just becomes nationalized? Why not? Free FIOS? Sure.
America has lived far too long on Capitalistic ideas and Reagan's charisma. We need a change to something different. Not socialism. That's a dirty work. We just need to create a new word for it, then people will buy it. Wait. No buying required. Just need to change a few minds. Maybe become an Aristocracy with a benevolent King Obama.
If it doesn't work, we can change back.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
1 edit | reply to baineschile
You are somewhat challenged in your understanding, including what socialism is. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Millenicom
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:I'd really like these to be locally built rather than some huge large Haliburton-esque contract awarded to one company. Your concept of local development of broadband, parallels the way the voice telecommunications network was developed before WW2. In most rural areas telephone cooperatives wired homes and businesses. The cooperatives were owned and operated by the subscribers. Finally AT&T Long Lines connected the various cooperative telephone and independent telephone companies. The reason the voice telephone communication network was successful was the regulation of the telephone industry. After WW2 most of these cooperatives were bought out by GTE, Continental Telephone and other telephone conglomerates. Unfortunately in the current environment the incumbent broadband ISP's serve as service impediments rather than service enablers. The incumbent ISP's do not want to spend the money to wire rural areas but will fight tooth an nail to prevent others from doing so. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to jazzy_
said by jazzy_:I'm a big believer in this. I used to be against it for the thought that private companies would roll out newer technologies sooner being that they are willing to take on more risk. But the need for broadband access in today's society is too great. The problem is that there is basically no legitimate competition. A free market is not at play with this situation, as just a few conglomerates control everything while holding firm to older technology and keeping innovation that could topple their power out of the picture. There is evidence of this happening with many similar industries dominated by a short list of companies.
If our government needs to get involved and play a role, it should be to investigate and police the practice that allows oligopolies to take root. These oligopolies have a tendency to crush any potential competition while placing a moratorium on significant innovation.
I don't want the government to have complete control of this service, which would essentially make them a broadband monopoly. One visit to any DMV should scare anyone away from the idea of allowing a bureaucracy to build and maintain our nation's broadband industry.
FCC investigations on pricing is a step in the right direction. It's unfortunate that we need honest people in positions of power to set things right; but to reach this position of power, one must be dishonest. Catch-22. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by jmn1207:I don't want the government to have complete control of this service, which would essentially make them a broadband monopoly. Unfortunately, the nature of broadband (especially the last mile) doesn't fit well with other forms of commerce, like four drug store chains competing with each other on every corner. It's not feasible for everyone who wants to serve you to get the right-of-way to deliver broadband. They have to rely on easements (for burial, or hanging from telephone poles, or attaching wifi access points to light poles).
As soon as that happens, the perfect "free market" model is gone. Now it's just a matter of degrees concerning how society can *facilitate* commerce and competition. Whether the competition should be at the wire level, or at the level of what goes across the wire. (That's not unreasonable because we've already accepted that we eliminated ownership of the ground the wire travels across. Society "subsidizes" that.).
To me, this is a lot like the federal interstate highway system. If we applied today's broadband to that, society would have bought the land for the highway to be built upon, called it an "easement," and then let the highest bidder construct and own (in perpetuity?) sections of the interstate *which could only carry the bidder's* subscribers.
Instead, society went a step further to own the actual highway, and allow competition at the level of what's carried on the highway (different trucking companies, bus services, etc.).
Mark |
|
