Hooper
Premium
join:2001-10-22
Villanova, PA | Again with the Rural Broadband Redlining
Can we give this a rest please? Until our socialist president regulates "rural" broadband, Verizon is under no obligation to provide service where it is not economically viable. |
|
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by Hooper  :Can we give this a rest please? Do you think that mentioning rural areas are underserved (for whatever reasons) is akin to socialist drumbeating? And should therefore be silenced?
Any attempt to make a forecast includes looking at what may happen and what form that change may take. I see no comments in the article anywhere close to declaring that broadband deployment be required to every possible drop. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to Hooper
said by Hooper :Can we give this a rest please? Until our socialist president regulates "rural" broadband, Verizon is under no obligation to provide service where it is not economically viable. Did I say redlining. fact is that it IS economically viable. The fact you can't see that means you are obtuse and not worth bothering with. 2+2=4 no matter how badly you wish it to be 5.
using YOUR logic vast swaths of our country would still not have POTS service or electricity. I am 100% posistive both the power companies and telcos are now HAPPY that they were FORCED to offer services to these areas decades ago because they have made BILLIONS upon BILLION in profits from these rural areas since then. FACT! |
|
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs: | reply to Hooper
Bush is a socialist?
plenty of names for him but socialist isn't one of them. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :I am 100% posistive both the power companies and telcos are now HAPPY that they were FORCED to offer services to these areas decades ago because they have made BILLIONS upon BILLION in profits from these rural areas since then. FACT! Wrong, they only amortize for 10 years on the plant. Any revenue after that is accidental. Maintenance costs and low if any USF for baby bells means rural is always a loss. In a city, they expect atleast 10 customers in 600 feet. In a rural area its 1 or 2 customers per 600 feet, or worse. Exponentially less. |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH
| said by patcat88 :Wrong, they only amortize for 10 years on the plant. Any revenue after that is accidental. Maintenance costs and low if any USF for baby bells means rural is always a loss. In a city, they expect atleast 10 customers in 600 feet. In a rural area its 1 or 2 customers per 600 feet, or worse. Exponentially less. Thats always the problem when people talk about rural. There are different levels of rural desity. There are people on these boards that think a village for less than 1000 is rural (or because there isn't a starbucks), but the fact is that it isn't rural. Looking around the area, there are a lot more homes than there was even 15 yrs ago. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Hooper
said by Hooper :Can we give this a rest please? Until our socialist president regulates "rural" broadband, Verizon is under no obligation to provide service where it is not economically viable. .. right, becuase everything is done at the federal level. 
FYI, maybe you should re-think your post. In some areas, providers have been required to provide more services to more areas in exchange for things like, um, getting into long distance.. ala Qwest in MN...
Blanket statements are never pretty. |
|
Hooper
Premium
join:2001-10-22
Villanova, PA
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :using YOUR logic vast swaths of our country would still not have POTS service or electricity. I am 100% posistive both the power companies and telcos are now HAPPY that they were FORCED to offer services to these areas decades ago because they have made BILLIONS upon BILLION in profits from these rural areas since then. FACT! Without regulation many parts of this country would still not have what we consider basic services. The infrastructure costs are exorbitant. |
|
Hooper
Premium
join:2001-10-22
Villanova, PA
| reply to MrMaster
said by MrMaster :Bush is a socialist? plenty of names for him but socialist isn't one of them. Talking about Obama. Bush is pretty much out of the loop now. |
|
Hooper
Premium
join:2001-10-22
Villanova, PA
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :.. right, becuase everything is done at the federal level. FYI, maybe you should re-think your post. In some areas, providers have been required to provide more services to more areas in exchange for things like, um, getting into long distance.. ala Qwest in MN... Blanket statements are never pretty. State laws are allowed to be more restrictive than federal law.
My statement was in reference to proposed national broadband policies. Karl's statement could very well be construed at the state level as well. So in that you are correct. |
|
