Topic '3, 2, 1 .....' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/3-2-1-21780220 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:35:03 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:35:03 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784779 said by Matt:

You just described UTOPIA.I know, I have been following the project. It was done incorrectly (I agree with wifi4milez See Profile), but I think it can be done correctly and with government and business involved. But I think that we need to kick the businesses in the pants because:

said by Matt:

The problem with this model, is the Comcasts, AT&Ts, and Time Warners of the world don't have exclusive access to your eyes, ears, and wallet, so they don't like this idea.
Oh boo-hoo :P
--

- "Techie" Jim]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784779 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:02:35 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784353 said by fiberguy:

said by Matt:

And here come the Anti-Muni trolls!

Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success!
I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe your post, itself, is TROLLING... you are bating people to jump in and bite your head off, which by definition, is a troll.

There is nothing wrong with any muni project so long as it's not going to cost tax-payers money to operate. It's a bad thing for the tax payer. Some tax payers will continue to do business with the private incumbents while being taxed to subsidize the muni user. All I'm saying is keep it tax payer-funded-free.

On my second point, I have no problem with muni so long as it plays by ALL the same rules as the private run operations. Anything less would be government abuse of power which would be completely illegal and most certainly challenged in court in favor of the plaintiffs.
For the record, you had 3 points. But whatever.

My post was out of exasperation. Posting this actually exasperates me, so I'm not going to explain why I am exasperated.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784353 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:55:47 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784186 said by Matt:

And here come the Anti-Muni trolls!

Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success!
I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe your post, itself, is TROLLING... you are bating people to jump in and bite your head off, which by definition, is a troll.

There is nothing wrong with any muni project so long as it's not going to cost tax-payers money to operate. It's a bad thing for the tax payer. Some tax payers will continue to do business with the private incumbents while being taxed to subsidize the muni user. All I'm saying is keep it tax payer-funded-free.

On my second point, I have no problem with muni so long as it plays by ALL the same rules as the private run operations. Anything less would be government abuse of power which would be completely illegal and most certainly challenged in court in favor of the plaintiffs. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784186 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:26:46 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784129 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21784129 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:22:08 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21782064 said by JasonOD :

Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business?Do many municipalities of 5500 have local broadband providers that would be put out of business? Yeah, I didn't think so either.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21782064 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:29:17 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781717 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781717 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:37:47 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781285
See »www.cincinnatibell.com/consumer/tv/cable/

Should also note that Cinci bell always handled the phone side of the service for the city. TW phone service price was much better at the time. Looks like they have pretty much matched it now.

--
Any unauthorized use of your own judgment is strictly prohibited.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781285 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:28:41 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781057 said by Matt:

And here come the Anti-Muni trolls!

Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success!
I have no problem with well run municipal utilities.

But judging by the waste of taxpayer dollars in my town, plus the bad experiences I've had dealing with NYC DoITT, I think that communications infrastructure should be left up to the private sector.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781057 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:51:28 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781033 said by JasonOD :

Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business?
Local Company!? Bresnan Communications is a owned lock stock and barrel by Comcast. So it is rather the reverse
it is the local David taking on Goliath.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21781033 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:48:05 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780927 said by JasonOD :

Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business?
If municipality can provide better service for lesser price without using any taxpayer money it means that it's more efficient than local companies. So hell yes it should.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780927 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:30:07 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780896 said by Matt:

said by jimbo2150:

What I think these need to be doing is facilitating competition without bringing physical competition. The governmenet/private funded fiber should be build but no access provided directly by any government agency. Instead they should allow any company who wishes to pay a fee/per X customers for maintenance & bandwidth but allow any company who wants to do so. That will provide the customers a choice of any X provider they wish to go with and without one or two large companies dominating a region with their own infrastructure and preventing other companies from competing in a given region.

Why cant they do that?
You just described UTOPIA.

The problem with this model, is the Comcasts, AT&Ts, and Time Warners of the world don't have exclusive access to your eyes, ears, and wallet, so they don't like this idea.
The other problem is that Utopia was a money pit, and thats why it failed. Since it was basically managed by a municipality that had no idea what they were doing, they blew through the allocated money with no real planning. A private company on the other hand, is typically more inclined to watch their bottom line since (without these outrageous bailouts!) going out of business is the end of the line.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780896 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:24:04 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780863 said by JasonOD :

Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? Okay, I'll bite. First, from the article:

The user notes that the local cable competitor is Bresnan Communications.
Doing a bit of digging on Bresnan's site yields:

Today, Bresnan Communications operates in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming and Utah.
and

Corporate Headquarters

Bresnan Communications
One Manhattanville Road
Purchase, NY 10577-2596
914.641.3300
Bresnan isn't a local company, they are headquartered in New York,. The community is better off running its own network to keep the money local.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780863 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:18:17 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780720 said by JasonOD :

Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business?
comcast, ATT and time-warner are local companies? Just poor, struggling, small footprint local companies?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780720 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:56:52 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780405 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780405 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:40:44 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780489 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780489 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:20:18 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780477 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780477 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:18:35 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780446 said by jimbo2150:

What I think these need to be doing is facilitating competition without bringing physical competition. The governmenet/private funded fiber should be build but no access provided directly by any government agency. Instead they should allow any company who wishes to pay a fee/per X customers for maintenance & bandwidth but allow any company who wants to do so. That will provide the customers a choice of any X provider they wish to go with and without one or two large companies dominating a region with their own infrastructure and preventing other companies from competing in a given region.

Why cant they do that?
You just described UTOPIA.

The problem with this model, is the Comcasts, AT&Ts, and Time Warners of the world don't have exclusive access to your eyes, ears, and wallet, so they don't like this idea.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780446 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:12:49 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780430 said by JasonOD :

Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business?
If the local company isn't providing an adequate service and refuses to, absolutely.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780430 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:10:50 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780415
Why cant they do that?
--

- "Techie" Jim]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780415 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:08:26 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780392 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780392 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:04:28 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780327
Only good that came from it was it lowered Time Warners rates to match the cities. Since it was sold off to Cincinnati Bell they have been forced to be competitive.

The prices they are charging are roughly what we pay. Internet speeds are a hell off a lot faster with them however.
--
Any unauthorized use of your own judgment is strictly prohibited.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780327 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:56:14 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780302 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780302 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:52:08 EDT Re: 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780249 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-3-2-1-21780249 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:42:29 EDT 3, 2, 1 ..... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/3-2-1-21780220
Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/3-2-1-21780220 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:36:17 EDT