how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to the_ticket
Re: The Holy one will provide said by the_ticket :
Rural customers aren't the only ones paying USF. Everybody who has a telephone line pays USF, so if anybody's getting a refund, everyone is... tell me, what taxes do rural telephone subscribers pay that urban subscribers don't? We have to pay your outrageous termination fees. You just don't understand that the urban subscribers are the ones who subsidize your telephone and other utilities, whether its subsidies from the gov't or higher prices for all subscribers to compensate for the extra cost of rural development. If the telcos/cable-cos were allowed to charge rates based on what it costs to build in rural areas you would all get the picture, because your rates would be 4 times higher than that of urban subscribers. Fact is, they aren't allowed to.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
You are correct that everyone pays the USF.
What you are incorrect about is where it goes.
62% of it is to subsidize "high cost areas." The problem is that the telcos do NOT define exactly what a "high cost area" is, and it definitely does not mean exclusively rural areas. In fact I'd wager that the high cost of FiOS and U-Verse is being at least indirectly subsidized by the USF. Because it is largely unaccounted for, no one will know.
»www.teletruth.com has much more info than I will post here. I suggest you take some time away from your uninformedd bashing of rural citizens and read.
As for your last statement - cable companies are absolutely allowed to charge what it costs to build out in rural areas. It is called a "line extension policy" and it is based on population density. If there is not sufficient population density, they are allowed to charge to build out to that area. Some have been quoted in the thousands of dollars, sometimes as much as $14,000 to lay cable to their homes. Many here have decided that getting satellite was a more cost effective alternative. | |
| First of all, this is not an argument about what the USF is. The USF is a joke, its done nothing but line the pockets of the politicians, corporations, and lobbyists. The fact that the money is largely unaccounted for reinforces my reasoning against subsidies of any kind. Even if only 45% of that USF money actually made it to rural areas, rural population only accounts for 20% of the total population, its still a subsidy paid for by the rest of the population... The rest is just being raided by thieves or going to people who don't "need" it.
The point of the argument is whether or not telcos/cable-cos should be REQUIRED to build out to rural areas. I am of the belief that they shouldn't be required, because that just means everyone else has to pay for it in the form of subsidies or higher rates. Your line extension policy example is not the norm. If it was, most rural subscribers would have rates through the roof. Furthermore, if you think your utility coop theory will translate to broadband deployment, why isn't it being done already? Maybe it is... but if it works so well, why do there need to be build out requirements?
If you don't believe there should be build out requirements, then there is no argument between us. I don't care about the technicalities of the USF, I just want it abolished and the PEOPLE's money returned. | |
| I think they should be required to build out to rural areas, because all along they've been collecting taxes and fees from rural customers for years now.
As it is now, Verizon and ATT aren't even building out FiOS or U-Verse to even moderately populated suburban areas under their control.
Rural areas also contribute more to the economy than you care to know.
Food, water, electricity, natural resources, fuel (oil, coal, gas, biomass, ethanol), interstate highways all depend on rural areas. They are even used for fiber optic broadband lines.
So since the big cities are getting so much from the rural areas, it is only fair that their residents who pretty much make your cushy life in the big cities possible get access to advanced services. | |
| said by fifty nine:I think they should be required to build out to rural areas, because all along they've been collecting taxes and fees from rural customers for years now. They've been collecting taxes and fees from urban customers too. Urban customers pay much more into it than the rural customers, therefore, its a subsidy.
said by fifty nine:As it is now, Verizon and ATT aren't even building out FiOS or U-Verse to even moderately populated suburban areas under their control. Of course they are going to build it out to the most profitable areas first. If an area is worth developing, they will probably do it.
said by fifty nine:Rural areas also contribute more to the economy than you care to know. Food, water, electricity, natural resources, fuel (oil, coal, gas, biomass, ethanol), interstate highways all depend on rural areas. They are even used for fiber optic broadband lines. So since the big cities are getting so much from the rural areas, it is only fair that their residents who pretty much make your cushy life in the big cities possible get access to advanced services. Wow... where to start on this one... You act like urban areas are just getting all this stuff for free. We pay for all that stuff. The food is subsidized by us AND paid for by us in grocery stores. We pay for water rights. We pay for coal and electricity, we paid for rights of way for interstate roads and fiber broadband lines. Just because you personally don't make any money on any of these things doesn't mean somebody isn't. As for your statement on "cushy life in the big cities," you've just proven how uninformed you really are... | |
1 edit | said by the_ticket :
Wow... where to start on this one... You act like urban areas are just getting all this stuff for free. We pay for all that stuff. The food is subsidized by us AND paid for by us in grocery stores. We pay for water rights. We pay for coal and electricity, we paid for rights of way for interstate roads and fiber broadband lines. Just because you personally don't make any money on any of these things doesn't mean somebody isn't. As for your statement on "cushy life in the big cities," you've just proven how uninformed you really are...
Actually a lot of what "you paid" for was seized via eminent domain.
Many landowners don't willingly give up land to build interstate highways, run powerlines, gas lines or run broadband fiber.
IT IS SEIZED THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN.
In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement that property shall not be taken without fair compensation, the Government gives landowners some token amount of money, which is most times far below the fair market value.
Utility easements are even worse because they don't even offer much, if any compensation. Maybe a small adjustment in your property taxes, if any.
I think you need to get out of the city and open your eyes before you keep condemning rural customers to hell.
As far as big cities go, I've lived in New York City for many years. I know what it's like in the city. | |
| Actually, MOST of it is not seized via eminent domain. Certainly there have been cases where what you described is true. By an large, however, most people sell their land at a sizable profit. Most often, its the greediest who get screwed by eminent domain. As far as "getting out of the big city," I lived in rural NW Iowa for years. Just because you were a slacker in the Big Apple, doesn't mean everyone else is. | |
| said by the_ticket :
Actually, MOST of it is not seized via eminent domain. Certainly there have been cases where what you described is true. By an large, however, most people sell their land at a sizable profit. Most often, its the greediest who get screwed by eminent domain. As far as "getting out of the big city," I lived in rural NW Iowa for years. Just because you were a slacker in the Big Apple, doesn't mean everyone else is.
Today the reality is that investor owned utilities are too damned cheap to pay fair market value, so they are going straight to the state to seize property.
It is happening right now with PSE&G's susquehanna-roseland powerline project. They are bypassing township approvals and going straight to the state.
They had a public meeting in town and almost 1000 people showed up, and I haven't heard yet one person support willingly giving up their property to run a powerline. Furthermore, those who are in sight of the line aren't compensated for any decrease in property value.
It is NOT about greed. It is about Governments allowing private companies to seize property.
Anyway the point is that we would be just fine without the additional power line. Big cities like Newark and NYC won't, so now they have to force this power line somehow. | |
| You act like rural areas have a monopoly on eminent domain disputes. Eminent domain disputes happen everywhere, including urban areas. If its such a problem, its up to you and the voters in your area to vote in politicians who will stop eminent domain abuse... | |
| said by the_ticket :
You act like rural areas have a monopoly on eminent domain disputes. Eminent domain disputes happen everywhere, including urban areas. If its such a problem, its up to you and the voters in your area to vote in politicians who will stop eminent domain abuse...
Of course, but eminent domain is far too often used in rural areas to build infrastructure that benefits primarily urban areas while "those damn hicks out in the woods" get the short end of the stick. | |
|
