| | Government should not compete with private business And if there are two private providers already, what excuse does government have to compete unfairly with private business, using taxpayer money? | |
|
1 edit | Re: Government should not compete with private business What's unfair? If the private companies want to compete, they are free to upgrade their infrastructure to LUS' standard. This is going to be good for everyone, because maybe it will finally get the lazy Bells and Cable Cos. to get it in gear.
edit: Or they can become irrelevant if they don't. It's their choice. | |
|
 | | | Re: Government should not compete with private business What's unfair is that the government has an infinite pot of money -- the taxpayers' money -- and doesn't have to show a profit. That's an unfair advantage. | |
|
| | Perhaps that the private businesses have a duopoly which is crippling infrastructure and internet connectivity in the area. | |
|
| |
| | JohnSJ
join:2004-08-14
Lafayette, LA | Re: Government should not compete with private business Brett Glass?--
In Lafayette these so-called WISPs are a dead-out joke that never provided decent service...the only one I know of covered a few blocks poorly in the downtown area and couldn't keep it going. Same story in Baton Rouge.
The WISPs are NOT competition for the wireline providers. Just not. To get your back up over people down in Louisiana doing for themselves what so-called private enterprise refused to do is ideological strangeness.
If folks like those in Laramie have a real beef it is with the bandwidth providers that mess over the WISPS Worse than anyone. It's identifying with your captors to attack muni broadband. You need to be fighting for real regulation of those guys so you can get decent bandwidth to sell at a competive price.... Know your real enemy. | |
|
DaveO
join:2001-09-05
Easley, SC
1 edit | SuperWISP, the "free market" isn't working for broadband Internet in this country. Think of it as infrastructure the same as roads and highways. You wouldn't want a particular road being built and owned by one private company, would you? | |
|
| | | Re: Government should not compete with private business It isn't the same as roads and highways, because anyone can go out and build one -- and multiple providers can have overlapping networks. I'm a WISP; I can light up 10 square miles of prairie in an afternoon. | |
|
| |  jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Government should not compete with private business I doubt you can provide the same level of service than a full fiber network though, both in latency, speeds and pricing.
DaveO is right on, the 'free market' in broadband internet delivery is non-existent. | |
|
| |  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| said by SuperWISP:It isn't the same as roads and highways, because anyone can go out and build one -- and multiple providers can have overlapping networks. I'm a WISP; I can light up 10 square miles of prairie in an afternoon. Brett, you're not going to do it with 50/50 speeds or even 10/10.
Wireless is great, and it has it's place, but it's never going to be able to compete with FTTH or DOCSIS3.
I do agree that you guys were totally shafted by the gov't. There are many, many square miles of this country best served by WISPs. | |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| said by SuperWISP:And if there are two private providers already, what excuse does government have to compete unfairly with private business, using taxpayer money? Exactly the argument the telco's/cableco's had with this process, that by using public bonding authority* to compete with existing businesses, and provide service below market rates, they may have abused the public bonding authority mission.
* remember public bonding authority allow the gov't to place an obligation on every property within the footprint of the project, essentially a small mortgage on every property weather or not they want the service provided. Should the project totally fail financially the district may be required by the bondholders to repay through higher taxes or fees levied against every property. the utility can agree or in some cases default (bonds become worthless but future borrowing would become high risk, with VERY high interest (generally results in much lower property values, often worse than the payoff cost of the bonds over the longterm) Generally such authority is reserved for vital services and utilities NOT provided by private companies ie water, sewer, occasionally power and gas, plus first responder services (911, fire/aid/police) major projects. | |
|
| | | Re: Government should not compete with private business Not only do governments have bonding authority; they also have police powers and can take money out of your pocket via taxation. If a government provides Internet, you are being forced to pay for the government's service whether you subscribe or not... and whether or not you might prefer a competitor. No private company can compel you to do that. | |
|
| | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Government should not compete with private business Actually the LUS rep said in another post, that these are LUS issued revenue bonds, not general obligation bonds. If, indeed LUS operates as a seperate,private utility (which happens to have the longterm contract/rights to provide the other utilities) and recieved no benifcial treatment because of thse contracts, then they are acting as a private contractor/competitor, I'd say mor power to them.
My only problem is if a governmental/quasi-governmental agency (as many government owned utilities are) shifted costs by providing below market RoW/pole attachments/ access unavailable to other providers/potential providers.
Police powers and taxation shouldn't enter the situation in this case. | |
|
jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | said by SuperWISP:And if there are two private providers already, what excuse does government have to compete unfairly with private business, using taxpayer money? Perhaps that the providers service is inadequate? You all seem to forget that LUS went FIRST to the incumbents to try to get this network built. It was only after their refusal that they established their own plan.
Any business owner with an IT infrastructure in Lafayette's service footprint are probably salivating at the idea of being able to have a DR site replicating at 100Mbps at a fraction of the cost that a incumbent would charge. This will only benefit Lafayette as they can now market themselves better to attract businesses and jobs to their area.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * | |
|
| | This sentence alone shows your shear lack of knowledge concerning anything about this project.
Thus your opinions and comments are declared null and void and will remain so until you show some knowledge concerning said subject.
Now go do some reading up. | |
|
|
|
