| reply to majortom1029
Re: Can they sustain it They are a government owned ISP. If they don't need to make a dime they can raise taxes rates as needed. |
|
|
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by battleop:They are a government owned ISP. If they don't need to make a dime they can raise taxes rates as needed. Precisely the reason many people are against such endeavors.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
| This never hurts the large providers. It hurts the locally owned and operated providers. Most people don't give a shit because it does not effect their business. I bet the second the government started working it's way into other businesses then people would get upset.
Ask your self how would you like it if the government started to compete against you in your business? |
|
DaveO
join:2001-09-05
Easley, SC | There aren't very many small local broadband providers, at least not in my area. You can get Internet from your local monopoly cable company or slower DSL. That's it. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to battleop
Well, AT&T and Cox are effectively government-supported duopolies, so this is the natural response agains tthe whiny lobbying beast that these guys have become. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to battleop
Yes they can LUS is separate from local government and do not depend on taxpayer funds to operate. Part of the delay with this project was a suit by BellSouth (now ATT) separating fiber buildout bond repayments from the LUS general operating fund. In other words, LUS Fiber is fiscally separate from the LUS General Utility which is separate from local government. |
|
1 edit | reply to battleop
Re: Can they sustain it You again. When will you get it through your stock hugging mind that broadband is a utility with many barriers of entry that prevent the corporate competition utopia you speak of, but dont really want? Beyond the barrier of entries it is simply unreasonable to have multiple networks PERIOD.
I don't want every business that wants to provide me a service to have to dig up my yard, my neighbors, or string a new cable from their unsightly box to every home they want to serve. It is simply unreasonable.
There should be 1 network nationwide that every business that wants to serve any customer anywhere in the US can lease to gain access to that customer. If I want my phone from Verizon then they should be able to get to me on the line that is to my house already. If I want cable from Cox, then they should be able to get to me on the cable I have
to my house right now.
And to answer your question directly..... They asked the people if they wanted it. The people voted and said Yes we do. If they issue a vote to build government controlled supermarkets and the people vote yes, then for the love of pete they better start building supermarkets. |
|
| I don't know where you get the idea that I am "stock hugging."
"There should be 1 network nationwide that every business that wants to serve any customer anywhere in the US can lease to gain access to that customer."
This is how Muni projects should be done. If they are going to built by a government agency then they should be public networks. This would not run the small providers out of business, this would give them a fighting chance against the mega huge providers and their lobbying power.
These networks should operate like roads. The government is responsible for maintaining the networks and providers could interconnect to them at a reasonable rates. Don't give the access away to the interconnecting companies but don't gouge their eyes out either. |
|
