Topic 'Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:48:59 EDT

Matt posted :

said by fiberguy:

Further, the same politicians are sitting back and trying to fix something with out, well, to be honest, checking with economists that know what they're doing.

Yep, sure doesn't look like this team knows what they are doing at all.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:43:20 EDT

xdeadhead posted : @gbondi funniest post ever. and truest.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:11:04 EDT

fiberguy posted :

said by gbondy:

Something on Glenn Beck in reference to "people that understand"? That's hilarious.

If you look at what he's saying, WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FACT, and you think he's wrong.. then you have a serious issue of your own to deal with. I guess becuase he's on a heavy republican based news network that he's wrong?

One thing that people need to "get"... there are bad republicans.. just as there are bad democrats. There are also VERY GOOD republicans as there are VERY good democrats.. To stand on a party line and walk it, for sure, IS bad! NEITHER party has a one line path to prosperity and a good future. Why? ... becuase there are two sides to this country, and more actually. You can't govern this country one sides becuase about 50% will be left out.

Glen Beck DID his the spot on this one and it's spot on. THIS part of analysis is the easy part.. you can't dispute facts.. but getting the nation on the right track.. well, that's where it's GOING to take time.. with out looking at the past and studying it, as others have said, it's basically splat and see what sticks which WON'T work.. that's your people's method, I assume.. so.. feel proud. ;)

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:04:53 EDT

fiberguy posted : To say that ALL economists are wrong, is too wrong. MANY of them saw this collapse coming.. very few didn't. POLITICIANS didn't see it coming, rather, they closed their eyes and continued to feed themselves from the public troff. There is a major difference.

Further, the same politicians are sitting back and trying to fix something with out, well, to be honest, checking with economists that know what they're doing.

Politicians are generally attorneys prior to taking their jobs.. they are FAR from people that know what they're doing when it comes to money.

What IS frightening is that Obama's own Secretary who looks a these models says that HIS plan will be only HALF as effective as the ones the republicans put forth. She's make it clear publicly yet they won't listen..

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:48:20 EDT

HD_Ride posted : I’ll see if I could find one for you with Keith Olbermann and Bob Costas playing pitcher/catcher...

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:23:13 EDT

gbondy posted : Something on Glenn Beck in reference to "people that understand"? That's hilarious.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:34:35 EDT

HD_Ride posted :

said by fiberguy:

You've proven that some people should stick to their day jobs and let the people that actually understand finances and spending do their jobs..

.. one thing stands to be sure.. that is that the attitudes of the MAJORITY here at BBR are in NO way near reality.

Here it is, "People that actually understand finances and spending doing their jobs"

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNS8IY_Td14

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:32:30 EDT

morbo posted : yes, and who exactly would that be that understands finances and spending? the economists that couldn't see a total collapse of the U.S. and world economy coming one year out? or is it the treasury secretary et al. that is simply guessing at what will work? no one knows if and what will work and only the honest ones will admit it. at this point, it's just throw money at the problem and pray that it helps. some members of congress will admit that, although then they are crucified for doing so. apparently, pretending to know the solution is better. the reality that no one knows what will work is frightening.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:22:03 EDT

fiberguy posted : You've proven that some people should stick to their day jobs and let the people that actually understand finances and spending do their jobs..

.. one thing stands to be sure.. that is that the attitudes of the MAJORITY here at BBR are in NO way near reality.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:51:14 EDT

KrK posted : What I suspect will happen is: They will take taxpayer $$$ and still not have to deliver anything really other then what they were going to anyway, and consumers will not see any additional benefits or breaks, and little will change.

In other words, the money will be wasted and go into the profits of the Telecom companies without providing the taxpayer any real value for the $$$ spent. (Or wasted.)

The argument will be "It created work, therefore we met our obligations" I feel.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:04:40 EDT

morbo posted : don't be an ass when responding to my original post and maybe this won't devolve into a pissing contest. the point of my original post that this won't make a dent in broadband deployment OR stimulating the economy. i believe that it's throwing money at a problem and hoping for the best.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:57:52 EDT

Matt posted :

said by morbo:

it's commentary. what's your opinion about my commentary have to do with the thread?

Seriously, are we 10 years old? Should I pull out a Pee Wee Herman, "I'm rubber and you're glue ..." next?

Here, let's start over. So, morbo, do you think $7 billion dollars will make a dent in the broadband deployment problem in the US?

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:54:11 EDT

morbo posted : it's commentary. what's your opinion about my commentary have to do with the thread?

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:51:33 EDT

Matt posted :

said by morbo:

also known as, throw as much money as possible at a problem and pray that it works.

What does your opinion of the plan have to do with the original question?

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:50:35 EDT

morbo posted : also known as, throw as much money as possible at a problem and pray that it works.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:22:14 EDT

Matt posted :

said by Luwigie:

Are these funds going to make a dent?

Not really, but as has been stated numerous times, this isn't the official "Broadband Stimulus" bill. This is just one part of a much larger bill to help stimulate as many sectors as possible to get people back to work.

Re: Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:21:57 EDT

fiberguy posted :

said by Luwigie:

Are these funds going to make a dent?

Doubt it.. look at what they, Verizon, alone has already spent on what they did.

There's two ways to look at this.. 1) Is the US paying to build out the services? .. or 2) Is the US paying to subsidize part of the build out?

... it's all in how the providers look at it. This is one area I think I would have spent much more money.. this is a service/product that affects many people in one stroke.

If they want network neutrality, I would have simply put the money out there with standard strings on it and simply legislated neutrality on a separate bill all together. NN is going to happen, or not.. but, being sneaky about it will never bring NN that some people want.

Neutrality ... But how many homes?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:17:21 EDT

Luwigie posted : Net neutrality being in the bill is huge. Hopefully legislation will force these companies to remain neutral if they accept some of these funds.

However, how many homes will $7B actually light up? Based on a Verizon report in Q1 07' (all I could find) they are expecting $700 per home passed in 2010. I assume that this is in high population centers, so this cost is probably a magnitude more in rural areas. If we assume $700 is accurate, this is 10 million homes if it's all spent on last mile infrastructure. I'm sure the number is FAR lower in reality. Are these funds going to make a dent?