 MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | reply to pnh102
Re: Lesson Learned While I somewhat agree with that statement, I also don't really agree to the point that i'm satisfied. The fact of the matter is that AT&T used government/local funding to build up much of it's current network. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Mchart:The fact of the matter is that AT&T used government/local funding to build up much of it's current network. Proof? The most anybody has been able to demonstrate is that telcos (SBC,not AT&T, as it was SBC when this happened) obtained tax breaks. Money not paid isn't the same as money handed out.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| AT&T (Ma Bell) was given "right of way" via the government to build out the telephone network. They were also allowed to charge the "Universal Service Fee" from EVERYONE so that they would service rural areas instead of just urban areas.
Maybe you might want to do a little research on the history of the telephone systems PRIOR to AT&T becoming a monopoly provider and then being broke up. |
|
|
|
| said by Indymike:AT&T (Ma Bell) was given "right of way" via the government to build out the telephone network. For fun..do some digging into the history of Cable TV. Not much different...
said by Indymike:They were also allowed to charge the "Universal Service Fee" from EVERYONE so that they would service rural areas instead of just urban areas. The Telecom Act of 1996 did that. It forced, via government mandate, a change in the telco pricing and made "cross subsidization" explicit from internal industry to external customer. They served rural areas prior to the "universal service fee". With all due respect, do some research...it's so simple these days.
said by Indymike:Maybe you might want to do a little research on the history of the telephone systems PRIOR to AT&T becoming a monopoly provider and then being broke up. Prior to ATT being a monopoly, there was heavy competition.
In retrospect, there were lots of wires but no mandatory interconnection. Today we can interconnect pretty much anywhere. Rural and urban in the past were overbuilt. Again, I should point a link, but the history is easy enough to find in your library. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Indymike
said by Indymike:AT&T (Ma Bell) was given "right of way" via the government to build out the telephone network. "Easement" does not equal "right of way". Look it up.
They were also allowed to charge the "Universal Service Fee" from EVERYONE so that they would service rural areas instead of just urban areas.
USF on DSL stopped years ago.
Maybe you might want to do a little research on the history of the telephone systems PRIOR to AT&T becoming a monopoly provider and then being broke up.
I've done enough research to know that no tax money was provided to the telcos.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Mchart
said by Mchart:While I somewhat agree with that statement, I also don't really agree to the point that i'm satisfied. The fact of the matter is that AT&T used government/local funding to build up much of it's current network. TeleTruth KoolAid. It will kill US. |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Indymike
said by Indymike:AT&T (Ma Bell) was given "right of way" via the government to build out the telephone network. And CATV was given the right to use "TELEPHONE' poles. I know history; I know US were number 1 until US danced to the MCI/WorldCome tune. |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA
1 edit | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:Money not paid isn't the same as money handed out. Uh, you need to go back to 3rd grade math if you honestly believe that to be true.
The negative number in an equation never dissapears, it has to be negated by the addition of a positive number.
Also, you keep saying no tax money went to them, but that's just wrong. The rest of us taxpayers end up having to pay more because they're not paying. Look at eating in an eatery with some friends, supposing everyone pays for the bill equally. One day everyone agrees you're a cool guy and you dont need to pay for your share of the bill, the rest of them are subsidizing your share of the bill.
It's the same net effect as if you paid your share of the bill and then they gave you cash afterwards. |
|
| reply to NormanS
Your kidding right? You continue to be a blind stock jockey if you want, but they have benefited for a century of "breaks".
As early as 1996 these "bells" receive about $200 billion in "incentives" to bring 45mbps symmetrical to over 50 million homes? THOSE WERE THEIR WORDS and THEIR CEO's and such making their quotes to Wall Street Journal, Business Week and others making these exact claims. »/r0/download/1···2006.pdf
Do you have your 45mbps connection? I certainly don't have mine. They committed outright fraud of the American people and the FTC, FCC, congress, and ultimately tax payers have let them.
And yes, not paying money is the exact same thing as me giving you $1 to pay a $1 fee. Which is the exact same thing as me having something for $1 but not charging you for it. In any of those cases, you didn't pay so you benefited. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to james
said by james:Uh, you need to go back to 3rd grade math if you honestly believe that to be true. The negative number in an equation never disappears, it has to be negated by the addition of a positive number. Taxes aren't third grade math, they are a politico/sociological object.
Also, you keep saying no tax money went to them, but that's just wrong. The rest of us taxpayers end up having to pay more because they're not paying. Look at eating in an eatery with some friends, supposing everyone pays for the bill equally. One day everyone agrees you're a cool guy and you dont need to pay for your share of the bill, the rest of them are subsidizing your share of the bill.
Which assumes taxation is a "Zero Sum" game. Reality check:
All taxes collected by the government are paid by the citizens. Tax a corporation and you only see that tax passed on as a "Cost of Doing Business"; it is factored in to the prices you pay for goods and service. (Unless a company uses the "telco" mindset, and itemizes all taxes and fees as "extra costs" on your receipt, in which case you will clearly see what the price of the goods, or services would be without the taxes and fees).
It's the same net effect as if you paid your share of the bill and then they gave you cash afterwards.
It is not. The government structures taxes to cover its own costs. If the government decides to collect more from A than from B, it may be "unfair", but it isn't the same as taking money from A and giving it to B. Once the government decides who should pay what, the matter is settled: A pays what the government says they should pay, and B pays what the government says they should pay. Not a penny more, nor less, in either case.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
