how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to lakerfan82
Re: Regulation On the current system: You regulate it. You require line sharing on ALL transports and you cap what they can charge to lease that. That is in addition to officially making them the dumbpipes they are and need to be. No serving content if you want to be the transport and no being the transport if you want to serve content.
Personally, I would like them to build 1 nationwide network that ANY service provider that wants to lease the line to any customer to sell them any service they want to buy. | |
| said by Skippy25:On the current system: You regulate it. You require line sharing on ALL transports and you cap what they can charge to lease that. That is in addition to officially making them the dumbpipes they are and need to be. No serving content if you want to be the transport and no being the transport if you want to serve content. Personally, I would like them to build 1 nationwide network that ANY service provider that wants to lease the line to any customer to sell them any service they want to buy. So basically you are saying if a company built a network, they can ONLY be an ISP? They can't be an ISP AND a video provider? In the case of Verizon, they build a huge fiber optic network, but they can't pay for it by selling video? That is complete nonsense.
A nationwide network is even worse. You are basically suggesting that the gov't build a network and then lease it out to whoever wants to use it. I can just see it now. First, they will debate for years what kind of technology to build the network and by the time they get around to building it (with expensive union labor and plenty of cost overruns) years later, the technology will be 15 years obsolete. They will start leasing capacity on it at below true market value prices (to be sure that people actually use it, and because no one in rural Timbuktu should have pay the real cost of running that network to their door). Since prices are below market value, everyone and their brother will be online downloading torrents and watching Netflix. Subscriber fees will do little to defray the true cost of providing this bandwidth and its maintenance and you can forget about upgrades. At that point they will either be forced to raise prices or ration bandwidth.
But hey, at least EVERYBODY has internet access, right? | |
Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| At least EVERYBODY has internet access, right?
You're missing something. We live in, my opinion, the most influential nation in the world. I don't want to get into any debates about that, so I'll move forward --
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO GET BROADBAND INTERNET. There should be no question as to that, it should be a national effort to be able to provide any customer who has a desire to purchase broadband. Why should only major cities, such as NYC & Chicago get the massive upgrades & line capacity that they're enabled too? Why are they bothering to upgrade that, when they could be spending that same amount of $$ on spreading internet to places that are being dominated by either a monopoly or duopoly.
I'm not saying progress shouldn't be made, but what good is progress if not everybody can enjoy it? | | |
|
| said by LightS:At least EVERYBODY has internet access, right? You're missing something. We live in, my opinion, the most influential nation in the world. I don't want to get into any debates about that, so I'll move forward -- EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO GET BROADBAND INTERNET. There should be no question as to that, it should be a national effort to be able to provide any customer who has a desire to purchase broadband. Why should only major cities, such as NYC & Chicago get the massive upgrades & line capacity that they're enabled too? Why are they bothering to upgrade that, when they could be spending that same amount of $$ on spreading internet to places that are being dominated by either a monopoly or duopoly. I'm not saying progress shouldn't be made, but what good is progress if not everybody can enjoy it? Being in the most influential nation in the world has nothing to do with how many people have internet.
Your opinion that everybody should have the option to get broadband is just that, an opinion. Not everybody believes that broadband is a right, cause its NOT. Furthermore, everybody does have the option to get broadband, nobody is forcing people to live in areas without broadband. If broadband is so essential to a particular person's way of life, then they need to move to an area that can serve their broadband needs. Its not everyone else's responsibility to provide that person living out in the boonies with broadband. | |
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by lakerfan82  Being in the most influential nation in the world has nothing to do with how many people have internet.
Your opinion that everybody should have the option to get broadband is just that, an opinion. Not everybody believes that broadband is a right, cause its NOT. Furthermore, everybody does have the option to get broadband, nobody is forcing people to live in areas without broadband. If broadband is so essential to a particular person's way of life, then they need to move to an area that can serve their broadband needs. Its not everyone else's responsibility to provide that person living out in the boonies with broadband.
[/BQUOTE :You miss one of my points -- It's 2009. I personally think that it's unacceptable to not be able to receive some sort of broadband, whether it's via wifi, cable, DSL. (I don't even consider Satelite broadband.) Whether they want it or not, the option should be there. Internet, in my opinion, will eventually be considered a utility. You say that nobody is forcing people to live in areas without broadband, that's completely irrelevant. They can be provided with Electricity, water, telephone, and all the other utilities -- I feel that high speed internet should eventually, be the same way. | |
|
