how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to NetAdmin1
Re: Competitve and robust... said by NetAdmin1:said by elray:Nope. No one "has to" live in a rural setting. It is a choice. If you feel it is more important to have urban broadband, then sell your farm to someone who wants to till the land more than download at blistering speed. It is a choice, pure and simple. Look at you, making up terms on the spot... "Urban broadband". What on earth is that? All I have to say is that, thankfully, people with your attitude toward rural areas didn't stop rural electrification. Unlike you, I can see the potential benefits that rural broadband can bring to the nation as well. You obviously haven't been paying too much attention to the whole muni-debate because legislation has been proposed in both the US Congress and a number of state houses, back by all of the major phone companies, that would prohibit muni projects. Read my post again.
Verizon DOES NOT oppose overbuilders, Wisps, or coops.
As for the "muni-debate", yes I'm quite familiar with it.
Let me get this right: Verizon has invested tens of billions of dollars both in its original network, and more billions upgrading it, but any impatient local government can tap the taxpayers to open up their own, never-profitable competing enterprise? Sorry, but that's unfair competition, and is/should remain illegal.
Of course telco would fight it.
I have direct experience with municipal broadband.
In my town, we have both a city fiber system, and a city WiFi system. Both have consumed millions of dollars, and neither is yet accessible to the public - and the fiber system is ten years old! Most city WiFi efforts are spectacular failures - perhaps equally attributable to the technology and government sloth, but universally a waste of money, and strand the public with not only the expense but chase away the potential Wisp, Coop, or other for-profit venture that would dare risk entry into a marginal marketplace.
I have plenty of critiques for VZ, AT&T, and the cablecos, and that includes last-mile monopolistic and anti-competitive practices, deliberate neglect, denial of service and retaliatory behaviors But the solution is more competitors, not taxing to create another government bureaucracy.
I don't oppose rural broadband. You're right, I don't see any national benefit to it, but I don't oppose it. I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. | |
| said by elray: I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. And unlike people who blindly stick to the free market, competition solves EVERYTHING dogma, I look at the reality that some areas will never be profitable, the free market isn't ALWAYS the solution and that no option should be eliminated. There is a reason that government agencies are involved in certain services and it is because those services just are unprofitable and can't be made profitable. On the same token, if an area is unprofitable enough that even small operators won't touch it, then no one should stand in the way of a local effort to get service, even if it is run by the local government. Local action by people in their communities was one of the concepts that stated this nation.
The free market and competition dogma works for the most part, but in instances where it won't work, trotting it out as an excuse to stand in the way of local action doesn't hold water.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by NetAdmin1:said by elray: I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. And unlike people who blindly stick to the free market, competition solves EVERYTHING dogma, I look at the reality that some areas will never be profitable, the free market isn't ALWAYS the solution and that no option should be eliminated. There is a reason that government agencies are involved in certain services and it is because those services just are unprofitable and can't be made profitable. On the same token, if an area is unprofitable enough that even small operators won't touch it, then no one should stand in the way of a local effort to get service, even if it is run by the local government. Local action by people in their communities was one of the concepts that stated this nation. Local action is fine, but not by government. Form a coop. Having the public purse strings finance the operation means there is no incentive for efficiency, nor respect for the public/customers.
I know free market doesn't apply to all situations, especially the last mile, which is a "natural" monopoly - there are narrow cases for regulation. Ironically, it is regulation, requiring telco to provide services, that forms part of the basis of the argument against your proposal.
I've been around long enough to see what happens when we ask government to take up a task, rather than charter a coop or investor-owned entity which is responsive to its customers. It is a recipe for fraud, waste, abuse, and of course, more taxation. It is also an invitation to retribution. The incumbent may have plans to install/upgrade broadband, but the GSE's announcement will de-prioritize the deployment.
VZ and the ILECs asks to "stand in the way" of government competition, because it is their franchise, and government charged them to serve the area for POTS. Undercutting the ILEC or VZ will deprive them of operating revenues at the same time they're required to provide service. One might think the same argument applies to a coop, but it doesn't - the coop can't cross-subsidize itself through taxation, and therefore, sell below cost without consequence.
Do you think, for a moment, that Verizon would deploy FIOS if every local government announced their intent to build a municipal fiber system? | |
| said by elray:Local action is fine, but not by government. Form a coop. Having the public purse strings finance the operation means there is no incentive for efficiency, nor respect for the public/customers. The models of many muni projects I've seen don't preclude private enterprise. The setup is such that the local government owns the right of ways and the physical infrastructure and local ISPs and co-ops lease capacity. The municipality need only maintain the infrastructure. This model works. It eliminates the last mile monopoly on services that is one of the problems plaguing networks owned by the incumbents.
A third party who owns and rents out the network to any provider who can afford to lease capacity is the best model as demonstrated by the shortcomings of the current model of leasing networks.
Do you think, for a moment, that Verizon would deploy FIOS if every local government announced their intent to build a municipal fiber system? Absolutely not. But truth be told, the best answer to the question is, would every local government deploy an FTTH system if the local carrier was delivering networks that are modern and up to date? And the response to that would be, "No."
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
