| reply to XBL2009
Re: When will we get real broadband at prices we can afford? said by XBL2009:I want to wake up one morning and read that at&t and Comcast have gone bankrupt. That will only exacerbate current problems. However, since a significant number of the megacarriers have proven that they neglect forecasts about growth, maybe it's time to regulate broadband as a utility which would serve several purposes.
1) the neccesity for raises in rates could be verified through an independant PUC type of body. At a time when the delivery of broadband is dropping, carriers could even be doing upgrades with prices remaining stagnant.
2) define the implementation or size of a cap as cost to also be verified through the regulatory body.
Smaller ISPs could even get help via the gov to bring them to par if the gov were to set the bar too high.
Now, I'm not a big fan of gov jamming regulations down businesses throats. But alot of these companies left on their own gouge worse than any oil company could ever imagine. And if nobody tolerates oil companies gouging, then why is TW gouging acceptable?
These are ideas that alot of you won't like, so if you've got better I'm all ears.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
|
|
markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | I have always, always been against government intervention of commodities. I still see broadband as a commodity, but my view on its delivery has changed very much over the last decade. I actually agree that information deliery should be a utility. I am quickly agreeing that the government should pay for, instal, and maintain a FTTH network that private corporations can sell products "on". I agreed with the notion in the '40's and '50's that public funds should promote and up-keep a national road system for the flow of goods to promote capitalism. I believe the "internet" should be our generation's Eisenhower Interstate. |
|
| said by markofmayhem:I have always, always been against government intervention of commodities. I still see broadband as a commodity, but my view on its delivery has changed very much over the last decade. I actually agree that information deliery should be a utility. I am quickly agreeing that the government should pay for, instal, and maintain a FTTH network that private corporations can sell products "on". I agreed with the notion in the '40's and '50's that public funds should promote and up-keep a national road system for the flow of goods to promote capitalism. I believe the "internet" should be our generation's Eisenhower Interstate. Eisenhowers interstate was'nt built for the convienence of drivers though. That capitol development had a dual purpose. It was a way to move troops throughout the US in case of Soviet attack. You have to remember the paranoia of the 50's was a staple in gov before the MAD mentality took hold.
Currently, your idea could be viewed as an investment in the future of our economy, which is equally important.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to markofmayhem
Could you elaborate on that more? Like do you mean comcast verizon and tw could all offer tv over said FTTH and the costumer could choose which one has the best package(s) for them, same with ISPs and VoIP companies? |
|
| I don't know if he meant FTTH, or the idea of splitting the nations telecom infrastructure in 2 that some one suggested yesterday in here. One would be a physical plant possibly owned by gov which would in turn lease the lines to competitors giving everyone the same footing.
There are numerous conflicting laws and practices that would have to be addressed as well laws intervening into private property. However, I think it's becoming apparent to many that the status quo is rapidly becoming unacceptable.
Any dialogue in this respect is good because now it seems these stories are becomming mainstream, not just here at BBR
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | He said: "I am quickly agreeing that the government should pay for, instal, and maintain a FTTH network" |
|
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | reply to S_engineer
Eisenhowers interstate:
Also had the purpose of Air Force bomber landing runways. One mile in every 5 had to be perfectly straight. Essentially they made 5 mile chunks of straight and the other 20 (of a 25 mile segment) were allowed to be more curvy. 5 mile runway will handle a B52 |
|
