Topic 'Re: Liars' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578251 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:22:13 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:22:13 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22605681 said by Matt:

It's okay to be anti-muni, but please try and support your arguments with facts rather than assumptions.

Have any muni's failed and dumped the burden on their taxpayers? How many muni operations (non-WiFi) have actually failed ... period?It depends on how you define failed I guess. In my case I define it as "not succeeding," although you appear to be defining it as "dead."

So let's look at iProvo. They deployed the network using city enterprise funds used to provide self-supporting services like city water & sewer. In mid-2007 the city council added $1.2 million in sales tax revenue to help prop up the shortfall of iProvo to meet its self-sustaining status. By the end of 2007, they had a an additional $850k shortfall which had to be covered by the city general fund. By May of last year, to get out of the business of trying to manage the network the city sold the service to Broadweave for $40.6 million ... sort of. It turns out Broadweave didn't have the cash to actually front the sale, so the city wrote it off as bonds which it retained and allowed Broadweave to pay off the sale in $268k monthly payments, only for the last few months Broadweave hasn't been paying.

Adoption rates are absolutely critical for networks, which is why incumbents fight these projects tooth and nail. As soon as another provider comes in to leech away customers, they're left with the same operational costs of maintain a network that reaches their entire service area with a dwindling revenue left to support it.

Muni-wifi options are definitely cheaper. The Portland muni-Wifi failure only cost the city $60k to take down the now dormant gear.

said by Matt:

UTOPIA blazed the trail and luckily, their business model is open for anyone to see. New muni deployments are free to see what worked and what didn't.
If Utopia is such a shining star of success, then why are they asking the member cities to come up with another $504 million in sales tax revenue to help keep operations going?

said by Matt:

In any business, whether government backed or not, there are and will be failures. I think we could easily dig up several public companies that have failed miserably too.
When public companies fail, the investors take the hit. When government-backed services fail, the tax payers are forced to carry the costs. That's the whole point of city projects, in some way or another all of that money is funded through taxes, and taxes are not an optional payment for citizens. Well, I guess they sort of are -- if you don't pay them you always have the option of jailtime.

I agree that it's unfortunate that public telecoms won't provide the service, but usually it's because they actually have a pretty good understanding of what the costs are for operating such a beast and elect not to launch themselves into the money pit. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22605681 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:37:59 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593748 said by espaeth:

It means they aren't making profits at a rate that will allow them to pay back their loans.
No it means they aren't making the meaningful profits after paying off the loans. Of course if they serve business customers that will change fast.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593748 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:11:49 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593637 said by espaeth:

said by insomniac84:

Yes, because not profiting as much as they wanted to means they aren't profiting.
It means they aren't making profits at a rate that will allow them to pay back their loans.

With muni-broadband, that means that the tax payers are stuck paying off the business that couldn't cut it. Of course, the federal government has been doing a lot of that lately, so who am I to say that approach is wrong?
It's okay to be anti-muni, but please try and support your arguments with facts rather than assumptions.

Have any muni's failed and dumped the burden on their taxpayers? How many muni operations (non-WiFi) have actually failed ... period? From most of the articles I've read on here over the years, the munis are privately funded and or structured in a way to shield taxpayers. To put it in perspective, for every failed muni, it would be just as easy to dig up two that are so far successful. UTOPIA blazed the trail and luckily, their business model is open for anyone to see. New muni deployments are free to see what worked and what didn't.

In any business, whether government backed or not, there are and will be failures. I think we could easily dig up several public companies that have failed miserably too. The key to muni deployments is to shield taxpayers and require the muni to pay all taxes and fees, just like a private company. Regardless, if a public company won't serve an area and when put to a vote, the populace decides they want to do it themselves, the company who refused to serve the area shouldn't have a say. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593637 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:50:39 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593566 said by insomniac84:

Yes, because not profiting as much as they wanted to means they aren't profiting. It means they aren't making profits at a rate that will allow them to pay back their loans.

With muni-broadband, that means that the tax payers are stuck paying off the business that couldn't cut it. Of course, the federal government has been doing a lot of that lately, so who am I to say that approach is wrong?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593566 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:35:02 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593498 because not profiting as much as they wanted to means they aren't profiting. And to me it was stupid not to also target businesses. You can easily charge them double or more and sell profitable SLAs. They need to focus on all areas and not just undeserved areas. The reasons why an area is undeserved is because people are poor and can't pay for it.

It seems Utopia isn't profiting as much as they want due to them excluding the more profitable areas and customers. If they targeted everyone they wouldn't have a problem.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593498 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:20:40 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593484 said by Matt:

Yes, but that was only 1 of 3 of your links and it hasn't failed.... yet.

Certainly that they're struggling to meet revenue to support operations doesn't really support the statement that "Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit."

There are a number of muni-networks that fail because they are only sustainable if they get a 70%+ conversion rate. That's tough for any company to do, no matter how good they are. Even Verizon is only mustering a 25% adoption rate with FiOS, no matter how superior it may be to other offerings.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593484 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:18:46 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593440 said by espaeth:

said by Matt:

Muni WiFi != Muni Fiber.
You'll note Utopia is on that list of links. That's muni fiber, my friend.
Yes, but that was only 1 of 3 of your links and it hasn't failed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593440 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:09:29 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593433 said by Matt:

Muni WiFi != Muni Fiber.You'll note Utopia is on that list of links. That's muni fiber, my friend.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593433 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:08:44 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593431 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593431 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:07:54 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593192 said by insomniac84:

said by espaeth:

The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit.
Not true. Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit. Really?

»Earthlink Closing Philly Wi-Fi Network June 12

»MetroFi Pulls Out of Municipal Wireless Game

»Utah's Utopia Tries To Stay Afloat

said by insomniac84:

Even verizon is replacing their existing network with fiber. So it's incorrect to claim they can't afford it.
Verizon's rollout of FiOS is about one thing: triple play. Both ATT and Verizon realized early on that the TV / Phone / Internet packages are where the real money was to be made and the cable companies had the upper hand. That's been the driving force behind U-Verse and FiOS deployments - keeping the companies viable.

said by insomniac84:

They should have to advertise a flat price, that is the only way to keep everything fair. It's bad enough that they don't include fees and taxes in the advertised price. You want them to advertise a service for 19.95 a month and put some fine print about a 40b cap and 2 dollar a GB charges at the bottom? It would send the internet back to 1995.
It's the fastest way to get capacity expansion. That's why there is so much backbone capacity at the moment: bandwidth at the backbone level is billed based on consumption. You want them to build more capacity? Use more bandwidth.

Right now with the flat pricing structure all you do by consuming more bandwidth is eat away at the profit structure; growing demand only provides motivation for companies to upgrade if the service will degrade to the point that customers will quit.

The simple reality is prices are going to go up one way or another.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593192 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:11:33 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593053 said by espaeth:

The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit.
Not true. Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit. Granted it's easier for them to get start up loans, but still. Even verizon is replacing their existing network with fiber. So it's incorrect to claim they can't afford it.

said by espaeth:

The current broadband companies can only raise prices by a certain amount before it will become cost effective for other companies to build out their own purpose-built Internet networks to residential markets.
So basically they are leveraging their size to prevent competition with artificially low rates and now they want to be able to continue to advertise a low base price while still getting an increase via the under-advertised metered part of the price?

I think not. They should have to advertise a flat price, that is the only way to keep everything fair. It's bad enough that they don't include fees and taxes in the advertised price. You want them to advertise a service for 19.95 a month and put some fine print about a 40b cap and 2 dollar a GB charges at the bottom? It would send the internet back to 1995.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22593053 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:43:57 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22592833 said by insomniac84:

If you give them what seems like an inch today. In 20 years that inch will be a million miles. They will have created a system where they get to make heavy profit for delivering services that compete with their tv service.You're assuming that only broadcast video services are able to deliver Internet access with that statement.

Public access to the Internet has grown on non-dedicated access media from its earliest days. The primary method started out as modems using the public switched telephone network, and eventually grew to technologies that "piggyback" existing deployed infrastructure to reduce the cost of deployment. There is only so much the current broadband providers can raise their rates. The networks are currently below market equilibrium because they are leveraging existing deployed cable plant. The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit. The current broadband companies can only raise prices by a certain amount before it will become cost effective for other companies to build out their own purpose-built Internet networks to residential markets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22592833 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:59:18 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22592803 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22592803 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:48:11 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22592482 said by espaeth:

The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think. Until more and more people start getting more services over the internet. Like TV and movies. Sure right now grandma might only use 50mb, but in 20-30 years that isn't going to be true. Hell it might not even be true in 10 years. Cable companies are most likely predicting much more heavy use of the internet.

If you give them what seems like an inch today. In 20 years that inch will be a million miles. They will have created a system where they get to make heavy profit for delivering services that compete with their tv service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22592482 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:47:59 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22585673
And at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because both high bandwidth users and low bandwidth users are already being RAPED on the cost per byte.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22585673 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:03:25 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22580816 said by Kearnstd:

said by Matt:

but also dont forget AT&T is the telephone company so they will have a 10.99 Apocalypse Processing fee and a 159.99 early termination fee with really small print stating(ETF may still be charged if Internet explodes causing unexpected end of service).
.. i'm really curious how 'early termination fee' and 'apocalypse' kinda jive with application of said fees (or just HOW would one get a refund?)

:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22580816 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:42:39 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22579819 said by S_engineer:

I disagree, i think that most users on this forum understand the mass populace is using only minimal amounts of bandwidth.I don't know, people seem to get on board with Karl when he suggests a majority of people will be impacted by caps of even 100GB.

said by S_engineer:

This is the crux of the argument.
for years these companies have ignored forecasts about the exponential growth of the Internet.
I don't think it's that black and white. Residential Internet options that people sign up for today were born out of opportunity to reuse existing infrastructure (twisted pair copper phone lines and coax cable), and were not necessarily designed to be the best / most scalable platform out there.

said by S_engineer:

The rest are now taking the route of upgrading nothing at a time where bandwidth usage forecasts continue to climb. A Cap or an overage fee does not fix the technical issues that still loom.
Caps do nothing but attempt to buy you time while planning the next network upgrade. They are imperfect, as they don't address peak congestion. In most cases caps are really only good as a published benchmark to use when dealing with "network abuse" -- a poor term which doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing anything illegal, just using more capacity than the system is really designed to handle.

said by S_engineer:

Their lack making the necessary upgrades the keep up what their own forecast were calling for are their own fault. This was clearly a case where quarterly reports became more important than the long term position that these companies needed to take.
I don't think it's quite that simple. I find it interesting that nobody every questions why carrier bandwidth is so inexpensive, especially considering these are also "greedy corporations" building out those networks. The difference is carrier bandwidth has always been sold in full dedicated capacity, or burstable capacity with metered billing. The link is set where more bandwidth means more revenue which means (hopefully) more profit. The residential ISPs with flat rate billing have very little incentive to upgrade bandwidth, except when scarcity would cause subscribers to leave.

said by S_engineer:

EDIT* And another thing, if there was such a bandwidth apocolyse looming, then why would these carriers line up to sign agreements with online video service ESPN360?
The cost of signing up for ESPN360 is minimal for large ISPs (in the grand scheme of things), and if it prevents users from leaving it's a win. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22579819 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:00:27 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22579033
TV service/phone service and...
- $200 installation fee
- the modern day equivalent of a local loop charge
- requlatory surcharge fee (cost of doing business with government)
- regulatory revovery fee (cost of meeting government requirements)
- profit recovery fee (fee charged if company isn't making enough profit off of you, or in general)
- modem rental fee
- demark fee
- electrical usage fee (gotta power those VRAD/RT/fiber nodes)
- battery replacement fee (gotta replace those batteries in the exploding VRADS)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22579033 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:34:31 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578925 for years these companies have ignored forecasts about the exponential growth of the Internet. They were able to accomodate and oversell their userbase only because of the low usage subscribers. Few carriers decided to take the upgrade route. The rest are now taking the route of upgrading nothing at a time where bandwidth usage forecasts continue to climb. A Cap or an overage fee does not fix the technical issues that still loom. Their lack making the necessary upgrades the keep up what their own forecast were calling for are their own fault. This was clearly a case where quarterly reports became more important than the long term position that these companies needed to take.

And Major...you have a point...maybe Gitmo would be in order!

EDIT* And another thing, if there was such a bandwidth apocolyse looming, then why would these carriers line up to sign agreements with online video service ESPN360?

--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578925 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:13:33 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578781 said by S_engineer:

If Att wanted to give "grandma" her fair shake, then they'd lower the prices for the measly 50MB of usage that "grandma" uses per month.As long as you realize that lowering the price paid by the low usage subscribers will dramatically increase the costs of moderate to high end subscribers. The MRC income of flat-rate billing keeps things evenly distributed today.

The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578781 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:48:55 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578746 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578746 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:42:58 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578737 said by Matt:

said by digitalfreak:

We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Don't worry, AT&T and Time Warner et al will happily sell you their Apocalypse add-on package for the ultra low price of $9.99 a month.
but also dont forget AT&T is the telephone company so they will have a 10.99 Apocalypse Processing fee and a 159.99 early termination fee with really small print stating(ETF may still be charged if Internet explodes causing unexpected end of service).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578737 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:41:21 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578642 said by S_engineer:

I think it's high time congress dragged these clowns to the hill and interogated them on where all of the money for upgrades through tax incentives has gone. They did it to AIG, and GM, they should now do it to TW, and the Death Star.
I would hardly call this particular event you refer to as "dragging." More like rolling out the red carpet and throwing roses at their feet. These chumpstains from AIG et al. got the royal treatment. Never in a million years would I ever refer to it as an "interrogation." More like Congre$$ional lickspittles verbally fellating their constituency.
--
The Toll

Tracking Lord Stanley
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578642 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:26:27 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578553 said by digitalfreak:

We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Don't worry, AT&T and Time Warner et al will happily sell you their Apocalypse add-on package for the ultra low price of $9.99 a month.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578553 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:07:08 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578366 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578366 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:37:46 EDT Re: Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578293 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Liars-22578293 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:26:38 EDT Liars http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Liars-22578251
This is about setting the precedent of a low cap before even more Video is introduced to the Web. This is a money grab, plain and simple!
I think it's high time congress dragged these clowns to the hill and interogated them on where all of the money for upgrades through tax incentives has gone. They did it to AIG, and GM, they should now do it to TW, and the Death Star. Remember the 40 mbps to the home in 10 from the Clinton years.
If they don't like the idea of a PUC regulating them then hit them with this. They redefine a cap as cost since it has obvious pricing implications, with the regulating body being split with the FCC and IRS. Wouldn't that be a fun audit!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Liars-22578251 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:21:10 EDT