how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to chronoss2009
Re: time ot do a national turn it off month said by chronoss2009:whats that amount to if we had 50% of north america say screw you im not paying for a month. TRUST me it would work.
To stop paying for a month is meaningless, UNLESS you are willing to stop USING for a month........ or longer, if need be.
If you want to STRIKE, be serious about it, any UNION member can tell you the trade offs and costs, of people working together to gain leverage over those that INVEST in your connection.
I think Levin's comments are accurate, so polarized is the debate, the no one has offered a balanced/realistic plan, each has offered/suggested/DEMANDED that some other party pay the cost/carry the burden.
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" isn't going to result in a longterm, sustainable, national network, nor will "let's wait and see"........somewhere in between is profit for the investor, competant, reliable "universal"** coverage and fast roll out.
** method, available speed, date of availablity and cost per speed may vary due to local conditions. | |
| your only taking one aspect of the broad debate. The debate also needs to take consumer protection into account, as well as address the carriers implementation of caps as a source of revenue (because it sure doesn't relieve congestion). This debate also need to encompass how carriers should be incrementally raising speeds to at least try to keep up with Korea. This debate should also address just how long copper will be milked. IMO, the debate should also include regulating broadband as a utility. This could curb the wide range of a pricing system that we see between carriers. Why should somebody with TW on Docsis 1 at a 3mbps download speed pay the same as someone on Comcast with a 16mbps dl speed using docsis3. And the federal standard for broadband being under 1 mbps in this day and age...are you kidding me?
These are just some ideas that he could address having the consumer/taxpayer in mind. These should be basic goals, and you probably won't find any consumers that would object to these goals being achieved.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | | |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Not at all.
I'm saying, seeing it ONLY as a consumer issue, or ONLY as a business/investor issue is the problem.
Somewhere there is a middle ground, reasonable return to the investor, reasonable service to MOST locations, reasonable regulation, and reasonable/zero taxpayer cost.
i.e. taxes/fees must balance taxpayer INVESTMENT, should capital be require to jump start the process.
"Universal" access would likely be a separate fee, but might be limited access.
speed of rollout (why taxpayer investment MIGHT be needed) would be a critical point/metric (metric's really measure what HAS happened, which is why I would suggest REIMBURSEMENT for goals met, rather than, payments in advance (be VERY effective, get a big bonus,... be effective get a bonus,...do little get nothing AND pay penalties (if you bid and fail to provide) | |
| In your original post you said no one has offered a reasonable plan. I'm suggesting that the many of the thoughts and ideas that were submitted to him were simple solutions that could be implemented at no cost to the tax payer putting us on firm foundation that we could THEN stack a broadband plan on. These suggestions should not be dismissed because they cost the taxpayer nothing.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
