dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
25
« Broadband coverage
This is a sub-selection from Well Said Karl

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: Well Said Karl

said by FFH5:

said by Matt3:
said by Karl :

In the more nuanced light of the real world, regulation is neither wholly evil or wholly good. There is a balance to be struck between sound regulation and "free market" capitalism.
I 100% agree. We need to strike a balance to ensure reasonable profits for private enterprise, but a balance that also ensures we are the worldwide technology leader.
Why do we have to be the worldwide technology leader? There are advantages to being just behind the leaders. The development and research costs are borne by others and the initial problems of rolling out new technology are identified and already corrected by others. It then becomes more economically efficient to trail a little behind. You don't want to be at the tail end, but being 1st isn't always beneficial.
If you're first, you have the scientific knowledge that created the breakthrough. There are a myriad of reasons I can think of off the top of my head; generally, the breakthroughs come because of fundamental research, which is then applied to multiple fields and eventually, real-world applications.

In this case however, we've had the technology for years to be at the forefront, but without getting into politics, it wasn't seen as beneficial. Only now are we starting to realize that fast, ubiquitous broadband can open a lot of doors and has far-reaching beneficial effects, even on seemingly disassociated things like the environment.
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA

2 recommendations

jaminus

Member

The problem with trying to become the "world technology leader" in broadband via government spending is that doing so necessarily redirect resources from other more productive uses of those resources.

Take Japan. They've got much, much better broadband than we do here. There's no denying it.

Yet are they more prosperous than us Americans? No they are not. Look at any meaningful metric of wealth creation and you'll see the U.S. is markedly ahead of Japan. For example, Americans enjoy on average over 50 % higher personal disposable income than the Japanese.

Now, I love my fat (broadband) pipe and I don't know how I'd live without it. But the American people at large do not share the same obsession with fast broadband that we DSLR contributors do. The sooner policymakers understand the disconnect between the broadband fetishism of the techno-evangelists at Free Press and the actual desires of the average American consumer, the better.

Times are tough, and lots of people are struggling. Broadband is great, but it's not the only thing that we need to spend our money on here in the United States. Health care, education, entertainment, recreation, and just plain old luxuries of life are all important, too. No regulatory agency knows the best mix of spending. Only through decentralized decisionmaking--spontaneous market order--can we allocate resources in a way that matches what people actually want.

This is why very few actual trained economists who aren't on industry payrolls want the FCC to get actively involved in the broadband market. It's bad public policy designed to score political points, but it's ultimately the opposite of what's best for the American economy.

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer

Premium Member

said by jaminus:

But the American people at large do not share the same obsession with fast broadband that we DSLR contributors do..
That may be true now, but once the caps have been fully established, and the broadband usage surpasses those caps sending overage charges to the majority of users, then the masses will begin to care. And as more government (federal, state, county, muni) departments push towards online services, then theres no choice but to use the web. This is also the case with banking and utility services. Anybody with a budget is loooking to save money by droppiing live personel in favor of a automated or online service. For those of us that live in major metropolitan areas, a simple call to the municipal building department can cost 3-4 hours. That same service could be taken care of online in minutes. That means that goverment service that I'm paying for through taxes can't be used unless I negotiate through a third party (ISP). That means it's no longer a luxery, its a basic service, or...a utility!
[/rant]

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

wifi4milez to jaminus

Member

to jaminus
said by jaminus:

The problem with trying to become the "world technology leader" in broadband via government spending is that doing so necessarily redirect resources from other more productive uses of those resources.

Take Japan. They've got much, much better broadband than we do here. There's no denying it.

Yet are they more prosperous than us Americans? No they are not. Look at any meaningful metric of wealth creation and you'll see the U.S. is markedly ahead of Japan. For example, Americans enjoy on average over 50 % higher personal disposable income than the Japanese.

Now, I love my fat (broadband) pipe and I don't know how I'd live without it. But the American people at large do not share the same obsession with fast broadband that we DSLR contributors do. The sooner policymakers understand the disconnect between the broadband fetishism of the techno-evangelists at Free Press and the actual desires of the average American consumer, the better.

Times are tough, and lots of people are struggling. Broadband is great, but it's not the only thing that we need to spend our money on here in the United States. Health care, education, entertainment, recreation, and just plain old luxuries of life are all important, too. No regulatory agency knows the best mix of spending. Only through decentralized decisionmaking--spontaneous market order--can we allocate resources in a way that matches what people actually want.

This is why very few actual trained economists who aren't on industry payrolls want the FCC to get actively involved in the broadband market. It's bad public policy designed to score political points, but it's ultimately the opposite of what's best for the American economy.
So are you trying to imply that throwing billions more dollars at a problem that doesnt really exist is a bad idea?
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to jaminus

Member

to jaminus
Not true at all. In fact, the demand curve for broadband has become increasingly inelastic, with people all over the country unwilling to give up their connections even as their disposable income decreases.

Reforming the industry would take the massive profits stolen by the incumbents and place them back into the hands of consumers.

That would result in an overall higher quality of life for everyone, and greater stimulation to the national economy.
sonicmerlin

sonicmerlin to wifi4milez

Member

to wifi4milez
So are you implying *throwing away* billions of dollars into the coffers of the incumbents is a good idea?

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

wifi4milez

Member

said by sonicmerlin:

So are you implying *throwing away* billions of dollars into the coffers of the incumbents is a good idea?
The government isnt giving billions of dollars to the incumbents now, so thats a moot point.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

said by wifi4milez:

said by sonicmerlin:

So are you implying *throwing away* billions of dollars into the coffers of the incumbents is a good idea?
The government isnt giving billions of dollars to the incumbents now, so thats a moot point.
They aren't? Did you forget about the $600 million tax write-off they approved for a single company? »Verizon Sells ME, NH, VT Networks [63] comments

There are ways to give money to a company without actually handing them cash. The reversal of the Telco Act of 1996 was a damn good start. You get an awfully large slice of pie when there isn't anyone you have to share it with.
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA

jaminus to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
We both agree that incumbents make excessive profits. I believe that's because of entry barriers in the broadband market. Not natural barriers, though, but artificial ones stemming from bad government policies.

Spectrum is way to scarce because of politically powerful lobbies like the National Association of Broadcasters want to hog valuable airwaves, making it prohibitively expensive to start a new WISP operating on licensed bands.

What about laying wire? Well, municipal franchise authorities see to it that if you want to offer video (which is only sensible if you're undertaking the expense of digging up the streets) requires that you accept government extortion in the form of revenue sharing and onerous build-out requirements.

No wonder that the incumbents make so much money. Who can afford to compete with them?

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 recommendation

wifi4milez to Matt3

Member

to Matt3
said by Matt3:

They aren't? Did you forget about the $600 million tax write-off they approved for a single company? »Verizon Sells ME, NH, VT Networks [63] comments
The government allows tax write offs for many companies for many things. You are positioning that like its a unique situation.
said by Matt3:

The reversal of the Telco Act of 1996 was a damn good start. You get an awfully large slice of pie when there isn't anyone you have to share it with.
The problem with that argument is that the pie belonged to the telcos to begin with, they should never been forced to share it. You might want to note that one of the conditions Verizon had for FIOS was that the government couldnt come in and make them share it. The government agreed, and now millions of people have FTTH. Funny how that worked out isnt it!
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

wentlanc

Member

said by wifi4milez:

said by Matt3:

They aren't? Did you forget about the $600 million tax write-off they approved for a single company? »Verizon Sells ME, NH, VT Networks [63] comments
The government allows tax write offs for many companies for many things. You are positioning that like its a unique situation.
They received those write-offs in EXCHANGE for them to build out to certain areas. You are positioning that like it is just a normal write-off, and not structured as an incentive for the telco to build out service.

cw

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

wifi4milez

Member

said by wentlanc:
said by wifi4milez:
said by Matt3:

They aren't? Did you forget about the $600 million tax write-off they approved for a single company? »Verizon Sells ME, NH, VT Networks [63] comments
The government allows tax write offs for many companies for many things. You are positioning that like its a unique situation.
They received those write-offs in EXCHANGE for them to build out to certain areas. You are positioning that like it is just a normal write-off, and not structured as an incentive for the telco to build out service.

cw
Is that all you have got?? The government is currently offering huge incentives to ANY provider that is willing to deploy services in this country. In fact, it has been front page news on this very website multiple times.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to wentlanc

Premium Member

to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:
said by wifi4milez:
said by Matt3:

They aren't? Did you forget about the $600 million tax write-off they approved for a single company? »Verizon Sells ME, NH, VT Networks [63] comments
The government allows tax write offs for many companies for many things. You are positioning that like its a unique situation.
They received those write-offs in EXCHANGE for them to build out to certain areas. You are positioning that like it is just a normal write-off, and not structured as an incentive for the telco to build out service.

cw
Actually they didn't get ANY special consideration. Verizon merely took advantage of EXISTING tax code to get that writeoff. And their was no quid-pro-quo that Verizon promised for that tax break.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to wifi4milez

Member

to wifi4milez
The incumbents stole hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer that they were given in exchange for building out fiber services all over the US. They never met their promised targets, never even started in most cases. Many carriers like Verizon and AT&T simply used that money to fund the buildout of their wireless networks.

Furthermore, from the standpoint of a nation's economy, when a non-competitive industry is dominated by a few players making enormous profits, that money is essentially drained from the national GDP. It goes into far away untaxable offshore bank accounts so the executives can buy a 2nd jet for their personal travels.

Numerous studies demonstrate the harm done to an economy when the accumulation of non-transferable wealth occurs as well as when the gap between the rich and poor widens.
sonicmerlin

1 edit

sonicmerlin to jaminus

Member

to jaminus
I fail to see how revenue sharing hurts smaller companies that have virtually no revenue. The effect it has is of making larger companies distribute some of the massive profits they have enjoyed from their economy of scale and near-monopoly status.

What you may or may not be describing is poorly ascribed regulation. Simply reforming the rules to encourage competition is what is needed, not a repeal of all rules to allow greedy execs control everything.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6 to Matt3

Member

to Matt3
I agree with the fact that we should be the technology leader. However, our research will be wasted. The Chinese do not need industrial espionage, we give them everything to "manufacture" for us.
We should invest in research and PROTECT our work by manufacturing stuff in the US.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

Skippy25 to wifi4milez

Member

to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:

said by Matt3:
The problem with that argument is that the pie belonged to the telcos to begin with, they should never been forced to share it. You might want to note that one of the conditions Verizon had for FIOS was that the government couldnt come in and make them share it. The government agreed, and now millions of people have FTTH. Funny how that worked out isnt it!
You are right they should not be forced to share it, it should of just been stripped from them to begin with and a national system put in place.

They had their chance to serve and have clearly said on multiple occasions, no we will do it in our time as we feel we can make the most money for it. As a general business they have the right to make that determination, however, in this day and age the core network is too vital to be left in the hands of greedy stock jockeys.

They have made their billions off of "incentives" the government has given them that has even enabled them to build the network they "control" now. Even if it was stripped from them so they can be content providers only or they are regulated to the dumbpipes they truly are (let them pick which path to follow) they will still continue to make billions.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Verizon merely took advantage of EXISTING tax code to get that writeoff.
That is true but it is important not to forget how all those special conditions get written into the tax code.

/tom
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to S_engineer

Member

to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:

And as more government (federal, state, county, muni) departments push towards online services, then theres no choice but to use the web.
Use a library
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to wifi4milez

Member

to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:

said by Matt3:
The problem with that argument is that the pie belonged to the telcos to begin with, they should never been forced to share it. You might want to note that one of the conditions Verizon had for FIOS was that the government couldnt come in and make them share it. The government agreed, and now millions of people have FTTH. Funny how that worked out isnt it!
And it should be noted, that given the *choice*, Verizon shares its FIOS with competitors.

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

wifi4milez

Member

said by elray:
said by wifi4milez:

said by Matt3:
The problem with that argument is that the pie belonged to the telcos to begin with, they should never been forced to share it. You might want to note that one of the conditions Verizon had for FIOS was that the government couldnt come in and make them share it. The government agreed, and now millions of people have FTTH. Funny how that worked out isnt it!
And it should be noted, that given the *choice*, Verizon shares its FIOS with competitors.
Absolutely, they want to make money on their wholesale offering.

jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Asheville, NC

jimbo48 to patcat88

Member

to patcat88
yeah one can use a library, if you have one open in your town and that library has Internet that is working and not shut down because there is no money in the till to pay for it or repair/maintain it. You might even be lucky and the library is open for 4 hours while you're at work and surely they aren't going to be open on a Saturday or Sunday or in the evening. No its not always posssible to "use a library"
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

said by jimbo48:

yeah one can use a library, if you have one open in your town and that library has Internet that is working and not shut down because there is no money in the till to pay for it or repair/maintain it. You might even be lucky and the library is open for 4 hours while you're at work and surely they aren't going to be open on a Saturday or Sunday or in the evening. No its not always posssible to "use a library"
Then take a sick day or drive 30 miles.

N10Cities
Premium Member
join:2002-05-07
0000000
Asus RT-AC87

N10Cities

Premium Member

said by patcat88:

said by jimbo48:

yeah one can use a library, if you have one open in your town and that library has Internet that is working and not shut down because there is no money in the till to pay for it or repair/maintain it. You might even be lucky and the library is open for 4 hours while you're at work and surely they aren't going to be open on a Saturday or Sunday or in the evening. No its not always posssible to "use a library"
Then take a sick day or drive 30 miles.
Troll....
« Broadband coverage
This is a sub-selection from Well Said Karl