 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
4 edits | So basically.... Give us more for less?
Cant that consumer view apply to every industry in the world?
Dont get me wrong, I am all for good competiton and speeds; but I dont think private ISPs should have to incur the cost of wiring unprofitable areas.
Also, dont forget; municipal fiber services may be cheaper; but the government can make up the money in an area where private business cant: taxes. So, if your cable bill goes down $50 by switching, but your taxes go up the same amount, is is really worth it?
Also, I am all for 3rd party services offering online applications; they definatly can be unique and help the internet progress. But, I dont think the "ISP dumb pipe" should be banned from trying to promote their own application products; as long as they dont block access to third party ones. |
|
1 edit | Also, dont forget; municipal fiber services may be cheaper; but the govertment can make up the money in an area where private business cant: taxes. |
|
|
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Dont get me wrong, I am all for good competiton and speeds; but I dont think private ISPs should have to incur the cost of wiring unprofitable areas. Perhaps that is an area where the government should build the fiber optic infrastructure and then charge a small toll for anyone who wishes to use it in order to support it without taxpayer funds (ISP's and end-users). Just like portions of our highway system that are funded by tolls. Otherwise we would probably have highways only in the major metropolitan areas and nothing in the rural areas connecting them together. We already have the USF yet the big telco's and cable companies seem to be able to collect that money and not completely deliver to those areas.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
| said by n2jtx:said by baineschile:Dont get me wrong, I am all for good competiton and speeds; but I dont think private ISPs should have to incur the cost of wiring unprofitable areas. Perhaps that is an area where the government should build the fiber optic infrastructure and then charge a small toll for anyone who wishes to use it in order to support it without taxpayer funds (ISP's and end-users). Just like portions of our highway system that are funded by tolls. Otherwise we would probably have highways only in the major metropolitan areas and nothing in the rural areas connecting them together. We already have the USF yet the big telco's and cable companies seem to be able to collect that money and not completely deliver to those areas. Except the toll roads are almost always found in metro areas rather than rural ones.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Dont get me wrong, I am all for good competiton and speeds; but I dont think private ISPs should have to incur the cost of wiring unprofitable areas. The same was said many years ago of electricity, telephone and mail delivery.
You also left out a third option - cooperatives. Problem is that the big telcos do everything in their power to stifle their competition, even in the "unprofitable" areas, so it becomes difficult for a small co-op or even muni broadband to become reality in many areas. |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Eat Me :
The same was said many years ago of electricity, telephone and mail delivery.
And to this day, its more expensive for the electric company, telephone, and mail delivery are more costly in rural areas than densely populated ones. |
|
3 edits | said by baineschile:said by Eat MeThe same was said many years ago of electricity, telephone and mail delivery.
And to this day, its more expensive for the electric company, telephone, and mail delivery are more costly in rural areas than densely populated ones. Not true. Our electric and cable TV rates up here are less than those in the more populated areas in NJ.
The electric company is a cooperative, and the cable TV company is a family owned company. Both of those don't have to worry about Wall Street, which is why the rates can be less.
When your utilities are owned by Wall Street or big Government, that is when areas suddenly become "unprofitable." |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | The publicly traded corporations of today are way to big for the infrastructure that supports them. That is why we see this imbalance. |
|
| reply to thanksfoxnws
said by thanksfoxnws :Also, dont forget; municipal fiber services may be cheaper; but the govertment can make up the money in an area where private business cant: taxes. Some of these projects just use bonds, and have to sustain themselves. |
|
| reply to n2jtx
Toll roads are most predominant in the East and near large cities in the Northern Midwest states ( I-80/90). I hate them with a passion. Driving from Washington, D.C. to Maine, for instance costs about $50 in tolls. It's terrible. I can drive from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles without paying 1 toll, but go through MD, NY, NJ, Mass, Maine, etc, and I'm tolled to death. I can drive from San Diego to L.A., San Fran, Sacramento, Portland, and Seattle without a single toll.
Nah, I don't like that idea. Just put it in the base price.... No internet toll for me, please... |
|
| reply to fifty nine
Agreed! |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to baineschile
Nah, just give us real competition so we can choose the companies that offer the best service, or packages we're most interested in.
Instead of having to pick the lesser of two evils.
When you choose the lesser of two evils, you still choose evil. (Jerry Garcia quote!)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| reply to jjeffeory
But at lest the people who are using the roads are paying, not me in Oregon. |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Also, dont forget; municipal fiber services may be cheaper; but the government can make up the money in an area where private business cant: taxes. So, if your cable bill goes down $50 by switching, but your taxes go up the same amount, is is really worth it? I understand that's a concern for some people, but where has that happened? Even in areas where the muni project went belly up I don't believe they raised tax rates to compensate. I think this is one of the examples cited by opponents of muni-broadband to drum up opposition to those projects.
I worked for AT&T in the late 1990's/early 2000's when line sharing was still in effect. AT&T knows line sharing works and even took advantage of the 1996 Telecom Act by offering local phone service (pre SBC merger and before long distance companies were allowed to re-enter the local phone market). AT&T offered local phone service in areas served by ILEC's across the country and were doing quite well. We had a backlog of new orders and LNP requests.
I think this fact taught AT&T (and others) 2 things. First, line sharing works. Second, if their customers had another option they would drop their current carrier, leaving AT&T and the other ILEC's (or ISP's for that matter) scrambling to win them back. |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by baineschile:Dont get me wrong, I am all for good competiton and speeds; but I dont think private ISPs should have to incur the cost of wiring unprofitable areas. The same was said many years ago of electricity, telephone and mail delivery. You also left out a third option - cooperatives. Problem is that the big telcos do everything in their power to stifle their competition, even in the "unprofitable" areas, so it becomes difficult for a small co-op or even muni broadband to become reality in many areas. Not to mention that the ILECS buy up all the spectrum that could be used for wireless in the rural areas-and then sit on it (warehouse it), so it can never be used.
This is yet another way they stifle competition-the big bully comes to town and takes all the good stuff for himself-leaving all the scraps for everyone else. |
|
