1 edit | Sigh Naturally the US will remain a generation of technology behind the rest of the developed world.
This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Infrastructure should be a net zero project. Companies making profit by selling infrastructure services are just draining the country of money. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Infrastructure should be a net zero project. Companies making profit by selling infrastructure services are just draining the country of money. Where are they draining it to?
Aren't they making money for investors, and buying materials from vendors, and hiring people to do jobs? Or would you prefer that they just cater to your every wish and whim? |
|
|
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. We used to have something like that. The FCC and state utility commissions practically guaranteed Ma Bell a big profit as long as it built out a world class telecommunications infrastructure. That all ended by 1984. |
|
| reply to sonicmerlin
Though logically I would agree with you. In real world there is no way this would work because then these immoral anticonsumer profit is everything companies only have one source to "pursuade" to get their way. |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | reply to Sammer
You can thank the Regan Republicans buddies they all wanted to get rich running a Telco company but they found out it was a lot of work even when you leased most of you plant from the real telco companies. Almost everyone of them have failed.
It also stoppped the baby bells from being proactive because if the put a manhole run in all the extra ducts were up for grabs at below cost.
If you cut the pie into too many pieces no one makes any money. I don't support an uncaring monopoly but if some one wants to compete let them build and pay for a network. Google has goobs of money they have a backbone system let them build the last mile or their own wireless system. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by WhatNow:You can thank the Regan Republicans buddies they all wanted to get rich running a Telco company but they found out it was a lot of work even when you leased most of you plant from the real telco companies. Almost everyone of them have failed. The antitrust suit against the old Ma Bell was started before President Reagan was in office and the Clinton Democrat buddies were pretty good at selling out the American Public to their corporate "friends" too. |
|
 joebarnhartPaxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Oh yeah, that'd fix everything. More government, this time to dictate telecommunications. I guess everyone is really happy with the way FCC is using what little power they have, right? We should give them more power and control of everything? Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that! |
|
| reply to jester121
said by jester121:Where are they draining it to? Aren't they making money for investors, and buying materials from vendors, and hiring people to do jobs? Or would you prefer that they just cater to your every wish and whim? Making money for investors is not a goal that helps when providing infrastructure service, which inherently has huge barriers of entry.
All the other things you mentioned would be accomplished by a national agency that built the infrastructure and licensed it out to ISPs who wanted to provide service over it, all at lower cost due to the net zero expense goal.
Or would you prefer that these corps suck the life out of the US economy for the next 50 years? |
|
| reply to Sammer
said by Sammer:said by WhatNow:You can thank the Regan Republicans buddies they all wanted to get rich running a Telco company but they found out it was a lot of work even when you leased most of you plant from the real telco companies. Almost everyone of them have failed. The antitrust suit against the old Ma Bell was started before President Reagan was in office and the Clinton Democrat buddies were pretty good at selling out the American Public to their corporate "friends" too. The breakup of Ma Bell was a godsend to the public. |
|
| reply to joebarnhart
said by joebarnhart:said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Oh yeah, that'd fix everything. More government, this time to dictate telecommunications. I guess everyone is really happy with the way FCC is using what little power they have, right? We should give them more power and control of everything? Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that! Why yes, I believe everyone who doesn't worship at the alter of a corporate, fascist government is indeed happy with the way the FCC has used its little power thus far to pressure the incumbents.
A lack of government oversight means oligopoly control of our infrastructure, draining wealth from our nation year after year. How many billions were drained by Verizon and AT&T over the last decade alone? |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Making money for investors is not a goal that helps when providing infrastructure service, which inherently has huge barriers of entry. All the other things you mentioned would be accomplished by a national agency that built the infrastructure and licensed it out to ISPs who wanted to provide service over it, all at lower cost due to the net zero expense goal. Or would you prefer that these corps suck the life out of the US economy for the next 50 years? I'll pass on your bifurcation and leave wondering how on earth you think LTE wireless internet access is going to ruin the economy (while the government, naturally, would make us whole).  |
|
joebarnhartPaxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:A lack of government oversight means oligopoly control of our infrastructure, draining wealth from our nation year after year. How many billions were drained by Verizon and AT&T over the last decade alone? You omitted the fact that the reason the oligopoly even EXISTS is because of government meddling. The answer to government meddling is more government meddling? I reject that.
Governments do not create markets. They do not improve markets. They do not create goods and services. They regulate and distort markets. They erode competition.
Sometimes government meddling is needed. I wonder if distribution networks should be allowed to vertically integrate and be content owners too. I question if companies who refine crude oil into gasoline should be allowed to own the network of stations that sell the product. It creates bastions of non-competitiveness that form barriers to entry for a market and gives the company too much power to price their combined product at monopolistic prices.
But government control of a communications monopoly?!? If AT&T had not been broken up, the internet as it exists today would never have happened. VOIP would never have happened. We'd all be sitting around our 9600 baud modems dialing Compuserve from our overpriced POTS line. |
|
