| And how do you create that competition? »FCC Wants 100 Mbps For 100 MillionIf there's one thing you can be sure of, a truly worthwhile broadband plan would make competition its central theme, given competition organically cures many other problems (net neutrality, abusive pricing). And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished.
Is the way another few $100 billion dollars of taxpayer money and a gov't bureacracy like the TVA from the 1930'?
Tax breaks or subsidies to bribe existing companies to build where economics make it unprofitable(the USF shows how poorly that idea works).
Or the opposite of the above - confiscatory tax rates on the existing telcos to fund a gov't run competing telco?
And vastly expanded USF making everyone pay extra so that rural Idaho potato farmers can get Fios to the farmhouse?
Well, any viable ideas that won't cost the average taxpayer an arm & a leg? |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator?
Or maybe MAGIC BEANS? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished. .... line sharing would be a good start. the Harvard study that recently came out recommended that.
it'll never happen, though, since all govt agencies are currently in the thrall of big business. until that changes, nothing will change, including broadband.
i'm lucky - I have FIOS and make enough money to afford it. I guess my attitude should be "who cares, I got mine!", but that's no way to run a country. |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, said by fAcEtIOUs:{stop there because I agree with that} use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? said by fAcEtIOUs:{and instead return some of the money to the taxpayers in lower taxes; and use the rest to reduce the deficit. The improved economy can then create more investment to start paying for repairing the nations infrastructure - including telco fiber} |
|
|
|
| Creating a better economy through a lower deficit and trickle-down Reagonomics, and then just hoping the nation's networks achieve utopia organically doesn't strike me as very concrete.... |
|
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by fAcEtIOUs:And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished. .... line sharing would be a good start. the Harvard study that recently came out recommended that. Line sharing was tried and it failed. It will always fail unless price controls by the government on the wholesale rates are part of the deal. And price controls have their own downside - investors will take their money out of price controlled companies and go elsewhere. So this becomes unworkable unless government controls are extended to the whole economy. And even then, because the economy is international the US couldn't make it work because the price controls won't extend overseas. |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to nasadude
Competion will not work in this case. It will create islands of incompatability to ensure profit maximization. For example, Comcast would prefer to only allow its subscribers have access to NBC content. If Verizon bought CBS, then you would need Verizon and Comcast to get NBC and CBS. (I know they cannot do this but they would really like to and as it should be).
There should be a combined Wired/Wireless infrastructure that is run as a utility. It just provides the pipes and everyone has access. Then, competion can be at the content level. I think that in many ways, this would make more money for all the companies. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Line sharing wasn't "tried and failed" so much as it was implemented in a half-assed fashion, and then destroyed by a one-two punch of incompetent and corrupt regulators and incumbent ISP lobbyists.
Claiming line sharing was "tried and failed" in telecom historical context would be like telling a kid to go run a hundred yard dash, smashing his kneecaps, and then proclaiming that he tried and failed. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? That might only be a temporary solution. When we no longer have the ability to control and police the vast amounts of resources our nation uses, and we lose our position as a threat to those looking to take these resources for themselves, those trillions of dollars will drop off significantly. It's not that we are really all that powerful, as has been shown on several occasions, it's merely the projection of our perceived power that allows us to dominate many of the international markets and generate such a disproportionate amount of the world's income. We don't manufacturer anything nowadays, and our military might has become increasingly more important to our economic stability. Our dominance has already waned a great deal, and in the end we will most likely be fighting for our survival on someone else's terms if we drop our guard too much. Brush up on your Mandarin. 
I do agree that we have reached the point where we really need to seriously consider providing high speed communications services throughout the nation. Currently, the best option for any infrastructure that could endure the test of time would be a fiber network. We are nowhere near the point where we should be trying to make all rural points across the country have the same level of service as in the middle of a thriving metropolis, but these folks should not be expected to pay taxes and be completely shut out of the loop. There could be other means to compensate rural areas, such as with tax cuts and discounted wireless options, as an example. Perhaps a national Internet tax model based on population density would be appropriate? |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Line sharing wasn't "tried and failed" so much as it was implemented in a half-assed fashion, and then destroyed by a one-two punch of incompetent and corrupt regulators and incumbent ISP lobbyists. said by fAcEtIOUs:I'm assuming, but correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, that if the gov't had set wholesale rates for line sharing, that you think line sharing would have worked. But if the Gov't had set wholesale rates, other financial mechanisms,including the flight of investor money in the telcos, would have killed it.
Something similar has worked in the EU to some extent. But the socialist minded; gov't bureaucracy directed economies of the EU are different from the US system. And that is a whole other msg thread to discuss whether the US economy should be run like some EU economies. |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Claiming line sharing was "tried and failed" in telecom historical context would be like telling a kid to go run a hundred yard dash, smashing his kneecaps, and then proclaiming that he tried and failed. I literally just smashed my knee last weekend
Thanks a lot |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? Or maybe MAGIC BEANS? We can't even do socialized medicine and you want socialized broadband? |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:But if the Gov't had set wholesale rates, other financial mechanisms,including the flight of investor money in the telcos, would have killed it. Most of the telcos are just milking the cash cow until it's dry and aren't investing in anything really new anyway so what difference is investor money in the telcos making now? |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | reply to fifty nine
I'd opt for the magic beans. At least then my farts would smell as bad as our government and the FCC performs. |
|
 joebarnhartPaxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Creating a better economy through a lower deficit and trickle-down Reagonomics... Actually that would be a pretty good start. One enormous problem we have as a country is that we have no capital to lend small innovative businesses to create fiber networks. Companies have to grow on a pay-as-you-grow "self funded" model which slows down fiber rollouts.
Why do we lack capital formation? Two reasons are tax policy and competition for lending with the government to finance the debt. It really would help all Americans if the government would just live within its means and cease micromanaging everybody in the country. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Sammer
Wireless? |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
1. Free up wasted spectrum reserved but unused by broadcasters.
2. Auction off the spectrum but prevent large spectrum holders like Verizon and AT&T from bidding.
I don't think we will have true competition until we get a wireless competitor for the current cable/phone duopoly. |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to Van
said by Van:I literally just smashed my knee last weekend. So, what was your time? 
--
Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green Day.
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
But the government did set the wholesale rates under the linesharing regime and the general UNE-P regime. Rates were set by states, using the TELERIC cost model. And contrary to the historical revision, investment by both CLECs and ILECs increased dramatically in the post-1996 period. |
|
