how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
604 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Core0000Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY Reviews:
 ·New Wave Communi..
| Then what? This whole, lets bring broadband to everyone.. bit bothers me.
How about, lets just bring it to the people who actually want it.
I think bringing something to people who don't care for it, aren't willing to pay the price for it is stupid.
It seems like there are a lot of idiots when it comes to the cost of doing business. Oh, I only want to pay 20 dollars for said service... What if there are 40 dollars worth of expense? Then what? | |
|   tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: Then what? I have to agree
A} you can't force companies to serve beyond their planned market/buildout (in some cases additional buildout can be a REQUIREMENT for permission to build X/use the RoW)
B} You can't make people who don't need/can't afford/don't understand broadband/internet use it... nor should they be forced to pay for it (At least not directly...We all will pay for tax law changes/subidies to promote "universal" coverage in one way or another... It is reasonable for the public to pay for SOME of the cost which may promote the future economy, , not reasonable to pay for exclusive BB to John Q. Billionaire remote hideaway/neighborhood/etc.
C} Making a service area TEMPORARILY profitable (subsidizing service in "likely" low take rate areas) is a dead end, subsidizing AVAILABILITY in low take rate areas is OK, (end user MAY pay a much higher cost per month to recoup the remaining install/ service/maintenance cost) (needs to be calculated in the sustainability/cost analysis)
Expect/forcing companies to buildout beyond a reasonably profitable area, would eventually kill investment and hurt ALL future BB/internet advancement
Don't write off seniors (all of use who survive long enough will get there eventually,) as a consultant, I've seen some of the most capable/focused BB users (up to 94+) and some of the most confused/overconfident (down to 10 or less) and that will be a growth market from now on (ie Don't underbuild, just because it's just a bunch of old farts there now) | |
| | Core0000Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY Reviews:
·New Wave Communi..
| Re: Then what? You made me think about something with your reply... its a different thing all together, in content, but in context its kind of the same.
A project was recently run... well thats what I call it. An airport was set up locally, and was funded by tax money. Guess what happened when it stopped being funded by tax payer money? IT couldn't exist. It recently just shut down. And it only lasted a short while. I'd say it lasted a few years max. | |
| | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| Re: Then what? said by Core0000:You made me think about something with your reply... its a different thing all together, in content, but in context its kind of the same. A project was recently run... well thats what I call it. An airport was set up locally, and was funded by tax money. Guess what happened when it stopped being funded by tax payer money? IT couldn't exist. It recently just shut down. And it only lasted a short while. I'd say it lasted a few years max. Good example! Airports are essentially unnecessary, and the Internet is essentially necessary. Some airports are necessary, of course, for military purposes, but overall, airports are just mass transit for baby boomers, a mass themselves, that doesn't really know what to do with themselves for the most part. None of their travel is necessary: they can either watch it on TV or in National Geographic, or they can have a meeting using communications.
However, try to do pretty much anything today in the modern world without Internet, starting from scratch (I mean, you don't own a home, car, the money to buy them, etc..) How are you going to get to a position of having those things?
Since airports are unnecessary, as soon as they aren't subsidized, the market quickly lets them close (and to whatever extent they weren't built to last, to rot) as they should. Why would the market support an airport, except for the occasional large-regionally supported set, and of course those meant for national military capabilities (which requires taxation)? Airports other than those are essentially unnecessary, and the market responds to that quite nicely when let to do its job. The market needs regulation, but keeping airports open with taxation is hardly a place where the market needs regulation. We should definitely not subsidize non-military airports. | |
| | | |  StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Then what? withdrawn | |
| | | | StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Optimum Voice
2 edits | said by Ulmo:Good example! Airports are essentially unnecessary, and the Internet is essentially necessary. Some airports are necessary, of course, for military purposes, but overall, airports are just mass transit for baby boomers, a mass themselves, that doesn't really know what to do with themselves for the most part. None of their travel is necessary: they can either watch it on TV or in National Geographic, or they can have a meeting using communications. I honestly hope you're being sarcastic, as otherwise your priorities are a bit skewed to say the least.
I'm wondering what you would have told my best friend's wife when she needed to go to Goodyear, AZ from where we live in NY to treat a very stubborn skin cancer? Sure there are doctors in NYC, plenty of good ones, but as I understand it, her family live nearby and she wanted to have all-around care and the support from her family. As you know cancer has to be fought not only with strictly medical treatments. One's mindset has a lot to do with recovery. So you'd have her what? Hitchhike across the country? Take buses? Drive w/ fear of seizures? Take a course over the net on treating cancer? 
The last time I checked, we had no other "mass transit" cross-country system to fall back on.
"They don't know what to do with themselves." ... What makes you have such a low opinion of people, especially baby boomers?
I argue that infact they know exactly what to do with themselves. A) Raise their children / grandchildren B) Work C) Consume like a good capitalist and D) Hope that the government promises made to them over the years in terms of SSI and Medicare are still being honored when they retire. E) [optional] See if Walmart is hiring more senior citizen greeters...
Don't get me wrong, I dislike airports and gas-guzzling poluting airplanes, but if you look at modern Jets like the 767 and 777, they are a heck of a lot cleaner than the old DC8's and DC9s were. And often there aren't many realistic alternatives to flying.
Seems to me, that if I have no nefarious plans and I can afford the ticket, I should be able to travel whenever I feel like it to wherever I prefer. And I'm a middle class guy, who at most takes a trip with his family once a year or every two years. Yes we could take a cruise to reach there, but you ever tried wrangling three under 10y/o kids? But this economy may put a stop to the traveling...
I do really hope you were speaking in jest, because I can't imagine someone would say the net is more important than RL travel. When tele-presence and full immersion is a reality, then perhaps it may replace most leisure and a good deal of business travel. But we aren't exactly there yet.
And I don't want people who need to travel somewhere for a medical reason to be told "airports are unnecessary - the internet is more important!" Baah - Completely unrealistic - skewed perspective.
IMO until this country commits itself to building a world class high speed rail system, airports will remain a necessary evil.
--
Regards,
Dave | |
| | | | Core0000Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY Reviews:
·New Wave Communi..
| I'm not for sure if you were being sarcastic... or serious. (It's hard to get that on the internet)
Anyways, I was just talking about a local airport to clarify. And I am not against airports in any fashion.
I am just against you know, artificial growth. Its like a magic trick, one moment your on top of the world, a few years later you have the ground pulled out from under you. (Figuratively speaking) Its crazy.
Lesson learned on being more specific. | |
|
| | | | Yep. Just like the fake economy they are propping up as we speak. One day very soon they will be forced to stop printing money out of thin air. Plant your backyard vegetable garden now before you get caught with your pants down..
--
GIT R DONE | |
|
| | said by Core0000:This whole, lets bring broadband to everyone.. bit bothers me. How about, lets just bring it to the people who actually want it. I think bringing something to people who don't care for it, aren't willing to pay the price for it is stupid. It seems like there are a lot of idiots when it comes to the cost of doing business. Oh, I only want to pay 20 dollars for said service... What if there are 40 dollars worth of expense? Then what? Why build roads to everyone's doorstep? Why bring electricity to even rural homes?
What you don't understand is the long-term benefit to technological innovation of building out infrastructure.
And cost is not an issue. They're selling WIMAX in India for $5/month. | |
|
| |
|
