rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | This is what everyone wants... To all those that wonder why the government didn't do something about your HSI, this is what you get.
You wanted it. You got it. When will we ALL learn? Life isn't fair. Stop asking your neighbor, who had the good sense to not live in a flood plain, for money to help you rebuild your house that was washed away by the last flood. OK -- I realize this has nothing to do with HSI but the principle is the same. I'm not saying we could have all planned to build houses where there's good HSI but what we need is regulation, not corporate welfare.
If it costs $100/month for HSI because you live in a sparsely populated area of the country, THAT's LIFE! Hey, plenty of folks LIVE closer to work than you do and they don't spend as much on gas, cars and have more free time. Do you want the government to fund rocket sleds to your back door? The government is the people. They don't have any money that doesn't' get sucked from us. When you want the government to do something, you are asking your neighbors.
It's already ridiculous what the rest of us have paid and continue to pay just to provide dial tone to every postage stamp sized town in America. Enough! We need an HSI tea party.
In closing, I'm not saying the FCC or our government doesn't have a role to promote technology. They do and that's good for America. What we don't want is the government funding a regulated monopoly's plight because they made bad business decisions 15 years ago. |
|
|
|
dagg
join:2001-03-25
Galt, CA
2 edits | i both agree and disagree with what you are saying.
government regulations are not going to help much in this situation simply because the telcos are going to (as has already happened in several cases) ask for exemptions and lobby to make those regulations more favorable to them. regulations just arent going to work.
the corporate welfare idea is also a super bad idea simply because we do not need the government spending money to pay for something that these companies should have done on their own.
personally, i think we need to let private industry come in and completely shake up not only HSI by installing fiber (either privately or in conjunction with municipalities at the local level) but also let them shake up a bunch of other stuff by offering other communication services (phone, wireless ect) and while we are at it, lets shake up payTV services such as cable and satellite by letting them provide those services as well and let the market decide what the prices should be.
if we would get the government out of the business of "protecting us to death" and back into the business of actually running, oh i dunno... THE GOVERNMENT... it would be a huge bloody mess for about 5 years and then things would start to shape up with real competition and real options.
i know, im a madman for even suggesting such an idea
/edit for clarity |
|
| said by dagg:i both agree and disagree with what you are saying. government regulations are not going to help much in this situation simply because the telcos are going to (as has already happened in several cases) ask for exemptions and lobby to make those regulations more favorable to them. regulations just arent going to work. the corporate welfare idea is also a super bad idea simply because we do not need the government spending money to pay for something that these companies should have done on their own. personally, i think we need to let private industry come in and completely shake up not only HSI by installing fiber (either privately or in conjunction with municipalities at the local level) but also let them shake up a bunch of other stuff by offering other communication services (phone, wireless ect) and while we are at it, lets shake up payTV services such as cable and satellite by letting them provide those services as well and let the market decide what the prices should be. if we would get the government out of the business of "protecting us to death" and back into the business of actually running, oh i dunno... THE GOVERNMENT... it would be a huge bloody mess for about 5 years and then things would start to shape up with real competition and real options. i know, im a madman for even suggesting such an idea /edit for clarity What "private industry" wants to come in and invest in such a long-term ROI project? And what "market" are you talking about? Have you ever heard of a "natural monopoly"?
You keep using the term "shake up", as if that explains everything all on its own.
The government's job is to promote the general welfare of the populace. Infrastructure buildouts is not something corporations are willing to do, so like rural electricity it seems to me like the laying of fiber should be a government project. |
|
| reply to rradina
The only reason it might cost so much to provide rural bandwidth is because of the duopolistic pricing of middle-mile backhaul. Otherwise it is not so different from suburban or urban provisioning prices. The rest of your points are henceforth asinine. |
|
| said by sonicmerlin:The only reason it might cost so much to provide rural bandwidth is because of the duopolistic pricing of middle-mile backhaul. Otherwise it is not so different from suburban or urban provisioning prices. I think you might want to reconsider that. Backhaul can be a problem in some areas, but it's hardly what's preventing higher speeds from being available in rural areas.
Consider a non-difficult installation area. A recent estimate I saw said to figure about $2000 a mile of capital for fiber or coax. In an urban situation, you might pass 100 homes per mile. That's $20 per home. In a suburban environment, you might pass 20 homes per mile. That's $100 per home. In a rural environment you may be lucky to pass 1 home per mile.
How is that "not so different"? |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to sonicmerlin
I agree and the folks who live in those areas should buy into those coops. If running fiber to everyone's home isn't feasible because there will never be a return on investment, then do WISPs. We have a lot of technology that did not exist when rural telephone and electricity projects were implemented. Let's be smart this time.
My parents live on a farm with no chance of cable TV or DSL. They have satellite TV and a wireless ISP for HSI. It costs them $50/month for up to 500Kbps down and 128Kbps up but whenever I visit, my iPhone connects to their WiFi router and seems to work fine. Can I watch hi-res YouTube videos? No but it beats the heck out of AT&T's EDGE service in the area! |
|
| reply to travelguy
said by travelguy:said by sonicmerlin:The only reason it might cost so much to provide rural bandwidth is because of the duopolistic pricing of middle-mile backhaul. Otherwise it is not so different from suburban or urban provisioning prices. I think you might want to reconsider that. Backhaul can be a problem in some areas, but it's hardly what's preventing higher speeds from being available in rural areas. Consider a non-difficult installation area. A recent estimate I saw said to figure about $2000 a mile of capital for fiber or coax. In an urban situation, you might pass 100 homes per mile. That's $20 per home. In a suburban environment, you might pass 20 homes per mile. That's $100 per home. In a rural environment you may be lucky to pass 1 home per mile. How is that "not so different"? »www.dslprime.com/fiber-news/175-···dropping |
|
| Dropping a little then, but doesn't change the point. |
|
| said by travelguy:Dropping a little then, but doesn't change the point. Yes it does. Your estimates are off, as evidenced by the similar cost of rural vs. urban fiber. Urban fiber especially has its own complexities that add to the cost of deployment, due to the cramped nature of the living quarters and the lack of space in general. Rural households almost all live next to the main road, so it simplifies the installation a bit. |
|
| reply to rradina
I don't know what rock you crawled underneath from but the government isn't the people!!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS MORE LIKE CORPORATIONS!!!!! |
|
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:I agree and the folks who live in those areas should buy into those coops. If running fiber to everyone's home isn't feasible because there will never be a return on investment, then do WISPs. We have a lot of technology that did not exist when rural telephone and electricity projects were implemented. Let's be smart this time. My parents live on a farm with no chance of cable TV or DSL. They have satellite TV and a wireless ISP for HSI. It costs them $50/month for up to 500Kbps down and 128Kbps up but whenever I visit, my iPhone connects to their WiFi router and seems to work fine. Can I watch hi-res YouTube videos? No but it beats the heck out of AT&T's EDGE service in the area! Actually even during rural electrification people were experimenting with wind farms. The point is this swiss-cheese method of upgrading the US results in gross inefficiencies. Unless we upgrade everyone at the same time we won't reap the benefits of next-gen communications technology.
In fact if you look at India, where rural electrification is highly decentralized, you see immediately how inefficient and ineffective it has been in many instances. A lack of central planning has resulted in a waste of resources on obsolete technology, and a dependence on coal provided from essentially one state. It's a mess. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to sonicmerlin
You are kidding about that "main road" business, aren't you? I guess you need to define rural America. Missouri has lots and lots of gravel roads. Are those main roads? Heck, I cannot even get AT&T to offer U-Verse and I'm only mile from Interstate 64 in a heavily urbanized area. If they don't want to run fiber to a node at the entrace to the subdivision and stretch revenue out of the tired old copper in our subdivision, how in the world can we justify running a mile of fiber down a gravel road to serve six houses? |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to Tron4Net
»www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/w···nts.html
The government is the people and the people pay for most everything in this country, not the corporations. If your local state or federal representative or senator isn't voting the way you want them to vote, vote someone else in office next time...even if it's the "wrong" party, whatever that is. |
|
| Our votes don't amount to didly sqwuat anymore! Corporations have been taking over. The people "really" don't vote for the president, the electoral college does. Why do you think there are so many lobbyist in Washington? Are they there for the people? No! They are there for the companies. A government for the people, by the people, is a fasad, both the Democrats and Republicans are causing more problems than they are fixing. Too many Americans are still losing their jobs and their homes. Something has to happen for the better. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I agree but voting is the only tool we have. You can bet if everyone voted for someone who was not affiliated with the two major parties, it would be like a revolution.
We can change things with our vote. So I think the responsibility falls on "we the people" to change things.
What other peaceful option do we have? |
|
| Your right! I like to see at least 2 more new political parties. I like choice and like to see more political parties fight for my vote. I really want to see our country move forward!! |
|
