dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
15
share rss forum feed
« Don't confuse me with the facts.
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from rly?


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

Re: rly?

said by amigo_boy:

We didn't do that in the '50s and '60s with the Interstate Highway System. Why should we do it now?

Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else."

Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. The highways themselves are currently paid for by their users through the form of gas taxes and other driver-specific fees. This cannot be said about these locally-run networks, which always have to siphon fees from another service that more people use, or are taxpayer-subsidized.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

1 recommendation

I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds?



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

said by talz13:

I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds?

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

Ok, that explains the public funding aspect. Thanks for the explanation!


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?

In this case, it's not an extreme. It's a long-term infrastructure investment which, if left to the private market, tends to become a monopoly. Which is what would have happened if interstate highways had been held to the same standard.

said by pnh102:

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose.

Obviously that's not its primary purpose. Given how auto manufacturers lobbied for passage of the Interstate Highway Act, and how the interstate highways are used for private purposes, it has a much larger private purpose.

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle. For example, moving telecom out of the analog era, freeing up resources to be used for new technologies, redeploying taxes and fees (as well as finite radio spectrum).

It's still not clear why broadband shouldn't be viewed as a long-term infrastructure investment like highways, sewer, water, telephone and electric.

Those latter two items you'll say are private business. But, even those are public utilities. Subject to far more social oversight and planning than a typical investor-motivated business.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

said by pnh102:

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose.

Obviously that's not its primary purpose.

...

So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function.
said by amigo_boy:

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle.

The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone.

You'll say the latter three were private business not backed by taxpayer bonds. But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function.

Broadband would continue to have a similar tangential defense function.

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle.

The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?

Yes. Moving people away from legacy telecom redeploys taxes/fees to other areas which compete with defense spending. Delivering broadcast entertainment over broadband frees up airwaves which could be used by defense and early responders.

You're not seeing the same tangential relationship as the Interstate Highway Act ('50s and '60s) because you've accepted the IHA as "the new baseline." But, everything else... "no, no! it's socialism!"


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

said by pnh102:

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone.

You're absolutely right. We've see in many situations where these services were provided by the government that the "borrow now, reborrow later" approach taken by many state and local and local governments has come back to haunt taxpayers. Many states, such as Illinois and California, have used this approach for decades to fund public works and now their residents are being screwed with higher taxes simply to pay the interest on bonds that were used to finance public works projects undertaken years ago.
said by amigo_boy:

But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.

At the very least a person who feels that rates are too high can tell a provider they've had enough and are no longer willing to pay for the service. This cannot happen with a government-funded project.
said by amigo_boy:

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

Shrug. So to sum up, in your view, everything should be done by the government.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?

Yes, I think many would support that.

But, we have to be clear. It's not a "free market" solution. We're giving a monopoly to a business. We would just go further and recognize it is a monopoly and control its capital expenditures to ensure they serve society's interests, review its operating expenses to ensure they aren't excessive, and set rates so an appropriate "profit" is made.

Similar to society funding and building the infrastructure (and having trouble repaying bonds), this heavily socialized business could have the same problem and raise rates.

We're not talking about something vastly different. With a public utility, we just give the illusion that it's a business and we kept government small. In reality, society became a controlling partner with business.

But, I think that would address most of what people are clamoring for.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Shrug. So to sum up, in your view, everything should be done by the government.

Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?

As you enjoy just about everything done by government to various degrees?


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?

Yes, we should they do in Somalia.

The fact is this. Our local governments are barely capable now of running the public services they are currently tasked with running. They routinely complain about there being no money to pay for things likes police, firefighters, schools, libraries and other "vital" services.

Is adding broadband to that to-do list, especially when there is supposedly no money to pay for, a good idea? Is borrowing the money a good idea?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

2 recommendations

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?

Yes, we should they do in Somalia.

Don't blame me for your logic. You were the one who introduced the reasoning that government should do everything because all services must be the same. (An attempt to evade the topic, which involves how not all services are the same.).

said by pnh102:

The fact is this. Our local governments are barely capable now of running the public services they are currently tasked with running. They routinely complain about there being no money to pay for things likes police, firefighters, schools, libraries and other "vital" services.

The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.

said by pnh102:

Is adding broadband to that to-do list, especially when there is supposedly no money to pay for, a good idea? Is borrowing the money a good idea?

I think it is. As I said, it could redeploy taxes and fees to new technologies that advance productivity and economic output. Redeploy labor to more economic jobs (and consumption habits). Release airwaves for more economically valuable use.

Similar to how the Interstate Highway Act facilitated more economic activities -- than people traveling on two-lane highways.

You'll argue that playing WoW isn't an economic activity. I'll point out how family vacations aren't either. But, they are part of a larger shift in consumption habits that are enabled by more economic infrastructure.

The inability of the economy to rebound could have something to do with how we haven't invested in infrastructure. Pointing to budget problems may be looking at the symptom and ignoring the cause. Like walking into the home of a diabetic, seeing insulin, and concluding insulin causes diabetes.

There are boxes. And there are those who think inside, and outside.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.

And as we're seeing with the current fiscal mess in which most governments find themselves, this is absolutely a true statement of fact. Adding more responsibilities to government will only exacerbate this fiscal mess.

If you want to continue arguing against reality, by all means, go for it. It won't make your arguments any less invalid.
said by amigo_boy:

The inability of the economy to rebound could have something to do with how we haven't invested in infrastructure.

What are you talking about? We just borrowed and spent nearly $1 trillion in federal funds to supposedly build out new roads, highways, bridges and other things. If this argument was sound, our economy would be in a very strong recovery now.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.

And as we're seeing with the current fiscal mess in which most governments find themselves, this is absolutely a true statement of fact.

Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have invested in sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone?

Do you have any idea what the economy would have been like if we lived in your perfect world?

Welcome to the irrelevant fringe (again).

said by pnh102:

What are you talking about? We just borrowed and spent nearly $1 trillion in federal funds to supposedly build out new roads, highways, bridges and other things. If this argument was sound, our economy would be in a very strong recovery now.

(Chuckle). Bonds are normally 30 years for a reason. Long-term capital expenditures have long-term pay back. They don't show results overnight. And, particularly not 30 years worth of results.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have invested in sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone?

Did I?

I love how you always change the subject when you lose an argument. It is cute.

Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?

said by amigo_boy:

They don't show results overnight. And, particularly not 30 years worth of results.

Shrug. I guess we need to borrow and spend $2 trillion then. Maybe even $10 trillion. That will get the economy going again.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by pnh102:

Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?

Can you prove that the same reasoning didn't apply when societies faced the perplexing question of whether to build water, sewer, roads, electric, gas, etc?

Obviously, it is my opinion that it would have been much better to do this in 2007 when there was more tax revenue to fund it. We'd also be that much closer to obtaining the benefits.

Your position is that we shouldn't have done it then either.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by pnh102:

Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.

Ditto. I've explained how broadband is ubiquitous and a necessary component to life, the economy, etc. Like water, sewer, roads, etc., it is not well served by leaving it to so-called "free-market" forces.

Your response is "well, you must want government to do everything."

When I turn that around on you, to show how you enjoy a lot of things which the government does, and obviously don't want the government to do nothing you claim that I've changed the subject.

I guess we'll have to let viewers form their own opinions about the merit of each of our arguments. I appreciate having the opportunity to show yours for what I believe they are.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?

This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"???

It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason.
--
Say no to JAMS!


Wowsers

@208.22.12.x
reply to pnh102

Serves a legitimate national defense purpose?

Really?

When was the last time you saw massive convoys of military vehicles roaming the Interstates to move equipment?

Damn, the longest convoy I've ever seen on the Interstate was maybe 10 vehicles long.

That's some purpose of national defense!

There are service providers in these smaller towns who aren't really providing because they just don't make money. If the cities are willing to spend tax dollars to provide a quality service that the residents gain from, why should you care?



srsly

@sdsc.edu
reply to pnh102

So, just for the sake of clarity, you feel it is the roll of each state to dictate how municipalities spend their local tax revenues as well as limiting the scope of bond initiatives? Does this idea scale and does it match your ideology, at scale?



FireJack

@bellsouth.net
reply to pnh102

you have tried to lead this discussion in a useless direction

the argument here should not be about whether local communities can decide to run infrastructure. that is up to them, not you.
worry about your own community, not someone else's.

the constructive argument here is why corporations are suing to maintain their control and whether they should be able to dictate how a community wants to run itself.

it doesnt matter if the local govt will run it poorly. it is completely beside the point.

what matters is that the people can choose for themselves and corporations not being able to tell an entire community what they can and cant do by using the corrupt political and justice system.

your argumentative red herring has no bearing on anything at all except to distract from the real issue.



REAL PATRIOT

@charter.com
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

At the very least a person who feels that rates are too high can tell a provider they've had enough and are no longer willing to pay for the service.

Really... If it is the ONLY GAME ALLOWED IN TOWN? I think not...

said by pnh102:

Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?

This is why there has to be more taps allowed to come into the home... THE cable and Phone Companies wish to control the traffic that flows through their pipelines.... NOT JUST PROVIDE THE PIPELINE....


Real Patriot

@charter.com
reply to pnh102

With your reasoning, ANY RURAL AREA WHERE IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY TO RUN AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE, THE POPULATION CAN JUST GET BENT.....Man I will be so glad when you and your kind are relegated to the scrap heap of history...



JakCrow

join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

1 recommendation

reply to firephoto

said by firephoto:

said by pnh102:

Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?

This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"???

It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason.

And why is a state government shilling for and passing a law for the benefit of less than a handful of private corporations? Why aren't these corporations competing on their own merits? Talk about no "free market".


Dougbdl

@comcast.net
reply to pnh102

So you are now against municipal bonds? It may be easier for you to mention the things you like.



toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

said by Dougbdl :

So you are now against municipal bonds? It may be easier for you to mention the things you like.

Bonds usually equal 'lack of planning' for the long run.


Simoom

@rr.com
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?

Let's take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run nothing: like Somalia, but with nicer cars and nukes! Actually, those are both ridiculous straw men and we don't have to carry (distort) everything to "logical" extremes. We're talking about a community, many communities, which are not being served by the status quo, a status quo quite obviously dominated by corruption which you seem to be blindly (or not) content defending. And as other people pointed out, the status quo doesn't even resemble a free market, so why the hell not have it be run by the government, at least then people will have some semblance of democratic oversight to make up for the lack of competitive forces.

Besides, if you want to take objective reality to "logical extremes," everything already is run by the government: the government sets the legal framework and definitions under which everything operates and assigns property rights. As a democratic society we are wise to allow many things to be individually owned and operated, but it'd be a horrible choice to let other things, like police, healthcare, and regulation. If it doesn't freaking work as a free market (and many things don't), making it public isn't going to make baby Jesus cry - only the corrupt shills like you who won't get to make money at society's expense are crying.

said by pnh102:

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. The highways themselves are currently paid for by their users through the form of gas taxes and other driver-specific fees. This cannot be said about these locally-run networks, which always have to siphon fees from another service that more people use, or are taxpayer-subsidized.

An informed and connected citizenry doesn't serve a legitimate national defense purpose? Or are you just referring to the legitimate national defense of the governing and wealth-holding class from the rest of the nation?