 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to NWOhio
Re: Oops! No, it's not level.
Tell you what. Have them forfeit all their existing infrastructure and networks. So that everyone has zero. NOW it's "level."
What you're saying is "You start at zero, we start already built out, you can't raise funds from the public. Now go succeed, while we bury you. Level!"
Not.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Comcast started out that way. TWC started out that way. The cities can find their own funding and if they can't; well then the network wasn't worth the paper it was planned on. |
|
| reply to KrK
Huh?! The cable companies didn't magic their networks into existence. They build them with money from private investors.
Why would municipalities not have to do it the same way? Just because someone else is already there?! How do you believe that you are making sense?
If cities are increasing taxes or public utility rates JUST to compete with other network providers, that is EXTREMELY wrong.
The other networks can't force anyone to give them money to improve their networks. Yet the municipalities can use the force of tax liens, turning off utilities, or even jail time to help pay for their networks. People can't choose not to pay their taxes and get away with it.
How does that sound like a level playing field to you? |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| The scenario is that a city builds the infrastructure and then private companies all have equal access to it and pay the same rates to provide services over that same network.
OR the people can choose via the ballot box to build and fund a municipal provider if they so wish, unless you want to argue that the will of the people should always come behind the want of a private corporation.
This Federal law is a lobbyist wet dream, designed to hamper, block and prevent cities and towns from building out their own networks even if the people wish it. In other words, it's just more of the Federal Government telling state and local governments how it's going to be, for the good of their campaign contributors. It's wrong, and it's especially wrong when the incumbent won't step up to the plate and deliver the services the people want, but WILL try and stop them from doing it themselves.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to skuv
The cable cos got and still maintain exclusivity from said cities. Telcos have it also. If a city sells bonds and people buy them, what is wrong?
--
BlooMe |
|
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Comcast
| Thank you. All recent power company fiber projects have been funded with either gov't grant money (partially...and private companies got a TON of money from the gov't's broadband stimulus bill so they can't complain) or bonds...or a mix of both.
Also, is cross-subsidy wrong? If so, then why do cablecos (TWC being a big offender) subsidize competitive markets with revenues from non-competitive ones. That's worse than subsidizing fiber connectivity with local power bills (which doesn't happen anyway), wouldn't you think? |
|
| reply to skuv
said by skuv :Huh?! The cable companies didn't magic their networks into existence. They build them with money from private investors.
Why would municipalities not have to do it the same way? Just because someone else is already there?! How do you believe that you are making sense?
If cities are increasing taxes or public utility rates JUST to compete with other network providers, that is EXTREMELY wrong.
The other networks can't force anyone to give them money to improve their networks. Yet the municipalities can use the force of tax liens, turning off utilities, or even jail time to help pay for their networks. People can't choose not to pay their taxes and get away with it.
How does that sound like a level playing field to you?
The cable networks laid their lines when there was no one to compete with. The purpose was to sell CABLE TV, not internet. The ability to sell internet services over those same lines was a fortuitous development for Cable companies.
Competing with an entrenched incumbent in an infrastructure heavy market is nearly impossible due to the massive advantage of scale and cost an incumbent that has already paid off its network has. |
|
| reply to NWOhio
said by NWOhio:Comcast started out that way. TWC started out that way. The cities can find their own funding and if they can't; well then the network wasn't worth the paper it was planned on.
You're lying again.
TWC and Comcast laid cable lines to sell cable TV where no one else was competing. Provision of internet access was a fortuitous turn of events with the emergence of DOCSIS. The cable companies used profits from their cable franchises to finance the buildout of DOCSIS infrastructure.
Competing with an entrenched incumbent whose already paid off their infrastructure is nearly impossible. They have massive price and scale advantages, and can easily bankrupt you with predatory pricing unless you have a bottomless pit of money.
I think you know this, but you just don't care. You worship corporations so dearly for some twisted reason, the idea of people providing service for themselves at the expense of some millionare executives keeps you awake at night with an ache in your heart. |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to iansltx
But there are people in this forum and I am sure you know who (m)they are , that anything done by a muni is evil, will always fail, and screws the telcos and cablecos that screw us.
--
BlooMe |
|
