dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
487
Kommie2 (banned)
join:2003-05-13
united state

Kommie2 (banned)

Member

Socialism Works!

Muni Broadband/Socialism works. Why would anyone defend the Status Quo is beyond me.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

baineschile

Premium Member

I generally take the stance that government should NOT provide broadband, but that doesnt mean necessarily defending the status quo. I believe there should be less regulations if a private business wants to build a network in a city, but the government can essentially sell at cost, which means they can undercut any line of business they choose to get involved in.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Agreed. I too want competition and I'm not saying no to muni projects. In unserved/underserved areas, muni seems like a good idea but what happens in ten or twenty years when the system ages and needs upgrades/repairs? Will tax payers fund it? Will the muni system be smart enough to charge rates that allow them to save money for future capex improvements?

Most of our country's regulated utilities have done a lousy job of keeping the systems maintained. In my area, we have ridiculous sewer rates because the system is very old and needs lots of improvements to meet clean water standards. The potable pressurized water entering my house costs substantially less than when it leaves. (That's ridiculous!)

Down the road, for profit companies won't compete against muni areas where tax revenues offset costs. There's no way for them to compete fairly.

I also wonder if a muni project could potentially suffer more "filtering" than a private system. Don't underestimate those who believe they are doing good by outlawing certain content/activities/whatever. I agree that some stuff is bad for society and a lot more stuff is bad for children. The challenge is those darned lines. They are always gray.
Angrychair
join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL

1 recommendation

Angrychair to baineschile

Member

to baineschile
There's nothing saying business can't compete with break-even. They just have to offer a product of higher value if they want to make profits.

Or is it you think private businesses should have a right to profits without need for quality?
Kommie2 (banned)
join:2003-05-13
united state

Kommie2 (banned) to rradina

Member

to rradina
Fiber To The Home does not need much maintenance. Once the system is up and running the only thing you have to worry about is downed lines(assuming they are not underground).
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

jagged to rradina

Member

to rradina
should've come to see what happens to Palm Beach County, Florida what happens when the system ages and it doesn't get upgrade.

Comcast is the only game in town, last year when I moved into an apartment I not only got limited HD channels, but the DVR looked like somebody played ball with it. And the on-screen guide was the same guide I had in 2002!

Slacking on upgrades is not exclusive to governments. It took Wilma to hit South Florida for FPL to get off their ass and fix what needed to be fixed
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

rradina

Member

But at least a for-profit company works with the same economics as another for-profit company that might want to enter the area and compete. Once a government competitor is in place and it's business model is partially supported through tax revenues, there won't be many for-profit businesses that want to compete.
rradina

rradina to Kommie2

Member

to Kommie2
It isn't just the fiber in the ground. It's the STBs, PON splitters, CO equipment and repeaters. There's maintenance like anything else and eventual upgrades that will be necessary. SBC, er um AT&T, has been preaching remote DSLAMs to increase coverage of DSL for years. Never has happened because they don't want to spend the money. Luckily the local cable company did spend the money or I still wouldn't have HSI.

Nothing is immune and what is new will eventually be old and need to be replaced. Maybe not the fiber but who knows if the fiber they used was somehow an odd formula that deteriorates more rapidly than expected.

Recently the power company went through the front-half of my subdivision and had to bury new cable because the insulation rotted prematurely and allowed water to penetrate leading to power outages.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No to baineschile

Member

to baineschile
said by baineschile:

I generally take the stance that government should NOT provide broadband, but that doesnt mean necessarily defending the status quo. I believe there should be less regulations if a private business wants to build a network in a city, but the government can essentially sell at cost, which means they can undercut any line of business they choose to get involved in.

So you are against a group of people banding together to provide a service everyone needs by themselves to save money??? At what point of the number of people who join the co-op venture do you say it is unfair???

I see nothing wrong with people using their government (banding together to save money) for something we all need like water, electricity, roads, internet/data/communications.
We can cut out the middle man and save everyone money.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt to rradina

Member

to rradina
Not when you're talking infrastructure. New entrants are at a decided disadvantage to existing players when it comes to build-outs, regardless of ownership.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to baineschile

Member

to baineschile
said by baineschile:

I generally take the stance that government should NOT provide broadband, but that doesnt mean necessarily defending the status quo. I believe there should be less regulations if a private business wants to build a network in a city, but the government can essentially sell at cost, which means they can undercut any line of business they choose to get involved in.

Look. Get this through your head. No financially sane corporation will overbuild a private network where there is already a competitor. The barrier of entry to infrastructure-heavy industries is too high to warrant fighting against an incumbent.

This is basic econ 101. All infrastructure can be handled far more efficiently by a government body. For the love of god, take economics 101.
sonicmerlin

1 recommendation

sonicmerlin to rradina

Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Most of our country's regulated utilities have done a lousy job of keeping the systems maintained.

Oh god shutup. Privatization and deregulation led to the Enron debacle, and you want more of it. Christ what is wrong with you.
sonicmerlin

sonicmerlin to rradina

Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

It isn't just the fiber in the ground. It's the STBs, PON splitters, CO equipment and repeaters. There's maintenance like anything else and eventual upgrades that will be necessary. SBC, er um AT&T, has been preaching remote DSLAMs to increase coverage of DSL for years. Never has happened because they don't want to spend the money. Luckily the local cable company did spend the money or I still wouldn't have HSI.

Nothing is immune and what is new will eventually be old and need to be replaced. Maybe not the fiber but who knows if the fiber they used was somehow an odd formula that deteriorates more rapidly than expected.

The fiber is rated to last for 50+ years. Fiber put in during the 70s is still operating fine. The only equipment that has to be replaced is at the tail ends of the fiber.

Maintenance of a paid off network is very cheap, especially when you're not dealing with steadily oxidizing copper.
sonicmerlin

1 recommendation

sonicmerlin to rradina

Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

But at least a for-profit company works with the same economics as another for-profit company that might want to enter the area and compete. Once a government competitor is in place and it's business model is partially supported through tax revenues, there won't be many for-profit businesses that want to compete.

No one wants to compete on infrastructure. It's called a "natural monopoly". I swear, the lack of education shown on this site makes me sick to my stomach.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
I did say maybe not the fiber but...
rradina

rradina to Oh_No

Member

to Oh_No
I'm certainly not saying I'm against muni if there's no existing provider, no providers can be wooed or the existing provider has some kind of franchise and despite local government arm bending, service stinks and rates are high. However, whenever government *anything* goes in motion, I'm wary that it's ever as good as originally intended. There may be undesired collateral issues such as getting future competitors interested in the area when a government incumbent is in place.
rradina

rradina to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
Hmm. Did I touch a nerve? So because a bunch of crooks at Enron and incompetence in regulated utilities results in bad examples, there's something wrong with me?

So what's YOUR answer smart guy?
rradina

rradina to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
Ah...a smart guy making fun of the dumb guys. Such fun isn't it. So tell me. Why are you here?

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No to rradina

Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

I'm certainly not saying I'm against muni if there's no existing provider, no providers can be wooed or the existing provider has some kind of franchise and despite local government arm bending, service stinks and rates are high. However, whenever government *anything* goes in motion, I'm wary that it's ever as good as originally intended. There may be undesired collateral issues such as getting future competitors interested in the area when a government incumbent is in place.

Many muni projects just build the lines as private companies refuse to install fiber and let private companies use them for service.
Someone still has to have the call center support, backbone providers, billing systems, service techs, and install techs.
Just because a community builds a fiber network does not mean they are hurting private business. In fact building a muni network allows competitors more easily to come in to compete for the phone tech, billing system, backbone connection, install tech jobs, etc.
Call centers could fight for the support contract whereas if the network were private they would not have that opportunity.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Agreed. I too want competition and I'm not saying no to muni projects. In unserved/underserved areas, muni seems like a good idea but what happens in ten or twenty years when the system ages and needs upgrades/repairs?

It's funded the same way as any subscription service is. Operating costs (and that includes upgrades or repairs or expansion) are paid for by the users.