dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
34
share rss forum feed
« your rewardYa Know... »
This is a sub-selection from Where are the details?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: Where are the details?

One man's "erecting barriers to community broadband" is another man's "leveling the playing field between private and public service providers".

Last time I looked at this I provided detailed posts pointing out that the provisions which were demonized as "killing local municipality broadband" did nothing of the sort. They were things like:

-- the municipality can't subsidize their ISP from other funds or tax streams

-- the municipality must bid out the proposal to see if a private firm can do it cheaper/better

-- the municipality must get voter approval for funding

I didn't find anything anywhere near as onerous as the "OMG!! AT&T lobbyists just killed municipal broadband!!!" scare stories that keep getting posted here.

I could only conclude that a giant bias towards taking broadband away from corporations and giving it to the government was at the core of these slanted (and I'm being kind) stories.

I really don't have time to do this all again. But I am 99% sure this analysis has not changed.

Look, my whole point is... if you think we'd be better off if we did a government takeover of broadband services, SAY THAT and COME WITH AN ARGUMENT. I'm sick and tired of this non-factual sniping.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Where are the details?

Government should do a complete take over of the entire national infrastructure of broadband.

- All people and places fully wired with fiber, there is no red lining and people in the hills get it just as well as the people in the high rise.
- Any and all companies that want to use the service to reach a customer to deliver a service may lease the line to do so.
- Only requires 1 ultra capacity line to be ran to every location.
- Provides for competition which in turn brings innovation up and prices down.

footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

1 recommendation

Re: Where are the details?

said by Skippy25:

Government should do a complete take over of the entire national infrastructure of broadband.

- All people and places fully wired with fiber, there is no red lining and people in the hills get it just as well as the people in the high rise.

Government should give me a free swimming pool, too. And a puppy. I want a puppy.
--
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty - Ronald Reagan

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

Re: Where are the details?

said by footballdude:

said by Skippy25:

Government should do a complete take over of the entire national infrastructure of broadband.

- All people and places fully wired with fiber, there is no red lining and people in the hills get it just as well as the people in the high rise.

Government should give me a free swimming pool, too. And a puppy. I want a puppy.

Maybe the government should completely get out of the internet too, no regulation, no rules, make sure it is 100% private owned and private controled in the United States, make sure every company can have it's own rules and allow or disallow any data they choose from any source they choose. Eliminate any interference from the Government with things concerning monopolies or manipulations of markets. Let private business thrive on their freedom from the government.
--
Say no to JAMS!

HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO

Re: Where are the details?

said by firephoto:

said by footballdude:

said by Skippy25:

Government should do a complete take over of the entire national infrastructure of broadband.

- All people and places fully wired with fiber, there is no red lining and people in the hills get it just as well as the people in the high rise.

Government should give me a free swimming pool, too. And a puppy. I want a puppy.

Maybe the government should completely get out of the internet too, no regulation, no rules, make sure it is 100% private owned and private controled in the United States, make sure every company can have it's own rules and allow or disallow any data they choose from any source they choose. Eliminate any interference from the Government with things concerning monopolies or manipulations of markets. Let private business thrive on their freedom from the government.

Because trusting corporations is a good thing? As if we really need more debate on privacy and such...no thank you. There is no freedom in anything privately owned.
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
When those things become as important to the economic and welfare of the US as the internet has I will be advocating for those as well. But until then, you and your silly little snipes are on your own.

Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
Thats how countries like Korea,Japan and France work and look how great their speeds are compare to us the "free market lover" of the US who have a crappy internet at #14 ...sad

elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
imo your close the fed govt should take it over THEN turn the infrastructure over to the USPS it might make them relevant again
then run the whole thing like Utopia in UT
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Where are the details?

said by elios:

imo your close the fed govt should take it over THEN turn the infrastructure over to the USPS it might make them relevant again
then run the whole thing like Utopia in UT

Yeah that's the ticket. Other candidates: the DMV, the IRS, or TSA. TSA's actually a great example of be careful what you wish for. Do you remember after 9/11 when everyone was, like, No, we can't trust the airports and airlines to contract out airport security? The government can do a MUCH better job. That was then, now see what you got, many billions of taxpayer dollars later for what was actually free to the taxpayers then. Is airport security actually better now? Would federal-government-run broadband be better? It's something to think about.

elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

1 edit

Re: Where are the details?

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by elios:

imo your close the fed govt should take it over THEN turn the infrastructure over to the USPS it might make them relevant again
then run the whole thing like Utopia in UT

Yeah that's the ticket. Other candidates: the DMV, the IRS, or TSA. TSA's actually a great example of be careful what you wish for. Do you remember after 9/11 when everyone was, like, No, we can't trust the airports and airlines to contract out airport security? The government can do a MUCH better job. That was then, now see what you got, many billions of taxpayer dollars later for what was actually free to the taxpayers then. Is airport security actually better now? Would federal-government-run broadband be better? It's something to think about.

you DO know the USPS takes almost 0 tax money from the fed right?
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···_Service
thats the point of giving the USPS control
since they run off there own income and internet service imo is a logical extension of the mail it makes sense

TSA is fed funded the USPS is not
and it would be last mile only and the govt wouldnt be selling it directly it would be set up like Utopia were any ISP can sell service over the net work

also
"The Post Office Department owned and operated the first public telegraph lines in the United States, starting in 1844 from Washington to Baltimore, and eventually extending to New York, Boston, Buffalo, and Philadelphia. In 1847 the telegraph system was privatized, except for a period during World War I, when it was used to accelerate the delivery of letters arriving at night."
from the wiki
again putting the USPS in charge of all last mile data would not be with out line with what the USPS does any way
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Where are the details?

Ooohhh that's even better. The Post Office? Been to one lately? Yeah, there's a model of customer service and efficiency.

Also from the very wikipedia article you referenced:

The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. However, it does receive tens to hundreds of millions per year in "implicit subsidies", such as breaks on property tax, vehicle registration, and sales tax, in addition to subsidized government loans.

elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

Re: Where are the details?

said by MyDogHsFleas:

Ooohhh that's even better. The Post Office? Been to one lately? Yeah, there's a model of customer service and efficiency.

Also from the very wikipedia article you referenced:

The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. However, it does receive tens to hundreds of millions per year in "implicit subsidies", such as breaks on property tax, vehicle registration, and sales tax, in addition to subsidized government loans.

sounds lot like the deal just about any major player gets any more whats your point

ATT and VZN get BILLIONS in tax breaks every year compared the USPS "tens to hundreds of millions per year"
id rather my taxes go to building better internet in the US then bailing out banks and GM
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Where are the details?

What "billions in tax breaks"?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
said by Skippy25:

Government should do a complete take over of the entire national infrastructure of broadband.

Paid for by an individual mandate tax?
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Where are the details?

Sure, divert some of the taxes we currently have to it or create a whole new tax for it. It IS the important to the US.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Where are the details?

Sigh. Shore up existing taxes and reduce the excess yes, but do NOT levy additional taxes.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Government taking property is a bad idea. There's have to be some sort of fair court ruling, where is that going to come from?

CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA
-- the municipality can't subsidize their ISP from other funds or tax streams
*** AT&T is able to subsidize with other revenue streams. In fact, that said revenue they collect goes out of state. Community broadband revenue STAYS in the community along with the jobs it creats

-- the municipality must bid out the proposal to see if a private firm can do it cheaper/better
*** So that said private company can string them a;long and when all is said and done tie it up in court until it costs too much for the locality to proceed.

-- the municipality must get voter approval for funding
*** do you vote when the electric company fixes your power when it goes out? Do you vote when the electric company expannds to new areas. Does AT&T require a vote to expand service, or do they deliver what they promise to do to get these bills through...NO they dont.

Look at Chattanooga and you tell me if 10s of thousands of jobs, fastest internet in the country, Volkswagen, Amazon, high tech jobs, national recognition, quality of life...tell me it those are reasons. I am sure there are more. I am sick of you free market idiots that have no clue what a real free market is...clue...broadband in this country isnt.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: Where are the details?

said by CableConvert:

-- the municipality can't subsidize their ISP from other funds or tax streams
*** AT&T is able to subsidize with other revenue streams. In fact, that said revenue they collect goes out of state. Community broadband revenue STAYS in the community along with the jobs it creates

>>> irrelevant. AT&T is a corporation that reports based on GAAP and they roll up their P&L corporate wide. They can't tax their users like a municipality can. That is why this is a leveling-the-playing-field thing. The whole point is the voters vote a bond or a tax for one thing, don't let the municipality grab it for something else. Comparing a taxed municipal service to a corporations' offerings is complete apples and oranges.

-- the municipality must bid out the proposal to see if a private firm can do it cheaper/better
*** So that said private company can string them a;long and when all is said and done tie it up in court until it costs too much for the locality to proceed.
>>>> can't fix stupid. If the contract sucks and lets the private company screw the municipality, well, they should have written the contract better and managed it better. That's what they are for.

-- the municipality must get voter approval for funding
*** do you vote when the electric company fixes your power when it goes out? Do you vote when the electric company expannds to new areas. Does AT&T require a vote to expand service, or do they deliver what they promise to do to get these bills through...NO they dont.
>>> what the hell are you even talking about. The subject is calling a vote for new bonds or new taxes. The power company doesn't have to issue a bond to fix my power.

Look at Chattanooga and you tell me if 10s of thousands of jobs, fastest internet in the country, Volkswagen, Amazon, high tech jobs, national recognition, quality of life...tell me it those are reasons. I am sure there are more. I am sick of you free market idiots that have no clue what a real free market is...clue...broadband in this country isnt.

>>> so I looked it up found this interesting report
»www.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/···ight.pdf

looks to me like (a) Charlotte and the others in the report did a very nice job (b) I didn't find anything in the report saying that any of these muni fiber projects would have been disqualified by the law passed that we are talking about. it was voted on, it was not cross subsidized, and corporations had their shot .

the whole point is, quit whining about the fact that corporations exist and will stand up and fight, and GO DO YOUR MUNI FIBER FAIRLY AND UNDER THE RULES, and succeed like these towns did.


CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA

Re: Where are the details?

Under this law Chattanooga (not Charlotte) would not have been able to build their network. In fact, because of AT&T and Comcast lobbying cash, EPB cannot expand to include adjacent areas that desperately want the service as put into law after the build out in Chattanooga had started. I think a corporation using the police power of the State to stifle competition on the local level is wrong. These are billion dollar corporations shutting down small municipalities they have no interest in serving right now. If you think thats right, thats your opinion. I dont think its right...neither did the rural areas of GA when they killed SB313 (the clone of the ALEC SC law). This is anti-trust market manipulation by deep pocketed duopolies.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Where are the details?

said by CableConvert:

Under this law Chattanooga (not Charlotte) would not have been able to build their network.

Prove it.

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
Bull, you provide a bunch of points that makes a municipality have to charge at a rate that is equal to or greater than what a nationally subsidized internet provider charges.

Lets talk internet on the good old data phone, I can get a blazing EDGE speed for the low monthly price that someone else gets LTE from the same company. My overpaying for slow service using equipment that has hundreds of spare parts from upgraded services in other parts of the country helps to pay for someone else getting LTE. I don't have any say in level of service I get, I either have it or not so I choose not to.

If I vote my government in, and that government wants to provide me a service, GREAT! I don't care if this one little tiny splinter of market for some multi-billion dollar company cries about it. I don't care if people point out that using power utility money for broadband is unfair because if that's the case then the huge industrial buildings having power probably isn't fair either if they get electricity and not have to pay big huge sums of money up front for the full price of all the electrical equipment needed to serve their huge power load that is normally subsidized.

It's a list of stupid arguments that incites anger in people that are on the fence. "Look, they're taking money out of electricity users pockets to pay for people to watch cat videos!" It's a bunch of crap that satisfies the purpose of crippling any true competition (not business school economics competition) and comes from companies and individuals who never speak the truth about that fact.
--
Say no to JAMS!
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Where are the details?

firephoto read my previous reply for a link to a report where several communities with a can-do attitude did muni fiber following the constraints I mentioned.

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

Re: Where are the details?

said by MyDogHsFleas:

firephoto read my previous reply for a link to a report where several communities with a can-do attitude did muni fiber following the constraints I mentioned.

I don't care if they CAN compete, they are intentionally given artificial hurdles so they have to increase the price of their product. If a municipality can borrow money from another branch of their resources so what. Corporations can float money from an almost endless pool of resources if they really want to and like the muni they have to pay it back eventually.
--
Say no to JAMS!