| |
Os
Member
2012-Jul-25 12:28 pm
Backwards We GoMaybe it's time to have some sort of "use it or lose it" provision for these companies since their lines are in the public right-of-way.
Spend a certain percentage reinvesting in the lines or lose the right to own them. Don't upgrade the copper to fiber? It's ours now. |
|
 swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
1 recommendation |
swintec
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 12:38 pm
said by Os:Spend a certain percentage reinvesting in the lines or lose the right to own them. Don't upgrade the copper to fiber? It's ours now.
Why would "we" want the lines that appear to have no return on investments? If they were worth a damn they would be invested in and upgraded by the phone company. Not sure why you think the government at any level would make them suddenly worthwhile. |
|
 skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
3 recommendations |
skeechan to Os
Premium Member
2012-Jul-25 12:57 pm
to Os
And who would run it, the gov't which mismanages and bankrupts everything they touch? |
|
| |
sparc to Os
Member
2012-Jul-25 1:06 pm
to Os
these companies want to to lose these rural lines. Verizon has already offloaded a bunch. AT&T is the one who couldn't find any takers since they started playing the game late. |
|
| |
to swintec
Telecommunications service is clearly within the public interest.
If the companies who were granted right-of-way and given in many cases with these rural areas funds to invest in them have no interest in providing a viable service, then we can't just let them milk these people for all they're worth as a digital divide sets up.
The government wouldn't take them to monetize them, the government would take control of them to give these people something worth a damn no private company seems interested in doing. |
|
| |
to swintec
AT&T might actually be better off if their most-deteriorated lines are taken by the government using eminent domain.
Eminent domain has favorable tax treatment, in that you can reinvest the proceeds in like property without capital gains taxes. Thus, AT&T could spend the money it receives from losing its worst-performing lines on upgrading its better-performing lines to U-verse.
That's not such a bad outcome, considering that AT&T has been unable to find a private buyer for those lines ... |
|
| |
to swintec
Because towns and regional ISPs would deliver meaningful high speed connection at reasonable prices. That can easily happen without the burden of demands for high ROI from big ISPs. |
|
| |
Agreed. there is one provision that was enacted decades ago by the US government that every residence in the 48 states ( with in reason) should have 2 basic services. 1) telephone line 2) electricity. For 2015 that should be updated to 1)some sort of fiber optic line "as copper is now an outdated standard" 2) electricity. |
|
 NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
to Os
said by Os:Maybe it's time to have some sort of "use it or lose it" provision for these companies since their lines are in the public right-of-way.
Not so everywhere. The utility poles in my old neighborhood are on private property, not public right of ways. |
|
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX |
to tanzam75
said by tanzam75:AT&T might actually be better off if their most-deteriorated lines are taken by the government using eminent domain.
Eminent domain has favorable tax treatment, in that you can reinvest the proceeds in like property without capital gains taxes. Thus, AT&T could spend the money it receives from losing its worst-performing lines on upgrading its better-performing lines to U-verse.
That's not such a bad outcome, considering that AT&T has been unable to find a private buyer for those lines ...
interesting you brought that up.., that could be possible.. wouldnt that mean then the government would run it? (I cant see them expanding it..) |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
to swintec
We are told quite often that they have no return on investment but that is not true. The reason they don't invest in it is because they get more of an ROI on wireless.
While taking their copper is a little extreme, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to stop community development projects. Jcondo8 is absolutely right, the only reason they sue to block such projects is because it will out-sell their capped 4g. Since they are clearly (and vocally) stating they do not want broadband or FIOS (for Verizon) they should loose the right to claim unfair competition. |
|
