dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

1 recommendation

reply to Os

Re: Backwards We Go

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.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast
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.

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
reply 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 ...


TriForce

join:2008-05-27
Chico, CA
reply 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.


buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
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 For 2015 that should be updated to 1)some sort of fiber optic line "as copper is now an outdated standard" 2) electricity.

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply 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_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply 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.