dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
891
share rss forum feed

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

1 edit

Typical BBR article

Once again, Karl isn’t happy with anything. A government entity makes concessions with a company so they can be a part of a huge investment benefiting a large number of people, and it is portrayed in a negative way.

From the article: “A few weeks back we noted how Google's franchise deal with Kansas City for Google Fiber was a particularly sweet arrangement.” - So…..I guess it would have been better if Goggle would have been given very strict, limited terms so as to make it not as beneficial a proposition for Google so they would possibly take their business to another area.

From the article: “Not only does the deal allow Google to walk away from the build in two years if things aren't going well, it allows Google the right to cherry pick markets as they see fit without penalty.” - God forbid that Google invest this money in an area and still try to make sure that they aren’t going to lose money. I always love the term “cherry pick.” Cherry picking is a whiney, negative way of saying a company chose to first go into an area that is initially more beneficial in which to do business, thereby protecting all of the stakeholders in the critical beginning of the venture. So is it better that the company, offering a new, very well wanted service, should immediately jump into areas that are more likely to give losses?

From the article: “To have their city chosen Kansas City was willing to make these concessions, which tells you everything you need to know about how KC (and the thousands of applying cities not selected) felt about the quality of existing services.” - Yes, Kansas City was willing to give concessions, and they are getting a good thing from it, what is the problem?

I love this one: “they didn't get the memo informing them that the free market has failed the majority of the United States broadband market in stellar fashion, resulting in slow, over-priced services in the majority of communities nationwide.” – According to whom? So areas that are not profitable should be forced to have the same service as more profitable areas? This country has a lot of rural areas, and ghettos. Or is it that the taxpayers are supposed to get on the hook for a fully government ran internet service? That would be great, kind of like the well-oiled machine that is the US Postal Service.

Alex J

@sunwave.com.br

Re: Typical BBR article

A government entity makes concessions with a company so they can be a part of a huge investment benefiting a large number of people, and it is portrayed in a negative way.

Seems like you didn't read the article. Google Fiber is a good thing. What's being portrayed in a negative way is the hypocrites who are cheering this as a "free market success" when it's actually a public/private success story.

...is it that the taxpayers are supposed to get on the hook for a fully government ran internet service

I miss where the article even mentions this. Let me guess: investing in infrastructure is evil, but multi-trillion dollar wars are a-ok.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

2 recommendations

Re: Typical BBR article

I did read the article; hence I have quotes in it specifically saying what was said that I take issue with. Speaking of reading, did you read what preceded my comments you just replied to? My issue is that Karl is still whining about the terms on this public/private "success." He still whines about what he sees as the “sweetheart deal.” He still whines about them being allowed to “cherry pick” and pull out in two years. Evidently these were needed to make it worth Google while to build in their area.
In your second "rebuttal," government isn't doing much more than making some concessions on regulatory requirements. Google is building this network, not Kansas City and surrounding governments. Basically, their agreement is allowing them to build in a more pristine regulatory environment closer to what would be in place in a truly “free market.” So, how is it hypocritical for conservatives to say this is a good example of free market; the biggest thing the government is contributing in this case is getting a little more out of the way.

Alex J

@apexcovantage.com

Re: Typical BBR article

I like how you put "rebuttal" in quotes! It's almost like you're making a coherent argument!

how is it hypocritical for conservatives to say this is a good example of free market.

1. Google Fiber wouldn't exist if the free market hadn't failed.

2. Google Fiber is a public/private enterprise, not purely private, thus not the definition of pure free market.

This is not recombinant gene technology here.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

The free market has failed? It really hasn't been tried in the past. However, if we have had really tried the free market in the past, how is it a failure? Is it a failure just because you don't like what you got? Or, I guess it is a failure because we don't all have the same access, some people have slower, some faster. Guess what, that is life! The free market has failed in the past because we don’t all have the same thing regardless of living in the real world I guess.


I love this: “Google Fiber is a public/private enterprise, not purely private, thus not the definition of pure free market.” So, giving them some concessions makes it a private/public partnership. That makes it a case of where the local government simply stepped out of the way enough to make it benefit Google. That emulates free more than most other things have. I also think of it like this, even if you consider these "concessions" subsidies, the company was smart enough to know to take advantage of it. Google could have succeeded without it if they aren't forced to service areas that don't benefit their bottom line. Ohh...that's right, this would constitute a failure in your world.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom
Also, not to forget this: "is it that the taxpayers are supposed to get on the hook for a fully government ran internet service" - Yes, I mean that.

You said: “I miss where the article even mentions this. Let me guess: investing in infrastructure is evil, but multi-trillion dollar wars are a-ok.” Maintaining a military is one of the main, constitutional roles of government and the money they take in. The liberals on here, including you obviously, who are always whining, are always ok with government taking over any market. Why would this be any different?

By the way, defense or offence against tyrants is always a-ok! But, to liberals, they are the only thing that it seems should never be allowed.

Alex J

@apexcovantage.com

Re: Typical BBR article

The liberals on here, including you obviously, who are always whining, are always ok with government taking over any market. Why would this be any different?

Well, I'm not necessarily liberal (thanks for asking) I just stayed in school and don't base my world view on crap books by Ayn Rand.

By the way, defense or offence against tyrants is always a-ok!

Got it, yeah. Trilions on war and building Iraq bridges is moral and wise, but spending money on our own infrastructure and education is evil. I'm afraid that position never stops giving me a good belly laugh.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

"Well, I'm not necessarily liberal (thanks for asking) I just stayed in school and don't base my world view on crap books by Ayn Rand." - Who mentioned Ayn Rand? By the way, I have a computer science degree, seems like I stayed in school as well.

"Got it, yeah. Trilions (SIC) on war and building Iraq bridges is moral and wise, but spending money on our own infrastructure and education is evil. I'm afraid that position never stops giving me a good belly laugh." - What makes you laugh is up to you, it doesn’t have to be anything that is worth laughing at. However, leftists are always giving lip service for doing for others, Iraq needed bridges too. You may think Saddam Hussein was such a swell guy, but believe it or not, before we invaded, they had some crappy infrastructure already. Believe it or not, all that oil, and many were suffering then too. That is what a tyrant will do for you. However, I will agree with anyone who says that we should never do anything for a Middle Eastern country again. You can’t force a better way of life on anyone I guess. Look at what our welfare system, or L.B.J’s Great Society has done.

How did education get dragged into this? An education can be accomplished without the internet, hard to believe huh? No one on the right even begins to say that we don’t need to spend on education, but let’s not waste more money putting good after bad like we have done by the billions since the Department of Education was founded. We have spent an ever increasing amount of money on education, and are getting dropped more and more down the list of educational rankings worldwide.

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

Re: Typical BBR article

Enough.

What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with what the article is even addressing.

If you are going to troll, go somewhere else. I'm not going to attack anyone in this comment section, but I'm tired of seeing particular posts that indicate that we just want more handouts. I realize that money is more important than the well being of others, and I'm sure that there are a few people here who think the same way.

Nobody is going to take your money. The only one who is taking your money is the government. You can blame the poor all you want, but in the end, it's the government. If you want to bitch, then bitch about the government and about how this country has never thrived on a "free market" since its existence.

When you want to step out of theoretical and ideal situations, and join the big boys in the real world, then tell me if you still feel the same way.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

"I realize that money is more important than the well being of others"
Speak for yourself buddy. However, look how much money we have thrown at others, and there is still people whining. I have to say thanks for telling me that I am making good point, when you say things like "money is more important than the well being of others," it shows you can't win intellectually, so you have to lash out.

"What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with what the article is even addressing."
It doesn't have to. I am pointing out that Karl and others are going to whine if Google, or any others, have the freedom to run the business in a way that they need to in order to protect their investment. However, I have also commented on the fact that there is no hypocrisy in saying that this is the private sector working. The concessions by the local government are a way of it stepping, at least somewhat, out of the way by easing on BS regulations that would hinder such a project, or at least make it so much more expensive that it wouldn’t be worth doing.

“When you want to step out of theoretical and ideal situations, and join the big boys in the real world, then tell me if you still feel the same way.”
That is one heck of a thing for you to say. You are in the world of thinking we can all have the best of everything if the government just forces it to happen by taking from others. Guess what, that has never happened. Talk about theoretical. I have been in the real world and paying taxes for a long time. I have a good job and busted my butt to get an education, not wanted the government to take from someone else to provide the same to me that everyone else has.

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

Re: Typical BBR article

"Speak for yourself buddy. However, look how much money we have thrown at others, and there is still people whining. I have to say thanks for telling me that I am making good point, when you say things like "money is more important than the well being of others," it shows you can't win intellectually, so you have to lash out."

Is that so? I'm lashing out? I have absolutely no EARTHLY idea where you are getting that from, your argument is based on the premise that the poor are figuratively stealing money right from your wallet, which isn't true. My statement wasn't lashing out. You came in this forum, attacked the author of said article about the way he writes, and you don't expect someone to poke a hole in your logic? Please.

"It doesn't have to. I am pointing out that Karl and others are going to whine if Google, or any others, have the freedom to run the business in a way that they need to in order to protect their investment. However, I have also commented on the fact that there is no hypocrisy in saying that this is the private sector working. The concessions by the local government are a way of it stepping, at least somewhat, out of the way by easing on BS regulations that would hinder such a project, or at least make it so much more expensive that it wouldn’t be worth doing."

Then why are you saying anything in the first place if it has nothing to do with *this* article? I read what you said, and I stand by what I said.

"That is one heck of a thing for you to say. You are in the world of thinking we can all have the best of everything if the government just forces it to happen by taking from others. Guess what, that has never happened. Talk about theoretical. I have been in the real world and paying taxes for a long time. I have a good job and busted my butt to get an education, not wanted the government to take from someone else to provide the same to me that everyone else has. "

And so have I. Now that we have established this, and that you understand that a free market doesn't exist, then what exactly do you have left to stand on?
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

Whoa.....you can say a lot and say absolutely nothing!

You said: "Is that so? I'm lashing out? I have absolutely no EARTHLY idea where you are getting that from, your argument is based on the premise that the poor are figuratively stealing money right from your wallet, which isn't true."

Not directly, they have political accomplices in the government that do, by way of voting for those who tell them they will steal for them, a.k.a. Democrats.

If you don't know where I get saying you are lashing out, then you don't have a clue anyway! You can't read the garbage you wrote before and see that?



You said: "Then why are you saying anything in the first place if it has nothing to do with *this* article? I read what you said, and I stand by what I said."

I have the freedom to make an observation about the contents don't I? Why shouldn't I point out something if I feel it is relevant, which it is. I am pointing out the liberal slant of what Karl writes since it affects the content of so many tjings posted here.


You said: "then what exactly do you have left to stand on?"


Stand on for what? I guess I can stand on the fact that if the government gets out of the way, a business will be willing to invest more in an area. That IS what happened in this case. The KC metro government backed off on regulations, and got something in return.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
The problem with cherry picking is that it takes taxed dollars from everyone, and uses it to help the more privileged areas. Suppose Pennsylvania gave Verizon a billion dollars by taxing everyone. FIOS started in the high income areas, and then?

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

You said: “The problem with cherry picking is that it takes taxed dollars from everyone, and uses it to help the more privileged areas”. Well, the more privileged areas are paying more in the first place. They are paying higher property taxes, more income tax, buying more goods and therefore spending more in sales tax. Furthermore, they are more likely to be able to make the enterprise more profitable and therefore protecting the taxpayer investment if done

You said: “Suppose Pennsylvania gave Verizon a billion dollars by taxing everyone. FIOS started in the high income areas, and then?” Has this been done? If so, then going to an area with a better possible return on investment is the best thing.

ih8frontier

@comcastbusiness.net

Re: Typical BBR article

said by caseywor:

Well, the more privileged areas are paying more in the first place. They are paying higher property taxes, more income tax, buying more goods and therefore spending more in sales tax. Furthermore, they are more likely to be able to make the enterprise more profitable and therefore protecting the taxpayer investment if done

Here we have it in a nutshell.... Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. Let the poor neighborhoods subsidize the rich neighborhoods. The poorer areas will be never guaranteed to get FTTP, but use their tax dollars to fund it anyways.

If left to the free market, many people would still be without electricity today. Simply not a rapid enough ROI to run electric lines to rural areas or to the poor neighborhoods where people are more likely to not pay their bills on time.

Those nasty socialists also built into many cable franchise agreements that every home within city limits be able to receive cable TV. There are also were universal service provisions for the old telco copper plants. Those against universal FTTP deployment may be the beneficiaries of the very socialism they are rallying against.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

" The poorer areas will be never guaranteed to get FTTP, but use their tax dollars to fund it anyways."
Ha! What tax dollars? The relatively little they pay in property taxes, if any, especially not if they rent. Their income taxes? Ha, 47% of households effectively pay none.


You said: "If left to the free market, many people would still be without electricity today."
Where do you get this from? Cooperatives do exist, or did you know this? Sure, the borrow from RUS, but that is it. Corporate power utilities were never required to serve all areas, they still don't. There is a huge difference from a company being forced to service an area, and an area being served through a cooperative that borrows from RUS.


I love this: "Those against universal FTTP deployment may be the beneficiaries of the very socialism they are rallying against."
I don't have fiber in my area, and at this point, don't really care enough to demand that a business be forced to offer it. When it happens, it happens.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Typical BBR article

said by caseywor:

Ha! What tax dollars? The relatively little they pay in property taxes, if any, especially not if they rent. Their income taxes? Ha, 47% of households effectively pay none.

Uh, what about sales tax, gas tax, payroll tax, state taxes, and local taxes? And do you think our economy runs on fumes? What happens to various private companies if poor people can't afford or don't buy their goods?
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by caseywor:

Well, the more privileged areas are paying more in the first place. They are paying higher property taxes, more income tax, buying more goods and therefore spending more in sales tax. Furthermore, they are more likely to be able to make the enterprise more profitable and therefore protecting the taxpayer investment if done.

You have got to be kidding me. How can you "protect the taxpayer investment" when the money goes to subsidizing a *privately owned network*. Do you people even think before you write?

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

Yes, I think, do you? Sounds as if you don't. If money is going into an enterprise, then when that enterprise is able to continue to deliver the service to stakeholders (anyone whose money went into it) then that is how the investment is protected. Very simple concept. The opposite is what it sounds like you want; the company is forced to offer service to less profitable areas that are most likely no less expensive, or possibly more, to service. So if a company is taking taxpayer money, then what sense does it make to not cherry pick? Otherwise, how wise is it to make bad decisions on where to deploy and risk the venture going bankrupt before it can get off the ground? That is a good use of money for sure? /sarc

Alex J

@speakeasy.net

Re: Typical BBR article

I noticed you can't usually disprove things said here, so you just make up straw men so you can knock them down and feel good about yourself. This:

a totally government run broadband system with the taxpayers picking up 90% of the costs

...has never been said in this article, or any article I've seen here. Is life easier when you make up things that are said so they're easier to shoot down?

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House
Reading you take apart Karl's article was like watching someone take apart a car and reassemble it as random crap to illustrate how the original car was defective.

Karl's points were pretty simple. Going forward, local governments will need to be part of the community broadband equation.
and
Kansas City didn't always exercise a lot of sense in the concessions it offered up to claim the Google Fiber Badge.

Reporting only one of those points would yield an unbalanced, possibly biased article - and the subsequent calls for Karl's virtual head for writing it.
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

You said: “Karl's points were pretty simple. Going forward, local governments will need to be part of the community broadband equation. I am not denying that he made that point; however, he still isn’t happy, once again, see the quotes I gave above. He is still whining about it!

You said: “Furthermore, And Kansas City didn't always exercise a lot of sense in the concessions it offered up to claim the Google Fiber Badge.” They did what they had to do to keep them from skipping on to the next city. Google is doing most of the work anyway, the citizens are getting what they wouldn't have had otherwise without concessions.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom
"Kansas City didn't always exercise a lot of sense in the concessions it offered up to claim the Google Fiber Badge.

"Ahhhhh....I think I get it now! In the mind of many posters here, Google, like other companies wanting to invest in broadband, should be willing to spend lots of money, then still have lots of prohibitive regulations on them that limit its benefit to them. I can certainly see companies jumping at the opportunity to build out in an area, and then have the government force them to invest in areas that will hurt the investment. /sarc

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House

Re: Typical BBR article

said by caseywor:

"Ahhhhh....I think I get it now! In the mind of many posters here, Google, like other companies wanting to invest in broadband, should be willing to spend lots of money, then still have lots of prohibitive regulations on them that limit its benefit to them. I can certainly see companies jumping at the opportunity to build out in an area, and then have the government force them to invest in areas that will hurt the investment. /sarc

You made all that up. It lives in your head, not mine.
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

Re: Typical BBR article

Why else is Karl, and others, so whiney about this? They act excited about the project, but still complain about the concessions that Google wanted and that in turn led to the project being started. I can't see anyone reading this article from Karl, the previous one, or the one referenced by Timothy B. Lee and not see that they are hung up on the concession aspect. Google is footing most of the bill for this, except from some space and electricity, and could have footed all of it. However, KC made it worth their while to do it with the concessions that removed a lot of regulatory BS from the mix.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Typical BBR article

said by caseywor:

Why else is Karl, and others, so whiney about this? They act excited about the project, but still complain about the concessions that Google wanted and that in turn led to the project being started. I can't see anyone reading this article from Karl, the previous one, or the one referenced by Timothy B. Lee and not see that they are hung up on the concession aspect. Google is footing most of the bill for this, except from some space and electricity, and could have footed all of it. However, KC made it worth their while to do it with the concessions that removed a lot of regulatory BS from the mix.

First off, the only reason Google is doing this is because the company's stock is controlled by its founders. Outside of KC, there is no major private investment into wireline broadband. Second, even if Google succeeds the city will essentially be stuck with a duopoly for the foreseeable future (assuming the copper lines are abandoned). And thirdly, why are you whining so much about what other people write? No one forced you to come here and spew all over the boards.

caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

1 recommendation

Re: Typical BBR article

No one forced you to come here either. Why do my words bother you? Why are you whining about what I write?



You said: "First off, the only reason Google is doing this is because the company's stock is controlled by its founders."
What do their intentions matter to this story? They are doing it, it will benefit the areas served if allowed to succeed.



You said:"Outside of KC, there is no major private investment into wireline broadband."

WOW! In what country, Cuba? Tell that to all of the major cable operators, the phone companies, and their shareholders, that would be news to them!



I really don't understand this non-point: "Second, even if Google succeeds the city will essentially be stuck with a duopoly for the foreseeable future"

So the fact that Google is doing this isn't enough for you? How many ISPs are required to make you happy? The more there are, the less profitable it is for more to be built. If there were five, you you be griping about the quintopoly? How many broadband services do you want the government to pay for or subsidise?

The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

Re: Typical BBR article

I know what I said, and it definitely wasn't lashing out. It's called being blunt.

With your kind of thinking, we should deregulate the entire broadband industry because...?

None of your supporting arguments make sense to me, because I don't bring political nonsense and start labeling people things that they aren't.

Like a few posters have said, if Karl's articles bother you that much, then why are you here? Nobody is denying your right of free speech, but you should expect criticism just like I do. That's life.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)