dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to elray

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

See you corporate friendly folks seem to forget what the internet was and why it was corrected.

It has been bastardized kind of like Christmas. Once companies see there is money to be made they shape and distort whatever they can into their liking and hope we dont see the smoke and mirrors behind it all. Unfortunately, we allow it to happen.

The internet exist to provide it's users whatever they want.

So if they want Netflix, then yes it is AT&T's problem. Do you remember the days when AOL thought they knew what their users wanted and tried to force that upon them? Yeah... where are they today?


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

said by Skippy25:

See you corporate friendly folks seem to forget what the internet was and why it was corrected.

...

The internet exist to provide it's users whatever they want.

As long as you're willing to pay for the use, so be it.
But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

You continue to beat the dead horse of blocking content, creating intertubes for special access and wanting an AOL style internet of the late 90's along with your AT&T corporate fat cats.

While me and the rest of world move on past AOL days.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Wrong.

Not once, have I ever, called for walled-garden or blocking content.

It is you who seems to confuse AOL with internet access.
I never used their service.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

My bad... what did you mean by "But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors."?

BTW, the entire network has been subsidized by the entire country through taxes incentives and several other "perks" given to these companies.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

said by Skippy25:

My bad... what did you mean by "But don't expect a free ride, subsidized by your neighbors."?

That actually has two contexts.

(1) Don't expect the taxpayers to fund a "muni" network, just because you want fiber optics and you're not willing to pay the cost yourself. Verizon has shown for six years that the majority does not want to pay for fiber; Google KC will reaffirm this. When you bang the drum to have City Hall install and operate a network for you, inevitably the funding for that network comes not only from general tax revenues and municipal giveaways (tax $), but also federal tax money and some form of property tax - all paid for by folks who may not want the service - your neighbors, near and far.

(2) By insisting that all of us pay the same flat rate - "socializing" the price of broadband, you are, in effect, asking low-volume users to pay the same as high-volume users - that's a subsidy. We can disagree on the extent of the subsidy - be it a penny or a hundred bucks, but it is a subsidy.

said by Skippy25:

BTW, the entire network has been subsidized by the entire country through taxes incentives and several other "perks" given to these companies.

If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices. Plenty of large companies have gone bankrupt chasing broadband/cable/telecom dreams, incentives or no.
There is a reason AT&T and Verizon turn down rural broadband grants.

I'm not opposed to re-regulating the last-mile in non-competitive markets, i.e. rural settings, in order to assure fiber or VDSL/ADSL2+ or fixed-LTE is deployed, and the FCC has some rights to examine the issue.

But beware, re-establishing a monopoly would result in much higher rates, when rural subscribers are already, largely unwilling to pay even today's modest urban rates.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

(1) You are going to compare uptake of an expensive commercial service to cheap (sometimes FREE) broadband? Why don't you simply admit that if free municipal fiber was in YOUR area, you would dump your current provider in a second. True there will be some people who don't use/want the service but there are also some people who don't have kids that still pay school taxes... people who never call the police that still pay their salary... do you need me to go on? We live in socialistic communities whether you like it or not. Municipal broadband projects are the way to go.

(2) Are you saying that I should pay more for my 10 Mb/s connection than you pay for the same connection because I download twice as much as you? Ridiculous! You are paying your ISP for a pipe... not what gets send down the pipe. That is not a subsidy, it is getting what you pay for.

quote:
If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices.

Haha but when business gets a subsidy you are fine with that?!?! Sorry, but what a system has obvious flaws you don't jump on the bandwagon and make the situation worse... you FIX the problem.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

said by CXM_Splicer:

(1) You are going to compare uptake of an expensive commercial service to cheap (sometimes FREE) broadband? Why don't you simply admit that if free municipal fiber was in YOUR area, you would dump your current provider in a second. True there will be some people who don't use/want the service but there are also some people who don't have kids that still pay school taxes... people who never call the police that still pay their salary... do you need me to go on? We live in socialistic communities whether you like it or not. Municipal broadband projects are the way to go.

There is no such thing as "free".
If there was a municipal service in my area, claiming to be "free", I would evaluate it, but I would choose to pay a commercial provider.

said by CXM_Splicer:

(2) Are you saying that I should pay more for my 10 Mb/s connection than you pay for the same connection because I download twice as much as you? Ridiculous! You are paying your ISP for a pipe... not what gets send down the pipe. That is not a subsidy, it is getting what you pay for.

If you have a household of six, with twelve connected devices and HDTV's, downloading and streaming to your hearts' content, yes, you probably should pay more than the little old lady reading her email in her single apartment on her iPad. While this can mostly be addressed with speed tiers, the entry-level plan would probably have to have a cap.

quote:
If you have a beef with the "large companies" that have "benefited" from these "perks" over the years, I suggest you research their stock and buy in, rather than ranting over perceived injustices.

said by CXM_Splicer:

Haha but when business gets a subsidy you are fine with that?!?! Sorry, but what a system has obvious flaws you don't jump on the bandwagon and make the situation worse... you FIX the problem.

I'm completely against business getting any form of subsidy.

But the reality is that as individuals, while we rarely have the opportunity to influence our government to stop stealing from us, we usually do have the choice to buy stock in the companies that may, or may not, be profiting, at our expense.

When the populists rail against the Fortune 500, they neglect to observe that most of those companies are held by our mutual funds - pensions and retirement accounts. You can whine all you want, and in fact, I'll join you in calling for certain regulations, but in the end, the big picture isn't going to change much, so buying-in is your best defense.

Munis do not fix the problem; they just assign the cost to the taxpayers.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

I'm not real sure why you would say a family of 6 should pay more than some old lady being that the cost to deliver the bytes is quite negligible and their standard price has plenty of room in there to make up her not using her line at all and the family using a terabyte of data.

It does not cost more to deliver 100mb than it does 10mb speeds over the same infrastructure, at least it is low enough to not even bother measuring. ISP's charging different prices for different speeds is pretty much a farce to be begin with. They do it only because it is more valuable to us thus allows them to charge us more. From a management perspective if it actually better for them to get you on the network, get what you need and get off the network as fast as possible.