Santa Monica, CA
|reply to CXM_Splicer |
Re: Nothing strange about this objective.
said by CXM_Splicer:There is no such thing as "free".
(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.
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: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.
(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 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:I'm completely against business getting any form of subsidy.
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.
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.
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.