dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3141
share rss forum feed
« Horrible.
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next

Skippy25

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

Re: 9;

Optimistic speculation on your part.



Ebolla

join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
reply to hottboiinnc

said by hottboiinnc:

ObamaCare actually will reduce costs of healthcare giving you an option. And as far as him passing it- Mitt first passed it on the great state of MA.

Sadly all it did here in MA is cause the rates to go up and up and benefits to drop. For me to actually use my insurance for pills I have to go through CVS, and for any real benefit I have to buy a 3 month prescription. Walmart cant take my insurance but I buy from local grocery store that actually gives me CHEAPER pills without insurance than if I went through CVS. My insurance hasnt changed in the last 5 years but my costs have doubled. That in no way is reducing my costs.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to Skippy25

Yep


Telco

join:2008-12-19
Reviews:
·Callcentric
reply to pnh102

Amazing how you fail to mention that rail is not profitable in America because, unlike the rest of the world, the private companies own the actual rail here.

Whereas, rail is one of the most efficient and cheapest mode of transportation in every single country on the planet but America. That's over 95% of the world's population right there.



DrDrew
So that others may surf.
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:14

1 recommendation

reply to biochemistry

said by biochemistry:

Australia.

Read about the NBN in Australia again....it never planned to roll out fiber everywhere. They're using wireless and satellite to cover HUGE chunks of Austrailia outside of the major metro areas.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
Reviews:
·Callcentric
reply to FifthE1ement

Here is a direct example. Our private owned airlines are old, ranked last closed to last in service, have a dilapidated fleet and offer bare minimum amenities during flight.

Whereas, the highest ranking airlines on the planet, that are also the most profitable and serve you a good 4 meals per flight are ALL government owned: Singapore, Emirates, and Qatar.


Telco

join:2008-12-19
Reviews:
·Callcentric

1 recommendation

reply to Ebolla

Mitts's model is not reducing costs because it still relies on the profit driven private sector. Whereas, the highest ranking and most efficient health systems on the planet, are all single payer or completely government owned.

The best ranked health system on the planet (Switzerland), is still 2 to 3 times cheaper per capita than our model.

If our model worked so great, then surely at least one developed nation would emulate it. Think iPad and iPhone here.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

reply to The Limit

Look, I tend to think that everyone should have access to broadband. I just don't see why those of us in rural areas should get subsides for it, nor do I think that decent broadband service requires fiber to the premises. On the last point at least, it seems we agree, so there's that.

As far as my first point, before you reply with an analogy to rural electrification or some such, rural areas still pay more money for the basic necessities of life. My wife and I have to pay to maintain a well and septic tank. We use propane to heat our home, on a BTU to BTU basis it's three times as expensive as natural gas! Fuel oil is an alternative, one that would "only" cost two and a half times as much as natural gas. Electric heating costs range from 2x to 5x the cost of natural gas, depending on where you live, so that's not really an affordable alternative for most people. Around here it would be about 4x the cost of natural gas, so there's that.

Where are my subsides for these basic necessities of life?



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

Invest in alternative energy sources? I mean, I live out in rural country, and we don't use propane. I don't understand why someone would want to use propane, as from personal experience, it's highly variable, unless that's your only option.

It varies from location to location. Based on your argument, electricity isn't a basic necessity, only a luxury. So why not do without? Do you see the hole in your logic? Broadband, as I've argued time and time and time and time again, is not finite. These basic utilities are based on nonrenewable sources of energy (I mean sure, nuclear, but there's always that pesky issue in dealing with waste).

I feel that there were people that thought this way about electricity. Now it's broadband, so hopefully in 20 years the thought process would be changed. I'm just saying, doing away with broadband entirely would bring our economy to a screeching halt. Broadband is becoming more of a necessity every day.
--
"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)


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

1 recommendation

reply to FifthE1ement

quote:
No offense bro but the government just doesn't run businesses well.

Sorry dude but big business doesn't run business well either. The very notion of profits being siphoned off to shareholders rather than back into the system will always be less efficient. Businesses make decisions on what would be the most profitable... not what would be best for the customer. And the inefficiency that is rampant among big business makes one wonder how they make a profit at all. Most of your 'examples' are non-examples... USPS generates BILLIONS, GM & Amtrak were screwed before the govt took over, solar energy?!? Healthcare has been rising since way before Obama even thought of being president.

The simple fact is there are plenty of SUCCESSFUL community broadband projects currently in operation. Problem is, the pro-corporates in here always regurgitate the same 'failures' that were sued out of business by the incumbents.

A communications infrastructure is a necessity to the well being and advancement of the country and should not be entrusted to greedy companies that care only about their own profit.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to The Limit

said by The Limit:

Invest in alternative energy sources? I mean, I live out in rural country, and we don't use propane. I don't understand why someone would want to use propane, as from personal experience, it's highly variable, unless that's your only option.

If you have a cheaper alternative that will heat a home through a harsh northeastern winter I'm all ears.

said by The Limit:

Broadband, as I've argued time and time and time and time again, is not finite.

The cost to deliver broadband is real and measurable. Rural areas take away economy of scale, thus increasing the capital expenditure necessary to achieve full coverage. So the question is, who should bear the cost of the initial capital expenditure? The ISP might be able to do it, but they'll want to charge rural customers more money to recoup their investment. Do you take issue with that?

Alternatively, we can fund it through tax dollars and/or a surcharge on existing customers. Personally, I don't really regard this as fair, and if it happens I'm going to be seriously peeved that we aren't doing the same to bring natural gas to rural areas. Once the infrastructure is in place it wouldn't cost any more to deliver gas to rural customers, you just need someone to foot the initial bill to install pipelines, compressor stations, etc.

said by The Limit:

I'm just saying, doing away with broadband entirely would bring our economy to a screeching halt. Broadband is becoming more of a necessity every day.

To be sure, it's becoming more and more essential to life in the 21st century. But it does not follow that we need to subsidize the installation of broadband services for those areas currently lacking them. In any case, the market seems well on it's way to solving this problem with wireless services, which are much cheaper to deploy in rural areas than landline services. WISPs and cellular data are the way to go in rural areas, not investing billions of dollars to string wires all over God's country.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

I'm sure there were people like you that claimed the same thing when electricity was being rolled out. And yet you have electricity in your rural area dont you? So it was OK for that subsidy to be had for electricity but it is not OK for the "next big utility" of broadband?

Or do you think yourself and those like you should be running wind mills, damming up streams or running hamster wheel farms to satisfy your electrical needs?



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by Skippy25:

Or do you think yourself and those like you should be running wind mills, damming up streams or running hamster wheel farms to satisfy your electrical needs?

Ever hear of a diesel generator? They provided electricity to farms for decades before Franklin Roosevelt rolled out his rural electrification pgm.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

OK and your point......?

Wait so what you are saying is that government brought electricity to them just like they should broadband.

Agreed!



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by Skippy25:

OK and your point......?

My point was that the examples you chose to make fun of the previous poster were ridiculous when a perfectly usable technology like diesel generators were around forever.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

JTR

join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL

1 recommendation

reply to biochemistry

Not gigabit, it won't be completed for 9 more years, and it's not all going to be covered by fiber.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to TuxRaiderPen

said by TuxRaiderPen:

Sad , truly sad, no, absolute disgrace that this country has no high speed rail service to go between coasts, and feed local passenger service to smaller areas... absolute disgrace that countries like Japan and even the french put this country to shame on high speed rail. Disgrace!

Fastest passenger train speed: 200mph
Time from NYC to LA: 14 hours

Jumbo jet cruising speed: 485mph
Time from NYC to LA: 6 hours

Hmm, perhaps this has something to do with it?

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to Crookshanks

..I believe your still better off with wirelines, goverment should step in and expand or give a initiative otherwise it wont happen period.

Its unacceptable that our country continues to drop in speed ratings (AND WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH) China for criest sakes is rolling out fiber.. they at least will have a option for rural areas in china...

it can be done here (their needs to be a option for rural areas) DSL as its stands wont be.. Sat isnt ready but it getting their, either way it does affect our great country weather or not you want to see it the 21st century relies on data and internet connections, from paying bills online, shopping, music, entertainment, and so on


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2
reply to CXM_Splicer

said by CXM_Splicer:

Sorry dude but big business doesn't run business well either. The very notion of profits being siphoned off to shareholders rather than back into the system will always be less efficient.

Less efficient than what? How about the notion of paying employees for their labor instead of reinvesting that money into the company being less efficient? Employees want to be paid just as owners do. There's a balance. We've discussed this before.
said by CXM_Splicer:

Businesses make decisions on what would be the most profitable... not what would be best for the customer.

What's best for customers? Businesses exist to identify needs and then satisfy those needs at agreeable prices. Yes, the limited competitive landscape tends to slant the agreeability toward the providers in this situation, which I believe is the real crux of your point.
said by CXM_Splicer:

The simple fact is there are plenty of SUCCESSFUL community broadband projects currently in operation.

And there are plenty of successful private business efforts in operation as well. Once again, there can be a balance.


a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cingular Wireless
reply to Crookshanks

Sometimes it's not just the speed of a mode of transport that matters... if that were the case, we'd all be flying coast-to-coast in Concordes at this point... trains offer a significantly more comfortable journey, more legroom, not being squeezed inside the equivalent of a pressure chamber for > 4 hours, and quite a few amenities that either cost you an arm and a leg on aircraft, are impossible, or force you to buy business-class tickets at... an arm and a leg. Besides, there are plenty of long-range high-speed railways around the world that are operating quite successfully in terms of passenger and freight traffic (Channel Tunnel/High Speed 1, TGV, Shinkansen.) Also, within the next few decades, I'd venture to say that Maglev technology (which the Japanese have been testing for over 2 decades, and say is finally approaching readiness for commercial marketing) will be a reasonable proposition for new railways, making speed even less of an issue.
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves.


Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to CXM_Splicer

so true, the private sector is broken (by my opinion) sure I mean they deserve to make money, heck they invest and build the infrastructure, but the idea was to have investors invest in long term no one is doing that anymore everyone wants quick money thus things like internet connectivity for rural America is being stripped away, wall street is pushing the companies to make a quick buck then rather a bigger check for a longer amount of time, the economy isn't helping the problem either in fact its worsening the problem. The problems that this country is facing isn't gonna be fixed with either Obama or Mitt, both answer to the same people in a way and it will def take a awaking to the people for anything to change.

Companies are not scared of investing or expanding they answer to wall street and investors for short term profits, wall street will not expand to rural anytime soon you can bet on that


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to a333

If passenger trains are so great why can't they successfully compete without support from the government? Why aren't they self sustaining anywhere outside of the Northeast Corridor? Do you really think that high speed rail offers benefits compelling enough to justify the use of eminent domain against countless property owners? What of the environmental impact of thousands of miles of new track? How does it ever compete financially against air travel, which requires no new infrastructure, no use of eminent domain, and has no NIMBY pushback from the communities between point a and b?

I'm sorry, but I've never understood the fascination that people have with rail. It's great for moving freight, getting around the city, and for regional trips. Cross country trips? Not so much.



Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Telco

said by Telco:

Actually, it was just another example of the private sector not having the stomach or willpower to push a project like this.

This is precisely why government needs to step in an own a wholesale FTTH network that anyone can use to deliver high-speed internet to Americans.

Yup I agree. Would run in government ~150 billion dollars to wire every single house in the country with FTTH. It would be a HUGE economic stimulus, create tons of jobs, and a good chunk of that money would be coming back as income tax since a lot of that ~150 billion would be labor. Hell, it wouldn't even cost us anything, just redirect a few % of the defense budget for a couple years and it's covered.

But meh, who am I kidding. Investing in our own infrastructure, creating jobs when unemployment is through the roof and actually doing something useful with tax dollars makes way too much sense so it will never happen.


a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cingular Wireless
reply to Crookshanks

Perhaps not cross-country trips, but linking up the length of each coastline and its major centers using the EXISTING tracks (but improving them so that they are worthy of high-speed service) is certainly something worth pursuing. There is a whole lot of track that could be put into service similar to the 300 Km/h (~ 187 Mph) service found in portions of the UK, and in a lot of Europe, but we need to renew the trackbed, install concrete sleepers, and install cab-based signalling (typically, safe operation of a train cannot exist with traditional lineside signals above ~125 mph). All of those combined cost quite a lot less than building a whole new line (and don't require the headaches of new zoning/permits/et. al.)

Also, air has its own growing pains these days... increased traffic means we have to re-think an air traffic control system that hasn't been re-thought since the 1960's. New runways also lead to NIMBY cases who do not want to be put in the approach path, and experience the associated noise (or at least the perceived noise), or the potential safety hazards.
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves.


xexx

join:2004-09-03
Aledo, TX
Reviews:
·Skybeam.net
reply to FFH

said by FFH See Profile

Ever hear of a diesel generator? They provided electricity to farms for decades before Franklin Roosevelt rolled out his rural electrification pgm.
[/BQUOTE :

Are you seriously claiming a diesel generator is anywhere near as useful or powerful enough to run modern farming areas and homes with power? Who needs electricity when you have horses to pull equipment anyway!


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

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

Less efficient than what? How about the notion of paying employees for their labor instead of reinvesting that money into the company being less efficient? Employees want to be paid just as owners do. There's a balance. We've discussed this before.

Hahaha, you are going to compare workers getting paid to generate profits for a company to shareholders who get paid to... ummm... why do they get paid? Oh yea, to ensure Wall St. bankers will be willing to loan them money if they need it. As we have discussed before, shareholder primacy is not required for a successful company (nor is even being public).

said by openbox9:

... which I believe is the real crux of your point.

Yes, it was. There is also the glaring example often discussed in here... the RIAA/MPAA. When business resists innovation because they would rather pursue their profit model, that is their right. When they sue to stop others from innovating (VCRs, MP3 players, community broadband) then we have a broken system that needs to be fixed.

said by openbox9:

And there are plenty of successful private business efforts in operation as well. Once again, there can be a balance.

Agreed. I don't claim that all business needs to be taken over by the government, that would not be desirable. But when a system no longer working, it is up to the government (aka the people) to fix it. The concepts that the 'free market' will do it or business is always right are dangerous fallacies.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

said by CXM_Splicer:

Hahaha, you are going to compare workers getting paid to generate profits for a company to shareholders who get paid to.

I did not compare labor to owners. I was questioning your use of "efficient".
said by CXM_Splicer:

When they sue to stop others from innovating (VCRs, MP3 players, community broadband) then we have a broken system that needs to be fixed.

It seems to me that the system functions just fine since your cited examples have all survived the light of day. I'll grant you that the incumbent businesses would have been better served advancing their business models (hindsight tends to be 20/20) instead of attempting to squash the competition, but those were business decisions.
said by CXM_Splicer:

The concepts that the 'free market' will do it or business is always right are dangerous fallacies.

Agreed. I've never stated either of those as utmost truths.


jduffy
Premium
join:2006-08-20
Cincinnati, OH
reply to Telco

Yeah, especially since everything the government gets into is so successful like solar power, the postal "service", Amtrak, welfare, social security, etc.
--
Atheists swear there is no Heaven, but pray there isn't a Hell.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to CXM_Splicer

said by CXM_Splicer:

Hahaha, you are going to compare workers getting paid to generate profits for a company to shareholders who get paid to... ummm... why do they get paid?

Do you have a 401(k)? Does it have mutual funds in it? If your answers are "yes", then you're a shareholder in VZ, amongst other companies, and you profit from those dividends.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to a333

said by a333:

Perhaps not cross-country trips, but linking up the length of each coastline and its major centers using the EXISTING tracks (but improving them so that they are worthy of high-speed service) is certainly something worth pursuing.

Why? What niche will it fill that isn't filled cheaper and more efficiently by air travel?

As it stands, the only reason trains are more attractive for mid-range regional trips (think Boston to DC) is because you don't have to deal with the post 9/11 security regime and resulting delays. The travel time is roughly the same once you take airport security into account. It remains unclear how much longer this will remain an advantage, TSA is currently attempting to expand their security theater into other forms of transportation, including rail and bus stations. Fixing airport security would solve a lot of problems with our air travel system, but that's an entirely different discussion!

said by a333:

All of those combined cost quite a lot less than building a whole new line (and don't require the headaches of new zoning/permits/et. al.)

So why doesn't the private sector do it? It would be all over it if there was money to be made. Why should the Government step in and spend billions of dollars on rail, particularly when we have other infrastructure (roads and bridges) demanding attention. That infrastructure is already the responsibility of Government, and most would agree that it's failing us, how many other first world countries have had bridge collapses in a major metropolitan area?

said by a333:

Also, air has its own growing pains these days... increased traffic means we have to re-think an air traffic control system that hasn't been re-thought since the 1960's. New runways also lead to NIMBY cases who do not want to be put in the approach path, and experience the associated noise (or at least the perceived noise), or the potential safety hazards.

Well, the air traffic control system needs to be modernized regardless, though a lot of issues there could be solved simply by hiring more people. I concur that air travel has it's own NIMBY issues, I just think they are easier to manage than those from rail.

Speaking more broadly, NIMBY, and its step child BANANA, are holding us back more than our mass transit system. Everybody wants cell phone reception, but nobody wants to look at a communications tower. Everybody wants cheaper electricity, but it requires a major battle to obtain the required right-of-ways to build new transmission lines. Politicians grandstand, the tin-foil hat (cell phone towers cause cancer!) crowd comes out, and any new infrastructure project turns into an expensive public relations nightmare.

Our excessively burdensome regulatory structure does not help matters either. It took more than a decade to complete the environmental impact studies for the Cape Wind project. Combine that with the nasty PR/NIMBY battle and it's a wonder the company behind the project didn't pull out in favor of investing their capital elsewhere. Would you have the patience to sit on billions of dollars of capital for more than a decade, when you could send it elsewhere, probably offshore, and earn returns today?