dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
22
share rss forum feed
« Horrible.
This is a sub-selection from


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to Telco

Re: 9;

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.

No offense bro but the government just doesn't run businesses well. I agree the government does some great things with social programs but when it comes to running a business (profitability) the government just can't stomach it. They run everything like it has an unending supply of money! I can point out a million examples of government running business that have failed and that hemorrhage money but just a few are: Amtrak, Utility Companies, USPS (Post Office), Solar Energy companies (too many to name), GM/Chrysler losses and my favorite Obamacare (which the price has risen for healthcare even after they said after it passed prices would go down). I don't want government dealing with any non-essentials at all!
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
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.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
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 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

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.

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.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
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.

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

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
Germany
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.

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.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

I did not compare labor to owners. I was questioning your use of "efficient".

I am not sure I understand your questioning. Surely you understand the relationship between company, labor, and customer. Take away any one of those and you cease to have a 'business'. If you don't want to pay labor (and hence have no labor) you will have no business to reinvest into.

Since the role of the shareholders is very similar to that of a bank, I would ask you this: Would you agree that it is grossly inefficient for a company to continue to pay on a loan indefinitely even after the loan is paid off? If there is a scenario where this could be considered 'efficient' I would be very interested in hearing about it.... and 'to ensure the prospects of securing future funding' is not what I would consider an efficient use of the profits.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

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.

Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, being an employee of Verizon, my 401k receives a company match of VZ stock so I have a good amount of it... but I fail to see your point. Are you suggesting that since I am a shareholder myself that I am disallowed from pointing out what I think are flaws in the system? FWIW, if Verizon gave me a choice, I would not have any of their stock at all; I would be fine with a better pension and a paid-off place to live.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

Since the role of the shareholders is very similar to that of a bank, I would ask you this: Would you agree that it is grossly inefficient for a company to continue to pay on a loan indefinitely even after the loan is paid off?

The role of shareholders is more akin to that of the company, not a bank. Shareholders are owners and as such are entitled to the profits of the company. If you owned 1/4 of a business, wouldn't you expect to be compensated...at least a little? As I've stated many times, there is a balance between distributing profits to owners and reinvesting those earnings in the company for potential growth.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
said by openbox9:

The role of shareholders is more akin to that of the company, not a bank. Shareholders are owners and as such are entitled to the profits of the company. If you owned 1/4 of a business, wouldn't you expect to be compensated...at least a little? As I've stated many times, there is a balance between distributing profits to owners and reinvesting those earnings in the company for potential growth.

I certainly understand that the mechanism is different... yes, shareholders are considered owners of the company to the extent of the number of shares they own, but there is little (to no) effective difference between shareholders and a bank (unless you suggest they provide something other than funding). I would submit that a 1/4 owner of a business is there because he/she brought something to the table other than just funding. It is possible that there are there just for funding (and playing the exact role of a bank) but that begs the question... do they somehow deserve to have their profits maximized at the expense of the business model conceived by the other three? To answer your question (even though you side-stepped mine ) YES, as 1/4 owner, I would expect to be compensated with 1/4 the profits of the business. But I would also understand that I was there because I believed in the ability of the other three to make me profits using their business model and not try to modify it... otherwise, why would I have invested in the first place? People who contemplate this line of thinking will start to realize the true nature of Wall St.

While I see a great deal of imbalance in today's world, you HAVE stated many times the need for balance and I appreciate that... I do not see you as unreasonable and I enjoy the dialog.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
If you must link investors to a bank, then I'll grant you that the debt holders are most like banks. Equity owners are not.
said by CXM_Splicer:

I would submit that a 1/4 owner of a business is there because he/she brought something to the table other than just funding.

And I would submit, from personal experience, that owners/investors don't have to play an active role and can indeed simply provide a line of funding to make a business work. Think silent investor.
said by CXM_Splicer:

do they somehow deserve to have their profits maximized at the expense of the business model conceived by the other three?

Once again, balance.
said by CXM_Splicer:

While I see a great deal of imbalance in today's world, you HAVE stated many times the need for balance and I appreciate that... I do not see you as unreasonable and I enjoy the dialog.

Thank you. Likewise to you good Sir.
said by CXM_Splicer:

To answer your question (even though you side-stepped mine )

I didn't sidestep your question considering I don't view equity owners as banks. The debt holders on the other hand, no, I would not expect them to receive their coupons beyond when their bonds mature, nor do they receive such payments.

jetpowercom

join:2001-07-11
Culver City, CA
reply to FifthE1ement
Apologies - just lurking here, trying to understand why Verizon is so weak-minded as to stop fiber a block away from my house, and noticed the claim that the Postal Service is "hemorrhaging" money.

Very briefly: USPS is designed to break even, and it does. Only since Congress throttled it in 2006 with the unique and extreme 75-in-10 not-yet-hired employees' retirement health care funding burden - with no means to address this debit - has USPS begun to experience its current paper crisis.

Rather than forcing sale of assets - high-volume post offices - where USPS profits are made, Congress could be tasking USPS, with its ginormous digital network and analog footprint, with a digital buildout that would both streamline its legal obligation to provide affordable communication to every American address and drive down the usurious cost of internet in America.

I said "briefly;" this is a bare summary, just to note that USPS is a balanced government service that pays for itself (but could wipe private carriers off the map if provided the same competitive tools they enjoy).

It comes down to where you draw the "essential/non-essential" line. I draw it at equal access to resources. That's the least (and perhaps that's all) that government should provide. The Post Office has provided equal access by law since our country's founding. All taxpayers - not just "ratepayers" - SHOULD pay for postal service, in whatever paper and digital forms its government agency can provide it.

Isn't equal communication what we all want? What a coincidence - it's also our Constitutional guarantee.