| I want to know what's the percentage of people who can get broadband for $50/month or less. My city doesn't count. Cable modems in my city cost $85/month, yet people would think we have broadband. You people whine about a ONE TIME $200 purchase for a Wi-Fi modem, yet seem to think my outrage about a monthly $85 rate is no big deal. As far as I'm concernce, the only reason I can get broadband is because I ruthlessly terrorized(and am damn proud of it too) Bob McAnn the Time Warner dictator in my city until he submitted. That's the way Republicans think the capitalistic system is supposed to work so I'm happy to oblige. |
|
 TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| said by 2farfromCO:
what's the percentage of people who can get broadband for $50/month or less. My city doesn't count. Cable modems in my city cost $85/month, yet people would think we have broadband. You people whine about a ONE TIME $200 purchase for a Wi-Fi modem, yet seem to think my outrage about a monthly $85 rate is no big deal. As far as I'm concernce, the only reason I can get broadband is because I ruthlessly terrorized(and am damn proud of it too) Bob McAnn the Time Warner dictator in my city until he submitted. That's the way Republicans think the capitalistic system is supposed to work so I'm happy to oblige.
Nobody's whining about buying 200 Wi-Fi modems. Furthermore, the reason your cable modem service costs 85 dollars is most likely because you terrorized your local cable company into providing service where they could only afford to offer it @ 85 dollars a month. You probably live in an area with too few customers, and as such the cost to the end-user is high to support the infrastructure.
There's reason for concern if you can't get broadband and live in downtown New York or Boston with gigabits of fiber literally running underneath your feet. In this case, it's an obvious mismanagement/abuse by the local telephone monopoly or lack of available technology. Things can be done in this situation since it's not so much an economic issue as it is a technological or regulatory one.
If, however, you live in a rural area without any broadband or "advanced communications" infrastructure in place, it is quite obvious and inevitable that you won't be getting fairly priced broadband, let alone broadband at all! In this case, it's not a technological issue at all, but rather an economic one. Broadband costs a lot of money to deploy and support, and if there's not enough revenue to support the infrastructure, it will never be built. Unfortunately, there is no technological or legal/regulatory recourse for this situation--only $$$. I mean, you could force the phone company to deploy broadband to every last inch of America, but then don't complain when they charge you $45,000/month for it.
Just as with any other infra-structure supported commodity like city water, sewers, electricity and natural gas; you can't expect it to be everywhere-broadband isn't any different.
PS legislating the phone companies into providing broadband to everyone, either through grants or executive orders wouldn't fix the problem since we'd all still pay for it in our taxes or phone bills. I wouldn't fancy the idea of paying 4X as much for my natural gas just so Billy Bob who lives in the swamp in central Florida can have a gas stove. Nor would I fancy the idea of paying $200 a month for my broadband just so the fringes of America could have access to a commodity many (and I speak for the population as the whole, not just the readers of this message board) would not use!
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!)
[text was edited by author 2002-04-14 19:59:46] |
|
| Wrong!!! This is all I think about. My life revolves around my utter hatred of Time Warner Cable so I know everything. They are charging us $85 because it costs them at least that much because they have such lousy economies of scale. They only have 4 cities in all of Michigan yet they have the total overhead cost of a region with over 12 cities. Whose fault is that??? It's their fault. They bought are city in haste and they alone should pay the price for it. They should be forced to match the average rates in our Metro area which would be set mostly by the dominant carrier which has excellent ecnomies of scale. Time Warner could never match that thus they would be force to sell out to Comcast at any price which would be a loss. That would make them pay for their mistake. That's accountability and that kind of big government regulation and price controls should make every TRUE REPUBLICAN proud. |
|
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL | said by 2farfromCO:
Wrong!!! This is all I think about. My life revolves around my utter hatred of Time Warner Cable so I know everything. They are charging us $85 because it costs them at least that much because they have such lousy economies of scale. They only have 4 cities in all of Michigan yet they have the total overhead cost of a region with over 12 cities. Whose fault is that??? It's their fault. They bought are city in haste and they alone should pay the price for it. They should be forced to match the average rates in our Metro area which would be set mostly by the dominant carrier which has excellent ecnomies of scale. Time Warner could never match that thus they would be force to sell out to Comcast at any price which would be a loss. That would make them pay for their mistake. That's accountability and that kind of big government regulation and price controls should make every TRUE REPUBLICAN proud.
I agree completely. Cable companies are being bought and sold left and right. Nobody really stays in control long enough to take accountability for the issues the plague cable. Unlike the DSL companies, the cable companies don't seem to care about profit. Their business model seems to revolve around going broke and then getting bought out, then going broke again--all the way along passing on their miscalculations to the subscriber in their inflated rates. The cable and the phone companies are two entirely different entities altogether though. Cable is likely to suffer from instability and price issues no matter where you live, but that's due to their corporate structure as a whole. Unlike the phone companies, they'll deploy broadband without doing any market research in an area with no potential subscribers while leaving many major metro areas unserved. That's all part of cablenomics.
I wish there were a logical explanation to your predicament, but since cable as a whole doesn't function on the premise of logic, I don't think it's possible. I can understand now why you terrorized your cable company. If you really want to get back at them, why not run a server from your house selling cable descramblers across state lines (dancing on the fine line of legality).... hehehe. Or, better yet, egg your local cable office, that would be communicating with them on their level! 
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!) |
|
|
|
 RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | reply to 2farfromCO7
I live in Ukiah, CA(a rural, mid sized city 90 miles north of SF)and I just signed with Adelphia Powerlink, and got free installation and 6 months for 19.95. It's 52 a month after the 6 months. |
|
| reply to TZi
I am getting back at them by starting my own DishNetwork retail business. I have no overhead whatsoever and only advertise in the 4 suburbs they service. I also got back them by harassing Blackmail Bob McAnn and forcing him to give me the cable modem for $44.95/month. I asked him if he was doing this just because he wanted to get me off his back, and that he was just paying to shut me off. Naturally, he was to arogant to admit it. Of course I know that's a lie because every time I call customer service they tell me it is $85/month for non-cable customers. No problem, I called his bluff. I referred 5 other of my customers to him and told them to him that I sent them, and they all got the cable modem for $44.95/month. The lessen is harassment and terror are the way you are SUPPOSED to and ETHICALLY address monopoly complaints. |
|
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL | said by 2farfromCO:
I am getting back at them by starting my own DishNetwork retail business.
HEHE now i know why you didn't want my DirecTV receiver...
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!) |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to TZi
I object to you referring to Central Florida as a swamp, you have one of the biggest in your own area (Everglades).
Second the providing of reasonable cost broadband service to rural areas, are not one of volume vs cost, but simply of the lack of direction by the local telcos/cable companies, and their indifference to being good corporate citizens. I know that in Central Florida the infrastructure to deploy broadband to 95% of the homes has existed for over 10 years. The remaining 5% only require facility upgrades of $20K or so. The fact that the local telco (BellSouth/GE Sprint) choose not to provide service is because they just don't give a sh&t.
Jim
--
"May we all get fiber to our homes and offices before we're too old or dead to enjoy it." -- Che Guevara
First rule of fiber optics: you do not talk about fiber optics
|
|
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL | said by jims2321:
I object to you referring to Central Florida as a swamp, you have one of the biggest in your own area (Everglades).
My apologies, I really didn't mean to make a direct reference to central Florida as a "swamp" in a derogatory manner, I was just using that as an off-hand example. I like Central Florida, and my parents have a house there.
I think deployment in FL by BellSouth is probably among the best in the nation. I realize sprint's a farce, but what can you do. At least Bellsouth tries, you can't say that for a lot of other phone companies in this country.
--
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt. |
|
