war_by_proxy
join:2004-06-15
Houston, TX | It doesn't really surprise me
I'm glad I didn't vote for him last time, and I am sure going to do something for his opponent next time. This makes me so mad, what a greedy scumbag. |
|
IronG
join:2002-11-04
Burlington, NJ
| I fully believe that this type of tech should be with private companies. It makes sense for a lot of reasons.
However, if companies can't or won't invest in an area for whatever reason, the local munies should have the right to move forward.
A fair way of doing it would be something like this:
1. X company would have 2 (based on agreed to effort by company and local authorities) years to construct and activate the service
2. If after 2 years the job is not complete per spec, then they would pay a fine equal to the cost of the resources needed to do the work
3. The local govt. would then use the fine money to finish the job. The infrastructure would then be owned by the local town or county.
4. Or all companies give up the right from the start and the local govt. moves forward with their plan.
Seems pretty simple to me. They (the big companies) want it, then put up or shut up.
Where's a rocket scientist when you need one 
G |
|
PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
1 edit | Why would any muni turn over their right to build to a private company?
Who decides what infrastructure the city has built - the private sector or the city? What if the city wants to step above what the private sector wants to provide? |
|
IronG
join:2002-11-04
Burlington, NJ
| Who decides now? I don't remember getting that memo to vote on it.
I'm not saying that my plan is the right plan or the perfect plan, heck it took only 30 sec to come up with it. At least it is a start.
In case you missed it, I'm suggesting that there is a check and balance to the process that talk is cheap and if there is a need to do something actions speak louder than words. The big companies only understand $$ so put it out on the table. Make it hurt if they back out, can't or won't deliver.
In most cases, the companies will step up and if they don't there will be another plan in the wings.
The alternative is to do nothing and be where things stand today....in a big circle with no winner except the big companies and some guy in suit playing both sides (presumably).
Oh, you also bring up good questions that they and many others would need to be answered to make it work. |
|
bbandbrat
Big Broadband Everywhere - Firstmile.Us
Premium
join:2005-04-05
USA
| reply to IronG
What about the City's where the incumbent says "We'll build it, and we'll decide what you deserve and need and when to provide those services. BTW: we may not get to you until 2010 or later."
That's the case in our City and we're in suburbia. They want our new developments, but they won't service anything more than basic DSL or cable modem to the remaining parts of the City - we've been effectively redlined only they call it being second and third tier customers.
The City has an obligation to provide for public safety, education and economic development. As citizens we can not leave these critical issues to the private sector. If we do, the only places that will get served will be places live Irvine, CA. Sunnyvale, CA, Dunwoody, GA, Fairfax, VA, etc. It has to be because stock holders will demand that type of quick ROI. That creates a permanent underclass and makes the U.S. much less competitively internationally.
It makes sense to allow the muni's to provide the infrastructure for these services. You trust muni's with public safety, education, water, electricity, and sewer - telecommunications isn't rocket-science (I've been in the field for 26 years) and it's just as important for community health and properity. |
|
PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| reply to IronG
Right now, the private sector decides what to build and whether or not it meets their profit standards.
A city's profit standard is a little bit different. "Will it help my citizens and bring new business to town?"
That outlook is not the same as "Can I predict a 5 to 7 year ROI on buildout?"
You're right in that there is a check & balance. Most cities wouldn't touch this unless they couldn't get the private sector to respond. Local govs are notoriously conservative - politicians want to stay in office so it better be an almost slam dunk before they'll tough it.
Cities step up where the private sector fails, so the concept of having to get a muni build approved by a Cable Co/RBOC seems kind of ridiculous.
But taking it a step further, cities can step in to push the limits for their own direct gain. "SBC doesn't see a value in fiber to the home? We do, and we think our citizens are worth it. We're going to the next level..." |
|
IronG
join:2002-11-04
Burlington, NJ
| I agree with what is said in the above two posts.
The big companies need to make a commitment or get out of the way and if they fail, make it very costly. The bad press alone would be enough to make them see it through.
Plus, after a few failures or not taking on the job, other cities would follow suit.
As for conservative local govt. they are that way based on the citizens. If the local populace want it bad enough, the politicians will be forced to comply or face getting the boot anyway.
I happen to live in an area where I can get three different providers, however, I would be soliciting the township I live in on a regular basis if I did not have any suitable choices.
Lastly, everyone has a choice, do something or do nothing and complaining does not satisfy doing something either.
G |
|
