flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA
| I really don't care
Let the bells block and rape.
I say let it be a consumer issue/in the long run it will only hurt them (the bells). It might hurt in the short run.
But remeber nature abhors a vacuum. And it will actually spur more faculty based competition in the long run.
Love & bullets
Flushls |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| said by flushls  :Let the bells block and rape. I say let it be a consumer issue/in the long run it will only hurt them (the bells). It might hurt in the short run. But remeber nature abhors a vacuum. And it will actually spur more faculty based competition in the long run. Love & bullets Flushls Finally, someone who's figured it out. People in this thread talk about money here, money there. Why not spend that money on BUILDING FACILITIES TO PROVIDE SERVICE? I never see anyone talk about another provider. Why isn't anyone installing fiber, instead of crying about lack of choice? |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Because noone has pockets deep enough to compete with telcos and cablecos.
Because the last mile infrastructure of the telcos was installed and paid for by your tax dollars, and that anyone wanting to do this on his own would be bankrupt before even starting.
Because whenever a city tries to do so with its taxpayers money (and after said taxpayers vote that they are wanting their tax dollars to be spent like that), they are being sued into oblivion by the telcos (See Lafayette, LA)
Today, I think noone except WISPs in very rural areas can think about competing against the duopoly. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Because noone has pockets deep enough to compete with telcos and cablecos. Oh, there's plenty of money out there: private investment groups, Microsoft, etc. If there was money to be made, they would do it.
Because the last mile infrastructure of the telcos was installed and paid for by your tax dollars, and that anyone wanting to do this on his own would be bankrupt before even starting. While some of it could have been considered SUBSIDIZED, not 'paid for' (mostly just in the form of granting rights of way, not direct cash payments, AT&T actually 'paid' to install all nationwide infrastructure.
Because whenever a city tries to do so with its taxpayers money (and after said taxpayers vote that they are wanting their tax dollars to be spent like that), they are being sued into oblivion by the telcos (See Lafayette, LA) This is an issue of government competing with the private sector in an area that has been, and should continue to be in the realm of private enterprise.
Today, I think noone except WISPs in very rural areas can think about competing against the duopoly.
I can think of 2, satellite and bpl. But again, if there were money to be made, someone would do it. The Bell System spent over a century installing the current copper telecom network. Have some patience. Someone else may do the same. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| 1.The problem with competing with a mon/duopoly is that they price you out of the market wherever you start. Ask RCN all about it.
2.Subsidized becomes the same thing when your talking about billions and billion of tax breaks. If they collected all that money and then handed it right back to them it would amount to the same thing.
3.Not if done like the Utopia project, where the muni only builds the network and allows the private sector to compete on it on an even playing field. This actually works MUCH better.
4.BPL? laugh. (there's an article on the front page making fun of BPL progress just today 5/12) Satelite competes with dial-up, not broadband. |
|
