LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | reply to bigunk
Re: USE IT!
I take it you're against municipal broadband then? Contrary to what you believe, some governments (that aren't Communist) can actually provide these types of services without running it like a dictator. |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to viperlmw
Bandwidth should never be nationalized and run by the gubmint. That is a recipe for absolute failure. It is completely against the capitalistic ethos this country runs on. Now, I am sure you'll bring up China or some other communist country as an example, but it's a slippery slope. Once gubmint controls one thing, it's on to the next. I agree with you in that these companies are greedy greedy greedy, but nationalizing ain't the answer. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude  :Besides, all that upgrading is expensive and the investors don't like it. Why upgrade when you can CONTROL what you already have and make more money? While much of what has previously been posted is hyperbole, a nugget of truth has come forth. Concentration (control) of bandwidth is a major part of the business model for bandwidth providers, and always has been. When you were on dial-up, you never noticed how it slowed down in the evening? This was because the ISP couldn't afford to purchase more bandwidth from their provider, and still make money. You know how some cable systems slow down in the evening? This is because the cable co. can't afford to increase bandwidth, and still make money. Same for wisps, BPL, etc.
Hell, even the POTS network is concentrated. You think phone switches have enough long distance capacity for everyone to make a long distance call at the same time? Hell no. That would be expensive. You gonna pay for that?
Until all bandwidth in this country is nationalized and run by the government, it is all about money, and investors, and capital, and the financial markets, and CEOs... |
|
