| reply to Racket
Re: Covering cost vs profit So what are you saying? That the internet should be funded by the Gov't and run by Gov't employees (like you?)
Good luck keeping costs under control if that's the case. |
|
| No, I guess the private corporations should continue operating with government supported anti-competitive behavior. |
|
|
|
| reply to fifty nine
I would prefer a gov't funded and operated backbone.. to which other ISPs could use. Rather then a for-profit corporation selling, and then gouging not only the end user, but also resellers. When the gov't of Ontario privatized electricity, all Ontarioians thought that it would drive the cost down on the electrical rate. How naive. Electrical rates went through the roof and continues to climb. The people asked for it, and they got more then they wanted. With the lessons of the past, we can see that it wasn't that bad when Ontario Hydro controlled the cost of electricity. If the gov't was to fund a fiber backbone across the country, and then "rent" bandwidth out to ISPs (Bell, Teksavvy, etc) they would be all on the same playing field. No one company would have more of an advantage over another. The more ISPs offering services, the competition would then come down to the quality of service rather then pricing. Plus, as the fiber backbone provider would then be a crown corporation, any profits generated from the "renting" of broadband, the better our gov't can provide, oh I don't know, improved health care, maybe even be able to cover dental for every citizen in Canada? |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:So what are you saying? That the internet should be funded by the Gov't and run by Gov't employees (like you?)
Good luck keeping costs under control if that's the case.
We should get that power situation in this country fixed too so I can have 3 different sets of power lines running down my street. It's the only way there can be fair competition and allow other business to sell power to consumers.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
 TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | reply to fifty nine
Actually I think they should have the same people who take care of their health care take care of internet as well. I am sure it will work out just fine... |
|
| reply to Nextwave
said by Nextwave :I would prefer a gov't funded and operated backbone.. The backbone is irrelevant since most urban areas have multiple choices besides the usual suspects (telco and cableco) for that. The problematic part is the first mile: the wires that go to each house. Very capital-intensive and very labor-intensive to replicate... and very risky when there is no guarantee anybody will sign up, unlike phone and cable which used to be complementary monpolies (cable was TV-only, phone was phone-only) when the bulk of their networks were built. |
|
| said by InvalidError:said by Nextwave :I would prefer a gov't funded and operated backbone.. The backbone is irrelevant since most urban areas have multiple choices besides the usual suspects (telco and cableco) for that. The problematic part is the first mile: the wires that go to each house. Very capital-intensive and very labor-intensive to replicate... and very risky when there is no guarantee anybody will sign up, unlike phone and cable which used to be complementary monpolies (cable was TV-only, phone was phone-only) when the bulk of their networks were built. Unfortunately, all first/last mile access is incumbent impaired, territoriality (also known as areas of exclusive service by incumbent) prevails and there is SIMPLY NO CHOICE OF PROVIDERS AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS in the protected zones of exclusivity. The almighty duopoly is a farce, as is the entire Telco, Cableco, FIOS mythology. Such a pitiable song and dance... One wonders at the CPUC's treatment of these monopolists until one realizes the CPUC is staffed by ex-industry execs, and consultants to the industry. Fairness? Competiion? Fuggetaboutit, it is a rigged game. |
|
