dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed
« Horrible.
page: 1 · 2
This is a sub-selection from

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

Re: 9;

Funny you pick Amtrak, why not the highway system? Oh that's right.. it would be contradictory to the BS you are trying to spread.

Amtrak is a niche form of traveling whereas a nationwide fiber infrastructure is vital to the entire country's digital future.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by Skippy25:

Funny you pick Amtrak, why not the highway system? Oh that's right.. it would be contradictory to the BS you are trying to spread.

How is what I said BS? Can you prove to me that Amtrak is efficient, profitable and well-run? Some citations would be helpful.

said by Skippy25:

Amtrak is a niche form of traveling whereas a nationwide fiber infrastructure is vital to the entire country's digital future.

That's your opinion, you can invest in it with your own money.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


Rich

@ptd.net

Funny you try to make the assumption that a nationwide fiber network will be similar to amtrak. Fiber itself is profitable (unlike amtrak), it's the obscene build costs that are the reason the private sector won't get involved. The government could subsidize the build out a nationwide fiber network to every home, and eventually not only make the money back, but profit from it too. See: Electricity/Electric companies.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

Amtrak is a niche form of traveling whereas a nationwide fiber infrastructure is vital to the entire country's digital future.

We already have a nationwide fiber infrastructure. The debate is about extending that infrastructure into the last mile and ensuring that it reaches every single property in the United States. There's a bit of a difference between the two, and I'd be curious to hear your argument as to why our future is dependent on every home in America having access to gigabit+ speed internet connections.

funny0

join:2010-12-22

said by Crookshanks:

said by Skippy25:

Amtrak is a niche form of traveling whereas a nationwide fiber infrastructure is vital to the entire country's digital future.

We already have a nationwide fiber infrastructure. The debate is about extending that infrastructure into the last mile and ensuring that it reaches every single property in the United States. There's a bit of a difference between the two, and I'd be curious to hear your argument as to why our future is dependent on every home in America having access to gigabit+ speed internet connections.

HEY america DONT DO IT , we the rest of the world applaud your leaving citizens out of the future

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Nice talking point, now tell me our future is dependent on every residential property in the United States having access to gigabit+ internet speeds? Name me another country, particularly one with a significant rural population, that is spending tax dollars to build out a nationwide last mile fiber network.

C'Mon, I want to hear an explanation for why we need to spend billions of dollars to ensure that every house has a faster connection to the internet than most currently have to their home LAN. Do tell, what driver of economic prosperity will emerge when Grandma has a taxpayer funded gigabit+ internet connection?



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

a nationwide fiber infrastructure is vital to the entire country's digital future.

A nationwide fiber infrastructure exists and has for many years. It just doesn't extend to individual residences.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361
reply to Crookshanks

Australia.



The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Crookshanks

I don't think anyone has said anything about REQUIRING gigabit speeds. A bit overkill there, but let's run with it anyway.

If broadband wasn't essential in this country, then why not do without? You mean that might be devastating to our economy? Oh, but isn't broadband just a luxury? Right...
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to pnh102

My point was simple. You mention Amtrak, which is very niche and very unprofitable trying to compare it a fiber network as though a nationwide fiber network is doomed just like that niche market. Which, as I stated, is total BS.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Crookshanks

Clearly I was speaking of a complete fiber network and I think your other talking points were taking care of in below comments so I wont address those.


Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to Skippy25

Yep


Telco

join:2008-12-19
Reviews:
·Callcentric
reply to pnh102

Amazing how you fail to mention that rail is not profitable in America because, unlike the rest of the world, the private companies own the actual rail here.

Whereas, rail is one of the most efficient and cheapest mode of transportation in every single country on the planet but America. That's over 95% of the world's population right there.



DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15

1 recommendation

reply to biochemistry

said by biochemistry:

Australia.

Read about the NBN in Australia again....it never planned to roll out fiber everywhere. They're using wireless and satellite to cover HUGE chunks of Austrailia outside of the major metro areas.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

reply to The Limit

Look, I tend to think that everyone should have access to broadband. I just don't see why those of us in rural areas should get subsides for it, nor do I think that decent broadband service requires fiber to the premises. On the last point at least, it seems we agree, so there's that.

As far as my first point, before you reply with an analogy to rural electrification or some such, rural areas still pay more money for the basic necessities of life. My wife and I have to pay to maintain a well and septic tank. We use propane to heat our home, on a BTU to BTU basis it's three times as expensive as natural gas! Fuel oil is an alternative, one that would "only" cost two and a half times as much as natural gas. Electric heating costs range from 2x to 5x the cost of natural gas, depending on where you live, so that's not really an affordable alternative for most people. Around here it would be about 4x the cost of natural gas, so there's that.

Where are my subsides for these basic necessities of life?



The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

Invest in alternative energy sources? I mean, I live out in rural country, and we don't use propane. I don't understand why someone would want to use propane, as from personal experience, it's highly variable, unless that's your only option.

It varies from location to location. Based on your argument, electricity isn't a basic necessity, only a luxury. So why not do without? Do you see the hole in your logic? Broadband, as I've argued time and time and time and time again, is not finite. These basic utilities are based on nonrenewable sources of energy (I mean sure, nuclear, but there's always that pesky issue in dealing with waste).

I feel that there were people that thought this way about electricity. Now it's broadband, so hopefully in 20 years the thought process would be changed. I'm just saying, doing away with broadband entirely would bring our economy to a screeching halt. Broadband is becoming more of a necessity every day.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

said by The Limit:

Invest in alternative energy sources? I mean, I live out in rural country, and we don't use propane. I don't understand why someone would want to use propane, as from personal experience, it's highly variable, unless that's your only option.

If you have a cheaper alternative that will heat a home through a harsh northeastern winter I'm all ears.

said by The Limit:

Broadband, as I've argued time and time and time and time again, is not finite.

The cost to deliver broadband is real and measurable. Rural areas take away economy of scale, thus increasing the capital expenditure necessary to achieve full coverage. So the question is, who should bear the cost of the initial capital expenditure? The ISP might be able to do it, but they'll want to charge rural customers more money to recoup their investment. Do you take issue with that?

Alternatively, we can fund it through tax dollars and/or a surcharge on existing customers. Personally, I don't really regard this as fair, and if it happens I'm going to be seriously peeved that we aren't doing the same to bring natural gas to rural areas. Once the infrastructure is in place it wouldn't cost any more to deliver gas to rural customers, you just need someone to foot the initial bill to install pipelines, compressor stations, etc.

said by The Limit:

I'm just saying, doing away with broadband entirely would bring our economy to a screeching halt. Broadband is becoming more of a necessity every day.

To be sure, it's becoming more and more essential to life in the 21st century. But it does not follow that we need to subsidize the installation of broadband services for those areas currently lacking them. In any case, the market seems well on it's way to solving this problem with wireless services, which are much cheaper to deploy in rural areas than landline services. WISPs and cellular data are the way to go in rural areas, not investing billions of dollars to string wires all over God's country.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

I'm sure there were people like you that claimed the same thing when electricity was being rolled out. And yet you have electricity in your rural area dont you? So it was OK for that subsidy to be had for electricity but it is not OK for the "next big utility" of broadband?

Or do you think yourself and those like you should be running wind mills, damming up streams or running hamster wheel farms to satisfy your electrical needs?



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by Skippy25:

Or do you think yourself and those like you should be running wind mills, damming up streams or running hamster wheel farms to satisfy your electrical needs?

Ever hear of a diesel generator? They provided electricity to farms for decades before Franklin Roosevelt rolled out his rural electrification pgm.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

OK and your point......?

Wait so what you are saying is that government brought electricity to them just like they should broadband.

Agreed!



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by Skippy25:

OK and your point......?

My point was that the examples you chose to make fun of the previous poster were ridiculous when a perfectly usable technology like diesel generators were around forever.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

JTR

join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL

1 recommendation

reply to biochemistry

Not gigabit, it won't be completed for 9 more years, and it's not all going to be covered by fiber.


Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to Crookshanks

..I believe your still better off with wirelines, goverment should step in and expand or give a initiative otherwise it wont happen period.

Its unacceptable that our country continues to drop in speed ratings (AND WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH) China for criest sakes is rolling out fiber.. they at least will have a option for rural areas in china...

it can be done here (their needs to be a option for rural areas) DSL as its stands wont be.. Sat isnt ready but it getting their, either way it does affect our great country weather or not you want to see it the 21st century relies on data and internet connections, from paying bills online, shopping, music, entertainment, and so on


xexx

join:2004-09-03
Aledo, TX
Reviews:
·Skybeam.net
reply to FFH

said by FFH See Profile

Ever hear of a diesel generator? They provided electricity to farms for decades before Franklin Roosevelt rolled out his rural electrification pgm.
[/BQUOTE :

Are you seriously claiming a diesel generator is anywhere near as useful or powerful enough to run modern farming areas and homes with power? Who needs electricity when you have horses to pull equipment anyway!



jesferkicks

@comcast.net
reply to Rich

If money was to be made, as you say, the companies would find a way to do it. And I agree with the Amtrak guy. Way I see it if the government was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, it would be out of sand in 5 years.

And how about the folks who already have fiber, you wish them to give up more taxes so you can have it? That's raw.



NOCMan
MacChatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

Companies will not do it, because investors are only interested in short term profits not long term gains. I bet if we changed capital gains taxes and pushed them out five years or a decade things would work themselves out. Investors would quit betting on short term investments in invest into things what will profit in the long run.
--
Ski News - Ski Colorado Blog
Web Hosting - www.FrontRangeHosting.com


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Long term-capital gains are already favored in the tax code.

said by NOCMan:

Investors would quit betting on short term investments in invest into things what will profit in the long run.

Plenty of investors do, including many big money managers. I think short-term investor profits above all costs is a meme primarily created to help consumers cope with dissatisfying business decisions.


jesferkicks

@comcast.net
reply to NOCMan

Dunno if taxes would change anything, they already penalize investors for short term ( year at cap gain rates). If companies won't do it, what did Verizon just do until it got in over its head? It will take awhile but all the big boys know fiber is the only way they can take on the inevitable increase in traffic or start capping monthly gigs which goes over really big time with customers.

And for the guy bringing up the highway system as a plus for government sponsored constuction. In Alabama, highway 75 makes its north south route through Montgomery instead of the straighter route (also the route presented by the construction companies) through Selma at a megamillion dollar addition to the cost -- which the taxpayers got stuck for. Government has little business doing business.

Expand your moderator at work


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Rich

Re: 9;

said by Rich :

Funny you try to make the assumption that a nationwide fiber network will be similar to amtrak.

Why won't it be?

Why is it wrong to judge an entity by its past record?