BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
edited
| full steam ahead at your cost
so just like an average politician. "we are going to do it whether it works or not. i am not paying for it."
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 14:09:21]
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 14:17:10] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well I can see the mayors' point....these companies have paid a nice sum to confuse and otherwise bewilder the public into thinking these municipal projects are nothing but fancy and quite ludicrous....it would be sad for the whole plan to go down the toilet because people were too lazy to actually do research into the issue and make an educated decision...
If I were mayor and I were certain that this plan was well designed and could bring jobs, competition, and lower rates to the area, I'd push forward too....and let them name a few Gazebos after me in area parks several years later once people see the effects like residents of Tacoma are witnessing with the low rates offered by Click! network..... |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to BBC454
Not exactly.
1) Big monopolies don't care. Non-responsive. Sit back and won't help...
2) So... Mayor et all works on alternatives, comes up with a good plan for local residents, and starts pushing for it.
3) Big monopolies suddenly realize they are about to be blown out of the water, so they roar back pouring big dollars into trashing the Cities plan and dissing the Mayor and trying to kill their proposal.
No wonder he's pissed, and he's right: These companies just don't care or give a damn. If they win, they'll roll out the minimum required at the maximum the market will bear. The cities plan is MUCH better.
I wish I had a mayor and council who cared half as much as these ones do.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | reply to Karl Bode
where is the competition with government broadband???? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| It's LOCAL government first off...not nearly the threat SBC paints it as....National government tax payer supported broadband...that might be a threat, but that's not occurring.
The competition comes from the municipal offerings themselves....the telco and cable company's are immediately thrust into a price war, and subsequent quality war.....
Years of no competition has left them "fat and stupid" so to speak, with no reason to cut costs or really improve other than to compete with Satellite....
Check out Click! Network:
»www.wired.com/news/business/0,13···,00.html |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to BBC454
Where is the competition with the current oligopoly? In the five or so years DSL has been out has any bell DSL division ever tried to win customers over from the other bells. The answer is no and it is probably due to collusion.
Could it be people are tired of being pawns for the bells, tired of being held hostage, tired of crappy support, tired of lies and deceit.
When these communities come together and cooperatively put in broadband, the ILEC and cable providers find themselves forced into competitive practices. From what I read once this is in, customers will have a choice of phone, Internet and cable TV services.
The "its my way or the highway" corporate strategy for winning customers won't work anymore. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to BBC454
What's the matter? Is SBC and Comcast afraid of a little municipal broadband competition? Oh, yes, they are. Nevermind.... |
|
BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
edited
| you make it sound like dsl is in the bill of rights. so when sbc/comcast undercut the price and government broadband goes belly up, the taxpayer has to bail it out while paying for broadband from someone else. wow what a great idea. if it is profitable, a company will turn up broadband.
can someone show where in the long term the government has done anything efficiently? the government is always going to operate at or exceed the budget allowed. with the government there is not an incentive to operate at a profit.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 20:45:42] |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Well, if you can stop your whining for 5 minutes, maybe we can watch and see what happens. |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edited
| reply to BBC454
Hokey Math...
Well, they are claiming 63 million (and I assume that's just startup costs???).
Considering that it's government-run, the total will probably be much more. Can the government, even a local government, do anything below budget, much less at a profit as the officials of these cities claim?
The combined population of these three cities is about 90,000. That comes out to $700 per person in cold, hard tax dollars, with no promise of success.
I wish them the best, but if it were worth doing, private industry would have already been there.
peace,
mocycler
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 19:07:31] |
|
2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI | reply to BBC454
Re: full steam ahead at your cost
The competition will come every 4 years at election time. If things are screwed up, somebody will pay the price at the ballot box. When will the competition EVER come with unregulated monopolies? |
|
2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| reply to mocycler
Re: Hokey Math...
blah, blah, blah,
more baseless stereotypical government bashing.
No, governments will never be as efficient as cutthroat competitive companies that face stiff competition and worry about it every day. Companies that make every decision based on what the competition is doing. RBOCs and cable companies do not fall into that group. You never hear about cable companies going overbudget in a city because they don't have to disclose that info. ALL MONOPOLIES ARE EVIL. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to mocycler
So in other words: since it's "not worth it" to the telcos and the cablecos to provide broadband to these people, a municipal effort is their best bet. Excellent! Thanks for clarifying that for us. Another good argument for municipal broadband.... |
|
BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| reply to JakCrow
Re: full steam ahead at your cost
"Well, if you can stop your whining for 5 minutes, maybe we can watch and see what happens."
so next time sbc requests a state to not force them to share their broadband equipment so they can deploy to a rural area, this will be my response.
i would also like to note that i posed a question of "can someone show where in the long term the government has done anything efficiently? " and your response is to stop whining. am i to assume you do not have a response due to your lack of knowledge or your inability to debate? do we really want to start the name calling? |
|
i5050MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
edited
| reply to mocycler
Re: Hokey Math...
said by mocycler  :
...
The combined population of these three cities is about 90,000.
...
With a population of 90,000, I'd guess there would be about 30,000 households. I'd also guess that each household would be paying approximately $75/mo to the current telopolies. So that's
30,000 * $75 * 12mo or $27,000,000/year
Don't worry, the bucks are there, it'll fly!
--
Earthlink/DirecWay SRS | SatMex 5-990
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 21:46:08] |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to 2farfromCO7
said by 2farfromCO7 :
ALL MONOPOLIES ARE EVIL.
Government is a monopoly, is it evil too?
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! |
|
BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | reply to i5050MbSoon
funny, my dsl is 29.99 a month, why would i want to buy dsl from the government? too expensive.... |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Batavia, IL | For what...this year?
Local at the rates...they're cheaper and offer a higher level of services....
»www.tricitybroadband.com/pricing.htm |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to BBC454
Re: full steam ahead at your cost
said by BBC454 :
where is the competition with government broadband????
The fact that there *is* no competition from the incumbents is the reason for the planned municipal facilities. If the cable/phone company wanted to wire up the area, they could do so. Apparently they don't want to do this, so the cities in question are taking it upon themselves to provide a service that cannot or will not be provided by private enterprise.
They want to compete with the government? Fine. Let 'em string some wire...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edited
| reply to i5050MbSoon
Re: Hokey Math...
said by i5050MbSoon :
With a population of 90,000, I'd guess there would be about 30,000 households. I'd also guess that each household would be paying approximately $75/mo to the current telopolies. So that's
30,000 * $75 * 12mo or $27,000,000/year
Don't worry, the bucks are there, it'll fly!
Like I said...I wish them well and hope they get broadband from somewhere, but the math is still hokey.
You're assuming every household will sign up and pay 75 bucks a pop. The going rate in this area for DSL is $30>$80/month, with the average pretty close to $30.
I dunno, man. Can't they find anything better to blow sixty-three million smackers on? It sure would fill a lot of potholes. Funny...last fall St. Charles rejected a school tax increase. If the municipal broadband thing passes, it would indicate some screwy priorities.
peace,
mocycler
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 22:40:22] |
|
