Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to BBC454
Re: full steam ahead at your cost
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..... |
|
BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | 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. |
|
2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI | reply to BBC454
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? |
|
BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| reply to JakCrow
"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? |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to BBC454
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. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to BBC454
said by BBC454 :
"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.
Too bad it wouldn't apply when you used it.
said by BBC454 :
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?
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services, and well, gee, it looks like city run broadband is starting to work in the places it's being rolled out in. Of course, I guess everyone should depend on the known dishonest qualities of the existing telcos and cablecos, but you know? I get the feeling a lot of people just aren't going to roll over to them as much as someone like you expects. Damn shame about that. Now here's a question for you: Why is SBC, a company that claims it's bleeding money (while making $2 billion a quarter), spending money on ad campaigns spreading disinformation about a possible city run broadband initiative when that money could be better spent increasing the quality of its service? As it has been pointed out many times already, and of which you have refused to accept, this municipal project would never have been considered if it wasn't for the fact that SBC and Comcast provided poor service.
said by BBC454 :
do we really want to start the name calling?
What "name calling" is that? I didn't call you a name. I pointed out that you're whining. You owe me an apology. |
|
i5050MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to BBC454
said by BBC454 :
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.
RFP!
Leviathan provided an excellent link to a few examples of successful municipal broadband.
--
Earthlink/DirecWay SRS | SatMex 5-990 |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by i5050MbSoon :
Leviathan provided an excellent link to a few examples of successful municipal broadband.
In my own state municipal governments continue to raise property taxes to pay for vital services (e.g., schools, police, etc.), and now the governor is proposing a tax hike to bail them out. If my town were to waste its money on a municipal cable network, while continuing to raise taxes (and instigating the need for a general statewide tax hike), I would seriously question my government's priorities.
I suppose I could "vote them out" as is suggested, but when the government robs Peter to pay Paul, they will always have the support of Paul. Hence the government's strategy seems to be to put at least a majority of people into Paul's position. You think anyone who gets taxpayer-subsidized broadband is going to vote it away when things get tight (as they are in many places still)? I doubt it. In these times, governments at various levels must reassess their spending priorities, contrary to what people are saying here, I would say things like the military, counter-terrorism and education funding are a little more important than a toy network.
With this in mind, it still doesn't address the real problem here, the lack of service provided by incumbent cable and telcos. Its very easy for people who are sick of this to start their own privately-run co-op that could provide the service needed. The various governments involved (state and local) could pass laws such as tax breaks and grants of easements, (which is possible given how many have opposed proposals sponsored by the larger companies) that make it easier for such competition to come into the picture. There would be local accountability and the money would remain in the given town, but the government would not be bothered with expense and hassles of running the operation.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
edited
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
You can't make a blanket statement out of this. In Philadelphia for example, PGW (Philadelphia Gas Works), the municipally-owned natural gas provider, continues to have numerous financial problems and mismanagement issues. They charge the country's highest rates for natural gas and the city and state government constantly have to pour millions of dollars each year into it to keep it afloat. Certain suburban municipal governments in my area have had problems managing sewage processing. Given this track record, its a perfectly reasonable assessment to believe that the local government can and will fubar this project as well.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over!
[text was edited by author 2003-03-26 12:57:29] |
|
BBC454
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| reply to JakCrow
1st off I state my opinion and you call it whining. if you disagree with me so be it but it is insulting for you to say it is whining. I accept your apology.
if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that sbc needs to invest in a potentially high risk service that could cost too much money. you base this on the fact that they make 2 billion a quarter. the reason they make 2 billion a quarter is because the do not throw their money at high risk investments.
the main point I am trying to make is that it is not the government's role to get involved with the private market. what is next government gas stations, video stores, food stores, construction companies, clothing stores.........
this sounds familiar. some famous men had the same idea...STALIN, LENIN, CASTRO......
lets get this last thing straight. government is government, it does not matter if it is city, local, state, federal. the government has no incentive to ever do anything in an efficient manner. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by BBC454 :
the government has no incentive to ever do anything in an efficient manner.
Yea... not too long back a bunch of school districts in western Penna., along with Orange County, CA (among other governments) invested tax money in high risk junk bonds as a way to increase their spendable money. The schemes backfired and the result was that Orange County had to go into bankruptcy, and the Penna. school districts all had to raise taxes to pay for the current year's instruction along with the next. It was precisely because of this steady stream of unlimited taxpayer money that they had no incentive to invest in something reliable.
I have a feeling that these municipal network promoters aren't telling the whole story. How does tricitybroadband.com know how much the system will cost when they aren't the people who will be building it? Isn't it going to be the government that sets the final cost? People who want the government to fund their particular pet project routinely understate the true costs because they know governments are reluctant to spend money on something that appears overly expensive.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :
You can't make a blanket statement out of this. In Philadelphia for example, PGW (Philadelphia Gas Works), the municipally-owned natural gas provider, continues to have numerous financial problems and mismanagement issues. They charge the country's highest rates for natural gas and the city and state government constantly have to pour millions of dollars each year into it to keep it afloat. Certain suburban municipal governments in my area have had problems managing sewage processing. Given this track record, its a perfectly reasonable assessment to believe that the local government can and will fubar this project as well.
Get back to me when you're paying $200/month in electric bills (even with conservation) to a "private" company that literally wants to jack rates up 400% more. And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless. Obviously city run services aren't going to work everywhere, just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by JakCrow :
Get back to me when you're paying $200/month in electric bills (even with conservation) to a "private" company that literally wants to jack rates up 400% more.
And who created the "deregulated" environment which allowed this to occur, the great state of California of course! Was there accountability? Not exactly, the same people who fubared "deregulation" may or may not still be in office and they haven't fixed it. This is precisely the reason that government shouldn't meddle in these kinds of ventures. We truly deregulated electrical generation here in Penna. as well, and our electric rates have been going down, not up, and you truly do have a choice of providers.
said by JakCrow :
And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless.
In your original post, you said that:
said by JakCrow :
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
which sounds like a generalization to me.
said by JakCrow :
just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records.
There are already ways in which the private sector has dealt with poor service from these companies, many places have rolled their own broadband without government help and without imposing another burden on taxpayers. This is arguably the better route.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to BBC454
said by BBC454 :
1st off I state my opinion and you call it whining. if you disagree with me so be it but it is insulting for you to say it is whining. I accept your apology.
You're obviously mistaken. I didn't apologize
said by BBC454 :
if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that sbc needs to invest in a potentially high risk service that could cost too much money.
While wasting cash in an ad campaign against municipal broadband, apparently in an area they don't want to invest much in anyways. What's up with that, hmmm?
said by BBC454 :
you base this on the fact that they make 2 billion a quarter. the reason they make 2 billion a quarter is because the do not throw their money at high risk investments.
Oh, so then that pesky money bleed SBC claims is just smoke and mirrors. No shock there. Don't forget, part of that $2 billion a quarter is from price increases and fees tacked on to customer bills to pay for future expansion that had never been seen in most places. Tsk tsk...
said by BBC454 :
the main point I am trying to make is that it is not the government's role to get involved with the private market. what is next government gas stations, video stores, food stores, construction companies, clothing stores.........
this sounds familiar. some famous men had the same idea...STALIN, LENIN, CASTRO......
If that's your point, you need to go back to drawing board. Municipal services in this country come about when the "private market" (built by government subsidies) fails to provide the services and support that localities want/need/require. If the participants in the "private market" had their acts together in the first place, we wouldn't even be talking about this. And your hysteria at the bottom there shows you shouldn't be talking about this at all. Here, I'll make it all better: the sky isn't falling because these cities are considering a broadband program. Get a grip.
said by BBC454 :
lets get this last thing straight. government is government, it does not matter if it is city, local, state, federal. the government has no incentive to ever do anything in an efficient manner.
You realize you can replace "government" with "telcos/cablecos", don't you? |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :
And who created the "deregulated" environment which allowed this to occur, the great state of California of course! Was there accountability? Not exactly, the same people who fubared "deregulation" may or may not still be in office and they haven't fixed it. This is precisely the reason that government shouldn't meddle in these kinds of ventures. We truly deregulated electrical generation here in Penna. as well, and our electric rates have been going down, not up, and you truly do have a choice of providers.
Do you want the long or short version of the "deregulation" story? You certainly have it wrong, that's for sure. I would be happy to dispell your misconceptions, unless you're a "free market" idealogue. Then there's no point in going any further.
said by JakCrow :
And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless.
In your original post, you said that:
said by JakCrow :
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
which sounds like a generalization to me.
[/QUOTE]
And you follow up with what also sounds like a generization. Have some consistancy.
said by JakCrow :
just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records.
There are already ways in which the private sector has dealt with poor service from these companies, many places have rolled their own broadband without government help and without imposing another burden on taxpayers. This is arguably the better route.
[/QUOTE]
What are these "many places that have rolled their own broadband without government help"? With the exception of the municipalities that are succeeding, the private sector non-telco/cableco solutions are few and far between. And once again, someone such as yourself also overlooks that user fees can provide coverage for municipal services such as broadband without taxing everyone. |
|
