woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA
1 recommendation |
woody7
Premium Member
2006-Nov-2 12:22 pm
hmmmm......As I have said before, these munis' are doing this a lot of time because of being ignored and cherry picking. the telcos/cablecos want it banned because it would make them look bad, in that the munis get done what they can't or won't do, and for a fair price. It's all about the money. I am not against capitalism, but if you are being ignored, why can't you fix the problem? Either help or get out of the way. JMT | |
|
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2006-Nov-2 5:22 pm
Re: hmmmm......said by woody7:As I have said before, these munis' are doing this a lot of time because of being ignored and cherry picking. They are not ignored by broadband providers. The two-bit political hacks are just pandering to their contributers and making tax payers foot the bill. Even the 1/2 that don't want or care about computers have to pay so business can have cheep broadband. That leaves more money to send political hacks to Hawaii on *fact finding* trips. | |
|
| | Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA |
Ahrenl
Member
2006-Nov-2 6:04 pm
Re: hmmmm......Actually the most successful muni projects are built without property tax revenues. Do you know how cheap it is to issue municipal revenue bonds? The interest rate is around 3-4% due to their tax advantaged status. If revenue bonds are defaulted, the assets that are funded by them are granted to the bond owners, but there are no possible repercussions on the community. (other than loss of the built asset).
But please, keep spouting uninformed nonsense. | |
|
| | | |
cracker 52
Anon
2006-Nov-2 7:00 pm
Re: hmmmm......The reason why municipal bonds have low interest rates is because of the tax breaks given by the Federal (and sometimes state) government to the bond holders. So, the loss tax revenue is a cost to those who are paying taxes. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA |
Ahrenl
Member
2006-Nov-3 6:01 am
Re: hmmmm......You mean a loss to those receiving taxes. These usually are purchased by money managers, or large corporations, both of which are probably not paying taxes to the local community. So the there will be a tax loss to the federal coffers, which I only count as a good thing. The less money DC has, the less things they can screw up, unless they use deficit spending.. Ahemm. | |
|
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl:But please, keep spouting uninformed nonsense. Spout this, make your children, if your kind will ever have children, pay for it. There is no free lunch. The only people that think things are free live in their mothers basement and eat her food. | |
|
| | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
to batterup
No. Most of the time, these areas are being ignored. Or there is no price competition. | |
|
|
Good for Karl!"but cities and municipalities wiring themselves and providing internet service on their own removes the possibility that these communities will ever be serviced by the market."
that, of course, is where the megacorps are at last telling the truth. They freely admit that some areas are unprofitable, yet they STILL don't want a muni to fill in that gap. If that's not a case of the megacorps whining like a 2 year old, I don't know what is. The megacorps exist to service.. hmm.. the megacorp! the municipality exists to service.. the citizens. Which country do YOU want to live in? | |
|
| TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA
1 recommendation |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2006-Nov-2 12:49 pm
Re: Good for Karl!Exactly. "We won't provide you with service and we don't want you coming up with an alternate means of getting service as it might impact future profits of ours should we ever decide on entering your area." | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Nov-2 12:26 pm
Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKAction Institute blogger makes the key point: quote: Its hard to put it any simpler than this: government-run services are not part of the organic free-market at work.
There is nothing wrong with muni efforts as long as they aren't backed by taxes and also if the government doesn't give advantages to their endeavor over any private ones. | |
|
| EAP join:2000-01-15 Lafayette Hill, PA
1 recommendation |
EAP
Member
2006-Nov-2 12:31 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKWhat private ones. Verizon and the like receive so much support from the gov't via loop holes and regulations, etc. -- they might as well be an arm of the gov't.
These companies aren't "private" in the sense that your local dry cleaners is private. | |
|
| | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKCould you post some specific evidence of that? It's not that I'm doubting you, but it's all rhetoric until the proof arrives.
NV | |
|
| | | EAP join:2000-01-15 Lafayette Hill, PA |
EAP
Member
2006-Nov-2 3:08 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKYes I can. How about this for starters: » Picture Perfect DealThis was done due to Verizon having the state politicians in their pocket. And this: » www.freepress.net/news/5593They get special laws passed just for them. How bogus is that. They wine and dine the politicians (which is really bribing them) in exchange for laws just for them. | |
|
| | | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKOh yeah. The what? $9 billion the state of PA gave Verizon to supply...nothing! And allowed to keep the money in exchange for....nothing! Brilliant... | |
|
| | | |
| | | | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKThanks, I'll read them.
NV | |
|
| ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT 1 edit |
to FFH5
How about if the government or a neutral non-service providing company owns the pipes to every home and lets ANY service provider compete and do their thing?
Surely a free marketer like yourself would not object to that? | |
|
| | 89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-2 2:41 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKHow do you plan to support that? Are you ready to pay the true, non-subsidized cost of delivering the service? | |
|
| | | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorder Premium Member join:2004-09-02 Mountains |
LilYoda
Premium Member
2006-Nov-3 6:38 am
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKI'm guessing something like - taxes pay for the infrastructure maintenance cost, *if* you elect to have internet access. If you don't want internet access, then no maintenance tax. - then you pay the ISP for your service on top of the public lines. Since the ISP doesn't have any infrastructure maintenance cost, the subscription should be much lower. Overall, the cost should be the same as any regular broadband, with the advantage that you have competition guaranteed on the lines, since there can't be any monopoly. You also have a 100% guaranteed coverage, since it's what munis usually go for. The part that's harder to get people into is the initial deployment cost. If someone chooses not to pay for it, you can't choose to not wire his house. If the guy sells, the house would be valued less, if someone else from the city that paid the initial tax moves into a house, he expects to have the utility built in, etc... But on the other hand, you can't wire a person's house if he chose not to pay the tax for it. The unpopular solution is to force the whole population to pay for the deployment. To get that done, I suppose you can put up a vote and require at least 75% of ppl that want the infrastructure? Otherwise, there seems to be other solutions with bonds and stuff, but I don't understand any of it, so I'll stop before I say stupid stuff But overall, I say that operation of a network should be run by a non-profit driven organisation, whereas commercial exploitation should always be run by private commercial entities competing on the same ground. My 2 cents only | |
|
| | | ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT Netgear R6400
|
to 89707828
I don't understand what you mean by non-subsidized cost of delivering the service. Can you explain?
And heh, I noticed that TCH (aka TKJunkmail) didn't respond to me... wonder if that means he isn't after a free market for service providers after all. | |
|
| | | | 89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-3 1:31 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKI was clear. Are you willing to pay the non-subsidized cost of delivering the service?
Today, a large chunk of the cost of delivering your multi-megabit cable or DSL connection is cross-subsidized by other services riding on the same medium like digital cable or POTS. That's why cable charges more for HSI-only and the telcos charge more for unbungled-loop DSL. And those are still cross-subsidized in that if a cable is cut (for example) you don't have to pay the cost of splicing it.
In your world, "the government or a neutral non-service providing company" would have to charge you (i.e. pass along) the costs of servicing your location since no other service would be helping with those direct costs. The only other way is to either use taxes or charge the ISPs. If they charge the ISPs you're right back where you are now. | |
|
| | | | | ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT Netgear R6400
|
ieolus
Member
2006-Nov-3 1:39 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKNo, your original post was not clear, but thank you for explaining it in detail.
As to the answer, I say yes I am. Competition between service providers will drive the price enough to offset what you seem to think is a huge cost for a "non-subsidized" pipe.
As to the real reason why cable charges more for HSI-only service and telcos charge more for an unbundled loop... they are trying to encourage you to get their other service and make more revenue, end of story. | |
|
| | | | | | 89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-3 1:44 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKBut, in your world there is no competition among transport providers, only ISPs. You have one "government or a neutral non-service providing company" owning the physical transport, and there is no competition or other revenue source there. If the "government or a neutral non-service providing company" has a particularly bad year and has to assess everyone for losses are you willing to pay 2, 3 or four times as much? The ISP part of the charge is trivial compared to the transport charges and they certainly are not going to absorb the cost of your network. | |
|
| | | | | | | ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT Netgear R6400
|
ieolus
Member
2006-Nov-3 1:52 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKsaid by 89707828:The ISP part of the charge is trivial compared to the transport charges and they certainly are not going to absorb the cost of your network. First of all, I would like for you to back that up. said by 89707828:But, in your world there is no competition among transport providers, only ISPs. You have one "government or a neutral non-service providing company" owning the physical transport, and there is no competition or other revenue source there. If the "government or a neutral non-service providing company" has a particularly bad year and has to assess everyone for losses are you willing to pay 2, 3 or four times as much? Correct, one pipe into each home, that is all that would ever be necessary. The pipe would be neutral to whatever service anyone is willing to provider over it (TV, phone, Internet, electricity? {probably not}). So now in a theoretical bad year what would happen? Who knows, but what happens now if/when telecoms have a bad year.. they raise their rates. What the heck is the difference? Btw, why would the pipe company have a bad year? They are basically guaranteed revenue since every home will be using that pipe, whether it is for 1 service or for 5. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-3 3:10 pm
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OKCheck out any BYO transport plan from AOL or any other ISP. Also, Verizon and Qwest have had similar plans, as does Time Warner cable.
The "bad year" could be equipment failures, storm damage, mismanagement or just plain old cost inflation. Your transport provider has no other source of revenue, so it will have to assess it's customers (that's you) for these costs, just like a condo association does, for example.
The "telecoms" have other sources, and even in Florida do not pass the entire cost of storm repair to their customers. I pay a small surcharge each month for hurricane damage cost recovery (a couple of bucks) which is shared statewide even with those areas which didn't take it in the shorts last year. Your local network operator will not have that option and will have to charge you the entire amount.
There is no guarantee of revenue, either. What about those who just don't feel the need to use the network? Are you going to force them to pay anyway (that's a tax). | |
|
| CPMBroadband, DSL, cable join:2001-08-24 Denver, CO |
CPM to FFH5
Member
2006-Nov-2 12:46 pm
to FFH5
| |
|
| |
this nane wasnt take to FFH5
Anon
2006-Nov-2 1:05 pm
to FFH5
and subsidies, and right of way, and exclusive franchises, etc...
Which makes you point not wrong, but irrelevant.
In other words, the telcos are fine with big brother (when it suits them). | |
|
tsu9 join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL |
tsu9
Member
2006-Nov-2 12:32 pm
ObviousIt's really very obvious: Muniband is taking business away from corporations that have not built into the area due to the area not being profitable enough. All of the funds collected and used by the municpalities for this purpose are misspent and should obviously be going towards the companies that aren't building in., just in case they eventually decide to support those areas sometime in the next several decades.
It's just natural selection that some cities and/or areas aren't built up. If they don't like it, they should move!
(the above should not be taken seriously) | |
|
RaptorNot a Dumptruck join:2001-10-21 London, ON
1 recommendation |
Raptor
Member
2006-Nov-2 12:35 pm
Action Institute Hits the Nail on the Head"...broadband black holes have always existed....They just havent been noticable [sic] until broadband was invented." I do believe that is the conclusion of a 3 year old. Touché Action Institute. Perhaps less time spent on your organization's slogan, a little more on your paramount conclusions. | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 2 edits |
morbo
Member
2006-Nov-2 12:48 pm
Re: Action Institute Hits the Nail on the Head it's some type of logical fallacy.
it's making my head spin trying to figure out if this guy is truly an idiot.
| |
|
| |
to Raptor
Touché indeed. BBR saw fit to [sic] "noticable", but wrote "ACTON Institute" as "ACTION Institute." And you didn't realize that, because instead of RTFA you moved quickly to insult the blogger based on a quote taken out of context. | |
|
| | •••
|
1 recommendation |
My favorite quote"Despite Bodes claims, theres no real inconsistency here. And the fact that a current area may not be a profitable market for broadband provision does not mean that it will not be so in the future...but cities and municipalities wiring themselves and providing internet service on their own removes the possibility that these communities will ever be serviced by the market." This is my favorite quote. Plenty of little towns here in the sticks still have co-op telephone and electric service, and the megacorps have no interest in competing with them for a few relatively low-margin customers. These providers are actually beacons of innovation, and provide these services at extremely competitive rates. I guess we should be lamenting the fact that there will never be 'market service' out here. My point is that most of these co-ops were started under government initiatives like the REA, and there is no reason that similar programs shouldn't exist to 'wire' poor or under-served areas with broadband Internet access. Getting a nationwide policy like the REA passed is totally infeasible, so why shouldn't municipalities take on these projects themselves? P.S. it's the Acton institute, as opposed to Action Institute! | |
|
| 89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-2 2:12 pm
Re: My favorite quoteMany of those customer-owned telephone co-ops are doing quite well, and provide competitive broadband (and even cable TV) service to their market areas, which tend to be really out in the sticks as opposed to some sprawling fungus of suburban McMansions filled with whiny spoiled brats out on the edge of an urbanized area. | |
|
ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save join:2005-10-17 |
ftthz
Member
2006-Nov-2 1:31 pm
wild wild west... wonders what would happen if we took rural areas as the frontier land where rugged individualism was the rule... meaning if they want something done and no one else will do it they will do it themselves. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2006-Nov-2 4:14 pm
Deliberately ConfusingIncumbents telegraph and cable companies are not banning towns from wiring themselves. They are simply lobbying to ensure that no state or local government wastes taxpayer money on providing broadband.
If people in these towns want broadband, there is nothing stopping them from pooling their own money and forming their own private venture to deploy broadband. | |
|
| •••••••••••• |
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2006-Nov-2 5:33 pm
Bigger and smarter.If the people insist on things that The Phone Company feels will prevent them from making money The Phone Company won't do it. You want *Net Neutrality* so Microsoft and other giants can supply HD TV without the hassle of bribing every small town political hack and paying to run the cable? Good, The Phone Companies will not offer speeds fast enough for third party leaches to send HD porn.
If you want a socialist Broadband Network you better shell out $300 billion in tax dollars to run it. Private enterprise and their owners/share holders are not going to do it. | |
|
| •••••••••• |
Timmn join:2000-04-23 Tinley Park, IL |
Timmn
Member
2006-Nov-2 9:09 pm
The question I have........is if the municipal government can't, and the big guys (like AT&T) won't, where does that leave the consumer? | |
|
| |
Re: The question I have........No one bother saying the obvious (unless I simply missed it)... But leave it up to the greedy money hungry Christians to pull something like this. BTW- I loved the communism rant... straight out of the pages of McCarthy. Too funny. But then again, unbalanced people like that usually are. | |
|
| | Timmn join:2000-04-23 Tinley Park, IL |
Timmn
Member
2006-Nov-3 7:44 am
Re: The question I have........As much as I hate to turn this into a debate over religion, not all Christians are greedy and money hungry. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists.
BTW, If I am asked to list my religious affiliation, I put "Agnostic". | |
|
|
|