Construction of the system would be paid for with revenue bonds.

said by bogey780 :

'no one is saying to price it below market.'

Why don't you demand the gov't run auto-dealers, grocery stores, and other assorted businesses? They cost far more than broadband and are more necessary than it.

said by Of course they are. If they priced it at fair market value they'd be more expensive than everyone else and the one thing I've learned from this site is people demand bandwidth for cheaper than it costs to provide it.[/BQUOTE :

How is it that the U.S. have the slowest broadband access compared to the rest of the developed countries? It's not fair market when there's only two or three high speed service providers in any market. From where I'm at there's either crappy Frontier, Comcast, or Direct TV.

I wish there were more competition so the govt. won't have to get involve. But until there is, I'll welcome any the govt.

said by chemaupr :



But those that wait for the SYSTEM to WORK, those are the one that do not understand how it work.

said by batterup :

How is that SunRocket working for you.

said by chemaupr :

Your pall Verizon (Bell) was heavly build by US gov subsidies and they still do receive money from the goverment via the USF fund...

said by bogey780 :

One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century linguistically was when communists started calling themselves socialists and socialists started calling themselves centrists.

said by bogey780 :

One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century linguistically was when communists started calling themselves socialists and socialists started calling themselves centrists.

Businesses price their services based on the market.

You inject an artifically low service(because of taxpayer subsidization) you're not helping the marketplace.

People advocate gov't intervention because of a complete misunderstanding of how the system works.

said by bogey780 :

Actually fascists were always a nationalistic branch of socialism. Some fascists did call themselves conservative...others called themselves other things. But it didn't rewrite the word the same way socialists did with liberal.

A lot of conservatives that are decidedly not fascists still are around.

'That assumes there is competition for there to be a "market". If there is only one provider, the market doesn't exist. No competition, no free market.'

The market is small but there still is a market.

'No company is entitled to a profit margin, they are suppose to have to work for it, unfortunately, most companies forget that fact.'

There is no way to make a profit on selling 20$ for 19$.

When you're working against someone who can always undercut you, you're not going to do well. If the undercutting is through artificial means then the market suffers.

said by bmn :

I disagree... Socialism and Fascism are vastly different. Socialism is basically a lighter version of communism (small C, not the Soviet/Chinese Communism). On the other hand, Fascists are extremist with respect to capitalism, believing that the interests of business should be the end all and be all of government...

said by LiamJunket :

Some should have told Adolph Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist Party in Germany, the grandaddy of fascist government.

said by bogey780 :

There was little difference between Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. The whole corporatism was pretty much textbook socialism with a quirk. They merged corporate ownership with state control so the state was the owner of all industry by fiat. That's prety much socialism.

The chief difference between Nazism and Faschism was Nazism was racially centered.

said by bogey780 :

'No, because under socialism, there are no longer corporate owners. Socialism is total control of the economic system by a government, ie the government owns all industry. Corporatism is where government serves the interests of business at the expense of the citizen. Major difference.'

6 or half dozen. Same thing. Under fascism the state would control who was in charge of what. Gov't and corporations became linked. The difference is really just semantical.

said by Thespis :

I think you have it backwards. In a fascist society, the interests of the state are expected to be the main concern of business; not the other way around.

said by bmn :

The best model is the Utopia model,

said by batterup :

Utopia is pissing away tax payers money and will never turn a profit. Government knows how to tax and spend not run a business.

said by bmn :

You have yet to prove that statement with a single shred of data...

said by batterup :

Yes I did. I'm not going to post it again.

said by jc100 :

Well as long as not federal money. States want something, states should pay for it. Plain and simple. Taxpayers from NY or Ohio shouldn't be footing the bill for TN to have this service. If thats that case, I got no problem with local dollars being spent on local issues.

said by LiamJunket :

And ifwhen their revenue predictions don't work out, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill thru higher electric rates.

said by LiamJunket :

»www.chattanoogan.com/articles/ar···1695.asp
Taxpayer supported utilities shouldn't be in competition with private companies. ...

said by bogey780 :

NASA is a gov't monopoly. How's that been working out for the past 30 years?

said by bogey780 :

NASA is a gov't monopoly. How's that been working out for the past 30 years?

said by Neyland85 :

In Oneida TN, a more rural community in the mountains North of Knoxville, when an electric company wouldn't come, the community did a co-op... same with the main bank and several other services including the local cable company.

That little community had broadband internet before my town of easily over 3x the population. They had broadband internet before they had a McDonald's.

Many communities look at information services as a utility much like electricity or roads. If a company isn't interested in providing service, the citizens should be able to move forward. We all pay taxes on things we don't agree with or support. Cities make investments in infrastructure all the time and place the burden on it's populace. If the citizens don't like what the elected officials are doing, they can vote them out, run themselves, or move.

If I were a city interested in bringing in high tech jobs one of the areas I'd be looking at investing in is quality data connections, both to job areas and private homes as a business looks not only at what the capacity of the office space is, but what the city has to offer potential employees the company may want to hire in from the outside.