Why Should Broadband Get a Tax Break? → Re: I just can't believe writers can produce such arti

Yep, I was listening until he dropped the 8 track and carrier pigeon references on us.

The fact that he sees broadband as some kind of fringe technology like Divx or Betamax players pretty much says it all.

I like my Quad 8 Track....thank you very much.

said by that buffoon Gleckman:

---

Once the industry provides what consumers see as good value for their money, they'll buy the service. Customers will be happy, and those who sell it will be rich. And that's how it should be.

---

This seems a reasonable response to any market. Despite my own Broadband Addiction, I would rather see the businesses rise (or fall) on their merits and not some pork-barrel policy.

But essentially we're at the point metaphorically where people can ride horses or drive cars.

I think people essentially don't care how shitty the cars are because they just don't want to go back to horseback....it gives the companies a degree of slack you wouldn't find in a "normal" industry.

Once dial up dies and the industry has to adhere to more practical business standards, he'll see the value he's looking for.

Granted.

But tax incentives?

said by Leviathan:

---

Once dial up dies and the industry has to adhere to more practical business standards, he'll see the value he's looking for.

---

Keep waiting... The fact is, most people today do not need, nor want, high-speed access. Especially at today's costs. Dial-up works just fine for most people who simply want to check their email, browse, and shop from time-to-time. The fact remains that most casual users (and there a whole lot more out there than us "power users") look at pricing as the primary factor in deciding their access needs, and the cost vs. benefit of DSL/Cable is just too high right now for anyone other than power users or people who have a specific requirement. If anyone thinks government subsidies to broadband companies is going to drive down pricing, then they're sadly mistaken.

What would be more beneficial, is for the government (and broadband providers) to figure out a way where companies can offer an integrated solution (i.e., voice, data, video/tv) over a single line - whether it's through cable/fiber, copper (RBOC/ILEC/CLEC), or wireless - in a manner that's fair and competitive. Only then will you see prices fall in line with value-added, and thus provide the means and offerings that the average user will want to buy.

While I agree that the writers analogies are somewhat idiotic, I do however agree with his basic point that the government should not subsidize billion-dollar companies on the issue that it will "improve" the market-place and thus revitalize the economy. The only ones who will benefit from this are the broadband companies themselves (as always). And they're the last ones who need "assistance" in today's economy.

No, to be honest, I don't think the industry needs it, or that it's a good time economically.

I'm more in disagreement with his general perception of what kind of technology broadband is...He seems to ignore the inevitability of deployment that exists in the industry and refers to it kind of like a passing fancy....

said by popanot:

---

Keep waiting... The fact is, most people today do not need, nor want, high-speed access. Especially at today's costs.

---

I see this thrown around a lot, and I don't really get it. Cable for me costs $40 a month, which isn't really that much more expensive than dial-up in a lot of cases. I have convinced many people at work (who are NOTHING like me in most cases) and friends to switch to broadband and they have all thanked me. They just didn't understand the benefits. AOL and other companies seem to find a way to drill it into their heads that AOL (or MSN, etc) content is the internet and the web would be too hard to navigate without it. It could be just my open-minded friends, but it seems to me that it's lack of knowledge that keeps people from getting high speed access, not price. Tack on the always on/doesn't tie up your phone line benefits and it seems like a no brainer to me.

On a side note, although I don't agree with the above statement and a lot of what was said in the article, I do agree with the main point he was trying to get across. Tax breaks will benefit the broadband companies and no one else.

Let me explain it to you. My mother, father, other relatives, and most of my friends spend on average about 5hrs a week (tops) to check their email, browse the web to look at family photos (etc.), and in some cases shop online. Now, I don't know what most people in your area are paying for dial-up these days, but in mine, they're paying about $10~$15 (or less in some cases) a month. That's a far cry from $40/mo. (btw, RR is $45/mo. and SWB DSL is $49/mo. in my area) and the level of service dial-up offers fully satisfies their needs. As for "always on", why would someone need that if their "only on" for a few hours a week? Plus, most non-savvy users have no idea of the inherent risks of having an always-on connection. And if you factor in the costs of a DSL Router/Firewall, it tacks on another $7~$10/per mo. for the year 1 for a broadband connection. But I digress..

I'm not in total disagreement with you because I fully understand the benefits of DSL, especially if you factor in having a second phone line just for Internet. However, the number of current dial-up users FAR exceeds the number of broadband users, and most don't care if their phone is tied up for an hour or so. My point is, until someone comes with integrated solutions (voice/data/video) at cost effective prices, or a broadband solution that is very cheap (say 386kb down/128kb up for $15~$20 per month), the masses are not going to buy into it. The fact remains, most people don't need 1.5/128 data only connections for $~40 a month.
[text was edited by author 2002-01-23 21:04:08]

Must be a different neck of the woods here, people I know are impatient when it comes to everything. They love the fact that when they are checking email, swapping pictures, or checking movie times that it occurs quickly. I also found that most people do not use the local services such as the ones your relatives do either, they are one of the 40 plus million people paying over $20 a month for dialup through MSN, AOL, Earthlink, etc. As for the always on, I do agree most people do not completely understand the risks of such a connection. I do not believe that any of them actually leave it on, I know that my girlfriend will turn it on when she gets home and turn it off when she goes to bed.

I do agree with you that broadband will not be widespread until there is a integrated solution. What I was commenting on is your original statement, that people do not need or want broadband, especially at the today's costs. I think people do not need it, of course not, but a lot more people would want it if they understood it (or in some cases if knew about it). I think people are just used to dialing up and take the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. That's why people are paying $25 a month for it and will pay more when it comes to raise prices again.

I think the major reason is because for broadband, you have to aggressively pursue it unlike dial-up which is easily available. I don’t mean location either, more importantly the set-up process.

All current factory systems come with pre-installed dial up modems pretty much guaranteed to work with what ever service they choose. There are multiple set-up icons
(AOL, Earthlink, ETC) staring them in the face on their desktop. Not to mention the bombarding of set-up CDs in the mail. If Grandma buys a PC and doesn’t want service right then, fine. But if later down the road she here’s the grandchildren are online and she wants to chat and see pics, she simply needs to double click and sign up when she’s ready. Broadband is a much more daunting task. A specific modem needs to be installed AFTER Joe/Jane User has tampered with the delicate balance of their system. An install date must be scheduled, which for many people is an inconvenience already. Unlike installing a regular cable, dss, or a telephone line, the possible hurdles to overcome are numerous and unique to each computer. At the end of a broadband install date, service is a lot less likely. The cost to send out fully competent installers who can easily asses computers with vastly different configurations, be it hardware or software, would kill their profits. God help Joe/Jane User if they need to install it themselves. Broadband companies lack the factory installed set-up software or in mail CDs just begging to be double clicked.

Because of this the majority of users on or looking for broadband are those who know what they want in an isp and are willing to jump those hurdles. If Grandma could get large
uncompressed pics of her grandchildren faster AND conveniently, she’d do it as well.

Dsl/Cable companies need to standardize their modem requirements, allowing them to work with whatever service the user chooses. It would be preferable if the modems could be pre-installed, but that would then bring up the question which kind. As Joe/Jane User would not have an idea on which type of service they want or is available, it's foolish ask them to choose. Having both installed would also be too expensive at this time. The
easiest route currently I think is for encouraging factory installed 10/100 NIC's. Modems could be sold separately and/or provided with what ever service they choose. Eventually whichever broadband technology has a large enough coverage area, factory installed modems could then be a possibility. Well programmed set-up software also needs to be easily available to the user. Everything for the user must be plug & play, leaving the service installer from XXXXX company to only have to worry about the physical connection.