|
| |
Re: YayWhen the Cable COs starting laying DOCSIS 3.0, maybe the Bells will get interested. | |
|
shoan join:2006-02-27 Benton, AR |
shoan
Member
2006-Sep-19 2:16 pm
lost commerceregardless of who is pushing for fiber I still believe that the Telco's and Cable companies are holding back alot of revenue for other companies by limiting a huge chunk of the country from a reasonable speed of access to the people who are begging for it and wanting to give money to have the speeds. We don't all want a free ride never said that. There is just alot of commerce lost in this country due to the hold back of deploying technology in the broadband market. | |
|
| dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency? join:2004-01-22 united state |
Re: lost commerceWhy arent those companies losing revenue helping out the telcos and cable companies by contributing to thier build out fund? Its not the telco or cable companies job to build out infastructure so that other companies can make money off of it, it is thier job to build it out so that they can make money off of it since they own it. You state that a lot of commerce is lost due to the hold back of deploying technology in the broadband market yet you dont say who should be paying to deploy it. Again, if those companies losing revenue dont want to lose revenue, they are free to build out thier own techology and network to recoup that lost revenue, it is not up to the telco or cable companies to make sure other companies make money. | |
|
| | |
Re: lost commerceConsumers have already payed for it... more than once. | |
|
| | | shoan join:2006-02-27 Benton, AR |
shoan
Member
2006-Sep-19 3:32 pm
Re: lost commerceand everytime they toss out numbers that say well it cost a few thousand dollars to pass a house. I know this is just a divided number of the total cost. But I would gladly pay the money to get hooked up never said otherwise. I know they made their copper network pay off for them over time same would happen with fiber. They get enough money from the government to "help with operating costs" in various forms and fashions that they can deploy more broadband to the people. And in turn having mre people online faster will have us using those sites more which raises the content providers bandwidth requirements which in turn raises their bill for bandwidth which is the increased profit. Then we have to upgrade to higher speeds to access all those goodies out there and then in turn pay more for higher bandwidth packages and increasing their profits on the consumer end again. So increased operations will pay for the network itself. Which is exactly what your asking for the users to help pay for the network. | |
|
| | | |
to graycorgi
said by graycorgi:Consumers have already payed for it... more than once. That's like saying there shouldn't be a defense budget because we bought a lot of bullets back in 1942. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: lost commerceNo it's not. Come up with another stupid analogy will you. | |
|
| | | | | dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency? join:2004-01-22 united state |
Re: lost commerceConsumers havent paid for any upgrades. In your monthly bill, you pay for your current services and to make sure your company makes a profit each quarter and if the company so deems it, puts away some for future upgrades. They dont have to save for future upgrades but most smart companies do but the majority of the monthly bill is to show a profit to make shareholders happy(remember, they are a FOR PROFIT company). Telco companies in almost all states are only required to service you with a dial tone so if you get dsl be happy about it. Cable is unregulated so no one can tell them what to do since local governments cant tell them what to do in negotioations anymore. No, consumers havent paid for anything but what you currently have. Again, its not the telco or cable companies job or responsiblity to make sure other companies make money. Remember, broadband is not required to live, its a total luxury, the excuse of..oh you need it for school and to do reseach and blah blah...that can all be done on dial up or at your local library where they have free computers with internet. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: lost commerceReally? So the American people haven't given these greedy bastards over $200 billion dollars in "government incentives" over the last 20 years alone to provide broadband on their promises?
Remember back in the late 80's they were begging for this so they can deliver 20mb to a vast majority of the country. This was their asking, it wasn't us begging for it like we are now. Where is that 20mb (not very common)? Where has all that money they begged for and received gone? Where is the accountability for those promises and failed deliveries?
Nothing has changed and it never will until they reimburse the American people the billions (if not trillions) of dollars we "gave them" for the networks. WE built the original network based on incentives and monopolies. No matter how many times they change it that fact will never change or transfer ownership. Especially when they continue lobbying and getting OUR money through "incentives" (not just monopoly/duopoly profits). | |
|
| | | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2006-Sep-20 11:43 am
Re: lost commercesaid by Skippy25:Really? So the American people haven't given these greedy bastards over $200 billion dollars in "government incentives" over the last 20 years alone to provide broadband on their promises? No, that is a lie spread by people that can't back it up. That number was pulled from a place where the moon doesn't shine. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: lost commerceWell unless any of us were present when they presented this then we can only "assume" it was a big lie.
I guess with that mind set they never screwed over anyone and have always provided just as they have promised.
That is honestly the best you can come up with? Contact some of your phone buddies. They can surely provide you with better than that. PM TK, I am sure there is a school or something he can send you to. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2006-Sep-21 8:25 pm
Re: lost commercesaid by Skippy25:Well unless any of us were present when they presented this then we can only "assume" it was a big lie. Do you think someone would have written up a contract setting exactly what was to be done by all involved? Yes they made a law, the law is public record, the original law has been amended, it also is public record. Ask Teletruth to give you a link to the law, it is fascinating reading, I could not put it down. | |
|
| | | | |
to footballdude
Right- except the money the people payed for bullets got spent mostly on bullets.
The money people were (forced) to pay in tax dollars in order to subsidize the telco deployment was quite obviously spent mainly on increasing profit instead of what it was intended to be spent on (current state of broadband affairs proves this quite nicely). | |
|
| | | | | dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency? join:2004-01-22 united state |
Re: lost commerce"Spent mainly on increasing profit instead of what it was intended to be spent on" What was it intended to be spent on? From my understanding the tax untax we were forced to pay on our phone bills had nothing to do with broadband, it is for the phone portion of the telco business and it was not intended to be put into an upgrade fund, it was intended to help the phone companies maintain the network at hand and allow more people access to it. Again, you only have to be serviced with a dial tone and they have met the inteded purpose of the "tax not really a tax" fee since it has nothing to do with broadband but with dial tone. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: lost commerceSadly the book is no longer available for download, but this and many more questions were answered inside the 200bn dollar broadband scandal book that there was a news article here about. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to dispatcher21
Tsume is correct and you are speaking on something you obviously have not researched or kept up with.
They received a couple hundred billion dollars at their request and promise to deliver symetrical 20mb broadband. Not this crap we have now.
Do you have any idea how much "profit" these guys have reported in that last quarter alone? So why are they being subsidized at all? | |
|
| | | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2006-Sep-20 11:46 am
Re: lost commercesaid by Skippy25:Tsume is correct and you are speaking on something you obviously have not researched or kept up with. They received a couple hundred billion dollars at their request and promise to deliver symetrical 20mb broadband. Not this crap we have now. Do you have any idea how much "profit" these guys have reported in that last quarter alone? So why are they being subsidized at all? Post a link that does not lead to Teletruth as Teletruth does not list where it pulled the information from. Post the agreement between who and what. You don't even know who or what do you? | |
|
| | | | | |
to graycorgi
said by graycorgi:The money people were (forced) to pay in tax dollars in order to subsidize the telco deployment was quite obviously spent mainly on increasing profit instead of what it was intended to be spent on (current state of broadband affairs proves this quite nicely). At what point did the telcos say 'give us money so we can build a broadband network'? Any money paid in the past was to build the current copper network, which works very nicely and is available everywhere. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: lost commerceI believe an agreement was made between the govt and the telcos- I don't think the telcos simply said 'give us money so we can make this' - after all it is the government who makes the laws for adding taxes. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: lost commercesaid by graycorgi:I believe an agreement was made between the govt and the telcos- I don't think the telcos simply said 'give us money so we can make this' - after all it is the government who makes the laws for adding taxes. I can remember something like that happening in Pennsylvania with Verizon but I don't remember any sweeping federal legislation. | |
|
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
to shoan
You got that right, you don't know if it was federal, state or local. Surprise, surprise, Verizon did not exist when the agreement was entered into with Pennsylvania; most of the state was GTE. I know what the agreement was and even though the agreement has been modified Verizon can and will honor the original agreement.
Bellatlantic did two broadband trials in New Jersey; before the projects were finished the technology was obsolete. Remember when a PC doubled in power and dropped in price every 18 months. The same happened with broadband equipment. Bellatlantic canceled the third trial. A PC no longer doubles in power and drop in price in 18 months and FIOS will be able to do the job until I die.
Ask Teletruth for foot notes and their source. I ass/u/me they are talking about a Bellatlantic/Pennsylvania agreement but they dont/cant give a reference. The agreement is NOTHING even remotely what they shovel. No one is going to go bankrupt to run tubes so Microsoft can make Bill another $44 billion.
America wanted companies to compete for communication business, competing means doing what ever is necessary to make money for the stock holders or the stock holders will sell and bankrupt the company. | |
|
|
So?Unless there are donations attached to the press release, or the major telcos get behind it, this press release will disappear with barely a ripple, having no effect at all.
Besides, I am sure there is a telco lobbyist somewhere that will inform our representatives that every home will have fiber soon, if only they could get rid of pesky regulation.
It's a nice thought, but don't expect this congress to do anything they are not paid to do. | |
|
| tsu9 join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL |
tsu9
Member
2006-Sep-19 2:53 pm
Re: So?FTTH Council Lobbies Congress
Notice the magic bribery word. The real question is: is it enough of a bribe to matter.
And a better question that will never get answered satisfactorily: why is bribery driving our government? | |
|
| shoan join:2006-02-27 Benton, AR |
to nasadude
if they could get rid of that pesky regulation AND get some more help from the tax-payers please oh please mister government give us more money to help us deploy what all the people want that we are just so strapped for cash to provide just think of how you will look like a political saint come election time if you help pay for us to provide service for a change. | |
|
Eloquorius Premium Member join:2004-05-24 San Jose, CA
1 recommendation |
Who cares who's pushing it?Who cares if people/companies who stand to profit are pushing for fiber? Even if they can get us 20Mbps as a baseline standard that would still leave us behind Japan where you can get a symetrical 100Mbps connections for less than $35/month! Suddenly my cable connection doesn't feel so "comcastic" anymore. Yeah, so big companies will make money off their infrastructure investments. There are lots of reasons for the dismal state of broadband service is the U.S., so I don't wanna hear a blame game... I just want to see improvement. | |
|
| TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
Re: Who cares who's pushing it?What would be interesting is to see a study on how much energy in the form of gasoline and diesel would be saved if a robust national broadband network enabled people to do more telecommuting and less driving to work and back. | |
|
| | dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency? join:2004-01-22 united state |
Re: Who cares who's pushing it?I understand your logic here but how is that the telcos responsiblity? Any employer can currently pay for a private connection between the office and the employees house with a T1 or other connection but they just dont want to pay for it. Again, its not the telcos job to make it more affordable for your employer to do this. Why does everyone look at the telcos and say...hey, if you do this we can save/make/earn more money but we arent going to help with the costs of making it happen, we just want to take advantage of your deep pockets? | |
|
| | | |
Re: Who cares who's pushing it?I think you missed the point of his post. | |
|
owenhomekeeper of the magic blue smoke Premium Member join:2002-07-13 Bentonville, AR |
owenhome
Premium Member
2006-Sep-19 4:34 pm
Good!A lot of us stuck in AT&T's limbo la-la-land would give a limb for fiber with ~=>20Mbps. AT&T's retarded "project flavor-of-the-week" and it's 6Mbps (WTH?), is just ridiculous. Cable's waaaay past that in some places with just BASIC service! Besides, we all know AT&T will NEVER finish the deployment. They'll get a few places rolling, talk about how great they are and how much they are doing for their customers, they'll whine and complain about their competitors, and then without so much as a squeak, we will here nothing more about it, ever again All anyone needs to do is remember "project pronto" to know that. Same song, different verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse. | |
|
| cwh join:2006-05-14 San Antonio, TX |
cwh
Member
2006-Sep-20 12:38 am
Re: Good!said by owenhome:A lot of us stuck in AT&T's limbo la-la-land would give a limb for fiber with ~=>20Mbps. AT&T's retarded "project flavor-of-the-week" and it's 6Mbps (WTH?), is just ridiculous. Cable's waaaay past that in some places with just BASIC service! Besides, we all know AT&T will NEVER finish the deployment. They'll get a few places rolling, talk about how great they are and how much they are doing for their customers, they'll whine and complain about their competitors, and then without so much as a squeak, we will here nothing more about it, ever again All anyone needs to do is remember "project pronto" to know that. Same song, different verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse. Project pronto still mananged to deliver dsl to the vast majority of those with landlines. I think the figure is greater than 80%. The only people that dont have dsl at this point are those that live in rural areas and those people are equally underserved by cable as well. | |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2006-Sep-20 12:18 pm
Does anyone read?quote: "critical to U.S. competitiveness in the 21st century" (and of course the wallets of the group's members
Lets take a look at the greedy members. In one post you sing the praises of municipal broadband and in this you curse them for being members of Fiber to the Home. Does anyone read does anyone know what is going on? Or is it just knee jerk reactions? If you would read and look up the facts you would not keep repeating the B.S. that is shoveled by special interests. Education UNC Charlotte/Center for Optoelectronics Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Light Brigade, The Municipalities Morristown Utility Systems Paducah Power System Provo City Power Pulaski Electric System UTOPIA EPB Guadalupe Valley Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 City of Fort Wayne, Indiana City of Loma Linda. CA City of Ontario City of Quincy FL City of Wilton Manor, FL Dalton Utilities Bristol Tennessee Electric System Bristol Virginia Utilities Not for profit MInet National ICT Australia Limited ETRI Industrial Technology Research Institute | |
|
| batterup |
batterup
Premium Member
2006-Sep-20 1:26 pm
Re: Who cares who's pushing it?said by Eloquorius:Who cares if people/companies who stand to profit are pushing for fiber? Even if they can get us 20Mbps as a baseline standard that would still leave us behind Japan where you can get a symetrical 100Mbps connections for less than $35/month! Wouldn't it be nice to have a link to the company in Japan that provides symetrical 100Mbps for $35 a month. I don't believe it, how can anyone believe it? If one is going to post B.S. it should not be such blatant B.S. You are in luck, I have the facts, not the B.S. 100M is not available to *individual applications* and the speed is a best effort. quote: This service uses optical fiber and is compatible with "B FLET'S" offered by NTT East Corp. or NTT West Corp. High-speed access reaching a maximum of 100Mbps is available. You will be able to video images on Internet and enjoy stress-free net surfing.However, the service is of best-effort type as maximum speed will fall depending on the number of users accessing the service at the same time and transmission speed cannot be guaranteed.
(*1) This is a best-effort type service and does not guarantee transmission speed. (*2) Individual application not accepted. NTT will install communication equipment in the common space of the site and either the administration association or the owner can apply. For details, call NTT. (*3) If a collective dwelling has no LAN wiring, but wishes to use NTT terminal devices, including PNA, maximum transmission speed will be subject to NTT terminal devices.
» www.dion.ne.jp/english/s ··· ets.htmlAs for cost, installation is about $280.00. Verizon installs FIOS for free. The monthly cost for *B FLET'S"Basic* is as follows; NTT the tube provider charges ¥9450 a month for providing the tube, internal wiring usage charge ¥210, Optical network unit rental charge ¥945. This comes to ¥10,605 tax included. Now DION the ISP has an Internet Charge of ¥7,854 tax included. That comes to $158.00 a month for a shared 100M connection. I grow weary doing all of the research only to be ignored and people keep posting the B.S. over and over again. The people making the decisions about America's network do the research and know the facts. It is good to know the facts. Then one can separate the truth from the Teletruth and *The truth will make you free*. | |
|
|
|