Broadband Plan Architect Admits 'Errors' Unfortunately Not The Plan's Biggest One Thursday Mar 03 2011 11:25 EDT When the FCC introduced our first national broadband plan last December, we noted that the plan's biggest failure was its failure to seriously tackle competition. Instead, the plan offered up a series of politically safe and pleasant-sounding but empty policies, including plans to spur adoption among a lower-income populace -- many of whom might not even want broadband -- using a series of broadband uptake campaigns, some of which are little more than sophisticated, subsidized ads. The plan also focuses on "digital literacy" campaigns, which while perhaps well-intentioned, wander into deeper societal issues an FCC broadband plan just isn't going to fix. Primary plan architect Blair Levin, who we've criticized repeatedly for ignoring sector competition shortcomings, has since left the FCC for think tank life, appearing in a continual series of public discussions where he unsurprisingly continues to avoid talking about competition. Levin this week proclaimed that he made a mistake in the design of the plan -- but it wasn't failing to address the nation's monopoly and duopoly markets. Specifically, according to comments made to The Hill, Levin says that if he could do it over again he'd phase out two programs (Lifeline and Linkup) aimed at subsidizing phone service instead of expanding them for broadband. Instead, new subsidies would be formulated: quote:
Levin said the agency should phase out two programs that help people pay for phone service rather than expanding them to include broadband, as he had previously recommended. He said connecting broadband to low-income groups is a different kind of problem than spreading access to phone lines. "Cost is an issue. But it is just one issue," he said. The spread of broadband comes with challenges around device literacy, search literacy, and even basic word literacy...The former FCC official detailed a new way forward, proposing a new assistance program focused solely on broadband with a heavy emphasis on training people in computer skills.
Expanding subsidies without first ensuring they're not a bottomless pit for AT&T and others is a problem, something folks like Craig Settles have intelligently been taking Levin to task on lately in public debates. Again however, many of the incredibly complex institutional, racial, educational and societal problems contributing to digital literacy issues are beyond the FCC's ability to repair via coaxial and fiber. Miring the discussion in technological literacy issues while floating over the problem that the U.S. has some of the most expensive broadband among developed countries -- allows DC folk to steer the conversation away from the lack of competition in most markets. Levin's shortcomings in this regard are more systemic than personal. Many of these goals are noble, but they aren't taking aim at the core of the nation's broadband problems. Fix competition and you not only fix high prices aiding low income residents by proxy, but you help limit other bad ISP behavior as well, from predatory pricing schemes to network neutrality infractions; without additional regulatory action. However, fix competition and you also anger companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast who wield enormous political influence in DC and are the primary drivers of our national telecom policy. As such, DC insiders and both political parties continue to take the long way home when discussing broadband policy -- all to avoid biting the wealthy ISP hand that feeds them. The result is a national broadband plan that wasn't willing to do anything to upset the nation's wealthiest ISPs or disrupt the status quo, like reclassifying ISPs as common carriers or embracing open access policies like Australia is currently exploring and the FCC's own data supported. The result is also an over-arching superficial policy discussion, propped up by an uncritical press. Most of that conversation resides squarely in fantasy land, where all consumers have the choice of six imaginary providers, high prices are only a fleeting concern, and the biggest problem is how to ramp up ISP subscriber totals and revenues through a never-ending and poorly-monitored stream of taxpayer subsidies. |
 | |
PatheticThe worst part of this is that after 10 years of USF subsidies that went to the incumbents' bottom line, we've wasted enough money to cover every major city in the US with FTTH. This doesn't include the massive tax incentives to the tune of $200 billion presented by the 1996 Telecom Act that was simply pocketed by the likes of AT&T and Verizon, or used instead to build their wireless networks- which they now use to gouge us for absurd profit margins.
Meanwhile the only thing the FCC needs to do to solve all the competition issues is reclass all carriers under Title II. Enforce line-sharing as in every other developed country with competition and you've suddenly forced the giant telcos to actually worry about customer retention.
The filth of corruption in this country is overwhelming. Voter stupidity and the infiltration of money into our news media has rendered any hope of change impossible. | |
|  |
2 recommendations |
Re: PatheticThe worst part of this is that after 10 years of USF subsidies that went to the incumbents' bottom line, we've wasted enough money to cover every major city in the US with FTTH. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if someone actually did an audit of all the subsidies, tax breaks and other hand outs doled out over the years, you could probably have wired every home in the States with FTTH five times over. Billions and billions in unaccountable subsidy poured into the accounts of protected mono/duopolists, while we all sit around paying lip service to free markets and innovation and bickering about whether or not improving a country's infrastructure is evil socialism. | |
| | | | |
Re: Pathetic  The issue with any plan whether Broadband or otherwise to benefit ordinary American Citizens and not just the top Two Percenters, the ultra wealthy whose incomes have increased 81% while ordinary citizens income has remained flat. We need a president like F.D.R. to take action to eliminate government corruption. Allowing ISP's and any other businesses to buy lawmakers will guarantee there will be no hope for the fair treatment of ordinary Americans. | |
| | |  DarkLogixTexan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX |
to Karl Bode
I'd like to see them audit anyone that took USF funds and then force them to spend an amount no less than what they took to upgrade/expand their networks
I say no less as it should be any they were planning to already plus the USF funds | |
|
| | |
to sonicmerlin
Who is price gouging you here? From your other posts- you don't even live in the US currently. You live abroad. So you're money here going to the telco's and such isn't even counted since there is NONE.
Also as far as line sharing? That will never happen. As soon as its required, VZ, ATT and others will STOP building out. Then what? Dial-up? And when you do that what about the WISPS? They would have to be legally required to share their network as EVERYONE would be a "carrier". WISPs would NOT go for that; and thus many customers that depend on those would be without. You're line sharing does not work; and will NEVER work here. You can't even pull the networks from the companies either as MSOs PAID for their network and now the Telcos are doing the same; their new networks and expanding to other areas are with their OWN money. What are you going to do? take the copper and do what with it? offer dial-up?! up smart move! should just give that to Earthlink they'd be happy with it. At least they'd have a network they'd be able to own and operate on.
and MILLIONS of people depend on that LifeLine service that is offered. How many people do you know of that depend on that very basic phone service that still costs up to $20 per month in some areas (after taxes) just to have a basic dial-tone and access to 911 when needed? In most states ILECs are NOT required to offer 911 to people with just a phone line. Some states do require it and some phone companies offer it to be nice. VZ was one of them in Ohio but who knows if Frontier killed that or still offers it since it's NOT required by the PUC.
And if corruption is an issue with anyone; they're free to start their own ISP- you should know Ohio has a state law now that allows anyone the right to use the ROW and deploy any hardwired network. The cost $2,000 for the application and be done approved.
As as far as the the 96 Telcome Act- these ISPs and CLECs were REQUIRED to build out their own networks as line sharing would be done away with. Instead they sat back leaching off the copper networks and are now crying wolf nothing was done to protect them or is done to give them access to new customers. They should have thought about that when they were busy leaching off that copper before it was all pulled out from under them. DSLX just seen how fast it can be done with FiOS. All of the rest of the DSL providers will soon see that as more and more companies will not be allowed to renew ATM contracts for wholesale/resell. | |
| | |  coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY |
coldmoon
Premium Member
2011-Mar-3 1:19 pm
Re: PatheticAlso as far as line sharing? That will never happen. As soon as its required, VZ, ATT and others will STOP building out. ... My guess is that this would lead inexorably to nationalization of the networks these companies control to address the public outcry in time. Is this what the ISP's really want? Another scenario would make this type of temper tantrum irrelevant as other companies would eventually sweep in to take advantage of the fire sale when it becomes obvious that the providers are not going to upgrade or improve their equipment and networks. Don't underestimate the disruptive and sometime catastrophic effect that an angry, motivated populace and the emergence of better, cheaper technology can have on your future bottom line or viability as a company... JMHO | |
| | | | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 1:25 pm
Re: PatheticIt has already shown that if ILECs are required to share they will NOT build out nor offer anything else. That was the whole issue with DSL and especially FTTH networks. As soon as they was killed U-Verse and FiOS and service expanded. When line sharing was actually required nothing faster than 3meg was offered and most areas were not even able to get that let alone 1.5meg. If they are required to line share- services will be stopped at what they are and the FCC will be sued so far out of this country it wouldn't be funny. The FCC has NO control over private networks such as MSO's networks. And they damn well know that. And as soon as the new budget passes the FCC will be more stripped of power and the US will have more services than before as the FCC won't be able to push their illegal rules and regulations as they currently are. | |
| | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN |
BlueC
Member
2011-Mar-3 1:28 pm
Re: PatheticLine-sharing already exists, just not on the residential-based service level.
How do you think metro fiber gets used? It doesn't make sense for multiple providers to all bury fiber in the same place. Waste of time and money.
What needs to happen is there should be a carrier-neutral company/organization that buries fiber and then any provider can lease the dark fiber. That would be the simplistic form of a solution. | |
| | | | | | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 3:05 pm
Re: Patheticline sharing metro dark fiber and line sharing residential are TWO totally different things. So stop trying to say that it does exsit. That is not the topic at hand.
And you'll NEVER find that carrier-neutral company to build that FTTH/B network on a national basis. Shareholders of that company will want their money back at some point and by doing the wholesale- you're not gonna be able to fully say "yah we'll be able to repay you at some point" as like Comcast and others are able to say. | |
|
| | | |
3 edits |
to MEohME
It has already shown that if ILECs are required to share they will NOT build out nor offer anything else. Tip: they weren't building out in large part because competition didn't require them to. And for what it's worth, U-Verse and FiOS expansion into new areas that haven't already signed franchise deals has frozen again. Investment is tied to a lot of things, many of which have nothing to do with regulation. "We won't deploy if you impose regulation X" is a very popular mantra, but it's fairly far removed from reality. When line sharing was actually required nothing faster than 3meg was offered and most areas were not even able to get that let alone 1.5meg. Many areas are still that way, which again has more to do with a lack of competition and placating investors who don't want to pay for network upgrades than line sharing. Also, if you were right, the small business market where networks are shared daily would see zero growth. And as soon as the new budget passes the FCC will be more stripped of power and the US will have more services than before as the FCC won't be able to push their illegal rules and regulations as they currently are. Just like MAGIC! Just eliminate the FCC and Utopia flourishes like pixie dust from on high. People seem confused into thinking the FCC is the bane of carriers because they wrist slapped Comcast about throttling. By and large, government policy, from the FTC to FCC, has been of a protectionist nature, artificially propping up a lot of giant companies and throwing billions in unaccountable subsidies their way. Get rid of the FCC and incumbent protectionism will still be the mantra of the government. | |
| | | | | | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 3:11 pm
Re: PatheticSorry but you're not understanding what I said. I said IF Line sharing WAS required AGAIN any new networks would NOT be built. They would stop.
And U-Verse IS Expanding. You must not have had that memo yet. I can tell you a number of cities in Ohio and Michigan that NOW have U-Verse that have NEVER had a press release on them. And why? cause the cities are not HUGE but the fact is- the service is NOW available.
NO lack of compeition does NOT have to do with 3meg or lower DSL. It's the fact that most are smaller phone companies or they're too far from the DSLAM. Which is the problem with DSL (even though people seem to think its God on this website).
And yes the FCC is to blame. It seems that the problem always is with the FCC and people on here don't get that. The FCC is like a damn crack-user. They'll say one thing now and then they'll say something later on the same issue and it be 2 totally different things said. You can NOT trust the FCC especially when they're the ones making the illegal rules. If they can't do what they were SET up to do; then you get rid of them and give that job to someone that can do it. Simple as that. You don't see Comcast's board of directors replacing Roberts because he does a shitty job. Nor do you see that with any other company. And the FCC should be treated the same way. We do that with the President. Nobody likes him after 4 years- we vote him out. That's the way it works. The Gov't is a company no matter how you look at it. The people who vote are the shareholders that just don't get paid. The FTC also does NOT rule on many things regarding communcations. That is left up to the FCC. But back to what I sai; Nobody is going to listen a a body of people who do NOT know what their job is when they over step that line and start creating illegal rules. | |
| | | | | | |  GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
Re: PatheticLine sharing *IS* required in Canada, and yet Bell and Videotron are both deploying VDSL and DOCSIS 3.0 as fast as they can, pushing fibre closer and closer to homes at a rapid pace. Why? Because of two facts:
1) ILECs and cablecos still make money off wholesale customers. Less, yes, but not nothing.
2) If ILECs stop investing in networks, they'll lose customers to cablecos and cableco wholesalers.
3) If cablecos stop investing in networks, they'll lose customers to ILECs and ILEC wholesalers.
We don't have enough competition to keep pricing reasonable, sure, but we do at least have enough competition to ensure that the duopolies don't sit on their thumbs. | |
|
| | | | | |
to MEohME
You are so ignorant to the truth (by choice I am guessing). I really suggest you go back and review the history of these companies and you will see the opposite is true of all you argue.
First off, ALL of these companies built the current networks under great subsidies given to them. Whether or not they were given cash to do it is not relevant. They were always given advantages and have prospered quite nicely under this. Look at the quarterly earnings of just the 3 biggest phone companies. They could deploy FTTH to everyone they serve and pay cash to do it over the next 5 years.
Secondly, while the companies whine and complain about how this bill and that regulation is going to just stifle innovation and prevent them from making a living it has proven wrong every time. They did the exact same thing leading up to the 1996 act and then within 2 years of it being implemented they themselves cut back on providing the very services they pushed for. They took billions in subsidies and then stopped deploying. Even back then they themselves defined broadband as 45mbps symmetrical and now they fight to have it raised to be defined as a measly 3mbps. You look at the countries that took parts of the 1996 act we created and actually implemented it and they are flourishing compared to the US. Why? Because they used it to create competition while our worthless incumbents were busying lawyering up and trying to dismantle it.
Third, your argument of WISP above is just silly. The entire reason WISP are even out there is because of the barriers of entry and the unwillingness of the incumbents to actually wire the places. So if they were required to do so WISP would no longer be needed and their worthless bandwidth would go away or be a perk on top of actual broadband.
Lastly, your choice to try to blow smoke here isnt going to go well. You have maybe 2 or 3 other shills that will try to help you out but a majority of the people here are educated and knowledgeable enough to see through the BS you and the others will be flinging. | |
| | | | | | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 3:20 pm
Re: PatheticAs far as MSOs rights to deploy into a City are NOT subsidies. NOTHING was given to them except being able to serve those cities; especially when it is NOT cost bearable to over build in MOST areas. RCN has already seen that issue. Look how many times they've been sold. Look at VZ- their TV service has a HUGE drop in numbers compared to what they protected and want. ATT is the same way. Overbuilding is NOT something that makes sense.
As defending broadband as 45mbps that was VZ that did that. NOT ATT. that has been on here before as VZ making claims that they could do that to PA. Which really they did. It is available and it is available to anyone. Place the order and pay for it. It's simple.
They don't fight to define broadband at 3megs. Only because the FCC has NO power over that. That's the whole point you fail to see. The FCC has NO POWER OVER THE INTERNET. Got it? I'm sure you don't. Competition is NOT created when you wholesale/resell a product. That is only creating a leach that will NEVER do anything else with the product. Why should I build out a network and then let you come along and resell it just so you can provide your own service? You didn't spend anything on the network. I did. And thats the same way these companies feel. And the only real countries that did anything with reselling/wholesaling was France and GB. And see where Canada is left with their wholesaling/reselling issue? they're pretty much stuck on 6meg DSL which is the way the US would be if it wasn't for killing line sharing on that or on new networks.
And no my argument on WISPs is not silly. The OP at the stop said ALL carriers. WISPs are a carrier and thus should be required to do wholesale/resell as well. What is good for one company IS good for all. Means of getting the product to the customer does not matter. Especially when you're treating the Internet as Title II.
And people being educated on here? Not really. They just fail to see the real picture on how things work and thats the problem with this site. Nobody knows how the real works; just what they want and demand it. Sorry; things don't work that way. If you want something different then- you need to do 1 of two things; Build it yourself- or 2 shut up about it cause it will NEVER happen. But not on here- this site just lets you bitch about it and let those voices over rule everyone elese's opinions because it is not what the majority thinks nor sees. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: PatheticI didnt bother reading your entire message after you completely discredited your statements by saying "especially when it is NOT cost bearable to over build in MOST areas." and "Overbuilding is NOT something that makes sense." So what you are saying is that they should continue to have a protected monopoly / duopoly that allows them to earn a much larger profit through charging the customer more than they could in a competitive market. Which by the way is the #1 subsidy they have received and continue to receive. NICE! | |
|
| | | | | gunther_01
Premium Member
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Third, your argument of WISP above is just silly. The entire reason WISP are even out there is because of the barriers of entry and the unwillingness of the incumbents to actually wire the places. So if they were required to do so WISP would no longer be needed and their worthless bandwidth would go away or be a perk on top of actual broadband.
That is probably one of the most arrogant comments I have ever read here. WE as WISP's are here because places exist that you can't wire and actually have a return on your investment. Like the guys 20 miles out of town down a dirt road, with a 2 mile long driveway. Cost to install with fiber for that one individual, a quarter million dollars or better.. I dont know about your WISP, but we have 6 meg plans, and I know of others that have 10-20meg (actual) plans. We are also here, BECAUSE of incumbents that don't provide good service, have foreign tech support, don't care about "people" or their "families" and also don't even know the area we live in. We are here to serve people.. Oh, and guess what, almost none of us have ever gotten a dime from the Government. We built our networks from good old fashion business plans, conservity with our finaces, hard work, and customers that asked us to be in business. Go flippen figure Skippy25. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: PatheticCall it what you want, but it is wireless and wireless will never compete with wired.
You substantiated my entire claim when you said "WE as WISP's are here because places exist that you can't wire and actually have a return on your investment."
I am not questioning your business plan nor how good or bad you may be. I am simply stating that the incumbents should have been before and should be now required to build out to ALL regardless of cost because they have received enough subsidies over the decades to do so. | |
| | | | | | | | gunther_01
Premium Member
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL |
Re: PatheticThey have built to almost if not all.. its called telephone lines. That was USF's initial purpose. Just because it doesn't support "x"meg/sec. Isn't a fault of the telco's. But, that whole topic is much larger then that. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 5:40 pm
Re: Pathetictotally agree with you gunther_01. Where I used to live was 10 miles out side of the city. We were lucky to get 14.4k dial-up and have it work. The area is STILL only lucky to get that unless you go to Hughes/WildBlue or a Cell Carrier. They have WISPs that are available now- but TWC and ATT will tell you that it is NOT cost bearable to wire that far out of the city and make any ROI. You get a telephone. you get Dish/DirecTV. But the fact is like you said; it will cost a good million+ to even get FTTH out there. And hope 5 people sign up- and that 5 people where ALL a half mile to over a mile apart. | |
|
| | | |
beejay to MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 2:29 pm
to MEohME
If what you say is true, especially the last paragraph, why is it that France has better and cheaper broadband than we do? Why is it that the CLECs have built out their own networks after sharing lines, since it was profitable for them to do so? Why is it that most countries that are ahead of us in fiber deployment and broadband speed, and have cheaper prices and more competition have a Local Loop Unbundling provision in their regulations?
LLU is the best idea the US ever had. Too bad congress didn't write the regulation in a more bulletproof way. | |
| | | | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 3:25 pm
Re: PatheticLLU is a waste of tax payer money will ALWAYS be a money pit to those people. They're unable to break even nor make a profit. As soon as they do; they'll be required to sell that network off and they'll be belly up in no time flat.
As far as the CLECs- how many of them closed? Ever hear of North Point? They went belly up- They were a CLEC. Speakeasy- they had to merge with Megapath another CLEC to stay in business. COVAD? they went bankrupt too. What happened to them? They're barley staying afloat due to they have NO real business model and they're stuck on legacy DSL systems. What happens when a ILEC pulls the copper? I know of several areas this happened. ATT did it under SBC- Check out Monroe Michigan areas of ATT- they have NO copper- its FULLY FTTH U-verse. You want DSL? Too bad. Not available. Want a T1 I hope you wanna order it from ATT because otherwise you won't be able to afford it- let alone maybe get it due to no copper is even there anymore.
France has cheap internet because of one thing; its being resold! Also they have it cheap just like Japan. Once it touches their network; it leaves to come here. Where most of the data centers are that hold the Internet. And its cheap due to the amount of people per square foot! They can build out cheap and offer cheap products. and LUB is nothing but a cheap way to get the gov't involved in private business where they have NO business in. | |
| | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2011-Mar-3 4:50 pm
Re: PatheticThe Federal Government should pass a law that encourages muni fiber to the premises build outs wherever existing telecommunications companies refuse to do such build outs. The law should also overturn all state bans of muni fiber because those state bans violate the interstate commerce clause. | |
| | | | | | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 5:35 pm
Re: Patheticno they shoudn't. Gov'ts will NEVER be able to support that. What happens when content prices go up? Do you know who gets to pay that? Your Parents or even Grandparents who live on fixed incomes. Why should their hard earned money go to pay your TV bill or even mine? Why should I have to pay for YOU to have something that I may not want? See the problem? Why should anyone be MADE to pay for your Internet or cableTV when it is NOT a utlity? States that pass muni bans KNOW what they're doing. They're protecting hard earned income those residents earned instead of tossing it away to some project that will ALWAYS be in the RED. | |
| | | | | | | MEohME |
MEohME to Sammer
Anon
2011-Mar-3 5:36 pm
to Sammer
And how does it violate interstate commerce? You still have access to services that you had before. | |
|
| | | |
to MEohME
said by MEohME :Who is price gouging you here? From your other posts- you don't even live in the US currently. You live abroad. So you're money here going to the telco's and such isn't even counted since there is NONE.
Also as far as line sharing? That will never happen. As soon as its required, VZ, ATT and others will STOP building out. Then what? Dial-up? And when you do that what about the WISPS? They would have to be legally required to share their network as EVERYONE would be a "carrier". WISPs would NOT go for that; and thus many customers that depend on those would be without. You're line sharing does not work; and will NEVER work here. You can't even pull the networks from the companies either as MSOs PAID for their network and now the Telcos are doing the same; their new networks and expanding to other areas are with their OWN money. What are you going to do? take the copper and do what with it? offer dial-up?! up smart move! should just give that to Earthlink they'd be happy with it. At least they'd have a network they'd be able to own and operate on.
and MILLIONS of people depend on that LifeLine service that is offered. How many people do you know of that depend on that very basic phone service that still costs up to $20 per month in some areas (after taxes) just to have a basic dial-tone and access to 911 when needed? In most states ILECs are NOT required to offer 911 to people with just a phone line. Some states do require it and some phone companies offer it to be nice. VZ was one of them in Ohio but who knows if Frontier killed that or still offers it since it's NOT required by the PUC.
And if corruption is an issue with anyone; they're free to start their own ISP- you should know Ohio has a state law now that allows anyone the right to use the ROW and deploy any hardwired network. The cost $2,000 for the application and be done approved.
As as far as the the 96 Telcome Act- these ISPs and CLECs were REQUIRED to build out their own networks as line sharing would be done away with. Instead they sat back leaching off the copper networks and are now crying wolf nothing was done to protect them or is done to give them access to new customers. They should have thought about that when they were busy leaching off that copper before it was all pulled out from under them. DSLX just seen how fast it can be done with FiOS. All of the rest of the DSL providers will soon see that as more and more companies will not be allowed to renew ATM contracts for wholesale/resell.
OK, hottboiinnc... | |
|
| gunther_01
Premium Member
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL |
to sonicmerlin
Once people start to realize the logistics of it all, it sometimes sinks in that it's not profitable. Businesses do things to MAKE money. End of story. If you add to it investors, then you really better make darn sure you are making money. Because your funding via investors will start to disappear.
I would love to know how people feel about government "rule". Lets say there were a network that went to everyone. It would have to be government ran AND built. Now while it sounds like a great idea, almost everyone here knows the government is loaded with scams, poor business decision, fraudulent practices to some, and then add to it the "peoples" money that they will waste in the process. A government ran network is the ONLY way to have broadband reach every single American.
If you try and "subsidize" another's network, does that then make it yours to allow someone else to use it?? HELL no, but that is part of the process of government requirements to get funding, at least that is the way these new loans and grants are set up.
So let me see if you would allow this to happen... You got a tax credit for putting in a new furnace, and energy efficient windows and door on your home. YOU were SUBSIDIZED. Are YOU going to let the government tell you to let someone else LIVE in your home with you and your family, because of that subsidy??? You would have to be flat out of your mind to allow that.. And if you think it's a great idea, you have no concept of ownership, and property rights. That is EXACTLY what those of you who think the government should mandate network owners to do. Share what they own, subsidy or not..
USF is, and has been a scam for years and years. It's outdated, and full of mis-use. Do away with it altogether, and let nature's course happen. Survival of the fittest has always been the best way to make progress in industry. NOT government hand outs, and political favors. | |
|
| |
Competition doesn't exist in rural areasCompetition will never exist in a lot of the rural areas where lack of broadband options is a real problem. USF funds should go directly into fiber rollouts in these areas and not to something like wireless. If even one dollar of USF funds goes into wireless then that provider should be forbidden to use per byte billing.
If you're in a large urban area, you're likely to have at least 1 broadband option and probably several. It shouldn't be the government's role to produce competition so you can save a few dollars per month. Just work on making the service available everywhere first. | |
| | | |
MEohME
Anon
2011-Mar-3 5:30 pm
Re: Competition doesn't exist in rural areasIt does exist. VZ, ATT, Sprint/Clear/Nextel,. Should I go on? Even WISPs. the fact is people do NOT look. They simply call the local telephone or cable company up and as soon as it is NOT available they cry that we don't get anything and we're left out or we don't have competition. When in fact they do.
and it is NOT the gov'ts place to product competition. It is up to the private sector to do that. NOT the gov't. my tax dollars should NOT go to giving Joe out in BFE FTTH just because he thinks he should have it. Knowing that he never had it available to him to start off with. He has other options. If he wants wired services; he should have moved to where those are available. Instead he gets to use what he has available to him. Just as others do. | |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Mar-3 4:57 pm
I have an idea.One System that is a common carrier that is regulated by each state and the federal government. Who is with me?  | |
| | | |
Re: I have an idea.I am! I have preached it for years and believe it is the best and most efficient use of US resources.
One network to every home and business that can be used by any business to serve any customer anywhere on the network that wants their services.
No reason to have 10 companies come through a city tearing crap up to reach customers. They can all lease the one.
No restrictions if I want Comcast as my ISP or Mom&Pop ISP, but can reach me and I can choose based on my own criteria whatever that my be. | |
| | | |
MEohME to batterup
Anon
2011-Mar-3 5:33 pm
to batterup
I'm not! Why spend tax money on that? The only thing stats and the feds do when they get into the private business is screw things up. Look at the Postal System. SCREWED up business that will NEVER get out of the mess it is in with money. Look at Amtrak. What did that give the American people? Not a DAMN thing. Why should we trust the Gov't when they actually traded former services they did run- mass transit---to companies like GM??? what would they do with a telcom network? sell it to ATT and VZ. | |
| | |
••• | | gunther_01
Premium Member
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL |
to batterup
While I'm sure you thought this out, No, it wouldn't work. You wouldn't have any investors, because of the fixed pricing, and mandated net profit maximum. You wouldn't have innovation because of the same thing. Remember, innovation is caused by a lack of a product. If everyone has the same thing, there is no need for innovation, No reason to innovate.
You would still need "seed" capitol in the billions of dollars, if not Trillions. The government would own it for as long as we are all alive, until that was paid back. While I think such a network is possible. I do not think it is feasible. There is and are network technologies that are compatible currently to do such a thing as network disasters. the current companies build in such a way to do that same thing. Each using what they feel, and their investors feel is the best. Same thing goes with those companies people. Even now a days other companies dispatch their people to go help other companies in times of crisis or need.
The last and final comment on this nationwide network is simply this. We would be in a dictatorship if it were to ever come to be. Freedom of market place drives this country. Without it we would be under communist rule.
Batterup, you seem to be in a pretty nice area according to the map. Why is it that you have such a hard time with Internet access, or speeds? Take a look at where I live, I have 2 wired providers (cable and DSL), 1 WISP, 3 Cellular (very poor) and of course the last worst "broadband" option, satellite. In a town of 600. Would you not be happy until you had fiber like some of the select towns in this country? Or what's the problem that you need more? | |
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Mar-3 9:50 pm
Re: I have an idea.said by gunther_01:While I'm sure you thought this out, No, it wouldn't work.
I did not think it out it was thought out over 100 years ago. 
| |
|
| |
evidencesince 2003 telco and cableco alike moved to shut down 3rd wire competition anywhere it reared it's head (for the most part successful too). the fcc and ftc have known nothing but to grow carrots and are glutted with them now-- it's all they know how to do. it's time for the regulatory sticks to get competition rolling again. put fairness back in the telecom and isp markets for the CONSUMER. this current generation of consumers or have nots can't even remember the voice calling competition that brought prices down to pennies per minute of calling time.
plenty of missed opportunities between 2003 and 2011 have come and gone where what we have today could be 5-10x better had the fcc and ftc been not asleep at the switch. 2 years into the democrats rubber stamp this policy from the bush(2) era is officially adopted policy of do nothing and let big incumbent business get fatter at the expense of consumers (and non-consumers alike). | |
| fpilot
join:2007-02-24
Camino, CA |
fpilot
Member
2011-Mar-6 11:21 am
Alternative business models -- not competition -- is issueI think it's important to realize telecommunications infrastructure is just that -- infrastructure -- and not a competitive market or commodity. Due to its high CAPeX and OPeX costs, it's a natural monopoly like roads and highways. Because it is a natural monopoly, it should be open access infrastructure in order to provide a degree of competition and consumer choice among those providing services over that infrastructure. What's urgently needed are alternative business models that are able to more easily accommodate the high cost of telecom infrastructure. Currently, the most likely candidates are those that don't carry the added burden of having to earn a profit margin or pay income taxes such as telecom cooperatives. Fred Pilot » eldotelecom.blogspot.com/ | |
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Mar-10 8:43 am
Do you people wantsome cheese with that whine? 
| |
|
| |
|
|
The issue with any plan whether Broadband or otherwise to benefit ordinary American Citizens and not just the top Two Percenters, the ultra wealthy whose incomes have increased 81% while ordinary citizens income has remained flat. We need a president like F.D.R. to take action to eliminate government corruption. Allowing ISP's and any other businesses to buy lawmakers will guarantee there will be no hope for the fair treatment of ordinary Americans.
