| ! One word: Disgusting |
|
| Backwards We Go Maybe it's time to have some sort of "use it or lose it" provision for these companies since their lines are in the public right-of-way.
Spend a certain percentage reinvesting in the lines or lose the right to own them. Don't upgrade the copper to fiber? It's ours now. |
|
| MMM FISHY!! Why Do i see Frontier and Century Link getting Verizon assests, why?> because VZ is going to be forced to divest Fios and their Landline networks after the Cable Spectrum deal goes though, They'll apply for the funding when they get control of those networks from VZ
Lowell'satool.com |
|
 WFA
@ameritech.net | corporate welfare So now it's a bad thing when companies don't take corporate welfare? |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78 | . well anyone that wants to be their own ISP should pipe up now and apply. There should be no excuses now. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | LTE will probably be pretty good... I expect LTE will be a nice improvement. If you had to choose between Frontier and LTE in a rural area, which works better? Really, all the nice expectations we had for WiMax should apply to LTE also.
Really, what LTE needs is more wireless competitors. I expect that putting up a tower is a lot easier than wiring up a bunch of houses. AT&T and Verizon duopoly will stagnate by itself. That open 1GHz band from the white house advisers sounds like the ticket. |
|
|
|
 w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR | waste of money the FCC is paying to expand non-broadband options like DSL? waste of money entirely, any investment should be going toward fiber. DSL is so far behind except for the few close to the RT or CO, so in effect they're paying to deploy 1.5Mbps or less to people. cable and fios meanwhile are pushing 20Mbps as the standard, upto 300Mbps. should at least put that money towards something useful and non archaic. so tired of paying to maintainand build DSL and unshielded copper lines that serve little purpose outside of telephone service anymore.
--
www.aimless.us - irc.aimless.us channel #fix |
|
 swintecPremium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:4
 ·RapidVPS
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
 ·VoicePulse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to osravens
Re: Backwards We Go said by osravens:Spend a certain percentage reinvesting in the lines or lose the right to own them. Don't upgrade the copper to fiber? It's ours now.
Why would "we" want the lines that appear to have no return on investments? If they were worth a damn they would be invested in and upgraded by the phone company. Not sure why you think the government at any level would make them suddenly worthwhile.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| block grants.. apparently, these are 70 - 100 million $ block grants which are tied to deploying a next generation network (or at least one grade higher than what's currently there) to rural and under-served populations... and based on the specific requirements and the number of customers to be connected.. the big telcos are saying NO THANKS.. they'll just gouge the customers they have more to make up the 100 mil. difference.
so, why not give the grant to RCN, they can wire the rest of Boston, and spread out in Massachusetts.., or Queens, NY, etc..
Apparently the government thinks telecom companies can connect 350 - 400k people with just $70 - $100 million dollars...
really? Hmm...
Here's an idea.. give the 100 mil. to Google and expand that Kansas, Mo fiber out to the poorer suburbs outside KC!!! |
|
w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR | reply to axus
Re: LTE will probably be pretty good... No one will want to use lte in its current form on anything other than their phones. its too damn expensive at $10-$15 per gigabyte, and you will tear through your plans cap in a matter of seconds if you try to utilize it. they also charge even more for computers to be connected, and the most you will be doing is checking email or facebook, and avoiding all video ans heavy media like the plague. if you tried to do what you did on cable or DSL with lte, the bill would run $350-$500 per month, for 30GB of transfer, which is on the low side as far as cable and wired broadband usage runs. comcast says that's what typical users consume when averaged out.
--
www.aimless.us - irc.aimless.us channel #fix |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | reply to osravens
Re: Backwards We Go And who would run it, the gov't which mismanages and bankrupts everything they touch? |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Cool So give the taxpayers their money back! |
|
| reply to osravens
Re: Backwards We Go these companies want to to lose these rural lines. Verizon has already offloaded a bunch. AT&T is the one who couldn't find any takers since they started playing the game late. |
|
| reply to swintec
Telecommunications service is clearly within the public interest.
If the companies who were granted right-of-way and given in many cases with these rural areas funds to invest in them have no interest in providing a viable service, then we can't just let them milk these people for all they're worth as a digital divide sets up.
The government wouldn't take them to monetize them, the government would take control of them to give these people something worth a damn no private company seems interested in doing. |
|
| reply to swintec
AT&T might actually be better off if their most-deteriorated lines are taken by the government using eminent domain.
Eminent domain has favorable tax treatment, in that you can reinvest the proceeds in like property without capital gains taxes. Thus, AT&T could spend the money it receives from losing its worst-performing lines on upgrading its better-performing lines to U-verse.
That's not such a bad outcome, considering that AT&T has been unable to find a private buyer for those lines ... |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Reality, again! The carriers are refusing the subsidy, because they know they'll still lose money.
Verizon can't get more than 1/3rd of their customers to buy Fios; Rural customers are more fickle - simply not interested in buying broadband at even urban market rates. |
|
| reply to swintec
Re: Backwards We Go Because towns and regional ISPs would deliver meaningful high speed connection at reasonable prices. That can easily happen without the burden of demands for high ROI from big ISPs. |
|
| reply to axus
Re: LTE will probably be pretty good... Not a chance. Caps, caps, and more caps. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
| reply to elray
Re: Reality, again! Rural customers are not more fickle just more cautious on how they spend there cash.. If you gave rural customers the option of comcast at $40 per month for 3-6 mbps HSI @ or ATT DSL 1.5-3.0 mbps for $15 they would chose the ATT DSL and be happy with it, with not even a care in the world that there are pricier options for 20-100 mbps. A lot of people seem to forget there only option in rural areas is dial up for $9.95 + per month. Why would anyone pay $10 for 56k dial up if for just a few bucks more they could get at least DSL speeds.
Really what would you chose if you at least had the option but were on a budget. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
| reply to ITALIAN926
Re: Disgusting Agreed... but thats big business.. why take the government handout and service the nation properly for an affordable rate when you can force them all onto LTE for $15 per GB and rape them blind.
This even makes the caped wired service overages from ATT and comcast ( $10 per 50 GB) seem affordable. If those were the rates for wireless LTE ($10 per 50GB not for 1) there would not be as much uproar. heck ATT/Verizon you could even get away with your bogus $20 hotspot fee if the data was priced as above. |
|
