Jaime
Premium
join:2001-06-03
Huntington Beach, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Charter Pipeline
|  What a joke
said by article:
The backers of the bill would however like to reclassify what qualifies broadband, since the original legislation is a little too rich for their blood; defining broadband as anything over 1.544Mbps. Kennard suggests the industry would like to see that lowered to 200Kbps
How can anyone believe that 200Kbps is considered "broadband". That's just a joke and we know that PA officials must be getting their new Lexus' by now if this happens.
--
"The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it." - P.B Medawar
Join the BBRBF clan |
|
bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO | Its all a dream anyways
Municipal broadband is a pipe dream anyways. I dont care how many 'studies' are preformed or how many municipalities are successful... RIGHT NOW. |
|
Jaime
Premium
join:2001-06-03
Huntington Beach, CA
·Verizon FIOS
·Charter Pipeline
| said by bigbeartech  :
Municipal broadband is a pipe dream anyways. I dont care how many 'studies' are preformed or how many municipalities are successful... RIGHT NOW.
Might want to read up.
--
"The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it." - P.B Medawar
Join the BBRBF clan |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to bigbeartech
said by bigbeartech :
Municipal broadband is a pipe dream anyways.
Could you elaborate why you think Municipal Broadband is a pipe dream? Many NH towns, mine included, are investigating feasibility. Seems like a good way to provide high-speed access and maintain local control of a critical resource like roads and water. Our committee could save a lot of time if you can explain why it is not worth pursuing. |
|
Varangian
join:2002-12-08
Collinsville, IL
|  Bought and paid for legislatures
The only reason we see this sort of garbage is that he telephone cartels are bitterly determined to ream the people in these areas for broadband service.
They wish to tie the people's hands to prevent them from establishing service without ruinous payment to the cartels.
They're like Wendel Wilke, FDR's opponent on the eve of WWII
He had been gouging the rural residents of Tennessee and Kentucky for electricity during the depression and was put out of business by the fabulous TVA project.
[text was edited by author 2003-05-23 18:12:16] |
|
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| You mean that TVA that helped the US to... Oh I don't know... Win WWII!?
That was just another pinko, Kommie, big gubberment waste of our tax dollars.
--
Click here to visit Tri-City Broadband
[text was edited by author 2003-05-23 18:35:11] |
|
Orwell 1984
@rr.com
 from:
zabes63
Jaime
| reply to bigbeartech
Re: Its all a dream anyways
I take it you are one of the select group of people who believe what ever you want no matter what the facts show. Good for you. |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:  
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
Host:
Site Tools
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Alltel Axcess
| reply to Varangian
Re: Bought and paid for legislatures
Yes, the government trying to pick up the slack and move one of the most crucial sections of the nation out of the gutter bypassing the flat out monopoly during the worst time in the history of the United States.
I mean what the hell? Where's the Profit?!?!!! Where's the income? Who gives a flying flip about people's well being without bleeding them dry first?
*gag*
Original post spoken by possibly Rush Jr, a true post new deal conservative.
--
root sounds cooler than administrator anyhow
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.
|
|
Tom Zachman
join:2002-12-01
Dodge City, KS
| Let's rip-up the roads too.
Government shouldn't own anything. Plain and simple.
Private Enterprise ALWAYS works best. Our new road companies can simply build elevated roadways over and under themselves. That's got to be the better way. It's good for business.
I mean, look what that model did for the Railroads. They're WONDERFUL!!!!
[/sarcasm] |
|
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| It's time to eliminate campaign contributions...
...from special interest groups, corporations, and individuals. I believe that each candidate, from each party, should receive the identical amount of funds for campaign purposes, to be paid by the taxpayers. Some may look at this as increased taxes, however, I feel the benefits far outweigh higher taxes to help insure our legislators are not influenced in a way that is both costly and detrimental to the good of the people, and of this country.
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... |
|
Tom Zachman
join:2002-12-01
Dodge City, KS
| Money Talks.
Telecommunications sure is Revolutionary.
This issue could certainly be one for tomorrow's history books.
"The Photon Wars (2002-2010), and the Peasants who Fought Them."
An Analytical Look at Corporate Greed and Self-destruction. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| all that money
keep in mind these amounts of money are just for one state; multiply this by however many states in their area, then add contributions at the national level. And don't forget the army of lobbyists and lawyers and other costs of litigation and lobbying.
Wonder what all this money could buy in terms of upgrading equipment, paying service reps more money (and requiring more knowledge) and hiring more service reps? |
|
Tom Zachman
join:2002-12-01
Dodge City, KS
| It's only 140 MILLION (per year) for a 50 state figure.
I don't know the Federal numbers (to include FCC 'fines'), but I am going to just match the state's figure.
280 MILLION per year, so.....
Just for fun; what kind of Loan would 280,000,000 per year amortize?
So.... let's take this 280M (again-per year) and add HONEST INCOME to be paid by SUBSCRIBERS for SERVICE at the extremely low rate of $120 per year from 50 Million Households (no businesses).
So..... without any income from businesses, we would have $280 MILLION per year that wouldn't have to be wasted on POLITICIANS and another $6,000 MILLION per year available to pay the damn thing off. What kind of loan could be serviced with $6,280,000,000 per year?
The only negative I see is that POLITICIANS just might have to do without. |
|
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI | reply to tomsprat
Re: It's time to eliminate campaign contributions...
Chart is misleading. Is something missing?
Why is Telephone Utilities listed as $1,117,535 when Verizon alone contributed $1,266,585, and Comcast added $372,950.
What is the source of your data? |
|
bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Orwell 1984
Re: Its all a dream anyways
er, k, state your side too then. |
|
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| reply to birdfeedr
Re: It's time to eliminate campaign contributions...
said by birdfeedr :
Chart is misleading. Is something missing?
Why is Telephone Utilities listed as $1,117,535 when Verizon alone contributed $1,266,585, and Comcast added $372,950.
What is the source of your data?
Open Secrets quote:
"Leading industries" shows the top 10 industries contributing from within the state. Totals include contributions from PACs, soft money donors, and individuals giving more than $200 to federal candidates or political parties.
"Top contributors" shows the state's top contributors giving PAC, individual and soft money donations to federal candidates and parties. Except for soft money, the contributions came not from the organization itself, but from its PAC, its individual members, owners, or employees, and those individuals' immediate families.
Totals listed under "top contributors" represent only those dollars raised within this state. They do not necessarily represent the total for the organization nationwide.
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... |
|
bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to tschmidt
Re: Its all a dream anyways
Well there are multiple issues one needs to look at when reviewing this issue. First I guess the issues brought up by the interview from BBR/DSLR need to be looked at.
Jim, the interviewee is an obvious representative of the current 'utilities' providers. So his information needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because obviously, he and his firm are making money off of this.
Also, as he states in his first answer the multiple municipal power plants availible in the US, but he neglects to tell you about the multiple privately owned power plants that are still in exsistance today. One would wonder why.
So the second question asks a good question, why is it growing? Probly because people are now becoming impatient with the big corporations upgrades and availibility. Yes, its a big problem. I actually purpously moved to get broadband. About two years later it was availible where I was and where I was was out in the boonies.
Then he states that cable is a limited technology. Erm, where does that come from? With a current cable connection, the max someone can get is 22Mbps both up and down. Then when DOCSIS 2.0 comes out it will be 100Mbps and allow VoIP via the same modem. So there is some disinformation thats already displayed by this "representative".
This isnt even covering whats in future for DSL, which I only hear wispers about.
The fourth question (Third question is being talked about here) is about this fabled "bottleneck". Well lets see. What is going on with the internet now? Multiple people are doing just fine right now with what they have. Who is wanting more? Well lets see, those who want to host servers (if everyone has the same bandwidth and services, why would someone pay you to host a server off your connection?) for gaming, websites, ftps, and whatever else they want. Wont this, in it-self cause this "bottleneck"?
The internet itself can only handle so much bandwidth, but people want to blindly add more so that some people can hog it? Isnt that why ATT @Home died out? Come on use your heads.
BBR: Can't we rely on the private sector to get us to FTTH in the foreseeable future?
Jim Baller: I don't believe so. The main reason is simple economics. Firms in the private sector must cover costs and produce an acceptable level of profits over a relatively short period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. That's how the private enterprise system works. That's how we want it to work. For some services, however, the private enterprise system does not work particularly well, at least in the short term.
So what your saying is, progress comes at a price and it takes time? Wow... what an intuitive comment. This is exactly what causes problems in the USA. People want it now and want it cheap. Would that be why AOL and Microsoft and other companies are sending tech support to India? Damn straight it is. So how could the US economy support itself if all the jobs are in other countries, including municipalities?
Local governments have different goals and are not tied to the same performance criteria as firms in the private sector. Local governments that are building or exploring FTTH networks are not doing so to make profits. Nor do they simply want to provide competition to the private sector -- although that would be a perfectly legitimate goal. Rather, they see FTTH networks as engines of economic development (i.e., attracting and holding on to businesses of all kinds and sizes) and as critical platforms that will support rich educational and occupational opportunities, affordable modern health care, regional competitiveness, urban revitalization, and the host of other benefits that contribute to a high qualify of life. In short, they view FTTH networks as critical infrastructure for the 21st Century, as essential as road, power, water and sewer systems. As a result, they can justify FTTH projects under traditional infrastructure development criteria: they need only contribute significantly to the community's well-being and pay for themselves over a reasonable period of time. That time will undoubtedly be longer than stockholders in private corporations would like.
Er, compairing broadband internet to sewers, water, and electricity... What?!?! First of all sewers are in place for sanitary issues, secondly water is in place because it is a basic necessity, and electricity is needed to help with heat, cold, and to run critical things like the tv, radio, and internet which carry warning messages that the government needs to get to the people.
But they do not pay for the radio, the internet, the tv, or the specific electronics that go with them. Why? Because they are entertainment.
he also states that hospitals and buisnesses need the fiber connection for their buisnesses and to attract buisnesses to them? Er ok... they already have broadband. If the buisness needs it, it will pay for it, fiber install and all. Moot point there Jim.
BBR: How do you answer the charge that municipalities should not compete with the private entities that they regulate?
Jim Baller: The premise underlying this question is incorrect. Local governments do not regulate telecommunications providers -- that is done by the federal government and the states. Internet access providers are generally not regulated by any level of government. Local governments do manage public rights of way, but this is subject to federal and state non-discrimination and competitive neutrality requirements. Besides, incumbent cable and telephone companies are already in the public rights of way, so they can hardly claim to be adversely affected by local right of way management practices. Local governments do typically regulate cable service providers, but this is done through cable franchises that implement well-defined federal policies and standards. Local governments rarely, if ever, impose more onerous conditions on a private cable provider than they impose on their own cable utility. For one thing, local governments typically have master cable ordinances that apply equally to all cable operators in the community. For another, to head off potential claims of bias, local governments today typically subject themselves to substantially the same terms and conditions as the incumbent cable company
Holy cow... lets not forget alot of issues that can and will come up from this.
#1, doesnt the state and federal government still carry jurisdicition over towns? I mean you do still pay federal and state taxes in each town.
#2, each town/city has a hearing on renewing the rights for a company to be in their town. Citizens do have control for gods sake, EXERCISE IT
#3, every time a company has to dig or add wiring, they need permission from the city or municipality. Can anyone see an issue here? If not.. read again.
Im really done with the interview right now... but basicly to sum it up. Underhandedness is not just in the private sector. I mean you see "money" going to politicians all the time. What if a non-profit municipality wanted to enter another city? What do you think will happen?
There are alot of "ifs" to be considered.
But the underlying factor here is that, a municipality is government run, it is illegal for the government to compete with private companies (entertainment companies to say the least), and there is no "national security need" for this. It does not help any citizens gain anything except more taxes and headache.
Just give the current municipalities time and note the issues that come up.
Now who am I? I worked in the DSL industry, I worked in the cable industry, I worked in the government industry. I take everything in before I make a judgement call, and I am a person who is in the middle, politically.
--
guycad: It may take you days and large clumps of hair to get it to work,CyberSchnook:I am so screwed--I haven't had large clumps of hair for years.  |
|
dpdub
join:2003-05-23
Alexandria, VA
| reply to birdfeedr
Re: It's time to eliminate campaign contributions...
About "Cold One"...
Yes, and how did we let him slip by listing "Democratic / Liberal" as #8 without pointing out that nos. 1-7 and 9-10 fall under the general heading of "Republican / Industrial / Conservative / War-Profiteer / National Security / Fascist"?
PW |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to bigbeartech
Re: Its all a dream anyways
Goo? said "But the underlying factor here is that, a municipality is government run, it is illegal for the government to compete with private companies (entertainment companies to say the least), and there is no "national security need" for this. It does not help any citizens gain anything except more taxes and headache."
Are you stoned?
How is it illegal for the government to compete with private companies? See »www.tricitybroadband.com/city_owned.htm for a list of munis currently providing some sort of telco service.
Taxes? Most muni systems are self supporting entities that do not require any taxes. They may use bonding to initially build the systems, but pay the bonds off with revenues from user fees (read: only those who use the services pay....the entire local economy benefits.) |
|
FastiBook
join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA
·Verizon FIOS
|  high priced broadband
we need to get rid of analog because its just not as efficient with data and lets face it a large part of phone company provided dsl's price is actually going for the bit of wire from your address to the CO ..... THATS IT!!!!! and guess what you can now get broadband phone service thats right NO PHONE LINE NEEDED!! all you need is a cable modem but i don't like cable i like dsl digital for all communications? faxes? conference calls would be a lot better in audio quality too thats $ saved right there!!! if the phone cartels want to play with themselves over analog thats fine im sure they will go out of buisness in 5-10 years its all about low price digital phone service with a standard internet speed of about 512k for a fee that can be payed on a 1-12 month basis to fit spending and internet needs i mean i personally do not understand why people jack up the price of broadband so much when its never been cheaper to run *shrug* its just stupid people forget that being human is about knowledge not money
[text was edited by moderator] |
|
