how-to block ads
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to factchecker
Re: Esme Vos the typical liberal
said by factchecker :Look out, TK is trolling again with an excellent example of an appeal to mockery. Why is it wrong to mock your opponent when she is so obviously wrong? Municipal wireless has failed everywhere it has been tried. It will fail in San Francisco too.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by pnh102  :Why is it wrong to mock your opponent when she is so obviously wrong? Read the link and you will see why. If you want to discredit them, discredit them based on the merits of your own position or lack of merit in their own position, instead of resorting to second grade level insults... Of course it just dawned on me that this is the internet, where second grade level insults and mud slinging are considered serious debate.
Municipal wireless has failed everywhere it has been tried. Your statement false. It has not failed EVERYWHERE that it has been tried. The only reason you think that it has is because failures receive press while successful operations fly under the radar.
It will fail in San Francisco too. Which project ? There are several of them and some of them are alive and kicking. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by factchecker :
Read the link and you will see why. If you want to discredit them, discredit them based on the merits of your own position or lack of merit in their own position ... It has already been established that municipal wireless has failed. There's nothing wrong with mocking those who continue to preach a failed idea over and over again, because what they advocate is a failure, and their continuing to advocate it is just plain stupid.
said by factchecker :
Your statement false. It has not failed EVERYWHERE that it has been tried. And where has it worked?
said by factchecker :
Which project ? There are several of them and some of them are alive and kicking.
The only way I see a city-wide wifi deployment (or some other internet access) succeeding is if it is done by a private outfit. So many municipal projects have gone down in flames that local government simply should not take a chance with it. I am also certain that like other cities, there are more important problems which need to be dealt with instead of another pie-in-the-sky municipal internet project.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by pnh102 :It has already been established that municipal wireless has failed. In certain deployments... It is erroneous to conclude that all muni-wifi operations have failed based on the subset that have failed. That's like saying private enterprise is a failure based on the staggering numbers of small, medium and large sized businesses that fail every day.
There's nothing wrong with mocking those who continue to preach a failed idea over and over again, because what they advocate is a failure, and their continuing to advocate it is just plain stupid. In the context of any serious debate, it is indeed poor form and illustrates poor debating skills to do that. Point out the errors in reasoning and present counter points, but stay above second grade name calling.
And where has it worked?
Check in a post further down... There is a link to one successful project. Check out the projects in the Bay Area.
The only way I see a city-wide wifi deployment (or some other internet access) succeeding is if it is done by a private outfit. Earthlink illustrates that argument to be dubious. Earthlink, a private company, ran several of those failed projects right into the ground. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by factchecker :
It is erroneous to conclude that all muni-wifi operations have failed based on the subset that have failed. When quite a large number have failed, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in the process, then it is still valid to conclude that cities should avoid these projects. Heck, even when they are running and still costing taxpayers (still failing in my book) you still can't make the argument that they are good.
said by factchecker :
In the context of any serious debate, it is indeed poor form and illustrates poor debating skills to do that. Why? There is nothing wrong with using a little humor to point out the truth.
said by factchecker :
Check in a post further down... There is a link to one successful project. Spokane Wifi still needs money from the city, so it costs taxpayers' money which could have been spent on other things. Maybe if it ran entirely as a private non-profit I could change my mind about it.
said by factchecker :
Earthlink illustrates that argument to be dubious. Earthlink, a private company, ran several of those failed projects right into the ground.
If you look at Philadelphia as an example, you'll notice that the city dumped quite a bit of taxpayer money into that project. This was far more than the $220K I initially reported.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by pnh102 :When quite a large number have failed, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in the process, then it is still valid to conclude that cities should avoid these projects. Heck, even when they are running and still costing taxpayers (still failing in my book) you still can't make the argument that they are good. When there is a lack of investment by incumbents, a lack of interest on the part of incumbents to develop that area for broadband, you bet your gills they are good.
The problem is how you define "successful"... If you are expecting these operations to be cash positive from the starting gate, I suggest that you become more familiar with the telecom industry and the average time for an ROI.
Why? There is nothing wrong with using a little humor to point out the truth.
Then it isn't a discussion or serious debate. It falls down to the level of folks like Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken - bullshit.
Spokane Wifi still needs money from the city, so it costs taxpayers' money which could have been spent on other things. Maybe if it ran entirely as a private non-profit I could change my mind about it. All cities are different and I trust localities to determine how best to spend their money. You might not believe your town or city needs a muni network, and that is fine, but to try to dictate what other cities should and should not do runs counter to the idea of local control that conservatives such as your self believe in.
` said by factchecker :
Earthlink illustrates that argument to be dubious. Earthlink, a private company, ran several of those failed projects right into the ground.
If you look at Philadelphia as an example, you'll notice that the city dumped quite a bit of taxpayer money into that project. This was far more than the $220K I initially reported.
The idea that private enterprise can do it better was dealt a nice blow when all these cities outsourced the networks to Earthlink. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by factchecker :
When there is a lack of investment by incumbents, a lack of interest on the part of incumbents to develop that area for broadband, you bet your gills they are good. But I can say that about any luxury item. There's a lack of private capital that would buy everyone a Bentley, so let's have taxpayers buy one for everyone.
said by factchecker :
The problem is how you define "successful"... If you are expecting these operations to be cash positive from the starting gate, I suggest that you become more familiar with the telecom industry and the average time for an ROI. I don't. But if a private entity is footing the cost, then the taxpayers won't be left holding the bag if the venture should fail.
said by factchecker :
Then it isn't a discussion or serious debate. It falls down to the level of folks like Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken - bullshit. Well, truth is still an absolute defense against any falsehood, even if the truth is sprinkled with a little polish. The fact remains that municipal wifi is more of a taxpayer moneypit than anything else.
said by factchecker :
All cities are different and I trust localities to determine how best to spend their money. You might not believe your town or city needs a muni network, and that is fine, but to try to dictate what other cities should and should not do runs counter to the idea of local control that conservatives such as your self believe in. It still isn't fair to taxpayers that local governments can spend money willy-nilly on pie-in-the-sky projects like this. That's why I believe states should ban them. Conservatives believe that states should have full authority to govern where the federal government does not have authority, and since all local government is subservient to the state, then suggesting a ban at the state level on this sort of thing fits right in line with conservative principles.
said by factchecker :
And? Still doesn't change the fact that it was a private enterprise that drove it into the ground. And had Philadelphia been banned from entering into such a venture, that money could have been used to hire more cops, and if you live near Philadelphia (disclaimer, I did until 02/2006 and I still have strong family ties to that region), you would see that law enforcement is a more pressing need than wifi.
said by factchecker :
The idea that private enterprise can do it better was dealt a nice blow when all these cities outsourced the networks to Earthlink. But then how do you explain the success that 3G wireless providers, such as Verizon and AT&T, have enjoyed when they deployed this service? I know it is a different way of getting to the Internet, but it is still the same Internet that someone would use should they connect with it.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by pnh102 :But I can say that about any luxury item. There's a lack of private capital that would buy everyone a Bentley, so let's have taxpayers buy one for everyone. That's what you call a misuse of hyperbole. Buying a Bentley for everyone with tax money is vastly different than communications infrastructure improvements with tax money. One serves a purpose that achieves a desirable end, the other does not. Modernizing telecom infrastructure does not sit in the same hemisphere as giving people a overpriced ride.
I don't. But if a private entity is footing the cost, then the taxpayers won't be left holding the bag if the venture should fail. I have to ask then, do you show the same disdain for government subsidizing the following: oil, farmers, the defense industry, the airlines, etc.
And just because a private entity is running the network doesn't mean that tax payer money won't be used to fail it out. Guess what happens if your local telephone company was close to going tits up? Magic words... Bail out.
It still isn't fair to taxpayers that local governments can spend money willy-nilly on pie-in-the-sky projects like this. That's why I believe states should ban them. Conservatives believe that states should have full authority to govern where the federal government does not have authority, and since all local government is subservient to the state, then suggesting a ban at the state level on this sort of thing fits right in line with conservative principles. Actually, it doesn't because it violates the principal that that government should be as close to the people as possible. Suggesting that states should ban localities from doing muni-networks is, prima facia, the same as the federal government banning states from doing something.
The idea that communities should be able to do this when private industry fails to, based on a majority of the voting population supporting it is absolutely in line with conservative ideas.
Unless, of course, conservatives have turned their back on a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Because, in reality, all statewide bans do is protect incumbent providers.
But then how do you explain the success that 3G wireless providers, such as Verizon and AT&T, have enjoyed when they deployed this service? You do realize that the target group is different when talking about 3G and something like muni-wifi or wimax?
3G is aimed at the mobility segment of the market and is NOT a last mile replacement - speed, latency, ability to run applications like VoIP, etc. Muni-wifi, muni-fiber, wimax, etc. is a last mile technology for static users. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by factchecker :
That's what you call a misuse of hyperbole. Buying a Bentley for everyone with tax money is vastly different than communications infrastructure improvements with tax money. It is also called the truth. Internet access, like a Bentley, is a luxury item. People lived for thousands of years without Bentleys or Internet access, and they will continue to do so.
said by factchecker :
I have to ask then, do you show the same disdain for government subsidizing the following: oil, farmers, the defense industry, the airlines, etc. Yes. I hate all subsidies for anything and everything. You should also add stadiums for professional sports teams to that list.
said by factchecker :
And just because a private entity is running the network doesn't mean that tax payer money won't be used to fail it out. Guess what happens if your local telephone company was close to going tits up? Magic words... Bail out. We don't even have to look at the telecommunications industry to see an example of that. I have no doubt you know full well that banks which willingly made bad loans to people who had no business borrowing mortgages will be getting a full bailout soon. And yes, that stinks.
said by factchecker :
Suggesting that states should ban localities from doing muni-networks is, prima facia, the same as the federal government banning states from doing something. The relationship between states and the federal government is not the same as the relationship between local government and the state government. For example, a state government, if it chose to, could dissolve a local government or create a new one, all without the consent of the governments involved (the people would still have a say as they vote for representation in both the state and local government). The federal government, on the other hand, could not dissolve an existing state, create a state out of the territory of an existing state, or cede part of one state to another without the consent of the states involved.
said by factchecker :
The idea that communities should be able to do this when private industry fails to, based on a majority of the voting population supporting it is absolutely in line with conservative ideas. Not when government is involved in providing the service. Also, we are not discussing providing Internet access where there is none already. Just about every major city in the USA has a plethora of Internet access options, both wired and wireless, so there not being any Internet access isn't an issue.
said by factchecker :
Because, in reality, all statewide bans do is protect incumbent providers. They also shield taxpayers from paying more and more money for a venture that the local government shouldn't be doing anyway. I say that is a good tradeoff.
said by factchecker :
You do realize that the target group is different when talking about 3G and something like muni-wifi or wimax? Yes, which is why I mentioned that it is a different way of getting to the same Internet. 
said by factchecker :
3G is aimed at the mobility segment of the market and is NOT a last mile replacement - speed, latency, ability to run applications like VoIP, etc.
Heh. I have some friends of mine who use 3G as their primary broadband provider because they cannot get DSL or cable where they are. I am certain they are not the only people who do this either. In a sense, whether or not it was intended, 3G is being used as a replacement for wired broadband.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by pnh102 :It is also called the truth. Still hyperbole. The logical extension from telecom improvements to Bentley requires a SERIOUS stretch.
Internet access, like a Bentley, is a luxury item. People lived for thousands of years without Bentleys or Internet access, and they will continue to do so. Arguably, that is not the case any more. For example, the number of HR departments that will accept paper applications is declining. In fact, most employers now list only on their own HR websites and no longer in print media.
Wanna get a manual for an appliance? Most manufacturers will no longer send them to you, instead sending you to the internet.
The internet is becoming less a luxury and more like the telephone. And to believe that the internet will always be a luxury is counter the facts on the ground. Corporate America is rapidly converting to the internet as their preferred and, in some cases, sole means of communication.
They also shield taxpayers from paying more and more money for a venture that the local government shouldn't be doing anyway. I say that is a good tradeoff.
I'm more inclined to allow local residents to decide that on their own... State governments are so easily bought off, it isn't even funny. And I'm of the opinion that neither you or I should be determining what is or is not right for a locality, and neither should politicians who take kick backs from incumbents and are clueless about the localities in their state.
I have some friends of mine who use 3G as their primary broadband provider because they cannot get DSL or cable where they are. I am certain they are not the only people who do this either. In a sense, whether or not it was intended, 3G is being used as a replacement for wired broadband. I'd like to let you know that your friends may very well run afoul of the providers doing that. I know they are using it as their primary connections, but providers never intended their 3G networks to be used in such a manner. Additionally, 3G networks are not designed for that type of use.
Just a friendly heads up. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by factchecker :
Still hyperbole. Again, the fact that it is a irrefutable truth renders such a judgement irrelevant.
said by factchecker :
For example, the number of HR departments that will accept paper applications is declining. In fact, most employers now list only on their own HR websites and no longer in print media.
Wanna get a manual for an appliance? Most manufacturers will no longer send them to you, instead sending you to the internet. People can still use dialup or a public library for these things.
said by factchecker :
Corporate America is rapidly converting to the internet as their preferred and, in some cases, sole means of communication. So why give a handout to Corporate America? If private companies want broadband, let them pay for it.
said by factchecker :
I'm more inclined to allow local residents to decide that on their own... So then when the next "free" fad comes along, it would be ok for local residents to vote themselves that too? Especially when it comes from the backs of other taxpayers? If I were an enterprising politician... I would promise free Bentleys.
said by factchecker :
State governments are so easily bought off, it isn't even funny. So can local government. In many regards, local governments create more of an impediment to broadband than anything else by making ridiculous demands from ISPs in exchange for the right to conduct business.
said by factchecker :
And I'm of the opinion that neither you or I should be determining what is or is not right for a locality, and neither should politicians who take kick backs from incumbents and are clueless about the localities in their state. I am certain that you can find people like me in just about every state. Ergo, I can claim that I speak for them.
said by factchecker :
I'd like to let you know that your friends may very well run afoul of the providers doing that. I know they are using it as their primary connections, but providers never intended their 3G networks to be used in such a manner. True, true, and I know that in one of those situations Verizon did yank access. However, I think for the most part they don't use enough bandwidth to get noticed.
said by factchecker :
Additionally, 3G networks are not designed for that type of use. For now.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by pnh102 :Again, the fact that it is a irrefutable truth renders such a judgement irrelevant. It is nice to see the meaning of the words "irrefutable" and "truth" being abuse... There is nothing irrefutable about this. The reason there is so much debate on this topic is because of the mixed success of such operations. Any one who claims that every muni operations out there is a failure is either lying or distorting the truth because of an agenda.
People can still use dialup or a public library for these things. I could show you quite a few HR portals that are so bogged down in useless Flash crap that it would take quite a while to fill out an application as you wait for the pages to load.
As for the library option, keep that in mind next time the library asks for more taxes to pay for the additional computers and bandwidth to meet the demand of the patrons.
So why give a handout to Corporate America? If private companies want broadband, let them pay for it.
Nice diversion there... You shift the demand for broadband from end users to the companies that generate content with the flick of the wrist... Amazing. To bad that isn't how it works.
End users want broadband... Most are willing to pay. The marketplace has failed them. Period.
So then when the next "free" fad comes along, it would be ok for local residents to vote themselves that too? Especially when it comes from the backs of other taxpayers? If I were an enterprising politician... I would promise free Bentleys. We've hashed this point out... You have your opinion, I have mine.
So can local government. In many regards, local governments create more of an impediment to broadband than anything else by making ridiculous demands from ISPs in exchange for the right to conduct business. Such as ? I'd like to see some proof that local governments stand in the way of local ISPs. Specific examples please. Note that things like franchise agreements don't apply.
My guess is that you have never worked at/operated an ISP if you make such a statement.
I am certain that you can find people like me in just about every state. Ergo, I can claim that I speak for them. So? Let them speak their mind at the voting box when measures like this are put up for a vote. Simple as that because in that case, everyone gets to voice their opinion.
True, true, and I know that in one of those situations Verizon did yank access. However, I think for the most part they don't use enough bandwidth to get noticed. Get ready for that to change. Note the story post this morning about Sprint and other providers moving to caps. It is a capacity issue and it will take years to resolve.
3G is not, nor never was, designed as a last mile replacement technology. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by factchecker :
It is nice to see the meaning of the words "irrefutable" and "truth" being abuse... There is nothing irrefutable about this. A luxury item is still a luxury item. Unless you can furnish proof that vast numbers of people will die without wired broadband, you cannot claim that it is not a luxury.
said by factchecker :
The reason there is so much debate on this topic is because of the mixed success of such operations. There is also a large number of people who just want another something for nothing. "Free Wireless Internet" is just the latest thing.
said by factchecker :
Any one who claims that every muni operations out there is a failure is either lying or distorting the truth because of an agenda. My agenda has always been to be opposed to any government-subsidized internet. I do apologize if it appears that I am hiding this agenda. I try to be very open about it.
said by factchecker :
I could show you quite a few HR portals that are so bogged down in useless Flash crap that it would take quite a while to fill out an application as you wait for the pages to load. So, be patient.
said by factchecker :
As for the library option, keep that in mind next time the library asks for more taxes to pay for the additional computers and bandwidth to meet the demand of the patrons. Governments have been paying for libraries for thousands of years and they have been a great educational asset to humanity in that time. Griping about spending more money on libraries for Internet is like griping about them spending more money to buy books.
said by factchecker :
Nice diversion there... You shift the demand for broadband from end users to the companies that generate content with the flick of the wrist... Amazing. To bad that isn't how it works. You were the one who mentioned how Corporate America was crazy about broadband. Again, if they want it, let them pay for it.
said by factchecker :
End users want broadband... Most are willing to pay. The marketplace has failed them. Period. There's nothing stopping individual end users from investing their own money in their own private Internet venture. If it is such a money maker, I am sure they will make a great return on their investment.
said by factchecker :
We've hashed this point out... You have your opinion, I have mine. Sadly, no one ever lost an election in this country by promising "free stuff" for people.
said by factchecker :
Note that things like franchise agreements don't apply. And why not? We saw how FIOS video was held up in NYC (and in other areas) over concerns regarding cherry-picking. The end result of this was no one got any video service. We also saw that in places where there were looser restrictions, such as Indiana, there was broader deployment of service.
said by factchecker :
So? Let them speak their mind at the voting box when measures like this are put up for a vote. Simple as that because in that case, everyone gets to voice their opinion. So what is wrong with their elected representatives doing this when they pass and enact bills?
said by factchecker :
Get ready for that to change. Note the story post this morning about Sprint and other providers moving to caps. It is a capacity issue and it will take years to resolve. I'm curious about this too. My personal guess is that Sprint just wants to have a way to cut off people who they believe abuse their service. At the very least Sprint and Verizon advertise their caps, unlike some other ISPs.
said by factchecker :
3G is not, nor never was, designed as a last mile replacement technology. Phone lines and cable lines were also never designed to carry Internet traffic via DSL and DOCSIS service either, but they do. Technologies change, and are quite adaptable.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
factchecker
@cox.net
|
said by factchecker :
Note that things like franchise agreements don't apply. And why not? We saw how FIOS video was held up in NYC (and in other areas) over concerns regarding cherry-picking. The end result of this was no one got any video service. We also saw that in places where there were looser restrictions, such as Indiana, there was broader deployment of service.
There was absolutely no barrier to voice and data service.
said by factchecker :
Get ready for that to change. Note the story post this morning about Sprint and other providers moving to caps. It is a capacity issue and it will take years to resolve. I'm curious about this too. My personal guess is that Sprint just wants to have a way to cut off people who they believe abuse their service. At the very least Sprint and Verizon advertise their caps, unlike some other ISPs.
Hopefully Sprint doesn't pull 5GB caps on their enterprise customers because we'll definitely consider pulling out of our contract if they do. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by factchecker :
Video service... Not ISP service... Only video service was really affected. Verizon could have easily rolled just data and phone. True, but having another video option increases competition. Prices may not go down, but quality will at least go up. Government standing in the way of progress doesn't help anyone here.
said by factchecker :
Actually, it is a capacity issue. Sprint has started running into issues with backhaul saturation on towers in some of largest markets. Until 4G wireless or greater backhual becomes more readily accessible, the caps will remain. Funny you mention that. It has been said here that Sprint's biggest problem is its customer service. Personally, I think if they fixed all the problems that caused people to contact customer service, they'd be have a much better time doing business than they do now.
said by factchecker :
Hopefully Sprint doesn't pull 5GB caps on their enterprise customers because we'll definitely consider pulling out of our contract if they do.
Considering that they are just going to antagonize more of their users with their latest move... you might wanna get going on that. 
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
