Not So Fast
@verizon.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail 
| My .02
Sorry, but we don't need to open up yet another subsidy program, to bring "World Class" (whatever that is) broadband to the folks who choose to live in the middle of nowhere.
They already benefit from the lower cost structure of being in Poughkeepsie, or wherever. They can afford to pay a bit more if they want higher speeds.
We're already subsidizing the schools via E-Rate. You wanna talk about corruption? No more, no thank you.
It would be nice, if we could return the last-mile to regulated status, as a fat pipe only, and let vendors compete for services offered over that pipe. But I think that opportunity has passed.
There isn't much that a 100M connection will provide, over a 128kb connection, as it pertains to economic development. That's just pure fantasy.
We ordered 256K DSL, only because we couldn't get ISDN service (GTE/AE EAX-5 doesn't go there). Never needed even that speed. |
|
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
edit:
June 26th, @04:28PM
| Your attitude is incredibly short sighted and selfish. It's like saying because I don't need a truck they should not be built.
100mbps bandwidth is like a truck it will be used by many people who want and need it to accomplish certain tasks.You may not need it or even want it but the market needs it in order to grow.
I remember the bad old days of 56K and how much it sucked, I long for the day we are all surfing at 100mbps and look back on the bad old days of 3mbps. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| the difference is that the government doesn't build trucks.
If people actually voted with their wallets for once, the FCC wouldn't be an obstacle. The Verizons of the world would have subs out the ass, while the cable co's who are trying to cap the net would bleed subs quicker than AOL.
Alas, like gasoline, cable TV, and countless other crap we complain about, most companies know that Americans are all talk, and no action. We'll complain to high-hell about gas prices and then go out and buy an SUV. Ditto for broadband. 90% of folks will complain about caps and so on, but hardly anyone will go through the couple hours inconvenience of switching to a bad business' competitor.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Not So Fast
said by Not So Fast :
...
There isn't much that a 100M connection will provide, over a 128kb connection, as it pertains to economic development. That's just pure fantasy.
...
you mean economic development related to your needs/desires. Clearly if you thought 256K was more than enough for your needs, you must just be a simple surfer and email checker.
It's not required that you move forward technologically, but it's no reason to say nobody else does either. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to tiger72
before you demonize the customer base, please note that a substantial portion of people have only ONE choice of broadband provider and nearly all the rest a choice between two providers. That's actually the crux of the bisquet - little or no competition in the broadband market.
I only have a choice of one broadband provider, so my wallet isn't going to be voting quite yet. As soon as FIOS gets here, the vote will be loud and clear. |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| reply to Not So Fast
Yeah, lets keep sending money to people claiming to farm crop and give illegals even more of our money.. Why should any AMERICAN that lives where he/she choose's to live deserve broadband... Its like they should be treated just like anyone else out there.. not so fast.. Please kill your self immediately. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to Not So Fast
quote:
Sorry, but we don't need to open up yet another subsidy program,
Does this group advocate subsidies as the primary way of accomplishing this? Subsidies are only one possible way. Aggressive action to increase competition is another. Sensible regulation is another. Still we have public subsidies of other basic infrastructure, like roads, so the idea isn't outrageous.
quote:
to bring "World Class" (whatever that is)
Generally when one says world class one means comparable to the best that other countries offer.
quote:
to the folks who choose to live in the middle of nowhere.
It seems to be impossible for people to grasp that many of the people who have no broadband options are not in the middle of nowhere. They are in new building development on the outskirts of town.
quote:
They can afford to pay a bit more if they want higher speeds.
This assumes that they have the option to buy. For significant numbers there still are NO real broadband options (except perhaps the woefully inadequate satellite option which is no substitute for real broadband like cable, dsl, wireless.)
quote:
It would be nice, if we could return the last-mile to regulated status, as a fat pipe only, and let vendors compete for services offered over that pipe. But I think that opportunity has passed.
I agree this is one possible legitimate approach. The opportunity hasn't really passed. There is just no political will to do it at present.
quote:
There isn't much that a 100M connection will provide, over a 128kb connection, as it pertains to economic development.
There are certainly diminishing returns to ever faster speeds. Will you agree that society should find a way to see to it that everyone has the possibility of buying a 128kb connection that is reliable, reasonably priced(not necessarily as cheap as in major population centers but not outrageous), and a valid substitute for wireline broadband such as cable or dsl? This is still a dream for significant numbers of people. |
|
splat1622
join:2008-09-08
Cave Spring, GA
| reply to Not So Fast
said by Not So Fast :
Sorry, but we don't need to open up yet another subsidy program, to bring "World Class" (whatever that is) broadband to the folks who choose to live in the middle of nowhere.
They already benefit from the lower cost structure of being in Poughkeepsie, or wherever. They can afford to pay a bit more if they want higher speeds.
We're already subsidizing the schools via E-Rate. You wanna talk about corruption? No more, no thank you.
It would be nice, if we could return the last-mile to regulated status, as a fat pipe only, and let vendors compete for services offered over that pipe. But I think that opportunity has passed.
There isn't much that a 100M connection will provide, over a 128kb connection, as it pertains to economic development. That's just pure fantasy.
We ordered 256K DSL, only because we couldn't get ISDN service (GTE/AE EAX-5 doesn't go there). Never needed even that speed.
please explain how living out of town cost less. my taxes are not a bit cheaper than people living in town.we pay more for every thing we do.we pay taxes like everybody else so why should we get treated any different.IM not saying the gov. should subsidize rural internet,but should regulate these company's again and make them provide internet for all with the billions they are making.we pay more taxes than you do.we pay more on gas than you do,and we pay more for tv,and internet,but you are very wrong if you think we benefit from lower cost structure that's bullshit |
|
