baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to Eat Me
Re: Competitve and robust...
Why would a company want to invest in a city that doesnt have as much potential earning as another city? If broadband is that important to a consumer, they should move to a metro area, not a rural one. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| And why would a company try to prevent a rural town from building their own infrastructure if that company has no interest in providing service for said town?
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Because allowing municipalities to start their own businesses using taxpayer money establishes precedence that no for profit company wants to allow. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| That was more of a rhetorical question... My point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too (unless you control the market and have the money to lobby those making the rules, of coarse). LOL
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9  :Because allowing municipalities to start their own businesses using taxpayer money establishes precedence that no for profit company wants to allow. So? If a company isn't willing to step up to the plate and provide reasonable broadband speeds and prices, then they should have no recourse to stop someone else from doing it. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to openbox9
Not taxpayer money, bonds. It's not city-subsidized, though you're right that there's no profit motive by the city and that scares for-profit companies. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :If broadband is that important to a consumer, they should move to a metro area, not a rural one. If everyone lived in the urban areas, how do you proposed that we grow the food this nation consumes? Fully automated farming hasn't been perfected yet.
The problem with the logic in your post is that it assumes that everyone lives in the rural areas purely by choice alone. Necessity dictates that folks live in rural areas and those folks shouldn't be cut off from the rest of the world purely by the accident of their location.
Those folks should have access to a modern communications infrastructure and the providers should either provide it or let localities provide it. Problem is that providers want neither.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to digitalfreak
Perhaps you missed the "establish precedence" part of my statement. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to iansltx
Who floats the bonds more often than not? |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Who has floated the bonds so far on a muni fiber deployment? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | The taxpayers most of the time from what I've read. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
 ·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to NetAdmin
said by NetAdmin :said by baineschile :If broadband is that important to a consumer, they should move to a metro area, not a rural one. ... your post ... assumes that everyone lives in the rural areas purely by choice alone. Necessity dictates that folks live in rural areas and those folks shouldn't be cut off from the rest of the world purely by the accident of their location. Those folks should have access to a modern communications infrastructure ... They're not cut off, and their location IS a choice, not "an accident", or a necessity. Nor is broadband a necessity.
They DO have broadband option(s). You just don't like them, and you don't want to pay the rural premium.
Verizon is not holding rural areas hostage without service, as you and others imply. Instead, they've sold off a majority of those holdings to the likes of Fairpoint / Frontier / Carlyle.
As for the OP, he's hit the nail on the head: Move.
Back in the day, I moved many a business concern, lock-stock-and-barrel, from GTE to Pacific Telephone locations, in order that they had dialtone, to stay in business. It wasn't a hard sell. Service was so bad, even the city evicted GTE.
If you have children in Los Angeles, you move to a school district other than LAUSD if you don't want to pay private school tuition. (Palos Verdes rocks!).
If you don't have broadband service to your liking, you either move to it, wait for it, make it happen (plant some poles, run some cable, form a Wisp, etc), or do without. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to openbox9
Give me a specific instance, thanks. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
 ·magicjack.com
 ·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to elray
How's your internet right now? Running smoothly? Out here the least jittery connection is EvDO.
Also, Verizon IS holding some areas hostage. They've apparently forgoten my town exists; no DSL, no fiber, no selling out to another area, no infrastructure improvements.
And by no DSL, I mean Verizon flat-out doesn't have a DSLAM in the CO...in town! |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to elray
said by elray :If you don't have broadband service to your liking, you either move to it, wait for it, make it happen (plant some poles, run some cable, form a Wisp, etc), or do without. If you read the entirety of my post instead of half-ass comprehending it, you would have seen that I advocated that folks do something. Problem is that incumbents, including Verizon, are working very hard to prevent localities that are under-served from doing just that - building the infrastructure that the likes of Verizon and ATT don't want to build.
And just to correct you, people living in rural areas is very necessary. I'd love to see you buy and plow 1000+ acres of land into a corn field in the middle of LA. Seriously, the food you eat doesn't come from the supermarket, it comes from the farms that are spread throughout rural America.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
...
| said by NetAdmin :
Seriously, the food you eat doesn't come from the supermarket, it comes from the farms that are spread throughout rural America. NO! You're lying! The supermarkets pull the food out of their asses, I've seen it myself.
--
Freedom isn't free! |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to NetAdmin
said by NetAdmin :Problem is that incumbents, including Verizon, are working very hard to prevent localities that are under-served from doing just that - building the infrastructure that the likes of Verizon and ATT don't want to build. And just to correct you, people living in rural areas is very necessary. Nope. No one "has to" live in a rural setting. It is a choice.
If you feel it is more important to have urban broadband, then sell your farm to someone who wants to till the land more than download at blistering speed. It is a choice, pure and simple.
Verizon is NOT preventing people from forming Coops, or Wisps from competing, or munis inviting overbuilders. Verizon's monopoly right extends only to its Fios coverage, and even there, they have at least two discounting resellers. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
2 edits | said by elray :Nope. No one "has to" live in a rural setting. It is a choice. If you feel it is more important to have urban broadband, then sell your farm to someone who wants to till the land more than download at blistering speed. It is a choice, pure and simple. Look at you, making up terms on the spot... "Urban broadband". What on earth is that?
All I have to say is that, thankfully, people with your attitude toward rural areas didn't stop rural electrification. I live in an urban area, but understand the benefits that project brought to the rest of the nation. Unlike you, I can see the potential benefits that rural broadband can bring to the nation as well.
Verizon is NOT preventing people from forming Coops, or Wisps from competing, or munis inviting overbuilders. Verizon's monopoly right extends only to its Fios coverage, and even there, they have at least two discounting resellers.
You obviously haven't been paying too much attention to the whole muni-debate because legislation has been proposed in both the US Congress and a number of state houses, back by all of the major phone companies, that would prohibit muni projects. Do some research. Look up how the incumbents have all challenged muni projects of the course of the last couple of years, sometimes successfully.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by NetAdmin :said by elray :Nope. No one "has to" live in a rural setting. It is a choice. If you feel it is more important to have urban broadband, then sell your farm to someone who wants to till the land more than download at blistering speed. It is a choice, pure and simple. Look at you, making up terms on the spot... "Urban broadband". What on earth is that? All I have to say is that, thankfully, people with your attitude toward rural areas didn't stop rural electrification. Unlike you, I can see the potential benefits that rural broadband can bring to the nation as well. You obviously haven't been paying too much attention to the whole muni-debate because legislation has been proposed in both the US Congress and a number of state houses, back by all of the major phone companies, that would prohibit muni projects. Read my post again.
Verizon DOES NOT oppose overbuilders, Wisps, or coops.
As for the "muni-debate", yes I'm quite familiar with it.
Let me get this right: Verizon has invested tens of billions of dollars both in its original network, and more billions upgrading it, but any impatient local government can tap the taxpayers to open up their own, never-profitable competing enterprise? Sorry, but that's unfair competition, and is/should remain illegal.
Of course telco would fight it.
I have direct experience with municipal broadband.
In my town, we have both a city fiber system, and a city WiFi system. Both have consumed millions of dollars, and neither is yet accessible to the public - and the fiber system is ten years old! Most city WiFi efforts are spectacular failures - perhaps equally attributable to the technology and government sloth, but universally a waste of money, and strand the public with not only the expense but chase away the potential Wisp, Coop, or other for-profit venture that would dare risk entry into a marginal marketplace.
I have plenty of critiques for VZ, AT&T, and the cablecos, and that includes last-mile monopolistic and anti-competitive practices, deliberate neglect, denial of service and retaliatory behaviors But the solution is more competitors, not taxing to create another government bureaucracy.
I don't oppose rural broadband. You're right, I don't see any national benefit to it, but I don't oppose it. I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by elray : I just oppose it being run by or paid for by the government at any level. And unlike people who blindly stick to the free market, competition solves EVERYTHING dogma, I look at the reality that some areas will never be profitable, the free market isn't ALWAYS the solution and that no option should be eliminated. There is a reason that government agencies are involved in certain services and it is because those services just are unprofitable and can't be made profitable. On the same token, if an area is unprofitable enough that even small operators won't touch it, then no one should stand in the way of a local effort to get service, even if it is run by the local government. Local action by people in their communities was one of the concepts that stated this nation.
The free market and competition dogma works for the most part, but in instances where it won't work, trotting it out as an excuse to stand in the way of local action doesn't hold water.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
