| reply to fifty nine
Re: Covering cost vs profit Market economics don't work if you have an addictive product like heroine or if you have a monopoly with regulatory collusion on a product that is rapidly becoming a necessity. You can argue that internet access is a luxury, but with each passing year, in a competitive global economy, immediate access to global information is such a competitive advantage that it really is becoming a necessity. |
|
| So what are you saying? That the internet should be funded by the Gov't and run by Gov't employees (like you?)
Good luck keeping costs under control if that's the case. |
|
|
|
| reply to Racket
Which private corporation is going to sell internet access at cost? |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to Racket
said by Racket :Market economics don't work if you have an addictive product like heroine
I have to agree with you, women of distinguished courage or ability, admired for their brave deeds and noble qualities are indeed addictive. 
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power |
|
| reply to fifty nine
No, I guess the private corporations should continue operating with government supported anti-competitive behavior. |
|
 P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out
 ·Comcast
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Which private corporation is going to sell internet access at cost?
there have been many attempts to create local ISP's and govt run ISPs that would be ran at COST...but then the regional ISP
sues sues sues sues them
--
 NO U |
|
| reply to fifty nine
I would prefer a gov't funded and operated backbone.. to which other ISPs could use. Rather then a for-profit corporation selling, and then gouging not only the end user, but also resellers. When the gov't of Ontario privatized electricity, all Ontarioians thought that it would drive the cost down on the electrical rate. How naive. Electrical rates went through the roof and continues to climb. The people asked for it, and they got more then they wanted. With the lessons of the past, we can see that it wasn't that bad when Ontario Hydro controlled the cost of electricity. If the gov't was to fund a fiber backbone across the country, and then "rent" bandwidth out to ISPs (Bell, Teksavvy, etc) they would be all on the same playing field. No one company would have more of an advantage over another. The more ISPs offering services, the competition would then come down to the quality of service rather then pricing. Plus, as the fiber backbone provider would then be a crown corporation, any profits generated from the "renting" of broadband, the better our gov't can provide, oh I don't know, improved health care, maybe even be able to cover dental for every citizen in Canada? |
|
thecp
join:2004-07-15
Sacramento, CA | reply to fifty nine
Would you please quit that argument. No one here is asking the companies to price at cost. The companies are being anti-competitive thus gouging the consumer. That's the focus |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:So what are you saying? That the internet should be funded by the Gov't and run by Gov't employees (like you?)
Good luck keeping costs under control if that's the case.
We should get that power situation in this country fixed too so I can have 3 different sets of power lines running down my street. It's the only way there can be fair competition and allow other business to sell power to consumers.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
 swintecPremium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:4
 ·RapidVPS
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
 ·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to P Ness
said by P Ness:there have been many attempts to create local ISP's and govt run ISPs that would be ran at COST...but then the regional ISP
sues sues sues sues them
Run at cost? Well.....that seems....anti-competitive in itself.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts |
|
 TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | reply to fifty nine
Actually I think they should have the same people who take care of their health care take care of internet as well. I am sure it will work out just fine... |
|
| reply to Nextwave
said by Nextwave :I would prefer a gov't funded and operated backbone.. The backbone is irrelevant since most urban areas have multiple choices besides the usual suspects (telco and cableco) for that. The problematic part is the first mile: the wires that go to each house. Very capital-intensive and very labor-intensive to replicate... and very risky when there is no guarantee anybody will sign up, unlike phone and cable which used to be complementary monpolies (cable was TV-only, phone was phone-only) when the bulk of their networks were built. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Which private corporation is going to sell internet access at cost?
Every last one of you! No one asked them to, no one will. Your little bunch of oligarchic monopolists and collusive con artists have ruined, and will continue to ruin the country. Hope you like living in the technological backwater the Telco, Cableco and Hollywood monopolists are creating. You hide behind an unjustifiable position that has been TOTALLY discredited and proven inapplicable, and just plain contrary to factual reality, out of some misplaced, or purposely obtuse spurious argument, because you think you have higher right than elected government, as well as citizens. You are wrong. You are ridiculous, but oblivious. Your destiny is to be what you really are, a provider of ACCESS, NOT CONTENT. IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER IF THE OUT AND OUT ROBBERY YOU AND YOUR FELLOWS ARE CURRENTLY PURSUING CONTINUES FOR LONG. The grand plan is so successful it is dead in Canada, and the American consumer is a quick study. I personally shall laugh in your ruddy little apoplectic face when you and your little band of thieves have their six league boots nailed to the cost floor. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by ross7: will continue to ruin the country. Hope you like living in the technological backwater the Telco, Cableco and Hollywood monopolists are creating.
Technological backwater? Just because you can't stream unlimited video whenever you want? No exaggeration there. LOL. |
|
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by Nextwave :I would prefer a gov't funded and operated backbone.. The backbone is irrelevant since most urban areas have multiple choices besides the usual suspects (telco and cableco) for that. The problematic part is the first mile: the wires that go to each house. Very capital-intensive and very labor-intensive to replicate... and very risky when there is no guarantee anybody will sign up, unlike phone and cable which used to be complementary monpolies (cable was TV-only, phone was phone-only) when the bulk of their networks were built. Unfortunately, all first/last mile access is incumbent impaired, territoriality (also known as areas of exclusive service by incumbent) prevails and there is SIMPLY NO CHOICE OF PROVIDERS AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS in the protected zones of exclusivity. The almighty duopoly is a farce, as is the entire Telco, Cableco, FIOS mythology. Such a pitiable song and dance... One wonders at the CPUC's treatment of these monopolists until one realizes the CPUC is staffed by ex-industry execs, and consultants to the industry. Fairness? Competiion? Fuggetaboutit, it is a rigged game. |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by ross7: will continue to ruin the country. Hope you like living in the technological backwater the Telco, Cableco and Hollywood monopolists are creating.
Technological backwater? Just because you can't stream unlimited video whenever you want? No exaggeration there. LOL. Visit Russia, Japan or South Korea and report back your opinion. |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by ross7: will continue to ruin the country. Hope you like living in the technological backwater the Telco, Cableco and Hollywood monopolists are creating.
Technological backwater? Just because you can't stream unlimited video whenever you want? No exaggeration there. LOL. Oh no, I'm talking about your deranged concept of creating artificial tiers of capped bandwidth charged out at fantastical levels of disservice profit, to create all that artifical, non-existent "value added" account development you marketing geniuses dream up in your fantasies of power and control. What sublime subtlety... please step off the pier er, tier. NEXT!
What do you believe is going to happen with the current price gouging tactics being forced by AT&T? Where is the good? |
|
