ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA
| reply to hailinfantry
Re: Progress???
Congratulations you have just lost the argument because you had to resort to insulting me and not making any logical response - I also find it funny you tell me to take high school business courses - Is that all the training you have had - is this all the education I will need to understand this then? Wow - if I could only take a class then I could be as smart as you!
Cable tv content providers would still be around no one is eliminating them they could just as easy provide content over the muni network. How is it they will be eliminated? They will be competeing against other content providers... you don't make much sense. |
|
hailinfantry
Bizarro Quinn
Premium
join:2004-01-18
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to ppcpunk
said by ppcpunk  :That is coming from me - But I think when faced with making no money or some money they will choose some money over none. Now regarding their networks - yes they do want their own networks but guess what - you don't get everything you want in life just like you don't get to use public rights of way if the public doesn't want you to. The only reason they get to have their private networks is because we let them - it is not a right it is a privilege. Yes it is predatory to their pricing structure... But then again their pricing structure could be said to be predatory on the people they serve and get to enjoy for the most part because of quasi-monopolies and yes I know over builders can - when the franchise agreements are up - come in and build another network but we all know that isn't going to happen but we do know where it does happen cable rates are lower and they still make profits hand over fist. So I don't think anyone cares about anything being "predatory to their pricing structure." What you have said makes no sense economically or otherwise. Everyone viewing this thread is now dumber having seen it. Take some high school business courses, and once again we'll talk.
Predatory pricing is not against the consumer in the beginning...but it stifles competition in the long run by eliminating, well, the competition unfairly. It's illegal when corporations do it, it should be illegal when muni's do it. The muni's sole purpose is to be almost predatory to the incumbants' bottom lines.
And who ever said that the incumbants' franchises and rights-of-way were in any danger of being revoked?  |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA
| reply to hailinfantry
That is coming from me - But I think when faced with making no money or some money they will choose some money over none.
Now regarding their networks - yes they do want their own networks but guess what - you don't get everything you want in life just like you don't get to use public rights of way if the public doesn't want you to.
The only reason they get to have their private networks is because we let them - it is not a right it is a privilege.
Yes it is predatory to their pricing structure... But then again their pricing structure could be said to be predatory on the people they serve and get to enjoy for the most part because of quasi-monopolies and yes I know over builders can - when the franchise agreements are up - come in and build another network but we all know that isn't going to happen but we do know where it does happen cable rates are lower and they still make profits hand over fist. So I don't think anyone cares about anything being "predatory to their pricing structure." |
|
hailinfantry
Bizarro Quinn
Premium
join:2004-01-18
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to ppcpunk
said by ppcpunk :Do I honestly think any what company will want to share what infrastructure with Verizon? Do I think any company will want to share fiber to your house with verizon - a company like say AOL? Uhhh yes? Why not? You can choose to not make any money or you can choose to make money... I don't understand what you are saying. Municipal networks are not built to compete with - they are built and they happen to compete with - if those companies like TWC/Comcast/whoever want to get on the network and provide service I highly doubt the muni would decline to have more competition. The network is there to provide a network for private companies to provider services - not to make tons of money on over priced cable tv. This is coming from you, not them though. AOL and Comcast are two VERY different entities with two VERY different products. There are plenty of ISP's that love to share bandwidth. The big boys (who 95% of the time will be the incumbants) want their own networks, and they want them to themselves. The muni thus provides the infrastructure and the service (as it has in 75%+ of all buildouts thus far) and provides a pricing structure that is predatory to the incumbants. |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA
| reply to hailinfantry
Do I honestly think any what company will want to share what infrastructure with Verizon?
Do I think any company will want to share fiber to your house with verizon - a company like say AOL? Uhhh yes? Why not? You can choose to not make any money or you can choose to make money... I don't understand what you are saying.
Municipal networks are not built to compete with - they are built and they happen to compete with - if those companies like TWC/Comcast/whoever want to get on the network and provide service I highly doubt the muni would decline to have more competition.
The network is there to provide a network for private companies to provider services - not to make tons of money on over priced cable tv. |
|
hailinfantry
Bizarro Quinn
Premium
join:2004-01-18
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to ppcpunk
Those companies in the link you provided are locals and really don't compare to the incumbents such as Comcast, TWC, Charter et al. And do you honestly think any of those will want to share infrastructure with Verizon and the other ILEC's?
The municipal networks are being built to COMPETE WITH THE INCUMBANTS, not give them a happy free network to play around with. Did someone beat you silly today or something? |
|
ppcpunk
join:2001-02-11
Davenport, IA
| reply to hailinfantry
You don't understand the analogy. You say show you how web access is like an airport. I submit to you that it is not and never claimed that it was, which is in fact the whole point.
The municipally ran network is used by private companies such as whoever your local bell is or companies like earthlink, speakeasy, AOL, so on and so forth.
When you say web access you need a company to get you onto the web - just having a network all over your town won't get you anywhere except all over town - not on the world wide web. Just like having an airport for a city won't get you anywhere if you don't have private companies giving you airplane access to fly anywhere.
And you are just dead wrong about companies not wanting to share one wire - It happens right now with dial up access and dsl access and land line service and even going to be more the case when IPTV goes into service over the ILEC networks.
Also it happens RIGHT now in places where they have municipal fiber places like grant county »www.gcpud.org/zipp/providers.htm where they have all these companies you say don't want to share one wire, providing many different high speed providers, two cable tv providers, three telephone providers, and two other providers for what looks to be some kind of security service.
|
|
