brisonic
join:2001-08-05
San Diego, CA
| reply to oliphant
Re: It's simple folks...
There's at least a bit of truth to this, everyone wants bandwidth for "free", when in reality it is paid for by someone upstream, some government, company, Robin Hood income redistribution via taxes, or a user. Something with value shouldn't be given away for free except in cases of charity. Bandwidth has a price, as do most things of value. Want some, step right up, with the ability to pay for it. These efforts will certainly drive prices even lower. But, how much lack of quality can you gripe about if you aren't paying for it at all. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| As I see it consumers are looking for 3 things...product availability/deployment, provider choice and freedom not from having to pay, but simply freedom from the profiteering that is commonplace with double digit rate increases and/or cuts in service.
While I don't think muni BB should be forced upon taxpayers if a municipality puts on a ballot a bond measure to fund deployment that is paid back by revenues, the people should have that option.
Personally I think the optimal situation for munis is line sharing. The bond pays for the deployment, then private content providers provide service paying the muni a lease or delivery fee per customer that pays back the bond. Then you have content providers trying to undercut each other because the margin isn't a given. And when one provider wants to cap you, their email sucks, their TOS/AUP is restrictive or their latest price increase is the last straw...you're only a phonecall away from switching.
Then from this you kill the monopoly and the likes of Time Warner, SBC or even smaller ISPs like Sonic.net and DSL Extreme have access to customers of another incumbants area.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| I absolutely agree. Muni deployments probably shouldn't go beyond infrastructure. Rent the lines at a cost, each provider able to negotiate their own rates.
Either that or force the ILECs to divest their infrastructure into completely separate entities. Local monoplies who control both the lines and the service are a recipe for the lack of innovation and deployment we're already experiencing.
Eminent Domain is a terrible concept, IMO. But maybe for once it could be used in a good way - to force ILECs and cable companies to sell their infrastructure to the state/county government for a 'fair price' then let those companies compete on their actual merits instead of their monopoly power.
KM
--
eLearning and Website Design | Need an LMS? | Need an LMS & eCommerce solution? |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant  :Personally I think the optimal situation for munis is line sharing. The bond pays for the deployment, then private content providers provide service paying the muni a lease or delivery fee per customer that pays back the bond. Then you have content providers trying to undercut each other because the margin isn't a given. And when one provider wants to cap you, their email sucks, their TOS/AUP is restrictive or their latest price increase is the last straw...you're only a phonecall away from switching. I agree with you on this, I feel the best situation would be for local governments that so choose to run fiber and whatever infrastructure needed to support that fiber and then lease out the lines to whoever wants to use them.
However, correct me if I'm wrong but, no "muni" I've seen wants to do this they want to run the whole thing end to end. They want control; they want to implement a price point that is lower than the private sector to hell with what the real price (as determined by the market) is; in short, they want another carrot to dangle in front of voters and those who would donate to their campaign.
I see the broadband conundrum as being similar to the issue of roads at the beginning of the age of the automobile (that being that there weren't enough and those that were there were built for the horse and buggy); the problem wasn't a lack of automobiles (or providers in this case), it was a lack of infrastructure.
--
Dear Hollywood:Shut up and dance monkey! |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| If no muni is willing to do it...perhaps this could be the compromise between business and state governments who until now are looking at nothing but banning munis. So long as munis are looking to totally run their show then the opposition has nothing to lose battling them to the death.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·AT&T Southeast
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to oliphant
Agreed. Let munis build the infrastructure then let the content/delivery providers offer their wares to the end user in a competitive fashion.
No different than me choosing between UPS,FedEx, DHL etc. They use the same highways, airports and railroads.
Want cable? Check for what deal Comcast, Time Warner or whomever is offering.
Want broadband? check which bulk provider is offering the best value in bandwidth.
Want Telecom? Check to see what SBC, Qwest or Verizon/MCI is offering in a package. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck :However, correct me if I'm wrong but, no "muni" I've seen wants to do this they want to run the whole thing end to end. They want control; they want to implement a price point that is lower than the private sector to hell with what the real price (as determined by the market) is; in short, they want another carrot to dangle in front of voters and those who would donate to their campaign. Correction: Tacoma leases their Click! network. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by JTRockville :Correction: Tacoma leases their Click! network. yes but you as private industry still have to compete with the government run company correct?
--
Dear Hollywood:Shut up and dance monkey! |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| Looks like TV is provided by the muni:
»www.click-network.com/Business/T···ault.htm
But network services are only provided solely by 3rd parties:
Residential network services are provided by THREE local companies:
»www.click-network.com/Business/H···ISPs.htm
Business network services are provided by FIVE local companies:
»www.click-network.com/Business/L···Page.htm
I'd guess Tacoma is also serviced by an ILEC (but I'm not sure who) and I'm pretty sure they're also serviced by an investor-owned cable company (I think Comcast). |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL | Yes, Comcast. |
|
der_panzer
join:2003-12-18
Lebanon, TN
| reply to brisonic
said by brisonic :Bandwidth has a price, as do most things of value. You're absolutely right. Bandwidth is expensive. Having worked for a small local ISP, I know this.
It infuriates me to think that my taxpayer dollars (which are already being wasted on so much ridiculous bull****) could now be wasted on the bandwidth for some jerkoff to download hundreds of gigabytes of pirated music and DVDs a month.
Name ONE program that the government operates that is not a complete disaster. City, state, federal, it doesn't matter. Name ONE!
States have got it right in trying to ban municipal broadband. Connectivity should be left to private enterprise. If there is a demand, private enterprise will provide a solution. |
|
