calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to calvoiper
Re: Is Broadband a Utility?
As an indication of the upgrades (and associated costs) necessary as people maximize their consumption of available bandwidth, check out this article (from Morning Broadband Bytes) about how UK competition is resulting in providers over-concentrating their backbone connections....
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···=techweb
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT  :Huh, cars are already MASSIVELY subsidized. Almost all the roads in this country are maintained for passenger car travel by taxpayer dollars. Yes... gas taxes, registration fees, and other car taxes all pay for roads in most states. Heck, these taxes subsidize other forms of transport as well. Gas prices could be lower if it wasn't taxed to pay for mass transit.
The bottom line is if a person chooses not to drive, he/she won't be paying for a transportation system that he/she doesn't use.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
towerguy
@clallampud.net
| reply to shapiro44
No USF in RURAL
I own a WISP in an area the Telco would not serve I have done it without and USF funds and I cover over 300 square miles with less than 1500 homes.
If USF where used the phone company would just come it and run me out of business. I am privately owned and funded.
And yes broadband is a utility and the Federal,State, and county goverments should keep there mitts off.
"Happiness is a warm chainsaw and A tree hugger in the trunk" |
|
Geminimind
Premium
join:2003-12-20
Sacramento, CA | reply to boojumbunn
Re: Is Broadband a Utility?
Broadband is not a utility but everyone should be entitled to the service |
|
Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to shapiro44
Then maybe you should be the one to be the first broadband utility and provide it to all. No one wants to be the owner of a regulated, minimal profit utility. If you look at the last 20 years, Power, Cable and Telco have all made it clear they want to move away from any part of their business that is considered "utility". |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to boojumbunn
Ahaa!
Sorry. I read your note as trying to say that broadband deserves subsidies because it's like transportation.
To the extent we disagree on whether broadband is a "necessity", that argument is raging elsewhere in this note tree.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
boojumbunn
Premium
join:2004-10-08
San Jose, CA
| reply to calvoiper
And any of those communities can request funding from the federal government for rural transportation, provided they have fewer than 10,000 people. This transportation can tie into existing lines to provide further transportation throughout the nation.
If you have a better analogy, your welcome to provide it.. mine wasn't an analogy, mine was a response to a person saying that Cars were a necessity and should be subsidized. My response was that it's not cars, its transportation that is a necessity and transportation IS subsidized. I certainly wasn't comparing the various rural transportation funding programs to broadband. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Matt
No, I think mbhn5204 was pointing out that with the perceived "good" of "utility" classification comes certain things that are less desirable. I don't think any of us embrace taxes or unnecessary regulation, but the key is what is "necessary"? Some things are, some aren't.
(I'll avoid specifics for fear of igniting an off topic discussion.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to boojumbunn
I spend a fair amount of time in rural America, and I grew up there. If you look at the towns Amtrak, Greyhound, and that loose affiliation of independents that calls itself "Trailways" serve, you'll find that very few of them fall into the "under 7,500" population I mentioned--and many of the towns I'm talking about aren't close to the towns served, either. (I said "farming communities", not "suburbs".)
There are, for instance, only 4 east-west Amtrak routes between the Mississippi and the west coast, and only two north-south routes there--one in the Mississippi valley and one in California.
I still think there are better analogies.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
boojumbunn
Premium
join:2004-10-08
San Jose, CA
| reply to boojumbunn
For more on Federal subsidy of rural transportation you can go to »www.fta.dot.gov/17861_17864_ENG_HTML.htm This is the Federal Transportation Agency. There are seperate programs for tribal lands, of course.
If your a rural community you can apply for grants and low interest loans from the federal government to help support public transportation in your area. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :...There is no incremental or unit cost for broadband, unlike electricity or water. ... Well, I pay for 1.5mb downstream T-1 for my internet. If I USE all 1.5mb/sec, the cost to the local loop provider (verizon) is NO DIFFERENT than if I use 0mb/sec. ... The internet is a capital intensive, but unit free utility. You have capital costs, but that's what we are paying for every month. As long as there is REAL COMPETITION, the concept of 'charging for the byte' will never succeed, since I the consumer, will base my decision on what's a better value for me. ... Poohbah, I beg to differ.
EVERY ISP today uses some form of "resource sharing" or "concentration" to serve its users. You may in fact be buying 1.5mb/sec and you may well be entitled to 1.5mb/sec connection to the Internet.
That does not mean that your ISP necessarily installs and maintains 1,000 times that capacity (1.5gb/sec) all the way through to every peering point for every 1,000 customers it serves. In reality, the ISP's high level connections are much smaller than that, wisely recognizing that not every customer will be up/downloading the full 1.5mb/sec for each and every one of the 86,400 seconds in a day.
As more and more users "fully use" their connections (e.g., for viewing video on demand) then the overall size of the high-level connections at the peering points will increase--the Internet "backbone" connections will have to get bigger for each ISP, and this will come at increased costs.
Consider, as an isolated example, what would happen if US citizens suddenly became fascinated with Australian video on demand--wouldn't that vastly increase usage on the US-Australia circuits carrying Internet traffic? Wouldn't there be increased costs? [I will admit that highly efficient "caching" techniques can reduce these types of costs, but caching doesn't eliminate these costs, and caching has its own problem set.]
Over time, it's quite likely that ISPs will migrate to "bit based pricing"--as has been pointed out above, this is a common occurrence in business where usage of facilities increases and not all users increase their usage in uniform lockstep.
It's also true that sometimes economics moves costs and drives prices the other way--long distance telephone service is now moving from "per minute" to "all you can call" because long-haul fiber and switching is now so cheap. (At the dawn of nuclear power, some said electricity would become "too cheap to meter"--but they weren't quite correct.)
In short, the cost to Verizon if most of their users just read BBR and send e-mail is quite different than if most of their users spend 23 hours a day downloading bulk content and watching streaming video, and sooner or later Verizon's pricing will likely reflect that. If it doesn't, it will end up with all of the "power" users and someone else using incremental pricing will undercut it for "light" users.
(BTW, I don't look forward to that day any more than you do, but it will probably happen.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :said by Matt :said by Maarvin :Then it should be regulated and taxed, as well? Isn't it already? Not to the degree telecom is, which I think was probably his point. calvoiper And that is a BAD thing?
I already pay a 3 dollar "Regulatory Recovery Fee" because I have a main number and a "virtual" number, then I pay a $.60 "Federal Excise" tax on my VoIP line.
While that is not to the degree a POTS, ILEC line is charged, it's still ridiculous |
|
Hitchkok
@modulonet.fr
| reply to shapiro44
It's a utility, not a necessity. Like a phone, or a car. Unlike brains, feet and legs. Unlike water and food. A utility, for chatting about idioties, for exchanging business. Business is not necessary, but it is useful.
What is really necessary? 100 times less than what some have, 1000 timmes more than what many have not.
Broadband is a precious little necessity in our precious little world.
Good heavens... |
|
boojumbunn
Premium
join:2004-10-08
San Jose, CA
| reply to calvoiper
In a lot of rural area's we do.. because Greyhound Bus, Trailways Bus, AmTrack Trains, and most airlines have been subsidized by the american government. There are VERY few places that don't have a bus passing within a reasonable distance. Mobility within the country is considered to be a right held by every citizen (unless that right has been lost due to a felony conviction) and to promote the exchange of goods and mobility of the population the government subsidize a wide array of transportation options. Individual vehicles are generaly not one of thos subsidies, however.
In addition, the infrastructure that makes such transport possible (such as right of ways, roads, etc.) is paid for by the government. That is a bit of a different issue, however.
BTW, thank you for responding with some actual information that I can respond to. The problem with responses like "grow up" is that it's hard to tell exactly what it is in your statement that they are disagreeing with. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by Maarvin :Then it should be regulated and taxed, as well? Isn't it already? Not to the degree telecom is, which I think was probably his point.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to boojumbunn
I don't know if it involves "growing up", but it does involve knowing what you're talking about.
said by boojumbunn :Transportation is a necessity, and yes we have subsidized public transportation. A car is NOT a necessity, however. We have subsidized bussing, train, and air travel. We sure don't have subsidized public transportation in most rural areas, which is where they are talking about using the USF slush fund to back broadband deployment. Pick most any little (under 7,500 population) farming town in the Midwest or Great Plains and you'll see what I mean--no buses, no trains, and no scheduled air service. Many of them do, however, have some sort of broadband--either a cable driven solution or some wireless approach.
Find a better analogy.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :I disagree.. Broadband being billed as a utility is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Period. You opine.
said by G_Poobah :Reason: There is no incremental or unit cost for broadband, unlike electricity or water. Unfortunately this is not true. If I purchase a T-1 from Verizon, AT&T or someone else. It will carry 1.544 Mbits/sec. That is all it will carry. If I run full 24x7 for one 30 day month it will move 1.544*60*60*24*30 bits of data. Since it is a fixed cost pipe. My price per bit is the monthly cost of the pipe over the total number of bits I can move in a month with that pipe. Therefore I pay an incremental price per bit for the gaurantee from Verizon that I can move that much traffic per month if that is my desire. It is in the Service Level Agreement. They gaurantee me a certain performance. I pay the big bucks to get that performance.
said by G_Poobah :Well, I pay for 1.5mb downstream T-1 for my internet. If I USE all 1.5mb/sec, the cost to the local loop provider (verizon) is NO DIFFERENT than if I use 0mb/sec. Yes it is. If your traffic only stayed on the local loop, your statement would be true. Are there lots of web sites on your local loop? Your carrier, Verizon in this case, pays for their connection to the Internet whence your traffic arrives to your local loop.
said by G_Poobah : The cost to UUnet is NO DIFFERENT than if I use 0mb/sec. So using 1.5mb/sec vs. 0mb/sec is the same cost. In water, if I use 100 gallons per second, then they need to pump 100 gallons more of water, which means there's a unit cost. Do they pump that water from your local loop or does that water come from a water tower somewhere (THE INTERNET).
said by G_Poobah :The internet is a capital intensive, but unit free utility. BULLSHIT.
said by G_Poobah : You have capital costs, but that's what we are paying for every month. As long as there is REAL COMPETITION, the concept of 'charging for the byte' will never succeed, since I the consumer, will base my decision on what's a better value for me. We don't exist to serve the corporation. Just repeat that and you'll understand. Mark this down and take it to the bank. You will live to see per byte pricing on data arriving at your computer by ANY medium.
said by G_Poobah :*final note: Do you REALLY think that you'll get a discount if you only use your high speed for 'web browsing'? *double final note: Mr. Burns blocking out the sun, in order to increase the revenue of the power plant is probably the closest analogy to what the telco's what for the internet. And we all saw what happened to Mr. Burns. (in the real world, even going to a better hospital won't upgrade your condition from 'dead' to 'alive' though. What? 
--
We dogs are NOT impressed with pussy cats. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to G_Poobah
quote:
There is no incremental or unit cost for broadband, unlike electricity or water
Your phone line is a utility and it is no different than internet data transfer. If they want to bill by use they can charge per kilobyte. With VOIP threatening to eliminate pay-by-minute telephone service, I think telcos will be looking more and more towards implementing metered rate internet service.
-- Rob
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA | reply to shapiro44
It not but everyone should be able to get atleast 768k DSL. I'd be quite content with that. |
|
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | reply to shapiro44
it is totally NOT a utility. "they" just want you to believe it is. it is a complete luxury to have any connection above 28.8
--
I am not herbert. |
|
