TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
November 2nd, @12:29PM
|  Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK
Action Institute blogger makes the key point:
quote:
It’s hard to put it any simpler than this: government-run services are not part of “the organic free-market at work.”
There is nothing wrong with muni efforts as long as they aren't backed by taxes and also if the government doesn't give advantages to their endeavor over any private ones.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| What private ones. Verizon and the like receive so much support from the gov't via loop holes and regulations, etc. -- they might as well be an arm of the gov't.
These companies aren't "private" in the sense that your local dry cleaners is private. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
edit:
November 2nd, @12:32PM
| reply to TK Junk Mail
How about if the government or a neutral non-service providing company owns the pipes to every home and lets ANY service provider compete and do their thing?
Surely a free marketer like yourself would not object to that?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
CPM
join:2001-08-24
Miami, FL | reply to TK Junk Mail
Hold it. read this. »1Mbps Wireless Chicago |
|
this nane wasnt take
@rr.com | reply to TK Junk Mail
The Incumbents are also backed by taxes...
and subsidies, and right of way, and exclusive franchises, etc...
Which makes you point not wrong, but irrelevant.
In other words, the telcos are fine with big brother (when it suits them). |
|
89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL | reply to ieolus
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK
How do you plan to support that? Are you ready to pay the true, non-subsidized cost of delivering the service? |
|
Noah Vail
Serial Thread Killer
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | reply to EAP
Could you post some specific evidence of that? It's not that I'm doubting you, but it's all rhetoric until the proof arrives.
NV
--
Abortion: Improves the Gene Pool! |
|
EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| Yes I can.
How about this for starters:
»Picture Perfect Deal
This was done due to Verizon having the state politicians in their pocket.
And this:
»www.freepress.net/news/5593
They get special laws passed just for them. How bogus is that. They wine and dine the politicians (which is really bribing them) in exchange for laws just for them. |
|
EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| reply to Noah Vail
How about this:
»www.savetheinternet.com/blog/200···-telcos/
Why would a Senator do this? Cause the big telcos buy them (ummm, I mean lobby). |
|
Noah Vail
Serial Thread Killer
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | Thanks, I'll read them.
NV |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to EAP
Oh yeah. The what? $9 billion the state of PA gave Verizon to supply...nothing! And allowed to keep the money in exchange for....nothing! Brilliant... |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
|  reply to 89707828
I'm guessing something like
- taxes pay for the infrastructure maintenance cost, *if* you elect to have internet access. If you don't want internet access, then no maintenance tax.
- then you pay the ISP for your service on top of the public lines. Since the ISP doesn't have any infrastructure maintenance cost, the subscription should be much lower.
Overall, the cost should be the same as any regular broadband, with the advantage that you have competition guaranteed on the lines, since there can't be any monopoly. You also have a 100% guaranteed coverage, since it's what munis usually go for.
The part that's harder to get people into is the initial deployment cost. If someone chooses not to pay for it, you can't choose to not wire his house. If the guy sells, the house would be valued less, if someone else from the city that paid the initial tax moves into a house, he expects to have the utility built in, etc... But on the other hand, you can't wire a person's house if he chose not to pay the tax for it.
The unpopular solution is to force the whole population to pay for the deployment. To get that done, I suppose you can put up a vote and require at least 75% of ppl that want the infrastructure?
Otherwise, there seems to be other solutions with bonds and stuff, but I don't understand any of it, so I'll stop before I say stupid stuff 
But overall, I say that operation of a network should be run by a non-profit driven organisation, whereas commercial exploitation should always be run by private commercial entities competing on the same ground.
My 2 cents only
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| reply to 89707828
I don't understand what you mean by non-subsidized cost of delivering the service. Can you explain?
And heh, I noticed that TCH (aka TKJunkmail) didn't respond to me... wonder if that means he isn't after a free market for service providers after all.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL
| I was clear. Are you willing to pay the non-subsidized cost of delivering the service?
Today, a large chunk of the cost of delivering your multi-megabit cable or DSL connection is cross-subsidized by other services riding on the same medium like digital cable or POTS. That's why cable charges more for HSI-only and the telcos charge more for unbungled-loop DSL. And those are still cross-subsidized in that if a cable is cut (for example) you don't have to pay the cost of splicing it.
In your world, "the government or a neutral non-service providing company" would have to charge you (i.e. pass along) the costs of servicing your location since no other service would be helping with those direct costs. The only other way is to either use taxes or charge the ISPs. If they charge the ISPs you're right back where you are now. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| No, your original post was not clear, but thank you for explaining it in detail.
As to the answer, I say yes I am. Competition between service providers will drive the price enough to offset what you seem to think is a huge cost for a "non-subsidized" pipe.
As to the real reason why cable charges more for HSI-only service and telcos charge more for an unbundled loop... they are trying to encourage you to get their other service and make more revenue, end of story.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL
| But, in your world there is no competition among transport providers, only ISPs. You have one "government or a neutral non-service providing company" owning the physical transport, and there is no competition or other revenue source there. If the "government or a neutral non-service providing company" has a particularly bad year and has to assess everyone for losses are you willing to pay 2, 3 or four times as much? The ISP part of the charge is trivial compared to the transport charges and they certainly are not going to absorb the cost of your network. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| said by 89707828  :The ISP part of the charge is trivial compared to the transport charges and they certainly are not going to absorb the cost of your network. First of all, I would like for you to back that up.
said by 89707828 :But, in your world there is no competition among transport providers, only ISPs. You have one "government or a neutral non-service providing company" owning the physical transport, and there is no competition or other revenue source there. If the "government or a neutral non-service providing company" has a particularly bad year and has to assess everyone for losses are you willing to pay 2, 3 or four times as much? Correct, one pipe into each home, that is all that would ever be necessary. The pipe would be neutral to whatever service anyone is willing to provider over it (TV, phone, Internet, electricity? {probably not}).
So now in a theoretical bad year what would happen? Who knows, but what happens now if/when telecoms have a bad year.. they raise their rates. What the heck is the difference?
Btw, why would the pipe company have a bad year? They are basically guaranteed revenue since every home will be using that pipe, whether it is for 1 service or for 5.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL
| Check out any BYO transport plan from AOL or any other ISP. Also, Verizon and Qwest have had similar plans, as does Time Warner cable.
The "bad year" could be equipment failures, storm damage, mismanagement or just plain old cost inflation. Your transport provider has no other source of revenue, so it will have to assess it's customers (that's you) for these costs, just like a condo association does, for example.
The "telecoms" have other sources, and even in Florida do not pass the entire cost of storm repair to their customers. I pay a small surcharge each month for hurricane damage cost recovery (a couple of bucks) which is shared statewide even with those areas which didn't take it in the shorts last year. Your local network operator will not have that option and will have to charge you the entire amount.
There is no guarantee of revenue, either. What about those who just don't feel the need to use the network? Are you going to force them to pay anyway (that's a tax). |
|
