how-to block ads
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to pnh102
Re: full steam ahead at your cost
said by pnh102  :
You can't make a blanket statement out of this. In Philadelphia for example, PGW (Philadelphia Gas Works), the municipally-owned natural gas provider, continues to have numerous financial problems and mismanagement issues. They charge the country's highest rates for natural gas and the city and state government constantly have to pour millions of dollars each year into it to keep it afloat. Certain suburban municipal governments in my area have had problems managing sewage processing. Given this track record, its a perfectly reasonable assessment to believe that the local government can and will fubar this project as well.
Get back to me when you're paying $200/month in electric bills (even with conservation) to a "private" company that literally wants to jack rates up 400% more. And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless. Obviously city run services aren't going to work everywhere, just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by JakCrow :
Get back to me when you're paying $200/month in electric bills (even with conservation) to a "private" company that literally wants to jack rates up 400% more.
And who created the "deregulated" environment which allowed this to occur, the great state of California of course! Was there accountability? Not exactly, the same people who fubared "deregulation" may or may not still be in office and they haven't fixed it. This is precisely the reason that government shouldn't meddle in these kinds of ventures. We truly deregulated electrical generation here in Penna. as well, and our electric rates have been going down, not up, and you truly do have a choice of providers.
said by JakCrow :
And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless.
In your original post, you said that:
said by JakCrow :
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
which sounds like a generalization to me.
said by JakCrow :
just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records.
There are already ways in which the private sector has dealt with poor service from these companies, many places have rolled their own broadband without government help and without imposing another burden on taxpayers. This is arguably the better route.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| said by pnh102 :
And who created the "deregulated" environment which allowed this to occur, the great state of California of course! Was there accountability? Not exactly, the same people who fubared "deregulation" may or may not still be in office and they haven't fixed it. This is precisely the reason that government shouldn't meddle in these kinds of ventures. We truly deregulated electrical generation here in Penna. as well, and our electric rates have been going down, not up, and you truly do have a choice of providers.
Do you want the long or short version of the "deregulation" story? You certainly have it wrong, that's for sure. I would be happy to dispell your misconceptions, unless you're a "free market" idealogue. Then there's no point in going any further.
said by JakCrow :
And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless.
In your original post, you said that:
said by JakCrow :
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
which sounds like a generalization to me.
[/QUOTE]
And you follow up with what also sounds like a generization. Have some consistancy.
said by JakCrow :
just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records.
There are already ways in which the private sector has dealt with poor service from these companies, many places have rolled their own broadband without government help and without imposing another burden on taxpayers. This is arguably the better route.
[/QUOTE]
What are these "many places that have rolled their own broadband without government help"? With the exception of the municipalities that are succeeding, the private sector non-telco/cableco solutions are few and far between. And once again, someone such as yourself also overlooks that user fees can provide coverage for municipal services such as broadband without taxing everyone. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by JakCrow :
Do you want the long or short version of the "deregulation" story? You certainly have it wrong, that's for sure.
The short version is that California decided to cap the amount of money paid by subscribers to electric utilities without capping the amount of money that the utilities paid to resellers. Because of California's wacky environmental laws, among which prevented new power plants from being built to meet increasing demand, the supply of electricity in-state remained constant while demand increased, and because no new in-state generation could occur, PG&E and SCE had to buy energy from out of state at very high prices. Sounds like a major government screw up to me. Granted, a bunch of companies did try to exploit the situation, but once again it is the state government's fault for creating the environment in which this kind of exploitation could take place to begin with.
said by JakCrow :
And you follow up with what also sounds like a generization. Have some consistancy.
A specific example, like the one I cited with PGW is not a generalization. However, a specific example is all that is logically required to disprove your original generalization that municipally run services are inherently better than privately run services.
said by JakCrow :
What are these "many places that have rolled their own broadband without government help"? With the exception of the municipalities that are succeeding, the private sector non-telco/cableco solutions are few and far between.
Ruby Ranch comes to mind, and then there are also the hundreds of WISPs that are springing up all over the country as well.
said by JakCrow :
And once again, someone such as yourself also overlooks that user fees can provide coverage for municipal services such as broadband without taxing everyone.
Many municipally run broadband providers rely on some other municipally run service to keep them afloat (e.g., the cable network in Glasgow, KY, relies upon the municipally run power company). If that other service wasn't their to prop up the internet service, where would this money come from? More taxes? On the other side of this coin, how much money could these municipally run services be returning to the ratepayers if they were not involved in subsidizing other non-essential municipal services?
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| said by pnh102 :
Because of California's wacky environmental laws
give me a break. see ENRON and other unethical businesses that drove up the price of electricity by conspiring to keep powerplants offline longer than necessary.
--
R. Kelly = child molester/ child pornographer | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by morbo :
give me a break. see ENRON and other unethical businesses that drove up the price of electricity by conspiring to keep powerplants offline longer than necessary.
This didn't happen in any state other than California. You can't tell me that California's regulatory environment didn't contribute to the exploits by some companies when the same antics did not occur in any other state.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :
The short version is that California decided to cap the amount of money paid by subscribers to electric utilities without capping the amount of money that the utilities paid to resellers. Because of California's wacky environmental laws, among which prevented new power plants from being built to meet increasing demand, the supply of electricity in-state remained constant while demand increased, and because no new in-state generation could occur, PG&E and SCE had to buy energy from out of state at very high prices. Sounds like a major government screw up to me. Granted, a bunch of companies did try to exploit the situation, but once again it is the state government's fault for creating the environment in which this kind of exploitation could take place to begin with.
You forgot about how the the instate power companies signed on to the deregulation plan with the future hopes of reaping huge profits -after they fulfilled certain requirements- to become full deregulated and allowed to pass costs on to customers. PG&E and SCE dragged their feet do meet those requirements and were caught with their pants down when the suppliers started gouging. It's also ridiculous to say that the state deregulation process caused power suppliers to become dishonest. Evidence points to the desire to simply gouge California. It didn't matter who was paying the bill.
Now if you want to talk flawed as in deregulation came about because the power companies wanted huge profits and their large corporate customers wanted cheap power while the individual user was barely considered, I'd agree, but something tells me you're one of those black and white "free market" types.
said by pnh102 :
A specific example, like the one I cited with PGW is not a generalization. However, a specific example is all that is logically required to disprove your original generalization that municipally run services are inherently better than privately run services.
It's anecdotal and you imply that's how it will be everywhere, then you go on to say there are private companies for which you can buy power from. Just as you wouldn't buy services from an overpriced, poorly run private company. So what's the problem?
said by pnh102 :
Ruby Ranch comes to mind, and then there are also the hundreds of WISPs that are springing up all over the country as well.
You do remember the hell Ruby Ranch has to go thru to get to the point they're at now, and the length of time and legal hassle they had to go through, right? Imagine how hard it's going to be if they want to go farther than just basic DSL to a small collection of homes. The WISP market isn't as big as you'd like to think it is right now, and the bells are encroaching on the WISP market too. I expect some kind of lobbying effort by them in the next year or so in an attempt to hurt the small providers in that area as well.
said by pnh102 :
Many municipally run broadband providers rely on some other municipally run service to keep them afloat (e.g., the cable network in Glasgow, KY, relies upon the municipally run power company). If that other service wasn't their to prop up the internet service, where would this money come from? More taxes? On the other side of this coin, how much money could these municipally run services be returning to the ratepayers if they were not involved in subsidizing other non-essential municipal services?
And it's because of those other municipal services they're able to offer something extra. There's nothing wrong with that. And since the power services are already there, your scenerio doesn't apply since the power services aren't going to be uprooted tomorrow to have a negative impact on additional services. Your's is a straw man argument since what you're saying can be applied to the telcos and cablecos, except replace "taxes" with "price increases". Speaking of subsidized services, how's your residential phone line working out for ya? | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by JakCrow :
You forgot about how the the instate power companies signed on to the deregulation plan with the future hopes of reaping huge profits -after they fulfilled certain requirements- to become full deregulated and allowed to pass costs on to customers.
So why did the legislators cave into the power companies? The legislators in other states aren't giving into the demands of SBC when it comes to deregulation. As elected officials, the legislators have a moral duty to prevent these kinds of screwups.
said by JakCrow :
Evidence points to the desire to simply gouge California. It didn't matter who was paying the bill.
But that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If this scheme made Enron and other companies so rich, why wasn't it done on a national basis?
said by JakCrow :
Now if you want to talk flawed as in deregulation came about because the power companies wanted huge profits and their large corporate customers wanted cheap power while the individual user was barely considered, I'd agree, but something tells me you're one of those black and white "free market" types.
Damn right, I am a Yankee-imperialist capitalist pig and damn proud of it.  This freedom includes the right for companies to make stupid decisions like was the case with PG&E and SCE. But this begs my original question, why didn't California's legislators think before they passed this law? Certianly legislators in other states see the problems with giving SBC what amounts to a "blank check." California's legislature should have had some foresight. You can't sell something for less than what it costs and you don't need to be brain surgeon to realize that.
said by JakCrow :
It's anecdotal and you imply that's how it will be everywhere, then you go on to say there are private companies for which you can buy power from. Just as you wouldn't buy services from an overpriced, poorly run private company. So what's the problem?
Its perfectly fine for private companies to take risks like these because they're the ones who will go under as a result, provided that the government doesn't step in to "save the day." However, if a government does this, taxes will go up to pay for it (see my previous posts regarding western Penna. school districts). California created an electric power deathtrap that didn't exist in any other state and now people like you have no choice but to pay. Had deregulation been done right (or not at all), the state would be in a better position.
said by JakCrow :
You do remember the hell Ruby Ranch has to go thru to get to the point they're at now, and the length of time and legal hassle they had to go through, right?
Nothing worth doing is easy. If they didn't go through all that heck, they wouldn't be doing business.
said by JakCrow :
the bells are encroaching on the WISP market too.
The bells don't want WISPs to take away their customers, if WISPs encourage the bells/cable companies to expand service then this is a good thing.
said by JakCrow :
I expect some kind of lobbying effort by them in the next year or so in an attempt to hurt the small providers in that area as well.
As we can see with what's happening in Indiana and Nevada, it not a sure thing that these will pass.
said by JakCrow :
And it's because of those other municipal services they're able to offer something extra. There's nothing wrong with that.
If I am paying $100 in electric bills and I know that $50 is going to subsidize internet service that I don't use, I would be a bit steamed that my bill couldn't be reduced by $50.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| said by pnh102 :
So why did the legislators cave into the power companies? The legislators in other states aren't giving into the demands of SBC when it comes to deregulation. As elected officials, the legislators have a moral duty to prevent these kinds of screwups.
Probably for the same black and white free market ideology that doesn't look at the big picture except for PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. If I remember correctly, all the western states were seeing the high prices as well, but were not in the midst of a deregulation process.
said by pnh102 :
But that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If this scheme made Enron and other companies so rich, why wasn't it done on a national basis?
Calfornia was a current target? Other states were next? I don't know, do you? I don't think it mattered who paid the bill, customers or power distributors.
said by pnh102 :
Damn right, I am a Yankee-imperialist capitalist pig and damn proud of it.
You misunderstand: I have no problem with a capitalist society. I have a problem with the die hard free marketeers that want deregulation no matter how many people have to be stepped on get it (usually the individual consumer). I'm also tired of deregulation that comes about because the industry wants to make more money, or large customers of said industry want to spend less, and damn anyone that gets in the way, while yet again, the individual is left out of the equation but has the most to loose.
said by pnh102 :
This freedom includes the right for companies to make stupid decisions like was the case with PG&E and SCE.
I agree
said by pnh102 :
But this begs my original question, why didn't California's legislators think before they passed this law?
Bribery? Blind free market proponents? This kind of thing doesn't just happen in CA either.
said by pnh102 :
Certianly legislators in other states see the problems with giving SBC what amounts to a "blank check." California's legislature should have had some foresight. You can't sell something for less than what it costs and you don't need to be brain surgeon to realize that.
PG&E and SCE signed on to the process, so I assume the hope was for a speedy transition, which obviously didn't happen because of PG&E and SCE. If you want to talk "blank checks" in general, there's the matter of the states that are giving the bells free rides without foresight.
said by pnh102 :
Its perfectly fine for private companies to take risks like these because they're the ones who will go under as a result, provided that the government doesn't step in to "save the day." However, if a government does this, taxes will go up to pay for it (see my previous posts regarding western Penna. school districts). California created an electric power deathtrap that didn't exist in any other state and now people like you have no choice but to pay. Had deregulation been done right (or not at all), the state would be in a better position.
And if a government run program is failing, it's up to the people to vote the ones out responsible. I'm not saying all these city run broadband projects are going to work 100%, but it's obvious WHY they're coming about.
said by pnh102 :
Nothing worth doing is easy. If they didn't go through all that heck, they wouldn't be doing business.
It wouldn't have been a problem if Qwest hadn't tried to kill the project to begin with. Earning its reputation again, after all.
said by pnh102 :
The bells don't want WISPs to take away their customers, if WISPs encourage the bells/cable companies to expand service then this is a good thing.
Would you be happy if the bells killed WISP competition? I know I wouldn't.
said by pnh102 :
As we can see with what's happening in Indiana and Nevada, it not a sure thing that these will pass.
Good, but don't think the bells won't keep trying.
said by pnh102 :
If I am paying $100 in electric bills and I know that $50 is going to subsidize internet service that I don't use, I would be a bit steamed that my bill couldn't be reduced by $50.
Stuff like this is more like pennies on the dollar, not half the bill, and that implies no basic user fees. Bur anyways, we're getting sidetracked on the whole CA power dereg now.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-26 16:32:43] | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by JakCrow :
You misunderstand: I have no problem with a capitalist society.
Sorry about that... That's just my standard honest reply to anyone who asks me that question LOL.
said by JakCrow :
I have a problem with the die hard free marketeers that want deregulation no matter how many people have to be stepped on get it (usually the individual consumer).
I agree with you 100% on this one, but I also think that what happened in California with regards to the electric companies should not have been called "deregulation" because it clearly wasn't that at all.
said by JakCrow :
I'm also tired of deregulation that comes about because the industry wants to make more money, or large customers of said industry want to spend less, and damn anyone that gets in the way, while yet again, the individual is left out of the equation but has the most to loose.
I believe there does exist a happy medium with regards to this. As I said before, regulation of electrical generation in Penna. has been successful on both fronts, it not only gives customers more choices with regards to price, but companies have continued to make money. Local governments here can now buy their power from the lowest bidder like they do with any other commodity. Some people I know here however don't use price as the sole criteria for their choice of electrical generation company. A lot of people choose "earth-friendly" power companies even though they cost more than what they paid before. I think its great that people actually have these choices now.
said by JakCrow :
And if a government run program is failing, it's up to the people to vote the ones out responsible.
Sigh... as long as people benefit from these "failed" programs (most welfare programs imo), they will never go away.
said by JakCrow :
Would you be happy if the bells killed WISP competition? I know I wouldn't.
Nor would I, but in the areas that WISPs operate there hasn't been too much of a move by the Bells to kill them.
said by JakCrow :
Stuff like this is more like pennies on the dollar, not half the bill, and that implies no basic user fees.
That's how it all starts. No matter how poorly a municipally run cable system is run, as long as it has a crutch to provide it with funding, it will continue to operate with no incentive to improve. Its very easy for a municipally run utility to jack up rates to subsidize internet access because everyone needs electric power. In Greece for example, the 3 government-run TV networks all get their funding by tacking on surcharges to the electric bill. There's no way to get out of paying for them.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil! | |
|
