 
CompNrd
@65.205.x.x | Damn Right! Hit the head of the nail with that hammer!
 | |
|  |
qwguy
| Re: Damn Right! Depends on where you're at and who's your provider. You can get internet and phone combined at HALF what he's whining about with a lot of telcos right now. And the competition between telcos and cable for dialtone AND broadband is keeping prices pretty low. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | still not low enough though, when people in south korea can get 20mbit and higher for what equals out to 10 USD.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | Matsayz
Premium
join:2005-02-08
Tucson, AZ | Re: Damn Right! thats cuz the whole country is fiber...unlike ourselves | |
| | | |
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| Re: Damn Right! said by "matsayz":
thats cuz the whole country is fiber...unlike ourselves
And exactly WHY is that so? Because of COMPETITION!
But absent competition, if one has a monopoly over the service provided to a large geographic area - if there is no competition, then where is the motivation for upgrading the services provided? If the incumbent telcos and cable cos can charge $50/mo for broadband, no matter what the speed provided is - then why would they have any motivation to change/upgrade it?
The only places that you really hear about bandwidth upgrades are - that's right, wait for it - areas in which both cable and DSL service providers *actually compete* with each other for customers.
Once "full de-regulation" takes its toll, though, and all individual markets are eventually served by one and only one monopoly service provider, then you can be assured that the US consumer broadband market will STAGNATE like never before. We will be the joke of the worldwide internet, with dial-up like speeds compared to other countries. It will likely also have a knock-on effect on our overall economy as well. Just think - if we had better residential broadband in this country - on the order of 10Mbit/sec symmetrical service or better per household - then it would be a lot easier to tele-commute. In a country who's economy is literally greased by oil, and so much of it is used in the process of physically transporting workers to work every day, and the increasing prices for oil and gasoline will have a slowing effect on our economy - this is where broadband should matter, and could provide a means to reduce our oil dependency as a nation, if only slightly. But our greedy monopolistic short-sighted service providers, along with the gov't agencies supposedly regulating them, but instead eating out of their campaign-donation hands, aren't helping to deliver a real solution. | |
| |
anonpronman
@dsl.net | Damn right..
I'm not bending over anymore.. I'm going back to dialup..
You can take your over priced monopolistic services and shove them were the sun don't shine. | |
| 
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| My response to Martin's op-ed Here's my thoughts for the WSJ - unpublished by them at this point, but relevant for this forum:
To: Editor, WSJ
The Wall Street Journals publication of the FCC chairman's op-ed could use
some fact-checking. His assertion that we'll be better off as a country
with far fewer Internet providers makes no sense, and his agency's push for
de-regulation is misguided. The published article includes so many
misstatements that it's difficult to know where to begin.
Natural regulated monopolies such as train tracks, power lines, water works
and telephone lines should be regulated and deregulated with extreme
caution. In Japan, South Korea and many European nations, they are
achieving far higher broadband penetration ratios in their population by
requiring fair wholesale rates and competition on these limited resources.
Here, we are falling behind in deployment, and the blame for this is being
misplaced. Regulation is the solution, not the problem!
Meanwhile, the assertion that broadband over power lines or wireless are
relevant in today's marketplace is either wildly optimistic or badly
misleading. BPL is not mature, and is only in trial, and wireless has not
been shown to work on a wide scale at high speed in any markets. Satellite
has a small share, but only in locations where DSL and cable are not
available at all. Martin's conclusions are wrong.
We need to foster a competitive Internet - handing over the fabric of our
country's connectivity to a few monopoly companies will stifle availability,
innovation, speed and features. We need to retain and encourage the
thousands of Internet Service Providers we have in the US today, not put the
final nail in their coffins.
--
Dane Jasper Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000 »www.sonic.net/
mailto:dane@sonic.net | |
| | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed But could Japan, South Korea, and those European countries have done the same thing again if a) they were not subsidized by their governments in some part, and b) have the same geography as the United States.
Its easy to have high market penetration when the majority of your peoples are in small, tight urbanized areas. I wonder how it would look if the federal government offered up a 20% subsidy to each and every private broadband company, and then only looked at the major cities when determining market penetration. | |
| | | 
rideboarder
welcome to the social
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
clubs:
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed said by GhostDoggy  :Its easy to have high market penetration when the majority of your peoples are in small, tight urbanized areas. I wonder how it would look if the federal government offered up a 20% subsidy to each and every private broadband company, and then only looked at the major cities when determining market penetration. That may be true, but it's still no excuse that cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and so forth don't have faster connections. | |
| | | | 
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed No, it is an excuse because you have to look at the uniformness of the density. For example, NYC is as dense as say, Hong Kong (maybe it is, maybe it isn't, don't feel like looking it up, but for argument's sake, assume so) but if you go some 50 miles outside of NYC, it's rural. On the other hand, I dare say you have few rural areas in Hong Kong or its surrounding area in China, or in say, Korea, either.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | | |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed There are MANY rural areas outside of Hong Kong. I lived in one for a year. China has a far less dense population than the United States in certain areas and has broadband available in many of them. Canada has a similar population makeup to the United States and has broadband far more readily available in rural areas. Geography is no longer a legitimate excuse for America's lag. | |
| | | | |
rideboarder
welcome to the social
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
clubs:
| said by LegoPower77 :No, it is an excuse because you have to look at the uniformness of the density. For example, NYC is as dense as say, Hong Kong (maybe it is, maybe it isn't, don't feel like looking it up, but for argument's sake, assume so) but if you go some 50 miles outside of NYC, it's rural. On the other hand, I dare say you have few rural areas in Hong Kong or its surrounding area in China, or in say, Korea, either. So you are agreeing that NYC is as dense as Hong Kong? Then why isn't NYC seeing the same speeds as Hong Kong? There are no excuses. I'm not talking about rural areas, i'm talking about major cities in the United States that are completely lagging behind! | |
| | | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | said by GhostDoggy :But could Japan, South Korea, and those European countries have done the same thing again if a) they were not subsidized by their governments in some part, and b) have the same geography as the United States. Its easy to have high market penetration when the majority of your peoples are in small, tight urbanized areas. I wonder how it would look if the federal government offered up a 20% subsidy to each and every private broadband company, and then only looked at the major cities when determining market penetration. Doesn't the U.S. market have its share of subsidies? While there isn't specific government monies being thrown at telcoms, tax breaks and deals on multiple levels count for something. | |
| | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | "BPL is not mature, and is only in trial"
Kinda misleading, its not in trial in some places its be working fine for over a year in some communities. | |
| |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| While I disagree with your formulation, I would like to offer much praise for your saying we should “regulate/deregulate with extreme caution.” It seems so many in these pages are blindly willing to have a political board determine market structures, at least you say your cautious in both cases.
That being said, I would suggest the “monopoly” status of these companies are a result of exclusive franchise licenses given by the government rather than a natural occurrence.
First, can we agree to one thing? Sherman anti-trust law, et al. were passed long before economics developed as a science; that is to say, we know more now about how markets work than we did at the turn of the last century. I’m not asking you to agree with the interpretations of what we know, just agree that there is more knowledge.
Now, that being said, I have a hard time putting so much faith in both the legislative and legal precedence in this matter since the law as written is a no-win situation. Under Sherman, a firm can be prosecuted for raising prices (proves they’re a monopoly), lowering prices (predatory practices), or keeping the price the same as others (collusion).
In fact, economists have looked at the suits brought under Sherman, et al., and surprise, surprise, it’s just a method for one business to waylay another business. It turns out that when the company bringing the suit is the more politically-connected one, the case goes through, whereas when the company bringing the suit is not as connected as the defendant, the case does not get heard (generally speaking, of course). Example: Microsoft had just one lobbyist in Washington before they were sued.
Monopoly in the pure sense of the word cannot exist because there are always alternatives. When we do see shades of monopoly, it’s almost exclusively government created/enforced (think, the Post Office, Amtrak, the phone company . . .).
The fact of the matter is, there are always substitutes. Plastic is a substitute for metal, coal is a substitute for oil, cable is a substitute for DSL… However, we must be careful not to look at it as a black-and-white situation; the substitutability of a good is a continuum that is different for different people and goods. The point is, though, that even if there were a “monopoly,” it would still face a sloping demand curve meaning it couldn’t “just charge what it wants.” The negative slope of the demand curve proves that doing without is an alternative, N.B.: at some point, people will just not pay.
Firms that have some level of monopoly status are still constrained by costs, they still face a downward-sloping demand curve, and the only thing they do differently is instead of in a perfectly competitive market where firms produce to where marginal cost = the unchanging price, in theory, monopolies will lower production to where marginal cost = marginal revenue and try to seek out the most profitable price. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion.
I say “in theory” because a large number of economic historians have found that the opposite is the case. For instance, Dominick Armentano examined the oil, steel, and tobacco industries and found that all the “monopoly” companies (Standard Oil, US Steel, and American Tobacco Co.) had a record of continually increasing output and reducing price (see The Myths of Antitrust chpts 4 & 5).
Standard Oil in 1870 sold refined oil at $26.4/bbl and had 4% market share. By 1911, they had brought the price down to $4.7/bbl and had 69% market share. Same scenario for Alcoa, in 1887 a pound of aluminum sold for $5-8, by 1941 it was down to 15¢/lb. In more recent times, Microsoft gets lashed as an eeevil monopoly while no one can argue with how much better off people are with their products—as if they’ve been coerced into buying them or something. Meanwhile, government subsidized companies flounder (the railroads in the 1880s, the shipping industry around that same time, the post office, Amtrak…. Didn’t they just need another billion dollar bail-out?)
Furthermore, Yale Brozen says that, “the few trusts that actually did attempt raising prices and reducing outputs, such as the American Sugar Refining Company in the early 1890s and the American Can Company after 1901, quickly lost market share to new entrants attracted into the market, which bid prices back down to competitive levels” (see The Attack on Concentration). Indeed, just the threat of a new entrant into the market is enough to keep the so-called monopoly from abusing it’s power.
Regulation makes people beholden to a politically connected commission and leads them down the road to serfdom. As Friedrich Hayek points out in his essay The Meaning of Competition, “Enthusiasm for perfect competition in theory and the support of monopoly in practice are indeed surprisingly often found to live together.” The reason for this is that people get so caught-up in trying to make everything “competitive” that they end up distorting the market by excessive regulation.
Whatever good the aims of regulation are, it always ends up maintaining the power of the planners themselves. A society that cedes its development to an organized commission will always be limited by what the minds of the planners can grasp
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed quote:
Microsoft gets lashed as an eeevil monopoly while no one can argue with how much better off people are with their products—as if they’ve been coerced into buying them or something.
Actually, we are not better off with Microsoft's products. We are probably worse off than if we would have went with the competitors (Apple, Novell, Word Perfect, Lotus).
And people were coerced (or FORCED) into buying them. Read up on the case and you'll see a lot of illegal tactics. | |
| | | | majorash
join:2004-06-21
Beaver Dam, WI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed If everyone would be using Apple, Linux or whatever else. We would end up with the same problems. You would have just as many viruses and worms and whatnots as you do with Microsoft products.
I'm not saying that MS didn't do anything wrong, I don't know everything about there little monopoly lawsuit. I'm just saying that the grass wouldn't nessisarly be greener on the otherside.
With the rural areas of the US not having BB. It's just the American way. Screw the little guy. As long as I can keep getting all this money out these people over here... I'm not going to bother to spend the money to give the others the same service. | |
| | |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| The problem has little to do with prices here. Yes, prices decrease over time in any industry. However, its how quickly and comparatively those prices decrease (accounting for inflation, of course). The issues with Standard had little to do with the prices that were being charged rather than how they were using the other companies they controlled to keep those prices low and maintain their monopoly. If private companies had maintained control of the electricity market for much longer, its safe to say they would've have prolonged distribution to rural areas even longer.
The point here isn't just price, imo, but penetration. Private companies do not go where it isn't cost effective and this has been historically true even of Monopolies who do charge low prices.
Steel and tobacco are very different from broadband and electricity. You cannot actually believe that if a company did manage to control %100 of an energy or broadband market it would continue to lower prices out of the goodness of its collective board's heart. Standard owned all sorts of different companies and used those supplemental companies to cross subsidize oil prices low and maintain monopoly. When a public utility tries to do the same. The result was cheap prices of oil, but little concern for the actual intention of some of the resources they owned (commercial and travel rails, for example). When a public utility does the same kind of cross-subsidization and exploitation of coalescing resources, their operations are penalized or shut down, why not the same case for privates? | |
| | |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Also ...
Don't forget the biggest revolution of the past twenty years to absolutely BLAST all logical economic theory out of the water ... advertising.
People no longer buy the cheapest product.
They purchase the most lucrative lifestyle based on perceived value.
Frankly, I think psychological methods of advertising should be regulated, barred, destroyed, whatever, since they essentially ruin the market even in its "naturally perfect" state. Reality and theory do not always coalesce, especially in economics. | |
| | | 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| "First, can we agree to one thing? Sherman anti-trust law, et al. were passed long before economics developed as a science; that is to say, we know more now about how markets work than we did at the turn of the last century."
A science is not defined as something "we know more now about [...] than we [used to]."
Capitalist economic texts lead one to believe the "market" -- with its invisible hand -- is in effect, a self governing, self correcting, living entity best left to its own devices.
Economics is much closer to an ideology than a science. The facts bear out that capitalism is all about exchange, which leads to accumulation of wealth with little regard to much else. Economics is the tool of the ruling class. The market system is simply a tool to mask its own fallacy of naturalization; it only refers to internal claims as a way of concealing what exists outside its own claims -- The very definition of ideology.
Without the discipline/regulation provided by a government (or ruling class) having the power to implement regulation/deregulation, then there is no market discipline. Certainly no one can argue a market is self disciplining when a government can affect any number of variables that both sustain and destroy a market economy.
As an analogy: When we lead a regulated life, we are said to live in harmony by discipline. Defined within a value system, this is tantamount to stating that discipline of life is as precious as life itself, for it is out of that discipline that life derives value; forfeiting this self-regulation is akin to giving up the advantages of birth.
Modern Economics is so rife with fallacy and imbued with politics that it will never aspire to the designation of a science; and worse, it aids the powerful in their quest to destroy free enterprise.
True monopoly is a device of socialism. Our current system of monopoly capitalism has strangled free enterprise. Today 1% of the population owns close to 50% of all wealth in this country. The top 10% own 90% of all national wealth. The only disparity worse than this is socialism. We have reached another gilded age where the death of free enterprise isn't a question of if, but of when. The only apparent invisible hand is the one over the public eye.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
| | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed said by Titus Pullo :A science is not defined as something "we know more now about [...] than we [used to]." ... Economics is much closer to an ideology than a science. Biology, chemistry, and physics are all SCIENCES that we know more about now than we did at the turn of the last century.
So is economics.
Claiming economics is an ideology is like saying that evolution is only an ideology and that creationism is science.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
1 edit | Re: My response to Martin's op-ed said by calvoiper :said by Titus Pullo :A science is not defined as something "we know more now about [...] than we [used to]." ... Economics is much closer to an ideology than a science. Biology, chemistry, and physics are all SCIENCES that we know more about now than we did at the turn of the last century. So is economics. Claiming economics is an ideology is like saying that evolution is only an ideology and that creationism is science. calvoiper Then you've been brainwashed; any economist worth his or her salt will tell you that Economics is not a science in the truest sense of what constitutes a science. At best, it is a social science.
Look it up for yourself.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
EDIT: Better stated, what I'm saying is that Capitalism (an ideology) is one approach to economics. There are several economic systems, each with variance and theories; however, theory is not science. IMHO, our economic system has become a hybrid of junk science and ideology. Do a search and read various opinions on why economics is often referred to as the "pseudo science."
But you are correct in that I should not have referred to all economics as ideology. Only when broken down and polluted by greed and politics does the language of the system become the playground of ideologues.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
| | | | | |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed Sorry for the late response. Summer vacations and work, these days. I hope you two will indulge me.
said by Titus Pullo :said by calvoiper :said by Titus Pullo :A science is not defined as something "we know more now about [...] than we [used to]." ... Economics is much closer to an ideology than a science. Biology, chemistry, and physics are all SCIENCES that we know more about now than we did at the turn of the last century. So is economics. Claiming economics is an ideology is like saying that evolution is only an ideology and that creationism is science. calvoiper Then you've been brainwashed; any economist worth his or her salt will tell you that Economics is not a science in the truest sense of what constitutes a science. At best, it is a social science. An sneaky technique, WMH, what you're doing is taking everything I would have to prove the merits of deregulation off the table a priori.
Any clown can post something on Wikipedia, but what is the nature of science? Indeed, at its roots, science is philosophy. Why do you think it's called a PhD? Literally: a doctorate in philosophy.
Now, that being said, is economics the bastard child? Consider the field of quantum physics, the study of nature within the very atoms themselves. Many times in the tests scientists perform, they have to build a model, (such as in a particle accelerator) and then they test it with statistics. (Brian Greene’s 1999 book, the elegant universe mentioned how this is done as a matter of course in cutting-edge research.)
So, what do doctors of philosophy do in the field of economics?
They develop a theory of a natural phenomenon (in this case, human interaction), build a mathematical model (much like in the physics case) and then test it by trying to prove the null hypothesis,* (in many cases the same way psychologists test their theories in labs with people).
Of course, on many other hands, there need be no testing; the differences between Russia and the US were contrapositions amongst countries on a continuum of government intervention and regulation. And even now, America, the most laisser-fair of them all remains on the cutting edge of technological development (as distinguished from deployment, I'll grant you).
I think your insistence in vilifying economics is because there’s near unanimity, in most cases, on the proper level of government action. Back to the testing part, Vernon Smith won the Nobel in 2003 because of his work developing clinical tests of people engaged market/economic action. It's no coincidence that he is huge proponent for deregulation in many areas.
Likewise, the economic philosophers of the 1800s in Austria took an entirely different approach yet arrived at the same conclusion: human invention, human discovery does not come from regimented governmental action, but through the experimentation of individuals in the marketplace. N.B.: money was first used privately before government co-opted it and eventually monopolized it.
As mentioned in this post another Economic Nobel Laureate Thomas Sowell (we all know what "leftists" the Nobel committee is, man) says the same thing in one of his recent Random Thoughts columns: Some ideas seem so plausible that they can fail nine times in a row and still be believed the tenth time. Other ideas seem so implausible that they can succeed nine times in a row and still not be believed the tenth time. Government controls in the economy are among the first kinds of ideas and the operation of a free market is among the second kinds of ideas.
*Not to put too fine a point on it. It's interesting that creationism and evolution are mentioned here. Manifestly neither are science. Scientific testing requires a null hypothesis, i.e. something that, if proven, ruins the theory, e.g., if I drop this glass, and it doesn't fall, the law (which started out as a theory) of gravity would be disproven.
Of course, "evolution" (needs to be defined) is an ever-shifting theory. Every time the latest missing link (that was actually a projection based on as little as a single tooth) is found to be a fraud, another explanation pops up).
Frankly I find it would take much more faith to believe in evolution than the God of Abraham and Mary.
Look, we have in these very pages people who contribute to SITI. This is a search for extraterrestrial life by inter alia listening to wave patterns from outer space.
If so much as a random pattern of prime numbers is found, it will be said that intelligent life is likely the source. We look at the statues erected on Easter Island and assume that it was human intelligence that built it.
But yet we are unlocking all the information, volumes and volumes, contained in DNA and we're blindly willing to say that that happened by chance; odds that are a bajillion-kajillion smaller than winning the mega-jackpot.
Any statistician that wasn't a pillar of salt would tell you those are bad numbers. The God of Abraham says in Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil."
Ante up, gentlemen.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan
It's right, it's free. | |
| |
justncredible
@rr.com
| Dane, wow your a idiot. We tried the line sharing, and as a FACT the phone lines are still forced to be shared. What you seem to be saying is, let the bells build out the fiber and then STEAL them and give it to some lazy company that did not have the foresight to build out. The prices will not drop, it is not real competition, only one company will own the lines. How will that foster growth of any kind? What is a companies incentive to build out? Has Covad laid lines down? It would be the same if you had a Wendy's and a burger king on the same street, and any time burger king wanted they just walked in and stole the burgers off the grill and sold them as their own. It is stupid. This crap you idiots have wrote is AFTER we see deregulation WORKING!!! Prices are dropping, SBC offers DSL at under $15.00 a month now, fiber is being laid all over. Yet you want to go back to slow speeds and higher prices. Stick to reporting news and away from voicing your opinion. You are only propagating the belief that anyone in the media are mindless nitwits. | |
| | |
broadbanderexpanderc
@tmodns.net
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed justn, who do you work for, really?
Where is the 15 dollar service and what percentage of ALL computer users is that? Please, I want you to give me the EXACT figures that PROVE you are right and that "deregulation is working." I don't want history from the 20s, 50s, or 80s; I want the numbers from NOW in the case of broadband penetration.
I want to see how "successful" deregulation has been. So please, line up the numbers that show how America's growth is equivalent since all the massive deregulation with Korea, China, Canada, Iceland and other countries that have regulated more since we began deregulating. Oh, that's right, troll! We've dropped an incredible amount comparatively! Wow! China's communist. You don't get much more regulated than that, eh? Hmmm, and it turns out they have just as diverse a geography as the US! Why, even more so! Real facts and citations before anymore idiotic and untrue claims. Don't give me percentages comparing USA now with USA past. Give me international comparisons of rural and urban areas. Give me real data. You won't be able to. Because no real data on the subject supporting your claims exists. We are falling every year in both speed AND penetration on the international level. Your fallacious claims, as usual, only irk. I wonder sometimes if maybe you're actually just Kelliher. | |
| | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: My response to Martin's op-ed I wouldn't bother. Justin is just a blowhard that shows up every now and then to regurgitate the same tired lines. Gosh. Who has more credibility? Dane or Justin? Need I ask? | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed Actually, justn(ot)credible, it's much more like Burger King had a 100 year state-supported monopoly, owned the streets, and wouldn't let customers get to Wendy's. The new concept of "street-sharing" would be imposed to let customers use the Burger King streets to get to Wendy's.
You, of course, would be complaining about how you "owned" those customers whose driveways connected to BK streets, and it was "theft" to allow Wendy's customers to "trespass".
Since the passage over BK streets was accompanied by fair compensation, you would be wrong, but it wouldn't stop your histrionics.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | |
justncredible
@rr.com
| Wisconsin SBC DSL for under $15.00 a month
»www05.sbc.com/DSL_new/content_ne···,00.html
Wow I have misunderstood the meaning of "deregulation". My use of the word was meant to say less government oversight of business. Well if I read this right it seems that it is the opposite.
»www.aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=211
Yet even tho the word now has a mis-meaning I am still 100% fu*king right, try 83% growth in under 1 year since the FCC stopped forcing line sharing.
»www.ftthcouncil.org/newsroom.tpl···26181367
Thats 83% buddy, HA! Less government control is better for everyone. as for the international crap, it does not fly, anyone in this country can get broadband, anyone anywhere, even morons in the middle of nowhere-land can get broadband. Have a look at this link, all of America is covered.
»www.andilinks.com/satel.htm
Not only that but realize that the only reason more Americans do not have broadband might have something to do with the fact this country is so great. Milwaukee for the past 9 days has had summer fest going on, something like 15 bands a day playing onstage. I am the only person I know that spend more than a hour a day online. Most people are doing things, no one wants broadband, if they do they can get it as I have shown.
As for who do I work for, I work in a machine shop, as a quality tech. I inspect parts on a Browne and sharp CMM, do surface plate layouts. I am just a normal guy, with a slightly higher iq than most. I know many who are smarter than me, yet I can do simple research and have a good memory retention. I will not say the name, but if Karl ask I will provide him with details even numbers to verify my claim. I work 3rd shift as well so now I am going to sleep....... | |
| | | | |
FightingBlue
@direcpc.com
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed "anyone in this country can get broadband, anyone anywhere, even morons in the middle of nowhere-land can get broadband."
And even a--holes from some suburban botox babylon can talk trash on the internet without knowing what the hell they're talking about.
Actually, no, nitwit, not everyone can get broadband. Satellite hardly qualifies as an effective broadband connection--not only is it unreliable and extemely latent, but it doesn't come even close to the speeds of current DSL and cable, let alone the kind of next-gen speeds that are going to be becoming increasingly neccessary in the future.
Oh, and those same satellite services are available in other countries. Do you ever think before you type?
Furthermore, I suggest that you compare US broadband penetration to other countries before you start doing any little victory dances.
"Not only that but realize that the only reason more Americans do not have broadband might have something to do with the fact this country is so great. Milwaukee for the past 9 days has had summer fest going on, something like 15 bands a day playing onstage."
Right, so there's no broadband available, because no one wants it, because everyone's watching bands in Milwaukee. So if 'everyone' can get broadband, I suppose all the disaffected users here are what, a figment of my imagination?
"I am just a normal guy, with a slightly higher iq than most."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Right. Let me see your MENSA certificate. | |
| | | | | |
rideboarder
welcome to the social
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
clubs:
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed said by FightingBlue:
"anyone in this country can get broadband, anyone anywhere, even morons in the middle of nowhere-land can get broadband."
And even a--holes from some suburban botox babylon can talk trash on the internet without knowing what the hell they're talking about.
You're right, if we want to look at it that way, everyone in the world can get internet over satellite, minus some extremely remote areas in siberia maybe...I'd hardly call satellite broadband. | |
| | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: My response to Martin's op-ed ...and minus people without a clear exposure to the southern sky--like folks who live on the north side of an apartment building, or who have metallic coated windows that don't open, or who live in the satellite shadow of a small town hospital or grain elevator....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | |
justncredible
@rr.com
| Satellite is broadband, you can not just pick and choose what you consider broadband and expect others to agree. ISDN is broadband, satellites are broadband. So I remain correct in saying anyone can get broadband. I proved it so your wrong.
I suggest YOU compare the broadband penetration, if you can not site the source study and the para metrics of the study then they mean nothing. Show how the data is collected, you will soon find out the studies are false. One country cooks the numbers to make a appearance of higher usage.
| |
| china_rider
join:2004-04-21
Peoria, AZ | Hmmm .... Or just don't get cable TV and pay ~$50 for the internet service (while probably trippling your current DSL download speed). I'm not sure how fair a comparison the article makes. | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Cable force-bundling? Dana, please understand that maybe your cable provider is allowed to force-bundle CATV along with your cablemodem service, but this isn't the case everywhere. I pay $42.99/month for 4x384 as a non-CATV customer and no contracts.
And since its the county governing authority that franchises the cable operator, blame them for not meeting your needs. Cheers. | |
| | 
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| Re: Cable force-bundling? said by GhostDoggy :Dana, please understand that maybe your cable provider is allowed to force-bundle CATV along with your cablemodem service, but this isn't the case everywhere. I pay $42.99/month for 4x384 as a non-CATV customer and no contracts. Your situation is a very rare exception not the rule.
I have yet to see a Cable Co were I've lived, worked, or visited that didn't force bundle without a heavy price penalty. 
Consider yourself Very Lucky. And I'm Very Jealous.;)
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  | |
| | | 
CurtesyFlush
Bababooey, fafafooey, tatatoothy.
Premium
join:2002-08-23
Fontana, CA
| Re: Cable force-bundling? said by Mactron :said by GhostDoggy :Dana, please understand that maybe your cable provider is allowed to force-bundle CATV along with your cablemodem service, but this isn't the case everywhere. I pay $42.99/month for 4x384 as a non-CATV customer and no contracts. Your situation is a very rare exception not the rule. I have yet to see a Cable Co were I've lived, worked, or visited that didn't force bundle without a heavy price penalty. Consider yourself Very Lucky. And I'm Very Jealous.;) Same here in San Bernardino County Mactron. I pay in the mid 40's to Adelphia for that tier, and don't even own a TV set.
--
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. -- Emo Phillips | |
| | Spudge_Boy
join:2004-09-17
Orange, CA
| You are absolutely the exception to the rule. Forced bundling is the norm, not the other way around. I am sick and tired of having to pay for basic cable, so that I can have a cable modem. DSL, not available still. That is most likely the reason for the forced bundling, because they know they can get away with it. There isn't another choice and I don't live in BFE. I live in the city. | |
| | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Please... Can we please have some discussions without 'Orwell', '1984', or 'Nazi' being bandied about? Does anyone have any original thoughts? | |
| | 
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| Re: Please... I think if cable and bell execs can call getting everything they want "regulatory certainty", it's only fair the guy can toss out an Orwell reference.
Besides, the "Newspeak" Orwell discussed has come true. It's certainly within bounds.
Nazi references I agree are tired however. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Whiner He could cancel his DSL and phone service and not pay $110 a month.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: Whiner said by pnh102 :He could cancel his DSL and phone service and not pay $110 a month. So could you. And you could go back to a Bell company. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Whiner said by garagerock :So could you. And you could go back to a Bell company. But I'm not whining about paying $110 a month for service. He is!
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: Whiner said by pnh102 :said by garagerock :So could you. And you could go back to a Bell company. But I'm not whining about paying $110 a month for service. He is! So what is the story with your avatar? do you hate the Bell company so bad you "whined" about their service? | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Whiner said by garagerock :So what is the story with your avatar? do you hate the Bell company so bad you "whined" about their service? Its a very long story LOL. Here's a summary.
My hatred for Verizon goes back to 1998, the very first year they did not start offering DSL to where I used to live. At that time it had been nearly 3 years since I had last used broadband (at PSU). It wouldn't until 2002 (and 2 residences later) that I would see broadband again (thanks to Comcast). When I moved in 2003 to where I live now, the first thing I did was to not reward Verizon for their not offering me DSL back in 1998 by not signing up for a telegraph line from them. I guess all those years of broadband deprivation, along with Comcast beating them to the punch forged me into the uber-Verizon-hater that I am today, but if the tables had been turned and Verizon delivered before Comcast I might have had a different avatar.
I've become very skeptical with regards to Verizon's many promises. They keep going on about how great DSL is but refuse to provide it. They are now advertising FIOS but no one I know in Philadelphia can get it or has it. To me, anything Verizon tells me is a vaporware until proven otherwise.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | | | 
EnzonE
join:2000-03-23
Indiana, PA
| Re: Whiner Yes I first started learning about DSL service back in 2000. Due to my location I had no choice but to wait for Verizon to reach me. A year later in 2001 I had their service at close to 18,000 ft. At that time it was a stretch to provide service that far and somehow I was able to be a part of their '18k trial group'. Haven't had many problems and back when it was $49.95 monthly I was satisfied. Sorry to hear you started out on the wrong foot with them, obtaining DSL anywhere would of been pushing the envelope especially if you were 12k+ away from the CO!
--
Verizon 1.5M/384k @ 17,047 feet from CO.Activated June 13 2001.Upgraded March 30 2005. | |
| 
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
| Please FCC....we are not clueless Question: I am on a small local private company. I believe a COOP. If I am to assume so, are these not regulated? I assume they are not? They do not offer line sharing and this coop also owns the cable system. No cable internet.
So, if deregulation is so great shouldn't it shine in a place or situation like this????????
If so, why and I paying 69.00 a month for 256k? The fastest I can get.
I believe the facts are this innovation was and is cause by the Bells seeing the end of the dial up cash cow via outside innovations ie VoIP and the need to find other sources of cash. ie TV. ..... or die.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 | |
| shapiro44
join:2004-03-01
Highland, NY
| ha, I got you beat, I pay about $160 month 4 crap Ha, I stuck on dialup so I pay more
»[TWC] [TWC] wants wants to charge me $25,000 for RR
I paying for 3 phone lines to 1 residence
plus unlimited dialup ISP for $19.99 month
(since I login to all 3 lines simultanenously via separate
computers using the same dialup ISP, I need a good ISP
not a $6.00)
Thus my monthly communication expenses per month typically:
phone 1 $55.00
phone 2 $45.00
phone 3 $40.00
dialup ISP $20.00
-------
$160.00 month
(not including satellite TV)
Cable nor DSL not available to my house, though it is
available to most other houses around me
(making me a 2nd class citizen)
because USA stinx for broadband. In the USA the
cable and telco companies decide who the have nots are. | |
| |
anonpronman
@dsl.net | Re: ha, I got you beat, I pay about $160 month 4 c and you will continue to be second class..
While your neighbors that have dsl and cable get upgraded you will continue to get squat..
Don't like it? Start a petition "Stop the Corruption"
Private = Corrupt | |
| voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | Phone line?? $60 for a phone line?? I get a phone line here for about $23/month.
And $70/month for cable?? I can get basic cable for $24/month here. And if I just want Internet, then it's just $10 extra, so $50/month total.
I'm not sure where this guy is getting his numbers from. Maybe if you get the most deluxe phone plan available with all the extra features... and if you get every single cable channel plus a digital box... then MAYBE it would cost you that much... | |
| |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x | Re: Phone line?? Dude, you live in Canada, your prices are irrelevant to this discussion. Your country is far ahead of us in broadband deployment/prices. | |
| | | voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA | Re: Phone line?? Like I've said before, you people should move to Canada. At least the smart ones | |
| 
pa grape
Premium
join:2003-12-28
Columbus, OH
| How would forced line sharing help? I fail to see how line sharing would in any way help upgrade and modernize the infrastructure. After all, it's not the Brand X's or the Earthlink's, etc. that will lay more fiber and add more nodes and invest in new headend and central office equipment. No, it's the SBC's, and the Time Warner's, and the Comcasts, etc. The others are just wholesellers, or middlemen. | |
| | | |
|
|
'Orwell's FCC'