 
mrchris
America the pitiful
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Down with Bell merger! Corporate apologist scum! | |
|
|
 | |
| |
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | why Why should Death star and Bellsouth have the spectrum.
They should take it away from them and let companies bid on it. Good way to lower the tax burdon on the people. | |
|
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: why said by hayabusa3303  :Why should Death star and Bellsouth have the spectrum. They should take it away from them and let companies bid on it. Good way to lower the tax burdon on the people. Then why shouldn't Florence,SC take your house and sell it to lessen the burden on other taxpayers. Same logic.
How about because it is theirs and yours and this isn't a communist country where the state decides if they get to take your property without compensation.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: why The spectrum isn't their property. It's OUR property. | |
|
| | | 
Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: why Since when is spectrum a tangible good that would equal as property? | |
|
| | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
edit:
October 5th, @03:37PM
| Re: why Radio spectrum in the U.S. is considered the property of the U.S. (i.e. supposed to be us. there could be debates as to what that means these days). The companies are only leasing the spectrum, though clearly most think they're sole owners of it. | |
|
| | | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: why Correct... they pay licensing fees for use of spectrum. Typically there are rules (FCC) to how the spectrum is used (base/mobile/power levels, etc). | |
|
| | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: why Your playing semantics. In this case, it's clearly time for the lease to come up on these spectrums and for the landlord to lease to someone else, as part of terms for a merger of course. | |
|
| | | | |
Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
 ·Speakeasy
| The government are only regulators of the spectrum. If they take it as property then why are you getting so upset about companies taking it as property?
Obviously you think the spectrum is your property, what kind of circular thinking is this anyway? | |
|
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: why Did you not read his post?
The spectrum is LEASED by these companies. They do not purchase (i.e. own) anything. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: why Who the hell are you? I was pretty sure I was talking to JakCrow not someone named Skippy. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: why Oh my my bad. I thought this was a public forum.
Pick that pride up and wipe it off, regardless who corrected your inaccuracies you can still learn from them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
·Speakeasy
| Re: why You said I did not read your previous post, as if I where or actually had a discussion with you which is not the case. What pride are you referring to seriously? There is no inaccuracy in my comment in regards to his way of circular thinking of saying it's OUR property and get's pissed at the same time when companies say they OWN the spectrum. I am well aware of what I was talking about so next time before you go and judge and jump to conclusions, read what I have written and what was the discussion about. | |
|
| | thephantom
join:2001-04-24
Alamo, CA
| said by TK Junk Mail :Then why shouldn't Florence,SC take your house and sell it to lessen the burden on other taxpayers. Same logic.
According to the Supreme Court, that is just fine.   | |
|
| 
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by hayabusa3303 :Why should Death star and Bellsouth have the spectrum. They should take it away from them and let companies bid on it. Good way to lower the tax burdon on the people. Why should they have it? Because they already have it! Why should they give up their spectrum?
In all honesty, I wish their conditions were a little different. I'd like to see a condition that would require AT&T to offer dry/naked DSL to all their subscribers for at least 5 years AND price it at the same cost their current DSL is priced (before tax).
Also, require that they do FTTH coverage of at least 90% by 2010 OR charge them $5,000/mo. for every 1% that they did NOT cover when they reach 2010. In other words, if in 2010, they have only 85% covered. Then they would be paying (5*5000) $25,000/mo. until they get it all.
Yea I'm cynical. I don't like these large companies.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
|
| | 
idjk
@144.226.x.x
| Re: why Also, require that they do FTTH coverage of at least 90% by 2010 OR charge them $5,000/mo. for every 1% that they did NOT cover when they reach 2010. In other words, if in 2010, they have only 85% covered. Then they would be paying (5*5000) $25,000/mo. until they get it all.
You may not remember but the US had a pretty good railroad system at one time until the government started telling them how to run their company's. When they went bust the same govt. people came back and said 'you should have used sound business practices' | |
|
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
edit:
October 5th, @08:24PM
| said by Rob :In all honesty, I wish their conditions were a little different. I'd like to see a condition that would require AT&T to offer dry/naked DSL to all their subscribers for at least 5 years AND price it at the same cost their current DSL is priced (before tax). DSL is an extra service. No copper, no DSL. Somebody has to pay for the installation and maintenance of the copper. With POTS+DSL, the cost of installation and maintenance is covered by the POTS bill. Forcing them to provide "dry DSL" for the same price as just the DSL part of POTS+DSL is forcing them to provide free copper. That should never happen.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Re: why Oh, puhleeze!
Anyway, VZ has tons of copper they don't need. VZ could always donate it to the "Old and Brainless!" (at&t) | |
|
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: why Why not cost it out? How much money you will have to spend to keep all of that copper intact after rain, snow, sleet, sun, wind, tornado, earthquake, hurricane...
You don't need DSL to need the copper; POTS still needs the copper, DSL or not. But you need copper for the DSL.
TANSTAAFL.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by NormanS :said by Rob :In all honesty, I wish their conditions were a little different. I'd like to see a condition that would require AT&T to offer dry/naked DSL to all their subscribers for at least 5 years AND price it at the same cost their current DSL is priced (before tax). DSL is an extra service. No copper, no DSL. Somebody has to pay for the installation and maintenance of the copper. With POTS+DSL, the cost of installation and maintenance is covered by the POTS bill. Forcing them to provide "dry DSL" for the same price as just the DSL part of POTS+DSL is forcing them to provide free copper. That should never happen. The tax payers paid for installation of the copper! The Baby Bells have been properly funded by the tax payers, they just misused the money.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
|
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA | Re: why Eh? Which tax was that? | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
edit:
October 6th, @10:30AM
| Re: why It doesnt matter if every single inch of every single piece of "pipe" has been ripped out and replaced hundreds of times over.
We subsidized them back in the day to do it and through that subsidization they have been able to survive. We have continued to subsidize them through pork barrel fees, tax breaks, and monopoly/duopoly power which again as allowed them to survive.
Until they pay the american people back 100% of the money they have been subsidized since their inception we still "own" the network regardless of how many times they turn it over.
With that in mind, I say the entire network should be taken away and used for 1 (one) nationwide network operated by 1 to 3 entities that any and every service provider can use to provide any service they choose to any person any where in the country. | |
|
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: why said by Skippy25 :With that in mind, I say the entire network should be taken away and used for 1 (one) nationwide network operated by 1 to 3 entities that any and every service provider can use to provide any service they choose to any person any where in the country. Single payer health care. Single payer housing. Single payer transportation. You may be on to something, there! Let's nationalize everything and let the government decide how to dole it out! Certainly Big Government is smarter than Big Business. In fact, it has already be done before! All we need to do is ask the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics how it is done!
Eh? Say what? There is no U.S.S.R.?
FWIW, the government shouldn't be subsidizing private enterprises for any reason. Not Chrysler, not the airlines, not telecommunications. That is not a Constitutionally mandated government activity.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: why There is a big difference in the Health Care, Housing, and most of Transportation to be comparing it to a network infrastructure. Whether were are willing to own up to it or not somethings, and the people that use them, are just better off being centralized. I just happen to be in the opinion that a nationwide fiber optic network infrastructure is one of those things.
For the most part I would agree with your statement about subsidizing private enterprises (I would even extend it to people). However, without that subsidy we probably wouldnt be anywhere close to the economical or technological place that we are currently in. | |
|
| | | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: why Quote that part of the U.S. Constitution which authorizes government subsidy of a fiber-optic backbone. Please.
Without it, you would need to create an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to authorize it.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | I say make 'em use it or lose it! And how come the bells can afford to buy spectrum and sit on it but can't afford more neighborhood dslams?
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com | |
|
| 
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
Ajax, ON | Re: I say make 'em use it or lose it! It's far cheaper to buy air then it is tubes man. And you can just dump whatever you want in the air, no clogging. 
--
....where's my fiber? | |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
Ajax, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
| Sounds good to me "....disrupt the ongoing efforts of AT&T and BellSouth to utilize wireless broadband spectrum to bring innovative and beneficial broadband services to consumers, especially in rural and undeserved areas, such as Alaska" How many PR spinners did it take to come up with that canned answer for when it would come up.
I'll vote with this Congressional Request on letting go of the spectrum in some manner.
I'm not sure on what method to pass on the spectrum, specifically whether another auction is the way to go. It sucks when the big players keep buying up all the spectrum. Perhaps offer it to smaller up-starts almost in a subsidy like way. Couldn't hurt, and if they bankrupt or what have you, have it go back to the Feds for another auction.
--
....where's my fiber? | |
|
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Sounds good to me Hey you telco flag wavers that will never see them do wrong... take note of the above quote so that way if they get their way and in 5, 10, 15 years from now they still haven't acted on it and brought this "innovation and beneficial broadband services to consumers" you to can see them for what they are. LIARS! | |
|
| | kc5fog
join:2005-09-09
Hitchcock, TX
| Re: Sounds good to me I'm all for the use it or loose it system. I think the government should make it a mandate that these companies must roll out a full market available product by a certain date or forfeit the frequencies
By allowing a company to buy up spectrum and warehouse only hurts the consumer by not allowing a free market. When you look at other countries compared to the US, the other countries allow a free market and the company with the best product wins. Here in the US the companies with the most money are allowed to take the crappy way out and kneecap their competition and rig the market by throwing what ever kind of roadblocks they can instead of just trying to make the best product.
We will never see any type of true market driven cost effective broadband products until the government makes a level playing field and stops the kneecapping and roadblocking.
| |
|
|
Allecto
@comcast.net | Uh, any time the DOJ/FCC require merger conditions like this the parties get to try to sell the spectrum to third parties. It doesn't get taken back by the FCC. If they can't sell it a trustee will be appointed to sell it. | |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs: | Tubes Sounds like they're mentioning Alaska specifically because they want to build a set of wireless tubes up there.
-Dane | |
|
|
|
|
Debate Over AT&T/BellSouth Merger Conditions
Overlapping spectrum should be divested ....
·
·
·