 |
 |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re:149; FCC backpedals from Internet tax said by Linklist:Good news. One thing we didn't need was another FCC USF tax implemented. The claim it would lessen the existing phone taxes was never believed by anyone.
it wouldn't be another tax. geesh. Ok since USF revenue are drying up because no one useless landlines anymore where do you get the USF money for broadband? Oh by the way getting USF money form broadband from POTS line service makes as much sense as funding free school lunches with gas taxes. | |
|
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re:149; FCC backpedals from Internet tax said by BF69:said by Linklist:Good news. One thing we didn't need was another FCC USF tax implemented. The claim it would lessen the existing phone taxes was never believed by anyone.
it wouldn't be another tax. geesh. Ok since USF revenue are drying up because no one useless landlines anymore where do you get the USF money for broadband? Oh by the way getting USF money form broadband from POTS line service makes as much sense as funding free school lunches with gas taxes. USF fees on cellphones is more than making up for slowing landline fees.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
|
| |  ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | said by BF69:said by Linklist:Good news. One thing we didn't need was another FCC USF tax implemented. The claim it would lessen the existing phone taxes was never believed by anyone.
it wouldn't be another tax. geesh. Ok since USF revenue are drying up because no one useless landlines anymore where do you get the USF money for broadband? Oh by the way getting USF money form broadband from POTS line service makes as much sense as funding free school lunches with gas taxes. Given the past history of the USF it should just go away completely. | |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Re:Competitive wireless carriers take on AT&T and Verizon
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | iPhone5 banned? That would be.... poetic justice.
I can't really feel sorry for Apple---- they bring this all on themselves. | |
|
| | | Re: iPhone5 banned? The DOJ needs to sue Apple before their actions lead to all smartphones banned. | |
|
| |  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2
 ·Bright House
| Re: iPhone5 banned? said by Metatron2008:The DOJ needs to sue Apple before their actions lead to all smartphones banned. Did someone mention the Obama administration suing the Democrat State of Apple in an election year?
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery. | |
|
| | | | said by Metatron2008:The DOJ needs to sue Apple before their actions lead to all smartphones banned.
On what basis should the DoJ sue Apple? Enforcing the patents the USPTO issued them?
Jim | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: iPhone5 banned? For patenting already invented trivial items to use to create a litigated monopoly? You didn't see RIM do this when they created the smartphone, did you? Microsoft, after it's 90's day of bullying, didn't do this with pdas, did they? If they did you'd only have the choice of Microsoft pdas.
This is gonna end badly. Before apple came along companies liscensed each other's tech. Now Apple has gone and turned the game into a huge brawl. Every single company is now out for blood, and given that Apple are huge copycats themselves, they are the textbook definition of 'do not throw stones in glass houses'.
Nobody will stop until Apples products are banned, and apple wont stop either. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Forbes article gets it right but stops short of the solution The obvious solution is to have a regulated utility build the network, and they do not provide the service, they merely install/upgrade/maintain the network.
Then ISP's and service providers can provide services over that network; and customers could choose which one they want to use based on cost; features; quality of service, etc etc
The Network utility's customers would be the ISP's and service providers. The local Government could also be the network provider.
This system would insure an open access system where ample competition and a great variety of services would be available, while still being the most efficient and practical way to provide extremely fast telecommunications networks.
That's also why it will never happen here.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Forbes article gets it right but stops short of the solution said by KrK:The obvious solution is to have a regulated utility build the network, and they do not provide the service, they merely install/upgrade/maintain the network. And they would do that why? Why would they spend their money doing that with no return on the costs? If your boss asked you to work for free how long before you stop going to work? | |
|
| | ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | Re: Forbes article gets it right but stops short of the solution said by BF69:said by KrK:The obvious solution is to have a regulated utility build the network, and they do not provide the service, they merely install/upgrade/maintain the network. And they would do that why? Why would they spend their money doing that with no return on the costs? If your boss asked you to work for free how long before you stop going to work? How would they get no return? The ISP charges its customers to provide internet service. The regulated utility charges the ISP for access to the network to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure and cover the operating costs (ie. salaries).
So how would anyone be working for free? | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | It's not free. They would charge the Service provider, who would in turn be charging the end customers. | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by KrK:The obvious solution is to have a regulated utility build the network, and they do not provide the service, they merely install/upgrade/maintain the network.
Then ISP's and service providers can provide services over that network; and customers could choose which one they want to use based on cost; features; quality of service, etc etc
The Network utility's customers would be the ISP's and service providers. The local Government could also be the network provider.
This system would insure an open access system where ample competition and a great variety of services would be available, while still being the most efficient and practical way to provide extremely fast telecommunications networks.
That's also why it will never happen here.
And what do you do with the existing non-government owned networks already in existence? Does the government buy them up at huge cost to taxpayers? And forcing them to sell runs in to all kinds of barriers in the US Constitution about taking property w/o just compensation. And if the government just overbuilds to each home instead of buying or taking existing infrastructure, that cost also becomes huge.
That is why it will never happen.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Forbes article gets it right but stops short of the solution It will never happen because it's the logical and best thing for everyone.
The current system is the best thing for an elite few duopolists. THAT's why it will never happen.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|
|
