 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmmm...... As I have said before, these munis' are doing this a lot of time because of being ignored and cherry picking. the telcos/cablecos want it banned because it would make them look bad, in that the munis get done what they can't or won't do, and for a fair price. It's all about the money. I am not against capitalism, but if you are being ignored, why can't you fix the problem? Either help or get out of the way. JMT
--
BlooMe | |
|
 | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: hmmmm...... said by woody7  :As I have said before, these munis' are doing this a lot of time because of being ignored and cherry picking. They are not ignored by broadband providers. The two-bit political hacks are just pandering to their contributers and making tax payers foot the bill. Even the 1/2 that don't want or care about computers have to pay so business can have cheep broadband. That leaves more money to send political hacks to Hawaii on *fact finding* trips. | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: hmmmm...... Actually the most successful muni projects are built without property tax revenues. Do you know how cheap it is to issue municipal revenue bonds? The interest rate is around 3-4% due to their tax advantaged status. If revenue bonds are defaulted, the assets that are funded by them are granted to the bond owners, but there are no possible repercussions on the community. (other than loss of the built asset).
But please, keep spouting uninformed nonsense. | |
|
| | | 
cracker 52
@comcast.net | Re: hmmmm...... The reason why municipal bonds have low interest rates is because of the tax breaks given by the Federal (and sometimes state) government to the bond holders. So, the loss tax revenue is a cost to those who are paying taxes. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: hmmmm...... You mean a loss to those receiving taxes. These usually are purchased by money managers, or large corporations, both of which are probably not paying taxes to the local community. So the there will be a tax loss to the federal coffers, which I only count as a good thing. The less money DC has, the less things they can screw up, unless they use deficit spending.. Ahemm. | |
|
| | | |
| | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | No. Most of the time, these areas are being ignored. Or there is no price competition. | |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Good for Karl! "but cities and municipalities wiring themselves and providing internet service on their own removes the possibility that these communities will ever be serviced by the market."
that, of course, is where the megacorps are at last telling the truth. They freely admit that some areas are unprofitable, yet they STILL don't want a muni to fill in that gap. If that's not a case of the megacorps whining like a 2 year old, I don't know what is. The megacorps exist to service.. hmm.. the megacorp! the municipality exists to service.. the citizens. Which country do YOU want to live in?
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA | Re: Good for Karl! Exactly. "We won't provide you with service and we don't want you coming up with an alternate means of getting service as it might impact future profits of ours should we ever decide on entering your area." | |
|
|
| EAP
join:2000-01-15
Lafayette Hill, PA
| Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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. | |
|
| | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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
| Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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. | |
|
| | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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... | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK Thanks, I'll read them.
NV | |
|
| 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
1 edit | 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 | |
|
| | 89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL | 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? | |
|
| | | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
|  Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK
- 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
| 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
| Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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
| Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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
| Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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
| Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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
| Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK 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). | |
|
| |
|
this nane wasnt take
@rr.com | 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). | |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Obvious It's really very obvious: Muniband is taking business away from corporations that have not built into the area due to the area not being profitable enough. All of the funds collected and used by the municpalities for this purpose are misspent and should obviously be going towards the companies that aren't building in., just in case they eventually decide to support those areas sometime in the next several decades.
It's just natural selection that some cities and/or areas aren't built up. If they don't like it, they should move!
(the above should not be taken seriously)
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
| Action Institute Hits the Nail on the Head "...broadband black holes have always existed....They just haven’t been noticable [sic] until broadband was invented." I do believe that is the conclusion of a 3 year old.
Touché Action Institute. Perhaps less time spent on your organization's slogan, a little more on your paramount conclusions.
--
....where's my fiber? | |
|
| 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
2 edits | Re: Action Institute Hits the Nail on the Head
it's some type of logical fallacy.
it's making my head spin trying to figure out if this guy is truly an idiot. | |
|
| 
operagost
join:1999-08-02
Spring City, PA | Touché indeed. BBR saw fit to [sic] "noticable", but wrote "ACTON Institute" as "ACTION Institute." And you didn't realize that, because instead of RTFA you moved quickly to insult the blogger based on a quote taken out of context. | |
|
| | |
| | |
| |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Are you unfamiliar with proper documentation within quotations? | |
|
bradleym
join:2002-08-05
Dunfermline, IL
·Mediacom
| My favorite quote "Despite Bode’s claims, there’s no real inconsistency here. And the fact that a current area may not be a profitable market for broadband provision does not mean that it will not be so in the future...but cities and municipalities wiring themselves and providing internet service on their own removes the possibility that these communities will ever be serviced by the market."
This is my favorite quote. Plenty of little towns here in the sticks still have co-op telephone and electric service, and the megacorps have no interest in competing with them for a few relatively low-margin customers. These providers are actually beacons of innovation, and provide these services at extremely competitive rates. I guess we should be lamenting the fact that there will never be 'market service' out here. My point is that most of these co-ops were started under government initiatives like the REA, and there is no reason that similar programs shouldn't exist to 'wire' poor or under-served areas with broadband Internet access. Getting a nationwide policy like the REA passed is totally infeasible, so why shouldn't municipalities take on these projects themselves?
P.S. it's the Acton institute, as opposed to Action Institute!  | |
|
| 89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL
| Re: My favorite quote Many of those customer-owned telephone co-ops are doing quite well, and provide competitive broadband (and even cable TV) service to their market areas, which tend to be really out in the sticks as opposed to some sprawling fungus of suburban McMansions filled with whiny spoiled brats out on the edge of an urbanized area. | |
|
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | wild wild west ... wonders what would happen if we took rural areas as the frontier land where rugged individualism was the rule... meaning if they want something done and no one else will do it they will do it themselves. | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Deliberately Confusing Incumbents telegraph and cable companies are not banning towns from wiring themselves. They are simply lobbying to ensure that no state or local government wastes taxpayer money on providing broadband.
If people in these towns want broadband, there is nothing stopping them from pooling their own money and forming their own private venture to deploy broadband.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Bigger and smarter. If the people insist on things that The Phone Company feels will prevent them from making money The Phone Company won't do it. You want *Net Neutrality* so Microsoft and other giants can supply HD TV without the hassle of bribing every small town political hack and paying to run the cable? Good, The Phone Companies will not offer speeds fast enough for third party leaches to send HD porn.
If you want a socialist Broadband Network you better shell out $300 billion in tax dollars to run it. Private enterprise and their owners/share holders are not going to do it. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL |  The question I have........
| |
|
| boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
 ·ViaTalk
| Re: The question I have........ No one bother saying the obvious (unless I simply missed it)... But leave it up to the greedy money hungry Christians to pull something like this.
BTW- I loved the communism rant... straight out of the pages of McCarthy. Too funny. But then again, unbalanced people like that usually are. | |
|
| | Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL | Re: The question I have........ As much as I hate to turn this into a debate over religion, not all Christians are greedy and money hungry. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists.
BTW, If I am asked to list my religious affiliation, I put "Agnostic". | |
|
|
|
|
Response to 'Bogus Experts, Bogus Concern'
·
Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK
