Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY
| Isn't it obvious?
Integrate the fact that incumbents are attempting to ban towns like Hudson from wiring themselves with fiber, and what is the choice for rural America? Stay in the dark -- or move into an urban area where they can take your money for cheap. They want your money, but you can't expect them to put forth too much effort to get it.
The bag of chips is just out of arms reach and they're too fat to get off the couch. The bag of chips, therefore, is commanded to move closer... |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA
| It should be obvious, but most of the people sheeple socialists on this board think government is the solution to every broadband problem. This is because there are not many good economics classes in our government-run schools. Coincidence? |
|
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA
| How clever of you. You've taken a macroeconomics 101 course at some college, I presume.
The private sector does not have the motivation to make their services universally available.
The government isn't efficient enough to maintain massive infrastructure like a nationwide network or even one for a large metropolitan area. However, small towns that have started municipal access networks have seen great success.
So here's how it should work:
Let the little towns that wouldn't be profitable to the huge telcos run munis. The telcos can then focus on providing better and faster service in major metropolitan areas to justify rate hikes and can also reinvest more in their core networks while maintaining a profit since they would then have substantially less last-mile to maintain out in the sticks. The federal government will never get involved, it'd be done entirely at the local level. Everybody wins. |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA
| said by SpitefulCrow  :How clever of you. You've taken a macroeconomics 101 course at some college, I presume. This is actually a microeconomic issue. You have never taken a microeconomics 101 course at some college, I presume.
said by SpitefulCrow :The private sector does not have the motivation to make their services universally available. It's not about "motivation." It's about profit and loss. If a company loses money they go under, if the muni loses money they fleece the taxpayer. To say that entrepreneurs do not have motivation is wholly ignorant.
said by SpitefulCrow :The government isn't efficient enough to maintain massive infrastructure like a nationwide network or even one for a large metropolitan area. However, small towns that have started municipal access networks have seen great success. How can they not see success? Afterall they have the taxpayer to bail them out. And if the muni was not successful do you think your local politicians would admit it when they can just raise taxes and fees?
said by SpitefulCrow :So here's how it should work: Let the little towns that wouldn't be profitable to the huge telcos run munis.
So if they are not profitable to the private sector they will not be profitable to the government either. But the government doesn't pay for its failures--the taxpayer does.
said by SpitefulCrow :The telcos can then focus on providing better and faster service in major metropolitan areas to justify rate hikes and can also reinvest more in their core networks while maintaining a profit since they would then have substantially less last-mile to maintain out in the sticks. The federal government will never get involved, it'd be done entirely at the local level. Everybody wins. I have been referring to municipal government. And when you get municipal government (just like any other level of government) involved everyone does not win. In fact, everyone loses equally. Again, if a private/public company sucks and no one purchases their products, or they roll out a billion dollar network to a community of 5000, they or their investors suffer a loss. If a government municipal network sucks and no one purchases their products, or they rolled out a billion dollar network to a community of 5000, the do not lose. They raise taxes.
If broadband is such a big deal to all you socialists in rural areas, and you do not take the initiative to move elsewhere to get it, you have no one to blame but yourselves. There are lots of people in your area that are happy without it, and they will be pissed when your muni forces them to pay for it too. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | quote:
But the government doesn't pay for its failures--the taxpayer does.
A growing number of the munis are using non-tax based financing (private, etc) |
|
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA
| reply to Gunslinger03
said by Gunslinger03 :said by SpitefulCrow :If broadband is such a big deal to all you socialists in rural areas, and you do not take the initiative to move elsewhere to get it, you have no one to blame but yourselves. There are lots of people in your area that are happy without it, and they will be pissed when your muni forces them to pay for it too. I'm not a socialist and I'm not in a rural area (I live in the New York metro area, thank you very much). Calling anyone who supports municipal broadband a socialist, even if it's only in limited cases, does nothing but harm your argument. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Minister
Don't forget: the purpose of a muni is to provide service and cover costs. Contrary to private corporation assessments, a muni that does not show a profit is not a failure, as long as the muni is able to cover costs and pay back bonds.
By the way, governments sometimes bail out private ventures, and taxpayers sometimes subsidize private ventures. |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA | reply to Minister
Munis issue bonds, the taxpayers eventually pay the bonds. Like I have said before, give me one example where this was not the case. |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA | reply to SpitefulCrow
How does it harm the argument? |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA
| reply to JTRockville
How is a muni going to cover costs by rolling out a billion dollar network in an unsuitable area? How is the muni going to adapt? And if the muni ever did make a profit, would you see a dime of it?
I am aware governments bail out private ventures, and that is yet another unfortunate example of how they abuse their power. We could go on for days about the wasteful bailouts politicians give whenever it is time to grandstand or buy votes. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| said by Gunslinger03 :And if the muni ever did make a profit, would you see a dime of it? Of course not! If a muni is making a profit, and they've already paid back the bonds, covered current costs and future investments, then the next step is lower prices. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Gunslinger03
said by Gunslinger03 :Munis issue bonds, the taxpayers eventually pay the bonds. Like I have said before, give me one example where this was not the case. Actually, every muni is an example where taxpayers have not paid the bonds. Well, actually, rate payers are usually taxpayers also, so in essence you're right. But funds for bond repayment come from selling the service, not collecting taxes. |
|
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA
| reply to Gunslinger03
said by Gunslinger03 :How is a muni going to cover costs by rolling out a billion dollar network in an unsuitable area? How is the muni going to adapt? And if the muni ever did make a profit, would you see a dime of it? I am aware governments bail out private ventures, and that is yet another unfortunate example of how they abuse their power. We could go on for days about the wasteful bailouts politicians give whenever it is time to grandstand or buy votes. Define an "unsuitable area."
Then, would you have opposed government aid in rolling out POTS copper to these areas 100 years ago? |
|
lyls
@tele.dk | reply to Gunslinger03
yes the government cant run ANYTHING and obviously the corporations are doing a VERY good job...... |
|
lyls
@tele.dk
| reply to SpitefulCrow
of course he would.... with a name like gunslinger its not very likely that he would EVER be able to admit that he might have spoken too soon  i think muni broadband sounds fine and its kinda sad to see the big corporations have such big influence on politics that they can get them to actually ban muni broadband when they dont even want to serve them anyway |
|
lyls
@tele.dk
| reply to Gunslinger03
like when i see your name and say everyone with gun in their name is a gunloving redneck..... i might be right in some cases but not all and its pretty stupid to start assuming like that |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA | This is about as ignorant as it gets folks. If you want to add your baseless generalizations to the discussion, atleast post with a registered name coward. |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA | reply to JTRockville
Twist the words any way you want. The taxpayers pay the bonds. |
|
Gunslinger03
join:2004-07-09
Chesapeake, VA | reply to lyls
So if the big corporations have such a big influence on government, why again would you want this corrupt government running your broadband network? |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Smaller government is more manageable and more directly accountable.
Also, if they're competing with SBC, they'll be less influenced by their lobbyists because loyalties will lie elsewhere (like to the people) |
|
