DSLJohnny
join:2001-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| How about some common sense... As much as y'all hate BellSouth and monopolies, do you really want government running your communication services. Shouldn't we really be trying to LIMIT government?
How is a private company supposed to compete with a government? Just why would BellSouth want to even show up if the government is running the communication services?
And yes, believe it or not, Bellsouth is not in a monopoly position in broadband - they are actually in the minority providing broadband. And they are in the fight of their life with the cable companies. Why don't you just let private enterprise duke it out. BellSouth and the cable companies.
Government?? give me a break!
John | |
|
 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: How about some common sense... Sounds to me like municipal systems will provide the perfect compliment to a market dominated by telephone and cable companies. A "rule of 3s" so-to-speak. | |
|
JonR800
Premium
join:2003-08-06
Farmington, MI
| Fight of their life.... haha... where's the proof on that one? United States broadband hasn't seen the same evolution as the rest of the world. Have you seen BellSouth's plan for future broadband? If it takes the government stepping in to give the lazy greedy telecom giants a kick in the pants, then so be it.
If they're so worried about Lafayette and other communities offering fiber, then why don't they beat them to it? | |
|
 | |
| | |
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: How about some common sense... Any promise made in Louisiana by anyone in the state is a lie. Any promise made by someone to the state is a lie.
We all remember the Stelly Plan. | |
|
| | | |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
1 edit | Re: How about some common sense... I guess it boils down to whose lies the taxpayers want to fund:
The representatives they voted for, or corporate bullies. | |
|
| | | | 
Drex
Beer..It's What's For Dinner
Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA | Yeah! I thought I wasn't supposed to be paying taxes on food and gorceries. WTF happened with that?
--
Star Wars Galaxies -- The best form of birth control on the market. | |
|
| | | 
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| That is exactly what we said JT. Thanks for pointing out our model of financing. And many municipal models can be funded in many different ways - not all affecting the taxpayer. It really depends on each city and their needs as to how a build may be financed. Citizens in some cities MAY vote to use tax-backed bonds, such as G.O. bonds, to build a utility because they are sold at a much lower rate. Many may not choose that path.
Of course SBC and Comcast didn't care that private investors were to be used to fund the FTTH/FTTB utility here. They still lied on their mailers going to the homes of Tri-City residents claiming what a "risky" venture this would be for the taxpayers. Not to mention the same message in their TV ads, newspaper ads and told by mouth by the "walkers" they hired who went door-to-door telling residents of "higher taxes" they would face when inevitable failure would come to the Tri-City utility. It was all a huge FUD campaign.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Re: How about some common sense... For the first Tri-City referendum in April 2003, the cities put the question on the ballots and the idea was to use G.O. Bonds. The length of the loan (or terms of the bond repayment) was around 15-17 years.
The second referendum was put on the ballots by the citizen group Fiber For Our Future (residents of Batavia, Geneva and St. Charles, IL). The question in this referendum prohibited the cities from using any tax-backed financing to build and run the broadband utility. Revenue bonds could've been used or private financing (private investors)were going to be found. The length of time for paying back the financed money would've depended on the negotiated timetable between the cities (non-profit utility) and the private investors.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | How much competition do you think there is in the world?
Cable broadband doesn't exist in the most advanced telecom infrastructure. You can only get 1 source for the connection. Chew on that. | |
|
| Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by JonR800  :Fight of their life.... haha... where's the proof on that one? United States broadband hasn't seen the same evolution as the rest of the world. Have you seen BellSouth's plan for future broadband? If it takes the government stepping in to give the lazy greedy telecom giants a kick in the pants, then so be it. If they're so worried about Lafayette and other communities offering fiber, then why don't they beat them to it? You have hit the nail on the head. If BellSouth would meet the publics needs this wouldn't be happening. I think the government could do a better job than Bellsouth at this point. Bellsouth is a dinosaur that can't evolve fast enough for the customers needs. We all know what happened to the dinosaurs! | |
|
AboutBell1
AboutBell
Premium
join:2004-12-13
| said by DSLJohnny :As much as y'all hate BellSouth and monopolies, do you really want government running your communication services. Shouldn't we really be trying to LIMIT government? How is a private company supposed to compete with a government? Just why would BellSouth want to even show up if the government is running the communication services? And yes, believe it or not, Bellsouth is not in a monopoly position in broadband - they are actually in the minority providing broadband. And they are in the fight of their life with the cable companies. Why don't you just let private enterprise duke it out. BellSouth and the cable companies. Government?? give me a break! John It makes about as much sense as Gov't running the car highway system. What makes the information highway that much different? | |
|
| Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL
| Re: How about some common sense... Hmm, unless I'm mistaken. The Federal Government, State Governments and Local Governments DO run our highway system. Could it be better? Maybe. But then I guess the global information network used by the DOD is a piece of crap.
Now to the point. How about checking with the customers of other municipalities that have their own fiber before making such a blanket statement.
Oh wait, the local governments can't possibly know what they are doing with such high tech stuff. Yeah better leave it to the fat corporations and let them suck the money out of a local area rather than letting that money be recirculated within the community. | |
|
| | ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·AT&T Southeast
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: How about some common sense... "Now to the point. How about checking with the customers of other municipalities that have their own fiber before making such a blanket statement."
Ashland, Oregon is a great example of muni based fiber that the citizens really like. I know of 3 businesses who relocated there just to get access to the cheaper bandwidth.
"The Federal Government, State Governments and Local Governments DO run our highway system. Could it be better?"
In 1983, there was a proposal to privately finance a multi-lane toll based highway from Chicago to Kansas City that would only allow trucks. It reached the feasibility status, but finally became bogged down when DOT couldn't make a ruling as to how it would be "regulated". (ie: numbering, law enforcement, speed limits, contract set-asides, etc.) The firm doing the feasibility saw themselves as no different than a railroad. (DOT disagreed) When railroads were finished being deregulated, the feasibility was killed.
It's a very interesting discussion when you see the private sector attempting to provide traditionally "public" services and vice versa. | |
|
| | 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| said by Stumbles :Oh wait, the local governments can't possibly know what they are doing with such high tech stuff. Yeah better leave it to the fat corporations and let them suck the money out of a local area rather than letting that money be recirculated within the community. You don't let illegals run the books for the government. You don't let the Barney the dog run homeland security. Why would they let someone who is unqualified for the job do the job?
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 | |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| Verizon is a monopoly to the point they are guaranteed existence. And due to the off the wall regulations the FCC has been spewing, we have government in the back pocket of the Bell's running the show.
Telco's were born under monopoly protection. Their infrastructures were built buy rate payers and they were to be trustees for the rate payers. Any other form of operations is 180% out from the purpose of their protection. Since they no longer meet this role as trustee, they should no longer be allowed any protection as a utility or legal monopoly. I reitterate, their infrastructure is supposed to be the rate payers infrastructure. The telcos could not have built the infrastructure without the protection of a utility. And for them to act as though they earned or developed this infrastructure as a competitive company is nothing short of stealing or a breach of their fiduciary duties to the rate payers! | |
|
doc
@155.58.x.x
| Bellsouth and Cox have plainly stated that they will not provide FTTH in Lafayette. It is estimated that it will be at minimum ten years, probably 15-20, before they reach markets of such size. Of course they say that its because the city doesn't "need" that much bandwidth (even though they're providing FTTH in larger markets), the truth is that they have invested so much in their antiquated copper system that they can't afford to roll out fiber.
Rather than trying to partner with the city to provide the service, they've decided to tie up the entire project in litigation to protect their profits. . . hardly a noble tactic. I'm all for free enterprise, but if that enterprise refuses to provide a service the government has every right to intervene on behalf of its people | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·