A Giant Threat to the Internet and TYT

Email Print posted by MRFred

08/24/2008 05:55:04 PM EST Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

The US is 24th among the industrialized world in broadband bandwidth, access and service for the internet. Now the major cable companies and Baby Bells are working to push us to dead last!

Metered Internet Access. Remember those words. You will be hearing that term a lot more in the future.This bit of news buried deep in the tech section of Thursdays news outlets should concern you a lot; Time Warner Cable will soon start testing metered Internet access nationwide in an attempt to curb use of its services.The first test was in Beaumont TX. Other providers are readying similar fees.

According to CNET News.com's Jonathan Skillings,

"In a test of metered Internet access that's set to begin Thursday, subscribers who go over their limit for uploading and downloading material will be charged $1 per gigabyte."

The limits for 768kbps service is 5GB of data, for the 10Mbps service a 40GB cap. That may sound like a lot but if you are a big user, work at home, or a road warrior that communicates exclusively via VPN, or down load the TYT Podcast every day your Internet costs will, conservative estimate , at least , double.

Just Trying To Help. Time Warner claims this policy is a method to slow bandwidth growth and prevent over taxing it's internet access before we are fully in the grip of a "bandwidth crisis."Its for our own good they claim.

Such bullshit. The "bandwidth crisis" you may have heard about is claimed to exist between the long haul carriers and the ISPs (Cable companies..and the Bells) who use the data trunks. The crisis is really about who is going to pay for the next generation of high speed switched data equipment. At least one of the players, the cable companies, have a vested interest in ensuring a "bandwidth crisis" comes to pass. Heres why.

 Video. Video is the golden goose in this tale and the cable companies want to ensure they have an advantage. Cable companies are pushing on demand video , pay per view and other demand based access on their cable.  When you download from the internet, they don't get a cut of the rental fee and lose business on cable TV on demand services.

Metered Internet Access.  Downloading a movie from iTunes that now costs $2.99 would get a whole lot more expensive with the bandwidth caps under TWC pricing scheme...about $10.00  in penalties. A high def movie would cost 30.00 or more. Consumers wanting to avoid these fees would be forced turn to cable providers ( or Bells who offer TV services with on demand sources). Now do you get it?

Wow, unbelievable. The Internet is has become most valuable communication tool in our lives. Without it, you, me ,businesses, schools, governments...the list is endless, wouldn't be able to communicate. We would be clinging to outdated data and communication technologies and a vacuum tube driven economy.

In short ,the Internet is the greatest technological innovation in centuries. Our modern world depends on it. Now the big cable companies want to cash in by suppressing free lines of Internet communication.

The Big Picture. Our problem in competing with oversea technology companies is more disturbing, Steven Levy, technologist and writer sums it up this way in a recent OpEd piece"

A more profound problem with the metering scheme, however, doesn't involve corporate competition but international competition. In the United States, where the Internet was born, we pay higher prices (seven times what they pay in South Korea) for slower speeds. (Japan's users surf 13 times faster.)

Fast, cheap, abundant broadband is a fantastic economic accelerator, enabling breakout businesses and kick-starting new industries.

Unless we move quickly, these will spring from foreign soil. Instead of testing systems that discourage people from vigorously using our overpriced, underpowered systems, government and industry should be working overtime to figure out how to get faster service for less money and make sure that all users, no matter where they live, have affordable access to the high-speed Net.

Maybe then we'll get out of 24th place.


Cheap labor and cheap bandwidth = more outsourcing. Remember that in the 2004 campaign,President Bush promised affordable broadband for all by 2007. He was right on target for once, the benifits of "Full Speed Ahead" that he outlined in his proposal:

  • Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in New Economic Development
  • Over a Million New, High-Paying Jobs
  • Increased Homeland Security and Public Safety
  • Better Health Care at Lower Cost
  • Enhanced Educational Opportunities
  • Greater Citizen Participation in Government and Communities
  • More Access to - and Participation in - Journalism, Culture and Entertainmen

Today tens of millions are still stuck with dial-up. Millions more have access only to low quality "fraudband" that is slow, unreliable and unaffordable. It is so bad in some cases it fails to meet other countries' definitions of broadband. Why? Like most voluntary programs...mortgages for example, nothing has been done.

Goals with " voluntary" participation, pseudo-deregulation and lax oversight have resulted in a stagnant Internet in the US.  The major providers are more concerned about wringing the last cent of profit from the outdated infrastructure rather than investing in improved services that in the long run would generate more revenue and profit for just about everyone.

Is it any wonder our corporations get their ass handed to them from oversea competition?

No...but...at least they got a tax cut.

 

< McCain WILL Continue the U.S. hegemony | Obama's Convention Bounce >
 Display:
A Giant Threat to the Internet and TYT | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
Free market is always the solution. (none / 0)
I hope you're not proposing government controls and regulations as a solution. The free market is always the solution. Some people will be happy to purchase unlimited broadband at a relatively high monthly cost. Other people would rather pay as they go for metered internet access.

Think of it like your cell phone plan. You can purchase lots of minutes per month, or pay-as-you-go.

Competition will keep pricing affordable. But these guys have to make money in order to keep upgrading bandwidth and service.

Remember, there would be no broadband without profit incentive. We would still be using dial-up.

by KenTX on 08/24/2008 06:47:42 PM EST

Does your definition of "free market" (none / 0)
support include monopolies? because that is what we're really talking about, a couple of big providers buy up all the others and then basically stop competing and start charging you higher costs

things once they become omni present should become cheaper not more expensive

by callisto on 08/24/2008 06:55:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Did you actually read my blog... (none / 0)

before you posted that condescending free market drivel? Obviously not.

The limits for 768kbps service is 5GB of data, for the 10Mbps service a 40GB cap

There will no longer be unlimited access, period.Did the part about the cable companies escape you?

By the way the reason we are not still using dial up is that 56kps speed limit due to the signal clipping used on voice lines.

If we can mandate high definition television on a whim of the FCC then  we can set standards on what can be called broadband and the level of service. Then the free market can knock itself out providing that service at the lowest cost.


 

 



"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/24/2008 08:02:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me take a guess... (none / 0)
... I would say: no, he didn't read it, did you really expect him to? he scans for keywords and then he pasts a standard answer

or he might not know what 5GB is :) if you watch any video online, you'll blow past it right away

by callisto on 08/24/2008 08:09:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No Fred, I don't read all of your posts. (none / 0)
Nobody does. They're too goddam long and poorly written. You could make your point, if there is one, by eliminating 90% of your word count.

Outline the problem and give us a fucking solution for chrissakes!

The free market provides and government takes away. I guarantee that if you have enough money, you can have all the volume, features, perks, bells and whistles that you want.

What you're bitching about, as always, is having to pay for service. You think all Americans should be entitled to government provided health care, bandwidth, and every other goddam want. 

You're the kind of guy who wants everything classified as "infrastructure" and "human investment". I'll bet you hate toll roads.

by KenTX on 08/24/2008 08:54:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not MrFred and not on topic. (none / 0)
I hate toll roads where the money is being misused.

I am fine with toll roads to pay off the bonds and debt incurred to build the damn road.

I am fine with on-going base line tolls for future infrastructure improvements to that specific road way.

I tend to read MrFred posts. They are usually nice with bolding, bullet points and sometimes even pictures. It is almost as if he was making them easy enough for the moderately illiterate to read.

by jazzchic on 08/24/2008 09:52:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
privatizing infrastructure (none / 0)
In Texas, we allow corporations like Spain's Cintra to build the toll roads and collect the tolls. After a negotiated period of time, the roads become the property of the state.

Everybody wins.

Taxpayers
Commuters
Businesses
State of Texas
Construction workers

New roads are being built everywhere, and it doesn't cost taxpayers a penny.

by KenTX on 08/24/2008 11:35:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh goody (none / 0)

 

A huge exaggeration since we are only talking a very very small amount of roadway you linked. No matter, in the big picture some of you fellow citizens aren't to happy with the privatization...seem they rightfully calling it  Tolling Roads we’ve already paid for =New Double Tax!!!

Back to the subject at hand:

The difference is build the toll roads and collect the tolls

build segments 5 and 6 of its SH-130 toll road between San Antonio and Austin, Texas in the United States in which it will invest $1.36 billion.

and in the case of the cable / Baby Bells case collect the  tolls and let someone else, perhaps, build the toll roads.  

Would you pay double tolls for a road that might get built?

On second thought, if it was a private company...maybe you would.

Hows that workin' for ya?

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 09:58:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Hows that workin' for ya?" (none / 0)
Its workin out great! Thanks for asking.

They are laying freeways in Texas like crazy, and it doesn't cost me a penny unless I travel on the roads.

These anti-toll-road nuts are anti-capitalist loons. There is no way in hell to argue with a freeway that don't cost the state of Texas a penny, are built overnight, help people and businesses move around quickly, and become the property of the state in 10-20 years. Plenty of toll roads have become "free ways" in the state of Texas. Did you ever drive between Dallas and Fort Worth in the 1970s? It cost money back then, but it's free today.

What scares the hell out of socialists is that this model of infrastructure privatization could take over the entire country. Next thing you know, some of our social security "investment" could be directed to the market, and everyone could become a millionaire.

by KenTX on 08/25/2008 10:21:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As we used to say in the Navy (none / 0)

 Your as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.

Common Ken, you cant believe this Cato fairy tale after its failed time and time again:

 

What scares the hell out of socialists is that this model of infrastructure privatization could take over the entire country. Next thing you know, some of our social security "investment" could be directed to the market, and everyone could become a millionaire.

 

<Children playing in "privately funded sewage system" after tropical storm

 

 

I'll need to find a socialist and ask him/her.  But In the meantime

  • I'll ask the Enron millionaires how deregulated electricity worked...ooops..Im sorry..they're in jail.
  • Ill ask the mortgage industry...no wait they are getting bailed out with federal funds...jail to follow.
  • I'll ask the Savings and Loan...no wait...they have already been to jail..except for John McCain

 McCains Sad Tale:

 

In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40 employees of American Continental Corp. McCain would spend more than $550,000 to win the primary and the general election.
In 1983, as McCain contemplated his House re-election, Keating hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for him, even though McCain had no serious competition. When McCain pushed for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000.

By 1987, McCain had received about $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.

McCain also had carried a little water for Keating in Washington. While in the House, McCain, along with a majority of representatives, co-sponsored a resolution to delay new regulations designed to curb risky investments by thrifts such as Lincoln.

He was given a wrap on the knuckles by the Republican controlled Senate at the time. I guess milking the POW thing, "Ive already been in jail" worked.

So in closing, yeah..it works fine..for some people, for the 99.9% of the public not so much

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 10:45:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cato fairy tale (none / 0)
you so know Kenny is going "my cat is in which fairy tale now?"

:)

by callisto on 08/25/2008 10:57:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Less on topic than jazzchic was... (none / 0)
>I hate toll roads where the money is being misused.

I confess my dyslexic, sleep-deprived brain read her first line as "I hate troll toads", and after seeing that it was a reply to KenTX, it seemed only natural.  I'd say I read 50% of MrFred's original post and scanned the rest, In fact, I chose to read it partly out of surprise that it wasn't title "A SuperBowl-Champion Giant Threat...". 

As a more casual blogger than, I scan for content / facts which support the claim and delve deeper into points which don't ring true.  And one thing I almost always do is skip Ken's comments, based on the sheer quantity of deceptions his quoted facts belie.  Which he should realize is counter-productive to his mission of subverting those of us who want to examine both sides of an issue.  I don't want to ignore the other side, but I won't entertain his based on past posts.

I give MrFred a 9 out of 10 for the layout and content of the original post.  That can't be taken away from him, even if he does choose to support the Forrest Gump of football teams that stumbles its way into a championship.

by eallgaier on 08/25/2008 11:49:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Aaugh! (none / 0)

Forrest Gump or not...they won. Case Closed.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 12:04:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Stick to your own area of expertise" (none / 0)
No.  Fred, your posts are well-written.  And Ken DOES read them, I guarantee it.

by OneHitKill on 08/24/2008 11:10:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lazy Ken (none / 0)
you're so fucked up man, in your mind not reading his posts, but still answering them makes you smart, in other people's mind it makes you at least intellectually dishonest, more like troll and basically makes your comments irrelevant

by callisto on 08/25/2008 05:23:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for proving my point....Mr ADHD (none / 0)

Its not my fault you attention span eliminates 90% of your word count.

Q: Did you actually read my blog ( singular)... before you posted that condescending free market drivel? Obviously not.

A: No Fred, I don't read all of your posts.

And if you did read the blog you would not have made a gaffe like this:

 The free market provides and government takes away. I guarantee that if you have enough money, you can have all the volume, features, perks, bells and whistles that you want.

Not likely. Regardless of how much money you have you'll be paying per byte access charges. I guarantee you that you'll be the first one to bitch when your Blackberry air time charge triples and your home broadband goes from 59.00 per month to over 300.00 just to down load TYT podcasts.

Tell me something Mr Free Market, I can't think of a business, in this case a monopoly, that with the blessing of federal regulators manipulates supply to charge higher prices so it will not have to invest in new infrastructure and maximize profit from old, already amortized and depreciated equipment ...no...wait..I'm wrong...the OIL BUSINESS.

That explains a lot. Its a business model you seem to like.

  • Your willing to give huge tax cuts to corporations with no assurance any of it will generate one new job but investing in a public infrastructure that will generate millions of new jobs and benefit business and private citizen alike at less cost is bad?
  • Your willing to fall behind world competition ( we 24th now and falling, we were 17th when Bush made the proposal) in some misguided homage to a nonexistant "free market" in broadband.
  • Your willing to ship millions new jobs overseas to save a few tax cuts?

 

Sorry. You go right ahead and pay through the nose for restricted broadband service and tell us how thats workin' for ya.

All the providers I use Verison, Brighthouse and Wired Ocean are considering or planing a simular rate plan.

 PS: I have a Sunpass, I love the service...so bite me.

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 09:29:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Two Tier America (none / 0)
"Tell me something Mr Free Market, I can't think of a business, in this case a monopoly"

The job of government is to make sure there is no monopoly. We need to ensure the creation of as many broadband providers as possible, and then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. The market will deliver the greatest service at the lowest price. It happens every time.

When the government gets involved in providing or controlling the delivery of service is when things get fucked up.

Right now I pay for premium health care service. There are insurance companies and health care providers competing for my business. They want customers like me. They treat me very well. KenTX enjoys the best health care in the world.

Alejandro Rodriguez, the illegal alien from Mexico, also enjoys an extremely high level of health care, relative to his home country. Unlike KenTX, Alejandro pays nothing for his health care.

We have a two tier health care system, and everybody is happy. Similarly, we can have a two tier broadband network. Great service for those who pay. Not so great service for people who don't want to pay.

by KenTX on 08/25/2008 10:35:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Where the hell is Twba? (none / 0)
He should takeover this thread and put another knot on your head.

by KenTX on 08/25/2008 10:36:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Could it be he's waiting (none / 0)
for more " service " Like our cable company friends....blow before you go so to speak...private of course.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 10:58:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Health Care? (none / 0)
If you are young, healthy and loaded, insurance companies compete for you. If you are old, ill and poor... Not so much.

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 11:01:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In this country, (none / 0)
money talks.

by KenTX on 08/25/2008 11:05:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In my country... (none / 0)
Money also talks. What's your point?

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 11:24:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dont fall for the bait and switch... (none / 0)

 He's losing the argument so he changes the subject...

Normal Logic: If A=B and B=C Then A=C

Ken TX Logic: If A=B and C=X Then A = privatization

McCain Logic:  If A=B and B=C Then " What time is MacGyver on Nickelodeon ?"

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 11:11:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
so true (none / 0)
people should nail Kenny on the bait and switch more, he only does it 90% of the time

by callisto on 08/25/2008 11:24:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh Really? (none / 0)

 

The job of government is to make sure there is no monopoly. We need to ensure the creation of as many broadband providers as possible, and then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

Then why did the Repugs roll over to Telco lobbyists in 1996 and  create the mess we have now? I'm all for competition...we don't have it..and Republicans are responsible.

 

I know it's a lot of words. Let me summarize for you. Republicans screwed the pooch , took the lobbing money and created a mess that ultimately resulted in the collapse of the Internet boom . That's the "phoney" economy you were so pissed about. In short..crudely put...you fucked yourself.
 
Regulation isn't bad per se...meaning that you set technical standards for what services can be "claimed" by providers and anti-monopoly supervision. But like most things Repulican, you give a law a fancy title...and your done. All show, no substance.

 

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 12:01:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its surprising (none / 0)
that so many people went along with the changing of the subject so easily in these comments. KenTX wins :(

Don't talk about religion or politics, my ass!

by TheRob91 on 08/25/2008 11:59:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This sounds great. However. (none / 0)
There is no free market in telecom even completely sans regulation.  Why?  Because the telecom companies have it within their power to erect MASSIVE barriers to entry to the market with each other -- and, in fact, already have.  Most people have no choice when it comes to broadband providers.  There are simply no options.  This is not because of regulation.  This is because of these barriers to entry.  It is insanely costly to start a LEC, cable or fiber company in the United States.

This is all ignoring, of course, the fact that > 50% of the existing telecom infrastructure is really part of the commons due to years and years of telecom subsidies from American tax dollars.  I don't see that money EVER being returned to the American people with complete deregulation.  Do you?

by jarett on 08/25/2008 01:05:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
competition (none / 0)
Once upon a time, long before you were born, there was only one telephone company, Ma Bell. It used to cost an insane amount of money to make a long distance phone call. Even the name long distance had an air of importance and luxury. 

The same was true of air travel, except there were like 4 or 5 major air carriers. When you traveled, you had to dress up in a tuxedo.

Then everything was deregulated, and pricing became ridiculously cheap (until this year).

The point is that competition always benefits the consumer, and its the government's job to make sure there is free market competition.

So the barrier to entry is laying fiber optic cable? What's the way around that brick wall? Satellite delivery? Community wi-fi? The little guys will always find a way to compete.

The job of government is to make sure that small companies are allowed to compete with big corporations on an even (as possible) playing field. Then the little guys can chew up the big guys like piranhas consuming a large animal.

by KenTX on 08/25/2008 01:31:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken please (none / 0)

shut up.

What the people here are trying to tell you is that your precious tax dollars have already been spent setting up this infrastructure and people like McCain who do not even know how to turn on a computer never less a blackberry support people who want to double dip on you. Think of it like an extra tax when all you want to do is download the Limbaugh and TYT podcast. They want to put there hands in your wallet twice.

Now, if you want to tell me how to turn oil into gasoline then I would believe you. On this one believe us or you will be the one getting screwed. Some things you should not go out of your way to defend.  

by z1p101 on 08/25/2008 01:44:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mixmaster Ken (none / 0)
so what about companies who become a monopoly? then there no longer is a free "free market", no more competition

and this is what we're seeing now, new monopolies forming

by callisto on 08/25/2008 05:28:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank You Jimmy Carter! (none / 0)

 

Then everything was deregulated, and pricing became ridiculously cheap (until this year).

The only reason that happened was because the Democratic congress  deregulated the airlines and at the same time shut down the Civil Aeronautics Board...over Republican objections.

 

< President Carter signing the Airline Deregulation Act. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed Alfred E. Kahn, a professor of economics at Cornell University, to be chair of the CAB. A concerted push for the legislation had developed, drawing on leading economists, leading 'think tanks' in Washington, a civil society coalition advocating the reform (patterned on a coalition earlier developed for the truck-and-rail-reform efforts), the head of the regulatory agency, Senate leadership, the Carter Administration, and even some in the airline industry. This coalition swiftly gained legislative results in 1978.

 

 

We don't do that now. Republicans just have secret meetings , craft legislation to help contributors and fuck the public.

I'm not against deregulation per se...just Republican style scam deregulation for contributor profit maximization. Ditto for Republican privatization schemes. They are little more than give aways for under the table contributions and kick backs. Texas style of course.

 

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 01:19:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cons and Econ (none / 0)

I have yet to meet a conservative "economist" who has read past about the second chapter of an econ book.

They all seem to get the ideal (and imaginary) perfect free market down pat and then be completely unable to understand any mitigating factor (barriers to entry, monopolistic competition, imperfect information, concentration of capital, etc.)  These ideas are either entirely foreign to them or willfully ignored because they intrude on their fantasyland view of economics.

by ProfRich on 08/26/2008 05:17:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Damn (none / 0)
at those rates I would have a $500-$600 internet bill each month :)

internet packages WITHOUT Fair Use Policy is the way to go

by callisto on 08/24/2008 06:51:38 PM EST

Fair for who? (none / 0)
I use 200 Gb a month and pay 800 rubles ($33) for unlimited Ethernet. My mom pays 500 rubles for unlimited Wi-Fi and uses 300 Mb a month. Unlimited rate rules? For me - yes. For her - not so much. Because users like her basically pay for users like me.

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 06:08:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not true (none / 0)
they're making a profit anyway, I see what I pay for terabytes (1000 gigabytes) of bandwidth on servers and shared hosting and that's way cheaper than anything you could use from home

bandwidth is cheap, in Europe for instance hosting companies are still trying to scam webmasters into believing it's expensive, but it isn't

200gb in bandwidth wouldn't cost me a dollar with an American host (if you know the right one to pick of course)

by callisto on 08/25/2008 06:42:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not that profit... (none / 0)
I am not talking about "their" profits. I am talking about disparity between users. We pay the same price for totally different usage.

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 06:58:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that's the companies (none / 0)
scamming your grandmother basically

see it with metered accounts all the time:
500MB package -> $20
1GB package -> $30
5GB package -> $35
...
it doesn't make sense from a quantity point of view, they basically acknowledge bandwidth doesn't cost them that much, if it did, the cheapest account should be more like $5

by callisto on 08/25/2008 08:53:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Scamming? (none / 0)

Obviously, the biggest part of tarriff is infrastructure cost. If every user hogs 200 Gb, provider needs much more complicated and robust system to support that. Especially when you are not in apartment-filled city.

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 10:46:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes and no (none / 0)
look there are differences per country, but for most of Europe for instance the infrastructure (telephone and cable) was/is being built with tax payer's money

so yes, they still have a cost of the in house infrastructure, but a lot was/is built by the state (since they owned/own the national telecom and cable companies) + by getting subsidies

in some countries the cost of maintaining of the telephone and cable network is maintained by a non profit organisation, where every operator pays into

by callisto on 08/25/2008 11:02:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting... (none / 0)
In Russia Ethernet providers are mostly private. With their own infrastructure (especially "last mile" one). Same thing with cable guys and Wi-Fi. Only telco rely on system built in Soviet times (and it sucks, obviously). 

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 11:16:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting... (none / 0)
did the ethernet providers pay for the infrastructure out of their own pocket?

most Euro companies now are also private, but they get huge subsidies still to built the infrastructure or they pay into the communal infrastructure

by callisto on 08/25/2008 11:26:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
Yes, they do pay out of their pockets. Guys with oil money are investing in massive projects like that.

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 11:39:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fair to no one (none / 0)

She has the option to use any amount she likes...with the new "pricing" there will be no option and the basic rate will be similar if not higher.

The rates are based on an artificially low limit. You will be able to buy a larger initial byte count at a much much higher price than the unlimited plans today. Users like your mother will be forced to buy either the  basic amount ...all it takes is a few *.jpgs of little Ivan to push her into the per byte range. Or a much higher price for service she will not use. Like they say

"Не веша ;й мне лапш ;у на уши"  

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 09:47:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Moscow rules? (none / 0)

Well, in Moscow we have a harsh competition of internet providers. My apartment complex is "connected" by three Ethernet providers and one cable provider. Plus citywide ADSL. Plus Wi-Fi guys. And they compete like crazy. We have tariff reduction every 6 months or so.

But this is Moscow. Buildings are close to each other, apartments are several meters away... And somewhere in Texas you need a huge coil of cable just to connect one house (i.e. one family) in a town (because everything is huge in Texas!). So, infrastructure costs are greater. Especially if you aim to provide plenty Mb/s for everyone.

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 10:41:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Even Russians understand free market. (none / 0)
"Well, in Moscow we have a harsh competition of internet providers. My apartment complex is "connected" by three Ethernet providers and one cable provider. Plus citywide ADSL. Plus Wi-Fi guys. And they compete like crazy. We have tariff reduction every 6 months or so."

Fred, in case you didn't realize it, you just got your ass kicked by a rooskie! He was getting even for the thirty years you had a nuclear tipped missile pointed at his head.

by KenTX on 08/25/2008 11:04:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
27 (none / 0)

and they where MIRVs.

Ass kicked? I agreed with him...you on the other hand have been stomping off on a tangent unrelated to the original thread in an attempt to divert attention away from your technical deficiencies.

Toll roads? Health Care? Please....

 

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 11:16:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nuclear? Ha (none / 0)
I love nuclear missiles. My grandparents were engineers in Soviet nuclear project. My stepfather developed microchips for Soviet MIRVs. Nuclear weapons are our last line of defense against America's and China's domination. And I'm not afraid of nukes in USA. Just of nukes in Ukraine (too close to Moscow, too close to Chernobyl).

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 11:51:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nuclear Russia (none / 0)
Be careful that you guys don't blow yourselves up. You couldn't even land a man on the moon.

Losers.

by KenTX on 08/25/2008 11:59:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Russian space (none / 0)
Yeah, losers. First man in space, first woman in space, first man in space vacuum, first orbital station... Actually, we had a feasible plan of building a station on Moon, but Soviet government prefered other projects. Like communism in Afganistan. I too prefer schools and hospitals in Afganistan to labs on Moon.

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 12:23:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Star Trek (none / 0)
I think, our biggest space loss was not Moon landing. We never had something like Star Trek - that was a real shame. Soviet TV sucked big time. And it still does... Remaking old American sitcoms like "Married with children"? Please...

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 12:43:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
dumb looser (none / 0)
you should really start reading Newsweek or something

then you would know that the Russians actually have the most profitable space program, it actually makes money

how? by having the cheapest, but most effective rocket system (they sent up more satellites than anyone else), their stuff isn't flashy, but they make it at a fraction of the price

and yes they didn't go to the moon, but they will and before the next US lunar mission

BTW they also had a space shuttle, but the whole program got cancelled (they had 3) when the USSR was falling apart, on the otherhand NASA is stopping shuttle program anyway

by callisto on 08/25/2008 03:09:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Moon? No (none / 0)
Right now our guys are working on Mars program. Visiting Moon is cool, but scientifically useless. ;-)

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 03:17:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes they are (none / 0)
http://www.moondaily.com/re ports/Russia_plans_manned_M oon_mission_by_2025_999.htm l

the Chinese are also going

there's this mineral that they can use as fuel, which seem to be very interesting, basically they are going to be able to mine the moon in the future

the US btw has to built a whole new rocket system, after only focusing on the shuttle for so long

by callisto on 08/25/2008 03:22:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sucks to be in Texas (none / 0)

Texas is big, costs are higher...oh well.

Thats the name of the game...competition...the Repugs sing its praises.

Except when it will cost a  little money...the the business involved screams for a tax cut and a subsidy and monopoly under the guise of "privatization"

Look at Moscow, it works...but look on the bright side Texas cable companies could always go to Moscow.

Naw...to much competition.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 11:05:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, not in Moscow (none / 0)

$29.95 for 768 Kb/s? Nah. I pay $33 for 10 Mb/s. Unlimited. Plus free citywide provider's net with 100 Mb/s connection between 140 000 users (great for torrenting and DCing).

This is one hell of a private infrastructure, BTW. 

 

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 11:33:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In America (none / 0)

The Republicans yell and stomp about competition and privatization. Its really about creating a pool of campaign contributions, slush funds and tax cuts  under the guise of competition and privatization. The only people who benefit are the Republican politicians and the business they get in bed with.

A lot like Mr Putin "stepping down." 

By the way, you should tell Mr Putin to start investing in his oil infrastructure..before its to late.

The practice of reaping quick profits and ignoring long-term interests( in Russia oil fields) is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union's development policies, and it was embraced by post-Soviet billionaires, known as oligarchs, who propped up flimsy companies to strip Russia's natural resources for as many fast rubles as possible. TOM LASSETER McClatchy Newspapers

 I guess Mr Bush and Mr Putin have a lot in common after all.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 08/25/2008 12:47:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A lot in common (none / 0)
Hell, yeah. Both of them have one wife and two daughters. That's a lot in common. ;-)

by Hexer78 on 08/25/2008 12:57:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We're trying to beat that here (none / 0)

Our city has decided to build its own fiber-to-the-home network.  The first section of town is under construction now.  Bandwidth is going to be treated as a city utility, just like water.  The city has grown fairly weary of the tyranny of cable and telephone monopolies doling out bandwidth in stingy increments for exhorbitant prices.

People in city government tried to get the incumbent companies interested in building a fiber-to-the-home network but they declined because they said it was too expensive and that they felt it was "unnecessary" for us to have that kind of bandwidth.  Finally, the city simply decided to say "screw it" and build it themselves.  It took three long years of legal fighting with the telephone and cable monopolies for the city to be able to do this.  The established monopolies managed to force certain price restrictions and other legal restrictions into state law that keep the city from offering prices as low as they intended.  That's the "free market" for you.

There is certainly something kind of screwed up about out of state private companies being able to legally prevent a city community from building and conducting its own communications network as it sees fit.

by bfaul on 08/25/2008 11:43:51 AM EST

which city is this? (none / 0)
good for them btw, one of the foundations of a "democratic" society: building of a infrastructure and services for all of the public

by callisto on 08/25/2008 03:17:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lafayette, Louisiana (none / 0)
Ironically, the whole thing is being done to make Lafayette as competitive as possible with other cities of equal size. 

by bfaul on 08/25/2008 04:45:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Location? (none / 0)

Sounds like what's happening in Lafayette, Louisiana. Where are you?

It's good to see that there are more people who have gone beyond the fantasy of the "free market" that has never worked anywhere except for a few wealthy companies and individuals while hurting everyone else. The conservative free market doesn't exist here anyway.

This is the scary part: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits--Milton Friedman. That's what's most wrong with libertarian thought and action. It just doesn't work for society. Businesses can only operate with the assistance of society, but irresponsible businesses don't want to be good to citizens and pay back for what society has allowed them to do.

by zenie on 08/25/2008 04:02:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's right (none / 0)

Yes, had you heard of the project?  It was put up for a vote and won with a 68% majority.  We are in a fortunate position.  The city has run its own electrical utility company for a century.  They had branched into commercial fiber in the 1990's and so already had a fiber ring around the city with nodes at the various electrical substations in town.  In that sense we aren't starting from scratch.

I agree with you completely about businesses.  It's just like people and law enforcement.  Most want to live in peace and do the right thing.  Law enforcement is made necessary by those who think following the law is only for fools and suckers.  The same is true with regulation of businesses.  Most businesses just do their thing and become successful by the ordinary process of giving better service or building better products than the other guy.  Invariably, there are some who decide that old fashioned competition isn't as profitable as fixing it so the other guy can't possibly gain access to the market in the first place. 

by bfaul on 08/25/2008 04:41:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting. (none / 0)
I wish my area would do something like this. We won't get FiOS anytime soon (even though we get adverts like crazy) because it is to costly to build the new infrastructure- when the company already offers DSL they figure it isn't worth it.

Though they are building FiOS into all of the craptastic urban sprawl in the metro area and in areas that are slightly less dense.

I think I'll research more on what your city has done and pass it on to people in the city council (where they will probably toss it into the circular file. They won't even begin citywide recycling, just put up some drop off spots in not-so-convenient locations. On the other hand, it has allowed for start-up companies to make good money doing curbside recycling pickup.)

by jazzchic on 09/03/2008 10:56:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We'll all be Millionaires -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0)

"What scares the hell out of socialists is that this model of infrastructure privatization could take over the entire country. Next thing you know, some of our social security "investment" could be directed to the market, and everyone could become a millionaire.'

We were in Turkey in 2003. At our hotel, the manger told us that in Turkey, everyone is a millionaire!! Before devaluation, $1 = >1,000,000 Turkish lira. Everyone is Zimbabwe is also a millionaire. In Italy before the Euro, I was a millionaire with US$500.

Infrastructure does not improve with private money. Infrastructure is public, owned by the commons. Social Security is an INSURANCE program, not an investment program. If you invested all of your Social Security money in the stock market in 2004 like Dumbya wanted, you'd be a Zimbabwe-style millionaire!

We could all be millionaires too.  When you have a real plan to improve infrastructure, increase broadband exposure/speeds, create jobs, it's done with government incentives, in partnership with private companies. Private companies don't do it by themselves. Most are too shortsighted to plan that far ahead without incentives.

by zenie on 08/25/2008 02:29:16 PM EST

so true (none / 0)
private companies don't care about an infrastructure that holds up for decades or takes decades to get a profit out, they care about next 3 quarters

by callisto on 08/25/2008 03:15:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Giant Threat to the Internet and TYT | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: