Reply With Quote
Sorry, didn't realize I was beaten to the punch. That's what I get for leaving the reply window up too long.
Sorry, didn't realize I was beaten to the punch. That's what I get for leaving the reply window up too long.
I can see the argument for public broadband in more rural areas. I think it's the last thing we need in a place like Austin or, in a few months, San Antonio. I shudder to think what a boondoggle our esteemed governments could make out of a fiber buildout. Four high speed compe ors is a pretty good number.
Dude deserves it for red-assing his ignorance on probably the most obvious issue regarding public broadband.
I don't quite get why local governments can't impose customer bandwidth requirements on ISPs they have granted monopoly status though. Then they can wrangle over costs and subsidies.
Can something be both political and legal at the same time? Yes.
We get it: you have your defeatist vision of this country.
Sounds like a problem with government.
Again, if it's illegal, it's because of government involvement.
rural broadband? there's already a long-established assoc: http://www.ntca.org/
Of course, all those rural rednecks who vote Repug and hate "socialism" have benefited from a confiscatory, socialistic tax called Universal Service on everybody's phone bills for decades to have their often expensive, remote telephone lines installed, maintained, price-subsidized by "socialistic" rural telephone cooperatives.
Austin and SA have ALREADY built fiber networks, with their customers' bills, over their service areas, have installed, mastered the technology, in-house, ready to go.
grande and twc already have "fiber to the pole", but won't run it "to the home".
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-19-2014 at 11:49 AM.
I'm glad we agree people in government like Ted Cruz are the problem.
bull .
It's BigCable, BigNetwork corps PAYING govt, the legislature, governor, to make muni nets illegal. Legislators almost NEVER do anything unless paid to do it.
Even with Google's coming in, cable companies are going to squeeze every last drop of bandwidth out of coax they can. TWC already gets 300mbps out of coax up here and can probably get a lot more once they get rid of their analog signals.
You're going to get Google down there with all the rising tide benefits from its compe ors. Have a little patience.
Yeah because of the party currently running the Texas government. I'm totally with you that Texas government involvement is usually a bad thing. Not that you'd ever call them out specifically, because they're Republicans and you're a shill.
On the other hand, Chattanooga's Internet is better because of government involvement.
Really, save the blanket "government involvement is always bad" bull for the kinds of people that line actually works on, like really old, really dumb people. We know you don't believe it.
Last edited by Spurminator; 11-19-2014 at 12:00 PM.
The cable companies are captive of their pricing to their installed cable base. Their FTTH will have to be probably much more expensive than their already gouging-priced cable.
http://oti.newamerica.net/publicatio...nectivity_2013
So you're saying you dislike the way the GOP runs things? Cool.
You're not wrong. In this day and age I don't expect anything from a politicized position though.
Last edited by ElNono; 11-19-2014 at 01:12 PM.
I dislike federal government involvement in anything that doesn't involve national security or international relationships.
If all you're talking about is huge government expenditure to build an entire fiber to home network, why not just subsidize the node to home portion off the fiber nodes that are already there?
The federal government is not the one that bans local municipalities in Texas from offering broadband.
LOL tea s who love big government in Austin and who loved it in Washington when it was and Bush in power.
"subsidize the node to home portion off the fiber nodes that are already there"
because that fiber belongs to BigCable and they will extract their profits for leasing some fiber to the municipality.
I want BigCable and their profits and investors OFF MY INTERNET!
( ... just like I want BigInsurance and their investors and for-profit providers OFF MY HEALTH CARE! )
Why shouldn't a company that made an investment seek a profit?"subsidize the node to home portion off the fiber nodes that are already there"
because that fiber belongs to BigCable and they will extract their profits for leasing some fiber to the municipality.
I want BigCable and their profits and investors OFF MY INTERNET!
( ... just like I want BigInsurance and their investors and for-profit providers OFF MY HEALTH CARE! )
why shouldn't electricity customers who have already paid for CPS fiber network, which probably has GigaBits of unused capacity, and lots of dark fiber, get no-profit Internet?
It will be completely unnecessary.
San Antonio is a good market for broadband compe ion. just watch.
the point is, why should SA or Austin continue to pay exorbitant prices to finance BigCable cartel's (no competing) profits and enrich their investors, when we could keep all those $Bs right here in SA/Austin?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
