How often does it work and how many people can actually get it? Moscow is also the capitol of Russia and has the best technology in Russia. Try a smaller city like Leningrad.
You see governments nationalising existing businesses as a very bad idea, yet somehow don't seem to take issue with businesses privatising government through creating their own monopolies or leveraging natural monopolies
I never said any such thing. You don't fix a broken system by breaking it further.
Even when faced with evidence from other developed countries that sharing a common last-mile between different countries helps boost competition
You can do that without the government taking over. It is called regulations.
History has proven that privatisation universally results in increase of charges
Look how well things went when Russia took over all private companies. Government takeover of private companies has not worked well in the past.
It is logical, governments attempts to provide the maximum possible service for the least possible charge.
That would be nice but it is closer to "governments attempts to provide the maximum possible service to meet their budgets," With no profit motive there is no reason to cut costs or be efficient.
I do not work for Comcast or any other internet provider. Whether something is positive or negative is a point if view and I view government getting into businesses as generally a bad idea. I also see governments nationalizing existing businesses as a very bad idea.
You pay the operating costs. The capitol costs are much higher. Would you be willing to pay the government $2000/year so they can buy out the current asset holders?
At least when the government charges for a service, that income goes into general revenue and reduces tax burdens
Unless government inefficiencies and disincentives to making money cause the business to lose money. Then it becomes a net drain on general revenue and can increase tax burden
You also miss the main point. Right now individuals, through shares in the companies, own those assets. Who will pay them for their loss? Do you really want millions of 401Ks to lose value because the government took their assets. There are millions of average american whos retirement depends on those assets..
How is the pilot supposed to know the difference? He will take action before his eyes burn out. One also does not need to blind the pilot to cause problems. glare on the windscreen at the wrong time cane cause disasters.
If they aren't going to be a public utility they should have no right to use that right of way
Is cable TV a public utility? They use those right of ways. There are many companies that use public right of ways and are not publicly owned. Tell me the city you live in and I can probably give you examples.
Until these monopolies start actually using their own money for stuff,
So the cables, switches, maintenance, power etc to run the infrastructure cost nothing?
If they don't spend it. Anyone in the supply industry knows about March madness where government departments spend their budget whether they need to or not. If they go over budget they get a bigger one next time.
So in effect you want to nationalize the internet backbone and put all backbone providers out of business. Where is the government going to come up with the billions of dollars to buy out the investors in those companies? How much do you think taxes would rise if that ever happened?
Sorry but the internet is not a government responsibility.
A private business trying to compete with a tax paid government agency is at a great disadvantage. The tax paid agency has no incentive to not lose money. All they need to do is spend their budget.
Slashdot Mirror
I just checked. Internet in Moscow is provided by Yota and not the government. Russia has moved very far from Communism in the last 20 tears.
How often does it work and how many people can actually get it? Moscow is also the capitol of Russia and has the best technology in Russia. Try a smaller city like Leningrad.
citation needed. What $100M?
unnamed mystery people might want some ambiguous amount of money
I am sure those people close to retirement who would have their investments wiped out would say something very different.
You see governments nationalising existing businesses as a very bad idea, yet somehow don't seem to take issue with businesses privatising government through creating their own monopolies or leveraging natural monopolies
I never said any such thing. You don't fix a broken system by breaking it further.
Even when faced with evidence from other developed countries that sharing a common last-mile between different countries helps boost competition
You can do that without the government taking over. It is called regulations.
Breaking up the big companies may be a viable solution and is very different that the government taking over.
By the way, AT&T seems to also service Chula Vista.
Sorry but most people are not.
You seem to be fine with government agencies spending as much money as their budget will allow while doing as little work as possible.
What city would that be?
History has proven that privatisation universally results in increase of charges
Look how well things went when Russia took over all private companies. Government takeover of private companies has not worked well in the past.
It is logical, governments attempts to provide the maximum possible service for the least possible charge.
That would be nice but it is closer to "governments attempts to provide the maximum possible service to meet their budgets," With no profit motive there is no reason to cut costs or be efficient.
There are still plenty of assets in the last mile. Much of which are owned by 401ks. Who will pay the investors?
Compared to tunnels, poles, and especially land, yeah, those things cost absolutely nothing.
If they cost nothing then why don't you just create your own last mile network?
I do not work for Comcast or any other internet provider. Whether something is positive or negative is a point if view and I view government getting into businesses as generally a bad idea. I also see governments nationalizing existing businesses as a very bad idea.
You pay the operating costs. The capitol costs are much higher. Would you be willing to pay the government $2000/year so they can buy out the current asset holders?
At least when the government charges for a service, that income goes into general revenue and reduces tax burdens
Unless government inefficiencies and disincentives to making money cause the business to lose money. Then it becomes a net drain on general revenue and can increase tax burden
You also miss the main point. Right now individuals, through shares in the companies, own those assets. Who will pay them for their loss? Do you really want millions of 401Ks to lose value because the government took their assets. There are millions of average american whos retirement depends on those assets..
How is the pilot supposed to know the difference? He will take action before his eyes burn out. One also does not need to blind the pilot to cause problems. glare on the windscreen at the wrong time cane cause disasters.
Are you willing to pay for it in higher taxes?
If they aren't going to be a public utility they should have no right to use that right of way
Is cable TV a public utility? They use those right of ways. There are many companies that use public right of ways and are not publicly owned. Tell me the city you live in and I can probably give you examples.
Until these monopolies start actually using their own money for stuff,
So the cables, switches, maintenance, power etc to run the infrastructure cost nothing?
Different budgets different objectives. National defense is a much better sell than nationalizing companies.
that will go away.
If they don't spend it. Anyone in the supply industry knows about March madness where government departments spend their budget whether they need to or not. If they go over budget they get a bigger one next time.
Funny how the last three Mayors of Seattle were Democrats. How do Republican come into this?
Even if you are talking last mile there still is a lot of investment in that last mile. Who will pay the investors?
So in effect you want to nationalize the internet backbone and put all backbone providers out of business. Where is the government going to come up with the billions of dollars to buy out the investors in those companies? How much do you think taxes would rise if that ever happened?
Sorry but the internet is not a government responsibility.
A private business trying to compete with a tax paid government agency is at a great disadvantage. The tax paid agency has no incentive to not lose money. All they need to do is spend their budget.
With time of for good behavior and mandatory parole he will be out in 8 years.
Most people in prison for HOMICIDE serve half that.
Citation needed.