I agree there are problems with providing broadband to rural areas. But shouldn't the local government setup a scheme to allow companies to bid on bringing the service. Maybe, providing a low cost loan or tax breaks, to Verizon (i know that sounds evil) so the business case for providing service becomes valid? There are many ways a locality can promote broadband initiatives; I just don't think government should be competing with business.
Your last point may be true, but don't you think that either the local provider will provide VoIP service or someone like Vonage will come in? Thus, decimating Verizons POTS revenue?
BTW, the USPS is hardly break even. If it were a public company it would have disappeared long ago. I'm sure FedEx doesn't mind the money coming in from carrying the USPSs packages. The USPS is so inefficient that it has to use public carriers to be competitive.
Local governments shouldn't be allowed to compete for local telecom services because they have an unfair advantage in the ability to acquire capital. They just tax you! Cities that claim that they can provide services cheaper than a nationwide telecom are playing a shell game with their funding.
They most often have no clue what it really takes to provide services. They are sold on an idea, they implement it, they realize it is going to cost more than they thought, they subsidize the project, you get the service a rock bottom price, and later your taxes go up because the city is running short on cash.
What has this accomplished? You raised taxes for everyone, even those that don't what the service, you put a legitimate company out of business in you area, and as technology progresses you are left behind because no one will want to serve your area after you the way your city treated the last competitor.
You also mention that the local telecom providers lower rates once a community telecom comes in. You have to understand that the incumbent provider has spent millions and millions of dollars to provide service in the area. They are forced to lower prices to levels that are below the cost of providing service just to survive. Local telecoms are regulated; they have to provide service to anyone who wants it. They can't just pack up there bags and leave. So, its either sell service at below cost or be left with a multimillion dollar network that no on is using.
But is ogg really a mainsteam codec?? There are only a few (non PC) devices that are capable of using this format and they are hard to find (except for Rio players). I would consider ACC, MP3 & WMA to be mainsteam.
Finally Frauhofer will catch up to the innovation that Microsoft made more than a year ago. (Oh the irony) Windows Media could do this since its last realease. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9ser ies/Gettingstarted/DemoCenter/AudioQuality.asp?pag e=6&lookup=AudioQuality
Was MS first to have this technology for the mainstream consumer???
OMG your so full of #$%#. Never any complaints come on.
I USED to own a Mac (OS 7.39l2.394.3 - 9.374.37 - Note sarcasm) and I could never understand why a supposedly great OS could not dial a modem without letting you do something else. I guess the time wasted waiting for the modem to dial out was intentionally put in so you could sit back and appreciate Steve, Waz and that pretty fruit colored case.
I guess I am bitter because I bought a $4000 lemon.
Ok, then if its not a "Win v. Mac OS Comparison" then why not find some example in there own OS. Don't tell me that there are no faults in, current or past, Mac OSs to point out.
This article is just put out as fodder for their "Switch" campaign! Am I the only one who sees this???
I admit Apple does have some of the best PR people out there. Kudos to them.;)
As with any company sponsored propagada. They show you the gems of there interface compared to the most lackluster parts of thier competitors. I like how they toute there pleasing interface then compare it to a non-WinXP GUI. I admit the XP interface is nothing great but come on. I don't know how many Mac users I hear saying that the Mac "Launch bar" (name?) sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree there are problems with providing broadband to rural areas. But shouldn't the local government setup a scheme to allow companies to bid on bringing the service. Maybe, providing a low cost loan or tax breaks, to Verizon (i know that sounds evil) so the business case for providing service becomes valid? There are many ways a locality can promote broadband initiatives; I just don't think government should be competing with business.
Your last point may be true, but don't you think that either the local provider will provide VoIP service or someone like Vonage will come in? Thus, decimating Verizons POTS revenue?
BTW, the USPS is hardly break even. If it were a public company it would have disappeared long ago. I'm sure FedEx doesn't mind the money coming in from carrying the USPSs packages. The USPS is so inefficient that it has to use public carriers to be competitive.
Local governments shouldn't be allowed to compete for local telecom services because they have an unfair advantage in the ability to acquire capital. They just tax you! Cities that claim that they can provide services cheaper than a nationwide telecom are playing a shell game with their funding.
They most often have no clue what it really takes to provide services. They are sold on an idea, they implement it, they realize it is going to cost more than they thought, they subsidize the project, you get the service a rock bottom price, and later your taxes go up because the city is running short on cash.
What has this accomplished? You raised taxes for everyone, even those that don't what the service, you put a legitimate company out of business in you area, and as technology progresses you are left behind because no one will want to serve your area after you the way your city treated the last competitor.
You also mention that the local telecom providers lower rates once a community telecom comes in. You have to understand that the incumbent provider has spent millions and millions of dollars to provide service in the area. They are forced to lower prices to levels that are below the cost of providing service just to survive. Local telecoms are regulated; they have to provide service to anyone who wants it. They can't just pack up there bags and leave. So, its either sell service at below cost or be left with a multimillion dollar network that no on is using.
But is ogg really a mainsteam codec?? There are only a few (non PC) devices that are capable of using this format and they are hard to find (except for Rio players). I would consider ACC, MP3 & WMA to be mainsteam.
Finally Frauhofer will catch up to the innovation that Microsoft made more than a year ago. (Oh the irony) Windows Media could do this since its last realease. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9ser ies/Gettingstarted/DemoCenter/AudioQuality.asp?pag e=6&lookup=AudioQuality
Was MS first to have this technology for the mainstream consumer???
Now maybe a company with some real power can force the labels to reduce their rediculus pricing structure!
OMG your so full of #$%#. Never any complaints come on.
I USED to own a Mac (OS 7.39l2.394.3 - 9.374.37 - Note sarcasm) and I could never understand why a supposedly great OS could not dial a modem without letting you do something else. I guess the time wasted waiting for the modem to dial out was intentionally put in so you could sit back and appreciate Steve, Waz and that pretty fruit colored case.
I guess I am bitter because I bought a $4000 lemon.
BTW, Did Steve Jobs himself program you???
Ok, then if its not a "Win v. Mac OS Comparison" then why not find some example in there own OS. Don't tell me that there are no faults in, current or past, Mac OSs to point out.
;)
This article is just put out as fodder for their "Switch" campaign! Am I the only one who sees this???
I admit Apple does have some of the best PR people out there. Kudos to them.
And yes, I meant the dock.
As with any company sponsored propagada. They show you the gems of there interface compared to the most lackluster parts of thier competitors. I like how they toute there pleasing interface then compare it to a non-WinXP GUI. I admit the XP interface is nothing great but come on. I don't know how many Mac users I hear saying that the Mac "Launch bar" (name?) sucks.
As John Stossel would say "Gimmie a break!"
All I can say to all you zealots is Ba.....
The article you are referring to is kind of out of date. Yes, Sprint is putting in a C2P network but the broadband part of the equation (ION) is dead.
:) As a matter of fact there will be 0 increased bandwidth.
Your voice traffic will not be compressed so don't expect too much extra bandwidth.
Guess what 0% is going back to the customer because the 70% savings is in network maintenance costs. They still have to recover
the $4b.