Again with the false propaganda. First this is not about a government owned monopoly, it is about the government helping other companies the same way they helped the incumbents in most cases. Second if I dont want water service from my local government I can dig a well and not have to pay a dime, no sheriff will come to my door. Same with most government untilities. The only time that will happen is if I use the service and not pay, or fail to pay my taxes.
The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes...
Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.
You dont have an understanding of the history of the cable companies do you? They used the same method that google and utopia used to get their network off the ground, tax payer funded subsidies and deals, now it is somehow bad if someone else does it?
If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.
No we are apparently supposed to allow an artificial market to run at above market pricing, still supported by taxpayer subsidies.
Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.
The government allowed them to get the monopoly, to the detriment of the tax payers. In these cases the government is allowing another player to enter the market to compete, not competing itself.
In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for... anything the city council wants to use it for.
Incorrect, they pay a 5% free on gross revenue. It is not a fee per user, but should I mention they still get billions in subsidies from the government every year as well?
Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has.
You mean besides that pesky access to public right of ways which is required to lay the cables, which the incumbents were granted typically free, but now want to prevent the competitors from having access to it in the same way?
If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.
That's why it is bad.
The rest of this is just false propaganda from someone who seems to love the monopolistic nature of the "free market" system of cable, without an actual understanding of how it works.
These are not telcos remember, ISPs are not categorized, by their own wishes, as telcos. There is nothing that says TWC, ATT, or comcast have to provide internet to the rural areas as it stands, so I am not seeing your point. In addition the only one who even owns a telco is ATT, so what you are saying is we need to also ban all the cable operators, wait, they have not destroyed ATT yet, so your logic is flawed.
I never said it was exclusive to the GOP, if you actually read the comment I was replying to they said Dems were the ones doing that, where I pointed out the Repubs do it AS WELL, not exclusively.
Because it is SUBJECTIVE, but even still, the topic is not what makes it a logical fallacy, it is the wording. Claiming that if you are objective then you would agree, therefore anyone who does not agree with you is not objective, is what makes it a fallacy, even though there may be any number of reasons an objective observer may disagree with you.
umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.
I have used both, from working for a hosting provider as an administrator, to working for MS itself later, to my job now. Configuration of apache is only slightly more difficult in that you need to use a text editor instead of point and click hold handing, however IIS is no wear near as powerful in that you can do much more with it because of the slightly more difficult configuration. In addition it is more lightweight, and has better security.
No you dont.. You put the debt back and then reduce spending around other things.. It is like stealing from pension plans and then saying, well we know you paid for your pensions, but sense we stole from it and cannot pay it back instead of lowering other services we are going to chop your pensions.
In some states government controls in, in my state it is handed off to a private company who pays the government to collect it, that is how it seems to be in the south..
Umm, broadband providers do have to continuously upgrade the hardware and lines to handle increasing requirements, the problem is there is no requirement to do so. It would be the same with roads if they were owned privately.
Your stawman that I want the government to takeover is off base and ignores what I said completely. I am for the government, state level, owning the lines, but the companies owning the end points and leasing access to the lines.
It costs nothing for the mani to allow google in, all they asked for was access to public right of ways to lay their line, the same that would be needed by any wired provider, and even wireless providers. In exchange not only did they give you fast speeds at low prices, but they also gave free internet to public buildings.
Only if you take into account things like medicare and social security, which have their own funding, IE you are taxed separately from income tax, and therefore should not be included.. If you take those away then military is much larger.
You do understand google is paying for it.. The only thing they asked for was access to public right of ways, which would be required for any line based provider to get access to, and in exchange they provided free internet to public buildings, including schools.
Broadband is very similar to the highway system, and while the highway system is owned by the government, a lot of companies manage them, hence toll roads
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesnt. This is not trade and commerce, or I would agree with you.
It says lower altitudes, not lower speeds. There is no contradiction there.
Some words have more than one definition
1dumb adjective \dm\
Definition of DUMB
1
a : lacking the human power of speech
b of a person often offensive : lacking the ability to speak
2 : temporarily unable to speak (as from shock or astonishment)
3 : not expressed in uttered words
4 : silent; also : taciturn
5 : lacking some usual attribute or accompaniment; especially : having no means of self-propulsion
6 a : lacking intelligence : stupid
b : showing a lack of intelligence
c : requiring no intelligence
7 : not having the capability to process data — compare intelligent 3a
smackdown
smakdoun/
nouninformal
1. a bitter contest or confrontation.
"the age-old man versus Nature smackdown"
2. a decisive or humiliating defeat or setback.
Again with the false propaganda. First this is not about a government owned monopoly, it is about the government helping other companies the same way they helped the incumbents in most cases. Second if I dont want water service from my local government I can dig a well and not have to pay a dime, no sheriff will come to my door. Same with most government untilities. The only time that will happen is if I use the service and not pay, or fail to pay my taxes.
The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes ...
Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.
You dont have an understanding of the history of the cable companies do you? They used the same method that google and utopia used to get their network off the ground, tax payer funded subsidies and deals, now it is somehow bad if someone else does it?
If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.
No we are apparently supposed to allow an artificial market to run at above market pricing, still supported by taxpayer subsidies.
Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.
The government allowed them to get the monopoly, to the detriment of the tax payers. In these cases the government is allowing another player to enter the market to compete, not competing itself.
In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.
Incorrect, they pay a 5% free on gross revenue. It is not a fee per user, but should I mention they still get billions in subsidies from the government every year as well?
Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has.
You mean besides that pesky access to public right of ways which is required to lay the cables, which the incumbents were granted typically free, but now want to prevent the competitors from having access to it in the same way?
If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.
That's why it is bad.
The rest of this is just false propaganda from someone who seems to love the monopolistic nature of the "free market" system of cable, without an actual understanding of how it works.
These are not telcos remember, ISPs are not categorized, by their own wishes, as telcos. There is nothing that says TWC, ATT, or comcast have to provide internet to the rural areas as it stands, so I am not seeing your point. In addition the only one who even owns a telco is ATT, so what you are saying is we need to also ban all the cable operators, wait, they have not destroyed ATT yet, so your logic is flawed.
Maybe, but you said GOP, not Dems, so it seemed to question me, not him.
Where did they subvert the constitution to pass a law.?
I never said it was exclusive to the GOP, if you actually read the comment I was replying to they said Dems were the ones doing that, where I pointed out the Repubs do it AS WELL, not exclusively.
Because it is SUBJECTIVE, but even still, the topic is not what makes it a logical fallacy, it is the wording. Claiming that if you are objective then you would agree, therefore anyone who does not agree with you is not objective, is what makes it a fallacy, even though there may be any number of reasons an objective observer may disagree with you.
umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.
False dilemma, while I agree, not necessarily all objective observers will. Maybe most, or a lot, but probably not all.
I think Microsoft's new CEO decided to start the tenure off with a flood of propaganda.
That is what was intended, so thank you.
I have used both, from working for a hosting provider as an administrator, to working for MS itself later, to my job now. Configuration of apache is only slightly more difficult in that you need to use a text editor instead of point and click hold handing, however IIS is no wear near as powerful in that you can do much more with it because of the slightly more difficult configuration. In addition it is more lightweight, and has better security.
No you dont.. You put the debt back and then reduce spending around other things.. It is like stealing from pension plans and then saying, well we know you paid for your pensions, but sense we stole from it and cannot pay it back instead of lowering other services we are going to chop your pensions.
well, if they stop giving it for free they would stop having access to their right of ways, so there is that.
Umm, broadband providers do have to continuously upgrade the hardware and lines to handle increasing requirements, the problem is there is no requirement to do so. It would be the same with roads if they were owned privately.
Your stawman that I want the government to takeover is off base and ignores what I said completely. I am for the government, state level, owning the lines, but the companies owning the end points and leasing access to the lines.
do crack dealers give you a contract saying it will be free as well.
It costs nothing for the mani to allow google in, all they asked for was access to public right of ways to lay their line, the same that would be needed by any wired provider, and even wireless providers. In exchange not only did they give you fast speeds at low prices, but they also gave free internet to public buildings.
Only if you take into account things like medicare and social security, which have their own funding, IE you are taxed separately from income tax, and therefore should not be included.. If you take those away then military is much larger.
You do understand google is paying for it.. The only thing they asked for was access to public right of ways, which would be required for any line based provider to get access to, and in exchange they provided free internet to public buildings, including schools.
Broadband is very similar to the highway system, and while the highway system is owned by the government, a lot of companies manage them, hence toll roads
municipality
noun
1.
a city or town that has corporate status and local government.