If you have one or more private ISP's, and they provide Cable/Internet/Phone service at reasonable rates and capacities, there is absolutely no reason to form a municipal ISP. It is a complete waste of time and money.
What if the private ISP doesn't provide the level of service that the citizens in the area demand? What if they outright refuse to offer that level of service? Is it still a waste to start a municipal ISP?
Not in this case. Time Warner is still providing service to the city. They're just refusing to update their shitty service, and are getting their lunch eaten.
It seems like the problem is that people didn't know about the fiber network. Was the city itself selling services over the fiber network, thus being in competition with the 2 companies they leased the lines to? If so, then the problem is that the law would let them compete, but not advertise the service.
TWC had their chance to compete. They refused to meet the demands of their customers. Therefore they are now getting their lunch eaten by a competitor.
While it'd be a lot nicer to have more than 2 people to choose from, I don't know how well it'd work here. Our legislators are supposed to be representing a geographical area, not a party. I'm not sure how it works in Sweden, or other countries with a legislature where the representatives are chosen by the party based on how many seats they get.
RTFA, that's what they did. They asked TWC/Embarq to provide faster service, and the local monopolies refused. So what were the people supposed to do? "Oh, ok. Sorry for bothering you. You have a nice day now"?
The service provider could spin off to a private company, but the fiber infrastructure could remain under public control. That way anybody is free to lease lines and create another provider.
To not put up with the bullshit at the airport?
And going between NYC and Dallas isn't really the target of high speed rail. Going from NYC to DC or Philly, or going from Dallas to Austin, Houston or San Antonio is.
Which means we need to build more rails. This will have the added benefit of allowing us to build higher speed rails where passenger trains have the higher priority over freight trains.
We're not trying to rail up the entire country like Japan. We're trying to rail up regions of the country. Ever driven from LA to the Bay Area? Its really not fun. The traffic is horrible.
This may be one of those common sense things that the people in charge will never listen to, but its a lot easier and much more possible to crash an airplane into a building than it is a train.
The thing is, most people are completely fed up with air travel. The shitty service, the high costs, being shoved in an airplane like cattle.
The few times I've ridden by train, its been much more enjoyable than flying, and driving (although I don't care for interstate driving that much). I had more room than on a typical coach seat, I didn't have to put up with the security theater, and I got to use my electronic devices the whole time. Hell, I was able to use my phone as a modem and get internet access, allowing me to get a few things done.
I used to bike to work all the time, when I worked on campus. Unless you wanted to eat the swill in the campus cafeteria, there really wasn't anything around. So I made friends with my co-workers, and hopped rides with them for lunch. I'd repay by driving them when I did cause the weather was extremely nasty.
The most expensive part of the Tesla cars are the batteries. They had to start out with a $100k+ car cause that's the price point the batteries put it at. So they put that car out, and let the rich subsidize the cost of getting the battery tech down to where they could make a $50k car. If the economy didn't sour, they could get a non-government loan to build their manufacturing plant. And once they get this car under production, its purchasers will be subsidizing the cost of getting down to $30k.
True, but the Tesla was designed so that the batteries could be swapped out, should they need to be replaced or, more likely, higher capacity batteries came to market.
Last I heard, they weren't looking for a straight up bailout, but a loan, which would have been authorized under a government program set up a while back, to provide business loans for development of alternative fuel cars.
Because instituting caps designed to discourage users from going to Hulu or BitTorrent while at the same time attempting to drive them to their own OnDemand service they get subscription and ad revenue from would be incredibly anti-competitive?
Slashdot Mirror
If you have one or more private ISP's, and they provide Cable/Internet/Phone service at reasonable rates and capacities, there is absolutely no reason to form a municipal ISP. It is a complete waste of time and money.
What if the private ISP doesn't provide the level of service that the citizens in the area demand? What if they outright refuse to offer that level of service? Is it still a waste to start a municipal ISP?
Not in this case. Time Warner is still providing service to the city. They're just refusing to update their shitty service, and are getting their lunch eaten.
AFAIK, there's nothing saying that the city can't lease out use of the fiber to TWC and Embarq. That could be another revenue stream.
It seems like the problem is that people didn't know about the fiber network. Was the city itself selling services over the fiber network, thus being in competition with the 2 companies they leased the lines to? If so, then the problem is that the law would let them compete, but not advertise the service.
That wouldn't be a problem if the private companies were excluded from those tax breaks too.
TWC had their chance to compete. They refused to meet the demands of their customers. Therefore they are now getting their lunch eaten by a competitor.
While it'd be a lot nicer to have more than 2 people to choose from, I don't know how well it'd work here. Our legislators are supposed to be representing a geographical area, not a party. I'm not sure how it works in Sweden, or other countries with a legislature where the representatives are chosen by the party based on how many seats they get.
RTFA, that's what they did. They asked TWC/Embarq to provide faster service, and the local monopolies refused. So what were the people supposed to do? "Oh, ok. Sorry for bothering you. You have a nice day now"?
The service provider could spin off to a private company, but the fiber infrastructure could remain under public control. That way anybody is free to lease lines and create another provider.
No, but several judicial decisions have lessened those responsibilities, especially the ones put forth in the 1st Amendment.
Were you sent here by the Devil?
To not put up with the bullshit at the airport? And going between NYC and Dallas isn't really the target of high speed rail. Going from NYC to DC or Philly, or going from Dallas to Austin, Houston or San Antonio is.
Which means we need to build more rails. This will have the added benefit of allowing us to build higher speed rails where passenger trains have the higher priority over freight trains.
We're not trying to rail up the entire country like Japan. We're trying to rail up regions of the country. Ever driven from LA to the Bay Area? Its really not fun. The traffic is horrible.
How in FSM's name does this guy get to post something SO LONG?
Hmmm, maybe that Fascism thing has a point. Mussolini may have been a ruthless dictator, but at least he made the trains run on time. /s
This may be one of those common sense things that the people in charge will never listen to, but its a lot easier and much more possible to crash an airplane into a building than it is a train.
The thing is, most people are completely fed up with air travel. The shitty service, the high costs, being shoved in an airplane like cattle. The few times I've ridden by train, its been much more enjoyable than flying, and driving (although I don't care for interstate driving that much). I had more room than on a typical coach seat, I didn't have to put up with the security theater, and I got to use my electronic devices the whole time. Hell, I was able to use my phone as a modem and get internet access, allowing me to get a few things done.
I used to bike to work all the time, when I worked on campus. Unless you wanted to eat the swill in the campus cafeteria, there really wasn't anything around. So I made friends with my co-workers, and hopped rides with them for lunch. I'd repay by driving them when I did cause the weather was extremely nasty.
Ahh, good old M-x C-x jackoff
The most expensive part of the Tesla cars are the batteries. They had to start out with a $100k+ car cause that's the price point the batteries put it at. So they put that car out, and let the rich subsidize the cost of getting the battery tech down to where they could make a $50k car. If the economy didn't sour, they could get a non-government loan to build their manufacturing plant. And once they get this car under production, its purchasers will be subsidizing the cost of getting down to $30k.
On the other hand, guaranteed students loans survive personal bankruptcy under current law...
Yeah, I believe you can thank the latest round of bankruptcy law changes for that one.
True, but the Tesla was designed so that the batteries could be swapped out, should they need to be replaced or, more likely, higher capacity batteries came to market.
Last I heard, they weren't looking for a straight up bailout, but a loan, which would have been authorized under a government program set up a while back, to provide business loans for development of alternative fuel cars.
Because instituting caps designed to discourage users from going to Hulu or BitTorrent while at the same time attempting to drive them to their own OnDemand service they get subscription and ad revenue from would be incredibly anti-competitive?