To: NormsRevenge
George Gilder has consistently supported leaving things as they are---and he is a huge free market advocate. Does anyone fully understand his position on this . . . that leaving the system intact will get us to freer competition, faster?
2 posted on
02/21/2003 9:03:56 AM PST by
LS
To: NormsRevenge
It just goes without saying...promote more and more broadband applications, inundate the public with the "need?" for braodband, ie download media faster, develop faster pcs....jack-up the price/monopoly for bb service.
3 posted on
02/21/2003 9:08:09 AM PST by
stuartcr
To: NormsRevenge
I'll have to admit that the pricing of high speed internet is discouraging. I use cable internet, and some friends of ours use DSL. They are both priced about the same 39.95 plus tax. per month. I would have thought that over time, just like what happened to dial-ups...it would go down to at least in the low to mid $20's by now. I don't ever plan to quit using high speed internet (once you use it, you'll never want to use dial-up again), however I hope for some relief in the future....
4 posted on
02/21/2003 9:09:11 AM PST by
Maringa
To: NormsRevenge
There are no bargains in broadband. Either pay the Bells for DSL at $50 a month, or pay a 3rd party $50; $40 to the Bells and $10 to the 3rd party. Cable is even worse.
I don't see a way around this since the companies own the lines. They can allow others to use them, but in the end they still own them.
To: NormsRevenge
6 posted on
02/21/2003 9:11:57 AM PST by
bmwcyle
(Semper Gumby - Always Flexable)
To: NormsRevenge
I'd imagine the satellite service providers would benefit if they can develop the technology needed to make it function as well as DSL/Cable. My understanding, although I've no first hand experience with satellite internet service, is that it isn't as good at this point.
7 posted on
02/21/2003 9:13:44 AM PST by
caltrop
To: NormsRevenge
How can anyone write a supposedly intelligent commentary on telecommunications and still use the term "long distance"....It doesn't exist any more...yet regulatory agencies still act like that's the key issue....and that's the problem...regulation of the Telcos is still done by the various states....but it's a nationwide, nay, international industry...
10 posted on
02/21/2003 9:24:45 AM PST by
ken5050
To: nutmeg
bump
16 posted on
02/21/2003 10:23:49 AM PST by
nutmeg
To: NormsRevenge
bump
17 posted on
02/21/2003 10:25:39 AM PST by
alrea
To: NormsRevenge
Overall, the decision could usher in a high-speed Internet that will look far different from the dial-up Internet..."What is dial-up Internet? Huh??? Geeeeeeez, that was, what---10-11 years ago......? LMAO!
23 posted on
02/21/2003 12:50:16 PM PST by
Pagey
(Hillary Rotten is a Smug , Holier-Than-Thou Socialist.)
To: NormsRevenge
Overall, the decision could usher in a high-speed Internet that will look far different form the dial-up Internet, where a plethora of choices was a powerful driver of innovation in content and technology. Jefe: We have stuffed many pinatas for your birthday celebration!
El Guapo: How many pinatas?
Jefe: Many pinatas, many!
El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: Yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
24 posted on
02/21/2003 3:05:12 PM PST by
strela
(Magog Brothers Atlantis Carpet Reclaimers)
To: NormsRevenge
For some reason we still haven't found a way to sell broadband for less than it costs to offer it and turn a profit. If only we could re-invent economics.
25 posted on
02/21/2003 4:42:00 PM PST by
Bogey78O
(It's not a Zero it's an "O")
To: NormsRevenge
Even Powell, a champion of deregulation, decried this decision, saying, ``Line sharing has clear and measurable benefits for consumers.Forcing the local telephone companies to allow competitors to use floor space and equipment at a below cost price, in the name of competition, is simply wrong. That floor space and equipment is the property of the local phone company and its investors, not the government or the competitors.
An equivalency would be: Joe, garageman A, has no garage but his neighbor George, garageman B, has an 8 bay garage. Gov't regulations force George to allow Joe to use two bays, and the tools, of George's garage at a 'below cost' rental price so that car owners will have a choice of whichever garageman they want to use. The hope, by regulators, is that car owners will benefit because Joe and George will be competing for the same customers. Joe can charge his customers less for repairs since he is using, at below cost, the space and tools that George invested in. Meanwhile, George has to raise his prices to cover the loss use of 1/4 of his garage capacity, not to mention the loss that he is taking by being forced to provide space to Joe. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that George will soon be out of business and that Joe will own the garage.
Only in America!!!!!!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson