Kung Foo - Want affordable broadband? It may happen by 2007

Not signed in (Log In)

Random Photo

(changes every 15 minutes)

waiting to be uncliped from the booster seat g bush concentrates hard on doing a poo

Photo by AquaVelvet. Caption by quince 666.

read and rate other captions »
post your own caption »
submit a photo to caption »

Site Supported By Ads

Comments

MajicWalrus spoke on Mar 29, 2004 at 07:50 PM

Just say this on TechTV's The Screen Savers and I have to agree with Kevin, it's bullcrap. There's no way everyone can get broadband by 2007, it's just a way to earn some geek votes.

StrollinAlong spoke on Mar 29, 2004 at 09:39 PM

I followed the link and read the article. I did NOT find any reference to price other than the word "affordable", Now, if I had Bush's income, $50 would not only be affordable it would be downright cheap! Heck, if he can spend 13 million to slander Kerry, what's a $50 internet bill?
I do agree with Tech TV and Rev that it's just another ploy to gain votes. You gotta give the Bushmaster credit for trying EVERY dirty trick to sucker people into giving him the votes though. Ralph Nader is going to Oregon because he only has to get 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot in that state - he said his expenses were paid by an anonymous entity. Hmmmm.....maybe Bush gave him the money just to cause a few idiot Democrats to vote for Nader and thereby suck votes away from Kerry

RickySilk spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 08:50 AM

I have to agree, It's going to be so hard to make the telco's do this. He's gotta be looking for ignoramus geek votes.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 11:26 AM

I was being sarcastic when I mentioned trying for votes.

I think it is possible to get everyone hooked up. The problem will lie in getting the private telcos to comply.

They have people doing roadwork every day. They could have people side by side working on throwing down fiber as well.

Granted they would be working their asses off (something they have never done before) but it is possible. I would think of it as more of a GOAL than anythign else. It isn't a promise. It is just a PUSH to get things rolling. Sort of like pushing for the hydro-electric tech. It will take many years, but you push for the soonest it is viable.

A real easy way to get the net to everyone woul dbe to set federal regulations out there prohibiting the private companies from price fixing and gouging the customers. When it becomes really affordible to the mainstream everyone will have it.

Again, they need to work on volume rather than huge dollar amounts.

MajicWalrus spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 05:11 PM

Could is just that.

But Bush sounds like he's doing more than just saying "Gee, it'd be nice if everyone could have broadband internet hookups" he's say, "In 2007 we can all have affordable broadband."

That will never work. Although he might be able to pass legislation about not having taxes on internet service.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 05:28 PM

Pushing for it isn't the same as making the claim that it WILL happen. He is not that stupid. He isn't Al Gore making claims like he invented the internet.

He wants it to happen and he would like to see it happen. Will it? Who knows. The folks who own the businesses will probably fight it unless they get comped in some major way.

Hollowpoint spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 06:08 PM

Come on people, read the fucking article. There is nothing in it suggesting that telcos will be forced to provide broadband in places it would be too expensive to deploy. What they are talking about is subsidizing such deployments using money from the Universal Service Fund, which is a federal tax on phone service that is intended to subsidize phone service for those living in rural areas where it is much more expensive for phone companies to provide such service. They also mention the possibility of leveling the playing field between telcos who provide DSL and cable companies. Since DSL is carried over phone line, the FCC has ruled that it's subject to certain federal regulations... while cable is not, though they basically provide the same service.

As far as Rev's remarks that companies are "making money hand over fist" with broadband... bullshit. Right now it's all about gaining market share. For those in urban areas, all most all have more than one choice for broadband; for most people there is no "monopoly"- note that prices have actually come down, in some cases considerably. Also, if you look at how much a T1 (about 1.5 Mbps) costs compared to a 1.5 Meg DSL or cable connection, home broadband is pretty damned cheap. Considering the cost of deployment and support, no one is getting rich off of home broadband just yet.

As someone who works for Qwest provisioning new DSLAMs (among other things), I can tell you that they're being deployed like mad; there was talk of trying to install 3000 more this year alone but I don't believe we have the manpower to do it. Right now the strategy is to sell 256k DSL (fine for just surfing), get people hooked on it and then hope they upgrade to 1.5M.

MajicWalrus spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 06:18 PM

But it doesn't discontinue the fact that he said it. He said it to encourage people (geeks) to vote for him.

Hollowpoint spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 09:15 PM

Idiot college kid dials up a long distance AOL number... and leaves the computer on. The damage? $2,500 in long distance charges. [link]

After initially denying his request for a reduction in the charges, his long distance carrier (Qwest) eventually knocked it down to $375... I'm guessing the media attention had something to do with it.

IndigoShaper spoke on Mar 30, 2004 at 11:21 PM

By reducing the amount he has to pay, it allows Quest to create this image of having a two-way relationship with its customers, which is good for the company's reputation. Although they might not have done anything had it not been for the media, they used the media to their advantage by reducing that teens costs and showing that they are a friendly, understanding company. Its little things like this that can give a company a marginal edge over its competitors.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 11:24 AM

Right, there's absolutely NO money in it whatesoever. Uh huh. I'm sure they are just doing this out of thekindness of their hearts.

Qwest is so benevolent they just want ot help everyone out and give them net access AT COST because they are such a wonderful group of people running the company as a non-profit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Dumbass, the companies are in business to make money. They have a firm hold on things and are very much able to keep anyone from starting up since they control things. Even taking and dropping to rock bottom profit margins they make a ton of cash and the "little guy" just can't compete with it.

I realize you are extremely defensive over big business but that only limits your ability to see the points people are making and keep them in context.

Ah well. Clearly this will get you ranting but it's ok, everyone knows the truth ofthings even if you disagree. ;)

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 11:28 AM

Also consider the business aspect of it had they sent thebill to collections. The kid could have fought it and Qwest would be out of money, people would hate them, the collections people would be pissy, etc. Lose lose situation.

Better to make a bit of change based on his actual usage rather than the line sitting on without anything going back and forth.

If the same kid was actually leaving his computer on and downloading p2p you can bet they'd nail him for the bandwidth he was sucking rather than just a "nominal" fee. That nominal fee was likely just what the kid actually used.

But this is just my thoughts on the matter. So meh.

Hollowpoint spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 12:12 PM

Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't say that anyone is selling at or below cost - but they sure as hell aren't "making money hand over fist" like you said. Check the stock prices and quarterly reports of the telcos and you'd see that; it's public information.

Furthermore, your statement "They have a firm hold on things and are very much able to keep anyone from starting up since they control things" is uneducated bullshit. The telcos are REQUIRED by federal law to share their networks- to prevent monopolistic behavior. About the only thing they don't have to share are the DSLAMs; everything else- trunks, cable pairs, POTS switches- all have to be made available to the competition.

I'm sorry that this isn't a Communist country where the government sets the price for goods and services- it sounds like you'd be happier under such a system. In a free country, the market sets the price; if one provider could offer it for less money than the others, they'll get all the business. The fact of the matter is that broadband is ALREADY cheap for what you get- I pay about $42 (before taxes, including ISP service) for a cable connection that averages over 2 meg.

Anyone who thinks that broadband prices are unfairly high has no clue what's involved to provide the service. Don't like the cost? Don't get the service. It's not Big Brothers job to force companies to sell a service at a price that you want to pay.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 02:13 PM

This is where I get to say I told you so.

but they sure as hell aren't "making money hand over fist" like you said.

If you can provide me witht heir exact profit margin I can explain to you what I consider "hand over fist" as the term is subjective.

The telcos are REQUIRED by federal law to share their networks- to prevent monopolistic behavior.

That "sharing" only goes so far. Those laws are made by folks who are lobbied by people with money, namely big businesses like... lets say... telcos. Imagine that!

all have to be made available to the competition.

At incredibly steep prices. Oh sure by definition they are technically available. But who can afford the telco's pricing? Mmmm hmmm.

Like I said, you'd get your panties in a twist because you are a big business zealot. It was very expected. You are so easy to read and manipulate.

It's ok though, the country is full of idiots like you that think the same way so you're not alone. Unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer for it.

Have a nice day. :)

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 02:15 PM

Ok, prove it. you're making the claim based on your interpretation of what he said rather than how the english language dictates, so PROVE he said it the way you are interpreting it to gain geek votes.

I'm in no hurry, I'll wait.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 02:17 PM

Oh and while you are trying to come up with your proof (valid evidence mind you not your opinion) that he "said it" for votes keep this in mind:

""We ought to have universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007,""

Ought to != WILL

Hollowpoint spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 02:39 PM

Oh...OK... so now the term "making money hand over fist" is subjective... alrighty then. I guess in your book than includes "barely turning a profit" for any given customer. I can't (and wouldn't if I could) give you an exact profit margin on DSL... but again; the quarterly financial reports are public info- no one's getting rich off broadband, despite it's very rapid growth. Given the explosive growth of DSL, you'd think that they would be turning a tidy profit if they were overcharging for it, wouldn't you? Too bad that isn't the case.

Yes the telcos lobby the government... and so do their competetors. Ever heard of a little company called AT&T? They lobby hard against RBOCs.

As far as the Telecommunications Act of 1996, RBOC's are not only required to to make their networks available to competetors, but they are also required to do so at cut-rate prices- far below retail, even below wholesale costs. Some telcos have argued that they are being forced to sell capacity at BELOW COST- definately not at "incredibly steep prices".

As much as your Socialist leanings would have you believe you to be the victim of big, bad, greedy corporate monopolies, the facts say otherwise. Even in very competitive markets with multiple sources of broadband available you'll find that they still charge more than the $ 20 / month that you apparently consider "affordable".

Now go back to reading "Communist Manifesto", and come back when you have a clue about what you're talking about.

MajicWalrus spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 02:48 PM

Prove that it was anything else. It's an election year and he did some stupid stuff especially with the patriot act in his last term. Circumstancial evidence.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 03:39 PM

I did by posting the article. The proof is in reading it. You are making a contrary claim. I know you can't come up with any proof, but that was pretty pathetic even for you.

The only thing that is circumstantial is the timing of when this statement was issued. You are playing on that to make a point that has no basis.

Sorry, you lose kiddo. Better luck next time.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 03:50 PM

I consider making money hand over fist more than just barely getting by. I asked for specifics sinse you claim to know so much. you can't provide them so I can't tell you how close to the mark my meaning of that term was.

As for no one getting rish off broadband... you mean YOU aren't getting rish off broadband. There are quite a few people making a lot of money off it.

[...]you'd think that they would be turning a tidy profit if they were overcharging for it, wouldn't you? Too bad that isn't the case.

Subjective term which isn't qualified because no numbers are being presented. So your claim that it "isn't the case" is pure big business biased opinion.

[...]but they are also required to do so at cut-rate prices- far below retail, even below wholesale costs.

Which are determined by them. You can play with the words all you like. It doesn't change the fact that they determine how much they'll lease their lines for.

Some telcos have argued that they are being forced to sell capacity at BELOW COST- definately not at "incredibly steep prices".

Of course they do. They want to make MORE money. It is hardly difficult to imagine someone not being entirely truthful on the matter when it comes to business. I mean look at how you are arguing for them.

Even in very competitive markets with multiple sources of broadband available you'll find that they still charge more than the $ 20 / month that you apparently consider "affordable".

Imagine that... price fixing. Wow. Thanks for making my points for me.

I'm not a socialist by any means. I just don't like it when one schmuch raking int he cash can fuck over the working man who is out there busting his ass to get a little service for his hard earned dollar.

Now go back to reading "Communist Manifesto", and come back when you have a clue about what you're talking about.

Spoken like a true blind corporate schmuck. The sad thing is, you're too blind to the fact to see what is really going on. They are fucking your corporate shills just the same as the rest of us.

Yep, you're an American all right. :rolleyes: If we wanted to be fucked over by the aristocracy we could have stayed a colony. All the big business fucks are, are the colonial aristocrats who are pulling the strings and making deals with the current monarchy.

So much for man being created equal.

Hollowpoint spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 04:37 PM

...from talking out your ass all the time?

you mean YOU aren't getting rish off broadband. There are quite a few people making a lot of money off it.

I'd sure like what companies are getting rich from providing broadband; as it is currently I sure don't know of any, judging by the weak performance of telco stocks: [link]

It doesn't change the fact that they determine how much they'll lease their lines for.

I'll say it one more time: No, they can't. State and federal regulators set the rate under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. RBOCs can't just charge whatever wholesale price they like.

I'm not a socialist by any means. I just don't like it when one schmuch raking int he cash can fuck over the working man who is out there busting his ass to get a little service for his hard earned dollar.

So Big Brother should step into a private business and set the price THEY think is fair? How is this not Socialist? Unlike government, who forces people at gunpoint to pay their taxes, abide by their rules and use their services, no one is being forced to buy broadband or any other such service. Ultimately, the consumer decides what price their willing to pay, and the private sector charges accordingly- no one is being "fucked over". Think DSL is too expensive? Fine, don't get it, or get service from a competetor like the cable company. It's your choice what you are willing to pay. Food, water, shelter- these are necessities. A fast Internet connection isn't. No one is getting "fucked over" when they have a choice whether or not to purchase a luxury item.

If you think you can provide service of lower cost, then I encourage you do it- there's plenty of venture capital available out there; I'm sure investors would love to hear how you intend to provide service for less cost while still turning a profit.

It all boils down to whether you believe in freedom or oppression. Do you believe that someone should be free to run a business and charge what they feel appropriate, letting consumers make a choice whether to pay it, not pay it or go to a competetor? Or do you believe that Big Brother should step in, fuck over busines owners and investors by dictating the prices they charge for their goods and services, thereby removing all incentive to start up or invest in a business?

Sounds to me like you're on the side of oppresion.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 04:48 PM

Sore? And how would you know anything about it except by personal experience?

Linking stocks doesn't mean shit. what is the PROFIT MARGIN for what they sell. That will give you an idea of what the folks in charge are making. They don't give a shit about their stock holders.

That's about all I'm going to bother saying this time around. I knew how you'd react and you did exactly as predicted. This will keep going in circles because you only have one leg to stand on while you hop around to keep facing me as I run circles around you.

Have a nice day shill.

Hollowpoint spoke on Mar 31, 2004 at 05:05 PM

Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about the subject you write about... or how business works in general- shit, you don't even seem to grasp the relationship between stockholders and and the corporations they invest in.

I'm going to chalk this up as another win for Hollowpoint. Ultimately it is for the reader to decide, as always.

I hear the Workers World Party is looking for activists- sounds like you'd fit right in: [link]

holyjuan spoke on Apr 05, 2004 at 12:43 AM

Do they allow people that beat their wives into the World Party?

Just a question... not directed at any one person.

MajicWalrus spoke on Apr 05, 2004 at 02:05 AM

Timing is what is important. The idea is hardly even doable, much less would someone like Bush desire for it to happen.

So nanny nanny boo boo.

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Apr 05, 2004 at 11:57 AM

Dance boy! I prefer you wigglin' when you're impaled on my cock. Weu!

Reverend Jynxed spoke on Apr 05, 2004 at 11:59 AM

To quote Juan, "DANCE!"

Hahaha. Told ya so.

Comments

Post A Comment