That only takes a little while when you very good at it On Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 9:07 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't mayors keep busy groping, sextng, using private email servers , > building walls, servicing council members wives and collecting money from > speed traps? How could you be bored Lewis? > > On Oct 31, 2016 5:27 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'll reply only because I'm bored. > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 5:15 PM <fiber...@mail.com> wrote: > > Lewis Bergman wrote: > >>> I rail against these types of projects not because they typically > fail, which they do, > >> That's the second time you make that claim. Could you please back this > up with some sources? > >Do you mind enlightening us with all the tales of success and glory? > Excellent deflection, again! That mean it's just something you made up > then? > > I guess you ask for facts and toy are not deflecting? Nice. > > > >> Could you also shine some light on those federal bailout programs you > say are paying for all the failures? > > RUS is federal and has taken the hit for a number of projects, not sure > on Fiber and I wasn't just referring > > to fiber. Maybe you are but I wasn't being that narrow. > I'm sure RUS has taken some hits on their projects. > > However, that's not the point. RUS loans are applied for in advance of > starting a project, not after the fact. > You wrote that there is a federal bailout program that "they ask for ... > when they get in over their head." > What federal grants or assistance are you referring to, since it can't > be RUS? > > Maybe you have difficulty understanding basic economics. If I loam you > money in advance of doing something and you don't pay me I still lose > money. If that lender is the government then the government last money. > Since the government is funded by tax dollars you just got a tax funded > bailout. You didn't pay me back a debt do you ate made while while I am > not. Your refusal to comprehend fundamental concepts is tiring. Mauve > that's is your strategy. > > >>> Let the free market system take care of everything else. > >> How about them that the free market does not serve? > > Who cares? Really...who cares. > That's not very neighborly of you. > > Maybe not but I really don't care. I actually think making my neighbor pay > fits own way is better for my neighbor than paying it for him. > > You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it totally ignores > second order effects. > Moving isn't free, neither for the individual nor for society. Then > there's the people that just can't move. > > Do you have facts to back that up? And if you just can't move and you > can't get Internet you obviously don't need it. > > > Marginalizing people isn't very beneficial to society either, not even > if you just count dollars and cents. > > Can you quote Any factual basis for your opinion? > > A lot of things require or are made possible by broadband. I'd rather have > my tax dollars fund RUS loans or the like than use them for unemployment > benefits. > > I would like to see you quote sources for the innuendo you purpose as > fact. You are implying that the lack of Internet prevents unemployment in > areas that previously had none of insufficient speed? > > I Persian know several it managers that run large corporate networks with > thousands of employees. They both only have 20 mbs by choice due to the > boost in productivity to locking down all but business traffic. He stated > that almost 3% of broadband requirements before the lock down was business > related. > > So while high speed Internet does assist in some ways it is neither an > employment booster or productivity enhancer generally speaking. Want facts, > search the studies as there are many of broadband Internet and its effect > on productivity in the workplace. > > So, would you rather spend your hard earned tax dollars of building new > infrastructure so that the people that had to move can have needed services > or would you permit broadbandless people to pay for their own damn > internet, even if they have to bond for it locally? > > I have said before if a local group wants to buy into some bs go for it. > If that gets rolled into some bailout if someplace like Detroit where the > Feds step in then I would not be in favor of that. I am not saying Detroit > had broadband loans it was an example of a municipal bail out. > > According to the FCC, 1.4 million have no broadband available, not even > satellite. 16 million people have satellite with 4M/1M or less available. > There are not insignificant numbers. > > > I think those are very insignificant. That is less than 1/2 percent. You > seem to be assuming that those people both want and need more. Maybe you > can't live with 25mbs but they likely can. And it is doubtful they will > suddenly make $250k a year just because their access improves. > > > And to be really honest, it seems like a large part of the customer base > in the areas I evaluated were wholly > > disinterested in fiber. > I'm fine with excluding areas where there is no demand. I'm not fine > with excluding areas where there is both demand and willingness to pay, but > no private actor. > > On that we can agree. Wow. World peace. The only point of contention is > that no private solution would exist. But that seems close enough to me. > > > Jared > >
