phartz...@gmail.com escribió:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eric S. Sande <esa...@verizon.net> wrote:
That's about it for now.
Good post. I think that the FCC wants industry to get with the
various governmental agencies and really get this issue hashed
out...finally. I see that President Obama just signed an Executive
Order, making it a requirement that the two sides in our federal
legislature sit down together to work out a fix for the economy. He
finally had to take this draconian, some would say dictatorial step
because our Congress critters were essentially refusing to move on the
problem, refusing to work with one another. I think the FCC head was
trying to say that the time has come for cooperation instead of
opposition and to do it for the welfare of our nation. It somehow got
done back in the early days of wired telephone service and telcos did
not wither and die as a result and we can do it again today with this
newer technology that in many ways is supplanting telephone service as
being a necessity in the contemporary world.
Yes, I agree with both of you, mostly. The economy can't improve enough
to be competitive when the world economy improves until we ramp up our
communications systems. What we need most is public-private
partnerships, and a lot of cooperation instead of behaving like
adversaries or worse. Of course, companies need to make a profit to
exist. Telcos can't afford to create a national network on their own,
plus they need incentives. They also need their networks to survive in
the long term.
It won't happen without partnerships, but the details need to be worked
out in advance, and as the network is developed. The broadband speed
must be in line with competing economies, since our competition is global.
Do we really want an overpriced 3Mbps national network, when competing
nations already have less expensive 20-50Mbps and working on >100Mbps up
to 1Gbps? Of course not. That's the kind of lowest common denominator,
lowest bid nonsense thinking that gives us bad roads, bridges that don't
last, electronics and hard goods that break before warranties expire.
Lowest bid is counterproductive. Best bid for best quality [and
expansion] we can afford for the future is better.
As Steve said, the original telco service and electrification didn't
happen only through the goodness of private companies. They needed
government assistance, grants, loans, prodding, sometimes with threats,
and creation of public projects like REA and TVA, along with plenty of
regulation to ensure universal service and prevent gouging. Eric, you
know the technical and financial requirements for your network.
Extrapolate for a national network. It's too much for the private sector
to afford, yet it will make communication significantly better for both
businesses and individuals.
Public-private is win-win.
BTW, I'm a fiscal conservative and socially liberal/progressive. I had
to be somewhat fiscally conservative while taking risks to stay in
business for a long time. I'm a capitalist and a technocrat too--started
my first business when I was a sophomore in college. However, I don't
have a problem with paying fair taxes for good services. Broadband is a
valuable utility that's well worth our investment.
Betty
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
