Skip to main content

View Diary: Telecoms take HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS for national broadband, but don't want to deliver (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hundreds of billions? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rikon Snow need to get the facts before you come up with a headline like this one. If you are talking about the USF funds, the whole thing amounts to 8-9 billion a year for the whole industry including about 2 billion for the ILECs. Sorry big guy but this article is total bullshit.

    Do facts matter anymore?

    by Sinan on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:21:37 PM PDT

    •  Recycled simply for Balls. (Nt) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Coaster

      ". . .as singularly embarrassing a public address as any allegedly sentient primate ever has delivered." - Charles P. Pierce

      by Rikon Snow on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:26:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK Its probably closer to dozens of billions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mannie, Egalitare

      "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:44:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, fine. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric K, Mannie, earicicle, Bluefin

      Tell us how many billions it is acceptable for the corporations to take, without doing anything?

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:50:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  AFOR money, not USF! (6+ / 0-)

      I am VERY familiar with the material (I know some of the people involved) in the article.   It is not about the USF at all.  

      In and around 1992, the Bell telephone companies asked to change their regulation from utility-style rate of return (regulated profit, based on level of investment) to price cap (basic service rate capped, profits unregulated).  Costs were falling so this meant higher profits.  They promised to build broadband with it.  New Jersey Bell specifically promised to wire the state with 100% fiber to the home, 45 megabits each way, open common carriage.

      Instead, they didn't invest.  During the 1990s, their profits rose.  But they invested less.  Maintenance got worse.  They only built DSL, recycling the old wire.  Then in the 2000s, they invested a little in FiOS (VZ) or U-Verse (SBC->ATT), but only selectively.

      The $380 billion that Bruce Kushnick talks about was the excess profit, above what rate of return would have allowed, that they got for doing less, not more, than before.

    •  ~20 years * $8B/yr = $160B (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluefin, Mannie

      I'm using your dollar estimate, Sinan, along Kos' year span. It's basic math and comes to $160 Billion.  Want to be an adult, take back your "total bull" accusation and issue an apology?

      •  He gave no details for his claim. (0+ / 0-)

        Nor did he address the very complicated issue of bringing broadband to under served areas. By making a headline like this, he chose to play the corporate giants as mooching leeches meme instead of actually diving into this industry and giving some background and facts. I work in this industry, it is not productive to represent it as some sort of ripoff of the customer. Someone here said that in 1992 they promised to bring fiber to the home, that is a bold faced lie. There was no fiber to the home in 1992. Then he said that they had to settle for DSL as if they had a choice. Copper is the installed plant in every building or home in the nation due to USF funding over the years. The fact that you even have a POTs line is because every single carrier paid for it. Bringing fiber to the home is a very, very recent development and it costs huge bucks. So rather than make a blatantly stupid article on the horrors of the Tier 1's, why not have some integrity?

        Do facts matter anymore?

        by Sinan on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 09:02:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then start with *these* comments instead of math. (0+ / 0-)

          You may have a point, but when you include criticism of dollars that doesn't stand up to basic math rebuttal, it makes the rest of your argument look weaker (not logically, but psychologically).

        •  Can we say "vested interest"? (0+ / 0-)

          You are supporting your industry without really looking at this from a broader perspective. Answer me this: why is America at the bottom of the list for broadband in developed nations? Why do the Koreans have insane broadband speeds AND MUCH CHEAPER SERVICE????

          And by the way, it seems to me that there was a lot of money put up for increased broadband in the Recovery Act in addition to the moneys they got over the years. So why are they allowed TO WASTE IT ON LOBBYING AND INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION INSTEAD OF PROVIDING SERVICE???

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (19)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site