http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/google-fibers-next-stop-austin-texas.html
Remebering with sweet fondness the time that Chicos told me Google Fiber would not expand beyond KC because of cost restrictions.
For those of us not enamoured with the current model of media/internet distribution, this is good news.
Google Fiber may not roll out nationwide, but it will keep slowly expanding to densely packed metros. TELCOs have been scamming the USA for years on the price, availability, speed and data restrictions (caps) on broadband. It's a joke. I'm glad Google is showing that it doesn't have to be this way.
It definitely won't go nationwide, but you're right, they will strategically introduce a new metro every few years. Fingers crossed for Chicago
It's not mentioned in the blog post, but ATT is now planning on rolling out a fiber optic line in Austin as well. I agree that Google may not be able to roll this out nationwide, but they do have one signficant advantage - diversification.
ATT has to garner all their revenue (in the ISP division) through monthly fees/subscriptions. Google has a more diversified product line and could use the high speeds they provide to offer cloud computing with revenue generating ads. All it takes is for ATT/Comcast/Time Warner to see a threat to their monopoly and they will be real quick to roll out all those speeds/services that they say are 'impossible' right now.
Quote from: akmarq on April 10, 2013, 10:45:34 AM
It's not mentioned in the blog post, but ATT is now planning on rolling out a fiber optic line in Austin as well. I agree that Google may not be able to roll this out nationwide, but they do have one signficant advantage - diversification.
ATT has to garner all their revenue (in the ISP division) through monthly fees/subscriptions. Google has a more diversified product line and could use the high speeds they provide to offer cloud computing with revenue generating ads. All it takes is for ATT/Comcast/Time Warner to see a threat to their monopoly and they will be real quick to roll out all those speeds/services that they say are 'impossible' right now.
This. The more people that Google can get online, and stay online, and do more online generates more profit for Google. So it's really only a benefit for them to be doing Google Fiber and pushing the Telcos to do more.
Google's gonna look awfully dumb when North Korea nukes Austin.
Quote from: akmarq on April 10, 2013, 09:59:12 AM
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/google-fibers-next-stop-austin-texas.html
Remebering with sweet fondness the time that Chicos told me Google Fiber would not expand beyond KC because of cost restrictions.
For those of us not enamoured with the current model of media/internet distribution, this is good news.
At the time, that was their plans. Things change. I don't know why you think it's good news, content is still ultimately at issue here. Technology delivery, as I said then, isn't the issue...it's the cost of the content which the content companies (Disney, NewsCorp, NBC Universal, HBO, etc) control which is the issue. You seem to think this is going to lower content costs.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 06:33:15 PM
At the time, that was their plans. Things change. I don't know why you think it's good news, content is still ultimately at issue here. Technology delivery, as I said then, isn't the issue...it's the cost of the content which the content companies (Disney, NewsCorp, NBC Universal, HBO, etc) control which is the issue. You seem to think this is going to lower content costs.
For me, when talking about Google Fiber, it's not about content cost. It's about internet cost. It's about data caps. It's about tiered pricing. It's just ridiculous.
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 10, 2013, 06:40:52 PM
For me, when talking about Google Fiber, it's not about content cost. It's about internet cost. It's about data caps. It's about tiered pricing. It's just ridiculous.
This stuff isn't free and as people continue to hog bandwidth resources, what are these companies supposed to do? If it means Johnny next door is consuming so much porn that he's hurting my bandwidth downstream and upstream rate, damn right I want some caps just to insure I'm getting what I paid for.
I am too dumb to know why, but how does the US, have the 33rd rank in fastest Internet?
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/
Geographic size? Lack of federal investment or federal regulation on bandwidth? Large interweb companies not investing in frastructure?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 08:36:29 PM
This stuff isn't free and as people continue to hog bandwidth resources, what are these companies supposed to do? If it means Johnny next door is consuming so much porn that he's hurting my bandwidth downstream and upstream rate, damn right I want some caps just to insure I'm getting what I paid for.
You're right, it isn't free. And I'm not asking it to be (though Google does offer basic for free + construction costs). But if Google can offer 1GB/s (1024MB/s) for the same price as Uverse 24MB/s, something is seriously screwed up with the current providers/telecoms. That's 50x the speed for about the same price!! ($70 vs $66).
Quote from: reinko on April 10, 2013, 08:58:30 PM
I am too dumb to know why, but how does the US, have the 33rd rank in fastest Internet?
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/
Geographic size? Lack of federal investment or federal regulation on bandwidth? Large interweb companies not investing in frastructure?
Some answers here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-welsh/why-japan-is-eating-ameri_b_62608.html
But some is outdated.
When a Walmart is built, they have to pay for the improvements to the local streets, intersections and sewer system.
It should also be that large companies that consume local bandwidth need to pay to start upgrading that infrastructure as well.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2013, 06:33:15 PM
At the time, that was their plans. Things change. I don't know why you think it's good news, content is still ultimately at issue here. Technology delivery, as I said then, isn't the issue...it's the cost of the content which the content companies (Disney, NewsCorp, NBC Universal, HBO, etc) control which is the issue. You seem to think this is going to lower content costs.
I think it's good news because introducing more competition into the market is going to improve connections and/or bring down prices for people - this is good news regardless of what happens on the content side.
Where this makes a difference in content though is that it opens up the possiblility for new technologies/services. When you have substantially faster internet, the viability of multiple streams on one connection (try streaming 3 netflix movies at once on one connection w/o buffering - good luck) and new ways to deliver content expands. Netflix already has their second original series in the pipeline and House of Cards is getting at least one more season, showing that it's not just the traditional players who can create content anymore. The only kind of content this DOESN'T really affect is sports, which I don't worry too much about because I really only watch MUBB, Mariners baseball (MLBTV) and Football (mostly available over broadcast).
I know you are 'in the game' and so I do defer to you on a lot of the details on how this works. That being said, sometimes I think your being 'in the game' leaves you a little myopic to what could change. I'm still confident that we haven't seen the full impact of the 'cord cutting' movement because the demographics most likely to do so have only recently gotten old enough to be market participants. There reaches a point where the demand for new content delivery systems will create a viable supplier. Google seems to well positioned to get into that game. Despite your instistance that they won't, HBO is looking hard at their options for HBO GO as a subscription service.
As for your predictions that Google Fiber would only be in KC, you're hedging your bets awefully hard. As I read it, your position was "they won't expand." Then when they expanded it became "they changed their plans." Well, with all due respect, duh. That's like me saying 'Blue does not declare for the draft' and then, when he does (hypothetically), saying 'I wasn't wrong. He just changed his plans.'
Quote from: akmarq on April 11, 2013, 09:10:31 AM
I think it's good news because introducing more competition into the market is going to improve connections and/or bring down prices for people - this is good news regardless of what happens on the content side.
Where this makes a difference in content though is that it opens up the possiblility for new technologies/services. When you have substantially faster internet, the viability of multiple streams on one connection (try streaming 3 netflix movies at once on one connection w/o buffering - good luck) and new ways to deliver content expands. Netflix already has their second original series in the pipeline and House of Cards is getting at least one more season, showing that it's not just the traditional players who can create content anymore. The only kind of content this DOESN'T really affect is sports, which I don't worry too much about because I really only watch MUBB, Mariners baseball (MLBTV) and Football (mostly available over broadcast).
I know you are 'in the game' and so I do defer to you on a lot of the details on how this works. That being said, sometimes I think your being 'in the game' leaves you a little myopic to what could change. I'm still confident that we haven't seen the full impact of the 'cord cutting' movement because the demographics most likely to do so have only recently gotten old enough to be market participants. There reaches a point where the demand for new content delivery systems will create a viable supplier. Google seems to well positioned to get into that game. Despite your instistance that they won't, HBO is looking hard at their options for HBO GO as a subscription service.
As for your predictions that Google Fiber would only be in KC, you're hedging your bets awefully hard. As I read it, your position was "they won't expand." Then when they expanded it became "they changed their plans." Well, with all due respect, duh. That's like me saying 'Blue does not declare for the draft' and then, when he does (hypothetically), saying 'I wasn't wrong. He just changed his plans.'
My position was based on what they had stated, they weren't going to go any further. It's not profitable for them. As recently as September, 2012, they said they weren't expanding. Maybe Texas is luring them in with amazing tax incentives...oh the irony that would be with some of the folks that run Google, but I'll leave that for another day. The cost outlays for FIOS and UVERSE right now are enormous, same for Google....they're basically doing it on the huge margins they make on wireless to pay to run fiber all over the place. About $7,000 drop for FIOS to the home....that's a payback of years, but when their wireless margins are where they are, it gives them room to lose money elsewhere in their hopes of gaining marketshare.
I don't think I'm being myopic, I look at the data everyday. Is cord cutting there? Yes. Is it what some chicken littles want it to be? Not close. Could that change? Of course. The technology isn't really the issue, there are lots of delivery systems, though full IP delivery is still many years down the road to be able to support multiple streams into the house with multiple different options all in the same neighborhood. The issue remains cost of content. ESPN, HBO, CBS, VIACOM, etc, etc need massive revenues to produce content, buy sports rights, etc. Without those revenues, Game of Thrones isn't created, Monday Night Football doesn't happen, etc. So ESPN, for example, isn't going to trade taking $5 per subscriber per month from 88% of pay tv subs in exchange for $5 per month per subsciber from someone going direct via a la carte....for the simple reason that though the $$ are the same, the volume would be cut by 50% if not more....suddenly forcing them to charge $10 to $15 per month. That's the piece that has to be solved.
In the meantime, most of us are getting into the "cord cutting" alternative game anyway. So you cut the cord from Comcast and you buy from XYZ service which is owned by.....Comcast.
Interesting times.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2013, 05:05:43 AM
Maybe Texas is luring them in with amazing tax incentives...oh the irony that would be with some of the folks that run Google, but I'll leave that for another day.
Google has had a pretty significant presence in Austin for a while. Its a tech hub, probably the biggest outside of Silicon Valley. Its not like they introduced Google Fiber in Alabama or Kentucky simply because they have low taxes. Google is oozing cash, I'm sure Texas' taxes are nice but that's not why they are there. I'm sure its part of their larger strategy to rule the world...
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/04/google-fiber-not-in-your-town/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2013, 05:05:43 AM
My position was based on what they had stated, they weren't going to go any further. It's not profitable for them. As recently as September, 2012, they said they weren't expanding. Maybe Texas is luring them in with amazing tax incentives...oh the irony that would be with some of the folks that run Google, but I'll leave that for another day. The cost outlays for FIOS and UVERSE right now are enormous, same for Google....they're basically doing it on the huge margins they make on wireless to pay to run fiber all over the place. About $7,000 drop for FIOS to the home....that's a payback of years, but when their wireless margins are where they are, it gives them room to lose money elsewhere in their hopes of gaining marketshare.
I don't think I'm being myopic, I look at the data everyday. Is cord cutting there? Yes. Is it what some chicken littles want it to be? Not close. Could that change? Of course. The technology isn't really the issue, there are lots of delivery systems, though full IP delivery is still many years down the road to be able to support multiple streams into the house with multiple different options all in the same neighborhood. The issue remains cost of content. ESPN, HBO, CBS, VIACOM, etc, etc need massive revenues to produce content, buy sports rights, etc. Without those revenues, Game of Thrones isn't created, Monday Night Football doesn't happen, etc. So ESPN, for example, isn't going to trade taking $5 per subscriber per month from 88% of pay tv subs in exchange for $5 per month per subsciber from someone going direct via a la carte....for the simple reason that though the $$ are the same, the volume would be cut by 50% if not more....suddenly forcing them to charge $10 to $15 per month. That's the piece that has to be solved.
In the meantime, most of us are getting into the "cord cutting" alternative game anyway. So you cut the cord from Comcast and you buy from XYZ service which is owned by.....Comcast.
Interesting times.
Appreciate the well thought out response. Is the data you're looking at industry provided stuff or is there a good place to get public-domain numbers on subscriptions, connections, etc?
Quote from: Victor McCormick on April 12, 2013, 08:42:25 AM
Google has had a pretty significant presence in Austin for a while. Its a tech hub, probably the biggest outside of Silicon Valley. Its not like they introduced Google Fiber in Alabama or Kentucky simply because they have low taxes. Google is oozing cash, I'm sure Texas' taxes are nice but that's not why they are there. I'm sure its part of their larger strategy to rule the world...
They are definitely sitting on a lot of cash, though a bunch of us are. As the article I linked this morning shows, the cost is just enormous for them to do this which is why in September they said they had no plans beyond their "project" of KC. We'll see how much further they push this, but the ROI on it is really tough.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2013, 11:13:25 AM
They are definitely sitting on a lot of cash, though a bunch of us are.
then D* should cut my bill or give me the HR-44 for free ;D
Quote from: Red Stripe on April 12, 2013, 12:08:17 PM
then D* should cut my bill or give me the HR-44 for free ;D
We have three satellites to launch in the next 2 years...that's going to cost LOTS of money, but it will also deliver about 100 additional HD channels, 4K, etc.
If you need a HR44, send me a PM
We have Cablevision and FIOS in our town. Since Cablevision had the monopoly prior to FIOS you can get it anywhere in our town. FIOS is only available where the fiberoptic cable can be run above ground. If your in a development where all your utilities are underground FIOS is not available due to the additional expenditures. I'll be long gone before FIOS comes to my house.
Quote from: akmarq on April 12, 2013, 09:33:15 AM
Appreciate the well thought out response. Is the data you're looking at industry provided stuff or is there a good place to get public-domain numbers on subscriptions, connections, etc?
Industry stuff that costs lots of money to get, unfortunately.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Eh-Google-Fiber-Is-No-Big-Deal-123847
Yes, it's a opinionated, low brow blog. But it does reference some responses by companies that show that, HOPEFULLY, change will occur sooner rather than later.
I for one welcome our Google overlords.
Google Fiber announced they are rolling out to their 3rd market today...Provo Utah.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57580113-93/google-fiber-coming-to-provos-silicon-slopes/
This is happening faster than some people thought...
Quote from: Victor McCormick on April 17, 2013, 04:08:53 PM
Google Fiber announced they are rolling out to their 3rd market today...Provo Utah.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57580113-93/google-fiber-coming-to-provos-silicon-slopes/
This is happening faster than some people thought...
Google is buying an existing network, iProvo, that cost about $40 million to build, for $1. Not a typo, $1.
Next batch of potential cities announced
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/19/technology/google-fiber/index.html?iid=Lead
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 10, 2013, 11:09:56 AM
This. The more people that Google can get online, and stay online, and do more online generates more profit for Google. So it's really only a benefit for them to be doing Google Fiber and pushing the Telcos to do more.
+1
The Telcos won't cede fiber to Google. They will spend whatever is necessary to try to keep pace. Their future in hi-speed depends on it.
Having Google around is insurance against getting screwed by the ISP monopoly serving you... so I hope they keep expanding. And I agree that the threat and reality of Google Fiber makes the traditional ISP monopoly make some upgrades.
How come South Korea is talking about rolling out a 5G network and we are still rolling out 4G in the US?
I think wireless may leap frog cable a some point, at least for suburbs of large cities. I was thinking about dumping some VZ stock that I've owned for a long time, as wireless speeds and penetration will allow companies to bypass the need to lay cable/fiber to each house... not yet, but I see it coming.
Quote from: GOO on February 20, 2014, 04:09:02 PM
Having Google around is insurance against getting screwed by the ISP monopoly serving you... so I hope they keep expanding. And I agree that the threat and reality of Google Fiber makes the traditional ISP monopoly make some upgrades.
How come South Korea is talking about rolling out a 5G network and we are still rolling out 4G in the US?
I think wireless may leap frog cable a some point, at least for suburbs of large cities. I was thinking about dumping some VZ stock that I've owned for a long time, as wireless speeds and penetration will allow companies to bypass the need to lay cable/fiber to each house... not yet, but I see it coming.
"4G" is a joke.
http://gizmodo.com/5680755/the-dirty-secret-of-todays-4g-its-not-4g
Marketing.
Quote from: GOO on February 20, 2014, 04:09:02 PM
Having Google around is insurance against getting screwed by the ISP monopoly serving you... so I hope they keep expanding. And I agree that the threat and reality of Google Fiber makes the traditional ISP monopoly make some upgrades.
How come South Korea is talking about rolling out a 5G network and we are still rolling out 4G in the US?
I think wireless may leap frog cable a some point, at least for suburbs of large cities. I was thinking about dumping some VZ stock that I've owned for a long time, as wireless speeds and penetration will allow companies to bypass the need to lay cable/fiber to each house... not yet, but I see it coming.
I'm not piling on you because its a general pet peeve of mine that so many people use that example...forgive me. Why are we comparing S. Korea to the USA on this stuff?
Land mass of S. Korea is slightly larger than the state of Indiana.
Imagine how much easier it would be to have that dense a population in that small a space. The costs would be fractions of what they are here, and that's why they can do it. we are a massive nation with large swaths of land. To cover people, it costs a ton of money, time, etc. Even just to cover the populated areas, we're still talking about incremental costs many X factors to S. Korea or Japan or <Fill in Blank> due to size of geography. If the USA was the size of Indiana, or California (about the size of Japan), would it not be much more cost efficient to setup towers, etc for 5G, HD everywhere (4K, 8K), so on and so forth?
Wireless has a long long long long long way to go to bypass cable in terms of true speeds the others are providing. Don't forget, they are improving their compression schemes, etc to improve efficiencies as well.
Quote from: GOO on February 20, 2014, 04:09:02 PM
Having Google around is insurance against getting screwed by the ISP monopoly serving you... so I hope they keep expanding. And I agree that the threat and reality of Google Fiber makes the traditional ISP monopoly make some upgrades.
How come South Korea is talking about rolling out a 5G network and we are still rolling out 4G in the US?
I think wireless may leap frog cable a some point, at least for suburbs of large cities. I was thinking about dumping some VZ stock that I've owned for a long time, as wireless speeds and penetration will allow companies to bypass the need to lay cable/fiber to each house... not yet, but I see it coming.
Here's the other issue...I see your bolded suburbs and large cities. Verizon was accused by our pals in Washington, D.C. of racial bias and other wonderful claims for how they went about laying their fiber optics for FiOS. Accused of only bypassing homes in affluent areas, avoiding the poor areas, etc. It became a rather public issue for them a number of years ago when they had a plan of cherry picking where they put in their infrastructure.
It's a practice called redlining, which Verizon denies, but it has been brought up many times by cities wishing for them to spend a ton of money to build infrastructure for their citizens.
Just throwing that out there as background.
Satellite internet is on the verge of disrupting the traditional cable based ISP. Companies like O3b Networks, which is partially financed by Google, provides the same speeds as fiber. However, there will still be a need for fiber in cities because it would be similar to getting a consistent GPS signal in downtown Chicago.
Can't wait for Google and others to breakup the government sanctioned monopolies... coming from a guy who loathes TWC.
whoa. competition, eh?
http://bgr.com/2014/02/20/time-warner-cable-internet-speeds-austin/
also hearing that comcast has already started almost doubling speeds in atlanta since the google announcement was made.
Quote from: Buzzed on February 20, 2014, 07:50:08 PM
Satellite internet is on the verge of disrupting the traditional cable based ISP. Companies like O3b Networks, which is partially financed by Google, provides the same speeds as fiber. However, there will still be a need for fiber in cities because it would be similar to getting a consistent GPS signal in downtown Chicago.
Can't wait for Google and others to breakup the government sanctioned monopolies... coming from a guy who loathes TWC.
Perhaps, though for all those not comfortable with the gov't or "big cable" control, the amount of hero worship for Google I always find a bit interesting. Is there a potentially more powerful company on the planet than Google? A company that not only is starting to control the pipes, but controls a tremendous amount of the information or it is accessed. Let's just say I have my own separate concerns about Google and their control.
My understanding is that OB3 will be a medium orbit deployment and will not have a coverage area that impacts the entire USA. Mostly will cover southern USA.
I'm just a guy who knows little, but some serious 5G in the bigger suburbs could leap frog the current technology and reduce the cost to build it out. I see all major cities in the US being covered by wifi sooner than later. So, the racial issue won't be a deal. Running cable/fiber to individual homes seems like something that won't make financial sense much longer.
I would think that some combination of apple, amazon, netflix, a phone network, etc, are at least having some discussions along these lines. It would make sense for them to do something together on the access point and give apple a place to invest some cash.
I was at a conference today that stated Kansas City only has a few thousand Google Fiber customers signed up. Google won't release the information, but the number came from someone who would be inclined to know. It was interesting to say the least.
I might get flogged for this, but why not municipalize cable/internet like water, sewer, etc?
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/02/its-dead-kansas-municipal-internet-ban-was-stabbed-shot-and-hanged/
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 21, 2014, 05:35:36 PM
I might get flogged for this, but why not municipalize cable/internet like water, sewer, etc?
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/02/its-dead-kansas-municipal-internet-ban-was-stabbed-shot-and-hanged/
When in doubt, tax it, legalize it, or have the gov't take it over. The solutions to our problems.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 21, 2014, 05:59:20 PM
When in doubt, tax it, legalize it, or have the gov't take it over. The solutions to our problems.
You're right. Let's privatize the our police, fire, military, prisons, schools, utilities, etc
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 21, 2014, 06:59:11 PM
You're right. Let's privatize the our police, fire, military, prisons, schools, utilities, etc
Private schools doing fine and have shown their value many times over. There are private prisons, also doing fine. Military, nope that should be a gov't function and is core to the US Constitution. Utilities, plenty are private and function just fine.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2014, 01:52:03 AM
Private schools doing fine and have shown their value many times over. There are private prisons, also doing fine. Military, nope that should be a gov't function and is core to the US Constitution. Utilities, plenty are private and function just fine.
LOL private prisons are doing just fine?
Private schools are great for the few who can afford them.
Utilities...sure the companies are doing fine, but what saves citizens the most money, a company that has to make a profit and please shareholders, or one that doesn't?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 22, 2014, 10:50:30 AM
LOL private prisons are doing just fine?
Private schools are great for the few who can afford them.
Utilities...sure the companies are doing fine, but what saves citizens the most money, a company that has to make a profit and please shareholders, or one that doesn't?
Private companies are typically more efficient, run leaner, etc. You should see how much it costs to run prisons here in California due to the unions vs what it costs in most every other state in this country or vs private prisons. Those COSTS are paid for in taxes by citizens...you were saying something about saving citizens the most money...or does this not apply?
When there is no goal to be efficient, when there is little accountability to be lean, costs are bloated, results are not as good, and those costs are paid by someone....the US, State and\or Local taxpayers.
So your point seems to have come up short since we do incur higher costs, ultimately.
And yes, the 150+ private prisons in this country are doing just fine at their core mission, and doing in efficiently.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2014, 11:44:37 AM
Private companies are typically more efficient, run leaner, etc. You should see how much it costs to run prisons here in California due to the unions vs what it costs in most every other state in this country or vs private prisons. Those COSTS are paid for in taxes by citizens...you were saying something about saving citizens the most money...or does this not apply?
When there is no goal to be efficient, when there is little accountability to be lean, costs are bloated, results are not as good, and those costs are paid by someone....the US, State and\or Local taxpayers.
So your point seems to have come up short since we do incur higher costs, ultimately.
And yes, the 150+ private prisons in this country are doing just fine at their core mission, and doing in efficiently.
Completely and utterly false...
They may be "fine" but to say they are more efficient is kind of just making stuff up...
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/03/privatized-prisons-a-bad-idea-gets-worse/ (http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/03/privatized-prisons-a-bad-idea-gets-worse/)
http://www.thenation.com/article/167216/arizonas-private-prisons-bad-bargain (http://www.thenation.com/article/167216/arizonas-private-prisons-bad-bargain)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-takei/anonymous-exposes-uss-big_b_3567035.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-takei/anonymous-exposes-uss-big_b_3567035.html)
Quote from: rmi210 on February 22, 2014, 02:38:26 PM
Completely and utterly false...
They may be "fine" but to say they are more efficient is kind of just making stuff up...
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/03/privatized-prisons-a-bad-idea-gets-worse/ (http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/03/privatized-prisons-a-bad-idea-gets-worse/)
http://www.thenation.com/article/167216/arizonas-private-prisons-bad-bargain (http://www.thenation.com/article/167216/arizonas-private-prisons-bad-bargain)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-takei/anonymous-exposes-uss-big_b_3567035.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-takei/anonymous-exposes-uss-big_b_3567035.html)
Actually, Vera Institute of Justice research rebutted these arguments quite nicely. What these "stories" do is they take a state prison budget, divide by the number of prisoners and come up with a cost per inmate calculation. They do the same thing for private facilities.
Only one little problem with this. They didn't calculate the full cost for the gov't facilities but did for the private. When you fully account for the gov't costs, the "stories" get destroyed.
Example, California they used $7 billion because that is the budget. The actual cost, $7.9 billion
(http://i59.tinypic.com/ru4329.jpg)
There are breakdowns of this in every state where other "analysis" (like your articles chirped) did not factor in the true costs....I wonder why. ::)
For example, Connecticut Department of Corrections spent $613.3 million for prisons in fiscal year 2010, but when all state costs are included, the total taxpayer cost was $929.4 million, the study said.
In total, Vera found $5.4billion in additional "hidden" costs to the gov't prison systems that those articles do not take into consideration.
SHOCKINGLY, none of your articles acknowledge this or would print a correct or retraction.
Here's the complete study. You are welcome.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 21, 2014, 12:49:07 AM
Perhaps, though for all those not comfortable with the gov't or "big cable" control, the amount of hero worship for Google I always find a bit interesting. Is there a potentially more powerful company on the planet than Google? A company that not only is starting to control the pipes, but controls a tremendous amount of the information or it is accessed. Let's just say I have my own separate concerns about Google and their control.
My understanding is that OB3 will be a medium orbit deployment and will not have a coverage area that impacts the entire USA. Mostly will cover southern USA.
I am in agreement with you on the big gov't/cable. We already know that Google is not necessarily holier than their peer based on their Wifi snooping in Germany. Your comment is also fair on Google being one of the most powerful companies on the planet. That is precisely why they can take on the regional cable monopolies. It is high stakes poker that requires large amounts of cash that most companies do not have. There needs to be more competition, otherwise the user gets screwed. If competition does not increase you will continue to see more throttling and speeds half of the level you are paying for.
Side note, interesting article on businessweek.com that discusses broadband. Over the last decade the US has fallen compared to its peers on broadband access. Jesmu84 comment about municipal cable may not be far off. France which has municipal cable shot up the rankings. Increase competition, or go municipal because this hybrid option is resulting in us overpaying for a sub par product.
O3b stands for other three billion. Their objective is to bring the internet to the three billion people that do not have access to it; mostly rural countries. Currently they are servicing oil rigs, and cruise ships.
Chicos, just curious, do you believe in the common good? That profit should not be the end all be all in every case? That certain things, such as access to education, basic healthcare, equal carriage of justice, access to water, electricity an heat are things that should be available to all who live in the richest country in the world, even if it means less profit for mutual fund managers and stockbrokers? Or do you think that the free market should reign supreme, that winners and losers should be left to their own devices?
Private prisons are a joke and an affront to democracy. Their interest is in packing as many inmates as possible into their facilities to increase profit margins, not to protect society and carry out justice.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 23, 2014, 12:14:59 AM
Chicos, just curious, do you believe in the common good? That profit should not be the end all be all in every case? That certain things, such as access to education, basic healthcare, equal carriage of justice, access to water, electricity an heat are things that should be available to all who live in the richest country in the world, even if it means less profit for mutual fund managers and stockbrokers? Or do you think that the free market should reign supreme, that winners and losers should be left to their own devices?
It's an interesting viewpoint you raise. If our society ever reaches a point to where technology can do 90% of jobs (everything from tourism to manufacturing), what will be the status of that society? There won't be enough jobs to fulfill people no matter what. Will we just accept that people should be living their lives without concern for a 9-5 job? That there are some parts of society that will want to educate themselves and strive for greatness while others will choose to do nothing with their day-to-day activities. Will we allow such a situation to exist where there are enough resources to distribute to everyone regardless of what they do with their lives? I certainly hope if we got to that point, everyone would be allowed to have what they need, while at the same time, be able to do what they want. But I don't see our current society being able to go along with that.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 23, 2014, 12:16:39 AM
Private prisons are a joke and an affront to democracy. Their interest is in packing as many inmates as possible into their facilities to increase profit margins, not to protect society and carry out justice.
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Price_of_Prisons_updated_version_072512.pdf
Here's the link on public prisons and their true costs, I guess I didn't link it before.
If inmates are incarcerated and that is what private prisons are doing, keeping them locked up, how is that not helping to protect society? How are they are "joke" and an affront to democracy?
At the end of the day, I'm about efficiency and cost. It hits home in my state, another reason to leave, because it is so ridiculously bloated. $45K PER INMATE per year. The US average is $29K. Why the cost difference? I'll give you 3 guesses, the first two don't count.
So while you may not like private facilities, I don't like how the gov't is penalizing taxpayers (as one of the people in this state that actually pays taxes) with their cost structure and management of the public ones. I find them to be a joke. The private facilities build prisons in roughly half the time and 2/3 of the cost as the public prisons...I wonder why? ::)
Works both ways.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 23, 2014, 12:14:59 AM
Chicos, just curious, do you believe in the common good? That profit should not be the end all be all in every case? That certain things, such as access to education, basic healthcare, equal carriage of justice, access to water, electricity an heat are things that should be available to all who live in the richest country in the world, even if it means less profit for mutual fund managers and stockbrokers? Or do you think that the free market should reign supreme, that winners and losers should be left to their own devices?
Of course.
I never said I was against public education...my kids are in public education. My mom has been a teacher more than 40 years. What I'm against is that we are spending incredible amounts of money on it and have not seen much improvement...why? Where's the ROI? Why have the costs of education gone up so much and the results haven't changed much? Here's a good chart using Dept. of Education data. I see two lines jumping off the chart, but not the most important lines....reading, math, science scores. So in this case, who is the "common good"? The students...or those receiving the money? Kind of ironic considering your original question...isn't it!
(http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner_080713_murdock.png)
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/education-spending-increases-while-results-stagnate.html/?a=viewall
Basic healthcare...you're confusing yourself. EVERYONE has access to healthcare...EVERYONE. You're confusing insurance with healthcare. My issue with that is those that had healthcare insurance many now have to pay a lot more now and the quality of the care will go down. Of course, for a single man having to pay for his maternity insurance is also awesome...the "common good" apparently. Racing to the bottom...awesome.
Access to water and electricity...seriously?
So I appreciate the question. I have no problem with public utilities, prisons, schools, etc. I do have a problem with how they are run, the results they often get, and the bloated nature of their organizations....all of which someone has to pay for.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 23, 2014, 10:09:48 AM
Of course.
I never said I was against public education...my kids are in public education. My mom has been a teacher more than 40 years. What I'm against is that we are spending incredible amounts of money on it and have not seen much improvement...why? Where's the ROI? Why have the costs of education gone up so much and the results haven't changed much? Here's a good chart using Dept. of Education data. I see two lines jumping off the chart, but not the most important lines....reading, math, science scores. So in this case, who is the "common good"? The students...or those receiving the money? Kind of ironic considering your original question...isn't it!
(http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner_080713_murdock.png)
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/education-spending-increases-while-results-stagnate.html/?a=viewall
Basic healthcare...you're confusing yourself. EVERYONE has access to healthcare...EVERYONE. You're confusing insurance with healthcare. My issue with that is those that had healthcare insurance many now have to pay a lot more now and the quality of the care will go down. Of course, for a single man having to pay for his maternity insurance is also awesome...the "common good" apparently. Racing to the bottom...awesome.
Access to water and electricity...seriously?
So I appreciate the question. I have no problem with public utilities, prisons, schools, etc. I do have a problem with how they are run, the results they often get, and the bloated nature of their organizations....all of which someone has to pay for.
You are still basing all of your arguments on ROI and efficiencies. My question was should everything be sacrificed on the altar of efficiencies?
A very clear example that fleshes out my question: It's inefficient to have a govt subsidized airport in the middle of Alaska where perhaps only a couple dozen customers fly in and out a month. But it is supported because of a belief that all citizens should have equal access to certain services, regardless of geography.
Do you feel this service, though inefficient, is important to provide? I do.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304315004579381463769362886
this.
i'm not saying government run internet would be better, more effective or more efficient. but you can't say private entities are any or much better. hell taxpayers have given nearly $400 billion to ISPs to set-up infrastructure. what'd they do? built the backbones and pocketed the rest. it's a sad joke all around.
Chicos, I know we go back and forth on this. But here's my issue. You say we need the regional divides or else no company will come in and build infrastructure. Well, why not let the local authorities do that? Then sell line access to whichever companies want to pay. It seems, to me, that these regional divides provide little incentive to the dominant companies to upgrade infrastructure or improve service all that much. Google moving in and the resulting increase in service by the established companies seem to prove that. So, from the consumer end, what's the answer? If there's no (or little) competition, no company is going to be encouraged to improve much. To me, it seems that we should allow the companies to compete against each other in the same market, or allow the local authorities to build the infrastructure and sell out the lines. Does that make sense? (not an expert here, trying to educate myself)
Also, wondering if you can explain "common carrier" status to me. Thanks.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 23, 2014, 10:09:48 AM
Basic healthcare...you're confusing yourself. EVERYONE has access to healthcare...EVERYONE. You're confusing insurance with healthcare. My issue with that is those that had healthcare insurance many now have to pay a lot more now and the quality of the care will go down. Of course, for a single man having to pay for his maternity insurance is also awesome...the "common good" apparently. Racing to the bottom...awesome.
We just learned that effective March 1, due to Obamacare, our employer sponsored plan will have lower premiums for better coverage. It helps that we are an aging workforce and even expect our options to improve further when more 20-somethings enroll vs. paying the fine.
I'm normally against giving the government any more power, but I do view internet access to be functionally and fundamentally no different than roads and highways. This is a classic example of what government is suppose to be doing in providing for the collective good those things they can't provide from themselves individually. Having a "nationalized" internet highway makes more sense than government run health care. As Chico's points out, it's all about the content....great, if we eliminate road building, the content and provider companies can focus on providing service and content in a competitive market place without customers being shut out simply because of geographic location. Look what happened once AT&T Uverse moved into places where TWC was, precipitous change in TWC customer base that will likely force them to alter their business to remain competitive.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 10:47:44 AM
Having a "nationalized" internet highway makes more sense than government run health care.
I really don't want to derail this, but please be more careful of how you characterize our healthcare system. If you were referring to foreign examples of 'government run healthcare' then disregard this, but calling a system of private hospitals providing care that is paid for by private insurance companies 'government run' is a gross error.
You don't have to like the ACA, but you can't label it something that it is antithetical to.
For a labor market that works and just for ethical reasons, I think having insurance that covers pre-existing conditions is necessary. Having insurance tied to jobs with the inability to change jobs, is a drag on the free flow of labor. Limits highest and best use of talent.
No one in their right mind would create an insurance market largely tied to employment like we've had. It makes no sense. Other's don't do it that way for good reason. USA did it because of big labor and unions in the 50's and 60's that are now historical in nature and reach.
Insurance, ideally, follows the individual.
Quote from: akmarq on February 24, 2014, 02:31:17 PM
I really don't want to derail this, but please be more careful of how you characterize our healthcare system. If you were referring to foreign examples of 'government run healthcare' then disregard this, but calling a system of private hospitals providing care that is paid for by private insurance companies 'government run' is a gross error.
You don't have to like the ACA, but you can't label it something that it is antithetical to.
Was not referring to ACA, which is worse than a government run healthcare system. Government run healthcare in the truest form is also a bad idea IMO but not as bad ACA.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 04:03:58 PM
Was not referring to ACA, which is worse than a government run healthcare system. Government run healthcare in the truest form is also a bad idea IMO but not as bad ACA.
Apologies then. I'll leave out your assessment of both systems because we're never going to agree and this isn't the place to argue it.
I just get very sick of seeing people (intentionally?) mislabel programs/institutions in order to fit them into a broader narrative. Again - you've clarified that you weren't trying to do that, but the phrasing you used was ambiguous enough that I read it that way.
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on February 24, 2014, 10:32:20 AM
We just learned that effective March 1, due to Obamacare, our employer sponsored plan will have lower premiums for better coverage. It helps that we are an aging workforce and even expect our options to improve further when more 20-somethings enroll vs. paying the fine.
My wife is a teacher and I'm on her plan (as it's marginally better than my employer). The next three years will be at the same cost as 2012-2013 year. 4 years in a row with no cost increases.
My current employer made out well too. 2014 is the same cost as 2013. No changes. The HR manager said 2014 is the first time in the 17 years she worked here that there has been no increase on the company health insurance.
this is the 1st time in probably 20 years we didn't have a double-digit increase. We've even been dropped because costs exceeded premiums collected (we have an old workforce).