MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Wednesday, October 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 69.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:30 pm

Many of those phone prices only started to go down when cell phones came out. That had nothing to do with competition, but with technology.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby rabble » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:41 pm

Okay, I guess that answers my question. Ned's probably doing a good job of mimicking the current state administration. They don't think it's a football team with some academics leeching it. They think it's a football team surrounded by nests of waste, and that waste might as well go into their friend's pockets as those damned elitist lazy union thug pockets.

The motivation is money. in their eyes, we got it and they want it. Everything else is an excuse. Quality, dependability, and usefulness do not even show up on the radar.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:06 pm

Stebben84 wrote:That had nothing to do with competition, but with technology.
And surely those two factors have nothing to do with each other. :roll:
snoqueen wrote:
...competition never hurt anyone.

Competition has its place, but there's a reason the US has slower internet and more screwed-up, backward cell service than a lot of the industrialized world.

Wrong and wrong.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby rrnate » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:13 pm

rabble wrote:Ned's probably doing a good job of mimicking the current state administration.


Counterpoint: Ned is full of shit and hasn't even given this the thought our current state administration probably has.
rrnate
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 6:33 pm
Location: Madison's Corporate Underbelly

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby rabble » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:21 pm

rrnate wrote:
rabble wrote:Ned's probably doing a good job of mimicking the current state administration.


Counterpoint: Ned is full of shit and hasn't even given this the thought our current state administration probably has.

Okay I have to admit that hypothesis has a statistically significant probability.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:27 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
Stebben84 wrote:That had nothing to do with competition, but with technology.
And surely those two factors have nothing to do with each other. :roll:
snoqueen wrote:
...competition never hurt anyone.

Competition has its place, but there's a reason the US has slower internet and more screwed-up, backward cell service than a lot of the industrialized world.

Wrong and wrong.


Because I so totally trust what the carriers have to say:

Yet both firms say the same policies they support in the UK would be a mistake here in the U.S. (You can see my questions to the firms here and here. AT&T's response is here, while Verizon's is here.)

Verizon told me in its written statement that it flat-out opposes the kind of local-loop unbundling that's reduced prices and increased speeds in Britain "for competitive reasons". Those regulations are "bad public policy and bad news for consumers", Verizon says, which "only benefit a few big phone companies, and those companies do not pass their savings on to consumers." Verizon also claims that "those competitors do not invest in their own networks".


Because competition in the cell market has lowered my costs, right? When I look at my current carrier, US Cellular, and check out the phone plans, what I currently have is now $20 more than I pay because I'm basically grandfathered in. If competition really drives the price down, how do you explain this...

Oh yea, blame the government I guess.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby Detritus » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:29 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
Stebben84 wrote:That had nothing to do with competition, but with technology.
And surely those two factors have nothing to do with each other. :roll:
snoqueen wrote:
...competition never hurt anyone.

Competition has its place, but there's a reason the US has slower internet and more screwed-up, backward cell service than a lot of the industrialized world.

Wrong and wrong.

So, then, your solution is to put an end to the competition posed by Wiscnet, thereby doing exactly what both articles argue is doomed to failure.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:25 pm

Detritus wrote:So, then, your solution is to put an end to the competition posed by Wiscnet, thereby doing exactly what both articles argue is doomed to failure.
No. I don't have any problem with Wiscnet continuing to exist, as long as institutions are not forced to use it. If they provide better service at a lower price (or even better service at a higher price that is worth the extra cost), good for them.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby Shorty » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:33 pm

Ned Flanders wrote: I've had family members work at the UW and the report is that there are nests of waste, corruption and slack in many places.

The biggest wastes I've seen at UW have been management decisions such as their first failed attempt at a new HR & Payroll system. They gave something like $30 million or more to Lawson contractors and then canceled the project after they realized it wasn't going to work. I believe the State DOA and DOT have had similar software failures that wasted many millions of tax-payer dollars.
Shorty
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:53 pm

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby lukpac » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:37 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:competition never hurt anyone.


So...preventing public entities from using Wiscnet is bad how, exactly? Isn't eliminating an option reducing competition?
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby bdog » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:02 pm

lukpac wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:competition never hurt anyone.


So...preventing public entities from using Wiscnet is bad how, exactly? Isn't eliminating an option reducing competition?

How is it preventing? Sounds like the UW entities are choosing.

The linked article does not provide enough info to determine why they are making that choice.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:04 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Yet both firms say the same policies they support in the UK would be a mistake here in the U.S. (You can see my questions to the firms here and here. AT&T's response is here, while Verizon's is here.)

Verizon told me in its written statement that it flat-out opposes the kind of local-loop unbundling that's reduced prices and increased speeds in Britain "for competitive reasons". Those regulations are "bad public policy and bad news for consumers", Verizon says, which "only benefit a few big phone companies, and those companies do not pass their savings on to consumers." Verizon also claims that "those competitors do not invest in their own networks".


Because competition in the cell market has lowered my costs, right? When I look at my current carrier, US Cellular, and check out the phone plans, what I currently have is now $20 more than I pay because I'm basically grandfathered in. If competition really drives the price down, how do you explain this...

Oh yea, blame the government I guess.
You realize that the section you quoted supports my argument, right? Competition has lowered costs in Europe. Verizon claims that it won't be as beneficial in the US for reducing prices. If you don't trust Verizon (and you shouldn't), then you should conclude that they are afraid of competition because it will cause them to lose profits.

Also, the entire article was about broadband internet, not mobile phone service, so read more carefully next time.

Before some of the more perceptive forons jump on me for the apparent inconsistency of a libertarian asking for the government to force the owners of telecom infrastructure to allow competition on their privately-owned networks, please consider that telecom is a tangled mess of laws and regulations already. I consider forced competition for service providers to be a second-best solution to a problem brought on by misplaced regulations in the first place. In a perfect world, government would have no role in the telecom industry at all.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby lukpac » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:05 pm

bdog wrote:How is it preventing? Sounds like the UW entities are choosing.

The linked article does not provide enough info to determine why they are making that choice.


Come again? It sounds like the choice is being eliminated:

"Lawmakers passed a law last year that restricted the UW System's involvement in telecommunications services."
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby Mad Howler » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:35 pm

Best we all pay attention. You know those boxes on some of our properties that ya just have no recourse over owing to state legislative action? Well this is all more of all the same pay to play brought to you by the american legislative exchange council, AT&T, and a very large chunk of our grand old "party". I can get behind the innovation of community broadband, I cannot get behind those that "innovate" to take this option away.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/0 ... ?mobile=nc

This has been going on too long. It is time to keep a watchful eye on "politicians" who dress these and other projects us as their ideas.

p.s.- To be fair I also think the Clinton telecom thing factors in as well. It pays to pay attention as it has been a safe assumption expect a pay out over us not sustaining our attention.
Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: UW losing Wiscnet for internet

Postby Detritus » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:54 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
Detritus wrote:So, then, your solution is to put an end to the competition posed by Wiscnet, thereby doing exactly what both articles argue is doomed to failure.
No. I don't have any problem with Wiscnet continuing to exist, as long as institutions are not forced to use it. If they provide better service at a lower price (or even better service at a higher price that is worth the extra cost), good for them.

Wiscnet does provide better service at a lower cost, and institutions are not forced to use it. It is a cooperative service that the Republicans are now forcing institutions to give up, and then demanding to know how those institutions are going to pay for the higher-priced, private services. It's all in the article.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar