Not yet, they're still in training. Have to work your way up from the speed traps and voter polling place harassment.
On Oct 31, 2016 9:07 PM, "Jaime Solorza" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'll reply only because I'm bored. >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 5:15 PM <[email protected]> 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 >>> >>
