On Nov 17, 2007, at 09:06, Jerry Feldman wrote:
This would not work. First, most of the highway contracts are bid out.
Around here it's state or local government.
Secondly, by localizing highways, you will get some really great roads
connected to some really awful roads.
If the state is
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in the below are the personal opinions of the
author, and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of GNHLUG, or
any other person or organization.
Okay, telecom is a tech industry, and could vaguely be connected to
the interests of this list.
Discussing
On Nov 19, 2007, at 13:03, Ben Scott wrote:
Discussing the finer points of trash pickup policy is, I think,
getting a bit far afield.
I thought we were talking philosophy of municipally-owned fiber
networks by proxy, when Jerry brought up tax-deducting your home
Internet connectivity!
Oh, well, that's something else. That does not mean Vitts was
regulated differently. That just means that only a certain population
cared when Vitts folded, and that population wasn't big enough to do
anything drastic about it. It would appear the regulations are the
same. No?
No, the
I'm going to start out by stating explicitly: I'm not against the
Verizon/FairPoint sale. I'm not exactly in favor of it, either. Most
of all, I'd like unbiased, accurate, complete information about it.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get that. Given what
I know, if it were up
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:46:53 -0500
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Government (as local as possible) would contract out maintenance of
the roads to the most competitive business. Market forces would
drive down the cost and improve the quality. Ideally, in the case of
State
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 04:46:53PM -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:13, Ed lawson wrote:
Regarding telcos, the one thing I seldom see discussed is the fact
years ago they got a huge tax break premised on the promise to
create a
plant providing broadband that was as
On Nov 15, 2007 6:37 PM, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vitts wasn't regulated the same way telcos are.
Why not? Vitts was a telco, a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier,
per the NH PUC [1]. They operated equipment in the COs and provided
services over the same copper plant the ILEC
On Nov 13, 2007 2:17 PM, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007 7:41 PM, Jim Eden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am an IBEW employed tech in NH.
By the way, Sir, I wanted to thank you for taking the time, and
having the courage, to voice your opinion and POV on this, in what was
We have a POTS line (courtesy of Verizon) and three cells here in
Montpelier, VT, and sometimes on our 7-acre farm we lose the cell
connections, let alone driving north of here into the NEK where cell
coverage is pretty much non-existent, ditto for the ride down I-89 between
Royalton and Bellows
On Nov 15, 2007 3:17 PM, Star [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wireless is not nearly as all-encompassing as we think... I live in
Nashua and yeah, great coverage... I head out to my buddies house in
Allenstown and on my Verizon phone can't seem to find signal and
eventually kills itself looking...
On Nov 15, 2007 2:38 PM, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 2:30 PM, Michael Costolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find myself asking why anyone cares if they want to leave since they
refuse to do business with so many of us.
That's my thinking, too.
My only concern is,
Couldn't some combination of wireless and VOIP make POTS
redundant/unnecessary? Doesn't it already?
Not even a little bit. Drive north of Concord NH and it starts to
fall out in waves.
I noticed Verizon doesn't want to ditch its wireless service (a separate
company). I'm assuming that
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 14:30 -0500, Michael Costolo wrote:
I find myself asking why anyone cares if they want to leave since they
refuse to do business with so many of us.
I think a major concern is that FairPoint may be paying so much for the
franchise that debt service payments will prevent
If the keepers of the POTS up and vanished... wow. What chaos, what
opportunity would ensue!
People would still want (or think they need) their telephone
service, but there would be no shiny-logo company to take their money.
These would seem to be the perfect conditions for small-time
On Nov 15, 2007 4:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only imagine bands of Amateur Telephone Operators roaming the
streets, rewiring at will.
You can't attach your own lines to public utility poles without a
permit. I know a business that tried that, just to cross the street
to their
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:00:48 -0500
From: Michael Costolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just wonder, if POTS went away tomorrow, what would that mean in terms of
its effect on residents and commercial businesses? I think it wouldn't
affect me all that much because I have VOIP and cell phones. But
On Nov 15, 2007 4:02 PM, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got it? :-)
-- Ben
I do now. Dang. Thanks.
-Mike-
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
On Nov 15, 2007, at 14:38, Ben Scott wrote:
My only concern is, what if FairPoint does turn into another Vitts?
Financial meltdown could well disrupt POTS (Plain Old Telephone
Service) across the region, too. That would be worse.
Vitts wasn't regulated the same way telcos are. e.g.:
On Nov 15, 2007, at 15:00, Michael Costolo wrote:
I'm assuming that Comcast serves the whole state and that their
VOIP services are available everywhere, but that could be a bad
assumption.
This has been made intentionally hard to measure, by using ZIP coding
to decorate coverage maps.
On Nov 12, 2007, at 18:51, Ben Scott wrote:
Yah. SPECULATION I suspect they're mostly concerned about their
jobs, and I don't blame them. Verizon is a nice company to work
*for*, by most accounts. They can afford to do that, since they don't
have to care much about being competitive. I
On Nov 12, 2007 7:41 PM, Jim Eden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am an IBEW employed tech in NH.
By the way, Sir, I wanted to thank you for taking the time, and
having the courage, to voice your opinion and POV on this, in what was
likely to be a somewhat hostile forum. If you have anything more
On Nov 12, 2007 3:43 PM, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, the unions are trying to ensure that the status quo is
maintained ...
Yah. SPECULATION I suspect they're mostly concerned about their
jobs, and I don't blame them. Verizon is a nice company to work
*for*, by
My two cents.
I am an IBEW employed tech in NH. From a consumer point of view this
deal is just plain bad. Don't take my word for it go to
http://puc.nh.gov/Telecom/VerizonSaleToFairpoint.htm and read the
testimonies from David Brevitz and Susan M. Baldwin from the Office of
the Consumer
On Nov 12, 2007 7:41 PM, Jim Eden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
go to http://puc.nh.gov/Telecom/VerizonSaleToFairpoint.htm and read the
testimonies from David Brevitz and Susan M. Baldwin from the Office of
the Consumer Advocate.
Good link. Unfortunately, most of the potentially useful
25 matches
Mail list logo
