Chicken and Dumplings meet All You can Eat Broadband

It was a great weekend for food. The weather has been far from normal, very little sun and a little cooler than usual. Since it looked as though it would rain, we decided to check out the new Star Trek movie. It was awesome! And, since we were going to be hungry when we returned, it seemed the perfect day to make chicken and dumplings. It was very good but I wasn't certain that it would be the recipe of the weekend. I was considering making a crawfish frittata and had two New York strip steaks thawing in the refrigerator. I had no plans for the steaks yet. Anyway, after much thought I decided to pass on the frittata (we decided on a lighter breakfast) and I fixed a dish I had in Argentina with the steaks. I don't know the name but they pound sliced beef and stuff it with ham and cheese. Next, it is breaded and fried. I served this with a marinara sauce and pasta. After dinner, we agreed both dishes should make the blog. However, I usually provide one per week so today's dish is Chicken and Dumplings. Enjoy!

All You can Eat Broadband

In a discussion with others from Broadvox, I found I was the lone voice for keeping the status quo with regard to bandwidth pricing for consumers. My view is that the cable companies have spread the cost of building out their networks across a community of users and a fixed price for bandwidth should continue. The other argument given is that the use of bandwidth is growing rapidly and the cost of maintaining the IP infrastructure is increasing as well. If a user is going to use a magnitude more bandwidth than the average subscriber does, than they should pay more. What other commodity out there is available at a fixed price regardless of usage?

I admit I do not have a strong argument for maintaining the current pricing model. My argument is more of a "good for society" position. Until broadband availability is ubiquitous, we should continue to subsidize its infrastructure expansion and usage. When the cable companies first entered the markets, various cities and counties gave them special consideration (tax breaks, competitive advantages). It seems to me that they have an obligation to provide services at reasonable prices as a result.

The counterargument is that the pricing is not out of line and the cable companies have to position their networks for the future delivery of on demand video and applications that required more bandwidth. How do we expect these companies to continue to make investments in their markets if they cannot make a profit? Profitability is the key issue. Are the cable companies profitable? Are they making a reasonable profit (neither too little nor too much)? We get to ask reasonable only because they were given special consideration in order to enter markets. I do not support moratoriums, mandates or heavy government regulation. I do believe in quid pro quo. If they do not want to have an obligation to the community, don't ask for special considerations. Are we done with this?

See you on Wednesday...