me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| Oh come on!
"how competitive, robust and super-awesome the U.S broadband market is."
In some big cities MAYBE, but for the most part NO. More lies from big ISPs who want less consumer protection to get more money from us.
If it is so competitive out there why are MANY places in the US only able to Satellite or dial-up? And why did they sell a some of areas to Fairpoint and Frontier? |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Competitve and robust...
it would be that way if VZ didn't cherrypick. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  When did Verizon start passing laws??
»Verizon Continues Proud History Of Denial
They've been selling under-served rural markets, while passing franchise reform laws that lets them ignore wide swaths of under-served America for the foreseeable future. 1st - Unless the laws of the US have changed, Verizon has not passed any laws that I am aware of. They may have lobbied for some changes to franchise regulations in some states, but that is about it.
2nd - The changes in the franchise laws were an improvement to the current situation where every little whistle stop township could hold up progress with franchise demands bearing no relationship to actually providing and regulating TV service. Competition actually increases in those states where state franchise regulations replaced local regulations.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
NeoandGeo
join:2003-05-10
Harrison, TN | .
I continue to patiently wait for about 5 years from now when prices are likely to dramatically change for the better once penetration and competition begins to actually exist. Right now it's pathetic. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: When did Verizon start passing laws??
LaimJunket I can agree with your 2nd premise
But your first is total bullsh*t. Oh no Verizon doesn't pass any law, no they just lobby, wine, and dine, contribute to war-chests, use the Courts, strong arm, and whatever else they have to do to get what they want. I come from a state, Wyoming, that has always been screwed over by Telco's . The only reason why Cheyenne has the DSL service it does is because of the telecomm infrastructure that has installed over the years because of all of the H bombs, missiles, command and control and comm lines to what is now the Air Force Space Command. Having said that Qwest screws us over in service, and services. I live 44 mile north of Ft Collins and I see what they are offered, stuff I can't get here. Don't try to feed us a line about passing laws, they get what they want one way or another.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to Eat Me
Re: Competitve and robust...
Why would a company want to invest in a city that doesnt have as much potential earning as another city? If broadband is that important to a consumer, they should move to a metro area, not a rural one. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: When did Verizon start passing laws??
said by TKJunkMail  :» Verizon Continues Proud History Of DenialThey've been selling under-served rural markets, while passing franchise reform laws that lets them ignore wide swaths of under-served America for the foreseeable future. 1st - Unless the laws of the US have changed, Verizon has not passed any laws that I am aware of. They may have lobbied for some changes to franchise regulations in some states, but that is about it. You are right, that is misleading. Is should have stated they BOUGHT laws to prevent local people from bypassing corporate greed and enacting municipal systems and to bypass local oversight.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Competitive? Sure, a little
But certainly Verizon was no help in that. They've done nothing but try to interfere with comeptition including succeeding in getting their fiber exempted from line sharing despite them using public rights of way and not allowing people to go back to copper without a fight.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: When did Verizon start passing laws??
 You are correct big business AKA Verizon does not write laws they simply pay off lawmakers through campaign contributions and other perks so that the lawmakers will write laws in their favor. In some cases corporations write the law for the lawmaker so the lawmaker does not have to waste their time thinking. In fact some rubber stamp lawmakers, claim ignorance when questioned about a law they are proposing because they were to lazy to read the law before presenting it. Unfortunately consumers do not have deep enough pockets to lobby (pay off) lawmakers. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | reply to TKJunkMail
That is like saying the US wasn't fighting the Soviets in Afganistan. The whores in Washinton are mere proxies for corporate interests.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
BBBanditRuR
join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
1 edit | Re: Denial
If by competition they mean choosing between dial-up or themselves (any telco with monopoly), then yeah, I am in a highly competitive market.
BTW, I consider Satellite in the same category as 56kbps, but with that extra helping of ETF/TOS sauce. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to Eat Me
Re: Competitve and robust...
Where's the cherry picking data? I'm preparing to move into a neighborhood in northern VA that's relatively affluent and I won't have access to FiOS or Verizon DSL. I could have purchased a house in a lesser neighborhood that was cabled with FiOS. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to baineschile
And why would a company try to prevent a rural town from building their own infrastructure if that company has no interest in providing service for said town?
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| This may be even more sinister than it appears
Why are they misleading about competition? Is it only to continue monopolizing some areas?
In light of yesterday's article, I suspect the pretence of competition will become a pretext for arguments against network neutrality. If there were competition, then theoretically citizens might be able to find a provider that respected neutrality, and ISPs could cite this theoretical possibility in arguments against regulations.
When reading the writeup on yesterday's emissions from these weasels, I interpreted Tauke's remarks as suggesting a censored service option for extra-protective parents and non-technical users concerned about malware and phishing - and an unfiltered option for those who want to be free from interference from the ISP (network neutrality). But I thought he meant that these options would be from the same ISP. That way, if there's a monopoly or duopoly in an area, the neutrality option would remain available.
But in context of the original article, I now think the implication was that in Tauke's preferred world, each ISP would be free to make all its offerings censored/ filtered. Then anyone who wanted raw internet would have to look to the supposed competition. But when sufficient competition exists only in corporate propaganda, a neutral option probably would not exist in most places.
Re-read the quotation in light of this interpretation, and smell the evil.
options that would allow consumers to block data — including parents who want to control what pops up on home computers and people worried about identity theft, he added. . ."Our view is, in the future, consumers ought to have the ability to choose between the wild, wild West of the Internet or to choose a different experience," Tauke said. “All of that potentially would be viewed as discrimination if we’re offering different kinds of services. We think it’s part of consumer choice." |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to IT Guy
Re: Competitve and robust...
Because allowing municipalities to start their own businesses using taxpayer money establishes precedence that no for profit company wants to allow. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| That was more of a rhetorical question... My point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too (unless you control the market and have the money to lobby those making the rules, of coarse). LOL
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck |
|
u475700
Premium
join:2004-02-16 | Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf
Verizon should retain Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the former Iraqi Information Minister, who is famous for his almost comical attempts at disinformation and propaganda. |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| reply to openbox9
Re: Competitve and robust...
said by openbox9 :Because allowing municipalities to start their own businesses using taxpayer money establishes precedence that no for profit company wants to allow. So? If a company isn't willing to step up to the plate and provide reasonable broadband speeds and prices, then they should have no recourse to stop someone else from doing it. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to openbox9
Not taxpayer money, bonds. It's not city-subsidized, though you're right that there's no profit motive by the city and that scares for-profit companies. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to openbox9
Verizon only picks cheries on the east side of the tree  |
|
