how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
479 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
1 edit | a problem of the current system This is the problem you get when an ISP is also the owner of the network.
If the last-mile networks were owned by a separate company, and other services (ISP, television, offsite backup, possibly VoIP on a local level) paid the network owner the use their network, then this would be a moot point, and we'd be seeing more competetition methinks.
This is the idea behind UTOPIA (www.utopianet.org) and I think it's a very sound one. They call it the "airport" model. The local government builds the airport, then rents out its use to the airlines. Obviously if the airport was built by Delta, then other airlines would be at a disadvantage in some form or another... this is what we're running into here.
While I haven't spent much time contemplating the consequences I almost think I'd favor legislation that would forbid network owners from also being the ISP... I'm sure there are probably some serious problems with that idea though. | |
| Since Google is worth more than BS and AT&T combined maybe they should just buy them and end all this madness.:D | |
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | reply to bchoate8
said by bchoate8:This is the problem you get when an ISP is also the owner of the network. If the last-mile networks were owned by a separate company, and other services (ISP, television, offsite backup, possibly VoIP on a local level) paid the network owner the use their network I agree that the real answer to this whole mess is to separate last-mile connections from EVERYTHING else (i.e., "structural separation") -- as long as the Bells and MSOs have a stranglehold on the last mile, they will continue to impede competition and behave like a monopoly with their schemes to kill indie ISPs and VoIP providers, fight munis, charge at both ends of the pipe, and so on.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | | |
|
 MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | if I were one of there customers you bet your behind I would leave them the instant this passes. And tell them why! | |
| reply to loadmaster
i think you should look again....
sbc total revenue for 2004=$40.8B
Google total revenue for 2004=$3.2B
Sbc net profit 2004=$5.9B
Google net profit 2004=$399.1M
man SBC just bought ATT for $16B that alone is 5 times google gross income for a year. | |
| reply to roamer1
Wow, I don't know even know where to begin. Let's walk this through anyway, just for sport. Say we did have this model. The network is now separated from the content delivery (web sites, p2p, iptv, etc). The US government or, what would be more likely, each locality of sufficient size would build a network. Then, they would wholesale that network to ISP's who would overlay their own services on top.
I guess you could say that because this is a municipal discussion at its root, prices would be cheap, because the voters would want it that way.
However, let's consider the negatives. The taxpayers are in the hole for however many years it takes for the municipality to recover the initial investment. There can't be any meaningful differentation between providers, if there is a base that each provider has to use, so the only competition point is price, which will already be as cheap as possible anyway. So the company choosing to deliver service will be making the absolute smallest margins they can avoid bankruptcy with. Not a great business model.
Next, when a part of the network has a problem, who are they going to call to fix it? The municipality has a monopoly, and have no impetus to hurry (aside from taxpayer outcry). Moreover, when it comes time to upgrade, is the municipality going to hurry to upgrade? Of course not.
It's just a stupid idea. Some people think that this is like the airport model, where you have a non-airline owner running an airport, from whom Delta or United lease space. The reason that they do that isn't because Delta or United can't run an airport, but that the government has to EXTREMELY regulate the airport and each airline for safety and security reasons. A company can be sanctioned without affecting the economic health of an entire region, for example, JetBlue being fined for not meeting safety regulations on some of their aircraft. However, if JetBlue airport, which feeds Orlando, FL, is shut down because they don't want to install new security systems, then Orlando, FL has a serious problem.
In the ISP case, there is no need for that kind of regulation. If I don't like DSL, I can switch to cable. If I don't like either, I'll find (or start) a WISP. If that doesn't work, I can switch to Satellite. You get the point.
The final negative is that let's face it, most localities can't afford to build out a $10,000,000+ network. So if this is a common model, most of the US is now back to dialup. It just doesn't work.
~Jason
»www.broadbandissues.com | |
| said by jasonepowell:However, let's consider the negatives. The taxpayers are in the hole for however many years it takes for the municipality to recover the initial investment. There can't be any meaningful differentation between providers, if there is a base that each provider has to use, so the only competition point is price, which will already be as cheap as possible anyway. So the company choosing to deliver service will be making the absolute smallest margins they can avoid bankruptcy with. Not a great business model. ~Jason » www.broadbandissues.com Earthlink has been using that model successfully for years. Also, Earthlink thinks they can make a profit with Muni broadband.
said by jasonepowell:Next, when a part of the network has a problem, who are they going to call to fix it? The municipality has a monopoly, and have no impetus to hurry (aside from taxpayer outcry). Moreover, when it comes time to upgrade, is the municipality going to hurry to upgrade? Of course not. The municipality will have an agreement with the lease holder on repairs and upgrades. There is not unusual about such agreements. Every local government have hundreds of such agreements. For example, road repair and construction. Another example water/sewage maintenance. Also, Verizon et al don't upgrade often. There are still people in Verizon areas that have crappy pots and dsl service. Not to mention some of their customers can't get dsl at all, and this is true for all Bells. Local governments have a lot of experience running large and complex projects. Muni broadband will be no different from the utilities, transportation and services that local governments run or oversee. Will it be perfect, no. But, it will be no worse than what Verizon or SBC give us. Sometimes government has to step in when the market is not efficient, and muni broadband is a way to make the broadband market more efficient by creating competition. | |
risha1
join:2004-08-16
Wichita, KS | What can we do? It's simple. Speak with your checkbook. Though the market is small, there are options. Read the TOS and select the provider that provides the best service.
Restricting and limiting access to the web and internet services we, the consumers, desire is short-sighted and arrogant. The market will dictate to these companies what the right thing is. When they see their subscriber counts decline dramtically, they will rethink the strategy.
It is all about the revenue, so hit 'em where it hurts. | |
1 edit | reply to jasonepowell
Re: a problem of the current system My comment wasn't meant to imply that wholesale network providers had to be municipal... it just happens that the utopia network is.
No monopoly is good, in my opinion, even if it's a government run monopoly. Along those lines though, I have spoken directly to those in charge of the utopia project and examined their ideas and plans and in my opinion, the plan is quite sound, and the people involved sincere and dedicated. I think it will be quite successful and beneficial, and so far it has given indication that it will be. | |
| Doesn't the Utopia project only have one or two providers using it as of yet? I think the success of the project is still up in the air. I'm watching pretty closely though, as it is a very interesting project.
In the end, I believe that individual consumers hold the power. If they don't like their providers, they will clamor for alternatives, and new providers will answer that call, so long as they are able. I don't see how an "independent" network solves any problems. I agree that it could be a success in some cases, particularly with regards to new developments in more affluent areas, but generally I think that at best, you hit the level that you are already at, and at worst, the taxpayers (or independent network builder, whatever) are stuck with a network that is obsolete in 5 years with no ability to upgrade. | |
| reply to compton
said by compton:Muni broadband will be no different from the utilities, transportation and services that local governments run or oversee. Will it be perfect, no. But, it will be no worse than what Verizon or SBC give us. If "no worse" is the best we can do, why bother? What problems are we solving? | |
| reply to jasonepowell
I just took a peek at the utopia site. Currently 4 providers offer service: AT&T (8 and 15 megabit symmetrical, $35 and $40/mo), MSTAR (10 megabit symmetrical - $40/mo), Veracity (10 megabit symmetrical), and Xmission (15 megabit symmetrical for home $44, 30 megabit symmetrical for business $109).
If that's not an improvement I'm not sure what is.  I'd kill for those speeds... and at those prices... sigh. | |
 Dominokat"Hi"Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2 | $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ There goes the internet as we all know it.
It figures that greed would f' it up.
Way to go people.
--
"There is no element of genius without some form of madness." | |
|
