pfsmith
join:2006-11-16
Lafayette, IN | The fix for all of this is simple...
The fix for all of these problems... Net Neutrality, bad pings, download/upload CAPS, one sided SLA's... is VERY simple.
COMPETITION.
The current economic state of most broadband service is that of OLIGOPOLY or even MONOPOLY.
This condition gives the service provider the benefit of UNREASONABLE PRICING POWER. They charge whatever they want because there is NO FEAR of any NEW competition.
This is the same thing we are seeing in the price of gasoline these days (just to point out an example). There are too few refineries, and no one is getting in line to build new ones because of government (over)regulation. The existing players have figured out that they don't have to behave - because they don't fear any new competition. And so they are literally PRINTING MONEY even as their capacity utilization numbers fall.
The whole idea of a local franchise or other government regulations that restricts cable and phone companies needs to be tossed. Competition will force down prices and improve services because YOU will be free to shop for the best deal and the best service. But, right now, most of us are stuck with the one flavor of garbage they're selling.
It really IS that simple. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | said by pfsmith:The whole idea of a local franchise or other government regulations that restricts cable and phone companies needs to be tossed. Competition will force down prices and improve services because YOU will be free to shop for the best deal and the best service. That's BS. Franchise reform will do nothing to make me "free to shop for the best deal and the best service", all it will do it guarantee that millions like me will never get any broadband service, while a small number of cheery-picked "high value" customers get multiple choices. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Agreed. This sector must be regulated because no one wants 1,000 different competing networks criss crossing over ( or under ) their neighborhood. Network owners must be separated from service providers. It's the only way it will really work. But that's never going to happen.. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | quote:
Network owners must be separated from service providers. It's the only way it will really work.
I don't think that really works, either. We have that scenario now with DSL. There are both physical level options (Covad vs. AT&T/Verizon) and ISP level (DSLExtreme vs. AT&T, Earthlink vs. Road Runner).
Overwhelmingly people are just going with their incumbent. The incumbent's only major threat winds up being the other infrastructure provider (cable).
I think we're doing fairly well in terms of having competitive choices of broadband available. Some areas have more than enough options. Cable, DSL, Fixed Wireless, 3G Cellular ... how many more options do we need? What we need is to encourage existing infrastructure providers to build out their networks so there's more people have all these options available to them. Oversaturating the market or forcing providers to share their profits isn't going to accomplish that.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | If there's an incumbent, then it's not separate.. and as you state, it doesn't work, because the incumbent can ALWAYS undercut the 3rd party service provider.
DSL is only competitive for people who live close enough to the CO. If there's not a CO in your town, then it's not competitive. 3G Cellular is not competitive price wise. It's exceedingly expensive, and/or capped. Fixed wireless is less available then, just about everything, and certainly not available for residence. The great disparity in offered HSI underscores the lack of competition throughout the country. |
|
|
|
