baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
| reply to rdmiller
Regulation
Why should the government have to regulate TV and Broadband companies? Neither are a necessity to live (I know there will be arguments about this), but there are tons of people in the USA who dont have a TV or a computer, and do just fine.
If one of these companies step out of line, the consumers will speak with their wallets.
If we do want to classify broadband as a utility, it means it will be government owned, thus saturated and unmoving. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| said by baineschile  :Why should the government have to regulate TV and Broadband companies? because the vomit they propagate ends up forming policy! |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to baineschile
Would you feel shafted by your elected officials if an FTC didn't exist to regulate energy companies?
Don't know about you, but I would feel pretty pissed if the electric went out every day but still paid well above energy market pricing for the utility.
Kinda the same thing with broadband. It's a good thing people no longer pay $300 per month for a 128k ISDN line as the only means to network access. |
|
tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :If we do want to classify broadband as a utility, it means it will be government owned, thus saturated and unmoving. Really? How so? If the companies were more concerned with providing the best service and less focused on the bottom line then there would be no need or desire for the government to step into this mess. |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile : ... If one of these companies step out of line, the consumers will speak with their wallets. ... This only works where there is a choice. Where I live for instance, if I want Internet, I HAVE to get it from Verizon. No other provider has "wired" my area, not even cable!
We are rapidly approaching the point where Internet is a necessity. More and more services are moving online and discontinuing their support of traditional avenues. Many employers are requiring Internet access. My friend, who works for Macys, can only get her work schedule, hours, vacation application, from the employee web site. Internet is becoming a necessity, just like electricity has.
Bob
--
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
|
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to tdouglas22
said by tdouglas22 :said by baineschile :If we do want to classify broadband as a utility, it means it will be government owned, thus saturated and unmoving. Really? How so? If the companies were more concerned with providing the best service and less focused on the bottom line then there would be no need or desire for the government to step into this mess. Why shouldn't a company be focused on the bottom line? If a company isn't generating enough revenue, who in their right mind is going to loan them the money they need to make infrastructure investments? As evidenced by the Charter mess, the banks and stockholders quickly disappear when a company fails to make enough revenue.
Beside that point, there's no question in my mind that we need more competition. However, heavier regulation will do nothing to spur competition. The biggest question is, what can be done to spur competition in the broadband market? |
|
tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN
| It's one thing to focus on the bottom line but when you do it at the cost of your customers then your doing bad business. Anyone who runs a successful business can tell you that if you do something you really want to do and you truly are focused on providing the service to your customer base, you will make LOTS of money.
Maybe they should focus on EXPANDING their networks and reaching out to the rural residents. I know it may seem cliched but if you build it out, they WILL come. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Why should the government have to regulate TV and Broadband companies? Neither are a necessity to live (I know there will be arguments about this), but there are tons of people in the USA who dont have a TV or a computer, and do just fine. If one of these companies step out of line, the consumers will speak with their wallets. Not if you only have ONE choice. |
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to tdouglas22
said by tdouglas22 :Maybe they should focus on EXPANDING their networks and reaching out to the rural residents. I know it may seem cliched but if you build it out, they WILL come. The only way for them to do that is to have a healthy bottom line. Furthermore, maybe they will come, but there typically isn't ENOUGH of them in rural areas to make it worth the investment. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :If one of these companies step out of line, the consumers will speak with their wallets. which is the entire problem with a duopoly. only one real alternative and the motivation to compete on any real issue is absent.
see the problem? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Why should the government have to regulate TV and Broadband companies? Neither are a necessity to live (I know there will be arguments about this), but there are tons of people in the USA who dont have a TV or a computer, and do just fine. If one of these companies step out of line, the consumers will speak with their wallets. If we do want to classify broadband as a utility, it means it will be government owned, thus saturated and unmoving. Again, what if you have only one choice.
Cable companies used to sign franchise agreements to get EXCLUSIVE rights to an area (usually an entire county.) With those rights comes a bit of responsibility.
Now, those agreements are all but gone and the cable companies now sue to keep others from coming in and some local legislators actually help them out. Should this be allowed?
People would vote with their wallets if they had a choice. In the areas where there is a choice, I can tell you people do vote. |
|
tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN
| reply to Big Pete 82
said by Big Pete 82 :said by tdouglas22 :Maybe they should focus on EXPANDING their networks and reaching out to the rural residents. I know it may seem cliched but if you build it out, they WILL come. The only way for them to do that is to have a healthy bottom line. Furthermore, maybe they will come, but there typically isn't ENOUGH of them in rural areas to make it worth the investment. Depends on what method they use to expand. If land lines are not an option they could also look deeper into expanding wireless options. The tech is there but not enough investors to help it mature fast enough. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to Big Pete 82
said by Big Pete 82 :Why shouldn't a company be focused on the bottom line? If a company isn't generating enough revenue, who in their right mind is going to loan them the money they need to make infrastructure investments? As evidenced by the Charter mess, the banks and stockholders quickly disappear when a company fails to make enough revenue. Beside that point, there's no question in my mind that we need more competition. However, heavier regulation will do nothing to spur competition. The biggest question is, what can be done to spur competition in the broadband market? Most other industries a company as heavily leveraged as Charter would have gone bust way before now, only the industry they are in that kept them out of Chapter 11 for this long. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to baineschile
And when consumers vote to allow their municipality, the imcumbent providers sue, and lobby to stop it. Greedy companies are stepping out of line, and customers are reacting to it. Why are you complaining when customers are doing EXACTLY what you are purporting that they will do?!?!
cw |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to Big Pete 82
Right... because right after the 1996 act was put in place and the incumbents began dismantling it with the help of the FCC's incompetence (which gave them all this freedom - lack of regulation) the competitions has just flourished hasn't it?
Now there are a whole lot less ISP's and even though the cost to deliver broadband has gone down, prices have continued to rise. In addition, at best a vast majority of the people have MAYBE 2 choices (DSL or Cable) if any at all. You may call that competition, I and most people will call that pathetic.
I would highly recommend the report: Dismantling Digital Deregulation |
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by Skippy25 :Right... because right after the 1996 act was put in place and the incumbents began dismantling it with the help of the FCC's incompetence (which gave them all this freedom - lack of regulation) the competitions has just flourished hasn't it? Now there are a whole lot less ISP's and even though the cost to deliver broadband has gone down, prices have continued to rise. In addition, at best a vast majority of the people have MAYBE 2 choices (DSL or Cable) if any at all. You may call that competition, I and most people will call that pathetic. I would highly recommend the report: Dismantling Digital Deregulation Competition didn't flourish before the 1996 act either. Get your head out of the sand. I've already stated that we need more competition, where did I say that we currently have enough competition? The question remains, how do we encourage additional competition to enter the marketplace? |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Why should the government have to regulate TV and Broadband companies? Neither are a necessity to live (I know there will be arguments about this), but there are tons of people in the USA who dont have a TV or a computer, and do just fine. If one of these companies step out of line, the consumers will speak with their wallets. If we do want to classify broadband as a utility, it means it will be government owned, thus saturated and unmoving. Probably the same reason why fuel should be REregulated.. You see where unregulating that in 2000 ( guess who came in that year ). Broadband has become a way of life for many and it continues today.. You might not see it for your own reasons, but the use and need for it is there.. To bad the duo's usually are the main providers, while third party providers are given uphill legal battles at the start just to establish, which is a shame.. It really does look bad on the greatest country in the world, when its technology is soo poorly deployed and over priced that we rank anywhere past position 5 on quality of broadband global wide.... You may not care, but alot of us do..
The flintstone age is gone, the days of the entire family gathering around a mono radio to listen to a cowboy's and indian storys are gone.. Time is now for faster and more wide spread and usuable data options.. You can stay in the shed on the hill grumbling about the past..
Thats okay, remember the past, for if you don't your doomed to repeat it. But just remember to live in the now, for you are already missing it. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to Big Pete 82
On the current system: You regulate it. You require line sharing on ALL transports and you cap what they can charge to lease that. That is in addition to officially making them the dumbpipes they are and need to be. No serving content if you want to be the transport and no being the transport if you want to serve content.
Personally, I would like them to build 1 nationwide network that ANY service provider that wants to lease the line to any customer to sell them any service they want to buy. |
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by Skippy25 :On the current system: You regulate it. You require line sharing on ALL transports and you cap what they can charge to lease that. That is in addition to officially making them the dumbpipes they are and need to be. No serving content if you want to be the transport and no being the transport if you want to serve content. Personally, I would like them to build 1 nationwide network that ANY service provider that wants to lease the line to any customer to sell them any service they want to buy. So basically you are saying if a company built a network, they can ONLY be an ISP? They can't be an ISP AND a video provider? In the case of Verizon, they build a huge fiber optic network, but they can't pay for it by selling video? That is complete nonsense.
A nationwide network is even worse. You are basically suggesting that the gov't build a network and then lease it out to whoever wants to use it. I can just see it now. First, they will debate for years what kind of technology to build the network and by the time they get around to building it (with expensive union labor and plenty of cost overruns) years later, the technology will be 15 years obsolete. They will start leasing capacity on it at below true market value prices (to be sure that people actually use it, and because no one in rural Timbuktu should have pay the real cost of running that network to their door). Since prices are below market value, everyone and their brother will be online downloading torrents and watching Netflix. Subscriber fees will do little to defray the true cost of providing this bandwidth and its maintenance and you can forget about upgrades. At that point they will either be forced to raise prices or ration bandwidth.
But hey, at least EVERYBODY has internet access, right? |
|
LightS
join:2005-12-17
Granbury, TX
·EarthLink
| At least EVERYBODY has internet access, right?
You're missing something. We live in, my opinion, the most influential nation in the world. I don't want to get into any debates about that, so I'll move forward --
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO GET BROADBAND INTERNET. There should be no question as to that, it should be a national effort to be able to provide any customer who has a desire to purchase broadband. Why should only major cities, such as NYC & Chicago get the massive upgrades & line capacity that they're enabled too? Why are they bothering to upgrade that, when they could be spending that same amount of $$ on spreading internet to places that are being dominated by either a monopoly or duopoly.
I'm not saying progress shouldn't be made, but what good is progress if not everybody can enjoy it? |
|
