tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN
| reply to baineschile
Re: Regulation
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. |
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| 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. |
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| 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. |
|
tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN
| 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. |
|
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? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| 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? |
|
bakorican
join:2004-02-28
germany | reply to Big Pete 82
said by Big Pete 829 :
However, heavier regulation will do nothing to spur competition. What FACT do you have to supports this allegation?? |
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| The FACT is incumbents love a lot of red tape because it protects their business model. Look at the Cable Cos who fought tooth and nail to keep local video franchises instead of deregulated statewide franchises. AT&T and Verizon basically refused to build their networks in heavily populated New York and California until the local video franchises were abolished. The FACT is heavy regulation keeps new competition out of the marketplace.
The same goes for any other type of business. You can look at the Taxi business and the heavy fees they pay. Yellow basically has a monopoly. Another example is minimum wage laws. Why is it that you never see Walmart complaining about minimum wage laws? First of all, Walmart doesn't have a single employee that is paid minimum wage. 2nd, because Walmart is so big, they can afford to pay their employees a few bucks more every few years. Who does minimum wage affect the most? The mom & pop shop down the street. They either have to raise their prices, layoff employees, or close up shop. They don't have the luxury of competing on price and their margins are already razor thin.
So yes, additional regulation will almost always keep new competitors out of the marketplace. |
|
Big Pete 82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to LightS
said by LightS :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? Being in the most influential nation in the world has nothing to do with how many people have internet.
Your opinion that everybody should have the option to get broadband is just that, an opinion. Not everybody believes that broadband is a right, cause its NOT. Furthermore, everybody does have the option to get broadband, nobody is forcing people to live in areas without broadband. If broadband is so essential to a particular person's way of life, then they need to move to an area that can serve their broadband needs. Its not everyone else's responsibility to provide that person living out in the boonies with broadband. |
|
LightS
join:2005-12-17
Granbury, TX
·EarthLink
| said by Big Pete 82 Being in the most influential nation in the world has nothing to do with how many people have internet.
Your opinion that everybody should have the option to get broadband is just that, an opinion. Not everybody believes that broadband is a right, cause its NOT. Furthermore, everybody does have the option to get broadband, nobody is forcing people to live in areas without broadband. If broadband is so essential to a particular person's way of life, then they need to move to an area that can serve their broadband needs. Its not everyone else's responsibility to provide that person living out in the boonies with broadband.
[/BQUOTE :You miss one of my points -- It's 2009. I personally think that it's unacceptable to not be able to receive some sort of broadband, whether it's via wifi, cable, DSL. (I don't even consider Satelite broadband.) Whether they want it or not, the option should be there. Internet, in my opinion, will eventually be considered a utility. You say that nobody is forcing people to live in areas without broadband, that's completely irrelevant. They can be provided with Electricity, water, telephone, and all the other utilities -- I feel that high speed internet should eventually, be the same way. |
|
