Topic 'Re: Regulation' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377604 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:12:13 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:12:13 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22384951 said by lakerfan82 See ProfileBeing 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22384951 Wed, 13 May 2009 19:01:01 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22383109
I tried really hard to use the internet at 128k. Disabling all images (not just ads), scripts, and flash, just to make it almost tolerable.

I eventually caved in and have a $407.18 per month T1 line. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22383109 Wed, 13 May 2009 13:53:23 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22382146 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22382146 Wed, 13 May 2009 10:57:43 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22382127
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22382127 Wed, 13 May 2009 10:53:44 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381902 said by baineschile:

Why should the government have to regulate TV and Broadband companies?Several reasons: Lack of sufficient competition, use of public airwaves etc, preventing interference or incompatibility, etc
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381902 Wed, 13 May 2009 10:14:51 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381697 said by elray:

When California was being squeezed by a few companies in Texas back in 2001, the Federal Regulators did nothing. Back in the 90s in NYC when people felt anally raped by the incumbent energy provider, Consolidated Edison, some brilliant mind introduced ESCOs that in essence played middle man between your meter and the local grid. Lower kilowatt rate meant energy savings, right? Except there's still that pesky delivery and transport portion of that bill, and guess who still charges that? You got it, ConEd.

So in essence the FTC once again failed, yes.

With broadband I think demand and increasing number of network providers pressured prices down. FTC was successful in forcing the incumbents to stop sabotaging the competition, but didn't force a pricing model that wouldn't price them out of business. So yea, again FTC failed.

In the end, we all drop our shorts and take it. We can't live without broadband, right?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381697 Wed, 13 May 2009 09:37:34 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381068 said by Big Pete 829 :

However, heavier regulation will do nothing to spur competition. What FACT do you have to supports this allegation??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381068 Wed, 13 May 2009 03:44:57 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381009 said by Network Guy:

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.
Hmm.

When California was being squeezed by a few companies in Texas back in 2001, the Federal Regulators did nothing.

Your $300 128K ISDN service was regulated too.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22381009 Wed, 13 May 2009 02:38:53 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22380919
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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22380919 Wed, 13 May 2009 01:39:16 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22379111 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22379111 Tue, 12 May 2009 18:25:29 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378951
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378951 Tue, 12 May 2009 18:00:31 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378821 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378821 Tue, 12 May 2009 17:33:17 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378753 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378753 Tue, 12 May 2009 17:20:08 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378380
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378380 Tue, 12 May 2009 16:12:23 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378150
cw]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378150 Tue, 12 May 2009 15:37:53 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378149 said by lakerfan82:

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378149 Tue, 12 May 2009 15:37:51 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378066 said by lakerfan82:

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378066 Tue, 12 May 2009 15:24:57 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378052 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22378052 Tue, 12 May 2009 15:22:33 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377969 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? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377969 Tue, 12 May 2009 15:05:06 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377967 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377967 Tue, 12 May 2009 15:05:04 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377897 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377897 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:54:15 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377882
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377882 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:52:18 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377846 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377846 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:45:57 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377835 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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377835 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:44:23 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377756 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377756 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:29:24 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377734
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377734 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:24:49 EDT Re: Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377715 said by baineschile:

Why should the government have to regulate TV and Broadband companies? because the vomit they propagate ends up forming policy!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Regulation-22377715 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:22:10 EDT Regulation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Regulation-22377685
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Regulation-22377685 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:15:32 EDT Where's the beef? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Wheres-the-beef-22377604 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Wheres-the-beef-22377604 Tue, 12 May 2009 14:02:40 EDT