| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Ethernet over copper said by MyDogHsFleas:Your bias against telcos warps your judgement. I'm not saying that telcos are angels, but they are not demons either. They are what they are, and it's useful to see them for what they are, not make them whipping boys for your favorite cause. I am not biased solely toward telcos. The cable cos are in the same boat. We were simply discussing telcos at the time.
One phone company per area, one cable co per area. That does not sound like competition.
Cable and phone companies attempting to block potential competitors using caps, preventing or limiting access to such services. Does not sound like fair competition.
said by MyDogHsFleas:1) No there is no non-compete pact. But you have to realize that it's extremely expensive to overlay someone else's terrority with brand new physical copper/fiber, and you'll get a limited return. As I said in my original post, the telcos have plenty of places to spend capital to get customers to buy more services without expanding out of their historical areas. I know that there is no actual pact (that would be illegal), but noone will even try to put in physical equipment not just because of it's cost (or it would already be happening) but also because they know that incumbents would easily lower prices and destroy their business before they could even get going. In a sense that pact silently exists.
What are you going to do? Force them by regulation to build competing physical plants? That's not a good idea. Read the last part of my last post. What would you do? Leave everything as is: incumbents preventing decent competition over their own network so in turn no or little competition should exist?
said by MyDogHsFleas:2) A huge majority (almost 90%) of the landline installs also offer DSL. An even huger majority (96%+) of the cable TV installs offer HSI. So it's highly likely that anyone in a population area with cable and landline available also has a competitive choice on broadband. Ok, not even going to go into stats. Too many issues with them. I never believe statistics, especially not ones from the companies trying to protect their profits.
said by MyDogHsFleas:3) Your idea of "competition" is one that says that you use taxes to pay for the vast majority of the capital cost of entry to the market, then make that market available to all. Do you really think this is an efficient way to get goods and services to the public? Do you really think the government will do this in a fair and innovative way? I don't. Every congressperson will be lobbying for the infrastructure funds to be localized to his/her district's benefit. It'll be massive waste, kickbacks, and fraud. Why not? Use part taxes (part investment -- I'm sure many businesses and residents across the country would be willing to throw in a few bucks to get access to a selection of companies providing internet access) to pay for last-mile connections to everyone which can be paid back gradually (and eventually profit from) through a fairly set wholesale of bandwidth to any company who wishes to provide service. The gov. does not actually produce any competition. It eliminates individual companies preventing access to specific ports/services/etc. It could quickly settle the whole 'caps' and 'network neutrality' issue through direct competition instead of eventual legislation. It could easily be set up as a variable-rate pricing if deemed necessary. It would solve the already occurring 'digital divide'. It also preserves capitalism but takes out the issues of having a one or a few or no companies providing last-mile access through restricted and solely owned equipment.
Also, what do you mean fair and innovative? Fiber is innovative. Fair? Like if I want to start a business now I couldn't because I know they would easily put me out if I tried to build out my own. If I tried to resell their bandwidth over their equipment they set their prices just high enough that I cannot compete with their pricing. Many consumers have one, maybe two and some no choices of broadband. That is fair competition?
Sorry, but I would take my suggestion over leaving everything 'as is'.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| OK I see. When I give you actual statistics proving competition is widespread you just ignore them, or denigrate them by saying "well that's not REAL competition" (whatever that means). BTW my stats are from the FCC, you can look it up.
You are simply on an agenda. You want the network taken away from the corporations and you want the government to fund and run it (up to the last mile at least). You want to define the word "competition" to mean your idea of how things should be run. This is simply Brave New World newspeak.
I prefer to see things as they really are before deciding what the solution should be, rather than deciding on the solution first then setting my fact filters accordingly. |
