Our New National Broadband Plan Doesn't Address Competition? > *raises hand timidly*

*raises hand timidly*

reply to iansltx

reply to iansltx
Introducing competition would speed up rollouts.

Either a company rolls out service first, or someone else does, and gains the foothold in that market.

You're confused if you think true competition wouldn't enable the greatest gains in all areas.

reply to Karl Bode

reply to gatorkram
Priorities though...we only have $164 per customer to spread around.

reply to gatorkram
I want them to establish an acceptable definition of upload speed i.e a minimum of 768k. For download it needs to be 6 Mb

reply to Karl Bode
Easy: it's easier to have one provider build out than two. One provider gets 100% of the customers and thus higher ROI. If they suck or if another broadband provider sees a honeypot of potential customers, the other provider moves in. It's the "WISP effect." If a WISP comes into a town a DSL provider will likely follow because they see the demand.

Again, priority one should be getting service to under/unserved areas (underserved as in can't get a 768k connection for $40 or less). If competition is warranted/feasible, competition will ensue.

reply to gatorkram
The standard is currently 768/200 unfortunately, though classifications are available for stuff above that.

Personally, 1.5/512 or 3.0/768 would be good benchmarks; if 3/768 is available for $50 or less per month then an area isn't underserved. Maybe it's stuck in 2006 but it's not underserved. However an area that can't get 768/384 (not 768/200) should get priority over an area that has 3/768 available, albeit for $70 per month (HCTC.net).

reply to Angrychair
I'm not following you. True competition isn't brought about by government intervention. That's government-sponsored competition, which doesn't really work in the long term.

People can compete for rollouts right now; that's what you call "first mover advantage". The big problem though is with areas where there's no first mover. The FCC should dole out enough funds to get a first mover, and if the market is profitable enough other companies will follow.

reply to Karl Bode
I think I become more depressed reading your articles

I went back a few weeks ago and saw past bills for my internet and they keep rising/rising/rising and honestly....my speeds really have not gone up/up/up that much...and I lived in areas where I only had one choice for acceptable/fast internet.

Then I see your stories about 2-3 companies in areas fighting each other and BAAM...prices drop $30 in some places....$30 freakin dollars...like Lake Charles....

So pathetic

reply to Angrychair

reply to iansltx
Yeah I still don't think the two are somehow mutually exclusive. You don't have to tackle penetration solely before you tackle competition, especially if you're talking about a national broadband plan that seemingly wants to juggle any number of balls in the air.

reply to Karl Bode
I'm with you Karl.

I'd give up any of the proposed changes (or even all of them!) if we could just get competition back to some of the major markets in large cities.

Wouldn't a competition friendly environment also foster new smaller rural companies to service the rural areas while also creating jobs in those rural areas?

Sounds like a win/win?

reply to gatorkram
Absolutely agreed on the part that people should still chip in for their broadband connectivity. However the question is of where government money should go to help things out.

This may sound harsh, but IMO the government's money is better spent bringing DSL to an area that has no wireline internet than bringing fiber to an area that has 3M down, 768k up DSL. Even if (gasp) the fiber was 50/50 for $50 and the DSL was 3/768 for the same price. This is from a guy who has a 22/5 Comcast connection at his apartment, shares a gigabit connection at his university next door, and goes back home to parents with a 512k WISP connection (2M has the same 25GB cap and costs $100 per month).

To get cable at the last location, the bill would be $9000. A little up the road, some friends have a longish driveway. $2000 for cable. So they're using wireless, same as my family. I'm 100% sure both they and we would switch immediately if Verizon DSL became available at our respective houses. You won't see that kind of signup rates if we were in an area with DSL and some provider laid fiber down. Sure, I'd switch. They probably wouldn't.

reply to axiomatic
You create more carriers, you create more carriers looking for expansion possibilities into markets AT&T/Verizon doesn't want to serve.

reply to Karl Bode
Which is better, going from zero providers in an area to one, or going from one to two, or going from two to three? I'd maintain that zero to one is where all the money should be going. We just have to define "zero." If the government defines it too loosely, they're doing too much and wasting money. I have Comcast DOCSIS 3 available to me here, and though it's not fiber it's still a decent connection, and the government didn't have to lift a finger to get Comcast to compete in this way. Heck, Qwest didn't either; they're still stuck on 5 Mbps ADSL at my place.

reply to iansltx
You appear to be confusing NTIA and RUS's $7.2B broadband stimulus program, with the FCC's mandated National Broadband Plan. $164 per unserved household is the (actually incorrect) figure from a PR consulting firm.

But the FCC's NBP has nothing to do with that. They were given the task of doing something about this country's lack of a world class network, at fair prices, in addition to the lack of universal service and adoption.