dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
142
lancguy
join:2012-03-25
Lancaster, PA

lancguy

Member

The whole problem(s) with this arguement

First, Internet access is still a luxury. People can survive without internet access. My dad does it, and so does one of my brothers. Do they know it's there? Yes. Do they need it to survive? No, they do just fine without it - though for different reasons. Myself and my other brothers managed to navigate education without internet service.

There are ways to live without the Internet. If push came to shove we could live without internet service. If I need to pay a bill I can either call the company or mail my payment instead of paying on line. If I really needed to contact someone I can call that person or send a letter. If I need to submit an online application, I could go to the library or the unemployment center to do so. People can survive without the Internet....it just takes more effort.

Second, should any company be compelled to provide internet service under any situation, is a bad argument from the start. Internet is not a basic necessity. Nor is cable tv. Nor is VOIP since just about any location can still have phone over copper or wirelessly. You can still call someone to pay a bill. USPS is still alive. Payments and communications can still be sent by mail. And just about everyone has some sort of phone service to make telephone calls to pay bills, make appointments, or keep in contact. If someone had their internet service cut their life wouldn't end....it would not cause them to freeze in the winter, or unable to call 911 if they have a stroke.

Third, what the hell does providing internet service have to do with combining a information delivery company with a video content provider have to do with each other? Providing low-cost internet to low income households should not have been required for this merger.

Fourth, since internet service is not a required basic service like electric, phone, or gas, can the Government impose on a company conditions to provide a service at a cost well below market values? Comcast does not use government provided bandwidth (Read Frequencies) for internet. Information transmitted over the internet is sent over Comcast's own network that they built from the house to the headend. The government (Federal, State, or Local) did not subsidize the network Comcast built. And Comcast has to pay fees to the local franchise for the "privilege" to build out the plant to household's in that municipality. Comcast, TimeWarner, CableVision, and all the other MSO's built their own plant that carries the internet over their own hybrid system. Verizon, AT&T, and now Google have or are building their own plants for internet and other services.

Fifth and finally, since when is any company (utility or otherwise) required to provide service on any level to a customer who owes money to them? If I don't pay my electric bill, regardless of my income level, they will not reconnect me to the grid until I pay the balance I owe them. Yes, I know of special medical situations that must PUC's allow, but I can't think of a single medical condition that requires internet access outside of magickjack.

I say cudos to Comcast for starting up the program regardless of their motives. The really didn't have to. And if that really would have been the only way to get the merger through, they could have probably won on appeal. Since the merger, they have not appealed. And they have worked hard to expand the program. What company would restart a relationship with a customer who owed them money?

There are many conditions that I agree with on this merger, and yeah, I feel it could have gone further (such us de-bundling channels). But this whole internet thing was stupid to begin with.

I guess this is my whole problem with this site. Everyone on here fails to realize that the MSO built the hybrid network. They have to pay a franchise fee to the municipality for the "privilege" to service the homes in that municipality. They have to pay to maintain that network and upgrade it. They have to pay the content providers for the right to transmit a program. And the MSO has to make money. Or else they can not maintain and rebuild their networks and or pass on a return to their investors that contributed money to build the network to start with. When networks increase their retrains fees who do you think is going to pay for it?
TreeTops3
join:2008-11-23
97742

TreeTops3

Member

Interview with cohen on WURD 900 AM

lancguy makes some great points. I recently heard an interview with Cohen on WURD AM and as stated above everyone but comcast was blamed for the low sign up rates in Philly. When I needed internet access at home I used the free version of netzero dial up for years and never even hear this or other low cost alternatives suggested as an option to Internet Essentials (AKA Comcast indoctrination program).
I also found it interesting that on their Internet Essential site I could not find what speed was available or what the specs were on the $150 "computer" that Cohen mentioned during the fluff interview.