dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Raleigh, NC

1 recommendation

reply to elray

Re: Long ago past subsidies irrelevant

If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them.

That's the thing, you can't! Municipal networks were buried in red tape, and outlawed. Totally private investment in fiber networks have met with exactly the same battles -- the *monopolies* already there don't want the competition; even in markets they don't want to serve, they don't want anyone else going "behind their back".

Wireless is *not* the future; wireless has numerous problems wired networks do not have and never will. Wireless cannot match the performance of wired networks, side by side. Wireless, even the mythical "fixed-LTE", will never be the preferred option when a wired connection is available. They want to drive people to the inferior experience at significantly higher costs (more profit for them) by making sure you have no fallback. If you think wireless is so great, tether your house to your cellphone and use NOTHING ELSE for a month -- you'll scream uncle in under a week. Your speed will be randomly unpredictable and slow, with much higher latency, and your bill will be insane.

Yes, the old twisted copper pair PSTN wired network has been a dead horse for decades. One simply cannot get the speeds needed for modern networking over the distances needed -- hence the Uverse "VRAD every half mile" deployment plan... that only works in high density areas, which is why they are so hot on dropping their "old" POTS network / low density, rural areas. They're the incumbant require by law to maintain that infrastructure right now. They would VERY much like to abandon that "cost center" for the much more profitable (in every way) high density areas. Mark my words, they take away that law and vast portions of the country will be left out in the cold with no landline services and slow, spotty cell coverage, if any at all. (and they *still* fight tooth and nail to keep anyone else from filling the void.)


Durham, NC
·Frontier Communi..
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

This is the truth. Monopolies don't want competition because they want MORE money--not because they want to 'innovate'. Sticking rural customers on shitty, slow wireless is not innovative, nor is it fixing the very fundamental problems we have in American broadband (much of which is so slow, it can't rightly be called broadband).

Municipal ISPs are the way of the future. Wilson, North Carolina has their own FTTP/FTTH network called Greenlight which offers up to 100/100Mbit for about $180 a month. And Time Warner fought it TOOTH AND NAIL. Time Warner also lines politicians' pockets in the state legislature to keep their chokehold on much of the NC market. I realize some of you more radical libertarians who believe in ZERO government intervention, ever, are put off by the idea that the government has to regulate the broadband industry to some degree, but it needs to happen. Meaningful regulation and actual competition. We need an FCC that stands up to cable monopolies rather than a guy like Genachowski asking for gigabit fiber in every city by 2015.