dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
84

Courts
@comcast.net

Courts

Anon

Courts would shoot down common carrier for ISPs

The FCC can't do this on their own hook - the courts won't let them. This needs Congress to act and the chances it will are slim.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Camaro

Premium Member

True, but I love the headline anyways. If just one non techie reads a similar story about this and the realization that maybe this could lower any part of their bill and tells a friend, that friend tells another you get the idea. It's sad right now that money is the only thing that makes people actually get up off their asses and stand for something and not have this "well someone else is going to do it for me" attitude.
TBBroadband
join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

3 recommendations

TBBroadband

Member

The thing is once they are regulated the ISPs will all start charging compliance fees and every other tax that phone companies charge for services. This will NOT save money in the end but raise rates by taxes/fees. Regulation is NOT always the answer, and the FCC had their chance before but they decided that the Internet was an information service.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Camaro

Premium Member

said by TBBroadband:

This will NOT save money in the end.

Here is a link to a question I posed to the pro business people, could you assist in giving me some ways we are saving money now?
That is a assumption that prices will go up based on a different industry.

»We need more deregulation..

Also found a good quick read on telecom regulation and it seems they are allowed to increase rates based on criteria that seems reasonable, not raising prices when you feel like it.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr ··· gulation

your name
@67.159.36.x

your name to TBBroadband

Anon

to TBBroadband
said by TBBroadband:

The thing is once they are regulated the ISPs will all start charging compliance fees and every other tax that phone companies charge for services. This will NOT save money in the end but raise rates by taxes/fees. Regulation is NOT always the answer, and the FCC had their chance before but they decided that the Internet was an information service.

True. When the gov't takes over it just replaces profits with taxes. The price of service won't drop at all.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to Camaro

Member

to Camaro
Deregulation won't work in this case because of the lack of competition. There are so many road blocks and loopholes that prevent any small company from rising up into the big leagues.

You can do it if you have an endless supply of money and hype to throw at it (Google) or if you get an endless supply of money from tax dollars (muni networks). In either case there are limited deployments which won't cover the majority of people.
TBBroadband
join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

TBBroadband to Camaro

Member

to Camaro
You're NOT paying taxes on that Internet connection like you would under regulation. Want to add 2-3$ per month to your bill under USF? How about a few compliance fees on top of that? Regulation does NOT save you money, it costs money and the industry is doing just fine without it.

And WiKi does not count as a source that you can cite.

PS- Have you seen what regulation has done with the power and gas companies? Those providers created deregulate resellers that now can sell and under cut the regulated provider. Who then strike bulk deals with communities for bulk buying. In return you pay more due to the regulated utility is then allows to charge you to rent your meter and they very fact in do - check your bills and all of the regulated charges they are allowed to add.
TBBroadband

TBBroadband to battleop

Member

to battleop
There is nothing stopping a small company from building. Sonic.net is building and they're a small company. So how can you claim that a small company can't??? It's called start small and expand. How do you think over-builders work. And for those that can't get several providers, then maybe their market won't bring the ROI and those people should form a co-op outside of a muni and go that way. It's been done before for DSL services.
TBBroadband

TBBroadband to your name

Member

to your name
The private company will still make their profit as it is their right. But the gov't will in fact tax the price there for making the base price higher than what it is. How about a 13% tax on your Internet. Your $60 internet connection now has $7.80 in taxes. Saves you money right?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to TBBroadband

Member

to TBBroadband
Sonic is very far from being a start up. They are also located in some of the most dense COs in the country which also makes a much easier spring board into fiber. Notice how Sonic isn't going out side of the super dense COs in California..
AmericanMan
Premium Member
join:2013-12-28
united state

2 recommendations

AmericanMan to TBBroadband

Premium Member

to TBBroadband
I'd rather not have a monopoly, but if we have to have one, I'd rather it be a regulated monopoly (like the power companies), as opposed to a deregulated monopoly (like the telcos).

With power companies, at least you hear about cities retaliating and fining them for subpar service. They can't do that with telco companies.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

1 recommendation

gaforces (banned) to TBBroadband

Member

to TBBroadband
Your pulling those numbers out your rear. If regulation happens, they can make it have any tax rate they want. It could be 0 or -13%.
Scare tactics will not work very well around here, but good luck.
Regulation could mean expansion with better and cheaper service.
I think att did very well under regulation, especially in the customer service area, which they seem to have fully forgotten.
You might consider changing your name to "Chicken Little" so we can be aware of your agenda.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude to Courts

Member

to Courts
said by Courts :

The FCC can't do this on their own hook - the courts won't let them. This needs Congress to act and the chances it will are slim.

not true. it is entirely within the FCC's power to classify as Title II and the courts have even stated this.

chances that Tom Wheeler will do it? I believe the phrase is "not a snowball's chance in hell".
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Bengie25 to your name

Member

to your name
An extra 13% tax to get what you paid for? Hell yeah! Better than paying $1,000/month to get a dedicated line with an SLA.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David to AmericanMan

Premium Member

to AmericanMan
said by AmericanMan:

They can't do that with telco companies.

The reasoning behind that is some larger points everyone seems to miss in some cases.

1.) in larger cities and suburbs you have a choice of providers. Not happy with one, choose one that will. Nothing will stop you. I have a choice of almost 4 providers at my house. Charter, AT&T, DSLexteme, clear, and a wisp in the area.

2.) in more rural areas if you fine them to death they may pack up and call it a day. Sure maybe another one might start up but fine them to death too and they pack it up and go away. Rinse, lather, and repeat. Then you are at the scenario where you beg for a larger provider to provide services and they won't due to the environment. Sure at that point start a muni, the question then becomes will everyone agree to pay higher taxes for it? Considering most peoples' dislike for government these days this could be a very hard sell. If it's a poor community, it could be an even harder selling point on top of that.
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

rahvin112 to battleop

Member

to battleop
Density actually makes it harder to overbuild. Infrastructure build out costs are 100x in a developed dense area what they are in a greenfield deployment or rural area. Yes it's easier to recoup costs in the dense area but those costs are significantly magnified.

Frankly none of that has anything to do with why no one overbuilds and the answer to that is simple. Any over builder is immediately faced with predatory pricing by the incumbent. The incumbent typically cuts prices in half in areas with competition to try to drive the overbuilder out of business before they can achieve enough subscribers to be self-sustaining.

In Utah, in areas where people can get Utopia, Comcast offers permanent triple play pricing that is less than promotional rate in the rest of the country, but only to houses that can actually subscribe to utopia. Centurylink does the same thing. In fact Centurylink sued Utopia early on claiming that only they could attach to Utah Power's (now Rockey Mountain Power) poles, a frivolous lawsuit, IMO, aimed to cause unsustainable legal expenses for the overbuilder. Unfortunately these actions are quite common and can be pointed to every single time an overbuilder attempts to build.

These monopoly pricing schemes are so common that no investor would consider investing in an overbuilder because it's almost guaranteed to fail. Until the goverment starts going after the incumbents with Anti-trust actions when these predatory pricing incidents are started there won't be any overbuilders. Unfortunately the government is in the pocket of the incumbents so we won't see any real regulation or trust busting.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

"Frankly none of that has anything to do with why no one overbuilds and the answer to that is simple. Any over builder is immediately faced with predatory pricing by the incumbent. The incumbent typically cuts prices in half in areas with competition to try to drive the overbuilder out of business before they can achieve enough subscribers to be self-sustaining"

That's why it can be easier for them to survive in a dense area vs a sparsely populated area. In a dense area if you pick and choose wisely you can pick off customers at a higher rate than in the more rural areas. This can help to carry your bottom line into the next CO.

In the end you have to cash flow to cover your expenses. If you don't you are going to burn through your available cash in not time.

"These monopoly pricing schemes are so common that no investor would consider investing in an overbuilder because it's almost guaranteed to fail."

Something has to be done to stop the anti-competitive behavior that's done by the ILEC/Cableco/Muni that prevents more Sonic.net type companies from expanding.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to rahvin112

Member

to rahvin112
said by rahvin112:

Density actually makes it harder to overbuild. Infrastructure build out costs are 100x in a developed dense area what they are in a greenfield deployment or rural area.

Costs may be higher but nowhere near 100X. The figures I have seen a few years ago quoted around 90k$ for rural/greenfield vs 350k$/km for urban... so the factor is more like 4X between cheapest and most expensive or ~5X if you only consider the labor costs.

elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

elios to battleop

Member

to battleop
even muni doesnt work the telco will just get it banned any way
elios

1 recommendation

elios to David

Member

to David
and when the 2 or 3 if your lucky are working keep prices high?
we have laws for this
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh ··· rust_Act
why the fed wont go faster the telcos and cable cos i dont know but the whole thing rings very much of the railroads and oilcos.

CableConvert
Premium Member
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA

CableConvert to Courts

Premium Member

to Courts
That is 100% false. The FCC could vote tomorrow to reclassify. The DC Circuit said as much, and in fact wondered why they hadn't.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to gaforces

Member

to gaforces
said by gaforces:

Regulation could mean expansion with better and cheaper service.

So tell me how often have prices gone down where your city owns the electric utility? And are prices any cheaper than a corporate utility?

I know people who live in such cities, and the answers are: never and no.

What makes you think it would be any different for muni broadband?

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

1 edit

Camaro to TBBroadband

Premium Member

to TBBroadband
In my neck of the woods any natural gas increase or electrical has to go through a bunch of crap with the town and the state, our gas company can't come out like Comcast does and say your bill is going up whenever they want. Ever since we got nailed with a snow storm 3 years ago that killed power to a good portion of MA and the response time was beyond pathetic, the politicians have had their eye on those utility's now. Our politicians on Beacon hill went after them, fined the hell out of them and setup a new regulation system for response times so this wouldn't happen again and blocked the power company from 2 rate increases after the storm because they lost so much money and wanted to make it back. I guess different parts of the country play by different rules.

I just checked my gas bill for the last quarter and I have $9.34 of bs charges, looking at my cable bill I have a hell of a lot more bs charges and that's not including cable modem, DVR, etc.

My town also has it's own combined gas and electric service, so for me and what I have seen personally, regulation around here has kept these services in check. Aside from the changeover from summer to winter, that's the only major price change I ever see on my bill. Which is expected every season.

And from looking at your profession you see the other side of the coin that I don't. In the end this whole country has lost it's balance, It's basically my way or the highway. Our country needs to get a balance back, it is a give and take system that those dicks down in D.C have completely ignored and they wonder why their approval rating is in the toilet.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to Courts

Member

to Courts
On the contrary, the DC Court basically telegraphed the FCC that it (the court) would approve reclassification if the FCC wanted to do it. The only question is, does the FCC have the political will to do it? I don't think so.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to TBBroadband

Member

to TBBroadband
You act like they wont already. Even with the fees basic hardline phone service is still around $20-25/month same as the lowest tier internet connection.
intok

intok (banned) to Bengie25

Member

to Bengie25
said by Bengie25:

An extra 13% tax to get what you paid for? Hell yeah! Better than paying $1,000/month to get a dedicated line with an SLA.

I don't mind one bit if I can actually use what I'm paying for. The ISPs, especially the cable ones want to kill off all online multimedia so they can hit you for TV service as well. If you don't think that will happen then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.