 TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| reply to JakCrow
Re: Rome wasn't built in a day said by JakCrow:
Ironic that a country like the U.S. lags behind significantly in high speed connectivity when compared to countries in Asia and Europe.
Countries in Asia and Europe usually:
a) have only one phone company.
b) are significantly smaller in size, more compact and have less rural areas.
c) pay a lot more for the phone service as a whole.
d) don't have to deal with multiple, varying jurisdictions and regulations in different areas of the country.
Take for example, France, they have 60 million people living in country about the size of Texas with only one phone company and one authority to authorize right-of-way/deployment of broadband. Of course it's easier under these circumstances.
Can you imagine if Texas had 60 million residents and one phone company and one government authority to answer to? Of course everyone would have broadband access. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated here because the U.S. is much larger than any European or Asian nation (China excluded) and we have so many broadband companies and regulatory districts that it's bound to be more complex and drawn out.
The United States arguably has the most sophisticated and advanced communications infrastructure in the world. Just because it doesn't reach every sparsely populated region shouldn't be used to gauge it's success. There are just simply places in this country where it can't be justified to deploy broadband pain and simple. Remember, European cities were built around the idea of densely populated urban centers to serve the needs of the people in the pre-automobile era. It's America that invented the idea of everyone moving out of the cities with our highways and cars, so it costs a lot more to reach all of our population.
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!)
[text was edited by author 2002-04-14 20:43:29] |
|
 pupowskiPremium
join:2002-03-22
Vancouver, WA | said by TZi:
The United States arguably has the most sophisticated and advanced communications infrastructure in the world. Just because it doesn't reach every sparsely populated region shouldn't be used to gauge it's success.
Boston is not "sparsely populated", neither is New York City. US technology has fallen victim to greed and corruption, as has our Constitution. |
|
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| said by pupowski:
Boston is not "sparsely populated", neither is New York City. US technology has fallen victim to greed and corruption, as has our Constitution.
I admit, broadband availability in urban areas is clearly the result of poor regulation and greed. There's no excuse not to have broadband if you live in an urban center, especially since the potential is there. Again, if there were just one phone company across the US and one governing agency, I'd imagine most of us would have broadband by now. Unfortunately, this isn't the case though and many phone companies are indeed greedy or downright fraudulent. In this case, some sort of government intervention is clearly required. I encourage those residents of urban areas to write to their state regulatory agencies, that's the only thing the phone companies will likely respond to--fines! If you really want to drive the point home and can afford to do so, get rid of local loop altogether and tell them why. In many areas, though I can only speak for Miami(metroPCS), you can get a flat rate wireless PCS phone for about the same cost as having a home phone line. Alternatively, you could just get rid of every feature on your phone and reduce it to basic dialtone. The phone company basically doesn't make any money unless you subscribe to their "extra" features like voicemail etc... When subscribers start leaving, they'll eventually have to respond... In Florida with Bellsouth, they've been extremely aggressive in their DSL/broadband deployment, even to far-flung fiber subscribers with buried cables-- they've come up with some sort of solution, usually IFITL.
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!)
[text was edited by author 2002-04-14 22:03:33] |
|
|
|
| What really pisses me off though is that these monopolies try to convince people that regulation is bad, and for the most part, people have bought that scam hook, line, and sinker for the last 7 years(since 1995). Many of us people here who have half a brain realize that government realize that government agency are far efficient, productive, and accountable for their actions than unregulated monpolies. However, those views would make us traitors in today's society. |
|
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| said by 2farfromCO:
What really pisses me off though is that these monopolies try to convince people that regulation is bad, and for the most part, people have bought that scam hook, line, and sinker for the last 7 years(since 1995). Many of us people here who have half a brain realize that government realize that government agency are far efficient, productive, and accountable for their actions than unregulated monpolies. However, those views would make us traitors in today's society.
You're right, but how much more regulated can the telecommunications industry get? I mean, the phone company has to be the most heavily regulated and oldest monopoly in the country. Granted, I don't think more regulation or de-regulation is the solution here. The FCC is probably about as efficient as the soon-to-be-canned INS. They ought to split the FCC into "wired" and "wireless" regulatory agencies and rewrite the existing regulations in a manner that is more concise and effective for the current situation in this country... Regulating the phone companies even more at this point would just add more bureaucracy to the equation and draw things out even more. Both the phone companies and the FCC are behemoth institutions that can't be asked to really know what they're doing or take responsibility for it.... Mohammed Attah probably got approved for his DSL circuit about the same time they sent his visa to the flight school...
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!)
[text was edited by author 2002-04-14 22:14:35]
[text was edited by author 2002-04-14 22:16:31] |
|
pupowskiPremium
join:2002-03-22
Vancouver, WA | said by TZi:
The FCC is probably about as efficient as the soon-to-be-canned INS.
The FCC chairman is a sabotageur, deliberately obstructing regulation to suit his idiology. The INS is just incompetent, a lesser evil.. |
|
| reply to TZi
Of course the actual phone service in most European countries sucks compared to the Telco system in the U.S. and in many cases in Europe they pay through the nose for lesser service.
--
Just because its accurate doesn't mean its true. |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to TZi
Competition is needed within each "segment" of the industry, i.e. in telcom, cable, and sat. There could have been great competition that would have driven new modes of network access to most markets, but the telcoms and cables have been swallowing each other up (which shouldn't have been allowed) and the same is going to happen to sat if it isn't stopped. These consolidations are what's threatening broadband deployment, not regulations. Look at what happens when there are 2 or more telcoms or cable companies serving one area: better service, more features, and better pricing. (deregulation will drive prices down my ass) I don't think there is an issue with more or less regulation, but every entity involved should be forced to obey EXISTING regulations. I also think that various regulatory bodies and officials should be investigated for corruption and bribery, but that's just my opinion. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to TZi
[QUOTE=TZi] a) have only one phone company.
Hate to tell ya this, but to all extents and purposes, most of the U.S.A. has only one telephone company, broken down into specific regions. Take for your example Texas. SBC would like to tell you about the dozens or hundreds of telephone companies out there. But then look at marketshare, and it's what 99.xx% SBC, everyone else gets the scraps... quote:
d) don't have to deal with multiple, varying jurisdictions and regulations in different areas of the country.
This is a problem worldwide, but some countries regulators take a firm hand to push through the B.S. ... like the FCC is supposed too...
The main problem in the U.S.A. is the greed and control that a few large entities have over the entire population. They will protect their domains like wild alley cats, and the good of the people be damned. |
|
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| said by KrK:
large entities have over the entire population. They will protect their domains like wild alley cats, and the good of the people be damned.
On your point about Texas having one phone company, I agree completely. However, I was referring to our country as a whole. While SBC may have 99% market share in Texas, the whole country probably has countless different phone companies with different technologies not to mention the co-ops and CLECS. Thus, when the FCC makes new regulations it has to take each and every company's financial situation and infrastructure in to account. Once that's finished it's almost impossible to make a "universal" policy on broadband.
e.g. If the FCC were to declare broadband a universal, standard commodity, who pays for the fiber solution in Boston, how much should the home customers be charged to install T-x repeaters all the way into the middle of Oregon, and what needs to be done about the Indiantown telephone company whose copper is too old and corroded to carry any sort of digital signal? Then what about Alaska Hawaii and Puerto Rico who aren't really as integrated into our communications infrastructure, should they pay more or just be excluded altogether? You see, the FCC just can't naively legislate broadband policy because it would apply to our nation as a whole... Too many technologies to consider in too many jurisdictions with too much bureaucracy to actually be effective...and it's a shame it has come to this, but it is the reality we face. I'm not defending the FCC or the telcos here, I mean something obviously needs to be done about the way we manage all these different technologies and jurisdictions to effectively tackle any new issues.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on the political point. That goes beyond the scope of the FCC and the phone companies and describes our political system as a whole. Geez, if I had the answer to that, I could be president... Corruption is inherent in capitalism, so it is our responsibility as citizens to police it. Unfortunately, we've been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the FCC. Best shot we have is to run for office or let our elected officials know of our concern for the mismanagement of the FCC. Hey, we made the IRS be "nicer" didn't we, or is that just a joke ( I guess it's a bad day 4/15 to be making that comparison, but you get the idea)...
PS If you think the FCC is bad, have you ever dealt with the FAA (rotfl)
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!)
[text was edited by author 2002-04-15 14:31:43] |
|
 amdazPremium
join:2000-12-29
San Francisco, CA | reply to pupowski
I dont like Ideologue, and young Mr. Powell is definitely one. It is a wonder considering how reasonable his Daddy is. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by amdaz:
I dont like Ideologue, and young Mr. Powell is definitely one. It is a wonder considering how reasonable his Daddy is.
Oh, Mr. Powell Snr. definitely has his ideologue, as well... but he's considerably better about being diplomatic about it. |
|
| reply to 2farfromCO7
What's ironic is when industry on the one hand says they don't want regulation, or government intervention on the one hand. And yet on the other the recording industry cries out for regulation/intervention in things such as the SSSCA so that all digital devices will have to incorporate government mandated anti-copy measures.
They're not against government intervention...they're just against it when it could serve the customer rather then themselves... AKA, if the regulation restricts the company, bad in their view... If it restricts customers and could serve to turn their computer into little more then a VCR, that's OK with them... |
|
pupowskiPremium
join:2002-03-22
Vancouver, WA | reply to amdaz
said by amdaz:
I dont like Ideologue, and young Mr. Powell is definitely one. It is a wonder considering how reasonable his Daddy is.
His dad is a good man, but this apple fell far from the tree. |
|
