how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to bobbinbob
Re: No wonder... said by bobbinbob:
How many of you realize that you were paying $20 per month for a barely working, flakey 28.8k dialup account and now for $50 or less you get a mostly on 1mb+ connection.
And you complain about paying $50, yet if it doesn't work you can't live without it. If Internet access was as life sustaining as people make it out to be, then I would think you would be willing to pay $100+ for the service if it was good quality.
i paid for dialup when it was the only option, prior to the dsl/cable/broadband boom of the late 90's. When broadband became available, dialup suddenly wasn't worth $0.01 to me, and when my cable stops working (cuz Comcast sucks) i use netzero and pay nothing for it. Things change. When/if an alternative comes along that's 5mbit/512 for $65/mo, I wont value cable as much. Perhaps its not that i wont value it, but i wont want it because there's better deals in town. Capitalism at its best right? Dialup is more reliable now than it was 5 years ago, and its free (in some cases).. yet i choose to pay for a connection that sometimes is waay faster and is generally a better deal: $12 for dialup vs. $60 for something 30 times faster [sometimes], is always on and can be shared across all the computers in my house easily.. the choice is a no-brainer for me.
the internet is a life sustaining thing for some... i make my money from it. if i have no access to the net, i cant make money. And if a DSL provider would improve their lines in my area (sbc) then I would gladly pay for a quality $100 connection. The problem is that companies are more than willing to take your money, and give you just a little bit above what it would take to piss you off enough to leave. In comcast's case, they're a monopoly in most area's, therefore, they can dip well below that, because they know you have no where else to go.
Personally, i feel that instead of instituting a broadband "bill of rights" we should opt to institute a simple law: No monopolies. When there is no competition in a given area, the government steps in and creates it with a municipally-run ISP, or the city/county goes on the hunt for an ISP who will create competition. The market will beat comcast into shape, not some stupid $1000 fine. Line-sharing isn't the answer--that's not competition. The phone company is 1 isp, period. The cable company is another. None of this Earthlink over TW lines or what not. The cable & phone companies need to go head to head, or cable vs. dsl vs. ftth vs. satellite vs. other alternatives. Thats real competition: people know DSL is better for gaming, but cable is generally faster, so people should have the choice on which they want (between those 2 at a minimum). Right now however, people are stuck with one or the other usually, and in that case, they're stuck with whatever the ISP decides to hand out to them, be it a quality service, pure crap (like comcast), or something in the middle.
This entire industry is so messed up... and the FCC really isn't helping. Slapping huge monopolies on the wrist isnt the answer either. Nor is 'pseudo competition' via line-sharing. We need REAL competition. Let capitalism do its thing, even if it involves action from the government to get it started.
Just my view on all this BS
-fuzy
--
[referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms | | |
|
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I agree: competition is the answer. But in the here-and-now, it ain't happenin'
At least not for me - and many others as well.
So in the meantime, we're must somehow deal with an unregulated monopoly.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-22 16:32:21] | |
| In before we get a certain member who will come flying to the aid of Comcast.
When you hold a franchise and/or monopoly, you need to be bound by certain terms and provisions. If you cannot hold your end, then you need to make way for someone who will. | |
|
