 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | m00t point The point of opening the networks is moot. the network owner STILL controls the speeds. opening the networks is just going to add another layer of finger pointing. e.g. you have earthlink over time warner lines, you call earthlink and they say its a TW issue, so you call TW and they say its a earthlink issue(either way YOU the customer have to deal with this frustration) on the upside is like if you buy earthlink over TW lines and dont want TW video you arent charged the 'no video penalty'
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
 oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Speeds are just one aspect of a provider of course. We see routine bitching about mail issues, news servers, etc that are content provider specific, not infrastructure specific.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html |
|
| reply to dvd536
While I largely agree with what you are saying, I do not agree that it is entirely moot. There is, effectively, the connection side and the feature side. The connection, as you indicate, is controlled by the cable company regardless of the "ISP". Features, on the other hand, are an area that can differ and offer an area of competition that could potentially benefit all subscribers. Customers in Time Warner Cable (as well as the Bright House Networks systems spun off of TWC) systems have a choice of AOL, EarthLink, and RoadRunner available. Different features for different needs. |
|
| As a consumer I feel that competition on the lines is a good thing.
As a realist I look at dsls crappy roll out and slow deployment and realize that a company is much less likely to spend money to upgrade a network it has to lease out to competition at firesale prices.
I would prefer to have a good fast network and pay a bit more than have dialup waiting for hsi access to come to my area because the cable company(JUST like the phone companies) dosent see an acceptable profit/risk margin to spend x million upgrading the network.
PS: anyone who thinks it would be any different is living in a fantasy world, regulation is not the end all be all of consumer issues, look to the telco fee bonanza for evidence. |
|
| reply to dvd536
I have SBC DSL with them as my isp so I don't have that problem  |
|
| reply to Matisaro
said by Matisaro:
As a realist I look at dsls crappy roll out and slow deployment and realize that a company is much less likely to spend money to upgrade a network it has to lease out to competition at firesale prices.
The problem is that the phone company was caught with their pants down.
Cable internet got a jump and was winning. The telcos HAD an opportunity to do it right the first time. What they did was slap something together real quick, barely test it, throw it out and claim it was a "quality" product. What consumers got was a shoddy ISP with an even more tenuous connection.
I have said time and time again, had the telcos done it right the first time, cable would be crying. No one would want Earthlink if the Telcos did a better job with the ISP side and even could roll it out. Instead, they took the profits and ran looking for short term gain instead of long term growth. Even the cable isp's can cut back services and still claim to be better than DSL in many places. |
|
| reply to number3fan
I agree...I have BellSouth DSL, have had in three different locations now, one with Fiber to the curb, the other two with copper ADSL, and I've had absolutely no problems whatsoever. The Telco's have been rolling out the DSL at a pretty damn fast rate, but of course cable is ahead right now, subscriberwise. DSL was only introduced about 1997 or so in the US?(not sure about other countries). Cable has had HSI since at least '95,(first time I heard about it in SoCal, a friend played online with cable HSI) That's two years sooner to roll out their product. Plus Cable's lines are much, much newer, alowing for less degredation in signal. POTS Lines for the most part are O-L-D! We're talking 20,40,50 years old in some places, and who knows, maybe even older. |
|
 halfbandPremium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
 ·Comcast
| said by blackjeep:
The Telco's have been rolling out the DSL at a pretty damn fast rate, but of course cable is ahead right now, subscriberwise.
Cable got ahead because they invested in areas that the telcos would not upgrade. Regulations say Telcos must share lines so they do not invest in low density areas. Cable does not have to share so they have been more willing to move into under served areas, but of course then they are the only game in town. Don't we have the best of both systems the way it is? Competative DSL in high density areas and Cable available in the areas DSL will not touch if they have to share the lines.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
