calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TelecomJunky
Re: Plenty of BB competition - Martin is right
Exactly. As Alfred Kahn* pointed out, "Deregulation does not mean that you fire the policeman."
Additionally, it's good to recognize that not only Republicans cozy up to the incumbent monopolists. Reed Hundt had a fabulous vision for a competitive telco world, so good that the ILECs convinced Bill Clinton to force him out and replace him with William Kennard, who really enjoyed taking years to address anticompetitive conduct.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  :For the majority of people in the US, competition exists for broadband access... ...Those who want the government to control things are also the same people who think the best solution to everything is a nanny government to run their lives and make all their decisions for them. First, let me start by saying I am a staunch economic conservative republican (not a neo-con) and I strongly believe in less government. However, as a true republican, I also recognize it is the job of the federal government to protect the people both from foreign aggression and from interstate domestic aggression. Thus, I strongly believe it is the governments responsibility, even more so when republicans control every aspect of the fed, to make an example out of corporate criminals that put their pocket books ahead of the country and its people.
The FCC under both dems and repubs have been nothing but friends to the bells and cable companies, granting them monopolies in their respective fields and guaranteeing them profits. Now that we are reaching a point when competition actually may occur (it has not yet, a duopoly is still not good for any consumer) these monopolies are doing everything in their power to use the government to insure their monopoly based profits are protected.
You say we have competition, how many communities in this country actually have 2 cable cos offering service to the same neighborhoods? I would venture less than 1%. How many cities have both SBC(AT&T) and Verizon offering land line services? Again, less than 1% I believe.
This is not competition. And one has to ask themselves why the supposedly separate cable cos do not compete with each other and why the bells don't truly compete with each other. Can you say collusion kids? Yes, I think you can.
So what happens when this rush to broadband slows to a crawl? Well, this so called competition, your one cable co and your one bell co will give a little wink wink and prices will climb again. They all publicly state under $50 a month for broadband is too little, even SBC has stated they believe the broadband rush will only last about 2.5-3 more years, to not worry investors.
Without DSL vs DSL and Cable vs Cable competition, you'll have no real competition in 5 years.
Don't even get me started on the bundling requirements either, how easy is it going to be for your to cancel your phone, tv, cell, and internet when something goes wrong with just one of these services or with their customer service... its not, you are basically going to be a captive customer unless you can afford to pay for overlapping services for all these services, most people can not and when the collusion occurs and these prices balance out between cable and bell what incentive would you really have to switch anyway.
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :... And as long as there are competing players in the marketplace, the concerns over locking out of users from specific areas of the web are unfounded. Because 1 of the players would use that to get customers from the others. ... As sporkme pointed out above, when there are only a handful of providers, it's easy for them all to squeeze out the true competition, be it Vonage or some new search engine or whatever.
Road Warrior, your logic may apply in a grocery store but not in the broadband market. If I don't like the house brand of corn at Safeway I can easily shop at Kroger later today or next week. Broadband access is a much more "committed" experience--you don't switch providers on a daily or weekly basis. It's more like buying a car or renting an apartment. Should GM be free to suddenly say your warranty is invalid unless you use GM gasoline, or to inform you that the computer in your car will start choking on ARCO gas next week? Should you landlord be able to suddenly decree that you must drop telco broadband and instead hook up to his new LAN?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :And as long as there are competing players in the marketplace, the concerns over locking out of users from specific areas of the web are unfounded. Because 1 of the players would use that to get customers from the others. That's so naive. I expect more from you. What happens when both cable and DSL/FTT? players decide this is a good idea?
--
enjoy zesty ranch man-flavored baby tacos responsibly |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Nice generalization. Look past that ego and you will see there are some things, especially things with limited resources, that need to be government controlled.
I would agree that a lot of areas have cable and telco BB options. I do not consider satellite or any form of wireless a true competitor to either of those yet. Satellite more so because of its ridiculous cost and bandwidth. Wireless could be, but I am not a big fan of wireless for several reasons.
Regardless of the above, what do you think the others are going to do if the telco's are allowed to do this? If Charter can deprioritize VIOP on their network when it is competing with their own product or if the other company refuses to pay the extortion amount it reduces the consumer's choice. In the end, isn't it the consumer that matters? We, the consumer, are more important then any company exec, employee, or stockholder. Too many, including the FCC A$$clowns seem to be forgetting this.
What is going to stop this from extending this over to the consumer? Gamer's need good connections. When is BS going to start charging them more to route their packets in a manner that is needed to maintain a quality gaming exerience? When is Xbox Live going to start costing $50 a month because MS has to pay extortion money to EVERY major backbone and network node to have their traffic routed to their servers?
If BS wants to prioritize the packets of THEIR internet customers (Customer's signed up with them as their ISP) that is their business as consumers then have a choice. However, they have no right to touch the packets of any other ISP's customers. And if they start touch packets to servers that are not even on their network, they are messing with packets they have no business messing with. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :For the majority of people in the US, competition exists for broadband access. Most areas have at a minimum cable and telco BB options. Some others also have wireless(fixed and WiFi) as well. And don't forget that 95% of the US is within range of satellite broadband too(though the price is a little high at $60/mo if also a satellite TV subscriber. And both wireless and wired options are popping up monthly. And as long as there are competing players in the marketplace, the concerns over locking out of users from specific areas of the web are unfounded. Because 1 of the players would use that to get customers from the others. Those who want the government to control things are also the same people who think the best solution to everything is a nanny government to run their lives and make all their decisions for them. Call me back after you actually have been able to grasp the meaning of the original article. |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | reply to TKJunkMail
All I want the FCC to do is limit the ISPs on what traffic they can control or limit and allow an open and safe system. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to TKJunkMail
While your now expected industry apologist comments on competition are wrong as usual, you do realize this subject is about net neutrality, yes? Or did you reach right for your script and not read the articles?
quote:
Those who want the government to control things are also the same people who think the best solution to everything is a nanny government to run their lives and make all their decisions for them
Cute the way you jump from the need for a few consumer protection laws to some socialist dreamscape to make a political point. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  For the majority of people in the US, competition exists for broadband access. Most areas have at a minimum cable and telco BB options. Some others also have wireless(fixed and WiFi) as well. And don't forget that 95% of the US is within range of satellite broadband too(though the price is a little high at $60/mo if also a satellite TV subscriber. And both wireless and wired options are popping up monthly.
And as long as there are competing players in the marketplace, the concerns over locking out of users from specific areas of the web are unfounded. Because 1 of the players would use that to get customers from the others.
Those who want the government to control things are also the same people who think the best solution to everything is a nanny government to run their lives and make all their decisions for them.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
