deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
 ·Cox HSI
| Depressing.
It's pretty depressing of a report overall. We could be doing so much better if we were not so at the mercy of big business.
Note - I am not saying that it's totally to blame, but I think a large portion of blame falls at their feet, followed by the government for failing to regulate the market better.
I'm happy with what I have, but I sure wouldn't mind more!  |
|
skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| I suppose you are right. It does fall primarily at the feet of big business. Then again the other option would be to have the government run the telecom industry like they do in Japan. And seeing as how the government can't even run itself I don't think things would be as good as they are now if they did run it. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to deadzoned
You can't legislate things to become cheaper than the cost to produce. Well you can...but you end up with producers producing less. Have people learned nothing from price controls?
New equipment for broadband is expensive. Most of these other country's never had a lot of legacy equipment to replace or to even maintain so them leapfrogging the US is a given. Not to mention the relative density. |
|
Memyself
@pdf.com
| Hogwash. Most europeans markets have been deregulated by the government, thereby fostering more competition. This has nothing to do with some kind of government run telecom business and has everything to do with the regulator doing its job, which is to foster competition.
People have a hard time seeing past their preconceived ideas apparently... |
|
BrotherJPW
join:2003-11-27
Glen Ellyn, IL | reply to deadzoned
$3.18 is decent!
FOLKS, Lets start looking at these three!!!
Labor
Upgrades
Density |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to Memyself
'People have a hard time seeing past their preconceived ideas apparently'
Yes, indeed. You have the preconceived notion that regulation makes the market better.
Goverment mandated competition doesn't help the market. We had a whole decade of regulatory created competition to prove that canard wrong. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| So your contention is that government provided wire-line monopolies make the market better?
This market already has regulation, it just needs to be done properly. The question of more/less is hyperbole. We need more good regulation, and less bad regulation. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Wheres the gov't monopoly? They all ended in 1984. |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | So, instead of one big monopoly, you have several smaller monopolies that won't intrude on each other's territories? ... |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | So you're saying that if you live in at&t territory you can only get service from at&t? You know that's false. |
|
RMKyote
join:2000-12-21
Beverly Hills, CA
 ·Qwest.net
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to deadzoned
Re: Depressing. "Oh yes, very!!!"
In 1995 I had SprintION - 10MB SDSL (S=Synchronous, same speed in both directions) and 4 Digital (VoIP) Phonelines for $150 a month and NO service problems for the two years that I had them. At the time Qwest was being a butt and just after the Feds dealt with line sharing. Qwest said no access and Sprint said it would be easier to go away other than fight. So bye, bye. That was about the time that ADSL came out and marketing and pricing took a serious turn and not in the consumers favor. ADSL (A=Asynchronous, different speeds in each direction) was the new and expensive toy on the market and if you want SDSL you have to pay out the . . . . Not to mention speed, that really went to pot. Needless to the term "high Speed" is so generic that you really need to do your homework. It can mean anything from faster than dial-up to really fast. But one casualty has been the T1. It used to be the nomdeplume for "the" premium Internet connection. Today, my ADSL is faster and cheaper. This all has developed only since the providers realized there was a product there that they could really screw us with. |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | reply to bogey780
Re: Depressing.
For pots service? Yes.
For broadband? Me, personally, yes. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | POTS has competition from cellular and VOIP. You may not think that they do...the FCC may not think they do but in the marketplace they certainly do. |
|
Chair
join:2002-04-08
San Francisco, CA
clubs: | And how does Cellular and VOIP relate to DSL? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | They relate the POTS. That's why I said specifically when the prior post said POTS, I referenced POTS in my rebuttal. It's Engligh 101. If the prior post referenced DSL I would have made a reply referencing it. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to bogey780
The government monopoly (or oligopoly more correctly) is that it is not possible to build competing wireline services because of physical limits to Public ROW space. That is the government wire-line monopoly (oligopoly). There is no widely available competition in wireline broadband. Satelite and wireless are still not comparable.
Since the government MUST provide wireline monopolies (oligopolies) because no one wants 1,000 different networks wired over their neighborhoods, they also must provide effective and fair regulation for those networks. ANY business that uses the public domain as a profit center can and should be subject to some additional regulation. If you're a private company, using private funding, operating on private land/assets then you're free to operate under the normal regulatory environment. |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | reply to bogey780
Funny, I didn't know there was competitive cell service back in 1984! |
|
