how-to block ads
|
inteller
@nuvox.n
| dont want regulation, DO want cooperation I think if the FCC used regulation as a threat to push more openness that would be the best scenario. I don't want to get taxed on a regulated cable system, but I would like to see cable companies partner up or offer ISP choices cause their existing services SUCK! If I could divert $10 of my cable bill to go towards MSN or Earthlink for ISP services instead of Cox I would LEAP at the opportunity. | |
|  
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: dont want regulation, DO want cooperation said by inteller:
I think if the FCC used regulation as a threat to push more openness that would be the best scenario.
...and I'm all for Motherhood, apple pie, and good sidewalks too. The problem is, the FCC hasn't really pushed openness in ANY network since Reed Hundt was forced out as Chairman (by President Clinton, who replaced him with Kennard--a near ultimate "don't rock any boats" guy.)
The FCC seems to use regulation now only to squelch competition against the established monopolies. Since they have embraced the "two competitors is good enough" approach (telco and cable) it's doubtful that this FCC would ever have expanded cellular competition beyond two players.
Remember how the cellular duopolies of the '80's and '90's kept prices high before PCS blew the cartel open? Yep, that sort of duopoly is the likely result of this FCC's approach to competition.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA | Re: dont want regulation, DO want cooperation Do you think DirecTV should have to share their network? | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: dont want regulation, DO want cooperation I think the underlying spectrum should be shared.
If Direct TV had built its network by having a government subsidized monopoly for 90 years, had largely depreciated its network to where it's capital cost for ongoing operations was about zero, was in a position to strong-arm its vendors into supporting its legislative and regulatory agendas, AND HAD AGREED TO SHARE ITS NETWORK IN RETURN FOR BEING ALLOWED INTO LONG DISTANCE AS PART OF TA'96, then, yes, I would support having them share their network.
Since they built a network without a guaranteed rate-of-return (and actually fought monopolies, rather than being one) I think they are in a different position.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by inteller  :
I think if the FCC used regulation as a threat to push more openness that would be the best scenario. I don't want to get taxed on a regulated cable system, but I would like to see cable companies partner up or offer ISP choices cause their existing services SUCK! If I could divert $10 of my cable bill to go towards MSN or Earthlink for ISP services instead of Cox I would LEAP at the opportunity.
Cable internet service is already bad enough. do people really want to add that layer of fingerpointing that DSL currently has? (Anyone thats had an issue with their MSN isp over their Qwest line would know how frustrating the 'DSL/ISP pinball machine' can be)
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | hottboiinnnc
join:2003-08-27
Fremont, OH
| Re: dont want regulation, DO want cooperation Time Warner Cable- A Time Warner Company was forced nation wide by the FCC and the FTC to open up their high speed data networks. Then when they did Earthlink.net and AOL and other providers.
So the open ISP thing is a bad thing cause if you have problems you are bounced around between Time Warner and your provider. Then if you have earthlink.net like me they wanna send you to the National Call Center for RoadRunner in CANADA! not to your cable office's call center!
And it gets to be a pain! I hate the pinball machine thing TWC has set up for their high speed customers that chose someone else besides RoadRunner. | |
| | | |
|
