 
frankenfeet
Premium
join:2001-10-14
Smiths Grove, KY
 ·Insight VOIP
 ·Insight Communicat..
1 edit | Love competition;Hate taxes. I, for one, would love to see the cable networks opened up for competition, but I'd hate to see the taxes that go along with telecommunication services. Maybe they could lower the cost enough to offset any taxes levied. Of course, I'm sure the FCC will keep this case locked up for a few more years though.
--
"Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind. The race is long and in the end it's only with yourself." | |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Go go go... More competition is good, kill the monolopization! | |
|
 | |
|
SoilFlames
Premium
join:2002-03-17
Andover, MN
clubs: | Uhmm I believe it already is open for competition....they are trying to keep it that way. You can get earthlink Cable internet through another cable provider. | |
|
| rikmill
join:2002-02-26
Fort Myers, FL | Re: Uhmm Try getting earthlink thru Comcast..... it isnt going to happen unless you "PAY FOR BOTH" | |
|
| | 
inteller
@cox.net | Re: Uhmm yes I would LOVE to seperate the ISP from the cable co. Cox's ISP services suck ass. | |
|
| | 
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| If you can do it at all. There is no content competition in my local Comcast franchise.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html | |
|
| | |
| | | 
mr_slick
join:2003-05-22
Lynnwood, WA |  Re: Uhmm
| |
|
| jandmtv
join:2003-12-03
Van Nuys, CA
| all i wana say is, a little competition never hurt nobody (except the monopolozing cable companys) but on another note ADELPHIA CABLE MODEM SERVICE SUCKS @SS!!!!!!!!! i hope they roth in hell for over crowding the nodes, and not upgrading my area to docsis!!!!! ahhh i just had to get that off my chest. man i feel better now. lol | |
|
| | gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA
| Re: Uhmm cable companies are monopolies as much as you have a monopoly on grammar and spelling errors. cable companies are as much a monopoly of broadband and video as mcdonald's is a monopoly of cheeseburgers and fries. care for some ceese with your whine? | |
|
| | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: Uhmm said by gpancner  :
cable companies are monopolies as much as you have a monopoly on grammar and spelling errors. cable companies are as much a monopoly of broadband and video as mcdonald's is a monopoly of cheeseburgers and fries. care for some ceese with your whine?
Cross post much? And before you start grading posts...perhaps you should take a look at your own. Who are you, ee cummings?
You are a fine piece of work with your ceese and all.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html | |
|
| | | jandmtv
join:2003-12-03
Van Nuys, CA | my spelling errors don't bother me, and if you are seriously going to notice my spelling errors, then you really need a LIFE!!!! | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| 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 | |
|
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: m00t point 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 | |
|
| 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| 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. | |
|
| | Matisaro
join:2003-11-20
Troutdale, OR
| Re: m00t point 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. | |
|
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: m00t point 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. | |
|
| number3fan
Number3fan
join:2003-10-15 | I have SBC DSL with them as my isp so I don't have that problem  | |
|
| | 
blackjeep
join:2001-07-12
Atlanta, GA
| Re: m00t point 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. | |
|
| | | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| Re: m00t point 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 | |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Open the lines to content competition Cable operators have plainly shown their inability to resist gouging customers with yearly double digit increases and market manipulating bundling requirements (eg Comcast). If cable operators were willing to compete on their merits I'd say no...but when companies like Comcast charge a 30% penalty if you don't want their CATV...that's abuse of their market position and complete crap.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html | |
|
| gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA | Re: Open the lines to content competition WHINE. | |
|
| | |
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| The amazing disappearing promises When Comcast was courting the FCC prior to their purchase of ATTBI, there was PLENTY of talk (and even some movement towards) allowing other ISPs access to their networks. Now that the "honeymoon merger" is a done deal, where's the talk now? Comcast continues to want to have their cake and eat it, too.
I would love to have the ability to purchase broadband access via competing ISPs who use Comcast's network. Maybe then I won't have to pay a ridiculous $15.00 "second-class non-cableTV" rate and can also get realistic newsgroup access.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's New Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
|
| |
| | jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD
| Re: The amazing disappearing promises Opening up cable lines should be required. In New York, Earthlink charges $42 for cable internet access regardless whether the person subscribes to cable TV. Time warner on the other hand charges $60 to Roadrunner subscribers who don't subscribe to cable TV. | |
|
| hijo51
join:2002-02-09
Stone Mountain, GA
| The competition that would potentially be created is great but what about the FCC charges that come along with government regulation of private enterprise. It sounds to me like that government has themselves in places they schouldn't be again like always.
The competition should be creates by the market if you get tired of paying the high rates switch back to reg. tv and dail-up, and deal with it. | |
|
|
vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| I hate to say it But since they paid for the network it should belong to comcast. Telcos should be open to regulation because they used government funds.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
| LurchTN
join:2003-12-02
Knoxville, TN
| Re: I hate to say it Exactly. Whoever owns the network of cabling obviously did something right (business wise) to get where they are, why should it be taken from them? Plus, I like the fact that I can have an ISP that owns the network. Note what a pain it is to get DSL connected because of the separate companies involved. | |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Oh, the Irony of It All .... The really funny thing about this is the way this 9th Circuit / FCC tiff got started.
In the October Case ("Brand X Internet v. FCC") the court relied on its earlier opinion in the City of Portland v. ATT case.
In that case, in order to avoid Portland city jurisdiction over cable modems, ATT argued that cable modems were subject to telecom regulation. They won, and most of the telecom legal/regulatory community viewed it as ATT having won the battle but simultaneously losing the war.
ATT, having sold their cable systems to Comcast, isn't directly in this fight anymore--but they sure did manage to screw it up for the cable companies that are....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
|
|
|
FCC Fights Cable Classification
Why not
