| |IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremiumReviews:
Re: FCC brought this upon themselves
said by elios:No.
simple one page
all ISPs are common carriers regardless of what that transport medium is
Simple one page
Broadband Internet Service Providers shall be considered a public utility and shall be subjected to the public utility consumer protections and answer to state departments of public utilities.
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord.
Re: States rights AOL never got a local access number for the town I grew up in. To the best of my knowledge Juno/NetZero still don't have one. We had no toll free online option until a local company got off the ground in 1996. Sidney New York (population 5,700) is not on MCI's radar, not then, nor now. That area is still served by Frontier for dial-up (and DSL) services, but that's it.
Incidentally, back in the day Frontier found a way to bone all the local ISPs when they decided to get into the business. They had been allowing them to use call forwarding to artificially expand their footprints, i.e., you call forward from 607-334 (Norwich) to 607-967 (Bainbridge) where your modems are actually located.
Once Frontier decided to get into the ISP business they filed a rate change request with the PSC, turning this type of call forwarding service into a per-minute charge. Nobody caught it in time, the rate change was approved, and most of the local ISPs were bankrupted in short order. Business is cruel....
| |said by IowaCowboy:That model has been an unmitigated disaster, here in New York, and in other locales. The locally owned utilities were compelled to sell all of their generating assets, which were all snapped up by out of state interests who proceeded to fire many of the local workers and then jack up the rates, while idling excess capacity to generate an artificial shortage that would justify further rate increases.
The same model was used to break up the electric industry, by separating generation from transmission but I think it would be much more practical in the ISP business since data is routable, electric is not.
In theory we can now "choose" our electricity and gas providers, but the choice is meaningless. The price between providers is virtually the same, never more than a few percentage points off, which any economist worth his salt could have told you would have happened, since electricity and gas are commodities.
Transmission rates also went up, because the utilities lost access to the revenue they made from the exportation of excess generation capacity to other locales.
I'd love to go back to the regulated vertical monopoly of yesteryear for my electricity. So would all of the people who got laid off on both ends of the business (transmission and generation) during the shake up.
Re: States rights
said by Crookshanks:Pennsylvania is part of the PJM Interconnection. You would expect Pennsylvania pricing to equalize to its neighbors -- assuming adequate transmission capacity.
It works in PA? Is that why my per kWh rate in PA was virtually identical to New York?
Edit: New York is not part of the PJM. However, if any power generators are connected to both NY and PA, then they can bid to supply both New York and in Pennsylvania. This would tend to drive prices towards equality -- assuming adequate transmission capacity.
You would expect to see a major divergence in price only if the transmission lines are maxed out. In that case, the power would be "trapped" in the surplus region, which will see lower prices than the deficit region. This tends to happen only a few days each year. It is visible to industrial and institutional customers who pay spot pricing, but not to residential or small-business customers who pay a regulated tariff that averages out the differences.
The other part of your electric bill is the infrastructure charge. That would be the part that would differ, depending on the utility and on the regulators.
Re: Don't worry...
said by TBBroadband:Did you miss the whole "Comcast throttles BitTorrent" incident that lead to the net neutrality debate in the first place? How about the part where all the ISPs say that companies like NetFlix should be paying more for using their network, even though they already pay for bandwidth? How about the proposal by some ISPs to make traffic from certain sources, Like NetFlix, exempt from their monthly usage caps if the company and/or subscribers pay extra each month?
As they should. There is no threat of any NN issue. It's a cry wolf from bloggers and the "media".
None of these sound like net neutrality issues to you?
Arguing that there shouldn't be any net neutrality laws to force ISPs to treat all net traffice equally is like saying that there shouldn't be any law against companies discriminating against employees based on race since most people won't discriminate and if they do, the bad publicity will be enough to shame them into changing their mind.
So how about it? Do you think we should get rid of the laws against racial discrimination and just let public opinion handle such issues?