CompNrd
@65.205.x.x | Damn Right!
Hit the head of the nail with that hammer!
 |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| My response to Martin's op-ed
Here's my thoughts for the WSJ - unpublished by them at this point, but relevant for this forum:
To: Editor, WSJ
The Wall Street Journals publication of the FCC chairman's op-ed could use
some fact-checking. His assertion that we'll be better off as a country
with far fewer Internet providers makes no sense, and his agency's push for
de-regulation is misguided. The published article includes so many
misstatements that it's difficult to know where to begin.
Natural regulated monopolies such as train tracks, power lines, water works
and telephone lines should be regulated and deregulated with extreme
caution. In Japan, South Korea and many European nations, they are
achieving far higher broadband penetration ratios in their population by
requiring fair wholesale rates and competition on these limited resources.
Here, we are falling behind in deployment, and the blame for this is being
misplaced. Regulation is the solution, not the problem!
Meanwhile, the assertion that broadband over power lines or wireless are
relevant in today's marketplace is either wildly optimistic or badly
misleading. BPL is not mature, and is only in trial, and wireless has not
been shown to work on a wide scale at high speed in any markets. Satellite
has a small share, but only in locations where DSL and cable are not
available at all. Martin's conclusions are wrong.
We need to foster a competitive Internet - handing over the fabric of our
country's connectivity to a few monopoly companies will stifle availability,
innovation, speed and features. We need to retain and encourage the
thousands of Internet Service Providers we have in the US today, not put the
final nail in their coffins.
--
Dane Jasper Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000 »www.sonic.net/
mailto:dane@sonic.net |
|
china_rider
join:2004-04-21
Peoria, AZ | Hmmm
.... Or just don't get cable TV and pay ~$50 for the internet service (while probably trippling your current DSL download speed). I'm not sure how fair a comparison the article makes. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to DaneJasper
Re: My response to Martin's op-ed
But could Japan, South Korea, and those European countries have done the same thing again if a) they were not subsidized by their governments in some part, and b) have the same geography as the United States.
Its easy to have high market penetration when the majority of your peoples are in small, tight urbanized areas. I wonder how it would look if the federal government offered up a 20% subsidy to each and every private broadband company, and then only looked at the major cities when determining market penetration. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Cable force-bundling?
Dana, please understand that maybe your cable provider is allowed to force-bundle CATV along with your cablemodem service, but this isn't the case everywhere. I pay $42.99/month for 4x384 as a non-CATV customer and no contracts.
And since its the county governing authority that franchises the cable operator, blame them for not meeting your needs. Cheers. |
|
Random ex-Santa Rosa
@151.143.x.x | FCC / WSJ commentary
To the fellow from Santa Rosa...
WELL SAID! |
|
rideboarder
welcome to the social
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
clubs:
| reply to GhostDoggy
Re: My response to Martin's op-ed
said by GhostDoggy  :Its easy to have high market penetration when the majority of your peoples are in small, tight urbanized areas. I wonder how it would look if the federal government offered up a 20% subsidy to each and every private broadband company, and then only looked at the major cities when determining market penetration. That may be true, but it's still no excuse that cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and so forth don't have faster connections. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Please...
Can we please have some discussions without 'Orwell', '1984', or 'Nazi' being bandied about? Does anyone have any original thoughts? |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| I think if cable and bell execs can call getting everything they want "regulatory certainty", it's only fair the guy can toss out an Orwell reference.
Besides, the "Newspeak" Orwell discussed has come true. It's certainly within bounds.
Nazi references I agree are tired however. |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| reply to GhostDoggy
Re: Cable force-bundling?
said by GhostDoggy :Dana, please understand that maybe your cable provider is allowed to force-bundle CATV along with your cablemodem service, but this isn't the case everywhere. I pay $42.99/month for 4x384 as a non-CATV customer and no contracts. Your situation is a very rare exception not the rule.
I have yet to see a Cable Co were I've lived, worked, or visited that didn't force bundle without a heavy price penalty. 
Consider yourself Very Lucky. And I'm Very Jealous.;)
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  |
|
qwguy
| reply to CompNrd
Re: Damn Right!
Depends on where you're at and who's your provider. You can get internet and phone combined at HALF what he's whining about with a lot of telcos right now. And the competition between telcos and cable for dialtone AND broadband is keeping prices pretty low. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to CompNrd
still not low enough though, when people in south korea can get 20mbit and higher for what equals out to 10 USD.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | reply to DaneJasper
Re: My response to Martin's op-ed
"BPL is not mature, and is only in trial"
Kinda misleading, its not in trial in some places its be working fine for over a year in some communities. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Whiner
He could cancel his DSL and phone service and not pay $110 a month.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to rideboarder
Re: My response to Martin's op-ed
No, it is an excuse because you have to look at the uniformness of the density. For example, NYC is as dense as say, Hong Kong (maybe it is, maybe it isn't, don't feel like looking it up, but for argument's sake, assume so) but if you go some 50 miles outside of NYC, it's rural. On the other hand, I dare say you have few rural areas in Hong Kong or its surrounding area in China, or in say, Korea, either.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan |
|
Spudge_Boy
join:2004-09-17
Orange, CA
| reply to GhostDoggy
Re: Cable force-bundling?
You are absolutely the exception to the rule. Forced bundling is the norm, not the other way around. I am sick and tired of having to pay for basic cable, so that I can have a cable modem. DSL, not available still. That is most likely the reason for the forced bundling, because they know they can get away with it. There isn't another choice and I don't live in BFE. I live in the city. |
|
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
| Please FCC....we are not clueless
Question: I am on a small local private company. I believe a COOP. If I am to assume so, are these not regulated? I assume they are not? They do not offer line sharing and this coop also owns the cable system. No cable internet.
So, if deregulation is so great shouldn't it shine in a place or situation like this????????
If so, why and I paying 69.00 a month for 256k? The fastest I can get.
I believe the facts are this innovation was and is cause by the Bells seeing the end of the dial up cash cow via outside innovations ie VoIP and the need to find other sources of cash. ie TV. ..... or die.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 |
|
shapiro44
join:2004-03-01
Highland, NY
| ha, I got you beat, I pay about $160 month 4 crap
Ha, I stuck on dialup so I pay more
»[TWC] [TWC] wants wants to charge me $25,000 for RR
I paying for 3 phone lines to 1 residence
plus unlimited dialup ISP for $19.99 month
(since I login to all 3 lines simultanenously via separate
computers using the same dialup ISP, I need a good ISP
not a $6.00)
Thus my monthly communication expenses per month typically:
phone 1 $55.00
phone 2 $45.00
phone 3 $40.00
dialup ISP $20.00
-------
$160.00 month
(not including satellite TV)
Cable nor DSL not available to my house, though it is
available to most other houses around me
(making me a 2nd class citizen)
because USA stinx for broadband. In the USA the
cable and telco companies decide who the have nots are. |
|
voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
 ·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | Phone line??
$60 for a phone line?? I get a phone line here for about $23/month.
And $70/month for cable?? I can get basic cable for $24/month here. And if I just want Internet, then it's just $10 extra, so $50/month total.
I'm not sure where this guy is getting his numbers from. Maybe if you get the most deluxe phone plan available with all the extra features... and if you get every single cable channel plus a digital box... then MAYBE it would cost you that much... |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to pnh102
Re: Whiner
said by pnh102 :He could cancel his DSL and phone service and not pay $110 a month. So could you. And you could go back to a Bell company. |
|
