nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Must be law
"Hands Off The Internet believes that the best way to avoid burdensome and unnecessary regulation and mandates is by ensuring that market forces deliver the benefits that only fair competition...
I haven't seen any fair competition yet; I haven't seen competition AT ALL, fair or otherwise. I eagerly await the day when I have more than one broadband provider to choose from.
...can bring to the American consumer - maximum choice in supplier, content and technology.For example, recent years have shown that companies have raced to develop a variety of high-speed Internet access systems, including cable wire, DSL and wireless. These events were competition in its purest form, and we directly benefited consumers through lower prices.
the sentence in bold should be nominated for best fictional statement of the year; there is no meaningful competition in the U.S. market and there won't be any for years to come. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| said by nasadude  :the sentence in bold should be nominated for best fictional statement of the year; there is no meaningful competition in the U.S. market and there won't be any for years to come. That is simply fantasy. Personally, I can choose my broadband provider from cable (Time Warner), aDSL or VDSL (AT&T), or satellite (WildBlue or HughesNet). Soon, wireless broadband will also be a reasonable option with 3G rollouts in place and 4G rollouts happening within the next 12-18 months. There's a TON of competition out there. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by MyDogHsFleas :...There's a TON of competition out there. I live in area code 20850; I eagerly await your list of multiple broadband providers in my area.
EVERYONE - if you only have one broadband provider, drop MyDogHsFleas a line and he will reveal where the other competitors are hiding in your area.
Seriously though, you are exceedingly lucky to even have two REAL choices of provider. sorry, satellite broadband is not a substitute for wired or even wireless broadband. the only people that think so are those trying desparately to convince people there is competition in the U.S. broadband market. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by nasadude :said by MyDogHsFleas :...There's a TON of competition out there. I live in area code 20850; I eagerly await your list of multiple broadband providers in my area. You said:
quote:
there is no meaningful competition in the U.S. market and there won't be any for years to come.
So now "the US market" equals "zip code 20850" ?? Come on. Pick an argument and stick with it, OK??
quote:
sorry, satellite broadband is not a substitute for wired or even wireless broadband.
umm... yeah... it is. Maybe not a perfect one, but it is. I have a co-worker who lives in a remote area in Northern California on a ranch. He barely has POTS service (he has to maintain his own 1/4 mile of twisted pair). He is a work at home guy like me with heavy internet/VPN use, and uses satellite. It works OK for him. Maybe it's a little slower than if he had DSL or cable, but it works. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | "it works" != "ton of competition" |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Who owns the wireless providers? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :.. but it works. you know a potato and a few wires "work" to produce electricity - does that mean potato batteries are a substitute for duracell batteries? |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :said by nasadude :said by MyDogHsFleas :...There's a TON of competition out there. I live in area code 20850; I eagerly await your list of multiple broadband providers in my area. You said: quote:
there is no meaningful competition in the U.S. market and there won't be any for years to come.
So now "the US market" equals "zip code 20850" ?? Come on. Pick an argument and stick with it, OK?? quote:
sorry, satellite broadband is not a substitute for wired or even wireless broadband.
umm... yeah... it is. Maybe not a perfect one, but it is. I have a co-worker who lives in a remote area in Northern California on a ranch. He barely has POTS service (he has to maintain his own 1/4 mile of twisted pair). He is a work at home guy like me with heavy internet/VPN use, and uses satellite. It works OK for him. Maybe it's a little slower than if he had DSL or cable, but it works. Yeah, and look how far we've come since the Telecom Act of 1996. Yep, competition all over the place, and getting cheaper by the minute/byte (which they'll soon be charging by). How much USF money do you think the telcos have collected over the intervening years? Enough to enable them to provide service to your friend's rural abode? Probably...
Where I live, a major metropolitan area, I only have one telco (AT&T), one cable company (Comcrap), to choose from. While there are plenty of resellers still for telco service, the prices are anything but competitive. Cable is an unattractive, even less reliable, and more expensive option. No teleco entity/reseller here offers speeds over 3Mbps/384Kbps without surcharging the hell out of you. Five miles away, there is Verizon Fios, but they can't compete in my location because AT&T is the monopoly telco here. The wiring in my neighborhood is the shits, and it is routine that my line pairs are stolen at least once a year by AT&T service techs in search of a reasonably quiet pair for a "new" install. The F2 cable run to my central office is defective, which AT&T has known for years, but AT&T won't replace it. Uverse is a substandard promise I won't hold my breath for, and probably won't be able to afford by the time it is implemented here, anyway.
Telecom competition is just a bad, and expensive, joke...but the subject under discussion was/is network neutrality, right? |
|
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
I wouldn't call sub-dial-up speeds (satellite) "useable". I'm also far away enough from apparently everyone to get DSL, so I have two choices: dial-up (can't use it for gaming, which is basically all I do on the internet, anyway), or Comcrap. Tell me, how the HELL is there competition there? |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | I wouldn't call sub-dial-up speeds (satellite) "useable". I'm also far away enough from apparently everyone to get DSL, so I have two choices: dial-up (can't use it for gaming, which is basically all I do on the internet, anyway), or Comcrap. Tell me, how the HELL is there competition there?
Satellite has high latencies which make it unsuitable for gaming. If gaming's your thing you need DSL or cable, for sure.
Of course, gaming is optional entertainment, you are not using your broadband connection to make a living like I am! So frankly I have little sympathy. Pay your Comcast bill and play your games, or don't.
My co-worker who has satellite signed up for the "professional package" which doesn't have the download limits. He reports that once it gets going, speeds are pretty good, certainly a lot better than the dialup he used to have.
And, hey, check out this Wednesday Evening Links here on our very own dslreports.com! "Satellite Broadband to serve 1.2 million homes by 2012". |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :Who owns the wireless providers? You've got a good point there. AT&T and Verizon obviously overlap in the broadband and wireless business. Sprint and T-mobile do not. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to MyDogHsFleas
VPN over satellite broadband is no better than over dial-up. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Heavy UDP traffic, like VPN, kills sat internet connections. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | When you've got a 280MB monthly cap that, if broken, results in your connection being throttled back to 14kbps...everything kills satellite Internet connections. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Karl Bode :When you've got a 280MB monthly cap that, if broken, results in your connection being throttled back to 14kbps... everything kills satellite Internet connections. That's exactly correct. My co-worker I was referring to got some kind of "professional" level subscription that did not have the caps. Pretty much required if you're going to be a heavy user. |
|
nunya biz
@keybank.com
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
"I can choose my broadband provider from cable (Time Warner), aDSL or VDSL (AT&T), or satellite (WildBlue or HughesNet)"
Maybe you can but I cant either! Anyone who thinks satellite is a viable solution for all is not aware of the high latency involved. Forget about playing games and no chance of VOIP, anything that needs a "good" low latency connection is out of the question. I have 2 choices and thats it! Cable is a high latency drag around here. Every once in a while a small guy pops up and gives the ISP game a whirl. They cannot compete, they cant under bid the Host Telco and the bundling that is offered. And they just end up calling the host telco with issues anyway.
I have spoken with them before and it was like talking to a 5 year old who knew about computers.
"How fast is the connection?: we cant promise any speeds. I know that, but what kind of connection is it?: ya see we cant promise any level of connection speed. Ok, Is it 128up 3down?: same answer.........never mind." is kinda how it went.
There are always posts here asking for service. In my ISP forum, there are always people asking when service is schedule to roll out. There is no competition in a lot of the country. |
|
Drywall
@comcast.net
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
And I'm sure the monthly cost for this satellite service is competitive with Cable/DSL prices.... not.
Cable and DSL are fungible; satellite simply isn't. It's not competitive from a cost/performance standpoint. The only people using satellite are people who can't get cable or DSL. Thus, it's not really a legitimate option for switching should a consumer wish to penalize their ISP for being non-neutral.
Having 2-3 firms to choose from isn't really competition, it's oligopoly. Or have you forgotten your Econ 101 lessons on the four basic types of markets? |
|
