52% Think Broadband Most Important Utility > %

reply to ITALIAN926

Re: %

Not an ounce of sense in your entire post. People like you are part of the problem. Verizon invested $1600 to bring you FiOS, and you left after one year. You think they made money on you? Funny. They LOST money ! People who drop services because of a $10 /mo difference actually drive up prices in this scenario.

They are a business trying to make money, they arent a non-profit charity like you seem to believe.

If broadband were an actual utility you would be entitled to it like you are the others.

Verizon would have to provide reasonable service without gouging, like the others.

I would argue that today broadband is actually needed by most people, maybe 95%.

So it *is* a utility and deserves regulation as a public utility, especially since these companies have easements on property that we, not they own to run their wires and fiber, there is a giant barrier to entry for competitors.

Some amount of regulation of utilities of this type with these perks is required. As soon as we get some the gouging will stop and the service will hopefully improve.

We have connected lives and a connected future. It's not a matter of whether sewer, water or electricity are more or less imporatant than broadband, it's that we do need them all in our society. The broadband providers hate the idea that they should be forced to serve the public in the public interest, but the sooner that principle is assigned to broadband the better.

I have ATT DSL. No UVERSE on my side of the street. Slow, really slow. I need better and I deserve better.

ATT can't give me better without getting up out of their chair and actually working, doing something they should be doing anyway, which is repairing and replacing their copper plant, which is owned by the telco ratepayers by the way.

They'd rather not. So I struggle.

The sooner broadband becomes a right with standards for performance the better. If ATT won't do it the right of ways should be transferred to a company that will.

reply to tmc8080
Verizon Wireless *used to* be on the right path -- I'm currently reaping the benefit of a former CEO who had the future in mind and put a nice fat fiber pipe under our road. He knew that broadband was going to be a huge thing and planned for it, but he didn't last long because the stockholders weren't happy they weren't earning profits fast enough.

I have 3mps DSL but it's a godsend compared to satellite and depending solely on wireless data. Our jetpack makes a great backup for when the power goes out. That's a big risk over the next two days as winds from Hurricane Sandy whip through Michigan.

reply to steevo22
why do you "deserve better"? Quite the sense of entitlement no?

If it really is that valuable, then paying more per month shouldn't be a major issue right?

I see it another way, for the low sum of $50 a month you have access to all kinds of services that in the past would have cost hundreds of dollars per month and would have taken many hours more of your time to access.

no, it's an optional service that is by no means a right or a utility.

reply to ITALIAN926

reply to steevo22
Whether regulated or not, you cant force carriers to charge prices that causes them to lose money. Is your checkbook balanced?

reply to ITALIAN926
So someone voting with their pocket book and deciding a $10 price increase makes them look elsewhere is the reason prices are too high?

Help me understand the economic theory behind that logic.

reply to ITALIAN926
Regulation doesn't necessarily mean price control. Regulation could be as simple as defining what broadband means and how it should be billed -- not what can be charged.

reply to firephoto

reply to ITALIAN926

reply to rradina

quote:

---

So someone voting with their pocket book and deciding a $10 price increase makes them look elsewhere is the reason prices are too high?

Help me understand the economic theory behind that logic.

---

If a new store is built in my neighborhood, I need to shop at it regardless of the prices they charge. If I don't, they won't be able to generate enough revenue to pay for their capital investment. Faced with insufficient cash flow, their only option is to raise prices. Is that your perspective?

reply to prairiesky
It was decided with the telcos that there should be competition and they broke up MA Bell. You are now reaping the rewards of that decision. When you divide the pie into too many small slices nobody is satisfied.

I wonder if the best solution would be a dumb (fiber) pipe utility and then let every customer contact a content provider. The content providers can compete on price and content.

The fiber utility is only the fiber. The content provider would furnish the electronics on the head end and the customer end. That way if someone comes up with better electronics or content at a price each customer can decide to stay or leave their content provider.

reply to firephoto
It's the difference between how the finance system is in the US and in Japan. In Japan they think nothing of developing something new that will be highly profitable in 10 years. Ever seen a Prius?

In the US if it doesn't show on this quarter's balance sheet wall street would think poorly of them- so they can't spend the money. It results in all the short sighted ripoffs that pervade our society.

But the thing to remember here is these same companies have received easements to run wires and to operate on our property and I have not been paid for that.

I object to private companies being given gratis access to utility right of ways when they are not operating as utilities, in the public interest.

I have ATT running Uverse wiring out by my property line and they want that all to be completely deregulated.

But guess what, those easements were for the PSTN, not for Uverse video and internet. I charge $4,000 a month for access to that easement. It's mine, not theirs.

I am waiting for my check.

Technically, they are still providing PSTN over those lines, arent they? Youre gonna try to tell them what kind of 1's and 0's they can send along with it?

They have those free easements to provide PSTN, in the public interest. As regulated utilities, gouging was not allowed.

You really think I have to let them carry their paid traffic across my property free? Do they let me send my traffic across anything of theirs free? Can I install a server at their CO free? Nope.

LOL youre assuming that if fully regulated, prices would be LOWER.

Gouging with competition? Dont think so.

There is so little competition in broadband it makes no sense to even mention it. In areas where there are even two providers I think they have a special smoke filled room to discuss things. DSL is failing right now in any case, and not because the telcos couldn't compete, they just don't care to.

But I didn't say that anyway, I just don't agree to have an unregulated for profit company using my property (or even public property) to conduct their business.

Unless they want to pay me for the pleasure. Believe me, if I wanted to run some wires across their property they'd be standing there with their hand out. And for good reason.

reply to ITALIAN926