Indiana Video Franchise Law SuccessfulCompetition has increased broadband availability and decreased prices ( old news - 12:00PM Sunday Mar 02 2008) tags: Video · competition · business · legislation · consumersBack in 2006, the state of Indiana set some precedent when it established a video franchise law called the Telecom Reform Act. The law, which increases competition in the state’s broadband market, ultimately became the model for changing the nationwide standard on this issue. Two years later, a review of the service shows that Indiana’s efforts were successful in increasing the availability of broadband services, decreasing consumer costs and boosting the economy. "In the months following the act, broadband access in Indiana literally exploded. The state saw broadband access grow by almost 75 percent in a year, so that by the end of 2006, the state had 1.5 million broadband connections. In the 18 months since the legislation was enacted, over $500 million in new information technology was invested in the state -- just by telephone companies now able to compete with cable TV broadband providers. This led directly to 2,200 new jobs in telecommunications in Indiana, and this is just Hoosier workers installing and servicing new connections." It is believed that Indiana’s pricing has dropped somewhere between fifteen and twenty percent as a result of the competition that the law created. Of equal importance is the fact that the competition stimulated the businesses in the area to begin providing newer and better services on an ongoing basis.
Related:- The Metered Billing Fight Is About To Get Ugly
- Comcast Can Officially Get Even More Gigantic
- Echostar Joins Push For Lower Broadband Definitions
- Pittsburgh City Council Approves FiOS Franchise
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
- AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
- FCC Study: Open Access Lowers Prices, Improves Competition
|
 
yuutomo
The Wonder Kitter
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT | hey congress seems Indiana did it right, why can't you? | |
|  | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: hey congress said by yuutomo  :seems Indiana did it right, why can't you? It worked because with statewide franchising it took all the little towns and cities out of the extortion game where the local pols held things up unless their pet projects were funded.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| "seems Indiana did it right, why can't you?"
The answer to that is as plain as the nose on your face. Look at the list of the top campaign contributors to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumers and the rest of the current Democrat leadership in Congress...
Time Warner, Comcast, Viacom etc ... all those who have a vested interest in keeping their sleazy little monopoly intact.
The Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007 has been stalled since June 07 and those in Congress who have their noses up Hollywood's butts won't let it move. | |
| | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO | Did what right? Killed public broadcast of live meetings of legislative bodies? At least C-SPAN will not be as easy to kill. | |
| 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Lets see if I get this straight... This 'video franschise law' promoted by teleco (AT&T) to deploy Uverse worked. I think AT&T also strong armed the state with some threats of pulling its call centers out.
Give it a little bit of time...costs will be as high as the rest of the country.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | Couch Potato
What?
Premium
join:2004-08-29
Evansville, IN
·Insight Communicat..
| Re: Lets see if I get this straight... said by en102 :I think AT&T also strong armed the state with some threats of pulling its call centers out. Last year, AT&T opened a NEW call center here in E-ville, making use of the huge, old Sam's Club building, and creating a butt load of new jobs.
I am not a fan of AT&T, just stating that fact. | |
| | | | | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24
1 edit | said by en102 :This 'video franschise law' promoted by teleco (AT&T) to deploy Uverse worked. I think AT&T also strong armed the state with some threats of pulling its call centers out. Give it a little bit of time...costs will be as high as the rest of the country. The strong arm tactics were also paired with a promise to the state to deploy basic DSL to 100 unsevered rural communities "within the next year". A promise they did actually uphold, in December of 2006. The "explosion" of new broadband connections may have taken place, but there's no indication of any ongoing expansion of services taking place.
Edit: Oops - Not 2007 | |
| 
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Duopoly Is creating a state endorsed duopoly really good? It may make sense to allow telcos to do video, but it makes no sense to lock all other competitors out of the broadband market, as the FCC has done with it's elimination of the wholesale market.
Will a duopoly behave much better than a monopoly? This is one step forward and two steps backward.
-Dane | |
| | 
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
| Re: Duopoly It was a trade off.
There's allot of farming communities and to get them "up to speed" the state made a deal the the death star. Now the question is will the empire change the deal and leave a garrison of solders behind. 
--
PentiumD 930 DC 3.0GHz - 4GB PC2-4200 - 300GB SATA - BFG Nvidia 7950GT OC 512MB
- Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600(1101MCE) - Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| I understand where you're coming from Dane, but the "success" in this situation, was due to state legislation and franchise reform, not the easing of the wholesale market by the FCC, which a different topic that has been bantered to death around here. | |
| | |
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Re: Duopoly said by openbox9 :I understand where you're coming from Dane, but the "success" in this situation, was due to state legislation and franchise reform, not the easing of the wholesale market by the FCC, which a different topic that has been bantered to death around here. Competition is what's been killed by the FCC. I understand that the state believes that they've created some new competition in TV by allowing the telco to deliver video, but my point was that it's just more steps down a road the US shouldn't be on.
-Dane | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Duopoly Maybe I would see things differently if I was a CEO of an ISP providing DSL using an ILEC's last mile infrastructure, but I don't see competition beings killed by the FCC. You can't say that competition has been killed off by the FCC and then turn around and say that states have created new competition. | |
| | | | |
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Re: Duopoly said by openbox9 :Maybe I would see things differently if I was a CEO of an ISP providing DSL using an ILEC's last mile infrastructure, but I don't see competition beings killed by the FCC. You can't say that competition has been killed off by the FCC and then turn around and say that states have created new competition. Ya, that's sort of my point. The state is saying that they've created competition in video by making franchise easier - but the whole concept has come at the expense of competition in DSL and cable. I see this as less competition, but the state says there is more. In a narrow segment (TV) there is one new entrant, while there is a huge sucking sound in the broadband access area that everyone is ignoring.
-Dane | |
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| How does this amount to a state-endorsed duopoly? The 2006 Telecom Reform Act, from what I can tell, doesn't say that just AT&T can enter the video market. All it does it make it a whole lot easier for new companies to get franchising. Before, anybody who wanted to provide video service had to deal with greedy municipal officials who demand a chunk of profits. Now, laying new wire in public rights of way is less expensive because you only have to deal with the state government.
Just because AT&T has been the biggest benefactor of this law so far doesn't mean we have a duopoly by any means, unless there is some reason why a third company couldn't enter the market by obtaining a statewide franchise in Indiana. Plus, isn't two video providers still better than one choice-the cable company? | |
| | |
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Re: Duopoly The duopoly I'm referring to is the cable and telco - as created by the FCC's forbearance decisions with regards to the requirement to wholesale next generation and today's DSL networks.
The state's video franchise just makes it easier for AT&T to deliver video over this network. My point is that the elimination of competition in wireline Internet access will not likely prove to be good for consumers in the long run, as it creates simply two competitors where previously there were thousands across the country.
Here's some thought on where we're headed, from: »www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a27bdb16-5ecd···340.html
"The US is facing a competitive crisis in broadband deployment. Yet as it continues to fall behind its competitors, the Federal Communications Commission continues to live in denial. The more it has “deregulated” telecommunications, the worse (comparatively) broadband competition and service have become. When it was 10th in the world George W. Bush, US president, said that “10th is 10 spots too low”. The nation is now 16th. Broadband in the US is 12 times the price in Japan and six times the price in France."
See also: »www.ectaportal.com/en/upload/Fil···inal.pdf
"Countries with the highest levels of broadband penetration in Europe were mostly characterised by strong competition through a combination of local loop unbundling and cable. Lower ranked countries often lacked significant unbundling competition."
My only point is that with the FCC's decisions to block competitive access to AT&T and Verizon's networks, they've signed the death warrants of many competitive ISPs, and that this will not serve consumers will in the long term.
-Dane | |
| 
MDReferee
Federal Flack
Premium
join:2001-10-21
Germantown, MD
·Verizon FIOS
| Source... I normally don't comment too much on the news around here, but this totally reads like an AT&T Press Release.
It would be one thing if the BBR story quoted a newspaper "story" written by a reporter (which has it's own caveats, but is supposed to at least appear to be objective). This BBR News story, however, references a column. Big difference.
The columnist is the Director of the "Bureau of Business Research" at Ball State. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I wonder how much AT&T contributes to the Bureau of Business Research at Ball State.
I know it's a touchy topic, but Verizon is managing to deploy FiOS in many areas without a statewide franchise. The two schools of thought, of course, are the consumer protections provided by a strong and empowered local franchise authority versus the burden on the free market imposed by local governments.
I don't have the answer as to which is the "correct" way to do it, but I at least felt like I needed to point out the problem of pointing to this column as journalism, which it is not.
--
If I didn't see it... it didn't happen! | |
| | 
saveaccess
@mindspring.com
| Re: Source... Read the actual report - not the news articles
The 'academic' study/review this article refers was written by the 'Digital Policy Institute' of Ball State University. AT&T helped fund and support the study - only fitting since they wrote the bulk of the Indiana State Video Franchise Law.
An Interim Report on the Economic Impact of Telecommunications Reform in Indiana
»www.bsu.edu/digitalpolicy/media/···ster.pdf
I suggest you read the study carefully, it cites many studies by industry funded think tanks (Heartland Institute, etc) and actually provides little research of its own. It also relies heavily on those questionable FCC and GAO reports on broadband penetration. The 20% decline in pricing is actually from a reference to the GAO report. Later in the report, the writers cite anecdotal evidence of a few subscribers negotiating price breaks over the phone when they threaten to switch providers (there's some solid research data).
There are also numerous and notable exclusions: public right-of-way, build-out, red-lining and PEG are never mentioned anywhere in the report - these the most controversial issues of any state-wide video franchise legislation. The phrase "Public Interest" is nowhere to be found, though "consumer interest" appears in a sentence celebrating the "hands-off" regulatory framework of the legislation. The closing paragraph pretty much sums it up; "In conclusion, this is the beginning of the parade, not the end. . . . For now, the digital welcome mat is out in Indiana". I'm not sure why anyone would want corporations to come and wipe their feet all over their state, much less give them a parade for doing it - but there it is.
In short - this is a 100 page puff piece to prop up AT&T and probably something can leverage in their current fight in Tennessee. Ball State should be ashamed - this reeks of academic research for hire.
For another take, this is a good read:
Blind Alleys
»riedelcommunications.blogspot.com/
- saveaccess.org | |
| 
goofy01
join:2004-02-05
Hammond, IN
·Comcast
| Not all true As a resident in Indiana, I haven't seen any lower prices for broadband. All I have seen is less services due to the new law. This new law removed the requirements of local public access channels. Due to this, important public meetings, like city and county council meetings are no longer shown, since the new law said they didn't have to show them anymore. Comcast and WOW both cut off the broadcast once they were allowed to. My city has had both companies here for quite a while and no one around here has seen any price reductions. | |
| | steelyken
join:2002-03-04
Plainfield, IN | Re: Not all true Also a resident, and I see the same yearly increases as always. Where is the proof? | |
| | | eternal
join:2006-09-14
Knox, IN
| Where's the beef I am also a resident but unlike the others I am one of those who live "in the sticks" I finally gave in and ordered satellite broadband (and I use the term broadband lightly).
There are no other options. ATT did expand their dsl coverage but only to a new housing development consisting of higher class homes. This new development is FARTHER away than I am by miles so I have no other choice the way I see it. Cable hasn't even tried to expand. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | Re: Not all true What bullshit telco shill report is this? What new companies moved into IN? Who lowered their prices? ATT? hahaha.
quote:
In the 18 months since the legislation was enacted, over $500 million in new information technology was invested in the state -- just by telephone companies ATT now able to compete with cable TV broadband providers.
Fixed it.
quote:
"In the months following the act, broadband access in Indiana literally exploded. The state saw broadband access grow by almost 75 percent in a year, so that by the end of 2006, the state had 1.5 million broadband connections.
75%? perhaps that growth would have happened anyways, no matter what, as the world turns more digital. Also that sounds like quoting 2005 as responsible for the 75% growth, that makes sense, there was alot more dialup to broadband conversions back then there are now, by now the only people who are on dialup will never switch, or can't.
What a joke.
quote:
Broadband Internet access is now a necessary element of business, and some type of broadband access is available virtually everywhere in Indiana (as with the rest of the nation). However, that access can be very, very costly. Even in places where existing cable TV and other cable connections to homes exist, the charge for broadband could be more than a $1,000 a year for a residential user. One major reason for the high cost is the residual monopoly power enjoyed by the dominant providers of broadband, the cable TV providers.
Not a reason, well lets blame the cable companies for having internet where ATT doesn't want to put it, and how is this the cable companies fault? Shills.
quote:
The 2006 Telecom Reform Act in Indiana ended the cable TV monopoly power in broadband by allowing other service providers to compete within regions for customers. This is known as video franchising.
Amazing. What does a video franchise have to do with internet access? Nothing legally, no state can put price controls or regulate consumer broadband per FCC rules, and the FCC doesn't regulate it either. Being a devils advocate you can say that internet access (Uverse Internet) follows where video was installed (Uverse TV), but here million dollar question is, is Uverse being installed in areas which don't have traditional RT fed ADSL service?
quote:
It's difficult to tell what the effect on prices has been -- pricing is a closely held industry secret. But, in the places where credible studies have been done, a 15-percent to 20-percent drop is common.
Is he referring to ATT's $15 DSL? Remember cable follows the "we have a higher quality product and thats why we charge more, we don't decrease our price, if they want to leave to poor quality dirt cheap DSL, fine, we will maintain a better product" theology.
quote:
It is easy in the waning days of a rancorous session to criticize our legislators. But the very short history of Indiana's Telecom Reform Act ought to give us pause. For, in the inelegant but important world of telecommunications policy, Indiana has emerged as a true leader.
Any reasons why other than a ATT hiring more workers?
EDIT: Yep, shill, just like I thought. Post below proves it. »Read the actual report - not the news articles | |
|
saveaccess
@mindspring.com
| Read the actual report - not the news articles The 'academic' study/review this article refers was written by the 'Digital Policy Institute' of Ball State University. AT&T helped fund and support the study - only fitting since they wrote the bulk of the Indiana State Video Franchise Law.
An Interim Report on the Economic Impact of Telecommunications Reform in Indiana
»www.bsu.edu/digitalpolicy/media/···ster.pdf
I suggest you read the study carefully, it cites many studies by industry funded think tanks (Heartland Institute, etc) and actually provides little research of its own. It also relies heavily on those questionable FCC and GAO reports on broadband penetration. The 20% decline in pricing is actually from a reference to the GAO report. Later in the report, the writers cite anecdotal evidence of a few subscribers negotiating price breaks over the phone when they threaten to switch providers (there's some solid research data).
There are also numerous and notable exclusions: public right-of-way, build-out, red-lining and PEG are never mentioned anywhere in the report - these the most controversial issues of any state-wide video franchise legislation. The phrase "Public Interest" is nowhere to be found, though "consumer interest" appears in a sentence celebrating the "hands-off" regulatory framework of the legislation. The closing paragraph pretty much sums it up; "In conclusion, this is the beginning of the parade, not the end. . . . For now, the digital welcome mat is out in Indiana". I'm not sure why anyone would want corporations to come and wipe their feet all over their state, much less give them a parade for doing it - but there it is.
In short - this is a 100 page puff piece to prop up AT&T and probably something can leverage in their current fight in Tennessee. Ball State should be ashamed - this reeks of academic research for hire.
For another take, this is a good read:
Blind Alleys
»riedelcommunications.blogspot.com/
- saveaccess.org | |
|
Mumbly Joe
@charter.com
| That's an ATT Press Release. The validity of the article unravels pretty quickly when you scratch the surface. The statewide franchising, which gave ATT a "leg-up" only permitted them to pee on the rights of citizens and pad the wallets of state legislatures. No commitment to provide annual build-out requirements (old cable franchising), no guarantee to serve areas they don't think are financially feasible, and no local franchising fees, etc. etc.
Oh and enjoy your community access (read free-speech TV) after you have waited 90 secs to find it 90 sec to load in reduced resolution and no longer live. Visit Texas or North Carolina and ask them what statewide franchising has done for pricing, redlining, or Access. Remember the old cable equation: "No provider sees profit until they serve at least 50% of the homes passed." Where is ATT in your state? They have a sneaky plan up their sleeves and it has to do with where TV will be in 5 years. Can you guess? | |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| And the mechanism is...? "The law, which increases competition in the state's broadband market...."
Well no, it does nothing to the broadband market directly. It affects the video market.
It's nice that broadband penetration has (maybe, see above post) increased in Indiana, but broadband was not franchised in the first place.
What has happened with video? And if a video franchise law is somehow responsible for broadband, what is the mechanism for this since the law itself has no direct effects?
Btw... check out footnote 191:
191 Data from www.dslreports.com were used in the following fashion: states that that showed a cluster of U-verse
or FiOS on the map as of January 2, 2008 were added as having service from the provider. A cluster implies more
than one report of service. States with single isolated reports of service were not included
That's right. They used the dslreports mashup to map the penetration of new broadband services.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| |
saveaccess
@mindspring.com
| Re: And the mechanism is...? Broadband, telephony and cable TV are separately regulated services. But combined, they are a 'triple play', the holy grail of cableco/telco marketing and profit.
In order for AT&T to enter the cable TV marketplace they demand that states pass state-wide video franchises making it more attractive to their business model. On the Federal level, they attempted this with the COPE Act in Congress, which passed 2006, but failed in in the Senate under Sen. Steven's watch (when he got entangled in net neutrality). AT&T needs this legislation to escape from public interest requirements - particularly equitable build-out requirements and PEG channel carriage and support.
They promise that "competition will equal lower prices" for cable TV services, and sell this mantra to state politicians for a price. Their promise of increased broadband penetration and 'new jobs' is also part and parcel of this extortion.
The Ball State study is merely a payback to the politicians who received hefty donations - to placate constituents who may be thinking otherwise (like those that have posted here).
Interestingly, in addition to AT&T funding for the Ball State study, two of the researchers have current and past ties. Dr. Robert Yadon works as a consultant for AT&T, and Michael J. Hicks is formerly of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan which released a similar AT&T funded 'think tank' report when the state franchise was pending in the legislature there.
As for the ills of broadband - it was the FCC and Supreme Court's "Brand X" decision that completed the deregulation of broadband and eliminated many of the small competitors in that market.
Not only have cable TV prices not dropped in Indiana, many reports indicate they have risen. And as some posters here have noted, the public, educational and governmental channels are being eliminated by AT&T and cable incumbents as a result of this legislation. Additionally, with no build-out guidelines, AT&T and others can now red-line whole counties into perpetual dial-up limbo without any the threat of legal action or fines that local video franchising protected. | |
| Answer Guy
join:2006-07-28
Grass Lake, MI | FIOS A lot of the dollars spend and increase in customers is due Verizon deploying FIOS in Ft Wayne. They also turned up video last year and I'm sure that also helped the numbers. | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | What is Indiana doing differently? Over the past 18 months I have read on BBR a few times that the telcos have increased prices, one of them being Verizon raising FIOS prices. So what is Indiana doing differently then all the rest of the states that established video franchise laws? | |
| |
saveaccess
@mindspring.com
| Re: What is Indiana doing differently? Indiana is doing nothing differently - and prices aren't dropping. The Ball State study merely suggests this may happen, a bit of creative writing combined with marketing. The press reports are merely picking up on the summary language of the report without plowing through the 100 page report. It also helps that one of the "researchers" wrote a strategically placed column also suggesting the price drop:
"It's difficult to tell what the effect on prices has been -- pricing is a closely held industry secret. But, in the places where credible studies have been done, a 15-percent to 20-percent drop is common. And a more subtle effect is emerging: The once-sleepy local monopolists are now advertising vigorously about both price and quality of service. To a trained eye, a billboard advertising customer service is perhaps the best indicator of competition."
»www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.d···303/1046
The 15-20% figure is referencing the refuted GAO study, the rest is pure creative writing meant to evoke a positive response. The opening statement is the only honest one - real pricing is unknown because the legislation eliminated any municipal oversight over the reporting of pricing and build-out plans. So actually, as a result of this legislation, Indiana is more in the dark about cable TV and broadband pricing and penetration than they were in 2005.
I really don't know if Ball State is public or private, though they sell themselves on their site as "educational entrepreneurs". But if they are public and public funds went toward this highly questionable study and subsequent PR - the offending department should investigated and possible closed down, If a private university - they should be spanked for such sloppy work - then shut down. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Its ATT's $15 a month DSL they r referring to. | |
| 
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| For the sake of clarity The Telecom Reform Act was a multi-faceted piece of legislation that sought to:
•provide a path for telcos to escape state regulatory oversight;
•establish a statewide franchise scheme open to anyone wanting to provide television. Since passage, most telcos AND cable companies have signed up for a statewide franchise and the ability to escape 100% service and give-aways to local governments for individual franchise agreements. Oh, also at the loss of local oversight on franchise performance if that matters to anyone.
•Reap benefits for the state (elected idiots had to make it look like they did their job and held at&t's feet to the fire). at&t did promise to add jobs - - some of which were to support growth of U-wish and some of which were to house the previously out-sourced support from overseas which solved two problems for at&t and didn't do much for the state if you look at the net employment and wages for a few years before compared to a few years after (they recovered some already lost jobs and at a lesser level of compensation)
•some rates are rumored to have dropped. Not sure I've seen them, but I'm sure someone has seen a financial benefit other than the Governor who got $20K from at&t's PAC last year
•at&t did agree to accelerate statewide deployment of dsl. They soon after announced that dsl was available in every central office they had. But, they haven't pointed out how much they have done to resolve distance issues in many of the communities previously not served. Installing a generic bit of software in the switch and working to make dsl available are two clearly different things.
It might be Indiana's legislation but it was written by at&t, sponsored by at&t and their lobbyist, and full of promises that at&t would have made anyhow. Look at what they get versus the local consumer and somebody made out pretty danged well.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours!
If you paid taxes it's a rebate. If you didn't, it's welfare. | |
|
FarmerIN
@joink.com
| Worked for me I am in Indiana, out in the sticks. Verizon decided, along with AT&T, to equip all of their COs with DSL capability. This decision came along with this legislation. In my case this worked - I now have Verizon DSL where previously dialup or satellite was my only option. As for prices dropping, I think they are generally dropping across the board for DSL - take a look at the banner ads everywhere listing Verizon DSL for $12/month. Without this legislation, I don't think Verizon (or AT&T) would have done this DSL expansion. There are several small rural communities around the area that are ecstatic at having an option to get DSL for the first time. This is real improvement.
Now I agree that Verizon has not done much to improve line qualification or remove DSL obstacles (load coils, etc). And of course there are still distance limitations that prevent many from getting DSL. But something is much better than nothing. Verizon has said they will work to expand DSL reach, and improve speeds. 7mbps DSL is coming very soon for my little CO - that is unbelievable considering a few short months ago 1X cellular access was my best choice (Verizon also turned up EVDO cellular data in my area about the same time as DSL). | |
|
justncredible
@rr.com
| free market next step? Imagine a free market, I think the commies screwed up on this move, now that the locals have lost franchise rights it should be alot easier to get rid of the state controlled franchises, then back to the free market and the customers really winning for once. All it takes from here on out is one smart governor. | |
| |
municommie
@mindspring.com
|  Re: free market next step?
Cable Pricing was effectively deregulated in the '94 Telecom Act - prices have risen 93% since then. Concentration of ownership since has increased resulting in fewer competitors.
The 2006 Brand X Decision deregulated data services and also has led to a greater concentration of ownership since network providers no longer had to negotiate with small ISPs. With decreased competition, prices and access speeds have remained static.
Probably the only place you'll see significant prices cuts and better service are in cities where the municipalities have offered their own internet/cable/phone services via fiber or BPL.
Of course these are little commie outfits trying to socialize communications and save their citizens money while offering better service. Fortunately the telephone companies (the 3 remaining) take these pinkos to court and are able to delay or stop most municipal networks from coming into existence - saving us from the domino effect. | |
| | | | |
|
|
·
