[PLUG-TALK] Verizon willfully driving DSL users into the arms of cable

[Bill Ensley]

>>Users need to speak up and demand this and be willing
>>cooperate to pay for it (less than they pay for a crappier service
>>now)

This is the key point I was trying to make.

I spend roughly $250.00 per month for the 4 Fully
Internet connected Unlimited everything mobile phones
in my family.

For me, I'd gladly pay more for reliable home service
that would do everything I want.

I don't need to put the "it must be cheaper" qualifier on it.

Hearing whining about $30 or $40 internet service
is simply irritating.  If everyone bucked up and was
willing to pay more we wouldn't really have this issue.

While I don't disagree that it's retarded to build
overlapping infrastructure, I don't expect a Private
(emphasis Private) company to give away access to
a competitor.

Your analogy of different highways for cars only works
for telco if the government also built the telco
infrastructure.  They didn't, private money did.

Have you spent much time back east?  If you want
to get somewhere fast, you use a Private Highway
and you pay extra for it.

There is no reason why telco should be any different.

-Bill Ensley
www.bearprinting.com




On 7/27/2012 11:28 AM, Russell Senior wrote:
>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at gate.kl-ic.com> writes:
> Galen> The public really needs to own the infrastructure.
> Galen> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/op-ed-verizon-willfully-driving-dsl-users-into-the-arms-of-cable/>
>
> Keith> I'm not sure I understand the problem.  Why should Verizon
> Keith> maintain legacy copper crap when it can move customers to more
> Keith> maintainable FIOS?  New fiber is cheaper and more durable than
> Keith> coax or twisted pair, though the endpoints are $$$$ .  A long
> Keith> term oriented company would be stupid to connect new customers
> Keith> with copper.
>
> The copper was built under explicitly monopoly conditions where the
> company was guaranteed a profit by the state, so there is regulatory
> authority to compell "open access" where service providers other than
> the nominal owner can use the infrastructure to reach customers.
> Since the Telco Act of 1996, new infrastructure is the sole property
> of the owner.  You can't use Aracnet (or whoever) and its TOS over
> verizon/frontier fiber.  Unless and until that changes (unlikely),
> public ownership of the infrastructure is the only thing that can
> guarantee open-access that would actually provide the competition that
> the Telco Act claimed to be encouraging.  Even Google's fiber project,
> which seemed so enlightened 2 years ago, is launching without
> open-access.  While there is in theory no longer a monopoly (another
> company could build a second network), in practice the monopoly (or
> near monopoly) remains, and for structural/economic reasons, it is
> likely to remain so.
>
> Fiber has the capacity to carry everyones traffic, for any/all
> ISPs/customers/insert-random-innovation-of-the-future.  It is idiotic
> to build more than one network in a particular area, as idiotic as
> having seperate highways for different makes of cars.  You just
> multiply the capital expense and divide the user-base that will pay
> for it, making profits lower and end-user costs higher.
>
> Wireless will never *ever* compete with fiber in terms of capacity,
> principally because you don't have a good way of controlling and
> channeling the interference without the boundaries of a conductor.  As
> a result, your bits get sprayed as RF all over creation in an almost
> completely uncontrolled fashion.  Wireless is great for broadcast, not
> good for 2-way communication for many users, all of whom want/need to
> transmit.  It is worse than half-duplex, it's 1/Nth duplex, where N is
> the number of users within range.  Meanwhile, the stray RF just fuzzes
> up everyone else listening for weak signals.
>
> For $$$-efficient, high-speed, high-capacity networks, you need fiber.
> And to in our own peculiar degenerate political/legal regime the only
> way to keep the users interests in the picture is through
> user-ownership.  Users need to speak up and demand this and be willing
> cooperate to pay for it (less than they pay for a crappier service
> now), or it won't happen.
>
>