13% of you no longer have broadband!! Yeah!

[fskimospy]

Why dont we just let companies build and offer service anywhere they want?

Because in places like NYC for example we don't want 10 different cable companies tearing up the pavement whenever they feel like it.

People don't want 9 different cable boxes in their back yard, 8 of which serve no purpose, etc.

 

[ivwshane]

Why dont we just let companies build and offer service anywhere they want?

We do, it's just that the cost of entry is so high that it makes little sense for new companies to come in when the current provider has a 50%+ market share. That's not even including lobbying out competition.

 

[bshole]

I have uVerse Max Plus internet (via fiber) 18 Mbps download /2 Mbps upload.

So do I and I love it. I really really do. Seems plenty snappy to me. It still amazes me that I can watch 4 shows on 4 seperate HD TVs, play WOW on the computer, watch porn on the laptop, play games on the Iphone, the kindle and G5, call 1900 sex line on the land line ALL at the same time and have zero issues at all.... all of this coming in on a single telephone line. For me currently, more speed would be just wasted.

 

[realibrad]

Because in places like NYC for example we don't want 10 different cable companies tearing up the pavement whenever they feel like it.

People don't want 9 different cable boxes in their back yard, 8 of which serve no purpose, etc.

So you mean to tell me that if municipalities did not keep out companies, that a company would just tear up the pavement when ever they wanted and not pay for it?

I would imagine that companies would still have to pay for any work they would need or want to do. Also, a company would likely not build something unless they could get a return on the investment. The only way they would get a return is if they offered something wanted by the people.

Do you really think allowing more ISPs would cause too much construction?

 

[Darwin333]

They'll just come up with some fancy and pleasing name to make it sound good.

...but do people even use ATT for internet..?

I have 45 Mbps ATT Uverse internet and have been quite happy with it and I download a LOT. I haven't noticed any throtteling and the service hasn't gone down once. Is there some reason I should dislike Uverse and go to a slower competitor?

 

[fskimospy]

So you mean to tell me that if municipalities did not keep out companies, that a company would just tear up the pavement when ever they wanted and not pay for it?

I would imagine that companies would still have to pay for any work they would need or want to do. Also, a company would likely not build something unless they could get a return on the investment. The only way they would get a return is if they offered something wanted by the people.

Do you really think allowing more ISPs would cause too much construction?

I was using that as a shorthand for overbuilt and redundant infrastructure, but yes in some ways it would cause excessive construction. There's no need to have 5 identical internet cables coming into and out of every residence.

I'm a far bigger fan of what the UK did, which was to open up the last mile infrastructure to competitive bidding by multiple ISPs. That way we get the benefits of competition without the crazy wasteful infrastructure.

 

[PokerGuy]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/29/fcc-redefines-broadband-speed/




Lol! This ought to be fun watching companies like AT&T sell their slow as shit and not be able to call it broadband!

Who is against this?

I'm not opposed to updating the definition of "broadband" to better reflect reality.

However, I still think they (we) are going about this the wrong way. The real problem IMO is that most people don't have realistic broadband internet service provider options, so there is no effective competition, which results in all sorts of bad things for the consumers. If every consumer had multiple realistic broadband options, you'd see lower prices for higher speeds much quicker, and providers would be less likely to pull crap like throttling netflix to extort money from them etc, because of the consumer backlash. As it is, there is no competition, so nothing to drive improvement.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

My "high speed internet" is 12/3 rated as 15/5 with the 12/3 in small letters. We're paying twice as much for it as we did for 60/10 in Texas.

 

[mizzou]

USA is such a huge country, it's hard to expect we should have broadband access like South Korea.

Maybe huge metro areas like NYC can, but out in Kansas it's just not feasible or logical. Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars on a customer base of a few hundred people or even less.

 

[Darwin333]

Because in places like NYC for example we don't want 10 different cable companies tearing up the pavement whenever they feel like it.

People don't want 9 different cable boxes in their back yard, 8 of which serve no purpose, etc.

Well yall can keep competition and therefore innovation to a minimum if yall so desire, I believe yall should be able to do that. Around here, we want the competition.

We used to have two choices, cox and Bellsouth who partnered with DirectTV. A few years ago ATT came in and laid new fiber in the entire area, didn't require a whole lot of "tearing up roads". I can't tell you exactly how they ran it but I saw them doing it and was driving on the roads at the same time. We do have new boxes on the servitude but they aren't that ugly and spaced pretty far apart.

I've been able to get much better deals since they came along and get absurdly better speeds than I used to be able to get. Cox has recently started increasing their speeds to compete as well.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well yall can keep competition and therefore innovation to a minimum if yall so desire, I believe yall should be able to do that. Around here, we want the competition.

I agree that competition is the key, but you don't have to have duplicated infrastructure (multiple lines to the same house etc) to have competition. There are other ways to make sure there is competition.

Anytime there is competition, it's amazing to see how fast the bs excuses for not upgrading or not being able to lower prices etc melt away.

 

[realibrad]

I was using that as a shorthand for overbuilt and redundant infrastructure, but yes in some ways it would cause excessive construction. There's no need to have 5 identical internet cables coming into and out of every residence.

I'm a far bigger fan of what the UK did, which was to open up the last mile infrastructure to competitive bidding by multiple ISPs. That way we get the benefits of competition without the crazy wasteful infrastructure.

I mean this in all sincerity, but have you ever seen infrastructure overbuilt in the private sector?

Aside from that, why would you have 5 cables running in and out of your house? I would not allow 5 companies to touch my house unless I wanted them to, so I think what you are saying is that houses would be built with 5 different lines. Again, I am not sure as to why you would think that would happen, as the Coase therom would suggest that they would work together to find a better solution. It would not be hard for the companies to route to a hub, and the last stretch be a single line going into the home.

But, do you really think that it would be a disorganized mad dash to build wires to homes?

 

[fskimospy]

I mean this in all sincerity, but have you ever seen infrastructure overbuilt in the private sector?

Aside from that, why would you have 5 cables running in and out of your house? I would not allow 5 companies to touch my house unless I wanted them to, so I think what you are saying is that houses would be built with 5 different lines. Again, I am not sure as to why you would think that would happen, as the Coase therom would suggest that they would work together to find a better solution. It would not be hard for the companies to route to a hub, and the last stretch be a single line going into the home.

But, do you really think that it would be a disorganized mad dash to build wires to homes?

I would say that we already have the ability to make that solution, which is simply deregulating the last mile. What I forsee happening in that case would be more something to the effect of a gradual mess building.

As for otherwise, no I don't think they would come to that solution. Current incumbents have no incentive to allow other people to use their wires as increased competition does nothing for them. That means massive and costly investments from new players, of which I've seen scant evidence of in recent years.

We aren't looking at the creation of new infrastructure where none exists, in which case what you're proposing would make more sense. We're talking about overturning an entrenched incumbent with local monopoly power.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Interesting, the link shows 18mbps before checking availability. Maybe 45 is only in some areas.

AT&T uverse may be safe this round but if the FCC bumps it up to 100mbps they will be screwed.

Unless they decide to offer additional services, I know the uVerse fiber here in the Richmond/Rosenberg area is more than capable. May have to change the modem/router as well.

 

[realibrad]

I would say that we already have the ability to make that solution, which is simply deregulating the last mile. What I forsee happening in that case would be more something to the effect of a gradual mess building.

As for otherwise, no I don't think they would come to that solution. Current incumbents have no incentive to allow other people to use their wires as increased competition does nothing for them. That means massive and costly investments from new players, of which I've seen scant evidence of in recent years.

We aren't looking at the creation of new infrastructure where none exists, in which case what you're proposing would make more sense. We're talking about overturning an entrenched incumbent with local monopoly power.

The situation I am talking about, is removing the monopoly power given to them and enforced by the local gov. Their power would be taken away, if the government did not keep out competition.

The fear you seem to have boils down to 2 things.
1, you are worried about resources being wasted.

2, you are worried that people will be burdened by having multiple lines going everywhere.

You also seem to be worried that companies might spend investing and fail, which is nice I guess, but I don't think that is the argument you meant to make, so Ill focus on the other 2.

Wasted resources will be limited by investors not wanting to waste their money. In the public arena, companies get funds and don't worry about wasting, because its not their money, and the public cant do much if it fails. If the private company wants to build, they have to get others to give money. If those people are willing to take the risk, great.

As for the second issue, I don't see why anyone would let their property be overrun by things they don't want. If you want just 1 company building lines to your house, and they are willing to build it, then great. If your argument is that they wont want to, because it could possible take too long to get a return, then maybe. Somehow, private markets in other sectors have been able to deal with this though, so I'm not too worried about it.

 

[fskimospy]

The situation I am talking about, is removing the monopoly power given to them and enforced by the local gov. Their power would be taken away, if the government did not keep out competition.

The fear you seem to have boils down to 2 things.
1, you are worried about resources being wasted.

2, you are worried that people will be burdened by having multiple lines going everywhere.

You also seem to be worried that companies might spend investing and fail, which is nice I guess, but I don't think that is the argument you meant to make, so Ill focus on the other 2.

Wasted resources will be limited by investors not wanting to waste their money. In the public arena, companies get funds and don't worry about wasting, because its not their money, and the public cant do much if it fails. If the private company wants to build, they have to get others to give money. If those people are willing to take the risk, great.

As for the second issue, I don't see why anyone would let their property be overrun by things they don't want. If you want just 1 company building lines to your house, and they are willing to build it, then great. If your argument is that they wont want to, because it could possible take too long to get a return, then maybe. Somehow, private markets in other sectors have been able to deal with this though, so I'm not too worried about it.

While I am worried about wasteful and duplicative resource investment that's really just the first one that came off the top of my head. I simply don't think your solution could be effective in the world as it exists today unless you're talking about the government forcibly intervening and breaking up all the major cable companies and auctioning off their assets which will be a legal and regulatory nightmare.

Otherwise you have a monster company that already has lines to basically every home in the area. The ability of other companies to come in and compete by digging new lines would require massive investment. This option is in fact already available today, but nobody does it for obvious reasons.

 

[realibrad]

While I am worried about wasteful and duplicative resource investment that's really just the first one that came off the top of my head. I simply don't think your solution could be effective in the world as it exists today unless you're talking about the government forcibly intervening and breaking up all the major cable companies and auctioning off their assets which will be a legal and regulatory nightmare.

Otherwise you have a monster company that already has lines to basically every home in the area. The ability of other companies to come in and compete by digging new lines would require massive investment. This option is in fact already available today, but nobody does it for obvious reasons.

Then why is Google willing to do it? Why are there small ISP companies out there now? For your fears to be real, it would have to be based in something that is real. There are already companies that would like to invest in expanding. But, if your fear is that deregulation would open the door for a flood of investment, then why would you also believe that nobody would be willing to invest?

It seems to be conflicting unless I am not understanding.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why is Google willing to do it? Why are there small ISP companies out there now? For your fears to be real, it would have to be based in something that is real. There are already companies that would like to invest in expanding. But, if your fear is that deregulation would open the door for a flood of investment, then why would you also believe that nobody would be willing to invest?

It seems to be conflicting unless I am not understanding.

We have one of the largest companies in America that has made a limited investment in a small number of cities. I think if anything it shows just how hard it is to do, not how easy. Considering that the option to invest in new lines is on the table today and the vast, vast majority of Americans have extremely limited options when it comes to broadband seems to basically show that I'm right.

You can break up all these companies and auction their assets to the highest bidder. If you aren't willing to do that it seems that forcing them to lease their lines at competitive rates is a vastly better solution to the problem than what you're proposing.

I don't think that deregulation would open the floodgates to investment, I think that if we somehow found a way to make that investment attractive it would come with other negative aspects to it, which simply adds to the problems.

 

[realibrad]

We have one of the largest companies in America that has made a limited investment in a small number of cities. I think if anything it shows just how hard it is to do, not how easy. Considering that the option to invest in new lines is on the table today and the vast, vast majority of Americans have extremely limited options when it comes to broadband seems to basically show that I'm right.

You can break up all these companies and auction their assets to the highest bidder. If you aren't willing to do that it seems that forcing them to lease their lines at competitive rates is a vastly better solution to the problem than what you're proposing.

I don't think that deregulation would open the floodgates to investment, I think that if we somehow found a way to make that investment attractive it would come with other negative aspects to it, which simply adds to the problems.

Ah, I think you are worried about poor areas not getting internet, and wanting the city to subsidize.

So why not open up cities or areas that are not poor to competition?

Am I right in that you are worried about companies not wanting to take the risk of investment because of a fear of return? Because that has been solved in many markets.

 

[smackababy]

So, is the real ramification that this will help block the Comcast / TimeWarner merger? I assume they now have a larger portion of the "broadband" availability, thus pushing their merger more into a monopoly looking entity.

And, this might help against anti competitive suits, as there is no longer another broadband option in most areas. But, I'm sure that won't do anything.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Broadband will now be called Modestband - deal with it.

 

[Remobz]

You guys have it good. I am only getting 4 Mbps download speeds on DSL

The only good thing is that I live less than a mile from the junction box and my line ping and speed is solid and reliable. No ups and downs in speeds for the most part.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, I think you are worried about poor areas not getting internet, and wanting the city to subsidize.

So why not open up cities or areas that are not poor to competition?

Am I right in that you are worried about companies not wanting to take the risk of investment because of a fear of return? Because that has been solved in many markets.

Again, those cities are open to investment today, at least the vast majority of them. Still, nothing.

The market has spoken and investment isn't going to happen in the current environment. In most cases the government isn't blocking them, there's just a market failure happening due to an entrenched monopoly.

 

[realibrad]

Again, those cities are open to investment today, at least the vast majority of them. Still, nothing.

The market has spoken and investment isn't going to happen in the current environment. In most cases the government isn't blocking them, there's just a market failure happening due to an entrenched monopoly.

Ok, so you are worried about poor areas not getting service, so the local gov's are subsidizing companies through various ways to get service to those locations. Is that correct?

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, so you are worried about poor areas not getting service, so the local gov's are subsidizing companies through various ways to get service to those locations. Is that correct?

No, I'm not worried about any place getting or not getting service, really.

I'm saying that current market conditions prevent effective competition due to large barriers to entry and entrenched incumbents.