HIGH-TECH COMPANIES ISSUE STATEMENT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES

[dishcomm]

This could go either way really. We deregulated electricity in this state a while ago and all it guaranteed was that we pay more, between distribution cost and then the actual power. The 'distribution cost' is now significantly more than the integrated cost of the monopoly.

I've nothing wrong with people having choice and getting rid of monopolies, I just think people really need to realize what that entails. You can get regular copper phone service in almost as many places as electricity because of that monopoly knowledge that there isn't going to be another phone company. The same goes with the cable company. It could effectively grind expansion to a halt in rural locations.

Power companies were caught deliberately limiting power generation.
Remember the debacle in California? Roling blackouts, quadrupling rates.
No one is talking about that.
Here's an example.... I live in a Windstream local POTS area.
Their DSL is pitifully slow. They have no plans to build a fiber network in the near or even distant future. SO no FiOS or Uverse type service here...
Because Windstream is the incumbent lland based carrier, there is ZERO incentive for that company to update their system.
Worse example....Just across the state line from here there is ONE company that provides internet POTS and tv. These people have NO choice. It's either Comporium of go sing Mammy in Macy's window...Eff you..
of course towns and cities have no incentive to push for competition either because of these frnachise agreements. The municipality basically extorts money from the provider. ANd of course there are kickbacks for the local politicians.
The whole system sucks sideways..
BTW I am not concerend with rural areas. No offense intended. But if people living in suburban areas can't get decent internet service, the rural folks will just have to wait their turn.

 

[drdroo]

Power companies were caught deliberately limiting power generation.
Remember the debacle in California? Roling blackouts, quadrupling rates.
No one is talking about that.

Even though here I can choose from other power companies for my supply, my 'distribution' is still the same supplier. I suspect if the 'monopoly distributor' is having power problems, you'd still have rolling blackouts no matter who your 'supply provider' is.

Here's an example.... I live in a Windstream local POTS area.

I'm in a Fairpoint New England area. Not much of a difference between Windstream and Fairpoint, two places that fill in the markets that the big guys don't want.

Their DSL is pitifully slow. They have no plans to build a fiber network in the near or even distant future. SO no FiOS or Uverse type service here...

Nor here. Verizon sold ME NH VT to Fairpoint because they had no intention of deploying FIOS in ME NH VT. Verizon wants out of the copper business.

Because Windstream is the incumbent lland based carrier, there is ZERO incentive for that company to update their system.

Here we have something like 7 other CLECs providing DSL using Fairpoint's copper. One is Great Works, which provides up to 20mbit/1mbit using ADSL2+ (I'm at 16K feet with 5000/1000 service). They're my CLEC and provide my dialtone service over Fairpoint's copper. This is a great thing for me, and I thank deregulation for it. I pay less than 80$ a month for unlimited phone and DSL.

With FIOS, let's say I hate Verizon FIOS but I love the fiber coming to my building. You can't choose another ISP on the fiber connection. It just 'is'. All that FTTH has done is restarted monopolies in telecom. Smart for Verizon, admittedly.

of course towns and cities have no incentive to push for competition either because of these frnachise agreements. The municipality basically extorts money from the provider. ANd of course there are kickbacks for the local politicians.

While that does happen in some places, that's not how we use franchise agreements. I am a contractor that helps design municipal networks in some towns. It is a good way to get high speed conduits between municipal buildings. In small towns things are usually not located in a single structure.

FIOS will break these franchise agreements in some ways, but so haven't additional cable parties, like RCN. RCN isn't a monopoly in any market they're in, as far as I know. They sell cable to places that already had cable, but usually in really large cities/metro zones.

BTW I am not concerend with rural areas. No offense intended. But if people living in suburban areas can't get decent internet service, the rural folks will just have to wait their turn.

If you're in a Windstream market, it sounds like you're in a rural area. However, even in rural areas there are options like the cell network, the satellite dish, or Rural WISPs (worked for one of those too). There's also the 'convince the cable company to come there', which can be done by petitioning a cable company in a neighboring area with commitment of buying service.

There are a lot of ways to go. Some towns and cities have built wholesale FTTH networks and then allowed carriers to 'ride it'. We're doing a similar wholesale fiber ring in this state, but not to the home. It's to increase bandwidth into these areas to allow people to branch off and provide to customers.

 

[dishcomm]

Even though here I can choose from other power companies for my supply, my 'distribution' is still the same supplier. I suspect if the 'monopoly' is having power problems, you'd still have rolling blackouts no matter who your 'supply provider' is.



I'm in a Fairpoint New England area.



Neither here. Verizon sold ME NH VT to Fairpoint because they had no intention of deploying FIOS in ME NH VT.



Here we have 7 other CLECs providing DSL using Fairpoint's copper. One is Great Works, which provides up to 20mbit/1mbit. They're my CLEC and provide my dialtone service over Fairpoint's copper. Thank you Deregulation.

Now with FIOS, let's say I hate Verizon FIOS but I love the fiber coming to my building. You can't choose another ISP on the fiber connection. It just 'is'. All that FTTH has done is restarted monopolies in telecom. Smart for Verizon, admittedly.



While that does happen in some places, that's not how we use franchise agreements. I am a contractor that helps design municipal networks in some towns.



If you're in a Windstream market, it sounds like you're in a rural area. However, even in rural areas there are options like the cell network, the satellite dish, or Rural WISPs (worked for one of those too). There's also the 'convince the cable company to come there', which can be done by petitioning a cable company in a neighboring area with commitment of buying service.

There are a lot of ways to go. Some towns and cities have built wholesale FTTH networks and then allowed carriers to 'ride it'. We're doing a similar wholesale fiber ring in this state, but not to the home. It's to increase bandwidth into these areas to allow people to branch off and provide to customers.

this is most defintely not rural...This is a suburban bedroom community 20 mins from the nearest major city..A city I might add, that is an AT&T market and of course they have access to U-verse.

 

[drdroo]

this is most defintely not rural...This is a suburban bedroom community 20 mins from the nearest major city..A city I might add, that is an AT&T market and of course they have access to U-verse.

Strike that, misread what you said. Exactly where are we talking about here? City/state?

 

[mike123abc]

Another issue is that the incumbents block any attempts at a city trying to wire itself with fiber. They fight it in court. Not that they have plans to ever put in fiber, they do not want the "unfair" competition.

 

[drdroo]

Another issue is that the incumbents block any attempts at a city trying to wire itself with fiber. They fight it in court. Not that they have plans to ever put in fiber, they do not want the "unfair" competition.

Luckily in a lot of markets, that 'block' attempt by the incumbents hasn't worked. FIOS has won. However, Verizon isn't going to go string anywhere with low housing density, low mean income, or low population. AT&T probably won't with U-Verse either. It's expensive to deploy these technologies. You're better off hoping that CLEAR will provide there, or that a cable company will come in.

 

[mike123abc]

Verizon is the incumbent. For example in NC
North Carolina's Anti-Community-Fiber Bill Returns - Time Warner Cable found a new lawmaker... - dslreports.com

Time warner is trying to get the legislature to block cities from wiring themselves.

 

[drdroo]

I hope people do fight statewide bans of such things. Anyone should be able to put anything they want on the poles as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're willing to pay the fees associated with doing so.

If I recall CenturyTel (former Embarq) has a presence in part of NC too. Not as big as Verizon by any means. I also think COX Cable is there, unless they sold their presence.

 

[aklarvanto]

I just hate Government regulations. I undertand this whole thing started when Comcast was blocking certain services in their network and I agree, if user is paying for access, ISP have no right to block anything.

However, I'm afraid of WHAT government CAN do once they have their fingers on it. Let's look Nothern European countries like Sweden and Finland. They have excellent Internet service. Speeds up to 120Mbps. Price is reasonable about 40-70 euros/ month = $70 to $90 US Dollars / month UNLIMITED.

Problem is users can't run any type of server on these accounts; no SMTP, FTP, HTTP or DNS. Those services are blocked because government want's to protect people. Same thing with internet filtering. IPSs are required by state police to install filters that will block certain addresses. Is that form of free Internet?

I have unlimited Internet service and I would like to keep it that way.

It is true, there are greedy ISPs like At&t with their wireless 3G network that is owerly priced and limited, but will FCCs role on regulating Internet bring down cost or is it just way to get their hands on something they should leave alone in first place?

 

[vaylon]

The European system is a 1000% better than the USA system and a lot of it is because of those regulations. Those regulations are there for both safety and speed. Many types of servers are blocked because of the speed drain the old tech causes to a system and the fact that many of those servers are havens for hackers. It's true they do block some websites. But it's common sense stuff like kiddie porn, hate sites and hacker sites. They even block access to some countries that are trouble makers with their state sponsored hacking.
So don't be so quick to jump all over federal regulations. Remember, state governments are trying to regulate the net much more than the fed. Texas and Alabama have been trying to pass regulations for a while and other states are looking into it. Some states want to block access to porn sites completely. While other states like Virginia are studying plans to actually make ISP's keep track of a user's web purchases for tax purposes. ( this one was thought up by some old fart that doesn't understand the technology).

So the truth is that the fed needs to jump ahead of the game and regulate things from a federal level to stop all the regulating at a state level or county level. It's much better to have one set of rules to follow than 100's.

I am much more afraid of what my state does than I am the federal government. Many states want to regulate what their citizens view and in my state they also want to keep tabs on where you have been.

Some federal regs would put an end to states tinkering with the rules.

 

[aklarvanto]

The European system is a 1000% better than the USA system and a lot of it is because of those regulations. Those regulations are there for both safety and speed. Many types of servers are blocked because of the speed drain the old tech causes to a system and the fact that many of those servers are havens for hackers. It's true they do block some websites. But it's common sense stuff like kiddie porn, hate sites and hacker sites. They even block access to some countries that are trouble makers with their state sponsored hacking.

I agree to the point but who is the judge? Should people themself have right to choose what sites they visit without Big Brother doing it for them?

Internet is "no man's land" and everyone tries to control it. Look what is going on in China. Look articles that circulate on Internet regarding possible banning personal websites in US because of fear of hate, religious fanatics, terrorist propaganda etc.

If Government has right to control what we can or can't see, your avatar may be too violent because it may spread gun violence. Come on, I may sound like fearmonger and you say; "It will never happen in US" but my opinion is;

Less Government, more freedom to people.

 

[drdroo]

Closing underage porn sites, hacker sites, etc. makes much more sense than the government blocking them. When I worked in education, they used web filters (by requirement for a government subsidized Internet program).

Here's the highlights -

1> It seems just about everyone that was an adult has the override password for the filter. So much for saying no to online poker during the day, which was blocked otherwise.
2> The filters often just don't work. For every 1 porn site that gets taken down, another 10, 100 or more get opened in any given day. Heck, you can find the stuff on Google Image Search, which isn't real easy to block without blocking the whole thing.
3> It can take a significant amount of time to request new entries to be added.
4> They also block social networking and music sites. Sure, if the feds did this publicly had one of these things they'd probably not, but just think about the fact that the RIAA and MPAA could say "It's EASY for you to just 'put it in the filter'" or maybe the government doesn't like civil unrest on Facebook, so they block Facebook. Or heck, maybe some company doesn't like an anti-site, so they convince a congressman to get rid of 'Ihate[company].com'.
5> Oh, don't forget, there's plenty of proxies out there to get around the filter entirely if you so desire, much like in China.

It makes good sense to get illegal things off the net. However, it seems a bit foolish to point the camera at everyone's house in order to accomplish that. It's the equivalent of putting a breath detector on everyone's car because some percentage of the population drinks and drives. That's not America in the least.

 

[vaylon]

The idea of less government and more freedom is good, but most of the government big brother types come from local and state levels, not the fed.

It may sound silly, but if it wasn't for hundreds of federal regulations regarding everything from interstate commerce to the value of currencies, your life would be much more complicated and cost considerably more.

Federal regulations rarely affect the average citizen in a way that they can tell, most of what we here about big ole nasty federal regulations come from the companies that are going to be regulated. Most of them hold small monopolies on their current markets and don't want competition.
Take for example the cable industry. If it had not been for several pieces of federal regulation, Dish and Direct would have never have stood a chance of becoming companies because they would have had to jump thru tons of hoops and hurdles just to get a customer turned on and in some states they would have never have been allowed to sell their product. Tennessee is a great example. The cable industry had such a tight hold on the local politicians that they tried to pass laws to hamper satellite introduction and in a couple of cities even passed ordinances to charge an extra surcharge on people who used a satellite service.

Regulations work for a while but then the regs need to come off and an industry has to go wild for a while. But then they get greedy and controlling and its time for new regs to be put into place.

Less government sounds great but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Both of our parties have the same problem. They are controlled by big industry.

My Dad use to say if you want a BIG BROTHER government? vote republican.
If you want a BIG SISTER government? vote democrat.
The key word is BIG.

Democrats will be the first ones in your bank account.
Republicans will be the first one's in your house and bedroom.

Maybe one day Americans will get so fed up that they can come together on some common issues and create a third party. One that represents ordinary people that do love freedom and liberty.