goemaw.com
General Discussion => Essentially Flyertalk => Topic started by: ednksu on April 10, 2013, 01:04:19 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PWEmhdO0WQ
Fascinating how the American consumer is getting screwed by these new trusts and monopolies. Vid goes a bit into how this is also having effects on sports channel negotiating.
-
Virus.
-
fyi, no one is going to watch a 30min youtube video linked on a message board.
-
fyi, no one is going to watch a 30min youtube video linked on a message board.
but it's fascinating
-
I watched about 5 minutes then i realized it didn't apply to me because I use a mom and pop service provider called American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
-
She's got a few decent points. The primary point is that Cable companies need to be regulated just like Incumbent Local Telecoms, forced to provide services to EVERYONE in their franchise areas and not being allowed to not provide services in certain areas because it's too expensive. Telco's must provide basic telecom services to all customers who ask for it in their licensed operating territories. You build a house in the middle of no where and call up and order a telephone line, and your Non Independent/Non Co-OP telephone company must provide you basic telephone service and cannot charge you for running 1000's of feet of cable etc etc. The modern telephone network buildout supports DSL in most instances.
Her discussion about access to 19 million people rings a little hollow with me, because American suffers from a massive case of urban/suburban sprawl, which captures many people in that 19 million without access, and 19 million is only about 5% of the total us population.
Middle of no where mom and pop Independent Telcos have been given access to millions of Federal Dollars over the years to provide rural Internet access.
-
She's got a few decent points. The primary point is that Cable companies need to be regulated just like Incumbent Local Telecoms, forced to provide services to EVERYONE in their franchise areas and not being allowed to not provide services in certain areas because it's too expensive. Telco's must provide basic telecom services to all customers who ask for it in their licensed operating territories. You build a house in the middle of no where and call up and order a telephone line, and your Non Independent/Non Co-OP telephone company must provide you basic telephone service and cannot charge you for running 1000's of feet of cable etc etc. The modern telephone network buildout supports DSL in most instances.
Her discussion about access to 19 million people rings a little hollow with me, because American suffers from a massive case of urban/suburban sprawl, which captures many people in that 19 million without access, and 19 million is only about 5% of the total us population.
Middle of no where mom and pop Independent Telcos have been given access to millions of Federal Dollars over the years to provide rural Internet access.
Just do away with broadcast TV and open the spectrum up for WiFi on steroids or let state/local governments own/maintain the lines and allow service providers to compete on price. Seems to have worked well in GB and a couple non-tarded US municipalities that tried it for Internet service.
-
She's got a few decent points. The primary point is that Cable companies need to be regulated just like Incumbent Local Telecoms, forced to provide services to EVERYONE in their franchise areas and not being allowed to not provide services in certain areas because it's too expensive. Telco's must provide basic telecom services to all customers who ask for it in their licensed operating territories. You build a house in the middle of no where and call up and order a telephone line, and your Non Independent/Non Co-OP telephone company must provide you basic telephone service and cannot charge you for running 1000's of feet of cable etc etc. The modern telephone network buildout supports DSL in most instances.
Her discussion about access to 19 million people rings a little hollow with me, because American suffers from a massive case of urban/suburban sprawl, which captures many people in that 19 million without access, and 19 million is only about 5% of the total us population.
Middle of no where mom and pop Independent Telcos have been given access to millions of Federal Dollars over the years to provide rural Internet access.
Just do away with broadcast TV and open the spectrum up for WiFi on steroids or let state/local governments own/maintain the lines and allow service providers to compete on price. Seems to have worked well in GB and a couple non-tarded US municipalities that tried it for Internet service.
I work in the industry and I cannot be a fan of allowing any government agency to be allowed to compete in telecom. The competition in most areas on the Commercial side is absolutely fierce, and getting more competitive by the day. In the vast majority of mid to large markets a business has at least 3 different vendors to choose from for telecom, and in the larger markets that number grows significantly. Telecom companies employ 1000's of people who pay billions of dollars in taxes to the government. The only time I could see allowing the government to "compete" is in the most rural of areas where the little independent Telco kingpins are allowed to be monopolies. Every single instance of Government in Telecom I have witnessed first hand all start out pie in the sky and then ultimately ends with said government entites needing to charge higher prices and constantly tweeking their rules after expanding millions in tax dollars.
You want more competition on the consumer side than force Cable Companies to open up their networks like Telco's had to do years ago, and get local governments to pursue and grant more franchise licenses to Cable Providers.
-
She's got a few decent points. The primary point is that Cable companies need to be regulated just like Incumbent Local Telecoms, forced to provide services to EVERYONE in their franchise areas and not being allowed to not provide services in certain areas because it's too expensive. Telco's must provide basic telecom services to all customers who ask for it in their licensed operating territories. You build a house in the middle of no where and call up and order a telephone line, and your Non Independent/Non Co-OP telephone company must provide you basic telephone service and cannot charge you for running 1000's of feet of cable etc etc. The modern telephone network buildout supports DSL in most instances.
Her discussion about access to 19 million people rings a little hollow with me, because American suffers from a massive case of urban/suburban sprawl, which captures many people in that 19 million without access, and 19 million is only about 5% of the total us population.
Middle of no where mom and pop Independent Telcos have been given access to millions of Federal Dollars over the years to provide rural Internet access.
Just do away with broadcast TV and open the spectrum up for WiFi on steroids or let state/local governments own/maintain the lines and allow service providers to compete on price. Seems to have worked well in GB and a couple non-tarded US municipalities that tried it for Internet service.
I work in the industry and I cannot be a fan of allowing any government agency to be allowed to compete in telecom. The competition in most areas on the Commercial side is absolutely fierce, and getting more competitive by the day. In the vast majority of mid to large markets a business has at least 3 different vendors to choose from for telecom, and in the larger markets that number grows significantly. Telecom companies employ 1000's of people who pay billions of dollars in taxes to the government. The only time I could see allowing the government to "compete" is in the most rural of areas where the little independent Telco kingpins are allowed to be monopolies. Every single instance of Government in Telecom I have witnessed first hand all start out pie in the sky and then ultimately ends with said government entites needing to charge higher prices and constantly tweeking their rules after expanding millions in tax dollars.
You want more competition on the consumer side than force Cable Companies to open up their networks like Telco's had to do years ago, and get local governments to pursue and grant more franchise licenses to Cable Providers.
Speaking strictly internet access, the government owning the infrastructure and maintaining it isn't really competing against private providers. In fact, there's already a similar infrastructure system in place -- our system of highways.
And you're overselling the competition for commercial customers except in the largest markets where there's 5 or more vendors. Not that it really matters because this thread is about regular people, not businesses. And the competition there, even in major metros, is absolute crap.
-
Yeah government is already stimulating the development of that hard infrastructure as is as, you noted Dax with your point on rural areas. Also they are the ones who were regulating the spectrum and forced the change over of TV stations to digital to open those technologies to new avenues.
-
Regardless . . . I don't care what person said the interview said, it takes huge dollars to build out the kinds of networks she's talking about. The U.S. isn't Europe, you wanted suburbia, you wanted your strip malls, you wanted your metropolises that sprawl for miles on end, with the greenspaces and the big lots . . . you pay to build out the networks to serve them. Muni's want to control the right of way and pole attachments, and want their fist in the pie on the buildouts, then things are going to go slower.
Why do you think companies like AT&T and Time Warner rush in and want the Carte Blanche right of way, pole access etc. etc. that Google is getting? They've asked for it for years. You want better networks than insist that the gov't and the state utility commissions give the same deal to all, and not just the current administrations technology company du jour.