Okay. Now make it illegal to call 720 “HD” because it’s not “high” anymore and “definition” has changed in meaning. Then do the same with 1080.
Geezaloo.
I can’t even begin to dissect how ludicrous this sounds.
since it costs more per customer to run lines, they should definitely pay to recoup those costs.
No socialistic, welfare subsidy for them. No Free Loading.
The free market model meaning every supplier digs up every road to lay their own cable, which is impossible.
Close, it's an exercise in humility. What harm does it cause forcing suppliers to improve? They need called out now and again. They've been given the opportunity to match the rest of the world without anyone holding them back and they've failed because they are profit-driven. They make more profit by denying people service, the telecoms companies have always done this. You have to pay per message if you want to use cellular but on wifi, go nuts. They'll do whatever they can get away with.
The biggest scam is convincing people that bandwidth is something that runs out over time. It's all about concurrent usage so metering usage is profiteering. The technology is there to give everyone practically unlimited download and upload speeds concurrently:
That would take a single installation and anyone would be allowed to compete for the connection opening up competition to more suppliers. Netflix could be a connection provider. They'd just pay back a fee on their service to the government (that thing what invented the internet) for installing the advanced cabling. Net neutrality comes for free.
Say 100 million miles of cable, employ 1 million contractors to do 0.1 mile per day = 3 years and the job's done.
Unlike Google, the government doesn't need to find an economically sustainable model for doing something like this because they aren't answerable to profit-driven shareholders. That's both a good and bad thing but good in this case. $11b per year is nothing vs government spending.
More competition, more competition, more competition and less government protection of buddy-buddy companies and special interests would solve most of the complaints you bring up. It is not because of competition that prices stay high and choice is limited.
since it costs more per customer to run lines, they should definitely pay to recoup those costs.
No socialistic, welfare subsidy for them. No Free Loading.
Do you have any idea what the rates would be? In the thousands of dollars. Maybe they shouldn't have any electricity, or water as well.
Because the Japanese were getting those sort of speeds ten years ago for $20-30/month.
American ISP service is amongst worst value proposition for high-speed Internet in the industrialized world. We pay far more for far less in the USA.
Tracking on that but other countries don't have an economic system as vast as ours. There's so many things that go into deciding what these rates are that for all the abilities that I get for that $65/mo makes it seem very reasonable to me. You get what you pay for, I'd be scared to see what id get if they dropped the rate down to $20/mo.
You have no clue what Internet access costs to provide and what would be a “fair” price for it. I’m tired of listening to the freetards who think unlimited gigabit access should cost $.25/yr. It ain’t gonna happen. And if Internet access is reclassified as a Title II public utility you’ll see an exodus by the big providers like never before. Add to that all the taxes that will come with Title II moniker (federal, state, local, universal service, etc.) and your price will definitely go up. I still have a landline. My basic rate is $20/mo but the taxes are over $7 so my land line costs $27/mo. That’s a 33% tax rate. I pay $40/mo for my 18mbps DSL line with NO taxes added. So add 30% to your ISP bill when it is reclassified to Title II. Oh, but we’ll have Net Neutrality. Yeah!
More competition, more competition, more competition and less government protection of buddy-buddy companies and special interests would solve most of the complaints you bring up. It is not because of competition that prices stay high and choice is limited.
I'll just stick to my paltry 100 Mbps. 60Mbps was enough but when offered a free upgrade. Who was I to say no. At peak times it does drop to 60Mbps otherwise it's around 95 :-)
How bad are things really across the country? At the address I live, Comcast is the only option. That usually puts you in a bad position of no real options.
I have 115 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. Unbalanced for sure, but it gets the job done. You probably assume I pay through the nose for that, but I had a first year promotional rate of $39/mon, and now in my second year I pay $56/mon.
I still think its overpriced, but compared to the rest of the market I don't think anyone is paying less than $50/mon for over 100 Mbps connection.
More competition, more competition, more competition and less government protection of buddy-buddy companies and special interests would solve most of the complaints you bring up. It is not because of competition that prices stay high and choice is limited.
Describe how they compete, you have to be suggesting every company installs millions of miles of their own cabling. This isn't feasible and has nothing to do with government protection.
Looking at the costs to do this, it's something Apple could afford to do. It would be around $50b or so and they'd either get a fee from service providers and/or provide direct service.
The best way would be to include a wireless component like pCell where they build out a shorter cabling high bandwidth backhaul network and then do the last part wirelessly to blanket the country in wifi. Then they don't have to rely on network carriers for iOS subsidies, they can do this themselves.
This also takes away a huge point of leverage from the TV networks, which is that they own the cables. They can implement their own protocol to distribute TV not only to TVs but to iOS devices wirelessly.
In making a future-proof network that they can buy in cash, future revenue from contracts and fees is just recurring revenue and it would be permanent. Nobody else would own the cabling. ?Net.
The biggest scam is convincing people that bandwidth is something that runs out over time. It's all about concurrent usage so metering usage is profiteering. The technology is there to give everyone practically unlimited download and upload speeds concurrently:
...
We had fiber installed at our plant and talking with the engineer he said the only limiting factor in fiber runs is the hardware inbetween. That is improving and soon they will be multiplexing multiple colors for simultaneous transmission. Technically, other than the hardware in between, that is improving, there is unlimited bandwidth available and all this is only discussing 1 strand, we have 21 that were run into the plant (only using 1 primary and 1 as a backup).
Hearsay part...he said that 1 fiber is capable of transmitting all of the knowledge in the world, videos, music, data, etc, in 1 sec. Just repeating what he said to me.
I think the idea is something along the lines of the cable company saying, "Look, your speed was 15 Mbps and now it's 25 Mbps! That's a 66% increase, so your cost is going up 40% - what a steal!" In other words, the cable company will divert attention away from the word broadband and what the standard is, and to the masses who don't always hear about things like this, they'll make it seem like it's the cable company's idea.
Once again, the cable companies (and other ISPs) never required an excuse to raise their rates. Never. Without the standard, they were free to falsely advertise as "broadband" what was not even qualifying as DSL speeds. Verizon sold me 3G broadband a couple years ago, and the speed in my city-center location was on the order of 60 kbps. (yes, 0.06 Mbps). It was intolerable, but I had no choice. At all. and they called it "broadband" because they could, and no other company would offer better, because they could also call it broadband.
At least now the companies will have to compete for a commodity called "broadband", which they have not had to do before. This is GOOD for consumers. Thank you, FCC.
I have 115 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. Unbalanced for sure, but it gets the job done. You probably assume I pay through the nose for that, but I had a first year promotional rate of $39/mon, and now in my second year I pay $56/mon.
This is another bugaboo of mine against The Cable Pig: utter non-transparency of rates. They advertise promotional rates, but it's virtually impossible to find out what the standard rate will be when the promotion runs out. It's like the grocery store selling eggs by the dozen, but only telling you that "the first three eggs are at the promotional price of 5 cents each". With no other pricing available.
Love or hate Google, I can't wait for Google Fiber to roll out in more cities. $70 a month for 1,000 Mbps. Or the standard 25Mbps for free ($300 one-time install). Yes please. Then it's later to Comcast. (I don't watch regular cable anyway)
Love or hate Google, I can't wait for Google Fiber to roll out in more cities. $70 a month for 1,000 Mbps. Or the standard 25Mbps for free ($300 one-time install). Yes please. Then it's later to Comcast. (I don't watch regular cable anyway)
I can't wait for Elon Musk's satellite-based "Exonet" to launch.
... I have never been given a speed increase that I asked for that was given at no charge. If you have, congrats to you...
Well then, congrats to me (and every other Suddenlink subscriber.) ... about 2-3 months ago Suddenlink did exactly that ... doubled everyone's speed without any price increase (and without even having to ask for it.) ... we just recieved an email from them one day explaining the speed increase and that there would not be a cost increase. It's still not the fastest service in the nation, but it's the ONLY choice I have... there's no competition in my neighborhood.
Describe how they compete, you have to be suggesting every company installs millions of miles of their own cabling. This isn't feasible and has nothing to do with government protection.
Looking at the costs to do this, it's something Apple could afford to do. It would be around $50b or so and they'd either get a fee from service providers and/or provide direct service.
The best way would be to include a wireless component like pCell where they build out a shorter cabling high bandwidth backhaul network and then do the last part wirelessly to blanket the country in wifi. Then they don't have to rely on network carriers for iOS subsidies, they can do this themselves.
This also takes away a huge point of leverage from the TV networks, which is that they own the cables. They can implement their own protocol to distribute TV not only to TVs but to iOS devices wirelessly.
In making a future-proof network that they can buy in cash, future revenue from contracts and fees is just recurring revenue and it would be permanent. Nobody else would own the cabling. ?Net.
You are not acknowledging the fact that there is competition and there is also cooperation in business. Nothing would prevent businesses from making deals that make sense for both parties, as far as sharing already established infrastructure.
You are not acknowledging the fact that there is competition and there is also cooperation in business. Nothing would prevent businesses from making deals that make sense for both parties, as far as sharing already established infrastructure.
Sharing? Who are you and what have you done with SpamSandwich? Just because it could happen doesn't mean it would and it rarely does between competing companies voluntarily. If one company has a weak infrastructure, their competitors use that against them:
They need to be forced by the government to share infrastructure just like with other utilities.
The main issue is new infrastructure anyway, not established infrastructure. You can't expect one company to take on the costs of upgrading infrastructure to then let a competitor take advantage of it without paying and any payment scheme would be setup to favor the infrastructure developer. There needs a mediator/referee of some kind to make sure it goes smoothly.
I think Apple would be a good fit for building a network. They can pay for it, create 1 million jobs and still have over $100b in the bank. Then they get content distribution leverage, they can sell Airport Express hardware to customers and they can sell Macs and iOS devices on contracts e.g pay $50/month for the connection or $100/month and get a Macbook Air included. After 24 months, it drops to $50/month.
30 million subscribers paying $50/month = $1.5b per month recurring revenue and if they had the wireless part, they cover that too. Maybe it's a larger scale operation than they'd like to manage but it's not like they're spending their cash in any other way and the recurring revenue would be huge.
Sharing? Who are you and what have you done with SpamSandwich? Just because it could happen doesn't mean it would and it rarely does between competing companies voluntarily. If one company has a weak infrastructure, their competitors use that against them:
They need to be forced by the government to share infrastructure just like with other utilities.
The main issue is new infrastructure anyway, not established infrastructure. You can't expect one company to take on the costs of upgrading infrastructure to then let a competitor take advantage of it without paying and any payment scheme would be setup to favor the infrastructure developer. There needs a mediator/referee of some kind to make sure it goes smoothly.
I think Apple would be a good fit for building a network. They can pay for it, create 1 million jobs and still have over $100b in the bank. Then they get content distribution leverage, they can sell Airport Express hardware to customers and they can sell Macs and iOS devices on contracts e.g pay $50/month for the connection or $100/month and get a Macbook Air included. After 24 months, it drops to $50/month.
30 million subscribers paying $50/month = $1.5b per month recurring revenue and if they had the wireless part, they cover that too. Maybe it's a larger scale operation than they'd like to manage but it's not like they're spending their cash in any other way and the recurring revenue would be huge.
It cannot be said often enough that businesses do not exist to provide jobs. Businesses exist to make a profit. That is their primary function. Jobs are a side effect.
Comments
since it costs more per customer to run lines, they should definitely pay to recoup those costs.
No socialistic, welfare subsidy for them. No Free Loading.
The free market model meaning every supplier digs up every road to lay their own cable, which is impossible.
Close, it's an exercise in humility. What harm does it cause forcing suppliers to improve? They need called out now and again. They've been given the opportunity to match the rest of the world without anyone holding them back and they've failed because they are profit-driven. They make more profit by denying people service, the telecoms companies have always done this. You have to pay per message if you want to use cellular but on wifi, go nuts. They'll do whatever they can get away with.
The biggest scam is convincing people that bandwidth is something that runs out over time. It's all about concurrent usage so metering usage is profiteering. The technology is there to give everyone practically unlimited download and upload speeds concurrently:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber
That would take a single installation and anyone would be allowed to compete for the connection opening up competition to more suppliers. Netflix could be a connection provider. They'd just pay back a fee on their service to the government (that thing what invented the internet) for installing the advanced cabling. Net neutrality comes for free.
Say 100 million miles of cable, employ 1 million contractors to do 0.1 mile per day = 3 years and the job's done.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/nationwide-google-fiber-would-cost-11b-per-year-probably-will-never-happen/
Unlike Google, the government doesn't need to find an economically sustainable model for doing something like this because they aren't answerable to profit-driven shareholders. That's both a good and bad thing but good in this case. $11b per year is nothing vs government spending.
More competition, more competition, more competition and less government protection of buddy-buddy companies and special interests would solve most of the complaints you bring up. It is not because of competition that prices stay high and choice is limited.
No socialistic, welfare subsidy for them. No Free Loading.
Who said anything otherwise? What does this have to do with anything?
NO, rural customers should not pay more for the same service if the service is there.
NO, companies have no obligation to run faster lines to a rural customer.
YES, a rural customer who desires to have a faster line should 1. be able to have it and 2. have to pay more for it.
Do you have any idea what the rates would be? In the thousands of dollars. Maybe they shouldn't have any electricity, or water as well.
Tracking on that but other countries don't have an economic system as vast as ours. There's so many things that go into deciding what these rates are that for all the abilities that I get for that $65/mo makes it seem very reasonable to me. You get what you pay for, I'd be scared to see what id get if they dropped the rate down to $20/mo.
You have no clue what Internet access costs to provide and what would be a “fair” price for it. I’m tired of listening to the freetards who think unlimited gigabit access should cost $.25/yr. It ain’t gonna happen. And if Internet access is reclassified as a Title II public utility you’ll see an exodus by the big providers like never before. Add to that all the taxes that will come with Title II moniker (federal, state, local, universal service, etc.) and your price will definitely go up. I still have a landline. My basic rate is $20/mo but the taxes are over $7 so my land line costs $27/mo. That’s a 33% tax rate. I pay $40/mo for my 18mbps DSL line with NO taxes added. So add 30% to your ISP bill when it is reclassified to Title II. Oh, but we’ll have Net Neutrality. Yeah!
http://www.businessinsider.com/chattanooga-tennessee-big-internet-companies-terrified-2014-7
Try again.
More competition, more competition, more competition and less government protection of buddy-buddy companies and special interests would solve most of the complaints you bring up. It is not because of competition that prices stay high and choice is limited.
Except the incumbents are drawing on their political connections and war chests to rewrite the laws to prevent competition in the first place (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/).
How bad are things really across the country? At the address I live, Comcast is the only option. That usually puts you in a bad position of no real options.
I have 115 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. Unbalanced for sure, but it gets the job done. You probably assume I pay through the nose for that, but I had a first year promotional rate of $39/mon, and now in my second year I pay $56/mon.
I still think its overpriced, but compared to the rest of the market I don't think anyone is paying less than $50/mon for over 100 Mbps connection.
Describe how they compete, you have to be suggesting every company installs millions of miles of their own cabling. This isn't feasible and has nothing to do with government protection.
Looking at the costs to do this, it's something Apple could afford to do. It would be around $50b or so and they'd either get a fee from service providers and/or provide direct service.
The best way would be to include a wireless component like pCell where they build out a shorter cabling high bandwidth backhaul network and then do the last part wirelessly to blanket the country in wifi. Then they don't have to rely on network carriers for iOS subsidies, they can do this themselves.
This also takes away a huge point of leverage from the TV networks, which is that they own the cables. They can implement their own protocol to distribute TV not only to TVs but to iOS devices wirelessly.
In making a future-proof network that they can buy in cash, future revenue from contracts and fees is just recurring revenue and it would be permanent. Nobody else would own the cabling. ?Net.
...
The biggest scam is convincing people that bandwidth is something that runs out over time. It's all about concurrent usage so metering usage is profiteering. The technology is there to give everyone practically unlimited download and upload speeds concurrently:
...
We had fiber installed at our plant and talking with the engineer he said the only limiting factor in fiber runs is the hardware inbetween. That is improving and soon they will be multiplexing multiple colors for simultaneous transmission. Technically, other than the hardware in between, that is improving, there is unlimited bandwidth available and all this is only discussing 1 strand, we have 21 that were run into the plant (only using 1 primary and 1 as a backup).
Hearsay part...he said that 1 fiber is capable of transmitting all of the knowledge in the world, videos, music, data, etc, in 1 sec. Just repeating what he said to me.
I think the idea is something along the lines of the cable company saying, "Look, your speed was 15 Mbps and now it's 25 Mbps! That's a 66% increase, so your cost is going up 40% - what a steal!" In other words, the cable company will divert attention away from the word broadband and what the standard is, and to the masses who don't always hear about things like this, they'll make it seem like it's the cable company's idea.
Once again, the cable companies (and other ISPs) never required an excuse to raise their rates. Never. Without the standard, they were free to falsely advertise as "broadband" what was not even qualifying as DSL speeds. Verizon sold me 3G broadband a couple years ago, and the speed in my city-center location was on the order of 60 kbps. (yes, 0.06 Mbps). It was intolerable, but I had no choice. At all. and they called it "broadband" because they could, and no other company would offer better, because they could also call it broadband.
At least now the companies will have to compete for a commodity called "broadband", which they have not had to do before. This is GOOD for consumers. Thank you, FCC.
I have 115 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. Unbalanced for sure, but it gets the job done. You probably assume I pay through the nose for that, but I had a first year promotional rate of $39/mon, and now in my second year I pay $56/mon.
This is another bugaboo of mine against The Cable Pig: utter non-transparency of rates. They advertise promotional rates, but it's virtually impossible to find out what the standard rate will be when the promotion runs out. It's like the grocery store selling eggs by the dozen, but only telling you that "the first three eggs are at the promotional price of 5 cents each". With no other pricing available.
Love or hate Google, I can't wait for Google Fiber to roll out in more cities. $70 a month for 1,000 Mbps. Or the standard 25Mbps for free ($300 one-time install). Yes please. Then it's later to Comcast. (I don't watch regular cable anyway)
I can't wait for Elon Musk's satellite-based "Exonet" to launch.
... I have never been given a speed increase that I asked for that was given at no charge. If you have, congrats to you...
Well then, congrats to me (and every other Suddenlink subscriber.) ... about 2-3 months ago Suddenlink did exactly that ... doubled everyone's speed without any price increase (and without even having to ask for it.) ... we just recieved an email from them one day explaining the speed increase and that there would not be a cost increase. It's still not the fastest service in the nation, but it's the ONLY choice I have... there's no competition in my neighborhood.
Describe how they compete, you have to be suggesting every company installs millions of miles of their own cabling. This isn't feasible and has nothing to do with government protection.
Looking at the costs to do this, it's something Apple could afford to do. It would be around $50b or so and they'd either get a fee from service providers and/or provide direct service.
The best way would be to include a wireless component like pCell where they build out a shorter cabling high bandwidth backhaul network and then do the last part wirelessly to blanket the country in wifi. Then they don't have to rely on network carriers for iOS subsidies, they can do this themselves.
This also takes away a huge point of leverage from the TV networks, which is that they own the cables. They can implement their own protocol to distribute TV not only to TVs but to iOS devices wirelessly.
In making a future-proof network that they can buy in cash, future revenue from contracts and fees is just recurring revenue and it would be permanent. Nobody else would own the cabling. ?Net.
You are not acknowledging the fact that there is competition and there is also cooperation in business. Nothing would prevent businesses from making deals that make sense for both parties, as far as sharing already established infrastructure.
Sharing? Who are you and what have you done with SpamSandwich? Just because it could happen doesn't mean it would and it rarely does between competing companies voluntarily. If one company has a weak infrastructure, their competitors use that against them:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/wcms/consumer/4g-lte.html
They need to be forced by the government to share infrastructure just like with other utilities.
The main issue is new infrastructure anyway, not established infrastructure. You can't expect one company to take on the costs of upgrading infrastructure to then let a competitor take advantage of it without paying and any payment scheme would be setup to favor the infrastructure developer. There needs a mediator/referee of some kind to make sure it goes smoothly.
I think Apple would be a good fit for building a network. They can pay for it, create 1 million jobs and still have over $100b in the bank. Then they get content distribution leverage, they can sell Airport Express hardware to customers and they can sell Macs and iOS devices on contracts e.g pay $50/month for the connection or $100/month and get a Macbook Air included. After 24 months, it drops to $50/month.
30 million subscribers paying $50/month = $1.5b per month recurring revenue and if they had the wireless part, they cover that too. Maybe it's a larger scale operation than they'd like to manage but it's not like they're spending their cash in any other way and the recurring revenue would be huge.
It cannot be said often enough that businesses do not exist to provide jobs. Businesses exist to make a profit. That is their primary function. Jobs are a side effect.