4 ms·

It is obvious that they are, de facto, common carriers. Give up the lobbyist payola, reclassify them, and introduce some real competition to my now more freque

It is obvious that they are, de facto, common carriers. Give up the lobbyist payola, reclassify them, and introduce some real competition to my now more frequent than annual Crapcast price bumps (or significant humps, as it were). (And in my case, this is primarily for Internet, although basic cable comes along as a quasi-freebie -- it costs, but then a discount on the combined package largely or totally negates that cost.) Otherwise, you can bet I'm not voting for either major party, next time around. As a consumer, I find that the only way to defeat this bullshit, is to stop paying for it. If I had an alternative to Crapcast in my neighborhood, I'd take it. (I don't count AT&T, because for a lonnngggg time they refused to deploy high speed Internet here, and because their policies and behaviour are just as bad. As well, they've personally screwed me in a prior location, as I've commented before.)

rayiner 13y ago
> and introduce some real competition You do understand that regulating carriers as if they were utilities but then demanding more competition is inconsistent? Utilities get monopoly protection in return for offering universal service. That's the quid pro quo.
- VLM 13y ago
  I think he's hoping if all ISPs become highly regulated common carriers, then all neighborhoods will have to be supplied with uverse, cablemodems, and long range wifi/wisp service, instead of just some. So there's one and only one highly regulated cable provider, and one and only one uverse , not sure about the WISP thing...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    But that's at odds with the call for more competition. In a more competitive market, providers would compete to provide faster and faster service in the most densely-populated, highest-value markets. E.g. basically T-Mobile's strategy in the U.S. They spend their limited infrastructure capital on rolling out fast LTE in key markets, while leaving non-urban areas with HSPA or even no service at all.
- pasbesoin 13y ago
  I may be wrong, but I believe this would re-introduce avenues for competitors to lease capacity on -- if properly regulated -- a parity basis with the incumbent's own cost to provide. Let some government cost accountants loose on these incumbents' books. Then let me buy my capacity from a company that isn't trying to screw me vertically nor horizontally and that doesn't e.g. conscript me into a basic cable TV package when all I want is Internet. Perhaps then, as well, we would be able to actually segregate infrastructure development and maintenance costs and be sure we are getting what we are paying for. E.g. if my cost goes up, it's because I'm actually getting more in return. At a time when wholesale bandwidth costs have been halving year upon year (at least, as of a couple of years ago), the near doubling of my monthly bill over the past few years is sorely in need of some -- independent and measurable and demonstrable -- justification. Finally, Internet is no longer a luxury. It's a necessity. With often only a single distributor in many locations, they are effectively a common carrier. After all the bad behaviour on the part of these companies, I have ZERO sympathy left for them. They've abused their positions. It's time for that abuse to end. P.S. Yeah, I'm pissed. Probably not the best position from which to comment. This month's Crapcast bill contained another circa 5.5 % increase -- for nothing. It's been well less than a year since their last increase, and inflation is running far under that figure. As for build-out costs: I notice when my neighbours (that's one family of two adults) are home on weekends, because my one, rather occasional Netflix stream drops from quality 4 to 3 or not infrequently to 2. They aren't doing diddly to improve capacity/delivery in my neighbourhood.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Hmm ... I think that the grandparent meant that any company should be confined to doing one thing. One company maintains and lays cables, other provides connectivity to said cables etc. Which means that you could buy connectivity to internet from various suppliers depending on your needs.
  - scrabble 13y ago
    This doesn't seem like a good idea either, which seems odd for me to say since it was also portrayed as a bad idea in Atlas Shrugged. Essentially if a company has to rely on other companies and cannot do the work themselves if they are capable of doing so, then results and competition may actually suffer if there are weak links or no competition at any point in the chain.
DannyBee 13y ago
"lobbyist payola," This isn't what stops it. Most honestly believe they are doing the right thing when they oppose it. Ignorance, not maliciousness.

rayiner 13y ago

> and introduce some real competition You do understand that regulating carriers as if they were utilities but then demanding more competition is inconsistent? Utilities get monopoly protection in return for offering universal service. That's the quid pro quo.

VLM 13y ago
I think he's hoping if all ISPs become highly regulated common carriers, then all neighborhoods will have to be supplied with uverse, cablemodems, and long range wifi/wisp service, instead of just some. So there's one and only one highly regulated cable provider, and one and only one uverse , not sure about the WISP thing...
- rayiner 13y ago
  But that's at odds with the call for more competition. In a more competitive market, providers would compete to provide faster and faster service in the most densely-populated, highest-value markets. E.g. basically T-Mobile's strategy in the U.S. They spend their limited infrastructure capital on rolling out fast LTE in key markets, while leaving non-urban areas with HSPA or even no service at all.
pasbesoin 13y ago
I may be wrong, but I believe this would re-introduce avenues for competitors to lease capacity on -- if properly regulated -- a parity basis with the incumbent's own cost to provide. Let some government cost accountants loose on these incumbents' books. Then let me buy my capacity from a company that isn't trying to screw me vertically nor horizontally and that doesn't e.g. conscript me into a basic cable TV package when all I want is Internet. Perhaps then, as well, we would be able to actually segregate infrastructure development and maintenance costs and be sure we are getting what we are paying for. E.g. if my cost goes up, it's because I'm actually getting more in return. At a time when wholesale bandwidth costs have been halving year upon year (at least, as of a couple of years ago), the near doubling of my monthly bill over the past few years is sorely in need of some -- independent and measurable and demonstrable -- justification. Finally, Internet is no longer a luxury. It's a necessity. With often only a single distributor in many locations, they are effectively a common carrier. After all the bad behaviour on the part of these companies, I have ZERO sympathy left for them. They've abused their positions. It's time for that abuse to end. P.S. Yeah, I'm pissed. Probably not the best position from which to comment. This month's Crapcast bill contained another circa 5.5 % increase -- for nothing. It's been well less than a year since their last increase, and inflation is running far under that figure. As for build-out costs: I notice when my neighbours (that's one family of two adults) are home on weekends, because my one, rather occasional Netflix stream drops from quality 4 to 3 or not infrequently to 2. They aren't doing diddly to improve capacity/delivery in my neighbourhood.
venomsnake 13y ago
Hmm ... I think that the grandparent meant that any company should be confined to doing one thing. One company maintains and lays cables, other provides connectivity to said cables etc. Which means that you could buy connectivity to internet from various suppliers depending on your needs.
- scrabble 13y ago
  This doesn't seem like a good idea either, which seems odd for me to say since it was also portrayed as a bad idea in Atlas Shrugged. Essentially if a company has to rely on other companies and cannot do the work themselves if they are capable of doing so, then results and competition may actually suffer if there are weak links or no competition at any point in the chain.

DannyBee 13y ago

"lobbyist payola," This isn't what stops it. Most honestly believe they are doing the right thing when they oppose it. Ignorance, not maliciousness.