5 ms·

"We do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II for at least four reasons: ... reclassification of broadband und

by mkautzm 12y ago

"We do not support reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II for at least four reasons: ... reclassification of broadband under Title II will create a huge cloud of uncertainty over the entire broadband industry, thereby retarding investment and innovation." I would be willing to buy this if there was actually reasonable investment to begin with. I'm from ND, and we have about 15~ rural cooperative telecom companies. If you take a look at this map: http://www.dakotacarrier.com/network.asp http://www.dakotacarrier.com/network.asp You can see their respective boundaries. The white area is the major cities. Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks, etc. Guess who has fiber? Not the major cities! BEK is offering 200Mb fiber AND cable TV for 65 dollars a month in a lot of their coop zone, and it continues to expand. Fargo, the largest metro area has Cable One, which offers 50/10 connections for 70 dollars a month and has a bandwidth cap of 50GB. Now, a lot of that infrastructure has come on the back of free money from the federal government, but major ISPs got that too. If major ISPs actually used their pools of cash to build out infrastructure instead of actively trying to remove fiber from their competition, then I'd be more inclined to believe this. As I see it, major ISPs have completely mismanaged their position in the market and instead of making a reasonable best effort to keep people happy, they've done the bare minimum and have abused the technical ignorance of most residential customers for their benefit. It's for reasons like that that I support Title II reclassification.

schnable 12y ago
In the major metros Comcast has increased speeds regularly and also offers hundreds of wifi hotspots that customers can use. In many of these areas they also compete with Fios of course.
- shimshim 12y ago
  I live outside of Nashville and they are now offering me 109mb for about $90 a month. My current speed has continued to increase as well, about 2 smaller MP3 songs per second.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    In my neck of the woods is 105mbps for $90 as PROMOTIONAL pricing. The real price is almost twice that. Is $90 your real price?
    - shimshim 12y ago
      Well I suppose it is a promotion, a 1 year deal for $90.
- mkautzm 12y ago
  OK, but talk is cheap. You offer 100Mb service* for $115/month. Google is offering 1Gb for less than that. My local ISPs that operate on just over $10,000,000 annually are offering double that for less than half the price to people that live in areas with population densities that'd rival the most desolate parts of Siberia. Talk is cheap. Start actually doing something. Either offer copper at prices that can compete or better yet, put your money where your mouth is. If Comcast is worried that Title II is going to decentatvie infrastructure spending, prove me wrong and actually build out a fiber infrastructure while Title II isn't a thing. Use some of that 7 billion[1] a year you see in the black and start building some real infrastructure instead of just sitting on copper for as long as you possibly can. *When it's convenient. God only knows how oversold Comcast's service is. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Holding up Google as a reference point is really disingenuous. It's not clear Google is making any money on Google Fiber, and so far they've only decided to enter a few municipalities where they've refused to agree to the sorts of regulatory constraints that Comcast is subject to in those same places. There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business?
    - mkautzm 12y ago
      > There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business? This right here is a really good reason why Internet service needs to be Title II'd. If the primary concern surrounding what is now an incredibly vital piece of the communications infrastructure is, 'how do we keep shareholders happy', then our priorities are fucked.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - tptacek 12y ago
        The primary concern of trucking and air transport concerns are also shareholder welfare. Should we nationalize transportation?
- maxsilver 12y ago
  > Comcast has increased speeds This is sort of a half truth. Comcast has increased some speeds a little bit. But most of those speed increases are lies. For instance, Comcast claims it's moving to deliver 500mbps service ("half-gigabit") in this letter. You might assume this is meant to be comparable with Google Fiber and other local Fiber initiatives. It's not. Google Fiber is $70/month. Most local gigabit providers are $50-$100/month. Comcast's "half fiber" is $400/month. (see http://www.comcast.com/505 http://www.comcast.com/505). Half the speed at 400+% higher cost. This isn't competition, this is Comcast lying about availability. It lets them claim that they deliver fast service, but that "the market doesn't want it".
  - gnopgnip 12y ago
    Google fiber does not provide universal access. Even in the communities they service they are very selective about which areas are included.
    - leccine 12y ago
      Lat time I checked Google was not an ISP for consumers. They do this to generate more competition against the ISPs forming a trust against competition. Example: "The Justice Department has reached out to the companies as it investigates whether the cable-industry merger (CMCSA:US) is anticompetitive, said the people, who asked not to be named because the review isn’t public." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-11/disney-cbs-said-to-be-queried-by-u-dot-s-dot-in-comcast-merger http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-11/disney-cbs-said-... Thanks to Goole Comcast started to do higher speed internet, it was shocking to me how customers were not interested in it but right after the Google offering the very same customers went totally mad and they suddenly needed faster internet. Who understands these very complicated matters anyways?!?!
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        maxsilver 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Rooster61 12y ago
  Can't help but think you are a shill. This is obviously corpratized fluff, and you have only commented on two threads, both of which deal with Comcast.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >In the major metros Comcast has increased speeds They've certainly added higher tiers. I saw their 105mbps product was available in my neighborhood and called. The non-promotional price just for internet floats around $180 a month. That's a far cry from these municipal fiber shops that deliver that speed or higher AND television for less cost. This is an easy way for ISPs to say to regulators, "Look we offered it but no one ordered it." Of course, no one wants to pay $180 for internet, especially when google fiber goes for $70 or so. I think their 400mbps product is around $400, which is insane.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    I've been paying $99/month 105Mb for about 1.5 years now.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  I smell an astroturf
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Comcast, most cable companies have DOCSIS 3 infrastructure, and depending upon network layout can increase speed by merely "flipping a switch". They protect profits by metering bandwitdh to the minimum possible units, and they protect themselves from competition by offering better service only when competition arrives in a market.
- dasil003 12y ago
  You're obviously new on the job so I'll just tell you what your incompetent trainers should have taught you: No human being not under the employ of Comcast know what Comcast is doing "in the major metros". People who use Comcast only know of their little neck of the woods, so when you go out to do your astroturfing campaign you need to make sure that you appear to be a real human being by talking about a specific location which you personally have experience with.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
addflip 12y ago
I work for a company that is deeply rooted in the Energy sector in ND. The reason that rural areas in ND are getting access to fiber is because the oil/natural gas companies need it. Trust me it's not out of the kindest of their hearts. They have most of the Bakken shale covered. You can even tell that from the map.
- mkautzm 12y ago
  The entire state is covered because the coops made a deal with the state and each other decades ago. The communication co-ops have a responsibility to one group: Their co-op members. If they bitch, that's a really bad thing because then the state will start to scrutinize, and if that happens, their funding gets put in jeopardy. The end result of that relationship is that it's in the best interests of the co-ops to keep their members extremely content. If you turn back time to the mid 90s, you will see that a lot of the state was offered DSL in a pretty timely manner despite being sparsely populated. Our communication services have always been at least a step or two ahead of the curve and priced pretty competitively even in places where there is literally no competition. This isn't a result of the Bakken either. This has been an ongoing thing that has existed since the co-ops have been established. The system ends up working really well, and the irony is that in competitive areas, the service is generally worse and more expensive because the small co-ops don't have the cash to lay down the 9 figures of infrastructure it'd take to wire up all of Fargo.

by mkautzm 12y ago

schnable 12y ago

In the major metros Comcast has increased speeds regularly and also offers hundreds of wifi hotspots that customers can use. In many of these areas they also compete with Fios of course.

shimshim 12y ago
I live outside of Nashville and they are now offering me 109mb for about $90 a month. My current speed has continued to increase as well, about 2 smaller MP3 songs per second.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  In my neck of the woods is 105mbps for $90 as PROMOTIONAL pricing. The real price is almost twice that. Is $90 your real price?
  - shimshim 12y ago
    Well I suppose it is a promotion, a 1 year deal for $90.
mkautzm 12y ago
OK, but talk is cheap. You offer 100Mb service* for $115/month. Google is offering 1Gb for less than that. My local ISPs that operate on just over $10,000,000 annually are offering double that for less than half the price to people that live in areas with population densities that'd rival the most desolate parts of Siberia. Talk is cheap. Start actually doing something. Either offer copper at prices that can compete or better yet, put your money where your mouth is. If Comcast is worried that Title II is going to decentatvie infrastructure spending, prove me wrong and actually build out a fiber infrastructure while Title II isn't a thing. Use some of that 7 billion[1] a year you see in the black and start building some real infrastructure instead of just sitting on copper for as long as you possibly can. *When it's convenient. God only knows how oversold Comcast's service is. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
- rayiner 12y ago
  Holding up Google as a reference point is really disingenuous. It's not clear Google is making any money on Google Fiber, and so far they've only decided to enter a few municipalities where they've refused to agree to the sorts of regulatory constraints that Comcast is subject to in those same places. There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business?
  - mkautzm 12y ago
    > There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business? This right here is a really good reason why Internet service needs to be Title II'd. If the primary concern surrounding what is now an incredibly vital piece of the communications infrastructure is, 'how do we keep shareholders happy', then our priorities are fucked.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - tptacek 12y ago
      The primary concern of trucking and air transport concerns are also shareholder welfare. Should we nationalize transportation?
maxsilver 12y ago
> Comcast has increased speeds This is sort of a half truth. Comcast has increased some speeds a little bit. But most of those speed increases are lies. For instance, Comcast claims it's moving to deliver 500mbps service ("half-gigabit") in this letter. You might assume this is meant to be comparable with Google Fiber and other local Fiber initiatives. It's not. Google Fiber is $70/month. Most local gigabit providers are $50-$100/month. Comcast's "half fiber" is $400/month. (see http://www.comcast.com/505 http://www.comcast.com/505). Half the speed at 400+% higher cost. This isn't competition, this is Comcast lying about availability. It lets them claim that they deliver fast service, but that "the market doesn't want it".
- gnopgnip 12y ago
  Google fiber does not provide universal access. Even in the communities they service they are very selective about which areas are included.
  - leccine 12y ago
    Lat time I checked Google was not an ISP for consumers. They do this to generate more competition against the ISPs forming a trust against competition. Example: "The Justice Department has reached out to the companies as it investigates whether the cable-industry merger (CMCSA:US) is anticompetitive, said the people, who asked not to be named because the review isn’t public." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-11/disney-cbs-said-to-be-queried-by-u-dot-s-dot-in-comcast-merger http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-11/disney-cbs-said-... Thanks to Goole Comcast started to do higher speed internet, it was shocking to me how customers were not interested in it but right after the Google offering the very same customers went totally mad and they suddenly needed faster internet. Who understands these very complicated matters anyways?!?!
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - maxsilver 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Rooster61 12y ago
Can't help but think you are a shill. This is obviously corpratized fluff, and you have only commented on two threads, both of which deal with Comcast.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>In the major metros Comcast has increased speeds They've certainly added higher tiers. I saw their 105mbps product was available in my neighborhood and called. The non-promotional price just for internet floats around $180 a month. That's a far cry from these municipal fiber shops that deliver that speed or higher AND television for less cost. This is an easy way for ISPs to say to regulators, "Look we offered it but no one ordered it." Of course, no one wants to pay $180 for internet, especially when google fiber goes for $70 or so. I think their 400mbps product is around $400, which is insane.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  I've been paying $99/month 105Mb for about 1.5 years now.
fred_durst 12y ago
I smell an astroturf
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Comcast, most cable companies have DOCSIS 3 infrastructure, and depending upon network layout can increase speed by merely "flipping a switch". They protect profits by metering bandwitdh to the minimum possible units, and they protect themselves from competition by offering better service only when competition arrives in a market.
dasil003 12y ago
You're obviously new on the job so I'll just tell you what your incompetent trainers should have taught you: No human being not under the employ of Comcast know what Comcast is doing "in the major metros". People who use Comcast only know of their little neck of the woods, so when you go out to do your astroturfing campaign you need to make sure that you appear to be a real human being by talking about a specific location which you personally have experience with.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

addflip 12y ago

I work for a company that is deeply rooted in the Energy sector in ND. The reason that rural areas in ND are getting access to fiber is because the oil/natural gas companies need it. Trust me it's not out of the kindest of their hearts. They have most of the Bakken shale covered. You can even tell that from the map.

mkautzm 12y ago
The entire state is covered because the coops made a deal with the state and each other decades ago. The communication co-ops have a responsibility to one group: Their co-op members. If they bitch, that's a really bad thing because then the state will start to scrutinize, and if that happens, their funding gets put in jeopardy. The end result of that relationship is that it's in the best interests of the co-ops to keep their members extremely content. If you turn back time to the mid 90s, you will see that a lot of the state was offered DSL in a pretty timely manner despite being sparsely populated. Our communication services have always been at least a step or two ahead of the curve and priced pretty competitively even in places where there is literally no competition. This isn't a result of the Bakken either. This has been an ongoing thing that has existed since the co-ops have been established. The system ends up working really well, and the irony is that in competitive areas, the service is generally worse and more expensive because the small co-ops don't have the cash to lay down the 9 figures of infrastructure it'd take to wire up all of Fargo.