Obama Nominates New FCC Commissioner

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: charrison


The fact that there are two, makes a monopoly impossible.

If you want phone service, you have multiple options, telco, cable, wireless
if you want tv, you can have telco, cable, sat or free OTA
if you want internet most have option of cable or telco, and you could do wireless as well.

This is far from a monopoly situation.

Most do not have the option to go with anything but one carrier if they even have that.
Satellite cannot even be considered a viable alternative to broadband via cables.
It is a monopoly and that is why the telecoms are fighting with everything they can to try to stop communities from putting in their own infrastructure.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: charrison


Our telecoms are doing very well building out new infrastructure. I hope the goverment stays out of the way and lets them finish do build outs. I think the rural folks need to realize as well that lving in low population densitiy is going to require paying more infrastructure. You cant expect $20 dsl with low population density.

Really ?
Then where is the $200 billion dollars of infrastructure they were paid for that was supposed to link every home in the USA to fiber by 2004 ? They promised it, were paid for it, and never delivered .

The fact is they only spend money where they can recoup it the quickest. They also charge more in areas where there is no competition.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: charrison

Our telecoms are doing very well building out new infrastructure. I hope the goverment stays out of the way and lets them finish do build outs. I think the rural folks need to realize as well that lving in low population densitiy is going to require paying more infrastructure. You cant expect $20 dsl with low population density.

They aren't doing a *horrible* job of it, but to say they are doing very well in this is a bit of a stretch I think. With that line of thinking, rural areas wouldn't even have electricity today. Those in low density population areas need a more managed approach. If the cities are so pleased with what they get, leave them be and let them opt-out of that sort of regulation. However, for the rest of us, we get screwed by not having a planned out approach to deploying broadband.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: charrison


The fact that there are two, makes a monopoly impossible.

If you want phone service, you have multiple options, telco, cable, wireless
if you want tv, you can have telco, cable, sat or free OTA
if you want internet most have option of cable or telco, and you could do wireless as well.

This is far from a monopoly situation.

Most do not have the option to go with anything but one carrier if they even have that.

That is just false. Probably around 80% have a choice of cable or telco for phone and internet. Damn near everyone has a choice of a cell phone for voice where they live.
Damn near everyone has a choice of sat for tv.

Satellite cannot even be considered a viable alternative to broadband via cables.

It is expensive, and slow compared to wired broadband, but it is available damn near everywhere.

It is a monopoly and that is why the telecoms are fighting with everything they can to try to stop communities from putting in their own infrastructure.

THe objection is competition funded via taxpayers that does not have to make a profit. I can understand why they have a problem with that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: charrison


Our telecoms are doing very well building out new infrastructure. I hope the goverment stays out of the way and lets them finish do build outs. I think the rural folks need to realize as well that lving in low population densitiy is going to require paying more infrastructure. You cant expect $20 dsl with low population density.

Really ?
Then where is the $200 billion dollars of infrastructure they were paid for that was supposed to link every home in the USA to fiber by 2004 ? They promised it, were paid for it, and never delivered .

The fact is they only spend money where they can recoup it the quickest. They also charge more in areas where there is no competition.

According to tellahalftruth, there have been 200B in subsidies...but that is just false. Those networks are largely built without any subsidy and have increased greatly in capacity over the years.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: charrison

Our telecoms are doing very well building out new infrastructure. I hope the goverment stays out of the way and lets them finish do build outs. I think the rural folks need to realize as well that lving in low population densitiy is going to require paying more infrastructure. You cant expect $20 dsl with low population density.

They aren't doing a *horrible* job of it, but to say they are doing very well in this is a bit of a stretch I think. With that line of thinking, rural areas wouldn't even have electricity today. Those in low density population areas need a more managed approach. If the cities are so pleased with what they get, leave them be and let them opt-out of that sort of regulation. However, for the rest of us, we get screwed by not having a planned out approach to deploying broadband.

LIke I have said before USF should be redirected at broadband and best way to deleiver that is wireless. But the rural folks also need to realize those services are going to cost more due to lower population density.

 

[imported_K3N]

Further proof that obama is corporate stooge. How much longer until kool aid drinking liberals.