No matter what the FCC decides, the losing side will go to court claiming it's unfair.
US broadband watchdog the FCC is reportedly planning to hold a vote next month on how it will, or won't, eventually enforce net neutrality. The Washington Post cited an unnamed source within the regulator in reporting that chairman Tom Wheeler wants his fellow commissioners to approve his proposed "Open Internet" rules. …
The Washington Post cited an unnamed source within the regulator in reporting that chairman Tom Wheeler wants his fellow commissioners to approve his proposed "Open Internet" rules.
His proposed rules? Was there even discussion amongst the commissioners? Or is Tom's word gospel? I guess his rules will be those wanted by the group with the largest lobby*?
*Lobby = most money, gifts, job package after his term is over, etc.
well considering the dire state of "high speed internet" in the USA. As I have mentioned before I live not even a mile from a 100 Gigabit connection (I checked!) and the best we can get on campus is Comcast which they absolutely refuse to make it easy to buy JUST internet. I have DSL from a 3rd party but it is pretty meagre and I STILL have to pay ATT for a piece of copper. In addition these companies keep trying to sell crap that noone wants, especially those who use internet only. Get the message be good , fast dumb pipes - no limits. I'd pay 100$/mth for 1Gb/s, but I will not pay you 50$/mth for Cable no matter what "bundle" you have.
I have no sympathy for big corps. They have had it too easy, too long, so whatever the FCC does I hope it makes them uncomfortable. Chattanooga has 1Gb/s internet, and that doesn't even have a supercomputing center...
They have had it too easy, too long, so whatever the FCC does I hope it makes them uncomfortable.
Phil Dude, while I have more of a quibble with every ISP I have dealt with than I do with you say, I should point out that you are describing the classic conditions for a competitor to step in and make some cash: high demand in an under-served market. Yes, there is plenty of government collusion in keeping monopoly players in business, but I have seen little movement on this in years. Surely someone somewhere would have seized this opportunity a while back if it actually existed.
You're right about the opportunity. But you're also right about the monopoly aspect. As long as they can keep their contracts enforced with the municipalities and the FCC or courts do nothing to overturn them, they get to keep the monopoly. Seems that a couple of contracts I've seen were made back in the Cable TV only days and were for something like 50 years. There was a small town I lived in where it was for 99 years.
Because it was the only way for those places to get wired at all. If they hadn't agreed to those terms, the lack of cable would've been deal-breakers to get people to move out there. When the only way you can stay alive is to make a deal with the devil...
Also, don't forget that the US is a BIG country. No big country I know has managed to get universal high-speed access down because geography raises the costs. Laying down high-speed line from New York to Los Angeles, across two mountains, and any number of rivers including the Mississippi, isn't going to be cheap.
"Surely someone somewhere would have seized this opportunity a while back if it actually existed."
It truly does still exist, as "Condo associations" make deals with one company over another for wiring a building. There are only 2 co's available per neighborhood, per municipal "share the wealth" agreements, and you become a "one" or "the other" (of those two only) building. Some buildings won't let you mount dishes. There are 76 units in my building... I'll guess the cable company has one big pipe and one overtaxed router to serve allus. I'd bet most school dorms have the same offerings (limits).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020