DescentBB

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=4674388

Not really controversial, but Bush was in town so I decided to post.

I'm not sure if I would want the government regulating broadband, but opening up cable networks sounds to me like a good idea for us consumers. Hopefully it could provide the supply and competition that the broadband market has needed to bring down prices. On the flip side, though, stories like @Home remind me of how fragile the market is and that the broadband companies might not be making all the $$$ that we thought. But still, though, it's been a few years, and it's not the pioneer service it used to be, and the fact that it has been getting more expensive has me concerned.

That crap would put small companies like the one I work for out of business, if we had to share our bandwidth with our competitors... I'd be out of work. The way I see it, is there are enough different kinds of broadband that you can quite literally have at least 3 kinds of broadband available in locations, cable modems, DSL and Wireless, all deliver the same thing using completely different technology, and most usually from different companies. Thats good enough. This talk about letting competitors on our network... Hey, that may not be a big hurdle for the major CSO's, but for small companies, its a death sentance.

we sell our services at below cost to resellers like MCI SPRINT ATT and those other bozo's thanks to the federal goverment stepping in. Even AOL and earthlink get DSL at below cost through us(yet they charge more but pay less.... go figure) They are horrible... yeah we provide the circut.. but they screw everything up... there is a cost to eveyhting they shoot below that mark... not good for anyone

We need affordable broadband by 2007? Don't we already have it? And if $50/month is too unreasonable for getting speeds of 60x or so what you can get for $10/month, just wait a while, eventually speeds will go up more and prices will probably creep down, until you do find it "affordable". So shut up and quite whining, things seem to be working just fine!

(And as for network sharing, with Time Warner here in Austin, you have access to RoadRunner, AOL, and Earthlink at the least. Not sure of the specifics, though, since I'm sticking with my "plain" RR connect.)

it's possible to get 1500 down, 768 up for 20 bucks USD.

Hmmm... well judging by the posts, the general consensus seems to be that open networks are a bad idea!! I'm hardly coming from a know-all position, so there'll be no need to tear me to pieces, k?

My comments-- well, I don't think that "network opening" was ever intended for small companies first of all. After all, they aren't the problem. It's the providers that continually consolidate that I believe it's being directed at.

Unfortunately, to some extent here, and a lot of everywhere, this typified "we" referred to isn't typical. I know that much from my own personal experience and reading the DBB and other forums that broadband experiences and availability can drastically differ. Maybe the simple solution *is* time, depending on one's faith in the invisible hand of free competition (assuming there is competition) (assuming there is a solution).

IIRC, prices have been raised a total $15 monthly for service here-- how biotchy is that!

It's hard to believe that the prices would be as low as the mentioned $10/month for the dial-up market if it weren't for the wide range of options available. I just checked with my old dial-up provider, ATT, and there prices haven't seemed to have changed since I gave it up years ago, and from what I understand, AOL has raised prices for their dial-up yet again. Prices don't seem to be going down much *generally* in the dial-up market, but it seems to be that it's the vast choice of services per se that would lead to lower pricing options?

Ferno, same thing, I take it that since you mentioned it in USD that it's in the US, but the good ol' USA covers a lot of ground. Even if you're referring to something in Canada, same thing, why couldn't something like that if it's offered somewhere be offered anywhere? Without knowing the specifics, maybe the answer is practical, but I would hate the answer to be because nobody could have the opportunity.

Either that or: life sucks, and there's nothing you can do, so live with it.

Ferno wrote:it's possible to get 1500 down, 768 up for 20 bucks USD.

Not here, 256/256 for $60, 512/512 for $90, 768/768 for $120. And that is ALL that is available, there is no competition, no cable service, not even another dial-up ISP around. Even dial-up service is metered from this place, the most you can buy is 100 hours a month for $50.

-Krom

We used to have 10.000/768 cable for I think about $35, until they started capping at 4.000/128, restrict monthly traffic to 10GB and raised the price to $45. Their service is going downhill while their prices increase... Pfft.

My ISP doesn't cap, but it will cap you if you use too much upload bandwidth (i.e. if you are running a web/ftp server or filesharing client for any extended period of time). The service advertises itself at 9999/999 @ $45/mo (as long as you receive the Family cable TV package), but someone I know got capped at 1000/15 for running a warez FTP server.

Least my ISP does let me get away with >50 GB/month of traffic (2/3 of which is uploads) without any complaints.

heh. krom that's overpriced imo. My ISP allows as much upload and download as i want, and I pay 40 bucks canadian for it.

Your telling me! ;P

i get 3000/256 for $40 a month, i started paying 2 years ago and it was literally half that speed.

originanly it was 1500/128, then it jumped to 2000/256, and now it's 3000/256, and the price hasn't changed at all