ISPs Against Broadband Stimulus

R

Rofl-Mic-Lofl

For Whom The Bell Trolls
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
23,377
Some internet providers are complaining that the funding meant to bring high-speed internet to rural areas is instead funding new networks in places they already offer connectivity. Fearing they will not be able to compete with these stimulus-funded companies, the ISPs are stating it could undermine the stimulus plan’s goals by devastating the existing companies.
"It's a little disappointing that companies that aren't adequately serving these areas are trying to undercut those of us who are trying to step in and get the service where it's needed," says Lawrence Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Click to expand...
 
Rofl-Mic-Lofl said:
I personally enjoy the thought of ISPs not having a monopoly :D
Click to expand...

My EXACT sentiments, I live in Canada though, and Rogers has a lockdown on my area, the government here actually segments out cable service in blocks.

As a result, I pay exorbitant prices for mediocre service. This stimulus package concept would do wonders in my area. Now for those in power to grow some balls and make the tough calls they should be making.
 
Same, I live in the GTA and they're constantly raising prices and lowering services. Does anyone here still remember back when actually had Newsgroup service?

If you guys thought US was behind, wait until you visit the stone age here in Canada.
 
Instead of all the bitching about ISPs and monopolies like you all live for, how about supporting a government-organized ISP built and maintained by private firms? It would be the equivalent to our highways which are funded through taxpayer money, but usually constructed by companies and enforced by the government? The result is you wouldn't have to pay directly for internet access, there are no monopolies, and the government can just tax the hell out of you to fund it. Sounds good to me.
 
Oh yeah, hopefully this new Google fiber I've been hearing about with come by and all our woes will be washed away by petabytes of 1's and 0's.
 
I like the Idea of competition. Though I understand the "practice" is an entirely different animal. My guess is that within six months of starting up services the "new companies" will be fixing prices and cooperating with the older companies...
 
I'm paying $50 a month for Rogers and getting 3 mbps down/0.25 up with a 20 gb monthly cap. How ridiculous is that?

In the last 5+ years all they did was reduce the service and up the price. It was no cap, then 60 gb, now 20. There used to be free newsgroups access too many years ago.
 
Seeing as how every company that got the "stimulus" funds are also the ones that gave the most campaign funds to democrats should tell you something. It was MEANT to hurt the other companies and expand the ones that gave campaign contributions.
 
I guess my questions are:

Are these new ISP's offering service in areas where Comcast isn't or not?

Because you can't realistically expect them to ONLY service areas that comcast doesn't service, if they are going to spend money on equipment, etc, they are obviously going to subscribe anyone they can.

Is there something with the broadband stimulus policy that didn't give Comcast the same opportunities as these other companies to receive some of that funding?
 
shurcooL said:
I'm paying $50 a month for Rogers and getting 3 mbps down/0.25 up with a 20 gb monthly cap. How ridiculous is that?

In the last 5+ years all they did was reduce the service and up the price. It was no cap, then 60 gb, now 20. There used to be free newsgroups access too many years ago.
Click to expand...

God that sounds awful. That really sucks man.
 
Main Target said:
God that sounds awful. That really sucks man.
Click to expand...

Oh it is buddy, it is. I have to have my download, and no download months. Basically they charge for every gigabyte over the cap, to a maximum of an additional $50 charge on your bill.

So this month, I decided was the download month, So far I'm close to a terabyte of downloading for April. Screw you Rogers, screw you.
 
What the fuck seriously. They argue that competition will ruin their "competitive" prices? I can't believe some people can take their shit seriously. What the fuck.
 
MrSloppy said:
Same, I live in the GTA and they're constantly raising prices and lowering services. Does anyone here still remember back when actually had Newsgroup service?

If you guys thought US was behind, wait until you visit the stone age here in Canada.
Click to expand...


Yep, I remember back when they had The Wave going and even early @Home... prices were nice (lower $30s if I remember right) and speed wasn't half bad. But since then, granted, speeds have gone up but so have prices and features have pretty much been reduced to 0. On top of that, DPI/throttling, low bandwidth caps.
 
Man, I never had to experience a service that keeps getting more expensive and worse over the years.

I have been using charter in the st. louis area since 2000. First year it was 1mbit down and 128kbps up for $50 a month. Service was horrible for the first few months because I guess the network couldnt handle it (latency was 500ms and could barely hit 100kbps during the day) night was great it worked fine. Once they fixed the problems we were bumped up to 2mbit down for the same price that was in 2002. Then in 2003 we were bumped up to 3mbit down and 256kbps up for $40 a month. Then in 2005 we were bumped up to 5 mbit down and 384kbit up for $40 a month. I had 10mbit down and 512kbit up for $35 a month. Now, I live in an apartment complex that includes internet for a supposedly 5mbit down and 384kbit up for $30 month, but...I actually get 30mbit down and 1mbit up. Yeah, no idea why it is like that, but perhaps it is shared throughout the complex but I rarely see decreasing speeds. Could be there are not enough people using the service in the apartments. I do not mind :).
 
I agree that preventing ISP monopolies is fantastic, but replacing one monopoly with another is absurd. That could be what might happen here since one ISP is now getting a free helping hand to get established. That's not really fair to the ISP's that DID go out and take a risk by expanding into low profitability areas. There should be some kind of balance going on with how these efforts are being distributed.

Also, they do have a valid point that this was intended to expand into areas with no service. This is not a monopoly buster project but is being used as one. I do have a problem with that. The project should be doing what it was intended to do. It should not be stepping outside of those bounds to do costly additional work where there appears to already be a private option regardless of how the single private option is being run. This type of expansion is basically giving a free pass to the ISP's that chose to not make such an investment by making that investment for them. I'm curious to know how the built up infrastructure will be divided out to the ISP's that want to use it.

This is a very thin argument. I realize that since ISP's don't have a tradition of battling it out and have pretty much drawn territorial lines in all but the largest markets that any argument built around "Let the ISP's fight it out in the private sector" won't float for long.

Still, I suppose jobs are being created and that was half of the intent.
 
Bgrngod said:
I agree that preventing ISP monopolies is fantastic, but replacing one monopoly with another is absurd. That could be what might happen here since one ISP is now getting a free helping hand to get established.
Click to expand...

They all pretty much got help from the government at one time or another.
 
I keep waiting for DSL & Cable in my area. I've offered to foot the bill, they still won't run the lines. (AT&T and Broadstripe)

Stuck on 2 Mbps WiMax, that's lucky to crack 1 Mbps on a good day. $45/month.
 
aireyc said:
Instead of all the bitching about ISPs and monopolies like you all live for, how about supporting a government-organized ISP built and maintained by private firms? It would be the equivalent to our highways which are funded through taxpayer money, but usually constructed by companies and enforced by the government? The result is you wouldn't have to pay directly for internet access, there are no monopolies, and the government can just tax the hell out of you to fund it. Sounds good to me.
Click to expand...

I'd rather just see zero taxes for network expansion.
 
Rofl-Mic-Lofl said:
I personally enjoy the thought of ISPs not having a monopoly :D
Click to expand...

The way that I read that article is that there will be NO increased competition, just the same companies albiet with a few tax dollars in their personal bank accounts.
 
Rofl-Mic-Lofl said:
I personally enjoy the thought of ISPs not having a monopoly :D
Click to expand...

Ah huh. Comcast, Cox and other companies that have strangle holds on some cities with no competition are complaining. In a major city with fiber everywhere, and lots of competition this isn't a problem.

But say where I live in New Orleans, there currently is only one real option. Cox Communications, the speeds are fast 28mbps down, 5mbps up, but the prices are high.
And AT&T DSL sucks donkey _____. I'd love to switch to a cheaper option & stop paying Cox $200/month for my Cable, phone & internet.
 
thehybridfrog said:
What the fuck seriously. They argue that competition will ruin their "competitive" prices? I can't believe some people can take their shit seriously. What the fuck.
Click to expand...

This isn't a new entrant bootstrapping their way into the industry, this is a new entrant subsidized by the government to get into the industry.

It's not a big deal to me because government helping businesses flourish isn't somethng new and I support to an extent. That extent stops at the point government funding is so large the businesses being supported can offer their products very close to if not below the cost of what it takes for businesses not supported by the government to offer the same service.

That's when government involvement goes too far in misusing tax payer money.
 
C-rizzle said:
Ah huh. Comcast, Cox and other companies that have strangle holds on some cities with no competition are complaining. In a major city with fiber everywhere, and lots of competition this isn't a problem.

But say where I live in New Orleans, there currently is only one real option. Cox Communications, the speeds are fast 28mbps down, 5mbps up, but the prices are high.
And AT&T DSL sucks donkey _____. I'd love to switch to a cheaper option & stop paying Cox $200/month for my Cable, phone & internet.
Click to expand...

lol. I would love to pay $200 a month for decent cable.

I'm 2 miles out of range from 20mb Charter because some shitty company called Suddenlink that only offers 1.5m/200kb has a monopoly on my neighborhood.

I pay $110 a month for 4m/4m crappy satellite internet alone.
 
shurcooL said:
I'm paying $50 a month for Rogers and getting 3 mbps down/0.25 up with a 20 gb monthly cap. How ridiculous is that?

In the last 5+ years all they did was reduce the service and up the price. It was no cap, then 60 gb, now 20. There used to be free newsgroups access too many years ago.
Click to expand...

 
Bell canada isnt any better: Fibe 25
Faster download speeds - up to 25 Mbps
Fastest upload speeds in the market - up to 7 Mbps
Internet usage: 75 GB of bandwidth per month
 
lol..i pay $35/mo for 25/2 via brighthouse
everyone in my sub is old as fuck so i get all the bandwidth 24/7 :)
 
Step 1: Let "new" ISP's blow all their money on getting "setup"
Step 2: Undercut them until they die
Step 3: buy upgraded network on the cheap
Step 4. DUH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top