Apples and Oranges? (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-20 16:50 (#2TH1) You seem to know more about this than I, but isn't it unfair to compare a nationwide network of AT&T and later RBOC maintained telco copper, on which POTS ISPs ran freely, with allowing/imposing competition on local evil cable company monopolies who all ran their own infrastructure and connected to each other and the Internet per se only as an afterthought to delivering TV?It would be great if competition were there (and in a few cases there are things like Earthlink over Time Warner cable, thanks to legal settlements related to that merger) but it doesn't seem like the same thing as saying "there's already a national voice network and you can use modems on it to talk to the ISP of your choice". There just IS NO similar national network of cable infrastructure on top of which to run all these theoretical competing ISPs.... No? Re: Apples and Oranges? (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-20 18:04 (#2TH5) isn't it unfair to compare a nationwide network of AT&T and later RBOC maintained telco copper, on which POTS ISPs ran freely, with allowing/imposing competition on local evil cable company monopolies who all ran their own infrastructure and connected to each other and the Internet per se only as an afterthought to delivering TV?Nationwide versus local doesn't make any difference... You wouldn't want to do long-distance dial-up, with the high rates being charged, and couldn't ever do long-distance DSL, so only local really ever mattered for internet access.As far as who ran what, cable companies got government granted benefits, in the form of monopoly/franchise rights, eminent domain and right-of-way access. They've really had just as much help from the government as telcos when they built-out the POTS, DSL and fiber infrastructure. Remember, as mentioned, DSL was originally open access, too. You could have Earthlink as your DSL provider, just as easily as Verizon/ATT/etc. That is why SBC (now ATT) DSL was $15/month while cable internet was still usually $50/month. SBC had to directly compete with 3rd party ISPs (like Earthlink) offering DSL over SBC's own lines, and they drove the price down in order to get those customers. It was only a mid-2000s FCC rule change that allowed them to lock things up all over again, after-the-fact. Finally, cable companies wouldn't be asked to give away their lines for free if the rules were changed... They'd still be charging ISPs a reasonable connection fee and line service/maintenance charges. The cable companies can still continue to provide their own internet service directly, too. They just wouldn't be able use their monopoly to FORCE vertical integration of all their services upon their customers. Would it be okay if cable companies took it a step further, blocked Netflix and Magic Jack, and only allowed their own streaming video and VoIP service to travel over the internet service they provide? Would the fact that they built it out be sufficient justification for their desire to make more money at their customers' expense? It's shades of the same issue.And did you notice that Time Warner, who has to compete with Earthlink, is among the only ISPs with low-priced internet service plans? You can get internet service from them for $15. Charter doesn't offer anything under $40. Comcast's lowest tier is $40. Cox starts at $48. I'm specifically excluding 12/24-month contract promotional prices for new customers. Re: Apples and Oranges? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 02:34 (#2THJ) Have a look at Australian ISP prices. They all compete in this way. DSL 20/1 for around $50 a month from a range of ISPs. Now they are competing with each other to install fibre. This is the kind of environment we need to get 90% of Australians on broadband. Pity the NBN is flawed and trying to take everything down with it.
Re: Apples and Oranges? (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-20 18:04 (#2TH5) isn't it unfair to compare a nationwide network of AT&T and later RBOC maintained telco copper, on which POTS ISPs ran freely, with allowing/imposing competition on local evil cable company monopolies who all ran their own infrastructure and connected to each other and the Internet per se only as an afterthought to delivering TV?Nationwide versus local doesn't make any difference... You wouldn't want to do long-distance dial-up, with the high rates being charged, and couldn't ever do long-distance DSL, so only local really ever mattered for internet access.As far as who ran what, cable companies got government granted benefits, in the form of monopoly/franchise rights, eminent domain and right-of-way access. They've really had just as much help from the government as telcos when they built-out the POTS, DSL and fiber infrastructure. Remember, as mentioned, DSL was originally open access, too. You could have Earthlink as your DSL provider, just as easily as Verizon/ATT/etc. That is why SBC (now ATT) DSL was $15/month while cable internet was still usually $50/month. SBC had to directly compete with 3rd party ISPs (like Earthlink) offering DSL over SBC's own lines, and they drove the price down in order to get those customers. It was only a mid-2000s FCC rule change that allowed them to lock things up all over again, after-the-fact. Finally, cable companies wouldn't be asked to give away their lines for free if the rules were changed... They'd still be charging ISPs a reasonable connection fee and line service/maintenance charges. The cable companies can still continue to provide their own internet service directly, too. They just wouldn't be able use their monopoly to FORCE vertical integration of all their services upon their customers. Would it be okay if cable companies took it a step further, blocked Netflix and Magic Jack, and only allowed their own streaming video and VoIP service to travel over the internet service they provide? Would the fact that they built it out be sufficient justification for their desire to make more money at their customers' expense? It's shades of the same issue.And did you notice that Time Warner, who has to compete with Earthlink, is among the only ISPs with low-priced internet service plans? You can get internet service from them for $15. Charter doesn't offer anything under $40. Comcast's lowest tier is $40. Cox starts at $48. I'm specifically excluding 12/24-month contract promotional prices for new customers. Re: Apples and Oranges? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 02:34 (#2THJ) Have a look at Australian ISP prices. They all compete in this way. DSL 20/1 for around $50 a month from a range of ISPs. Now they are competing with each other to install fibre. This is the kind of environment we need to get 90% of Australians on broadband. Pity the NBN is flawed and trying to take everything down with it.
Re: Apples and Oranges? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 02:34 (#2THJ) Have a look at Australian ISP prices. They all compete in this way. DSL 20/1 for around $50 a month from a range of ISPs. Now they are competing with each other to install fibre. This is the kind of environment we need to get 90% of Australians on broadband. Pity the NBN is flawed and trying to take everything down with it.