31–40 of 131 posts
As another poster said, would you want Comcast providing water to your neighborhood?
I’d like to see a community funded ISP on top of a city-maintained fiber network. That way the government can be told to fly a kite if they want to put their hands on anything of value.
Best phone call I've made in the past few years was canceling my ~$100 Comcast internet plan in favor of my municipality's $50 gigabit plan. A year in and haven't had so much as a hiccup in service.
Actually, I’m going right now to see if there are any municipal broadband efforts in my area that I could throw money at / help out with. Is there some good place to find out more about efforts in _____ area? Sadly, like many in the Bay Area, I live in an apartment with a Comcast community manager, so we’d likely be the very last to get off of Comcast unless some great wireless tech becomes viable (and even then, we’re not allowed to have any external antennas mounted outside of our units).
I do see where he's coming from though but I don't know how to counter those arguments as I don't know the history of how all the fiber got laid and who actually "owns" any of it. It seems like the phone lines or water that it's a public good at this point.
Bringing up that example is countered with what a f up all the Baby Bells became.
Anyway, curious as to what some folks here that are much older and might have had a hand in the growth of broadband have to say.
Good. Municipal broadband is only a thing because Comcast services are terribly below par
Just about every internet provider has shitty service. Time Warner Cable - the only option in many parts of New York City - is the bane of our existence. Literally, literally every time we move, we've tried to cancel the internet at our old apartment and set it up at our new apartment - and had them end up canceling the internet at the new place. (What happens with the old internet is different every time; either it…
The trick is that Comcast and Verizon are also apparently good in my neighborhood. According to multiple neighbors who've moved around the area, service is notably better when you're in the competitive neighborhoods — someone who moved just a few blocks south reported a big difference since they were in the Comcast-and-slow-DSL area. Not surprising since I've heard at least one former employee say that one of the prominent bits of information show onscreen with support calls is the competition level of the caller's address.
I mean, duh. They basically have a monopoly and a license to print money right now. they can't make the same profit margins they have been if they have to compete with local municipal providers who aren't based on a profit model unless those local providers are so incompetent that they can't deliver reliable fast internet to their area. Comcast can't do price hikes and data caps and generally continue treating their…
The correct response IMO is:
1. Don't block municipal broadband or new commercial providers, there should be no _forced_ monopoly.
2. Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network and the services on top. The wholesale access networks offer the same regulated (cost+) terms to any ISP/service provider who wants to reach customers on that network. Now the ISP/TV component of Comcast has to compete on the same terms as any other ISP/TV provider using that access network.
[1] I say semi-natural because in the US they're not natural but regulated and there has been a fair amount of overbuilding in cherry-picked areas.
Best phone call I've made in the past few years was canceling my ~$100 Comcast internet plan in favor of my municipality's $50 gigabit plan. A year in and haven't had so much as a hiccup in service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood this. If you have a real or de-facto monopoly, why would you jeopardize it by providing poor service/overpricing your product? That just draws attention to the situation. Keep things reasonable and it's a lot harder for people to make noise because the majority will be fine with the way things are.
When you have a real or de-facto monopoly you just assume you can get away with poor/overpriced service. Most corporate bean counters making such decisions don't take into account the second-order effects you describe, until they materialize into a real problem.
We must also consider the legal frameworks which allow such companies to operate in these ways. I don’t have my energy company sending me emails and mailers urging me to get PG
Good. Internet access is more and more a utility like water and electricity. Municipal broadband in my town works great and is more than 100x the speed of comcast at a cheaper price. As another poster said, would you want Comcast providing water to your neighborhood?
Americans as a whole are horrible at managing money. They don't pay their bills on time, have tons of credit card debt, etc. This isn't my opinion, it's cold hard reality: look at the subprime crisis, debt burden, charge-offs/delinquencies, etc. Frankly, the crowd reading this website is just way out of touch with the reality of the situation.
For municipalities where people are responsible and there's a real sense of community, sure, do municipal broadband. I'm sure it works sometimes, but for my money, I'd rather pay the extra $5-10/month and not have to be a bill collector to my neighbor. I pay $40/month for 50Mbps Comcast and I'm fine with it.