Originally Posted by scottlindner
I have fiber to the nearest CO to my house which is about 1000ft away. I can get the highest "fiber" DSL service from CenturyLink. Because I'm so close my QoS is so high I call them up and tell them to turn of "interleaving" and my ping times drop to like 7ms. There are two reasons I dumped CenturyLink in favor of Comcast. The first, you have ot pay extra for roughly 5Mbps upstream and with cable you can get well over that with just regular service. The second reason is the after Century Link took over my prices went up and overall service dropped. I was paying $64/mo for 12Mbps downstream and 5Mbps upstream. That's just ridiculous. I am certain that when Comcast raises my rates on my cable service I will swap back over to DSL again. I have modems for both so it's a trivial change for me.
I sure hope the Net Neutrality fight resumes. I want an ISP provider, I do not want a restricted access content provider that charges me a lot for very little.
With the announcement of Comcast purchasing Time Warner (assuming it passes regulatory hurdles), I think its all over but the shooting and the shouting. Comcast will become the big elephant. On the other hand, there may come calls to reengage the net neutrality fight and/or force Comcast to divest some assets like their content production operations. Would not be surprised to see some lawsuits over the deal. Guess we'll see what happens.
Interesting information about CenturyLink and Comcast. Sometimes there is a place for Government in commerce. Regulated monopolies (like utility companies) worked fine for many years. I look back at my experiences growing up with Pacific Gas and Electric Co in CA. It worked well for many years, the system was well maintained and profitable. My parents received quarterly dividend checks for a long time. The only reason they deregulated as far as I can tell was for Wall Street, despite the claims of free market advantages. Hasn't happened.
I think the wire into the house should be treated like electric, gas, and water service - a utility and regulated. Whether a private or government entity owns that communication link utility is a decision the community makes. I could see a number of business models. I'm very pleased with our city owned Colorado Springs Utilities for example. Other communities may choose to have a privately owned company install, operate and maintain the network. Regardless, it would be regulated and answerable to a regulatory board made up of citizen elected members.
And there should be just one connection - a single fiber to the house (plus subscriber terminating equipment like a modem). Get rid of separate phone and cable connections. The owner of that wire/fiber will receive a monthly payment from the user (and it can be data rate based - I have no qualms about paying more for higher data rates). The comm network owner have no say over content passing through that link. Fees should be enough to guarantee a profit after installation, operation and maintenance costs, which should result in dividends of reasonable levels for share holders. However there would be no major growth initiatives or expansion into other markets to meet some bogus Wall Street expectation of increasing shareholder value. Also, once that connection is in, you could buy service from any content provider. As we've seen there is a merging taking place between traditional TV and internet content. I think in the long run this would foster true competition between content providers. Naturally, all that I've written will never happen. A utopian dream I suppose. Too few people have too much power at the Federal, state, and local levels.
BTW - Side benefit of a wholesale backbone/last mile network upgrade - It would put a lot of people to work. Kind of like WPA in the 30s. And it would create a stable income source from dividends for shareholders, not to mention a relatively stable stock price, particularly if unrelated mergers and acquisitions were off the table. Oh well, I can dream. LOL