(10-08-2016 03:32 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 04:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap,

Well, it could be a big problem if Comcast was the only ISP in the community, yes?

Do you lose sleep over your power companies monopoly? This situation will fall similarly with the establishment of state Public Service Commissioners for internet access.

I don't "lose sleep" over it, but I don't like it. E.g., where I live, we actually have two power companies that do business in our neighborhood, but they don't compete, the streets are divided up between them and you have no choice.

Makes no sense to me.

Kap,

So you do agree that it is a major problem if Comcast or another cable company is the only ISP in a community.


Van,

So long as there are strict regulations in place for what the cable company ISP can't do, then I won't lose much sleep. But if it has to be a monopoly, then it should be a public utility. Not private.

I don't think i even have a data cap, charter just slows my speed down.

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

ATT is giving more data than ever before for there dsl. Sure they are pushing Direct TV now instead of UVerse TV, but they seem to know where customers are going. Those that want Netflix or Hulu only they still are a Customer of ATT. They are now giving me 1 gb cap. Still haven't met that for the amount we are streaming.

Except one thing: ATT is going to be branding DirecTV as a streaming service, sooner rather than later. To compete with Sling.

(10-08-2016 06:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 03:32 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 04:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap,

Well, it could be a big problem if Comcast was the only ISP in the community, yes?

Do you lose sleep over your power companies monopoly? This situation will fall similarly with the establishment of state Public Service Commissioners for internet access.

I don't "lose sleep" over it, but I don't like it. E.g., where I live, we actually have two power companies that do business in our neighborhood, but they don't compete, the streets are divided up between them and you have no choice.

Makes no sense to me.

Because the investment from generation to the meter is done by one company. Competition would involve someone purchasing all that infrastructure

(10-08-2016 09:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Van,

So long as there are strict regulations in place for what the cable company ISP can't do, then I won't lose much sleep. But if it has to be a monopoly, then it should be a public utility. Not private.

I actually think data services are going to head in the direction of power companies with a partnership between the single provider and the PSC. One benefit would be that coverage would be standardized and mandated across a state. I think the downside is that if you are a low population state you won't have much leverage

actually the way most power companies/regulations are going is one company manages the infrastructure for a fixed/regulated profit and the power put on the line is provided by unregulated companies that consumers choose from

most areas with power choice do not have an over builder that has come in and put their own power lines on the pole though a few do

in Texas the only ones that can opt out of that are city owned utilities (although not all do Austin offers choice) or COOPs

if it was to work the same way for internet one company would manage the lines on the pole and then consumers would choose their ISP

that model would work better using the telco/ILEC model or physical plant Vs the cable TV model of physical plant mainly because of the last mile issue with cable and also because of the fact that with the TV portion of cable it is basically broadcast down the lines in the specific range with all channels "available" and the box is what regulates what the consumer gets to actually view based on their subscription level

this is why in the olden days before real two way communication on the cable plant you could steal cable and you could also steal channels by removing filters

with cable and the shared last mile it makes it difficult for them to ever move from the "blasting" of the video (television) portion of the service down the line to the model of sending only what each individual user wants down the line

video takes up large amounts of bandwidth (incorrectly called "speed") and it is the bandwidth ("speeds") that is the limiting factor of the shared last mile

so trying to move the major portion of video service from the broadcast/selected/filtered in the home on a portion of the frequencies over to a user selected and independently delivered portion clogs up the last mile again and it is much more difficult to filter/throttle/regulate at the "edge" which is how they do the download burst now and how they help regulate the last mile issue actually away from the last mile

with the TELCO/ILEC model it is much easier to have one company maintain the physical plant on the pole and then get it all back to a central office and at the central office the real "choice" would be made about your choice of ISP and how that ISP chooses to hand off your traffic from the central office to their own network and then to the larger WWW or straight to the larger WWW

with cable they are trying to still regulate/control the usage of that shared last mile AND they have the issue of traffic handed off to the WWW

with TELCO/ILEC they really have more of the issue with traffic handed off to the WWW to contend with and that is much less of an issue

(10-08-2016 07:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  actually the way most power companies/regulations are going is one company manages the infrastructure for a fixed/regulated profit and the power put on the line is provided by unregulated companies that consumers choose from

most areas with power choice do not have an over builder that has come in and put their own power lines on the pole though a few do

in Texas the only ones that can opt out of that are city owned utilities (although not all do Austin offers choice) or COOPs

if it was to work the same way for internet one company would manage the lines on the pole and then consumers would choose their ISP

You're right, that would work as well. But we are still talking about regulated monopolies. The classic market competition model just isn't going to work for hard line services as a means to lower prices.

Plus, Texas sits in the interconnect so I think y'all have a little more flexibility than most other regions. Though ONCOR annoys me to no end.

(10-08-2016 07:56 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 07:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  actually the way most power companies/regulations are going is one company manages the infrastructure for a fixed/regulated profit and the power put on the line is provided by unregulated companies that consumers choose from

most areas with power choice do not have an over builder that has come in and put their own power lines on the pole though a few do

in Texas the only ones that can opt out of that are city owned utilities (although not all do Austin offers choice) or COOPs

if it was to work the same way for internet one company would manage the lines on the pole and then consumers would choose their ISP

You're right, that would work as well. But we are still talking about regulated monopolies. The classic market competition model just isn't going to work for hard line services as a means to lower prices.

Plus, Texas sits in the interconnect so I think y'all have a little more flexibility than most other regions. Though ONCOR annoys me to no end.

almost all of Texas is in ERCOT which is basically their own interconnect and not really connected to the others without many hours of effort in the actual field to get connections going and then to get the power synchronized

only a small part of east Texas, the El Paso area and some parts of the panhandle are not on ERCOT and by 2019 the part of the panhandle around Lubbock will move to ERCOT because the generator for the area Xcel decided to get out of the municipal wholesale business

and the regulated parts for power choice are for the physical plant not the generation unless the generation is to a captive monopoly customer with no choice

with choice the regulation of the generation is gone

(10-08-2016 05:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 06:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 03:32 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 04:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap,

Well, it could be a big problem if Comcast was the only ISP in the community, yes?

Do you lose sleep over your power companies monopoly? This situation will fall similarly with the establishment of state Public Service Commissioners for internet access.

I don't "lose sleep" over it, but I don't like it. E.g., where I live, we actually have two power companies that do business in our neighborhood, but they don't compete, the streets are divided up between them and you have no choice.

Makes no sense to me.

Because the investment from generation to the meter is done by one company. Competition would involve someone purchasing all that infrastructure

IIRC, back in the 1970s when ATT was a monopoly, they invested in all the infra but the government made them sell access to other companies to foster competition?

(10-07-2016 05:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 04:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap,

Well, it could be a big problem if Comcast was the only ISP in the community, yes?

But they aren't. Even here in supposed backwards South Carolina I have multiple ISPs I can choose from. Granted, they aren't all the same quality but I have options. If I want more internet than what I currently get/use then I have to pay for it. In other words it works just like everything else in that the more you use the more it costs.

If you watch more hours of TV, you do not pay more for it. You buy cable TV service and use it at your discretion. The biggest issue with ISP is that with Comcast, you are locking into an agreement (12-24mo.s usually)...they can change the agreement limiting your usage, but you cannot do the same

I don't think it would work to have one company (or the city) owning and maintaining the lines for a fee, while multiple companies provide internet service to different sub-sets of customers on the network.

You could have a different company come in and win the contract to provide the service to the network, but I think it would have to be one company at a time.


For example, if the city lays down a city-wide fiber to the home network, and owns & maintains all the fiber lines, routers, etc., I don't think it would be possible for you to have your ISP through company A while your neighbor has ISP through company B, at the same time on the one network.

I think that would require separate networks, with company A's network having a line to your house while company B's network has a line to your neighbor's house.

In truth using internet lines to steam video is a gross misuse of infrastructure, based on current video compression technology. I'm not saying people shouldn't use the net to steam video. But using it as your sole video provider is a bad deal, and they should charge more for it