FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Microsoft's dual-screenbooklet shows 'face' on web ¤ The Register
Next: NEWS: Android Market Push Threatens BlackBerry and iPhone
From: DanS on 24 Mar 2010 18:43 John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote in news:higgy-73B5F1.16045719032010(a)news.announcetech.com: > In article <ho0uf2$cr2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > George <george(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> Because you are overlooking the main thing that >> differentiates us and practically everyone else. We have >> urban sprawl. It sounds like you may live some distance >> from existing plant. Would you be willing to pay for the >> excess cost to deliver service to widely spaced out homes >> as compared to homes that are sited like your friends in >> other countries? > > If it were necessary, yes. I think living in the center of > a city of one million population is hardly having an issue > with "urban sprawl". Back to the Comcast issue.......what you are seeing is a combination of 1) a commercial for-profit entity (Comcast) not spending money to upgrade what many have called an antiquated cable system in San Jose.....and 2) people accepting the fact that the service sucks, but still buying it anyway. Where's the initiative for Comcast to improve anything, if people buy it anyway ? Now if Comcast lost 50% of it's broadband subscribers, then it would have no choice but to improve.
From: Roy on 24 Mar 2010 19:30 On 3/24/2010 3:43 PM, DanS wrote: > ... > > Back to the Comcast issue.......what you are seeing is a > combination of 1) a commercial for-profit entity (Comcast) not > spending money to upgrade what many have called an antiquated > cable system in San Jose.....and 2) people accepting the fact > that the service sucks, but still buying it anyway. > > Where's the initiative for Comcast to improve anything, if > people buy it anyway ? > > Now if Comcast lost 50% of it's broadband subscribers, then it > would have no choice but to improve. > Its the same reason most people run Windows :-)
From: John Higdon on 25 Mar 2010 02:15 In article <uvmlq5h237056vs4p1jgihgodmgb6ueh91(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote: > Vonage works fine over Comcast, FYI. I'm in my 5th year without > issues. That's interesting to find out. Generic VOIP (not tied to a "product") seems to work very badly on consumer Comcast (not so bad on business Comcast), mainly due to jitter. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: Brad Allen on 11 Apr 2010 19:45 " I've been using Vonage over Comcast since late 2005, and I know of " quite a few others who are using 3rd party VoIP services over " Comcast without any issues. What were you doing that you found it " nearly impossible to get VoIP to work? Feel free to drop into the " .comcast newsgroup if you need help. I tested VOIP on Comcast and Sonic DSL. 100% unusable on Comcast; almost perfect on Sonic DSL. Specific network diagnosis tests revealed Comcast was introducing communications faults that specifically hurt VOIP more than any other communication method. I posted my results here; I forget what they were. Who knows why, and who knows why they didn't fix it? Perhaps because they're being anti-competitive. I don't know why your setup is fine, nor those of your friends.
From: Brad Allen on 11 Apr 2010 19:52
In article <ho0fot$ikt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John Richards <JR(a)blackhole.invalid> wrote: " "alexd" <troffasky(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ho0cho$1la$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... " > Nuenen in the Netherlands has a pop den of 1742/sq mile and " > they've all [90%] got fibre: " > " > http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Nuenen.html " > " > Eindhoven is next. I'm sure you God-fearing capitalists will abhor " > the idea of a co-operative building a broadband network, but hey, " > your loss! " " Government interference through various subsidies hides the true " cost of providing such service. It boils down to a willingness by " everyone to pay higher taxes in order to get more cradle-to-grave " services. Most Americans are unwilling to pay higher taxes. Regarding the government-subsidized infrastructure model, you have an important point. I add to it that I'd like to separate the good tax expenditure from the bad, but that doing so isn't readily possible with our current political officeholders, appointees, and departments, though I think the system could withstand a complete replacement of all the current political officeholders, appointees and departments and still serve us fine if those replacements were good. Once we get that far, the theory of whether government OUGHT to becomes more relevant, once it is actually ABLE to: ought the government mold and/or fund certain types of infrastructure? The pros are many, as well as the cons, and I'd like to see at least some consideration of it, even if it turns out it's a bad idea to actually DO it (I'm not saying either way; I used to be pretty anti-government when it came to investing in and/or molding the structure of communications, but now I'm just sort of anti-government about it). But my point is that as it is now, putting good money to bed would be hard; most countries end up spending too much money to achieve such goals. We try to chart a good course somehow among the options. |