The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers should be allowed to charge for priority traffic. The agency said it was opposed to 'network neutrality', the idea that all data on the net is treated equally. The comments put the agency at odds with companies such as Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to guarantee equal access to the net.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-07
Competition can lower profit margins but real competition will give you better rates and/or service. Who says that a company with high margins has to has to use it in the customer's best interest?
Yes, it sounds like you have some good competition in your area. Not everyone has that luxury, however. Pseudo-competition (or none at all) lets rates grow and service stagnate.
Over here, it's Verizon DSL @ 768k (fairly slow) for $30/month or Comcast @ 6-8 Mbps (fairly speedy by US standards) for $50/month. Comcast offers 12-24 Mbps options, but you pay even more. And the rate hikes...sheesh. I swear, every time I see/hear a Comcast ad (which is every 30 seconds in this area), my rate goes up by $2/month.
Verizon fiber @ 50 Mbps is a very limited option right now for this area, but hopefully the coverage grows fast. It would be nice if Comcast had some serious competition here.
Others have no choice at all. Thanks, de-regulatory legislation! I'm sure they won't screw up net-neutrality too.
Edited 2007-09-07 15:49
Member since:2006-01-01
There was never any regulation that forced a cable or phone company to provide HSI. What deregulation do you mean?
The funny thing is that "Net Neutrality" would be a new regulation. When was the last time government intervention helped the telecom situation in the US?
Member since:2005-07-08
It isn't about profit margins, it is about what the company can sell you without having to upgrade their infrastructure at all. Why spend all that money upgrading their infrastructure when they can use their existing equipment and tell their customers a line that most invariably buy and pocket the money.
Back in the dialup days most people (myself included) were doing everything they could to increase their download speeds. At that time I was on Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) and their official stance on any support call concerning Internet access was "if you can get a voice call then your line works". I had a discussion with a senior engineer at the ISP I was using at that time and he said if Bell Atlantic spent $16 million on a new switch, many of the problems people faced with poor access would go away. Well that didn't happen. My other option was ISDN, at $130.00 a month also from Bell Atlantic/Verizon.
The example you provide is the exception to the rule, in many areas (especially rural) you have no choice at all. So the company providing the service can do whatever they want and you just have to suck it up. They don't upgrade simply because they feel they don't have to, if you want service no matter how bad it is you will come to them.
If every community in the US was like your neighborhood, it would be a different matter. Unfortunately that is not the case for many people who want quality service.
Member since:2006-11-22
Competition - so you have 1 phone company monopoly, 1 cable monopoly and 1 wireless (near monopoly). Of course if any of those are unusable (bad signal, too far from DSLAM,etc.) the pool thins out even more.
The system has been tuned to soak maximum money from the customers.
If the copper/fiber infrastructure was seen as a monopoly and regulated as such (including prohibited from higher level services) the customer would see maximum competition for the largest part of the services stack. If on the other-hand a monopoly is allowed to extend to the ISP or even content provider level then the customer would see the least competition.
According to this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/24/bloomberg/bxatt.php
consolidation seems to be profitable. Please keep in mind that is after all the high buck exec salaries and bonuses.
Competition does usually lower profit margin but it also usually increases value to the customer. In competitive markets companies tend to operate more efficiently as well.
Member since:2006-01-01
No, I have at least 6 phone companies (Comcast, AT&T, Vonage, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile) 3 HSI providers and 4 TV providers (AT&T, Comcast, Dish and Direct TV). How is any one of these companies a monopoly???
All this in little old Olathe, KS.
Just because you don't like to pay for your internet doesn't mean any of these companies is a monopoly, period!
Edited 2007-09-08 19:59
Member since:
2006-01-01
Lack of competition? In my area I can get HSI from AT&T, Comcast, or Sprint (wireless). That's relitively competitive? No? I think what is keeping ISPs from upgrading their networks is lack of revenue?
Here is the big secret... Profit margins on HSI are not that great. The reason infrastructure does not get upgraded is because there is no return on investment. The basic tenant of every company is to make money (period). Sorry, that is a fact for every company no matter where you are in the world.
And by the way competition usually lowers profit margins so you point is counter-intuitive.