Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)
From: johnf (john_f_at_bigREMOVEpond.net.au)
Date: 04/03/04
- Next message: Norm: "Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Previous message: Gene Hora: "Re: deleting a folder"
- In reply to: Big Mac: "Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Next in thread: Norm: "Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Reply: Norm: "Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:54:49 +1000
"With cable, I am getting approximately 3000 Kbps download speed "
"And DSL ADSL - regular home use), even if it were available to me, is
> realistically like approx 8 times dial up speed, or 400 Kbps " ????
Methinks your figures are 'slightly' optimistic.
-- johnf > This is about high speed Internet via cable. > > I asked a few weeks ago if there was anything I could do because I > have satellite TV, and when Internet cable became available, I jumped > in. I complained that Comcast Cable was charging me 25% more than if > I had cable TV. I thought this was completely unfair and gave an > unfair advantage to Comcast. People who want high speed Internet > access will stick with them even though they're TV service kind of > sucks when stacked up to what satellite dollar for dollar. > > It is not as if high speed Internet is available to me. > > Satellite Internet is kind of a joke - as I understand it, and this is > not to be taken as gospel as I could be wrong, it is only 5 times the > download speed of dial up. So 250Kbps. And even worse they want like > $600 down & the $60 a month access fee. Satellite should only be > considered if you have no cable or DSL available, and it isn't going > to get there soon either. > > And DSL ADSL - regular home use), even if it were available to me, is > realistically like approx 8 times dial up speed, or 400 Kbps - I > think. Or faster, if you pay the extra for the faster service - and I > don't know what speeds the faster DSL service tops out at - if it is > even comparable to cable (I don't think so) > > With cable, I am getting approximately 3000 Kbps download speed - > only about 250 Kbps upload speed however, but an acceptable tradeoff > to get the faster download speed. > > So really, there is no comparing. Cable TV's lines are akin to what > phone lines went through - they were declared an unfair monopoly, and > the owners had to open them up to completion. So what if they > invested their $$ in the 1st place. Tough beans. Tough beans to > everyone - tough beans to Microsoft even though they spent their own > money and became the standard and have to open up their operating > system now. > > Anyway - here is something I just spied in the tech news today. If > this does end up happening, Comcast cannot screw me anymore out of the > extra 25%, or $15 a month, because I am damn sure we'll see some > prices drop, at least a bit. > ============---------------------============= > SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court is standing by its > October ruling that cable TV operators should open their lines to > rivals who also want to use them to sell high-speed Internet service. > > The Federal Communications Commission asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court > of Appeals to revisit the decision, but the court declined to do so > late Wednesday. The commission is mulling an appeal to the Supreme > Court. > > If upheld, the circuit's decision would likely subject cable operators > to the same rules as local phone companies, who are forced to lease > their lines to rival providers of phone service and DSL Internet > access. > > The FCC voted in March 2002 to exempt cable companies from laws that > force phone companies to open their lines to competition. > > At the time, officials said the move was necessary to spur more > investment in high-speed Internet services by cable companies, who > have spent billions of dollars upgrading their networks. > > Phone companies have complained that the FCC ruling left them at a > disadvantage. They also have spent billions on network equipment to > deliver DSL service. > > "I am disappointed that the court declined to address the merits of > the commission's policy that was carefully developed over the past > several years," Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement Thursday. > > A Powell spokesman said the chairman was mulling whether to appeal to > the Supreme Court. > > Another commissioner, however, applauded the San Francisco-based > court's decision to stand by its earlier ruling. > > "This is a good day for consumers and Internet entrepreneurs," > Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement. "I look forward to the > start of a fresh dialogue on broadband service at the FCC." > > The legal challenge to the FCC's decision was brought by Internet > service providers and consumer groups unhappy with the commission's > decision. > > Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project that > represented consumer groups in the challenge, said the FCC should not > appeal to the high court and instead "implement cable open access as > fast as it can." > > National Cable & Telecommunications Association chief counsel Dan > Brenner said the industry trade group would urge the commission to > appeal. > > "We believe that if and when the 9th Circuit's decision is given a > full substantive review by the Supreme Court, it will be reversed," he > said in a statement. > =====------------- end
- Next message: Norm: "Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Previous message: Gene Hora: "Re: deleting a folder"
- In reply to: Big Mac: "Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Next in thread: Norm: "Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Reply: Norm: "Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|