Cable and Telecom: Utilities?

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/01/BU7A1M6257.DTL&tsp=1

US looking at Euroweenie-style internet usage rates, rather than flat access fees.

The reason?

Netflix and Hulu.



I see a conflict of interest here, though.  The same folks that sell cable, also sell broadband internet.  A "utility" cannot adjust its prices as a result of unforeseen competition.

Aren't data telecoms classified as "utilities?"

[MicroBalrog]

What about the people who sell phone service, do they also sell broadband Internet?

[AZRedhawk44]

What about the people who sell phone service, do they also sell broadband Internet?

Yep.  Many companies sell all 3 as a complete package.

[MicroBalrog]

Yep.  Many companies sell all 3 as a complete package.

Wouldn't the companies then compete viciously?

[lupinus]

What about the people who sell phone service, do they also sell broadband Internet?

Yes. Either cable companies selling bundled cable//internet/phone or now phone companies selling phone/internet/tv service.

[AZRedhawk44]

Wouldn't the companies then compete viciously?

Here in the US, telecoms are treated as utilities, like power or water service.

You don't want each power company or water company, digging their own trenches in every street.  They access common utility lines and share the administration of them, having access to the particular market those lines service.

Since telecoms also have to trench (and destroy city streets) to expand into new markets, they are also regulated as utilities and have access to one another's infrastructure for reasons of preserving competition.

However, they are NOT allowed to jack their rates when only 1 telecom is able to service a particular area.

Nor are they allowed to deliberately sabotage their lines so that only 1 telecom provider can function on them.


Implementing bandwidth caps or otherwise discriminating against netflix/hulu users is a mechanism of artificially manufacturing competition since they are losing business on their cable television service.

It's not just Roku users like me that will be affected, either.  It's a direct strike against DirecTV and their OnDemand feature.  With DirecTV, you can either watch live via Satellite, DVR via Satellite and watch later, or download to your DVR via OnDemand much like a Roku or BitTorrent style of viewing.

Residential telecoms have lost the hardline phone, and are starting to lose the hardline cable TV connection.  All they have left is ISP service.  This attempt to jack the cost of ISP service is the wrong way to go.  They're preserving their buggy-whip plants (phone and cable TV infrastructure and staff) by subsidizing them with ISP rate hikes, rather than winding down those services.

Go lean, or go out of business.

ETA:

I'd also argue, that Cox (or other ISP) users that commit to a data package that says 8mbps/20mbps/50mbps or whatever rate they choose, should be ABLE to download at that rate, any time they want to do so.  I pay for the 50mbps rate.  Because I consume Netflix/Hulu stuff and also because I telecommute from home.  If I'm at home and watching something in the evening on Netflix, and there's a slowdown in video quality because some cheapazz *expletive deleted*hole next door with the 8mbps plan also starts Netflix (or downloads a DVD ISO file, or whatever)... or even if my neighbor has a plan on par with mine... I should still be able to download at 50mbps.  No matter the total neighborhood consumed bandwidth, if I pay for 50mbps, then I should get 50mbps.

If that ain't the case, then offer a low packet-priority plan with a 5mbps plan for all the cheap people to buy, and a high packet-priority 50mbps for the people like me to buy.

But be HONEST about it.

I pay for 50mbps, any dang time I want it, all month.

Don't try and short me on that.  Bastages.

[MicroBalrog]

You don't want each power company or water company, digging their own trenches in every street.  They access common utility lines and share the administration of them, having access to the particular market those lines service.

How did it work before Internet was widespread?

Were cable TV and telephone services provided by the same company?

[AZRedhawk44]

How did it work before Internet was widespread?

Were cable TV and telephone services provided by the same company?

Before internet was widespread, internet was delivered via dial-up.  And the cable company was separate from the phone company, in different industries.  "High Speed Internet" was the phenomenon where it was discovered that an IP network could be maintained over the same infrastructure as the cable TV signal, and sold to consumers.  At that point, VoIP was integrated into High Speed Internet making it possible for these luxury service facilitators to provide a Utility-grade service over alternate infrastructure.

As the world has evolved over the last 16 years since that point, the default Utility network for phone service is the cable/IP network.

[MicroBalrog]

See if I am not getting it.

Down here in the desert, there are two competing telecoms, one which evolved from the national cable company (with its own Internet and phone service later tacked on) and one which evolved from the national phone company (with its own Internet and TV service later tacked on). There are also Internet providers aplenty, but only two companies that provide the actual physical telecom. The way this evolved was that these companies were first privatised, and then allowed to provide all data services on their existing infrastructure. Why has a similar system not evolved elsewhere? It seems to me that America, which has a far freer economy... if that makes any sort of sense.

(There are also 5 cellphone telcos, and N+1 'cellphone providers' that use the infrastructure of said telcos. WiMax is illegal, but 3G is available. Unlimited broadband 3G costs $39 a month.)

[roo_ster]

It looks to me that these companies are resisting the the fact that signal is becoming a commodity and that the customer is catching on that it doesn't need to be treated in a special way.

If they do go to caps or pay-per-bit, AZR44's plaint about QOS will come back to bite them in the *expletive deleted*ss, as those who pay for Y GB/month at X bps insist that they actually get X bps when they want X bps...unlike today, when they are very fast & loose with actual throughput.

[mtnbkr]

FWIW, when I was not getting the full 25/25mbps I was paying Verizon for, the tech told me that number was the minimum I could expect.  Even though I was getting something like 24/22, he considered it to be a fault and we worked towards resolution.  When service was fully restored, I was getting something like 28/26.

Chris

[RevDisk]

Before internet was widespread, internet was delivered via dial-up.  And the cable company was separate from the phone company, in different industries.  "High Speed Internet" was the phenomenon where it was discovered that an IP network could be maintained over the same infrastructure as the cable TV signal, and sold to consumers.  At that point, VoIP was integrated into High Speed Internet making it possible for these luxury service facilitators to provide a Utility-grade service over alternate infrastructure.

As the world has evolved over the last 16 years since that point, the default Utility network for phone service is the cable/IP network.

There's essentially no difference in pure technology between voice, data and cable at the carrier backbone level.  It all goes over the same "network" on basically the same equipment.  Naturally, it's all logically segregated, sometimes physically as well, for ease of management.

It gets converted at the local branch to the final medium (cable, DSL, ISDN, POTS, T1, dialup, etc).


As others stated, telcos are utilities. They should be considered utilities, and be regulated as utilities. Sure, in some areas, you have an actual choice of provider. Most of the time, you do not. The name on the bill might be different, but the infrastructure is owned by one company and leased out to 'providers'.   

My solution to net neutrality is simple. If telco utilities want to charge different rates or set priorities for different traffic, to use their monopoly in an anti-trust manner to strong arm competition, they should be allowed. They should just lose their safe harbor legal protection as a "common carrier", and be liable for any traffic they carry. UPS is not liable if they ship a kilo of cocaine. Because they are just the common carrier and do not mess with the contents. If they opened every box, they are not just the carrier and they SHOULD be liable if they did ship a kilo of cocaine.

This isn't a cutesy theory. Technically, that is the existing law. If telcos are examining the actual traffic and making determinations based off that, they are not common carriers under the law and should be treated as such.

Won't happen. Telcos are essentially a private sector branch of the US government. They do massively illegal activity on a regular basis under one set of laws, but are granted immunity under a different set of laws.

[RocketMan]

When you pay for a 50mbps download rate from your ISP, you are paying for speeds up to that rate.  You are not paying for that exact rate guaranteed.  It helps to read the fine print.

[roo_ster]

My solution to net neutrality is simple. If telco utilities want to charge different rates or set priorities for different traffic, to use their monopoly in an anti-trust manner to strong arm competition, they should be allowed. They should just lose their safe harbor legal protection as a "common carrier", and be liable for any traffic they carry.

Yep.