B
Big Mac
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
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