[TriLUG] TW and Embarq work to keep Wilson style internet from spreading

[Steve Holton]

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp at pobox.com> wrote:
> I work for a company that provides software for online education so this is
> an area I'm familiar with.  Some of our clients - schools and universities -
> are now "requiring" broadband Internet connections of their students.  This
> is usually defined as something like 1.5 Mbit down, 256k up, required due to
> the use of rich media. I'm curious to know more about what areas of NC may
> not have access to that level of broadband?  How many areas are truly devoid
> of DSL or cable to that level?  (Satellite isn't really usable for distance
> learning if two-way voice communications are in use, due to latency.)

Hear Here!
I live about 10 miles out of Fuquay toward Sanford. Commute into RTP daily.
Only within the past 2 years has DSL-Lite become available (256k / 128k).

Kinda sucks because:
- there's no 'muncipality' to grant a monopoly, meaning anyone who
wants to provide broadband has to actually compete (free market style)
with anyone else who wants to do the same thing.
- the DSL upgrade uses existing lines: it wasn't a huge expense for
the phone company to put-in a DSLAM.
- but now the phone company has first-mover advantage: we're not
likely to see a second competitor.

Meaning I'll be stuck at 256k / 128k for a long time to come.

Worse still: when I bought the house 15 years ago, I could work from
home over dial-up and be productive, because everything was
command-line. Nowadays you're expected to have at least a VNC session
running at all times, and the line I have won't support the
interactivity.  And it's only getting worse.

> On the other hand, Time Warner has strong commercial interests to protect.
>  Despite many people's criticism of their service levels, TWC cable Internet
> is pretty widely available, generally affordable, and it has taken serious
> amounts of investment to get to this level.  They certainly offer better
> service than other companies like Comcast.  And is TWC really THAT
> profitable as people make them out to be here?  Put yourselves in the shoes
> of a TWC investor.  It's one thing to lose out to a competitor who just does
> a better job than you.  It's another thing to lose out to a government that
> LEGISLATES their way into your market.  Telecommunications companies always
> have this risk, and hence they always have lots of government lobbying like
> this.
>
> I don't think this has an easy answer.  Consider both sides carefully.

As a long-time student of the telecommunications industry, I've made
quite a study (professionally) of this.
We've seriously borked ourselves by turning-over a portion of our
national tele-communications[1] infrastructure to private industry.
Free market solutions _never_ work when a market disparity (like a
natural monopoly) exists.

Now we have the problem of how to tell a collection of politically
powerful commercial interests that capital they've invested in
building their portion of the "Free Internet" is going to be regulated
for National (as opposed to Private) interest.

(In many ways, a problem analogous to the one Lincoln faced concerning
freeing of the slaves.)

In my opinion, we will see only one way out of this mess: some
entity[2]  is going to emerge as the new Ma Bell, and heaven help us
if we haven't already regulated them into compliance with national
needs by that time.


[1] in the true meaning: communications over distance, not the more
limited 'voice-over-distance' sense.
[2] my bet is on Google.

-- 
Steve Holton
sph0lt0n at gmail.com