[SLL] Nationwide Internet: melting down?

[Ken Meyer]

It's true that currently, the cable folks still enjoy the regulatory fiction
that they are an "entertainment medium" and are less regulated than the
telcos, who are still operating under vestiges of "common carrier" type
rules, at least to some extent.  Of course, the telcos are lobbying hard to
get the same deal as cable, and I think -- but am not sure -- that they may
have it for new infrastructure -- maybe only if it offers video.  I can't
keep track of what obscene proposals under consideration by the FCC are
actually in effect.  In any event, it's cynically amusing to see the cable
people supporting local franchising as it applies to the telcos.

It may be possible to be cavalier about TV service, though less and less so
as the majority are connected to the world via TV, especially when the
fertilizer is flying and morbid curiosity is driving us.  But when they
offer telephone service, the expectations for reliability are VERY high --
got to give Qwest credit for that -- and as I said previously, they are not
going to sell much of that service if people perceive any sort of
unreliability in the system.

Comcast is also very efficient in purveying services to sell-up, such as
Digital Packages, On Demand, PPV, Premium Channels, TiVO and HD rental
boxes, classified ads, more every day.  They are quite creative in pushing
stuff down the pipe, but certainly not friendly to pushing data up, or
hosting competitive services.

Government (i.e. the FCC) certainly abets the monopolistic qualities of
cable providers, but how else does it subsidize them, Glenn?

Ken M.


-----Original Message-----

From: linux-list-bounces at ssc.com [mailto:linux-list-bounces at ssc.com]On
Behalf Of Glenn Stone
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 8:33 AM
To: linux-list at ssc.com

Subject: Re: [SLL] Nationwide Internet: melting down?

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:52:55AM -0700, Brian Lane wrote:

>I'd suggest giving cable a try. I've been using it over here in Port
>Orchard for around 5 years now and there have been minor problems, but
>nothing as bad as you are describing with DSL. My theory is that since
>cable internet shared with cable TV users the response to outages is so
>overwhelming that it forces them to act quickly :)

That only works if the problem is in the part of the system that is shared
between TV and data.  If the DHCP server goes tango uniform, as was
semi-frequently the case on the old Roadrunner link I had back in
Atlanta....

Of course, if they were running Linux-based DHCP servers in a proper network
architecture the way St. Torvalds intended it...

Nevermind the whole business of sharing bandwidth with the skript kiddie
next door, the fact that since cable is an entertainment business it will be
the last utility restored when the fertilizer hits the ventilator, and the
fact that cable is a brazenly openly government-subsidized monopoly with
*zero* competition (at least Microsoft and the telcos have some) and thus
little incentive to provide much more customer service than keeps their
constituents happy enough not to unelect their pet government officials...

For some people it works well enough.  I was about to give it a swing
myself... but only as the court of last resort.  Thankfully, Qwest has a
habit of dropping DSL repeaters in neighborhoods where they've got demand
but no signal.

(And FWIW, I've had one little issue with Qwest in two months, and bouncing
the DSL box fixed it.  My IP changes from time to time, but *shrug* for
$26/mo, I'm not gonna get too picky about the IP.  Besides, that's what
ddclient is for. :)

-- Glenn