🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Xns9D45BE8C37205thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>,
 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> Back to the Comcast issue.......what you are seeing is a 
> combination of 1) a commercial for-profit entity (Comcast) not 
> spending money to upgrade what many have called an antiquated 
> cable system in San Jose.....and 2) people accepting the fact 
> that the service sucks, but still buying it anyway.

There is a very simple reason for that: where are they going to go? 
AT&T? To many, that's no improvement. There is no point in wondering if 
the air is any good when that's all there is to breathe. 

> Where's the initiative for Comcast to improve anything, if 
> people buy it anyway ?
> 
> Now if Comcast lost 50% of it's broadband subscribers, then it 
> would have no choice but to improve.

You've actually nailed why broadband in this country sucks: no 
competition. Oh, there are plenty of providers, but they all operate in 
exclusive territories, which they can rape and pillage at will. 

There is another reason, of course: most Internet providers are also in 
the content and service business. They have a vested interest in keeping 
the Internet (at least as consumers see it) crippled. Make it like other 
countries enjoy, and they would have customers getting their 
entertainment from other providers. 

I recently had someone ask why Vonage was crap over Comcast, but 
Comcast's own (VOIP) phone service worked just fine. That is when I 
explained the principles of traffic management. "They can do that and 
get away with it?" Duh!

We'll never have robust Internet service in the US until providers are 
forced to divest themselves of their content enterprises, and until we 
get a lot more providers serving common areas.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last