TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Why is Congress Considering Such Anti-Consumer Telecom Bills?

Re: Why is Congress Considering Such Anti-Consumer Telecom Bills?
27 Jul 2006 14:13:59 -0700

Bruce Kushnick wrote:

> (Asian countries are now using 100 Mbps in both directions for their
> standard. That is 500 times more powerful.)

Could someone elaborate on this?

Does this mean that if I were to go to Asia, everyone
everywhere -- wealthy and poor, urban and rural, democracy and
dictatorship -- all have a nice 100MBPS hookup at their disposal?

Somehow I don't think that's the case. Now I don't know the utility
situation in Asia (which is a pretty huge land area), but I suspect a
heck of a lot of people don't even have electricity nor telephones,
let alone this high speed connection.

Actually, I suspect the telecom situation in the U.S. -- overall -- is
better than in Asia. Undoubtedly a few parts of Asia (such as very
wealthy people or countries) have some fancy hookups. But I suspect
the great masses do not.

Consequently, I think the use of "500 times more powerful" is a littnle
exaggerated hyperbole.

I am not familiar with the issues adequately he raises to comment on
them. But over the years articles against the "big evil Big Guy"
tended not to be not so reliable. Perhaps significant facts were left
out or inappropriate issues emphasized. For example, back during the
early MCI-AT&T fight the issue of cream skimming, lack of rural
service, mandated cross subsidy, and local connection cost was ignored
by AT&T critics.

I was searching thru the telecom archives and found a post criticizing
the Bell Systems' PBX offerings of 1969 as being junk. I personally
saw some modern good systems in use in those days and a check of the
Bell Labs history confirms the offerings. To put it another way, how
much computer horsepower could you buy back in 1969 for $2,000? Today
you get quite a bit and people say it's easy to make your own PBX from
that. But back then I don't think you could hook up a string of
Altair's and make an ESS out of it, and real computers of that era
cost a heck of a lot more. But people seem to expect that the Bell
System would have offered cheap yet powerful electronic systems in
those days, long before the technology even existed to make it happen.
(Sorry, offering a few ICs at the local hobby store doesn't count.)

All I know is that when Verizon was finally allowed to offer long
distance my costs went down and service quality went up. The
"consumer advocates" wouldn't let Verizon do that in order to "protect
me". How they protected me from those restrictions I don't know nor
understand. LIkewise, I'm not sure painting today's big telcos as bad
is necessarily in the consumer's interest.

[public replies, please]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Barry Margolin: "Re: Google Porn Site Battle Puts Internet Freedoms in Balance"
Go to Previous message: B. Wright: "Re: Future 911/Technology is Changing so Quickly That Emergency"
May be in reply to: Bruce Kushnick: "Why is Congress Considering Such Anti-Consumer Telecom Bills?"
Next in thread: DLR: "Re: Why is Congress Considering Such Anti-Consumer Telecom Bills?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page