How do you want to see your Internet?

[drvnbysound]

The wire from my home out to the street is owned by each individual cable company. When I first moved here in 2007 the home was new and there were no lines run between my home and the street.
 
Once I called Comcast, they came and ran a wire from their connection point to my home - there is one between every 2 homes here (underground).
 
At one point I did have phone service from AT&T - they came out and did the same thing.
 
About 2 years ago, Knology (now WOW) came through our subdivision and installed the infrastructure to provide their service. This included digging and trenching through every yard in the subdivision as they buried the cables that would provide their service. Today, about 4-ft away from the Comcast connection point is another, identical connection point for the WOW service. If I want their service, they will come and bury a RG6 cable from their connection point to my home - they will also install their own "demarcation" box on the side of my house... as they won't touch the "Comcast" demarc box other than to make RG6 jumper cables from the Comcast demarc box to their box.
 
So, in my case, each ISP owns the cable all the way to the point that it enters my home and I could have services from all 3 if I wanted. I actually have a co-worker who lives about 15 miles from me who currently has both cable services (specifically for ISP) and has been thinking about adding the AT&T DSL service; he's an IT professional and uses these service to study in his home lab for certifications and such.

 

[pete_c]

Yup; understood.
 
That said thinking there some FCC mandate relating to this issued a while ago relating to initially cable company competition which started initially by using a publically owned CO and infrastructure installed (whatever that was: telephone, cable, fiber, electricity or natural gas). 
 
The original cable run to the little subdivision in Florida has had multiple owners of whom provided the service; even multiple cable companies using the original run cable. 
 
Here in the midwest for example when AT&T Uverse came in; they went to using existing coaxial cables run for whatever originally started here as cable TV.   They didn't ask permission as the cable is not owned by Comcast; they just provide their service on it; even though they installed it.
 
I don't think they are asking Comcast to use their originally run cable for their service and I have not seen them digging or installing new infrastructure.
 
In my old home I was the first to get DSL on the block.  That said the service was not provided by the local servicing telco rather a 3rd party telco.  I don't think that they paid rent to the telco for using their installed copper.  Same with cable TV using some 3-4 different services on the same installed wire over 30 years.
 
Maybe its just a rule where you live? 
 
I mean I see that any infrastructure installed in Florida and Illinois is public domain even though installed by a particular company.
 
Personally assume that internet infrastructure is considered a public utility infrastructure owned by the local municipality and not private owned by any one company.  (maybe only in Illinois or Florida?).  There was some controversy in Northwest Indiana when this same said topic came up with one major utility company that did manage water, gas, electricity, telephone and cable a few years ago not allowing any competition with other utility companies.  I do consider that telephone and internet connectivity using wires / fiber a public utility starting at the CO to the house.  That said say if Google or some other company wants to use a CO for their internet connectivity and fiber (say installed by Verizon); they are free to do so.
 
Well too the FCC has been cuckolded by big money sticks lately (last few years) and that should be fixed.

 

[Neurorad]

I'm a liberal person, and I don't see how government regulation will specifically lead to a reduction in 'fast and slow lanes', given the internet infrastructure detailed earlier in the thread.  Don't corporate interests already control the FCC anyway?
 
I really enjoyed reading this thread.  When I have time, I'll research this issue more - probably on slashdot, might be a good resource for this.

 

[pete_c]

Actually now the pique of interest has created a most written about perfect storm.
 

Don't corporate interests already control the FCC anyway?

 
Here in the OP I was asking mostly about CT forum users' opinions.
 
Recent Slashdot post....
 
An anonymous reader writes AT&T says it will halt its investment on broadband Internet service expansion until the federal rules on open Internet are clarified. "We can't go out and just invest that kind of money, deploying fiber to 100 cities other than these two million [covered by the DirecTV deal], not knowing under what rules that investment will be governed," AT&T Chief Randall Stephenson said during an appearance at a Wells Fargo conference, according to a transcript provided by AT&T. "And so, we have to pause, and we have to just put a stop on those kind of investments that we're doing today."
 
================================================================
 

No, no one knows whats going on now legally speaking, that's why we're having this discussion. The Verizon vs FCC decision removed that certainty. They know what the regulatory regime might be, but they don't know what it is going to be. The FCC chair is looking at splitting the baby [washingtonpost.com] which doesn't really sound like a clear indicator of what he's going to do from a legal perspective. It appears that the FCC chair wants to allow ISPs to prioritize certain traffic for security and use (e.g. e-mail traffic doesn't need the kind of priority as streaming video) because not all traffic deserves the same level of attention from the ISP, but not do so for business reasons (e.g. Time Warner shouldn't be allowed to hobble Netflix streaming service). But at the same time, he appears to be distancing himself from Obama's plea for Title II. Writing this into law is more complex than simply saying what the FCC chair said he wanted: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business."

 
Oh my. Title II classification worked quite well until 2002 when the FCC reclassified broadband providers as "Information Services" under Title I. Which was so obviously a great move, because we had so much less competition then. Not only that, the big broadband providers were so poor before that, they were going out of business. Thank goodness for that! Otherwise, the Internet would have failed completely and we'd all be using punched cards and telexes again by now. Not.
 
The last twelve years have seen increasing consolidation, local monopolies and duopolies, less competition, higher prices for basic consumer connectivity, more abusive Terms of Service for consumer connections, throttling of competitive content providers who threaten the media content distribution strangleholds that the big broadband providers have.
 
Title II reclassification isn't the whole of the answer, just a small part. But it's a start at least. Unfortunately, if you tell the same lies over and over again ("we're so poor that reclassification will stop us from upgrading our networks" and "Forcing us to be common carriers will destroy all innovation on the Internet") people start to believe it.
 
t's just a smokescreen for the big ISPs to keep protecting their abusive business model and maintain their huge profits in a non-competitive marketplace.
 
These big ISPs are holding back innovation in last-mile technologies, despite being given USD$200 Billion in subsidies over the past 18 years to do otherwise.
 
Curiousity....
 

I don't see how government regulation will specifically lead to a reduction in 'fast and slow lanes', given the internet infrastructure detailed earlier in the thread.

 
Please write some more....