The ISP Conundrum

Ars Technica today has an opinion piece about the cell carriers and ISPs of this nation. It asks if the public ever gets a feeling that these entities don’t really like us. The answer most assuredly is yes, but for different reasons.

While it would be simple to hack away at the cell carriers over many policies, I think it is easy enough to see that they have little concern for their customers, above that which would involve a mass exodus.

The ISP matter is different – as I see it. Both cable companies and telcos acquired the ISP moniker late into the game, because in the early days when everyone had dial-up, your ISP was a face you could deal with on a personal level. While it may be pointed out that AOL was huge at the start, it can also be said that there were people on staff there to put a face to company, and to address problems in a friendly, personal manner.

Now that the mom & pop ISPs have been forced out by DSL and cable, the companies are in a sort of ‘mutual detente with disorganized collusion’ mode of operation. That is, they are openly hostile to each other, but at some level they agree to keep rates close to equal, and cooperate on certain aspects of service. For example, when the cable companies started deciding that providing newsgroups was not necessary, many DSL providers decided that it was okay to do the same. Result, newsgroups are no longer offered by the ISPs (Verizon’s offering of the Big Waste Big 8, is an affront to any sane person’s sensibilities, and is merely a stepping stone to complete removal, with the attending excuse that no one used them. Duh! With 95% of Usenet unavailable, I wonder why.) Sure this was a service, and it cost the companies something, but the immediate need was cost reduction, and so no concern to the retention of the customer was given. After all, in some back room somewhere, under a dim light, the cable companies and telcos were again hammering out the rules of their rigged game, and having a Tony Soprano-style laugh about the fact that we, the public, were such suckers.

Now the companies, cable and telco, are complaining about the fact that when we all signed up to unlimited accounts, we actually thought they meant what they said. Amazing concept, that – taking something at face value. Now they want to place caps on us because we have had the temerity to actually use what we have been paying for.  I believe the right way to handle this is the way that some mothers used to tell their children about bad decisions - ‘You’ve made your bed, now lie in it’.

People can argue about the needs of business to make money, and to that I say that there is a higher need for integrity – delivering what you have promised. There is damn little of that today – and many of this country’s problems can be distilled to that one thing. There is a lack of personal integrity. It moves from one person to the corporate structure, then to government, and then there it is, everywhere you don’t want it to be, and nothing you can do about it.

This is especially true in our government, where we have an entity to protect the public from the unscrupulous notions of the industries involved in communication. It is known as the FCC, and as many know, this entity hasn’t been on the right side (meaning the greatest good of the majority of the citizenry) of an issue in years.

So there it is. We have something we want, internet access without problems. They say we have it, bend and take. And we must choose if we want to suffer through the ignominy and have a connection, or proudly say ‘No we’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take this anymore’. Unfortunately, most of us have gotten to the point of needing a connection, not merely wanting one, and the watchdog, appointed for our best interests, is asleep, blind, or has been given a large, meaty bone by the bad guys as a distraction.

Ars Technica article – for their thoughts on the matter

-

Technorati Tags: ISP - cable companies - telephone carriers - collusion - integrity - FCC - watchdog