1 |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Peter Humphrey |
2 |
<peter@××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> On Thursday 28 March 2013 20:53:49 Paul Hartman wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> In my case, my ISP's DNS servers are slow (several seconds to reply), |
6 |
>> fail randomly when they should resolve, return an IP (which goes to |
7 |
>> their ad-laden "helper" website if you are using a web browser) when |
8 |
>> they should instead return nxdomain, and they have openly admitted to |
9 |
>> selling customer DNS lookup history to marketers for targeted |
10 |
>> advertising. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> That is just evil. Have you no alternative to this ISP? |
15 |
|
16 |
Not really. |
17 |
|
18 |
I have a 100 megabit connection through the cable company; my only |
19 |
wired alternative is DSL (1.5 mbit for almost half the price I'm |
20 |
paying for 100mbit). Cellular or satellite are not viable options for |
21 |
me because of comparatively poor value, latency and miniscule data |
22 |
usage caps. |
23 |
|
24 |
In the USA, the local governments (cities and towns, etc.) are in |
25 |
control of regulating which utilities can use public land, and are |
26 |
entitled to compensation from those who use it. Cable companies |
27 |
negotiate rental of that space called a "franchise fee" so they can |
28 |
bury cables, etc. |
29 |
|
30 |
The franchise fee used to be a government-protected monopoly. In the |
31 |
1980's, when cable television started booming, regional pockets of |
32 |
cable providers were built up thanks to these local monopolies |
33 |
allowing them to move into towns with no competition. For the sake of |
34 |
efficiency, cable companies would build out in adjacent towns and kept |
35 |
spreading and growing outward until at some point nearly everyone in |
36 |
the country had cable TV services available to them, with the |
37 |
exception of those living in rural areas which were not dense enough |
38 |
to justify the cost of laying cables, even when presented with a |
39 |
monopoly. |
40 |
|
41 |
It is no longer legal for local governments to award monopolies, but |
42 |
the damage has been done. What we have is essentially the cable TV |
43 |
infrastructure that was laid out during the decade when local cable |
44 |
monopolies were legal, and the cost of entry for a new player into the |
45 |
market now is so high that nobody ever bothers. End result for |
46 |
consumers is a lack of choice. There are some places where competition |
47 |
exists, but those places are pretty rare, in my experience. |
48 |
|
49 |
There are some other possible alternatives to cable internet and DSL, |
50 |
such as municipal wifi, mesh networks, powerline and FTTx, but none |
51 |
are available where I live. |
52 |
|
53 |
The service I receive from the cable company here is actually |
54 |
excellent, with the exception of the aforementioned DNS woes. |
55 |
|
56 |
Pretty much every major ISP in the US does DNS-hijacking and other |
57 |
shenanigans, so there's no avoiding the evilness. I believe the board |
58 |
members of major cable and telecom companies would sell their own |
59 |
mothers into slavery if it meant a rise in share prices or a larger |
60 |
bonus at the end of the year... |