Intervention: Intervenor 101

Document Name: 2015-134.222561.2325759.Intervention(1d%kf01!).html

I think this is great idea but I do believe you have to be careful on your approach so we are just not subsidising internet providers who will use this as a tool for someone else to help pay for expansion of their service. Here is an example from my own experience.I have Xplornet as a service provider because I am in a rural area and it my plan was 5 Mbps for downloads so when I first got the service it was averaging 1 to 2 Mbps and that was just sufficient for normal use. I do not use gaming so my usage requirements are what I consider low. I am a user of 10 to 20 Meg per month of usage and pay for 100 Meg of usage. After about a year or two of service I could not even get 1 Mbps and so even if I looked at a video in low resolution in facebook it would be freezing constantly because even at 1 Mbps it ranges down then up in speed as it showed on my speed tests. I called multiple times to try and get better service and I mentioned that I pay for 5 Mbps but they told me that is showing the best I could get so I said what is the minimum and they said there is no minimum. After multiple calls and testing they did say that the service I am on is loaded up (full) so it would be impossible to get better service but I could purchase their new service on the LTE network and sign a new contract and it would be much better because they don’t have many customers on it yet. I said will this service be good when it gets full and they said no it will probably be the same. I made the choice to go on the new service so I now pay more for 5 Mbps and get less usage per month down to 75 Meg and I had to pay for new hardware and contract to get this but I am hoping that it last for a year or more.I now get 1.5 to 2.5 Mbps so I am happy with that. So see if you give this company more money what are we accomplishing because if their service is full then they should be making money and starting new grids to handle more people by themselves. I think if the cable companies came in the rural area’s it would be a game changer because them people could bundle their phone, tv and internet. I would assume it would be too costly for them to expand to rural areas because they have to rent the poles down the road so one pole in the city might supply 10 or more houses but it might be 4 poles in the rural area to do one house so why not subsidise the pole rental to equal what the cable company pay in proportion to the city. The answer is competition and to have a minimum standard to keep the rates and service affordable but this is just my opinion.

Intervention: Intervenor 101

Document Name: 2015-134.222561.2327014.Intervention(1dvj@01!).html

I think this is great idea but I do believe you have to be careful on your approach so we are just not subsidising internet providers who will use this as a tool for someone else to help pay for expansion of their service, rather than using their own profits. Here is an example from my own experience.I have Xplornet as a service provider because I am in a rural area. I had a monthly plan for 5 Mbps for 100 Gig of downloads. When I first got the service it was averaging 1 to 2 Mbps and that was just sufficient for normal use. I do not use gaming so my usage requirements are what I consider low. I am a user of 10 to 20 Meg per month of usage and pay for 100 Meg of usage. After a year or two of service I could not even get 1 Mbps. When I viewed a video in low resolution on Facebook it would be freezing constantly because even at 1 Mbps, the speed range would go down and up, as it showed on my speed tests. I called multiple times to try and get better service, and as I mentioned, I pay for 5 Mbps. Xplornet told me that the 5 Mbps is the best I could get so I asked them what the minimum was, and they said there is no minimum. After multiple calls and testing they did say that the service I am on is loaded up (full) so it would be impossible to get better service, but I could purchase their new service on the LTE network and sign a new contract and it would be much better, because they don’t have many customers on it yet. I asked if this service will be good when it gets full, and they said no, it will probably be the same. I made the choice to purchase the new service. I now pay more for 5 Mbps and get less usage per month (100 Meg down to 75 Meg), and I had to pay for new hardware and a new contract, even though I am an existing customer. I am hoping that the better speed will last for a year or more. Now I get 1.5 to 2.5 Mbps so I am happy with that. I think if the cable companies provided service in the rural areas it would be a game changer because then people could bundle their phone, TV and internet. I assume that currently it is too costly for them to expand to rural areas because they are required to pay rental for the poles on the roads. Fewer poles are needed to service customers in the city, so why not subsidise the cable companies for the pole rental in the rural areas to equal what they pay in proportion for city pole rentals?If you give this company more money, what are we accomplishing? If their service is full they should be making a profit, but subsidising them they would be making a larger profit. They should be starting new grids to handle more customers with their own profits.The answer is competition and to have a minimum standard to keep the rates and service affordable, but this is just my opinion.