The Problems with Broadband in America 800
Tenken writes "Salon has an article about the state of broadband in America. After seeing what many other countries have accomplished with their broadband markets, namely Japan, Korea, and (gasp) even Canada, the current state of affairs in the U.S. is looking pretty dismal. I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of paying $45 a month just for cable internet." From the article: "Across the globe, it's the same story. In France, DSL service that is 10 times faster than the typical United States connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are common for less than $30 per month. Places as diverse as Finland, Canada and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition."
Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Insightful)
That means the existing monopoly corporation providing broadband to you would suddenly have to invest major capital into revamping their business to approach a competitive edge with this new alternative that everyone smart like you and I would switch to immediately. This would cut into profits. Businessmen like their profits, so they look for an alternative, hmmm, how not to have to revamp their networks, think think think...
So the company instead pays out campaign donations the right people in senate and congress, hires some lobbyists to naysay revamping impractical and backwards laws, say if they do change the laws the terrorists will get us over the intrawebs on their haxxor boxenz and copyrighted material will be given away on the street corners. And the people of the country that invented and played a major part in developing the internet into what it is today, lose out to nations with 1/100th of the population and GNP.
God Bless America. What would Liberty be like without a caring, guiding corporate hand to slow things down to maximize their own profits? I rarely rant on like things about this, but let's face it; American broadband users are sheer cash cows to their ISP's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but aren't you suppoed to have "extra money" to build it, compared to a small country like France ?
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:5, Informative)
France 2004 gdp: ~1.7T
USA 2004 gdp: ~11T
France sq miles: 211k
USA sq miles: 3537k
France gdp/sq mi: $8M
USA gdp/sq mi: $3M
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:3, Insightful)
France sq miles: 211k
USA sq miles: 1768.5k
France gdp/sq mi: $8M
USA gdp/sq mi: $6M
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:5, Informative)
As has been pointed out many times before, Canada is actually more "urban" than the US. Something like 3/4 of Canadians live in cities whereas about 2/3 of Americans do, or something like that. Yes, queue jokes about huddling together for warmth, etc., but the facts are there. It helps that only 20% of Canadian land is "habitable" (meaning you can grow crops on it), which is the type of land typically settled on hundreds of years ago. So, Canada has an easier time hitting more of its population with broadband due to population density.
Also, Canada has certain government initiatives to get broadband access to the more remote parts of Canada, such as the far north. Canada has always been on the leading edge of communications technology, and is actively trying to stay that way. The first commercial communications satellite was Canadian owned, as was the first national coast to coast microwave telephone network. This is all because the politicians realized from the start that the only thing stopping the small relatively isolated colonies that became Canada from being absorbed by the US was to overcome the vast communication and transportation obstacles that separated them. Those ideas continue today.
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:4, Interesting)
But this gets into a bigger discussion about government involvment in industry. Personally I think government's main role in the market should be to encourage competition, and BREAK UP monopolies, not encourage them. With almost-no exceptions, there are always better results from MORE competition, and MORE players in the market, rather than fewer. And when the "natural" market starts creating dominant giants, either introduce factors to break their monopoly with new initiatives (mandating co-location would be one example of such), or break the companies up (more extreme, and necessary only when the previous option fails). But above all they should be ENSURING that meaningful competition always occurs.
Governments have an essential role in economies completely seperate from government spending and federally (or provincial/state) run companies. More competition is almost always good, and should be the government's PRIMARY responsability (aside from money flow), not encouraging monopolies.
wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do I pay 40 bucks in LA for a crappy connection ? The US has guaranteed local monopolies to corporations who have zero interest in investing anything in infrastructure when they can bring it insane profits on obsolete products. Telcos in the US function like energy and healthcare companies. They are not a public service like in most european countries, it's a racket that gets blank support from politicians to milk a captive market as much as they can.
Re:wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
Rural areas in the US can have good connections, too -- most of Vermont, for one, pays less and gets more than those of us in urban areas.
VTel [vermontel.net] offers 1.3 Mbps DSL throughout nearly all of Vermont and is introducing 8 Mbps DSL into the state for $34.95 a month. Whether you get the 1.3 or 8 Mbps for the price depends on whether 8 Mbps is available in your area yet; you get the highest speed available. And they often offer promotional two year contracts at a substantially lower rate. Not as good as your French connection, but (depending on your location in the 1.3 vs 8 Mbps rollout scheme) either better than average or wildly good by US (urban) standards. And connections are available just about everywhere; my parents' summer place at the end of a gravel road on a lake 30 minutes from the nearest town and 50 from anything that could be called a city has access.
And note that Vermont is an extremely rural and extremely mountainous state, to the point where cell phone coverage is pretty spotty at any distance from major highways, and yet they still have excellent internet coverage. I think I heard that VTel got some grants initially to put in all the infrastructure, which explains the good coverage, but for some reason they persist in offering their service at a reasonable rate and in rolling their profits into actively upgrading that infrastructure. It seems almost un-American.
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:5, Insightful)
France has a population density of 284/square mile.
South Korea has 1275 people/square mile.
New Jersey has 1133 people/square mile.
New York County, which includes Manhattan, has 66950 people/square mile. No, that's not a typo.
Obviously, NYC and NJ have "a tremendous advanage regarding broadband penetration". So why don't we have cheap broadband?
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, New York County is only Manhattan. (Queens is Queens County, Brooklyn is Kings, Bronx is Bronx, and Staten Island is Dutchess.) So that number is a bit skewed - Manhattan is far denser than any other borough in New York City or any part of New Jersey.
According to Wikipedia, NYC's population density is 26403 people/square mile (that's rounded up just to match the look of your number). Newark, NJ's population density is 11400 people/square mile and Jersey City's is 16093 people/square mile. Other areas close to NYC in NJ have lower densities (those are the two main "cities" in NJ on the edge of NYC). So the average of the whole NY metro area would be a lot lower than 66950. And nobody's going to bother laying infrastructure for a single borough, although typically the telcos and cablecos will start with one borough and work their way out.
Just to compare, Tokyo is similarly difficult to calculate (it depends on if you're talking the 23 official wards of the city, the prefecture of Tokyo, or something else), but the 23 wards have a density of 34734 people/square mile. So, both cities are pretty dense, but NYC is not even close to twice as dense as Tokyo, which your numbers suggest.
I do sort of agree with your main point, though, which is that there's no real reason why the Northeast Corridor, the California Corridor or the cities of the upper midwest shouldn't be wired up better, if population density is the problem. The USA is extremely regional, and there are whole areas that are just as urban and just as large (in terms of population) as all of South Korea, for example. The NEC has a greater population than South Korea in a smaller area, so it should be theoretically cheaper to wire up on a per capita basis.
Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder how many times I have said this.. but just about any nordic country has lesser population density than the US and our population is quite spread out. You know, telecom corporations used to be in a similar monopoly position like in the US but our broadbands got a LOT cheaper when they were forced to share their copper.
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Interesting)
I found it hard to believe at first, but now I see they really have no choice. DSL can only go so far, and Time Warner was running them out of the internet biz by ramping up speeds. So in the end everyone will end up with uber-fast fiber connections and pay about the same $40-$60.
Then again, that was Houston. There are quite a few cities nationwide that aren't nearly as cut-throat. Some that have only 1 "high-speed" option, that isn't really even high-speed.
But I'd say, once the word gets out about those new blazing fast connections, EVERYONE is going to want one, and the demand overcome the cost of all the telcos upgrading their lines and equipment.
All this IMHO
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:3, Informative)
I envy you my brother, paying $45 for cable internet. My cable internet is also about $45, but you can't get it without cable TV... So my cable bill, for TV I rarely watch and internet is around $99 a month.... If they would unbundle the cable tv and net, I would get rid of the TV and keep the net.
(My other option is DSL, but I dont have a home phone- just a cell, which equals no telemarketers, plus, most of the people I c
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:4, Informative)
Competition drives innovation, and lowers prices - it also forces the inept and the profiteering out of the market.
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard it said, and it may just be FUD from the ISP's, but if multiple broadband ISP's (ignore the fact DSL and cable can be available in two places) were to compete in the same region then prices would be driven down in competition to a point to where the providers costs in laying in the infrastructure down are not going to be made up in profit.
In a perfectly capitalistic economy this is true, but the majority of telecommunication companies are cartels. They fix prices above the competetive level, competing more on who can service specific addresses than on pricing or services. Additionally, they may compete in different market segments -- one company may be cheaper but offer only slower (e.g. 512kbps) service, while another is more expensive but only offers 1.5mbps service. One caters to people on a tighter budget, the other caters to people with more disposable income.
In this country we really do have good infrastructure. Our backbones are typically high bandwidth even considering the amount of traffic they carry. Many large ISPs and hosting providers offer vast quantities of bandwidth, of which only a fraction is used. The real problem is the last mile: while your local ISP may have an OC-12 pipe coming in, they only use a quarter of it for one of several reasons. The last mile of copper might be too old or low quality to support faster speeds, it might be an artificial limitation designed to boost revenue (artificial scarcity), or they just don't want to raise consumers' expectations which could upset the whole market.
In any event, the issue isn't about what we as consumers want, or what technology is available, or what is best for us, it is about what makes the companies money. After all, these are corporations, they exist to earn profit and return value to the stockholders.
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sweden is roughly the same size as California, has less than a third of the population, and thus a lower population density too(with comparatively more people in the rural areas), yet has a more widespread "broadband" infrastructure(Around 85% of the population can get ADSL in some form for example)
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a feeling that broadband lines in Europe and Canada, lik
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK, GM and Ford didn't get Federal subsidies to build their factories (they may h
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Informative)
Why should Verizon be forced to sublease below market value the lines they invested money into, digging up streets and putting up poles.
First problem, Verizon (well all the bells together before they were broken up) did not pay for all the digging to put those lines in, that cost was heavily subsidized by taxpayer money. The other problem with this argument is that the cost of putting all this copper in place was payed off a long long time ago, and it's dirt cheap to maintain.
Then further there is a very serious problem with this one part of it
sublease below market value
It's just not true. Quest for example sells basic phone service for 12.50, they then sell the raw copper loop for $15. And that loop will only be able to serve DSL and thus make it profitable and worth while for the CLEC if they are within range of the CO. Most are not, and since the FCC just took away all access to the ILEC metro fiber assets (because they deemed them unesesarry) only phone service can be offered to customer out of range of the the CO, so the CLEC's and ISP's were forced to resell the ILEC's DSL at tariffed prices (this also means they can have that customer for phone service). With DSL, Quest sells 1.5M/768k DSL for $19.95 for a year and then $39.95 after that, the "below market value" price for just the loop (no email, bandwidth, tech support, etc.) that a competetive ISP must pay is $19.95 (a big discount from $19.95 as you can tell) for a year and then $33 after that. Oh, and then they have to pay for the ATM trasit of customer bandwidth at $250 per Mbit, plus port fees. That and the FCC just took these off of the tarif rates, next year, Qwest and all the other ILECS will be able to set the prices to whatever they want, and customers will be completely screwed because they will have very little choice.
Re:Oh, burn! The socialists do it FOR LESS! (Score:4, Insightful)
And in case you hadn't figured it out, we granted those cheap bastards a monopoly, gave them the public right of way in which to put their cables, they OWE us for that. If we want to regulate their sorry asses we will. If they don't like it, tough, we'll give out that monopoly to someone who'll appreciate it.
Yeah! Regulation caused this problem, so surely MORE regulation will solve it! Wait, err, um, no.
You can't point to an example of a higly regulated market as a failure of the free market. That's just stupid.
The fact that a regulated market got us into this mess doesn't mean we shouldn't free the market now. Maybe freeing the market will alllow things to shake out and stabilize in the future. Unless you want to continue with the regulatory equivilent of herding cats.
Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the copper that was subsidized by taxpayer dollars?
The Least Among U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
If one were to judge our use (read: underuse) of the internet on the public level... well, that's just a whole new angle on our lack of efficacy in educating our own. Think about it, at $50/month for a typical broadband connection in this country it's cost-prohibitive for a large segment of the population to access the internet regulary. Sure, there's dialup, but the frustration involved in dialup could discourage an internet "newbie" from using it. Let us also not forget that many, many metro areas have horrible phone lines. Our infrastructure in the U.S. is sad when you consider the fact that we're still (for now) the largest economy in the world.
The best way to build your population up intellectually is through information. The undisputed king of information is the "Internet." Imagine all the eyes that could be opened. Mixed in, of course, with all the idiocy, smut, and exploitation...
But some locales are contemplating making wireless accessible [azcentral.com] to the general public. So there is a movement. It's just a shame that in the most mighty economy in the world the cost is still prohibitive for a good segment of its population.
Keep squeaking about it... perhaps the corporations will grease the wheel. But I doubt it. What we need is a brave provider to go for the quantity, and not the quality (I never thought I'd say that) -- in other words, make the pricing attractive for everyone.
Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the curse of the early adopter. We were among the earliest to go whole-hog into telecommunications, especially in the urban centers, then spent a fortune bringing it to the rural areas, and we have been coasting along on legacy infrastructure for a long time now while other countries have been building more modern networks from scratch.
The problem here is obvious. Infrastructure needs upgrading, and the U.S. having a relatively low population density makes this much more expensive. Somebody has to pay those costs, and fairly enough those who actually use the new infrastructure pay the costs.
Anybody who thinks that passing a law or breaking up a company will make infrastructure cheaper is fooling themselves.
Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Like we didn't have dial-up here in France..
Well, we still have it (regular phone anyone ?)
We are just, like, you. Admit it.
Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
no, the last mile problem must be shared by all of society, as those who are most expensive to reach are the most expensive to, as well as the least profitable.
thats why utilities (electric, phone) were government granted monopolies who were mandated to wire this last mile. the companies were guaranteed to recoup their investment in infrastructure through regulated rates.
it is absolutely imperative that these costs are shared fairly throughout society, and in the past always have been, see the TVA for a prime example.
its not about making it "cheaper", its about laying the most expensive bit of wire, to the least profitable customer, and making sure that it gets done, so that all citizens in this country are treated equitably.
Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
country broadband/per-capitaGDP = per-capita relative cost of broadband
The US: $600 / $40100 = 1.50%
France: $38 x 12 = $456 / $28700 = 1.59%
S.Korea: $360 / $19200 = 1.875%
So, we see that the US really isn't that far off in terms of cost of broadband when you scale it to average income Yes, t
Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to build your population up intellectually is through information.
I think this is a common misconception. Widespread internet service is a good thing, but it does little but distract in today's educational system. The hard work of education: mathematics and literacy, require a pencil and paper, time, and a decent instructor. Sadly even these necessities escape many students in our horrendous public educational sytem.
Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
We had a single 56k line at my high school which I later helped them shotgun 4 ways. Now they have a T1 but the point is that information does help and the Internet is the fastest way to find the information you're looking for. How did I get through calculus? Studying my math book all night every night? Most definitely not, I used Drexel's math forum. It got me through many a math class and my mother is a math teacher.
So you say its a misconception? How exactly is it a misconception? Tell me, how many 5th graders were doing Algebra 40 years ago? I would tend to say that kids take in a lot of information about a very broad range of topics these days. Granted its been a few years since I've been in school, but my hs prepared for me college. I got my bachelors in two and a half years.So to your comment I respond by saying that you shouldn't make judgements about an entire system. Go to any community where parents are involved in their children's upbringing and you will find great schools teaching kids both the traditional way and using new tools like the Internet. Seriously, why should I be forced to look through an encyclopedia for an obscure topic when I can just google it and find it in seconds? Isn't that the most efficient use of my time? I can even cross reference what I find on google with other online resources.
So please, watch the generalizations, they perform no good for anybody.Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, I happen to know that my high school now has 4 calculus classes as opposed to the 1 that was around when I was in HS. For the record its only been about 5 years that I've been out so I'd hardly say I'm out of touch, especially since my mother is a math teacher at the same school.
So I think your cynical view of the education system is a product of geography and not of the education system. Whenever you are in a community where parents are actively involved in th
Cable internet (Score:2, Informative)
100 Times Faster? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:100 Times Faster? (Score:4, Funny)
A decision must be made. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A decision must be made. (Score:2)
How can we change this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can we change this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't download large ISOs or anything very often, but maybe if I did I'd feel differently.
Re:How can we change this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm hoping that community wireless becomes available before I finally get fed up enough to pay the price for DSL.
Re:How can we change this? (Score:3, Interesting)
in a business transaction, there are merchants/vendors then there are customers.
citizen might be a useful alternative if you equate consumer with "anyone who does business with corporations and has no control of their "representatives"
Re:One word... (Score:3, Informative)
how big the country is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's going to take awhile to replace all the old infrastructure in america...
that's why many smaller countries have already have newer systems in place.
Re:how big the country is.. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cylist.com/List/400300113/ [cylist.com]
Although, to be fair, most of Canada's population is within 500 miles of the US/Canada border.
...is NOT an excuse! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how big the country is.. (Score:3, Informative)
It's going to take awhile to replace all the old infrastructure in america...
that's why many smaller countries have already have newer systems in place.
Canada is bigger than the United States of America AND is in America, you know, just FYI.
So, *gasp* indeed!
Also how heterogeneous (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how big the country is.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Another related issue, is geographic distribution of population. The U.S. population is still 50% rural. IIRC, all the countries on the list have population distributions that are far more urban than the US (I could be wrong about Sw
The Article (Score:5, Informative)
In France, you can get super-fast DSL, unlimited phone service and 100 TV channels for a mere $38 a month. Why does the same thing cost so much more in the U.S.?
By S. Derek Turner
Oct. 18, 2005 | Next time you sit down to pay your cable-modem or DSL bill, consider this: Most Japanese consumers can get an Internet connection that's 16 times faster than the typical American DSL line for a mere $22 per month.
Across the globe, it's the same story. In France, DSL service that is 10 times faster than the typical United States connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are common for less than $30 per month. Places as diverse as Finland, Canada and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition.
How did this happen? Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the rest of its economic peers? The answer is simple. These nations all have something the U.S. lacks: a national broadband policy, one that actively encourages competition among providers, leading to lower consumer prices and better service.
Instead, the U.S. has a handful of unelected and unaccountable corporate giants that control our vital telecommunications infrastructure. This has led not only to a digital divide between the U.S. and the rest of the advanced world but to one inside the U.S. itself. Currently, broadband services in America remain unavailable for many living in rural and poorer urban areas, and remain slow and expensive for those who do have access.
For instance, when farmers gathered at this year's Iowa State Fair to discuss their policy concerns with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, the topic on the minds of many was broadband. And for good reason. Twenty-five percent of Iowa's rural communities have no access to high-speed Internet service, and over half of the remaining rural communities are serviced by only one provider. Those lucky enough to live in areas served by Iowa Telecom can pay as much as $170 per month for a DSL line.
President Bush has called for "universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007," and Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin recently declared broadband deployment to be his "highest priority." Martin recently took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to tout "the dramatic growth in broadband services." In his editorial he boasts of "fierce competition" among broadband providers and tells us we're "well on our way to accomplishing the President's goal."
The facts tell a different story. Today, major cable companies and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. This trend is the direct result of FCC policies that fail to encourage real competition among broadband providers, giving free rein over the market to the cable and DSL giants. The corporate giants are also vigorously fighting to stop cities and towns from building "Community Internet" systems -- affordable, high-speed broadband services funded in part by community groups and municipalities -- even in places where the cable and DSL companies themselves don't offer service. Yet, like rural electrification projects in the early 20th century, today's Community Internet projects offer the best hope of achieving universal broadband service.
Like so many other challenges faced by the Bush administration, the response to the growing digital divide has been to redefine success and prematurely declare victory.
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the FCC to oversee the timely deployment of Internet services that "enable users to originate and receive high quality voice, data, g
Its not just broadband... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has lagged lots of the "new economy" networks. Mobile phones in the US are behind the networks in Europe, and miles behind Japan. Even basic technologies like SMS are only just being adopted in the US. And now with broadband a similar picture is evolving of other markets seeing the opportunities for MASS adoption rather than trying to fleece people with a few high cost offerings.
Considering that the US is the leader of the market economies, something the French detest, its amazing to note that in many ways market economics is working more effectively for consumers in France than they are in the US.
Has the US gone too far towards corporate economics and too far from consumer economics?
Important differance...government... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Important differance...government... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me see the countries that were mentioned in the article: Japan, France, Finland, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong... control over telecom? owns telecom?
You're almost right in one respect, but I don't think it's how you intended it to be. The reason why many of these places are successful are NOT because the government owns the telecoms but because the government regulation is better. The reason why we've failed here is because if big money interests that have bought lobbyists and support in the FCC. It's not that they own the networks, it's that they have better regulation.
Re:Important differance...government... (Score:5, Funny)
In the US the Telcoms own or have significant control over the government! Damn, when did we become a Soviet Russia joke?
Other Countries (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other Countries (Score:5, Informative)
*Gasp*
Here in France, we have unlimited phone service, unlimited 20Mbits bandwidth usage, 100+ TV channels.. ALL for 30 Euros / Month.
No extra charges.
Oh, and the modem is given for free, and is a wifi access point.
Re:Other Countries (Score:3, Informative)
Welcome to 2005, it's been a nice year so far, and here are the local updates:
* 6 Mbit ADSL connection
* Flatrate, no limits whatsoever (and hey, on good days I pump those 6 GB in 48 hours)
* free local (on-net) calls
* optional (10 extra) country- or europe-wide voice flatrate
And this is very common over here (Germany). It's not a luxury, it's pretty much standard issue for anyone with serious
The Megababy Bells (Score:5, Informative)
With FITL, it's fiber optic cable from the central office to a "lightspeed box" in your neighborhood, where it gets converted to copper wires to go to your home. If you're lucky enough to be in a FITL neighborhood, the best you can get is IDSL (aka ISDN). The Megababy Bells insist on putting the DSLAMs in the central office, when they could put it out in the lightspeed boxes, thus creating IFITL (Integrated Fiber in the Loop). By pushing the DSLAM out to the neighborhoods, a vast majority of people could get broadband... but that means opening up the lines to competition, which I know Verizon doesn't want to do... thus the concept of FIOS... which takes advantage of a loophole in the law, allowing them to maintain total control/access of those fiber lines because they've put brand new ones out there from the central office to your home.
Since nobody other than your local power company, local cable company, and local phone company can put lines up on the phone poles (or in the conduits, if you have underground lines), they're going to kill off the broadband companies.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
what's with the gasp? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what's with the gasp? (Score:3, Insightful)
Long live the American Dream!
Preach on, Brother! (Score:3, Informative)
I live in Ohio. I've had DSL for about 5 years. In two weeks, I'm moving. I'm moving less than 10 miles away from where I live now.
I checked into getting DSL at my new home. It isn't offered. The CO hasn't been upgraded.
I looked into getting a cable modem. Cable isn't offered.
I checked into getting ISDN. It isn't offered.
I even checked into getting a T1 business class line and starting a coop. It isn't available.
I asked them (SBC) when the CO is going to be updated. Their answer: They have no plans to upgrade that CO.
Aside from dial up, satellite is really my only option (they can't take the sky from me - but lets face it, satellite internet sucks).
Re:Preach on, Brother! (Score:3, Informative)
The price may be really high,, but it is available to you.
Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not to say, of course, these services are entirely innocent of playing games with the consumer. By trickling higher bandwidths to us slowly over a period of several years "for $10 more" each upgrade, they stand to make a huge fortune off the generally ignorant population we have here.
They forgot Sweden (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They forgot Sweden (Score:4, Funny)
They forgot Sweden
No they didn't. They just didn't see the Wi-Fi point behind the tall blond with blue eyes.
Why the gasp at Canada? (Score:5, Informative)
Even lowly Saskatchewan has had broadband in smaller markets [compared to US markets of similar size], since the late 1990s.
Repeat After Me. Population Density. (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States is very, very big. It has a population density nowhere NEAR Korea and Japan, the posterchildren of "supermegaultra internet to the door".
You can afford to run fiber, switchgear, etc if you get a lot of customers for your effort. Japan is 145843 square miles and 127M people; New York state is a THIRD of that alone (54471 sq miles) and has 19M people.
Let's think that through- Japan has about half the US population, yet is only about 3 times bigger than NY state.
PS:I had to post this from home via an SSH tunnel because I've been "downmodded too much". I have mod points, but I can't post from work. Funny that. Can't get more than a form-reply from "Robert Rozeboom", either...which consisted of: "You have been downmodded too many times and are in timeout for a bit."
Repeat after me "Canada is even bigger" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Repeat after me "Canada is even bigger" (Score:4, Informative)
Now that I am in Seattle, I expect to have more broadband options but there are two cable companies that split the city (so there are two monopolies) offering the same service that I had in Ontario in 1995 for more money(?). DSL is an option but you need a land line and have to deal with QWEST. Also, I believe that recent changes may allow QWEST in the future, to decide not to lease their line third-party providers such as Speakeasy. You may guess that I don't like QWEST very much. I hope that some of these other schemes, wireless, satellite, powerlines can bypass the Baby Bells and cable oligarchies and maybe we can get some real hi-speed here...
Re:Repeat After Me. Population Density. (Score:3, Informative)
NY: 54471 square miles, 19M people, about 348 per square mile.
So, your argument does certainly not hold for New York state. Sweden for example has a very low population density, so this can't be the only answer.
The current deal here (Germany) is something like 30 Euros for 6Mbit DSL + 30 Euros for telephone (includes flatrate for calls to all landlines).
Faulty conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
* Population densities
* Area to cover
* Income levels & cost of living differences
* Government subsidies, taxes, and regulatory costs
It does, at points note that some of these are arguements against his point, but the author fails to adequately address them. (Ex: while arguing against the area factor, he uses san francisco as a counter arguement, while failing to provide any information about how SF is performing more 'poorly').
The article jumps to the conclusion that "the man" is trying to screw you. This may or may not be true. However, without accounting for the above factors the author doesn't have a logic basis in making that conclusion and is just ranting.
Doupoly vs. free market (Score:4, Funny)
The next things you'll tell me is that:
1. Pepsi and Coke are behind fizzy water costing 50 cents for 12 ounces,
2. Republicans and Democrats collude to keep everything "right vs. left",
3. Management vs. labor is an illusion, and
4. Good vs. evil is too black and white!
How un-american! Two competitors makes a market or you support terrorism. AND AT A TIME OF WAR!!
(Hey, what are those free market regulators we pay to work in Washington up to anyways?)
Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
First they were the most innovative country (technologically speaking). But upon their technological advances, they built a structure conformed by companies, associations and organisms (The FCC, RIAA, MPAA, the Patent Office, and yes, even political parties). But they became more and more powerful, inhibiting the growth of additional economical resources. Sooner or later, their inner resources will exhaust. And the U.S. will be left with nothing.
In other words, the U.S. has become a corporative timebomb.
SEE THIS PICTURE (Score:3, Insightful)
Make it available first (Score:3, Insightful)
Want the price to go down? The company needs more customers. How does the company get more customers? Make it available to more people!
More of the same old same old (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable? I get 15MbpsX2Mbps which is about the speed of the big fiber push from Verizon. I pay $65 a month and it is totally worth it to me given the speed, reliability, and price. I looked at every option and this was the best one.
Ultimately, that is what it comes downt to. The paying AVERAGE consumer and NOT the whiny "I want everything for free" brigades and they're the loudest complainers, not the ones who've already adopted and been paying for years. I have had a cable modem for years, worked in DSL installation and tech support, and cable modem installation and tech support, so I know the relative strengths. I don't own a laptop and won't until milspec ruggedized books come down in cost (my big performance vs. reliability vs. cost concern is hardware not connections).
If you want T-1 speeds with the guaranteed SLAs, fine. Pay for them. Or don't. Hundreds of thousands already do just as I pay for the modem I've got at the service level I get. It is up to the end users.
As of now, there is no financial incentive for broadband to jump in speed and fall in cost for the purveyors that they themselves don't create such as several cable providers jumping their speed ahead of schedule in areas that Verizon and company hadn't bothered pushing fiber to yet, thus cutting them off at the knees by providing it early to an already existing audience at the same speeds and nearly the same price point. The lack of need to change e-mail addresses and networking specifics is an added bonus. Why save $5/month when it would cost me weeks of downtime making the transition and changing all my network set-ups and accounting?
Again, my decision. Not whiny pontificators in magazine articles. Seems like another bs article designed to arouse and anger the same usual suspects and not a serious delving into why the broadband scene is the way it is.
The kids going on about greed and corporations should grow up already. Their hypocrisy is showing when they spend 9/10 of their Internet posts on tinfoil hat rhetoric about government censorship and interference with "their internets" but then suddenly are all hot to toss total Internet access control over to the government as long as they get taxpayer funded "free" net access. Yeah, let the same government you despise, distrust, and live in fear of control your access to the net.
When pushed, what is the theory? That what they browse won't get banned or be interferred with. Of course a similar theory was had by many during WWII regarding the Nazis and who would be come after and saying nothing until they came after that last group. Everyone is fine as long as its free, and they ain't the ones being oppressed. Well the world works thus: the nail that sticks up gets pounded down; when the only tool in your box is a hammer everything looks like a nail; the only tool of government is a hammer. Sooner or later government run Internet will screw you and you'll wish you'd paid for it in a proper economic relationship.
The problem is ideological, not market-driven (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between Japan and the U.S., between France and the U.S., between Canada and the U.S. is this: they still have a liberal social policy -- the concept of the public good. They spend tax dollars and regulate providers so that the cost of high-speed telecom stays very low indeed.
The U.S., in what can only be called the era of Bushism -- he didn't invent it, but he is the shining avatar of all that it embraces -- has gone Ayn Rand, and no longer has a core concept of the public good, with perhaps the exception of highways and of course the military. We don't have an emotional understanding of why regulation of commerce is needed, or why taxes sometimes should be spent to build things that private corporations simply will not provide at a reasonable cost.
After all, if you, in your car driving from your suburban home to your job, had to pay a private corporation to build and service every inch of asphalt from your driveway to your job -- how much do you think you'd be paying? Oh baby, I'm clenching thinking about it. Protect us, O Lord, from the thieves in the broad daylight...
They'd be the cheapest crappiest roads they could get away with. They'd lobby Congress to exempt them from liability from death and damage caused by baseline maintenance. Look at what happened in Ohio -- that massive electrical blackout was caused by a conglomerate cutting powerline maintenance beneath the bone to pump up profits. Private companies SUCK at that sort of thing. All the drive for higher profits at all costs. Since the people who actually run corporations have no personal responsiblity for their actions, they have no sense of same. Elected officials at least can go to jail, lose their jobs, be exposed as lying jackasses. Companies are faceless machines which just don't care. ESPECIALLY when they are monoplies. We practically fought a civil war to disable the trusts in the early 20th century for just that reason.
Most technologically advanced countries have good public health care, fast internet, and good highways because they still adhere to the concept of the public good overriding the possiblity of someone making an immense profit. It's as simple as that.
Re:The problem is ideological, not market-driven (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this a joke? Are you saying that leaders of corporations can't go to jail (Martha Stewart), lose their jobs (Worldcom leaders - also went to jail), or be exposed as lying jackasses (Enron leaders - also are on their way to jail)?
I'm happy that I have fairly high-speed internet access fr
Don't Complain (Score:3, Informative)
I pay 45$ a month, for 1Mbps ADSL with a monthly cap of 1GB. That's the best deal going in the country. Australia, is somewhat better off.. but not significantly.
At any rate, for those of you in the states that think your broadband providers are lousy.. you've actually got it reasonably good. Not south korea good, but good all the same.
The most beautiful set of slashdot replies (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they use the excuse that America is much bigger and more rural than any of those countries and simply ignore Canada sitting right next door with routine 2mbit connections in towns 400 kilometers from anywhere else in a country that is bigger than America and has a far smaller population? Why do they make up utter bullshit statements about so called socialist governments and other crap.
The simple answer would be that realising that you are in a unfavourable position is the first step to changing it. Denial, however, never helped anyone.
For the record, I live in Switzerland, which, while having one of the highest rates of broadband penetration is ridiculously expensive and the only cable company, which has a total monopoly on cable connections, has only just introduced 6mbit connections at around $60 per month. That's the best you can get here. And switzerland is ridiculously capitalist and has very little in the way of regulation, just like the USA. Just across the border in France, an hours drive from where I live, you get 20mbit access, free phone use and free wireless modems for around $20 per month. And while the telcos are all privately owned, there is market regulation.
Think about that. It has nothing to do with socialism or size of your penis. It has a lot to do with regulation keeping the market free of monopolies who can and do abuse their positions if left unchecked. If you're still unsure about what I mean, ask someone here about Microsoft.
Re:It's the Geography, stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's smarter government... (Score:5, Informative)
I moved from a job in NW Ontario where I provided service for the Hudson Basin -- towns that were hundreds of miles from roads, hours by plane -- these towns had better broadband access than most of rural Wisconsin.
The average household in NWO has better access than the average household in Chicago... but of course, they had broadband available many years before most people in Chicago. The difference is the politicians, both local and national, see the value of providing their citizens with connectivity.
Finland had a much higher percentage of landline-less communities a little over a decade ago. They responded by building one of the best cellular networks in the world. Additionally, they saw the value of broadband and integrated that into their infrastructure too, despite very low population densities and long, cold distances.
Whereas in the US, politicians seem to find it better to leave it to the "freemarket", as dictated to them by the deep pocketed telecoms and media conglomerates who tell the elected official what is best
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
All the states listed are pretty socialist, compared to the US anyway. I wonder if France and Canada and so-forth have subsidised internet from the government. I'm not certain I want my tax dollars (and tax increases) going towards discounting broadband for everyone.
But what if you gained more in the amount saved than you paid in taxes? Or what if you didn't actually have to pay anything extra in taxes, and the funds were just reallocated from, say, defense spending? Other countries have proved its possible, and that it works better for more people than the way America does it. Will you really be so foolish as to let ideology stand in opposition to demonstrated proof of benefit to your own person?
Taboo to say round these parts, I know, but socialism works pretty well. Taxes are the cost we pay for a civilized society.
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Are you being anti-American? Unpatriotic even? Even... a terrorist?
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
1. You may be experiencing the gain simply because all Americans are taxed... not just those using the internet. I would consider this unfair in that case. If you just put an excise tax on internet access that would be less unfair, but is still wrought with potential issues.
2. The US Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from participat
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
And if socialism works so well, why isn't Johnson's "Great Society" a reality today? The democrats had decades to implement plans to eliminate poverty, racism and social injustice from the federal level... so why isn't poverty eliminated?
Because the goal was to reduce it, not eliminate it. Poverty can (probably) never be eliminated, and outside of political speeches no serious student of public policy would ever make such a claim. This sounds suspiciously close to a straman.
Be that as it may the results of the Great Society are still alive and well, thank you. AFDC, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, etc. These have all been successes. Between 1963 and 1970 America saw a full 10% decrease in the number of Americans living below the poverty line; this was the most dramatic decrease in the nation's history.
This is where most liberals miss one of the key points of federalism. If you want to live in the Great Society, do it from a state or local level.
But you said it yourself: the economy of scale means that the federal government can do it more efficiently than the states can.
Fundamentally this is an ideological issue. Libertarianism works in theory, socialism works in practice. For evidence you need look no further than the world at large. And whereas it is nice to believe that we have fully earned every penny of our paychecks, the simple fact is that we owe our personal successes not only to our own hard work but also to the society as a whole and the government which set up the support structures, from educational systems to laws on corporate governance to SEC regulations and fair hiring regulations.
So to sum it all up, it's not just a cost/benefit issue. It's also a political, moral and "freedom" issue. Even if the cost/benefit analysis looks good your solution (for me at least) fails on the other issues.
So like the OP, you are willing to sacrifice personal (and even social) gain for the sake of ideological purity. You would reject something that works better for no reason other than the adjective attached to it.
Pardon me if I think that is... silly. What is the justification for a belief system if not the underlying belief that it works better?
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, though, why should the federal government subsidize broadband Internet access for everybody? The job of the government isn't to hand out free-for-all Internet access. Besides, that just gives government more power to try to control certain aspects of the Internet. Instead, let the free market take care of that; governments are the wrong institutions to do this type of thing, as they are very bureaucratic and like throwing their power around. We also don't need a government monopoly on Internet ac
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
My freedom to die young because I can't afford health insurance.
My freedom to slave forever on poverty wages because I can't afford college.
My freedom to starve because I can't find a job that pays enough for food *and* housing.
Ahh yes. Freedom. I forget how lucky I am.
If you can't afford to go to college, it's because you didn't get off your lazy "I'm should be entitled to it" ass to do so. I worked 2(sometimes 3) low paying jobs(fast food, grocery checkout, valet parking, data entry,
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
No-one owes you anything. No-one should be forced to pay for you. Pay your own way. If you won't, then you bring misfortune upon yourself.
Ah, the old "poverty is a moral failing" excuse of the well to do not wishing to part with "their hard-earned dollars". Often mentioned by people who were either never truly poor, or who did work themselves up from nothing, but did it by pushing down others, not looking back with anything but malice.
For every person you
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Informative)
Anyhoo, I am American. Fifth generation Texan. The way socialism is defined here is "government spending to enhance the public good". Not as any step between capitalism and communism, but as a thing in and of itself that is used more or less synonymously with communism. It's ridiculous, of course, but true.
Hence the opposition to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare (except by Bush &c), public school
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Informative)
Don't know about them, but I live in Germany, with a 6 Mbit DSL connection, 16 Mbit coming my way this winter (ADSL2+). This is for 60,- a month, including flat rate, telephony, etc.
No, the phone company is not subsidised, it is a private company and to add insult to injury, it is profitable. I happen to know because I work there. (which also means I
did you rtfa? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet you're paying the same or higher prices as you were all those years ago. If you rented a brand new car and paid the same price for 6 years, you'd be a fool. If you rented the same computer for 6 years for the same price, wouldn't you expect the technology to improve, or at least for the economies of scale to make it cheaper? Why not expect more from your Internet provider?
You have been successfully groomed into a consumer with low expectations.
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, any place that is serviced by Shaw or Rogers will have Broadband service through cable.
If you check the CIA Factbook on Canada, it is larger than the US [cia.gov] and has telecommunications infrastructure which provides excellent service through modern technology [cia.gov].
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:3, Informative)
If you're going to play comparison, at least get your numbers right.
The USA has a population density of 17
30 according to my source [wikipedia.org]
Japan is like 325
Close enough, 337.
and Korea is #3 in the world for population density at well over 400
491, which makes it number 12 if you take out the islands and administrative areas that aren't considered countries in their own right (Hong Kong, Macau, Gibraltar, Gaza, West Bank...)
Now lets look at Canada (3), Australia (2) and other cou
Re:I guess you want it for free... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and if you think that population densities are a real factor, which they are to come extent, they are not impossible to overcome. Case in point, Canada, with lower population densities than the US has better service for less, because their legislation keeps monopolies out.
Like the example from the article where a small town with zero broadband ISPs which started to have companies leave for that reason decided to do somethin about it. They asked the ISPs if they could serve the community, but they refused citing the small amount of profit they'd make there not being worth their time. So the community started a public community internet project to offer WiFi throughout the town. The ISP's reaction? Trying to convince the state to pass a law to make that illegal.
That's the kind of mentality we as a nation have, and it's hurting us. We should stop being so high on ourselves, admit our faults, look to others which do it better than we, and fix it!
Re:It's the population density stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
Country Area (sq km) Population Pop. Density (ppl/sq km)
United States of America 9 631 418 295 734 134 30.7
France