Broadband: U.S. Consumers Pay More For Less

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Studies like this are downright embarrassing. Anyone want to take a guess as to why people in Hong Kong get 500/500Mbps for the same price we pay for 25/2Mbps? :(

The results add weight to a growing body of evidence that suggests that the U.S. is lagging behind many of its international counterparts, most of whom have much higher levels of competition and, in turn, offer lower prices and faster Internet service. It suggests that policymakers need to re-evaluate our current policy approaches to increase competition and encourage more affordable high-speed Internet service in the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
The situation with broadband is a lot like roads/cars. The US was the pioneer and made the mistakes other countries learned from. On top of that the US has a loads more infrastructure to roll out because of its immense size compared to a lot of other countries.
 
Maybe because Hong Kong is a really small place with lots of people concentrated in a small area and the United States is a really large place with people spread out all over the place making the infrastructure very costly.

Should we do better yes, but we are not comparing apples to apple here
 
It's the privatization of the industry. Other countries have the infrastructure subsidized by tax revenue whereas in the US, a private entity foots the bill for the infrastructure and rides it to the most profit they can.
 
Hong Kong population density is retarded.

Its science... or math... both actually.
 
zaniix said:
Maybe because Hong Kong is a really small place with lots of people concentrated in a small area and the United States is a really large place with people spread out all over the place making the infrastructure very costly.

Should we do better yes, but we are not comparing apples to apple here
Click to expand...

If that were true, then we would at least see similar infrastructure being put in place in highly populated cities like New York. But no, most ISPs have a monopoly in their specific areas, with absolutely no competition to drive the price down. I live in LA and my only choices are shitty DSL or crappy Time Warner. So what is their motivation to increase speeds/lower prices? It's not like I can go elsewhere.

They need to get rid of this fucking bullshit that prevents smaller ISPs from leasing the lines for a reasonable price, giving them the ability to resale the service. Until that happens, shit is only going to get worse. Speeds may get higher, but caps are going to get lower while and they will still be able to justify a price hike. Effing BS like this makes me love our coutnry soooo much.....
 
Apples and oranges, considering the population density in HK. Canada or Russia would be a more appropriate comparison.
 
zaniix said:
Maybe because Hong Kong is a really small place with lots of people concentrated in a small area and the United States is a really large place with people spread out all over the place making the infrastructure very costly.

Should we do better yes, but we are not comparing apples to apple here
Click to expand...

wolfofsin said:
It's the privatization of the industry. Other countries have the infrastructure subsidized by tax revenue whereas in the US, a private entity foots the bill for the infrastructure and rides it to the most profit they can.
Click to expand...

I think both of these are the problem. I really think competition is a bigger problem though. I don't think there is any reason why people in metro areas shouldn't have similar speeds and prices. Population densities are still fairly high in metro areas and specific places like NYC. I bet you NYC doesn't have prices even remotely close to France or Hong Kong.
 
this is straight up corruption.. price fixing.. much like the unraveling LIeBOR-gate financial scandal...
 
Cakemeister said:
Apples and oranges, considering the population density in HK. Canada or Russia would be a more appropriate comparison.
Click to expand...

I can get a 250/15 plan with unlimited data for $130 + tax a month. Live in Hamilton, Ontario. I have the 25/1 plan with a 250GB cap for $62 a month plus tax die to not having that much money to spend.
 
well in quebec it'S

60/2 with 250Go. cap for 99$....

it's almost like living in africa
 
zaniix said:
Maybe because Hong Kong is a really small place with lots of people concentrated in a small area and the United States is a really large place with people spread out all over the place making the infrastructure very costly.

Should we do better yes, but we are not comparing apples to apple here
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much this.
 
MavericK96 said:
Yeah, pretty much this.
Click to expand...

Except not this, because the study isn't talking about the large, spread out parts of the US. It's only talking about big cities. It's reasonable not to have competitive internet service in rural North Dakota. It's not reasonable to be so far behind in places like NYC.
 
Steve01S4 said:
Except not this, because the study isn't talking about the large, spread out parts of the US. It's only talking about big cities. It's reasonable not to have competitive internet service in rural North Dakota. It's not reasonable to be so far behind in places like NYC.
Click to expand...
Agreed... Even worse, the infrastructure to roll out gigabit Internet exists in many US metropolitan areas already. Price fixing, anyone? :(
 
It's a combination of two things:

1.) Lower population density makes infrastructure costs higher in the U.S

2.) Negotiated local monopolies allow ISP's to charge higher prices.
 
Simmonz said:
Live in Hamilton, Ontario. I have the 25/1 plan with a 250GB cap for $62 a month plus tax die to not having that much money to spend.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I have, except the uplink speed is 5Mb, for the exact same price before taxes, from Comcast in Colorado. (I hate paying $7 in taxes on my internet connection. That's the big difference: big spending government.)
 
This is a discussion of fiber vs. dsl vs. fiber. I'll admit fiber is the best technology right now for aggregate bandwidth served to a maximum number of people. There's inherent limitations which prevent DSL and even DOCSIS 3.0 from matching the 100mbit symmetric speeds of fiber.Furthermore it's too expensive to lay fiber on top of a functioning cable plant just to keep up at this time.
 
I'm curious about the cost of infrastructure in some of those cities. I know in Hong Kong they routinely lay fiber by using a microtrenching technique where they literally get one of those big wet saws and "draw" a line a few inches deep, lay the line, then cover it over, no fuss no muss.

Same situation here in the many of the more populated US cities (so we can get any density arguments thrown away), and you need city approval, permit approval, environmental impact studies, need to hire unionize city workers to actually dig the trench, and then to fill it, etc etc etc... it ain't cheap. Hell even if you want to lay wire across telephone poles, which by all regards is easier, it's a bloody red tape circus.

As it stands I'm lucky I have my "upto" speeds of 20Mbps (closer to 7) which costs me only $40/month w/ telephone from a 3rd party vendor, when I had AT&T I was paying more than that for "up to" 3Mbps.
 
A big thing you might notice: in the US, there is a marked lack of competition. The only market with any significant competition is San Francisco, and they also have the best prices and the best speed in any of the US markets, on average. Sure, one market has a 1Gb offering, but it costs $317/month! In nearly every case, it is the local government that is standing in the way of more competition. (I know that's the case here in Denver. Comcast and Qwest have actively campaigned against anyone else getting access to the market.)

Do people really think the government knows best?
 
dgingeri said:
A big thing you might notice: in the US, there is a marked lack of competition. The only market with any significant competition is San Francisco, and they also have the best prices and the best speed in any of the US markets, on average. Sure, one market has a 1Gb offering, but it costs $317/month! In nearly every case, it is the local government that is standing in the way of more competition. (I know that's the case here in Denver. Comcast and Qwest have actively campaigned against anyone else getting access to the market.)

Do people really think the government knows best?
Click to expand...

Sure they know best,when it comes to lining their pockets with cash from corporations. It's funny this article follows one where the worthless FCC states that ISP's actually deliver the speeds they advertise,something few customers would agree with.
 
Ok, Honk Kong was not the only city listed!!!!!

Just look at the list! Pretty much every other city in the world has much better speed/price ratio than ANYBODY in US..... There is only ONE reason for that: NO FU@#$ING COMPETITION Thanks to big Telcos here, lining pockets of the politicians who in turn help them squash/block competition... Big corporations + corrupt government = big pile of S#@$#TT for the populous.....
 
I think what is funny as hell is how san francisco beat the shit out of LA, NYC and Washington due to market diversity. OMG, would monopolies be bad? :p

And yeah, here in quebec i got 30/2 with a 64 GB LIMIT for 40$....
 
Maybe instead of bitching on a random forum not even associated with the source article, you all should be writing your local, state, and federal representatives.
 
BobSutan said:
The situation with broadband is a lot like roads/cars. The US was the pioneer and made the mistakes other countries learned from. On top of that the US has a loads more infrastructure to roll out because of its immense size compared to a lot of other countries.
Click to expand...

That is so, but it is no excuse for the lack of competition in the US.
 
THis may be a case were I would luv for the fed. gov. to step in and take owner ship of all the cell towers in the US thereby opening the doors for a flood of competition. As it is now, the big three have a shared monopoly making it it impossible for small would be providers to get so much as a toe hold. That is the way it is in the UK I understand. I would also like to see the US go the all GSM.
 
I see no point in superfast speed with bw caps.

I am happy with my $30/mo 10/1 with no bw cap.

running 24/7, I can download 3.24 terabytes of porn per month. Fuck bw caps.
 
dr.kevin said:
I see no point in superfast speed with bw caps.

I am happy with my $30/mo 10/1 with no bw cap.

running 24/7, I can download 3.24 terabytes of porn per month. Fuck bw caps.
Click to expand...

Currently, I have no cap, with 8Mbps down, through a private cable company, $40/month with a premium TV cable/VOIP bundle (on topp).. Unfortunately, they were bought out by Rogers last year. No changes yet, but I know they are coming.:mad:

BTW, why download porn, when you can stream it and not waste HDD space?
 
Laying fibre is expensive and maintaining fibre is very expensive.

Running a fibre line to a super-dense residential tower in Hong Kong and potentially serving hundreds of customers at $50/mo would be a great investment.

Running a fibre line to someone's detached house and serving one customer at $50/mo will never pay for itself.
 
You know, I don't really find myself wanting any more speed than the 24mbit I currently get. I can download my Steam games, HD movies and TV without feeling like I'm waiting around. Caps are the annoying part.
 
dr.kevin said:
I see no point in superfast speed with bw caps.

I am happy with my $30/mo 10/1 with no bw cap.

running 24/7, I can download 3.24 terabytes of porn per month. Fuck bw caps.
Click to expand...

The Skribbel is jealous of your price and bandwidth. I pay $40 plus tax to get 1.5 mbps down and 876 kbps up. Yeah there's no cap and I don't really do much online aside from reading and sending mail, but it would be great to get more downstream speed when I download a new Linux distro or want to RDP into servers at work. I'd seriously consider dial up if I didn't do IT stuff for a living though.
 
Why is that so weird? It doesn't take that much bandwidth to move some text and images around, plus mobile sites are pretty light on images and junk so as long as you know their URLs you can visit them with a normal browser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top