Broadband: U.S. Consumers Pay More For Less

Most of the offerings in KS are Cable or DSL. We will be the last state for an infrastructure upgrade. Hell , there are still people using straight 56k modems here. Unless there is an incentive for large companies to build out infrastructure...it is not going to happen.
 
There's little to no competition in the US.

Where I live I have ONE choice, Comcast, that's it. It's comcast or Satellite/56k connection, neither of which are really feasable.
 
100/10 unlimited data plus cable T.V. for $100 a month here in Covington, GA through Charter.

I've said it once and I'll say it again...I LOVE CHARTER! Best service, best price!
 
Six a one..
Hong Kong is was a combination of British colony/open competition capitalism.

For the USA, my city offers DSL, DISH, or Comcast. Many landlords oppose Dishes.
 
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...

RTFA :rolleyes: They compared our dense cities to their dense cities. Apples to apples we are still behind by a long shot.
 
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...

Seriously, thanks for actually RTFA :D
 
You know, I don't so much care to have a faster connection (most of the time), I'd be happier with more-fair pricing. And by that I mean pricing where we don't pay for the same thing twice (i.e., a cost for the rated speed, and then a cost for a fictional data cap that we may or may not exceed).
 
TheWeazmeister said:
RTFA :rolleyes: They compared our dense cities to their dense cities. Apples to apples we are still behind by a long shot.
Click to expand...

The densest US city on the list is New York, with half the population density of Hong Kong. Every other city is less than half of that. LA is one, big, flat town. While the population is a little less than half that of New York, it's more than 50% bigger in total area. San Francisco is the closest, but still has less than half NY's density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

Let's face it, the fact we have a lot of land to spread out our cities is exactly what is making the problem with our broadband adoption rate. Well, that and government interference in competition.
 
New York residents have higher incomes, on average, than Hong Kong residents. Population density doesn't mean much if people can't afford a product or service.
 
dgingeri said:
The densest US city on the list is New York, with half the population density of Hong Kong. Every other city is less than half of that. LA is one, big, flat town. While the population is a little less than half that of New York, it's more than 50% bigger in total area. San Francisco is the closest, but still has less than half NY's density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

Let's face it, the fact we have a lot of land to spread out our cities is exactly what is making the problem with our broadband adoption rate. Well, that and government interference in competition.
Click to expand...

Median household income for Manhattan is ~$65k . HK one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, with HK$55k/month income being considered middle class. How about broadband provider offer half the service speed at twice the price, and we STILL would be ahead of where we are today.

I can come up with statistics to suite my needs to make my point, that's the nature of statistics and manipulation of said stats, however there is NO excuse that is acceptable for where we are with broadband speeds/adoption in the US. We can spend trillions on wars but we can't get our infrastructure handled at home.
 
You pay more for less only because the people in power of the telecomms companies want you to. It's not because it's a huge country and not because laying new fiber costs a lot and takes time. They've received a lot of tax-payer money for those purposes, and what did they do? Mobile broadband expansion, using but a fraction of that money.

Also see;
Why rail traffic is shite in the US
 
Right now I get 30/3 service from Comcast for $79.99 a month (includes TV service, promotion for current customers), and while it is better than the 12/2 $64.95 service I previously had, I still think it is a bit expensive.

I would love to have 100/50 for $60...
 
dgingeri said:
The densest US city on the list is New York, with half the population density of Hong Kong. Every other city is less than half of that. LA is one, big, flat town. While the population is a little less than half that of New York, it's more than 50% bigger in total area. San Francisco is the closest, but still has less than half NY's density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

Let's face it, the fact we have a lot of land to spread out our cities is exactly what is making the problem with our broadband adoption rate. Well, that and government interference in competition.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong has free WiFi on its buses. Does LA even have buses?
 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They're making too much money from the sheeple among us that they don't see a need to upgrade us.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038957592 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Number one is not valid, number two is.
 
Stone Cold said:
Hong Kong's ISP is "City Telecom Limited". Sounds taxpayer-subsidized to me.
Click to expand...

You guys must live in some kind of protected bubble where information doesn't reach.
Both Internet and mobile phone services suck in the US, and they're more expensive.
There are no "excuses" to be found, except monopoly of one version or another, price fixing etc. Competition drives margins down, it is not a good thing ... so let's not do it.
 
I would love to get 100/10 at my house for a decent price. Comcast offers the best in my area and that's 16/1. :(
 
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...
Comparing New York and other cities, is a fair comparison in this respect. NYC and others should be comparable if that was the reason.
 
dgingeri said:
The densest US city on the list is New York, with half the population density of Hong Kong. Every other city is less than half of that. LA is one, big, flat town. While the population is a little less than half that of New York, it's more than 50% bigger in total area. San Francisco is the closest, but still has less than half NY's density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

Let's face it, the fact we have a lot of land to spread out our cities is exactly what is making the problem with our broadband adoption rate. Well, that and government interference in competition.
Click to expand...
Most of the wire was already paid for pushing TV. This is absurd excuse making.
 
The problem with prices is basically no real competition. Saying Dish, DSL and Cable means competition is pretty weak since those are competing technologies.

Wallstreet response well to monopolies. During the stock run up of the 90's, politicians pulled back anti-monopoly enforcement because it helped the stockmarket and help the President and Congress look wonderful to the public. It was a complete reversal of the 10 years before when competition was encouraged. For example, Ma Bell had been broken up into baby Bells and bunch of new companies arrived on the scene. You had AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Worldcom and several others competing for your long distance. Then the government allowed the Baby Bells overcharge the long distance companies for use of the physical lines. This is how one of the Baby Bell's, Bell South, was able to grow and eventually buy its former parent, AT&T. It was allowed a clear competitive advantage. And Wallstreet rejoiced. And the main reason wallstreet loves a monopoly is because a monopoly can screw its customers.

I love capitalism, but the old capitalism which prized competition, not this wallstreet distorted vision of capitalism.
 
Its about size of an organization that gets missed here.
When American communication companies refresh technology it has to do so for all States.
When most foreign companies refresh technology it often does so for an entire country that is the size of just one of our western states.
 
erexx said:
Its about size of an organization that gets missed here.
When American communication companies refresh technology it has to do so for all States.
When most foreign companies refresh technology it often does so for an entire country that is the size of just one of our western states.
Click to expand...

Aren't there high-speed backbones running just about all over this country? With the millions upon millions of miles of fiber optics that are either being under utilized or completely dark, the should be no problem with having a MINIMUM of 10/1 to all houses in the US.
 
I would have expected have at least the East Coast have very fast internet everywhere and maybe California. I can understand the Mid-West not having the fastest because they are so spread out, but seriously the East Coast isn't that great either. And then it is expensive as fuck.
 
The reason why broadband and cable TV appear monopolistic in the US is simple. They are. But not because of the providers. Oh, I'm sure the bigger companies grease the wheels to keep the status-quo, but in the end it's down to the cities and towns.

Any service that needs to use public infrastructure such as telephone poles, utility conduit etc, need to go through the towns and cities who in almost all cases only allow a single provider access to the infrastructure. They call this a "natural monopoly." and is nothing new. This is the same reason why we only have a single Electric company servicing a specific region, or a single gas company delivering natural gas to your house via pipelines.

If cities and towns wish to have more than a single broadband provider they can but local town and city governments make the choice not to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top