Why U.S. Broadband Service Is So Awful

[R4CK3R]

Sorry, tell me again how other people are entitled to what I've worked for?

Yeah, I bet you work real hard driving on that public road to your job where you manage a hand full of people who were educated by a public school system.

I'd really like to see how you make any money out of anything you've done all by yourself. Unless you're digging raw materials off of your property and feeding it into a refinery that extracts precious metals that are then melted down and made into sheets where it can then be stamped and formed into whatever it is you make and selling, then I fail to see how you are making a profit totally disconnected from the rest of civilization.

I agree with you that everyone deserves the fruits of their labor but at the same time you have to realize that little ol' you wouldn't be were you are if it wasn't for the help of others. You may have struggled to get to where you are but I doubt you got their all on your own. If you did then congratulations, you are a man among men because in a nation of 300 million people, that dream is not possible for everyone. Getting to the top and then saying "Fuck everyone else, I got what I want!" is selfish and just makes you look like a huge asshole.

You're taking a lot for granted, sir

 

[panhead]

Sorry, tell me again how other people are entitled to what I've worked for?

Because others have created a society that allow you to work and make a living!

 

[Deadly Ramon]

I pay $39.99 a month for AT&T's so-called High-Speed Internet Elite DSL service (http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=10938&source=ICDS25115W0DWPCPO), which promises 6 Mbps download and 768 Kbps upload speeds, though my latest speed test at http://www.speedtest.net/ indicates that my download and upload speeds in practice are 5.14 Mbps and 650 Kbps, respectively.

It's funny how the big brother acolytes are coming out of the woodwork here over this issue. Yeah, I'd like faster speeds at a cheaper price, but I'd rather exhaust all options of a more free market and business nature before I start asking massah guv'mint to envelop yet another industry into its bloated fold. Notice I'm not ruling out an increased governmental role outright, I just would rather turn to that as a last as opposed to a first resort (I admit to being politically conservative, not libertarian or anarchistic).

In essence, though my Internet connection is slower and more expensive than I'd prefer, let's be careful before we start encouraging the powers that be to start (or in this case resume) dictating to communication companies how to run a business.

 

[jiminator]

eh, there is no "others" that created a society. It is tax payers that created it all. government is not subsidizing tax payers when it reduces taxes. tax payers are subsidizing government. somewhere that seems to have been forgotten in the current guarantee everything for everyone spending spree.

 

[Deadly Ramon]

It's no surprise the mistake came in 2002, during the reign of the fool in America.

Two corrections: it wasn't a reign (Republicans had 1 less Senate seat than the Democrats after Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and tossed the 50-50 split into the Democrats' favor; the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was a razor-thin 9 seats; and the Supreme Court consisted of 3 conservatives, 3 liberals, and 3 swing/centrist/moderate justices); and our President wasn't a fool (otherwise Al Gore would have easily beat him in the 2000 elections, which he didn't (despite the revisionism of Michael Moore, moveon.org, and other sore losers)).

 

[trooper11]

I agree with you that everyone deserves the fruits of their labor but at the same time you have to realize that little ol' you wouldn't be were you are if it wasn't for the help of others. You may have struggled to get to where you are but I doubt you got their all on your own. If you did then congratulations, you are a man among men because in a nation of 300 million people, that dream is not possible for everyone. Getting to the top and then saying "Fuck everyone else, I got what I want!" is selfish and just makes you look like a huge asshole.

You're taking a lot for granted, sir

and yet another straw man argument. so the idea is that if you dont want to pay for broadband access for everyone, than you also dont want to pay for roads, etc, etc. the two arent tied together here. each topic has its own set of issues to settle. and we arent allowed to have a say in how those taxes are spent becuase we really didnt get anyhwere becuase of our own efforts? the individual is what defines this country, not the collective the last time i checked. its through that individual effort that we all benefit.


its real easy to sit on your high moral standing and call out those that dont appreciate the way their tax dollars are spent as being 'selfish'. what is getting to the 'top' in your opinion? i pay taxes and im no where near the 'top'. I also dont appreciate the way my tax dollars get spent and it makes me resent giving them any of the money i earn.

those of us that pay taxes have every right to speak up for how we feel they should be spent. personally, i think that right now is the wrong time to be spending a bunch of money, no matter how noble the cause is. Since we are so badly in debt, we need to reign that in first or make some real cuts to spending to offset the cost of doing any infrustructure work.

so lets say we did make cuts in spending to offset such costs, then the question is what do we do first? I vote for overhauling the electrical grid first, and then roads, bridges, etc, and finally looking at the broadband situation.

Once we reach that step, i would be willing to spend money to build the infrastructure for broadband access in rual areas. Again, we dont need super fast speeds everywhere, we just need basic highspeed (1-2mb down/ 512kb up) so that everyone will have the choice to purchase such service. Im not going to pay so that everyone can have 50 down/20 up since thats not a neccesity.

having said that, im not counting out the market working itself out as is. if cable companies. etc arent willing to pay for the infrastructure and yet there are people out there willing to pay for service, than i wouldnt be suprsied if we see more wireless coverage hitting those areas from companies like Google (wireless hotspots) or Verizon (LTE service).

 

[Ryan711]

For example, when we ran fiber optics to my parents house (20 miles from a city of 45,000), there were half a dozen providers offering service (the company that actually put down the fiber was not one of them).

Just curious how much that cost, and was it solely for you're parents house?

 

[Jehuty]

Yeah, I'd like faster speeds at a cheaper price, but I'd rather exhaust all options of a more free market and business nature before I start asking massah guv'mint to envelop yet another industry into its bloated fold. Notice I'm not ruling out an increased governmental role outright, I just would rather turn to that as a last as opposed to a first resort (I admit to being politically conservative, not libertarian or anarchistic).

Yeah!!! Just like how the housing and banking industry exhausted all options of free market and business nature right?

Our current business structure is so severely flawed that I'm surprised people still think the free market can make the right decisions all the time. I know what you meant with the overall message of your post, but still.

See, ISPs don't want to invest into the infrastructure because they're just too big. If we had more options to choose from where no ISP is too big, we probably wouldn't be having this problem. Huge ISPs don't want to spend money because they have to fork over a lot of cash to bring everything up to snuff. If we had more ISPs to choose from, the load wouldn't be so huge for them financially.

I also submit these two examples, that will probably feel disjointed to a lot of you.

Take Europe and the cell phone industry. Because no service provider is too big, there's so much competition that they're all just giving you high end phones for free. They are very flexible with their plans and usually offer pretty good service. There's so much to choose from there, that you wouldn't think there's any profit to be made -- there is, and it's huge.

On the other hand, take Australia with their internet woes. They get reamed pretty bad, and it's basically a single company that owns the infrastructure. Their connection is crap. That's what happens when you allow any corporation to grow ridiculously huge.

 

[gaspah]

oh wah! whilst broadband in australia just got a heap better in regard to caps (my data cap just went from 75/75gb to 300/300gb per month) i'm still paying $130/mo for a 5mbps/1mbsp connection. my downloads max out at about 650kB/s. when your broadband sucks that bad then moan about it. comparing your service to countries with highly centralized populations like japan or korea is unrealistic, america is nearly 4000km wide with houses scattered all over the show. of course you're going to have expensive infrastructure constantly in need of upgrade.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

 

[R4CK3R]

and yet another straw man argument. so the idea is that if you dont want to pay for broadband access for everyone, than you also dont want to pay for roads, etc, etc. the two arent tied together here.

My argument wasn't for bringing broadband to the masses at societies expense. I was generally making reference to the idea you have that free market with no government is this utopia of fairness for everybody. Don't get me wrong, I think free enterprise is one of the best things about America. It makes this a place where dreams can come true. The free market is awesome! It's especially awesome when you're at the top, but it's especially shitty when you're at the bottom with no opportunity for a way out.

I think government is necessary to keep the bad extremes out of a free market economy.

Not saying government control is a good thing, but a little is necessary.

There's a gray area between government and free market. You just can't argue with that. Just like total government control is not a good thing, total free market isn't either.

 

[panhead]

somewhere that seems to have been forgotten in the current guarantee everything for everyone spending spree.

It was forgotten in the early '80s when it was decided to cut taxes and borrow money to pay for government spending and let our children and grandchildren pay for it.

 

[snekrz]

Do you REALLY want the gubmint to OWN and SERVICE your internet connection. Not withstanding the privacy issues that come up name one major governent enterprise thats on time and under budget.. hell meets the budget.

 

[ICOM]

Here in the U.S., we do things stupidly...evidently.

 

[AshleyG]

oh and im getting 8mb down/512kb up with knology for $30 a month right now

knology is currently laying new fiber and will be offering some serious speed boost here (12mb down / 2mb up and a plus service offering 25mb down / 5mb up). not sure on pricing yet, so we will see if its also competitive. at & t uverse is also here, but their pricing sucks.

Good gravy, I wish they'd expand to the east. I lived a couple miles from the Smokey's Ballpark for six years (just across the line in Jefferson County) and had phenomenal Comcast service; it regularly beat what i was paying for. Now I'm living in downtown Dandridge and Charter is refusing to service me unless I threaten to sue for breach of Authorized Monopoly/Extended Exclusivity contract with the city. Several other residents have had to do the same thing to get Charter to honor their agreement with the city. I can choose from either dialup or shitty AT&T DSL. Damn, I miss Comcast. We need competition here badly.

 

[Conker]

That should be illegal to allow only one company to serve an area. Thats a monopoly pretty much.

 

[AshleyG]

That should be illegal to allow only one company to serve an area. Thats a monopoly pretty much.

Perfectly legal here in Tennessee. Comcast has been licking its chops to expand around here, but Charter has gotten the local governments to agree to exclusivity by offering free internet for city government and library facilities. These companies complain to the state government that exclusivity is the only way they can afford to provide smaller rural municipalities with any service at all.

 

[gathagan]

Most people who use the term "free" market do not mean a market completely devoid of any government intervention.
They simply mean that the government does the minimum to regulate the "free" market, setting in place standards of practice (including anti-monopoly laws, laws regarding price-fixing, and the like).

Most importantly, it is the government's job to enforce those regulations.
We have plenty of regulations and laws dictating market practices in place. The problem usually lies in the oversight and enforcement parts of the equation. That's where you generally see the graft and corruption.

Ironically, both sides of this argument have valid points.

If you allow for limited or no competition, ISP's are not compelled to keep improving their infrastructure to keep up with the competition.
If you force the owners of the existing infrastructure to give their competition access without requiring the competitors to share the cost of infrastructure upgrades, the same results occur.

The irony extends to the issue of customer density:
If you live in a rural area, it's hard to expect your local ISP to pony up the cost of extending their high-speed infrastructure out to an area with a half-dozen customers if you aren't willing to help defray that cost.
On the other hand, if you live in an area that does have decent access, why should you have to underwrite that extra cost?

If you live in a high-density area, the cost and the amount of disruption that upgrading represents is similarly prohibitive.
In a city like mine, the state and municipal governments have raised fee collection and paperwork to an art form, as well as a source of revenue.


As is often the case, the answer probably lies somewhere between the two extremes of complete lack of regulation/oversight and a complete government takeover.


One point that has been somewhat unstated is what level of government should be handling this issue.
By that I mean Federal vs State vs municipal.

My inclination is to say that the federal government involvement should be limited to setting a minimum standard that any given state should have to meet.

Similarly, the state should fulfill that role with regards to overseeing the county and municipal standards.

The local governments should be responsible for creating the requirements that each ISP within their jurisdiction has to meet to fulfill those state/federal standards.
Those requirements would include cooperation on the part of the federal, state and local governments to streamline the process, as opposed to being a obstacle.

Most telecom and cable companies are consider PUC's at the local level.
This is what gives them their monopoly utility status, but it also is the mechanism that is supposed to be used to make sure they keep costs reasonable and maintain the infrastructure properly.

Another contrast between the US and most European countries: In Europe, local land-line costs have generally been usage-based.

That's the way it's always been in the US with electricity and water/sewage; I've never understood why local phone service has never followed the same model.

If we are to treat an ISP as a public utility, then we need to come to terms with the sensible concept of usage-based costs as well.

On a related note, I like the concept of having the physical infrastructure in a given municipality handled by a different entity from the company that provides the telecom services, whether it be POTS or ISP.


The FCC can go pound sand, as far as I'm concerned.
With the exception of overseeing what frequencies are to be used for wireless communication, they have zero to do with internet oversight.
I think they see the end of an era with regards to TV and radio broadcasting, and are desperate to retain some level of authority and clout in the medium that has supplanted broadcasting to a large degree.

 

[Chimel]

We can't undermine the free market just so we can all have faster internet. I don't agree with forcing companies to sell THEIR infrastructure. ... we don't need the government telling companies what they MUST do.

If you want to build a nation-wide infrastructure with a competitive advantage against other countries, you do need to force companies to comply to some federal regulations and open up competition. Even if all companies are not evil, their first priority is profit, and that usually means getting the most return for the least cost, not setting up philanthropic goals.

We've been waiting long enough already, for dozens of years, for companies to take responsibility for their sector. Just look at the car industry. It just doesn't work.

Besides, I live in a very densely populated area just outside of Seattle, and the base DSL is still at a very low download speed for a high cost. Upload is even worse, making services such as online backup virtually unusable. It's not just the speed, it's the drain on the computer resources too. On the positive side, it's very stable and reliable, just like a phone.

 

[jamesvill]

$45 Time Warner Cable in Queens, NY

 

[sweloop64]

Just curious how much that cost, and was it solely for you're parents house?

I don't know how much he paid, but generally the cost to get a house hooked up to a metropolitan area network ranges from somewhere in the range of $1000-$5000...


About $50/month and can choose from 5+ other ISPs at about the same cost...
But then again, this isn't the american model...

 

[obs]

That should be illegal to allow only one company to serve an area. Thats a monopoly pretty much.

Illegal? It's the government that creates these monopolies.

 

[ccmfreak2]

The act of an illegal monopoly is not defined as being the only business in a market, but rather being the only business and creating walls to prevent competitors from ALSO entering the market

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Our current business structure is so severely flawed that I'm surprised people still think the free market can make the right decisions all the time. I know what you meant with the overall message of your post, but still.

The theory of rational markets - while not entirely disproven - has taken a huge hit with this latest financial crisis.

The truth is that markets are going to inherently be at least a little bit irrational, as they are made up of people, and people - by our very nature - are irrational. All of us. Thats why we - in science - use blinded studies to try to remove as much of the human element from the testing as possible, as humans are biased and illogical beings.

Rational free markets cn still work, and we see time and time again that they do bring down prices to the end user, but this has to work within a regulatory framework that keeps them honest.

Part of the problem today is patronage. CEO's at the top of firms have their benefits, salaries and bonuses determined by board members who also serve as CEO's of other companies on which they sit as board menbers. It's an old boys club. You help me out, I'll help you out. This is one of the many reasons why so many intitutions during the financial crisis took steps that were completely detrimatary to their own well being, because personal incentives were not aligned with the goals of the shareholders.

What we need to fix this is a conflict of intrest law that applies to business. Currently we have these laws for government. A Judge that is personally involved in a case recuses themselves from it letting other people take on that case, as they are going to be biased. It is illegal - for instance - as a government contractor to give any gifts or buy any meal greater in value than $10 to a government employee.

In private industry this kind of corruption is common. Often you find sleazy sales guys sweetening deals with fancy extravagant dinners or tickets to the game. We need to see these things for what they really are. Bribes. They need to be illegal. Hiring a relative/friend/etc. for a job position also needs to be illegal, as it i a conlict of intrest. Executives serving on boards for companies need to recuse themselves from votes if the peoples salaries they are voting on in any way are personally involved with them, or serve on a board that sets their salary.

I feel very strongly that if we implement conflict of intrest rules for every level of society we will instantly se epersonal incentives more properly aligned with shareholder interests, leading to a strong more rational economy, and a functioning free market.

The best most efficient and productive markets are free, but they also need regulators to keep them honest.

 

[obs]

The act of an illegal monopoly is not defined as being the only business in a market, but rather being the only business and creating walls to prevent competitors from ALSO entering the market

Exactly, and in this case it's the government creating those walls to prevent competitors.

 

[Catalan]

and yet another straw man argument. so the idea is that if you dont want to pay for broadband access for everyone, than you also dont want to pay for roads, etc, etc.

Perhaps because you act as if you want to personally pick and choose what your tax dollars go toward? Do I have the option of paying for public broadband while shafting public roads in your America?

 

[qdemn7]

I'll decide how my work gets spent, thank you very much.

Actually you won't, not by yourself. Your fellow taxpayers will decide, and a majority of THEM will ultimately decide where YOUR tax money will go.

And you will pay, or go to prison. Unless you renounce your citizenship and leave the country. And even then the IRS could go after you for taxes, if they could prove you were leaving because you were a tax cheat.

You weren't born, or raised in a vacuum. You grew up in this country surrounded by fellow Americans who helped support you through their taxes.

Unless you were born wealthy, you went to public schools, colleges and universities paid for by other people's taxes.

Even if you were born wealthy, you traveled on public roads, paid for by other people’s taxes.

At some level, you were protected by public law enforcement, fire and emergency medical help, paid for by other people’s taxes.

You were defended by a military system, paid for by other people’s taxes.

You were served by the National Weather Service, NASA, DOE, and numerous other Federal, State, County and local Agencies designed the make the quality of life in the US better, all paid for by other people’s taxes.

Your rights were protected under a legal system, all paid for by other people’s taxes.

As much as you wish to be, you are not some feudal lord who answers to no one else. Even your private property rights are not sacrosanct.

The Founders recognized the concept of public good, when they limited patents. If they wanted to embrace the idea of unlimited private property rights or freedoms, then they would have stated that patents are good for all eternity. If they wanted unlimited private property rights, they would have prohibited eminent domain. Once you start making property rights unlimited, then there is no end in what evil property owners can, and will do, and you essentially lose control of your country.

There are no rights that are unlimited. Not on Free Speech, not on the RKBA.

We tried the concept of limited government under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work. Every state wanted to act like its own Feudal Empire, and every crackpot wished to act like a Feudal Lord.

That is why we have a Constitution, and a Federalist form of government. To prevent excesses by selfish people just like you.

 

[PersonalJ]

Actually you won't, not by yourself. Your fellow taxpayers will decide, and a majority of THEM will ultimately decide where YOUR tax money will go.

And you will pay, or go to prison. Unless you renounce your citizenship and leave the country. And even then the IRS could go after you for taxes, if they could prove you were leaving because you were a tax cheat.

You weren't born, or raised in a vacuum. You grew up in this country surrounded by fellow Americans who helped support you through their taxes.

Unless you were born wealthy, you went to public schools, colleges and universities paid for by other people's taxes.

Even if you were born wealthy, you traveled on public roads, paid for by other people’s taxes.

At some level, you were protected by public law enforcement, fire and emergency medical help, paid for by other people’s taxes.

You were defended by a military system, paid for by other people’s taxes.

You were served by the National Weather Service, NASA, DOE, and numerous other Federal, State, County and local Agencies designed the make the quality of life in the US better, all paid for by other people’s taxes.

Your rights were protected under a legal system, all paid for by other people’s taxes.

As much as you wish to be, you are not some feudal lord who answers to no one else. Even your private property rights are not sacrosanct.

The Founders recognized the concept of public good, when they limited patents. If they wanted to embrace the idea of unlimited private property rights or freedoms, then they would have stated that patents are good for all eternity. If they wanted unlimited private property rights, they would have prohibited eminent domain. Once you start making property rights unlimited, then there is no end in what evil property owners can, and will do, and you essentially lose control of your country.

There are no rights that are unlimited. Not on Free Speech, not on the RKBA.

We tried the concept of limited government under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work. Every state wanted to act like its own Feudal Empire, and every crackpot wished to act like a Feudal Lord.

That is why we have a Constitution, and a Federalist form of government. To prevent excesses by selfish people just like you.

Once a number of developed economies default on their debt/obligations in some way you will be singing another tune.

 

[bacon]

LOL@ these nuts in this thread thinking they can survive on their own in a society. It doesn't work that way or there wouldn't be a society.

I swear there are some people so far off their god damn rocker that I worry more about the far right sometimes than the ultra liberals who really do want socialism.