Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S

Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events >> Conspiracy Central

Message

Bettawrekonize -> Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (6/6/2009 10:15:15 AM)
Here is a link that explains how the lobbying efforts by rich and powerful corporations to restrict the market have hindered the advancement of broadband bandwidth in the U.S. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090603/2307475117.shtml I will quote some of the comments. Mechwarrior quote: ... how can Japan have 100 mbps with 40 gb daily caps, while in the United States the average speed is around 5 mbps with 10 gb monthly caps? I thought de-regulation and the end of line sharing was supposed to propel us ahead of other countries. Instead, we are at the same level of some recently industrialized nations. Anonymous Coward quote: 20E a month here in Bulgaria and I get 40mbit fiber uncapped, with 100mbit connection to peers within Bulgaria :) Timothy Karr quote: Believe it or not, the much maligned 1996 Telecommunications Act was designed to foster consumer choice among many competing Internet services. But in the 13 years since it was passed, the FCC and the courts have torn down the Act’s basic competitive framework, as a powerful phone and cable lobby pressured regulators to pass rules that handed them control of the marketplace. ... We see the results today. Their broadband Internet markets have blossom, while ours have withered. At the turn of the century, the United States was ranked fifth among the world’s nations in broadband penetration. But just a few short years later, we had dropped precipitously to 22nd place. Consumers in countries that maintained policies that were committed to competition, such as South Korea and Japan, are today able to access broadband with symmetrical speeds reaching 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) for less than the monthly price a U.S. consumer would pay for service that’s 100 times slower. ... In the aftermath of the 1996 Act, the average American consumer had access to more than a dozen ISPs; today, our broadband market is a stagnant duopoly. Nationwide, incumbent phone and cable companies control 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market. When complementary (and slow and expensive) mobile data connections are factored in, the incumbent phone and cable companies’ nationwide market share stands at 95 percent. When will people realize that whenever special interest groups lobby for something what they are lobbying for usually benefits no one but themselves. We shouldn't allow the government to create monopolies for these companies, the free market should be allowed to offer others bandwidth at lower prices.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (6/6/2009 3:36:24 PM)
Also found this interesting. Are Internet Providers Making Broadband More Expensive To Protect Their TV Businesses?

litfire2000 -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (6/20/2009 3:51:53 PM)
It is ironic that companies tout free enterprise and deregulation until it affects their competition and bottom line then they are all for government intervention.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (6/24/2009 1:57:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: litfire2000 It is ironic that companies tout free enterprise and deregulation until it affects their competition and bottom line then they are all for government intervention. Exactly my point.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/11/2009 11:34:41 PM)
an update on the issue. Broadband Stimulus Plan Keeps Looking Worse And Worse Chances are the government will waste all this money on advancing broadband and it will hardly accomplish anything. Then the government will throw more money at it and when the infrastructure is finally built (via tax dollars) the government will grant the same monopolies on the new tax funded infrastructure that the government already grants on the existing tax funded infrastructure.

litfire2000 -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/12/2009 6:55:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize an update on the issue. Broadband Stimulus Plan Keeps Looking Worse And Worse Chances are the government will waste all this money on advancing broadband and it will hardly accomplish anything. Then the government will throw more money at it and when the infrastructure is finally built (via tax dollars) the government will grant the same monopolies on the new tax funded infrastructure that the government already grants on the existing tax funded infrastructure. ah the more things change, the more they stay the same

rlj -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/12/2009 7:55:23 PM)
That's pretty pathetic when a backwards almost but not quite third world Eastern European nation in Bulgaria has better Broadband than we do. Next they'll be telling us that people in nations like Morocco and Chile have better health care than us. [sm=aside.gif]

litfire2000 -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/12/2009 8:16:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rlj That's pretty pathetic when a backwards almost but not quite third world Eastern European nation in Bulgaria has better Broadband than we do. Next they'll be telling us that people in nations like Morocco and Chile have better health care than us. [sm=aside.gif] I don't know about Morocco and Chile, but if I remember correctly the World Health Organization puts U.S. healthcare on a par with Serbia.

rlj -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/12/2009 8:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: litfire2000 quote: ORIGINAL: rlj That's pretty pathetic when a backwards almost but not quite third world Eastern European nation in Bulgaria has better Broadband than we do. Next they'll be telling us that people in nations like Morocco and Chile have better health care than us. [sm=aside.gif] I don't know about Morocco and Chile, but if I remember correctly the World Health Organization puts U.S. healthcare on a par with Serbia. I'm more dissappointed with having my internet be slower than ... Bulgaria?

litfire2000 -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/12/2009 8:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rlj quote: ORIGINAL: litfire2000 quote: ORIGINAL: rlj That's pretty pathetic when a backwards almost but not quite third world Eastern European nation in Bulgaria has better Broadband than we do. Next they'll be telling us that people in nations like Morocco and Chile have better health care than us. [sm=aside.gif] I don't know about Morocco and Chile, but if I remember correctly the World Health Organization puts U.S. healthcare on a par with Serbia. I'm more dissappointed with having my internet be slower than ... Bulgaria? Agree, we have DSL and I can remember when dial up at 50kbps was just as fast. Methinks there is room for improvement.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/14/2009 6:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: litfire2000 Methinks there is room for improvement. I agree but it appears the FCC is going to move in the opposite direction unless we do something about it. quote: The FCC continues to hold "workshops" to discuss the direction and scope of the national broadband plan. ... There are 51 panelists attending the latest 8 workshops. Out of those 51, there are just five people not directly associated with a company: Dave Burstein, Craig Moffett, George Ford, Victor Frost and Henning Schulzrinne. Moffett is a stock jock who's positions (such as upgrades are unnecessary and consumers should be paying more money) are clearly not going to serve anyone but investors. Ford works at the Phoenix Center, an AT&T-funded "think tank," who's job is to parrot AT&T policy positions. Of the remaining three, only Burstein, a long-time telecom beat reporter, will likely ask any hard questions -- and then again his job is to get scoops, not to represent the public interest. Zero of the originally scheduled attendees acted as public interest witnesses. After complaints by consumer groups, Dr. Mark Cooper from the Consumer Federation Of America was added at the last second, but the fact that this was an afterthought raises questions about how "transparent and inclusive" this process really is. FCC Apparently Not Very Concerned About Consumer Views On Broadband Unless we do something about it it looks like things will only get worse. This is an outrage, people should be strongly protesting. Think Taxi Cab medallions and everything else the government regulates for the purpose of creating artificial scarcity. Every time the the government starts regulating things they only serve private interests at public expense.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (8/26/2009 4:08:29 PM)
quote: It's amazing what a little competition can do. Apparently, up in Canada, cable company Shaw started running a promotion a few months ago where they dropped the price of 15Mbps broadband, 200 channels of TV, or voice service to about $10. However, apparently, this was (conveniently) only done in places where Shaw was going head to head with competitor Novus. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/0146556000.shtml More evidence that broadband is generally overpriced and the problem is a lack of competition due to government granted monopolies.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (10/15/2009 1:17:51 AM)
quote: with plans to boost that to 100Mb by the end of 2015. Finland Says 1Mb Broadband Access Is A Legal Right Just shows how the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world. also see Friends Don't Let Friends Use FCC Broadband Competition Data Also see quote: Last week, the FCC held what was ostensibly a panel discussion about the National Broadband Plan Paramount COO Shows FCC How To File Share, Blames Tech Companies, Has FCC Hide Its Presentation but if you watch the video it had very little to do with expanding broadband and had everything to do with serving the interests of the RIAA and MPAA by limiting file sharing and putting more restrictions on the Internet. This whole broadband plan is just a pretext for serving corporate interests at public expense and has little to do with serving the public interest.

tacitus -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (10/15/2009 8:40:46 PM)
The cheaper broadband prices in other countries have been brought about mainly because of tighter regulation of the free market. In Britain, British Telecom -- by far the largest infrastructure provider in the UK -- has been required, by law, to provide access to it's telephone lines (i.e. DSL) at cost (or only very slightly above it) to competing ISPs in order to encourage open competition. My parents now have free nationwide phone service, DSL broadband, and unlimited free phone calls to the USA (i.e. me!), for just over $30/month. I pay double that for broadband and more limited nationwide phone service (and no free transatlantic calls) here in Texas. The result has been thriving ISP business competition where the best providers can made money and the consumer has benefited far more than under the far less regulated free market that exists in the USA. Only after 10 long years of being a local monopoly is Time Warner Austin beginning to feel the pressure of competition and has finally reduced it's broadband rates by $5 -- but only if you call them and demand that they give you the new standard rate. Otherwise they reward us loyal customers by continuing to charge us $5 more than people who just signed up with them. And now they want to start capping the bandwidth.... Grrrr!!

rlj -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (10/15/2009 9:53:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tacitus The cheaper broadband prices in other countries have been brought about mainly because of tighter regulation of the free market. In Britain, British Telecom -- by far the largest infrastructure provider in the UK -- has been required, by law, to provide access to it's telephone lines (i.e. DSL) at cost (or only very slightly above it) to competing ISPs in order to encourage open competition. My parents now have free nationwide phone service, DSL broadband, and unlimited free phone calls to the USA (i.e. me!), for just over $30/month. I pay double that for broadband and more limited nationwide phone service (and no free transatlantic calls) here in Texas. The result has been thriving ISP business competition where the best providers can made money and the consumer has benefited far more than under the far less regulated free market that exists in the USA. Only after 10 long years of being a local monopoly is Time Warner Austin beginning to feel the pressure of competition and has finally reduced it's broadband rates by $5 -- but only if you call them and demand that they give you the new standard rate. Otherwise they reward us loyal customers by continuing to charge us $5 more than people who just signed up with them. And now they want to start capping the bandwidth.... Grrrr!! Just remember that here in the US we have the best broadband, best providers, best technology, the best you can get in the world. [sm=aside.gif]

risingangel -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (11/7/2009 1:18:16 PM)
Part of the reason Japan is so cheap is that most of the buildings in the big cities are crammed so close together that it doesn't take nearly as much wiring. And most of the people in those cities probably live in apartment buildings. But it is sad that the supposed "greatest country on Earth" is so far behind in areas like this.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Bandwidth too expensive in the U.S (11/8/2009 11:39:55 PM)
quote: One of the nastier legal battles took place in Monticello, Minnesota, where the local telco TDS fought hard (and lost) its battle to stop muni-fiber from showing up. But, now, suddenly TDS is announcing its own fiber broadband, giving people 50 Mbps service for $50/month. What's the likelihood that TDS would have done this if it didn't have competition from muni-fiber? But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber? Now I'm not saying that the government should or should not run broadband, but the point here is that as SOON as competition is introduced these companies are suddenly able to offer a better product at a cheaper price. The problem isn't that costs are too high because people live too far apart or any of the other false statements that telco/cableco companies tell you. The problem is a lack of competition due to government regulation. We need to compel the government to either open up the existing infrastructure to competition or to allow competitors to build new infrastructure. These corporations are perfectly capable of offering a better product at a cheaper price but they keep on lobbying the government not to allow competition because they don't want to lose their monopoly rents.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI