The $200 Billion Broadband Rip-Off 464
Jamie noted that Cringley has a piece about the US Broadband situation. He talks about where we were and where we are: 'not very fast, not very cheap Internet service that is hurting our ability to compete economically with the rest of the world' and about the $200B the phone companies got to make it that way.
Re:Don't blame Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, but it's horribly inefficient for us to build multiple networks. There should be one physical network, and competition should exist on it.
The problem is that in most of the country (Everywhere non-Verizon), this network isn't being built. And in Verizon territory, there is no competition allowed. Worse, in some areas, inferior technology is being installed (FTTN, etc..) that will actually delay the possibility of anything but 7ish Mbit ADSL. Even worse, we paid for the fiber network, but we don't actually have it.
What is needed? We need some politicians with ethics who aren't in the pocket of the telcos to actually stand up and hold them to their promises. Either that, or we need the physical network to be a public utility. The former would be best for everybody, but it hardly seems likely... Everybody up the chain from the local town governments on up to the senate and even the executive branch is used to receiving their cut of what are essentially bribes from last-mile carriers (unscrutinized regressive taxes on citizens, really, funneled through telcos and cable-cos into local treasuries and national campaigns), and nobody is going to give the money back unless the voters hold them accountable. Most of the voters don't even know what's going on.
Re:Broadband in Holland (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
My own feeling is that the very idea of regulated telecommunications is inconsistent with the First Amendment. I don't think it could be any plainer. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the court decision.
any more detail on the $200B figure? (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance, later in TFA Cringley says that a five-year phone rate freeze was part of the deal at one point, then says that rates should have really fallen during this time and he calls this a "rate hike".
So this $200B figure sounds like some mix of a bogus number (a "higher" phone rate that is really constant), some bookkeeping shenanigans (accelerated depreciation accounting), and real cash (direct credits.)
RDS (Score:1, Interesting)
Call me crazy... (Score:1, Interesting)
Old news to revisit, but /. is 10yo on 20070901 (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, that long ago, but do you think any of you younger
Should we ask CmdrTaco and Hemos; When/What/Where are the 10th year celebration' keggers, or is it a BYOB in Death Valley?
I blame convolution... (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I'd rather have two bills - one for the physical layer (cables, swtiches, and maintenance) provided either by the government or pseudo-governmental corporation, and one or more for the data (of any kind - voice, video, internet). By segregating the two, you can allow local issues to be dealt with as a local problem, and offermake up funding for low-density where "the government" feels necessary (rural electric comes to mind as an example, if not the best one). For those afraid of government, realize that most areas run their own water and sewer, and do a fairly good job, on the whole. And I'm not saying it has to be government - a corporation can run the plant (under gov. supervision - any monopoly needs close oversight).
By separating the physical and the data, you can offer _real_ competition by local or national providers. Think of long distance telephone service - it's in a hell of a lot better shape (for the consumers and competitive pricing) than, say, local telephone or cell service (Verizon, anyone?). Most places don't even have the possibility of a competing high speed carrier because the physical plant operators can charge whatever they want for access, and as a result their services will always end up being more competitive.
Power would be nice this way, too. I already have the physical plant portion broken out on my bill with generation costs separate. By prohibiting the physical plant operators from having any financial interest in the service operators, there will be a more level footing - and more opportunity for competition.
Oh, in case you're curious, the incumebents know this, and would lobby to their deaths against any mandated separation.
Re:Umm... have a look at their taxes.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The tax rate percentage is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much money a taxpayes has in his/her pocket after paying taxes, and what he/she can buy with it. In short: purchase power.
I wouldn't mind paying 90% taxes if I lived in a country where my salary was a million USD for the same job I have today.
As it happens, I live in Denmark. Our average taxes are around 46% and on top of that we have a 25% VAT (sales tax). Does that mean I am poor? No! It means my salary and the entire economy around me has been adjusted to that level. My purchasing power is equal to (and in many cases greater than) most other people in other countries with a job just like mine.
And btw... even though we have a social system which gives us free healthcare, free education and better social security that doesn't mean we are a "highly-socialist" country. In fact I think our liberal prime minister would find your comment rather funny.
- Jesper
Re:Umm... have a look at their taxes.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's see... about 24% of my income goes to federal & state (no local) income and payroll taxes... and, my best back-of-the-envelope guess is that I pay another 1%-2% in gas taxes, my car tab, and other user fees. (I own no property.) Yes, I'd happily pay half of my income to live in a country where we really had all of that stuff. Many Americans react just like you did when I say that, because the government is so ineffective here that they can't believe it would actually work. But there are a number of countries where it does, most notably a few of those evil European welfare states.
Obviously, competent management and fiscal discipline are necessary for such a state to succeed. Ultimately, those are political problems and are the responsibility of the people. Ask yourself why certain other countries have them and the U.S. doesn't. I think you will find the answer has to do with how people are educated.
Re:more evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
The original copper network was a private/public compromise built on private property seized by the government
No sir. The original copper was being put in place in the mid 1800's along with the railways. The land was "seized" from the native Americans.
The federal government allowed monopoly control of the copper by one company, as long as it agreed to follow certain rules
Bell was given credit for the phone making The Bell Telephone Company was the only player in the market. The government owned the copper it put in place until the, then, "American Bell Telephone Company" built enough exchanges to receive through government grants the existing copper because uncle sam didn't want to pay for upkeep not to mention it needed private phone system and couldn't do it due to patents:
Until Bell's second patent expired in 1894, only Bell Telephone and its licensees could legally operate telephone systems in the United States http://www.corp.att.com/history/history1.html [att.com]
Up until the 80's the majority of old folks had their money tied up in phone stocks and government savings bonds. The industry was broken up to get that stagnant money back out in the world to pump the U.S. economy back to life.
The reason we don't have good network connectivity is the constant fighting for control of what is unarguably the biggest industry in the U.S. Everything, in one way or another, is dependent on communication. The people in the industry are the second most greedy pieces of sh't on the face of the earth. Absolutely everything they do is for their own benefit. The massive tax cuts they received to "modernize the infrastructure of our nations communications" went directly onto their bottom line. The proposals that Google et. el. are putting together are the only signs of hope the people have to break free from the same ol sh't.
Re:Don't blame Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do the congress critters need to hold the telcos responsible when we the customers can. As you pointed out, we paid for a service that was not delivered. That sounds like a giant class action lawsuit to me. Now if it were an individual person I think that it would qualify as fraud, and that person would face prison, but in this case the criminal is a corporation with corporate personhood. So how do you jail a corporation? Well jail is basically the loss of you freedoms to the state, so that is what we should do here and in other cases of corporate criminal activity, take away control from the those in control and give it to the state for the duration of the sentence. That would mean the stock shares are frozen and cannot vote, the upper management/board of directors is not paid or allowed accept new employment, and a state Warden will run the company with the sole goal of maximizing the public good through the companies line of business, shareholder profits or losses are not considered in state Wardens decision making process, only the maximum quality at best possible cost to the existing customers. Yes the executives and the shareholders will get screwed in this scenario, but they are the ones who's greed and poor decisions lead to the fraud in the first place.
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Interesting)
To put this post back on topic, your question seems to ignore the very real possibility that a person's place of business and place of residence are one and the same. This possibility increases as one moves out into rural areas, which are the least likely to have decent broadband availability.
Re:Broadband in Holland (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds like a good excuse until one realizes that in the WWII the USA's involvement in Europe was far behind that of the Soviets, even ignoring the fact that the British faught a prolonged aerial war to hold Hitler at bay. The majority of the WWII action for the USA was its tangle with Japan, not in Europe. As a matter of fact, a significant portion of the business elites of the USA were sympathetic to Hitler and did brisk business with him, until (and for some even after this point) it became very dangerous for them to do so.
As to Communism, if the Soviets managed to take over Holland (an exceedingly unlikely scenario since all the other countries they took over were in their path to Berlin, at which point the Soviet public had no apetite whatsoever for further warfare after paying such a horrendous price so far, and by the time they did, the Western Europe already had nukes), their empire would have crumbled that much sooner, as its inherent internal deficiencies, accelerated by its being an over-stretched military monstrosity, brought it down, Reagan's hand waving nothwistanding.
And to truly put a lie to all these claims of "protection" of Europe in post WWII era (never you mind that both UK and France are nuclear powers) the USA kept on building its ever-more expensive arsenals and armies long after the Cold War ended, and now it seeks to employ these armies in an effort to brutally impose its will on random resource-rich countries. So much for all the bullshit. After Vietnam and Iraq, attempts at painting the USA as a "protector" of anything but its own elites and profits have become an exercise in pathetically comical futility.
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
A salary of $60k in Iowa is equivalent to $100k in California. $60k/year will buy you a nice family house, decent car, and a easy-going lifestyle. If the national telecom infrastructure was up to date, there would be many jobs that can be done in the middle of Iowa that are now done in California. Alternately, for a bit more than the salary you pay to an Indian programmer (well, a bit more than those who now are demanding more money...), you can get a native English speaker *in a nearby timezone*.
With low-quality or no broadband, you lose this potential workforce.
Or, at least, so goes the theory.
Re:Umm... have a look at their taxes.... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, the U.S. is still the best place to go and start a business, thanks in no small part to their labour mobility (easier to hire and fire).
Re:Broadband in Holland (Score:4, Interesting)
And with the top 2% owning over 50% of all the assets in the USA, you see absolutely nothing wrong with that situation?
The top income brackets in the period I mentioned were 90%. Now they are around 35% or so, not taking into account all the loopholes. Most of the largest US corporations and their billionaire owners pay no taxes whatsoever due to "creative" accounting. Failing that, they move their HQ to Dubai, or some such.
Re:Umm... have a look at their taxes.... (Score:1, Interesting)
24% + 2% !?! Dude, I think you're severely underestimating here
The biggest hidden tax is in payroll and Medicare taxes - it isn't just the 7.65% you see, there's also the 7.65% that your employer sends in. You're really paying the taxes, even though he writes the check.
You didn't mention sales tax, taxes and fees on utilities, phone, etc. And even when renting, you don't really get out of property taxes ... a good size chunk of your rent goes to the taxes.
When I last did this calculation, I came up with 45%. Of course, YMMV.
Re:Umm... have a look at their taxes.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Here in the states, the same thing happens. There are only a couple of differences:
Re:Don't blame Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
In-fact, I'd be willing to wager a bet that a large number of Americans are only paying attention to the debates through shows like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show.
A solution to the problem would be to mandate that all of the networks spend a certain amount of time allowing free and unfettered access to airtime to Presidential Candidates (who have a certain amount of pre-existing support to prevent abuse) (I'm not talking about half-hour slots, but perhaps just time when they would normally air ads), and to make it illegal to spend such outrageous amounts on campaigns.
It's pretty sad when the state of politics in a "democracy" is so fucked up that the only practical solution to putting the government back in the hands of the people is a revolution (which I'm not advocating by the way). As a Canadian, I can say the situation is slightly better, but not much so, up here, so a lot of the same applies (except that we have the British style of government, so the ridiculous campaign frenzy doesn't exist up here).
wireless data networks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:more evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Brewing.
Restauranting.
Just to name two. In 1907, there were a few hundred breweries in the US; after prohibition and into the 50's, there were fewer than 60. Now there are over 1400, not counting house brews, homebrew, and smaller microbrews. In 1980, your options were bud lite or michelob. Now, almost everywhere you go, there are import selections as well as a number of american small brewer options - Sierra Nevada, Blue Moon, Magic Hat, Rolling Rock, Red Dog, etc.
Likewise, in 1907, most people cooked and ate at home 97 times out of 100 or more. Granted, there's a lot of culinary conformity at the exits on the interstates, and there's an Applebees in every large city from here to Houston. But, there's also tons and tons of mom-and-pop restaurants, most ready and willing to give you excellent (or sub-par) food and service - often far more varied than you can get from the commercial conformists. Don't believe me, go to Brooklyn some time and find the Dominos, and compare its volume of business to diFara's on Avenue J. Restaurants are a competitive business - far more so than in 1907, and with far more consumer choice.
~Wx
Re:Umm... have a look at their taxes.... (Score:2, Interesting)
You've neglected to account for sales taxes (local taxation) and property taxes. Property taxes aren't avoided by not owning property. If you rent, I guarantee you pay property taxes. Do you think your landlord pays those out of pocket?
Property tax paid by renters and the employer "contribution" of payroll tax that could have been paid to employees had it not been taken by the government are great examples of hidden taxation. Sales tax is also frequently ignored because it's not accounted for on every check stub. Start tracking every penny you pay the government and you'd end up much closer to 40% or 50% than you think.
Re:Don't blame Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm Canadian too. The NDP defeated the Liberals in Ontario when the Liberals chose the date (Majority Gov't). The Conservatives had a majority govt in Ontario when they were defeated by the current Liberal govt. Trudeau had a majority govt when he lost to Joe Clark who won with a minority govt. Turner lost a majority govt to Mulroney. In Manitoba, the elections swing back and forth about every second or third election. Alberta and Sask are a bit one sided in their elections but every once in a while they switch.
The power to choose the date of the election gives an advantage but not as much of an advantage as most people seem to think. I personally believe that it is better than 1.5 years of campaigning by the candidates as is evident south of the border.
Your comments on the Supreme Court are only starting to come true with the current govt. Prior to the current govt, while the PM did have the power to appt anyone with the basic qualifications to the SC, in practice the PM was expected to confer with a significant number of other bodies including senior judges, the CBA, provincial govts for the region affected, etc. There is a strong tradition of Judicial Independence. The current PC govt has changed that giving a house committee input as well, which is a big mistake (IMHO) because it politicizes the process.
I personally believe that an elected Senate would be one of the worst things that could be done in Canadian politics. I would support an abolishment of the Senate, but not an elected body. As you pointed out, we are not a check and balance system with a separate executive and attempting to introduce one will have very unexpected consequences.
The real power in Canadian politics has always been the civil service, in the finest(not!) tradition of the British System. Yes Minister! had a significant amount of truth in the Canadian system. Trudeau attempted to offset the power of the Deputy Ministers by strengthening the PMO (he was a believer of counterweights, a fine grained check/balance system) and look where that put us now.