Why You Don't Have a Broadband Connection 689
blandthrax writes "I ran across this article on The New Republic. The long and short of it indicates that the reason why almost 90% of Americans don't have a broadband connection is because current broadband providers are preventing other ISP's from entering the fray. The result: higher prices for broadband connections and a general lack of innovation. An interesting read full of good details. And, as usual, we learn that countries such as Japan and Korea are far ahead of the US in terms of innovation and technological saturation."
Hassles... (Score:3, Informative)
We work at a small ISP that used to (try) to offer DSL service, it worked for a few buisness clients, but the problem is, we are in california, and our telco is SBC/Pacbell/Devil-Company. It was so much of a hassle to deal with, and also too expensive. I don't think we made much profit on that deal at all...pacbell were whores. We ditched that pretty quick.
Re:Hassles... (Score:2, Interesting)
regulation... (Score:2)
nah.
never happen.
Re:regulation... (Score:2)
Re:regulation... (Score:2, Flamebait)
This contributed to the demise of Sprint's ION ... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, when I called the telco the next day to inquire about their own DSL service, the "conditioned line" could be installed the next day....
In the end, it did take 3 weeks to get ION installed, and it was far better service than anything that DSL could provide.... I really miss ION
Earthlink in Seattle (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
free market, my ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like I'm always saying. The free market only benefits the consumer as long as laws and senators are not for sale. Telecom laws in this country are being handed out like utility contracts in some single-resource dependant dictatorship.
When is the US going to get it's head out of it's sphincter and realize that telecom is a public resource. Or that public resources are to be protected for use, not auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Invalid Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
You can promote socialism all you want, but you cannot discredit an economic system that doesn't exist.
free-market.net [free-market.net]
Re:Invalid Argument (Score:2)
Well actually, no. Just because the market is free doesn't mean you are. I actually support income being taxed for the protection of public resources. I just think it should apply equally to corporations and the publice resources should actually be protected instead of sold to corporations that didn't pay for them in the first place.
Re:Invalid Argument (Now OT) (Score:2)
Okay, you've piqued my curiosity now. The U.S. isn't a pure free market economy -- I can accept that. So are there any examples of a pure free market economy in the world? If not, which countries qualify as the closest to pure?
How would you respond to the suggestion that no pure free market economies exist for the same reason that no pure communist states exist? That is, perhaps society demands some degree of compromise between these two ideals, and where countries differ is in the blend?
Re:Invalid Argument (Now OT) (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the "Economic Freedom of the World" [cato.org] report from the Cato Institute, the most free economies are Hong Kong and Singapore, followed by the USA, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Switzerland.
It should be noted, of course, that economic freedom is different depending on where you are. For example, the UK has introduced private alternatives to their old-age pension system, whereas meddling with Social Security in the US is still the "third rail" of politics.
Western European countries generally ranked high in all areas except size of government and labor market regulation.
Life expectancy is higher among more economically free nations, and they also enjoy higher levels of income and faster levels of growth. The poorest 10% earn much more income in economically free countries.
The bottom five nations in terms of economic freedom were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Guinea-Bissau, Algeria and Ukraine. However North Korea and Cuba were not included in the report since their data is not available.
Re:Invalid Argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Same argument that communists made about the Soviet Union; "it's not communist so it doesn't invalidate communism". I've even heard it made in defense of fascism relative to Nazism -- "The Nazis weren't true to fascism, therefore criticisms of Nazism don't apply to fascism per se."
The crux of this argument is that there is a "pure" form of the given socio-political philosophy that can be established and that the established socio-political arrangement is such a deviation from the pure form that criticism of the philosophy based on the established form is thus invalid.
I think the weakness of such a line of reasoning is the presumption that a pure form of anything can be established and stay pure. Invariably all attempts at establishing a pure form of any theoretical political philosophy get distorted by the previous hegemonic philosophy and the unseen complications of a pure philosophy.
Certainly robber barons, monopolies, abhorrent working conditions and dismal consumer protections were the results of the more pure capitalism of the US 19th century. Arguments by freemarketeers that these things will be self-correcting seem to ignore why they weren't in the past or to discredit the corrections applied at the governmental level (ie, no child labor, you can't sell putrid meat, etc).
Re:free market, my ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as citizens realize that being able to campaign for office has nothing to do with an elected representative's ability (or desire) to address the needs of his/her electorate.
Re:free market, my ass. (Score:2)
Re:free market, my ass. (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people believe that these are better run in the hands of a government(or with straitjacket regulations on a private company) because these tend to be natural monopolies because of the massive up front costs to build a network, and the almost nonexistent utility a second network provides to the consumer. So it's better, then, for the utility to be at least somewhat under control by the government than an abusive monopoly.
That's the category into which telecom falls.(as you've already mentioned, wireless doesn't)
Re:free market, my ass. (Score:3, Informative)
No, but the streets and such that they need to block off and dig up to lay the cable are. Since the government that owns the streets in question probably doesn't want to have lots of companies taking turns digging up the streets to run cables, they pick one and give them a monopoly...
Therein lies the problem - at that point, the public (by proxy through their government) has given away a resource (path/land to lay cable and permission to block traffic temporarily in the process) to a single company. Other companies might be willing to compete, but are not allowed to lay their own cables.
Laws requiring the granted monopoly to share their cables in exchange for the use of public space to run their cables is intended as a sort of "patch" to make up for this. It seems kind of kludgy to me, but I can't think of a better solution in the circumstances. This is why it upsets people when the granted monopoly is allowed to exclude competitors.
As a community college professor.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a community college professor.. (Score:2)
I live in Canada which has higher broadband usage than the US. But that's because a our population is largely concentrated in a couple of small areas: the 'Golden Horseshoe' around Lake Ontario (Toronto) and the British Columbian lower mainland (Vancouver). By providing saturation coverage just to those relatively small areas, DSL and cable providers are offering services to over a third of Canada's population.
Another common bad comparison is with cell phone technology, where Europe and Asia have much wider usage, resulting in more advanced technology. The reality of the situation is not that North America has been neglecting this area of technology, but simply we don't have the same kind of demand.
We prefer to use personal computers than cell phones. Teenagers don't pay money to 'text' each other on there cell phones here, instead they use ICQ and MSN for free. As a result it makes no sense for our telecoms to dump countless billions into expanding our cellular infrastructure and improving our cell phones' data capabilities. They wouldn't get the same kind of returns as NTT Docomo and Vodafone do overseas.
Re:As a community college professor.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As a community college professor.. (Score:4)
We're a much larger coutry with a much smaller population, yet we have a much higher high-speed base.
Plus, what we get is cheaper! My $CDN cost for adsl is less than what I've seen on
If Size Matters . . . (Score:2)
> to attain in a relatively small country such as Japan or South Korea, south Korea being about the same size as Indiana
> and the total sum of Japanese islands being comperable in area to California. Got the smaller land mass?
Then what are the figures for parts of the US that are densely populated, relatively affluent, & under the same local government? If this lack of density were the sole cause, I'd expect the states of Rhode Island, Connecticut, & Delaware all to be either at the top or near the top in terms of saturation.
(I'll concede that there are probably enough low-income folks in Delaware & Rhode Island to make keep them from the ideal of a broadband line for every household, but last I checked Connecticut had one of the highest average incomes in the US. Anyone who wants a high-speed internet connection in that state should have one, unless the market wass hamstrung by hide-bound ILECs.)
Geoff
Or... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is because most people do not need broadband and cannot justify the increased cost just for the online activities listed above. That is why by 2005 broadband will [instat.com] will just be catching up to dial-up [internet.com] percentage wise for users of the internet..
I have a broadband connection (Score:3, Interesting)
Why I don't have broadband... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said a month to month contract (and no install fees) for a reasonably priced Unix and Unix like friendly provider with a self install kit in NoVA and I'd probably grab it.
it all stems from standard business practices (Score:2, Insightful)
When I or friends have tried to obtain broadband service from companies other than these, we come up against a brick wall: although smaller companies have the ability to provide dsl service in our area, they actually have to lease the lines from these LECs (verizon and southwestern bell).
It took weeks sometimes just for the LEC to have the access on their end set up, and any time there was a technical problem, we'd have to speak to both sides, where each party generally needed cooperation and information from the other. Needless to say, this was not something that was easy to get accomplished and it totally ruined my (and others) experience. On monday, I'm ordering broadband at my new residence, and guess what? I'm going to be getting it through one of the big boys. The reason, the hassle of trying to get service through two companies that are in competition with eachother is too painstaking.
Time Warner (Score:2)
Re:Time Warner (Score:2)
Now your making sense. (Score:2)
If the demand wasn't there we would all still be using 9600 baud modems, or perhaps 300 baud C-64 modems. But, instead we have tried to squeeze out every possible bit per second from our modems and it is still inadequate.
And, in case you didn't know, this doesn't change with today's broadband. Almost anyone who has used broadband (xDSL/Cable) for any period of time will tell you that the speed is the best available and that it is much better than dial-up but, they are still wanting or needing more speed. I assure you that if everyone could get a T-3 (45Mbps) for a decent cost, everyone would have one and still complain that it wasn't quite enough for them. The demand is there!
Re:Now you're making sense. (Score:2)
3 megabits/sec (~300kbytes/sec) is slow.
If I get transfer speeds like that from sites I'm downloading from at work, I look for the file elsewhere and see if I can get it quicker. Most of the time, this is a whole linux distribution download, where 300k/sec is awfully slow for 1-2 gigs of ISO images.
That's riiiight... (Score:2)
Why? Well, it seems that a couple of months ago, the FCC determined that the Communications Act of 1996 doesn't apply to the Internet. Remember all that bullshit about Clinton using the 'net to digitally 'sign' said act? Remember him saying how this act was going to revolutionize the 'net? Not any more. It turns out that the act was just a big land grab for companies like Clear Channel Communications and CBS.
Re:That's riiiight... (Score:2)
Then explain this [iwancio2002.org].
"Remember all that bullshit about Clinton using the 'net to digitally 'sign' said act?"
Somehow I recall the whole digital signature law being passed well after this one...
"It turns out that the act was just a big land grab for companies like Clear Channel Communications and CBS."
Baby Bells against competition? (Score:2)
What I think we should see more of is alternative delivery methods explored. Sprint PCS just deployed their new wireless network, I'd think wireless access would sidestep the Baby Bells entirely. Even better are satellite internet options (no new ground infrastructure required).
But instead we have... well... you get the idea.
Japan : common misconception (Score:2, Informative)
The computer lab in the school where I taught from 1996 - 1998 had 286 machines running Windows 3.1 They kept applications on floppies. The machines weren't networked at all. Schools started getting internet access after I left. The teachers were absolutely CLUELESS re computers. Most of them used wapuros (word processors) or nothing at all.
As the article mentions regarding BB: the NTT monopoly held Japan back for a long time, but BB is finally catching on.
There are lots of neat GADGETS in Japan, but proliferation of computing is slower than in the US. In the "real world," not standing Akihabara (an electronics district) or at Shinjuku station (with a video screen on the entire side of a building) Japan seems much less technologically advanced.
No Content (Score:2)
The reason for this 'more infrastructure than content' phenomona, I believe, is that the telecoms overestimated how willing the entertainment industry (@see MPAA and RIAA memebers) would be to move their content to digital formats. For example, if all the major record labels all had their entire libraries online, available for purchace and download in a fair-use friendly format, then the demand for broadband would be much higher. If you could buy, download and burn DVD's over the web, people would probably be complaining that current broadband isn't fast enough and might be willing to pay more for access to all those fiber networks out there, which currently, are sitting dark.
Content is not King (Score:2)
What a crock of shit. (Score:2, Insightful)
In February, Powell, who enjoys a three-to-one majority on the FCC, announced a "proposed rulemaking" on "telephone-based broadband." According to the FCC's decision, telephone-based broadband services are "information services, with a telecommunications component, rather than telecommunications services." The distinction sounds semantic, but it has profound legal implications. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, telecommunications services have to grant open access to their facilities, but information services do not. By defining telephone broadband as an information service--a designation originally intended for content providers like LexisNexis--the FCC removed it from regulation, allowing the Baby Bells to ban other ISPs from transmitting over their lines.
What he's saying here is that the FCC can't regulate DSL because DSL is a service which provides content like AOL, MSN, Compuserve, etc. So if you have a DSL line, and you're reading Slashdot, the chairmain of the FCC believes that your DSL provider brought you this story.
Mike Powell is a damned industry whore, and a disgrace to his father.
Re:What a crock of shit. (Score:4, Informative)
From FAIR.org:
Colin made $35M from his stock sales after the merger that his son approved. I wonder if the Powell's had a party when the "death" tax was repealed?
i'm just too cheap to get broadband (Score:2)
To get Bellsouth DSL for $40/mo (might be $50/mo now...been a while since i last checked), they say I need to get their Bellsouth Complete Choice plan, which would add an extra $5-10 or something like that to my phone bill for services that I would never use. Otherwise, their DSL is $50/mo.
Comcast on the other hand, wants $50/mo for cablemodem, plus modem rental charge (I heard they want to charge more if you buy your own cablemodem).
so i just stick with my earthlink dialup for $22/mo and do all my broadband stuff at work. sneakernetting large downloads from work to home is no big deal.
I don't know about US (Score:2)
It's because we always think that networks system is like sewage system which can be owned by private sectors but must be regulated by Government for the best of the public interest.
I thought US has similar laws on fair competitions?
Broadband = useless for most people (Score:2, Interesting)
Such ads usually concentrate on some particular aspect of broadband that makes it superior to dial-up. For instance:
1) No waiting to connect!
Now seriously, of ALL the reasons to go to broadband, this is the most idiotic. Since most people aren't running servers on their home systems , the connect time isn't that big of a deal. I have also seen DSL systems that still require you to actively connect to the network, and it takes about the same time as a 56K handshake.
2) I get my email in seconds!
I guess this is just because we get so much spam or something. I rarely receive an email that huge attachments.
3) Watching streaming video
I have yet to see streaming video on the web worth watching. Maybe I'm not looking in the right spot or something, but until I can watch DVD quality movies online, I don't care about streaming video.
4) Listening to streaming audio
This is much more plausible, but probably doesn't justify the much higher cost of broadband vs. dial-up. I do like listening to streaming audio.
Dial-up is more practical simply because it is far less expensive, and is more than adequate for most users.
Now, when it comes to:
5) Getting the latest linux distros that are upwards of 400 MB and...
6) Downloading tons of pr0n
well, broadband just can't be beat.
Acceptable Use Restrictions (Score:2)
My other problem is that I'm in a DSL dead-zone and the only one even willing to try and offer me service is Ameritech, which has a similar draconian Acceptable Use policy, and they use PPPoE.
My only hope is that I can get a wireless broadband connection with a local ISP (who has a decent Acceptable use policy and allows servers... their only restriction is that you don't use the connection for illegal activity), but currently my house is situated too high to have a good line of sight to their antenna. The only way to get to it is to have a larger antenna then my community allows (I'm petitioning the Building Dept for an exemption). Hopefully they'll agree and the antenna won't make my neighbors nervous about "death rays" as the Building Dept Manager put it.
Most normals don't want broadband (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it: People like us are not normal at all. Most people dial in, check email, buy a CD from Amazon on occasion, and that's about it. I've told several people that DSL or cable is easily 50x faster than dialup. They look at me like I'm crazy, "Now why would I need to go so much faster? And doesn't that cost a whole lot?" It's like, you just want to bang your head against the wall. But when you consider how much TV normal people watch, it makes perfect sense. They don't really want unfiltered knowledge. They can't handle it. Why go looking for information when all most people want is the pap and pizzle the spews from the their TVs?
Re:Most normals don't want broadband (Score:4, Insightful)
Normals will 'need' broadband when it becomes cost competative to dialup. (Its only a few bucks more here in Toronto, Ontario.) Its not about 'need', its about superior technology at the same price. Thats when it becomes a no brainer for the normals, and its a shame the US market hasn't been able to achieve this cost competative point with broadband yet. You wouldn't turn down broadband if it were available for the same price as dialup now, would you?
Re:Most normals don't want broadband (Score:2)
If those people ever paid attention to the patches that they should be applying to their windows boxes, they would have a different attitude.
I have 5 machines shared over a 28.8 at home (which is the best connection available here in my area of rural Canada) and the windowsupdate is useless because everything so huge and I don't want to download it for each windows install. So therefore I get the 'prepackaged install' which can be downloaded and run later.
But of course the prepackaged installs and some of the linux security updates are freakin' HUGE! (Mandrake 8.2 wanted to download ~400 mb immediately after I installed it.) The problem is that it's very hard to get secure in a reasonable amount of time on dialup. I'm STILL downloading W2ksp3 (*) a few MB each day. There are still tons of remote root exploits I have to patch in my linux install. But I CAN'T! Thank you, dialup.
(*) Please no lectures about the sp3 EULA. I know.
Re:Most normals don't want broadband (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, in Canada, fast download speeds are paying off. One of the largest media companies (CTV) has a cable news channel, but if you have broadband, you can watch the day's stories on-demand on their website. The 'tickers' and so on, like CNN also has, displaying the weather and whatnot are similarly interactive, letting you jump straight to the day's business news or weather reports.
Not to mention that you can listen to the CBC's radio programs (mmm, culture) via the internet.
All in all, broadband is taking off like a rocket here, but these two reasons (always-on and interactive media) are the keys.
Me, I just want to idle on IRC....
--Dan
It's all about the Benjamins. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your average consumer doesn't want to cough up fifty bucks for broadband. I'm not an expert on bandwidth costs, but I'm willing to bet that they'd find bandwidth a lot less expensive if they ever really had to compete for customers.
My guess is that in a few years, it's theoretically possible for people to have cable modem speeds for $20 a month -- what the average person is willing to pay. The problem is, with broadband costs still ridiculously high, there's little incentive for average folks to jump on the (brace yourself for a bad pun) "band" wagon. Hell, I don't like paying fifty a month for my cable modem.
Verizon wears the pants in my neighborhood (Score:5, Interesting)
I found out the real answer later. When the rep was checking my phone line to see if it was DSL capable, he implied that if my line hadn't been DSL-capable (if it was on older wires) then it could have been fixed, by speaking to a local Verizon phone line technician, usually by catching him on the job and asking him politely to hook it up (or possibly by requesting a service job through my local Verizon office, although they wouldn't be obligated to do it).
This gives Verizon a completely unfair advantage, since no other company is authorized to maintain the phone lines in the area. DirectTV DSL can't sell to non-DSL enabled customers, but Verizon DSL can since they can enable just about anyone who asks!
Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow, you're naive (Score:2)
Re:Wow, you're naive (Score:2)
As a European I hope I can give an unbiased viewpoint to your USA/Japan technology mud-slinging match. Here's my opinion:
All the cool toys and gadgets seem to come out of Japan. Americans just copy them. But Americans make fancier bombs and guns and stuff to kill people than Japan.
I hope that helps.
I don't have broadband - and I hate it- because (Score:2)
Namely Aurora, Illinois.
I'm close enough to the Central Office (12,000 ft) but Ameritech/SBC claims their CO is full (which I think may be true).
No problem, they are working on project pronto which is supposed to offer DSL for all the suburban neighborhoods. Notwithstanding the legal issues, they started rolling out project pronto in Illinois this spring. Of course it's completely half-assed and there are no rhyme and reasons to the way they are doing it.
So they keep calling me to tell me that DSL is finally available. They send me a DSL modem and they tell me, oups sorry, not yet for you and I send it back.
I played that game 3 times. Now I stopped.
So technically the remote terminal (the project pronto Fiber to the neighborhood part) is supposed to be up in October for us, but I heard that one before.
So I left Ameritech/SBC alltogether and went with another local phone provider (cheaper).
As for Cable, it is still not available, as ATT inherited some really crappy and old system from the previous cable company and they haven't had a compelling reason to upgrade yet. (they have the monopoly). So there again, I refuse to use ATT and I have satellite (much better).
Of course satellite Internet sucks (pings terrible, no good for VPN) and will probably go bankrupt soon.
There are some wireless options but it's all mom and pop and most of them have been known to get our money and run with it.
Plus they can't subsidize the cost of HW as much as DSL and cable so the upfront cost is too high for me ($250 to $500) and the monthly cost is also too high.
So in the mean time, I just pay $5.95 for cheap dial up access.
I still think it's ridiculous. I live in America!
People in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, France
The perverse nature of the capitalist system:
No money (not enough) for the big guys and they won't get in
Sad sad
I think my situation sums up the situation of many many millions of American.
Just my 2 cents...
Not sure if declaring data traffic as such is bad (Score:2)
However, I seem to recall when that happened that people generallly took it to be a good thing - are there not unpleasant implications to declaring data traffic as "telecommunications" that would hutr us more? I can't remember the full implications of each type of service.
Pricing, telecommuting & economic issues (Score:3, Interesting)
However, prior to ADSL, my dial-up charges were on the order of about $250/month. The North American all-you-can-eat dial-up courtesy of no-charge local calls would have delayed my adoption to xDSL for a very long time. The move was made because the pricing was so much more attractive.
Of course, now things are different. Telecommuting and doing the VPN into the office network wouldn't be possible with dial-up, so when the company asked me if I wanted to work at home, I was suddenly VERY pleased to already have ADSL installed.
Hmmm. It occurs to me that some of you folks stateside might have a good argument to present to your local representatives. Telecommuting really does require broadband. If the broadband providers are forcibly slowing the adoption of broadband in wide areas, it's plausible that there are negative economic consequences coming about as a result.
Scary. (Score:5, Informative)
I found that quote very disturbing. Fortunately, I read more on the subject and found out that Bristol won a lawsuit that overturned the decision. [virginiabusiness.com] The state is appealing the decision (imagine that), but for now, Bristol has set a precedent that says that municipalities can set up their own broadband service. It's insane that Bristol even has to go to these lengths, but at least they won.
Usual for Virginia (Score:3, Informative)
One county near to me watched its revenues crash to the point where they couldn't pay teachers or policemen. So they voted to reinstitute a car tax to keep them solvent. Gilmore went out of his way to try and get rid of the county government. But hey- he cut taxes! What more do you need?
*You know you're a moron when the RNC fires your ass after only a year. Took him almost nine months to find another job.
Synopsis (Score:4, Informative)
To synopsize the synopsis, we've screwed regarding broadband. But then, anyone that's been keeping even a casual eye on broadband for the past couple of years already knew that. The Baby Bell shutout this year was just the last nail in the coffin.
No broadband -- In Northern Virginia! (Score:2)
Rumour is, eastern Loudoun was a failed experiment in "fibre to the curb" a few years back. There's more fiber out here than in a Metamucil factory. Thus -- no DSL.
"Fine," you say, "what about cable?"
Well, we're in a real jiffy of a situation [adelphia.net] in that aspect too. As if the fact that we've got Adelphia out here isn't bad enough, the bit of broadband roll-out that they are doing is going west-to-east -- leaving the areas with the highest population densities out in the cold.
Finally, since you likely live in a TH/Condo out here -- myself included -- unless you have access to southern skies, you have no satellite options.
A while back, I wrote a letter [wiw.org] to my local Representative about the fact that they lured all the high-tech companies out here w/o having the infrastructure in place for high-tech workers. His reponse [wiw.org] was typically clueless.
Verizon themselves also recieved an angry letter [wiw.org] from me, very recently, as they incessantly flood my mailbox with DSL ads, despite the fact that I can't get it.
Bitter? No, not at all...
Hollings (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we need more legislation like the CBDTPA! Why, if we didn't pass it, then we wouldn't be promoting Consumer Broadband! We need the Hollywood studios to put out high-quality crap^H^H^Hcontent so that suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers can get broadband from our greedy^H^H^H^H^H^Hgreat telecoms!
</SARCASM>
size does matter (Score:2)
How many people in the US can say they don't have cable TV? DSL is dependent on short range transmission, satellite has huge lag.
There are problems... we have to come up with the fixes...
Re:size does matter (Score:2)
Okay okay, I'm done ranting. All the anti-american comments I've read here in the last few weeks have caused me to need to vent.
Getting back on topic: There are a few things to consider:
1.) America's huge, getting broadband to every home is a huge challenge. It'll only happen when there's economic benefit to it. Nobody's going to run cable to my Grandma in Hillbilly Hills Missouriif she's not willing to pay enough to make it profitable to them.
2.) Alot of people have discovered that broadband is a luxury, not a necessity.
3.) The Internet needs to be cheaper, not for the consumer but for the companies providing it. If they're metering people to pinch pennies, then the technology needs to improve so that it's not so costly. Call the Cable/DSL providers selfish if you like, but you CAN get a telephone to every home in America.
4.) Make broadband internet more attractive: Personally, I think ISP's like ATT Broadband should stream some of their cable content to their customers. AT&T has a nice little network there, they could drop on-demand episodes of MST3k or something like that to their customers without having to actually go out to the net itself. (Meaning: it's cheap) I'd be willing to pay extra $$ a month for a service like that if the content's interesting. ISPs do a terrible job of upsells.
Whatcha think, sirs?
FINALLY (Score:2)
As a side note, I defy anyone out there to give me a single good reason to buy a $70.00/month broadband connection (the cheapest that's available out here in the boonies). For what? Download songs? I can do that on a dialup. Download movies? I can pay less per month and get them on DVD. None of my favorite sites require broadband.
So what's the point? I can think of a hell of a lot more things to do with that money...
One of the reasons (Score:2)
I'm guessing one of the reasons 90% of Americans don't have a broadband connection is because a huge percent of them don't want broadband.
Broadband situation - a UK perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather than the 12 month contract, leased modems, astronomical prices and company monopolies, a new method has emerges that seems to be working. Approximately 40 to 70% [e-envoy.gov.uk] of UK exchanges are dsl capable now, dependign on how far along you think they are. Oftel (the UK telecoms regulator) ruled that BT was obligated to allow other ISPs to offer dsl over BT's existing phone lines with no punitive charges in order to aid competition.
As a result of that, I have a dsl service (640k down, 256-300k up) that costs me $35 (equiv) a month with no 12 month contract. The only outage I had was when lightning struck my house and cut the phone off (hardly the ISP's fault!) and I own all the hardware at my end.
You buy a small dsl splitter from your ISP (or an online retailer) that you plug into your existing phone socket allowing you to connect your phone and modem. This way, no engineer needs to call round and install any hardware. The setup is a breeze, and I can have a static ip and run my own servers for a small fee if I need that capability.
The other option is to get your broadband with cable TV. NTL offers cable internet with their cable TV service. The modem is built into all of their set top boxes, so if you want to use the service, all you need is an ethernet cable from your tv box to your PC and a phonecall to them to get set up.
I think the driving force for this is the way the phone system works here. Local calls are not free, so dialup access is either through an ISP that offers a toll free number (AOL, Compuserve etc) which are expensive or an ISP that offers free use, but with a normal local call rate number, costing you 2p per minute off peak, and 3.5p per minute on peak.
For the amount of time I spend on the net daily, I'd easily rack up the same cost in phonecalls as I'm paying for my broadband access, except at dialup speed. No contest.
Japan and Korea less rural (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Japan and Korea less rural (Score:5, Insightful)
So the argument that "The US is full of big empty spaces and would better compared to Russia or China as far as how many people are connected" is moot since it could be compared to Canada and still be a disgrace to free enterprise. It is a good speculation, though: Korea and Japan do have the benefit of greater density. With the absence of Canada (and Sweden, I might add), the influence of population density might be a more reputable argument for the dearth of US broadband services. But I find it highly suspect to call 'geographic area' a significant factor in broadband rollout in lieu of the successful distribution of broadband in Canada.
More likely, I would speculate, is the presence of public and regulated telecoms in Canada (Bell & subsiduaries) and Japan (Nippon Telegraph & Telecom).
I am not sure why you listed Korea for DSL rollout; last I heard, the North was ignoring us, and the South was very rural except for Seoul and a few other cities. Any Koreans available to clarify that?
Broadband growing about as fast as can be expected (Score:2)
68% of US residences can get high-speed Internet access, but only about 13% do. That's about typical penetration for a luxury good.
Where's the problem?
Because of the crooks at Adelphia! (Score:2)
What is the difference in Japan? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yahoo!/Softbank had the best offering: 12Mbps DSL for ~ US$19/month!!! This would be amazing in the U.S., but factor in that Tokyo is a ridiculously expensive city, and it's even more amazing. A cappucino in my mid-range business hotel costs ~ $6.
What do we need to do for that kind of service here? I am paying over 3x that much, for a 1.5Mbps DSL service.
Japan (and Korea) ahead? (Score:2, Interesting)
For more info on Japan and NTT, look for Tim Clark's "Japan Internet Report".
An example of the "Brass Handrail" rates (Score:5, Interesting)
At the same time, a coworker up the road from me in Daly City had a 1.5/784k ADSL for $69.00/mo.
I resigned and relocated to Westerly, RI and Cox Cable was my only choice. I now pay $109.00/mo. for 256/256 with 1 static address. The service is absolutely slush (and I'm on a "Business" class connection, no blocked ports, separate non-residential subnet, etc.). Cox has now started capping people below their subscribed bandwidth, and has begun to shut people out of their own cable modems, so you can't get traffic statistics from the modem any longer... even if you own the equipment!
The nearest DSL around here is from ChoiceOne, and it's 2x the price for 128k SDSL. I'm 2,000 feet from the CO. 1.5m SDSL from ChoiceOne here is $499.00/mo. That's almost what it would cost me to get a T1 dragged into my house.
That same friend recently moved from Daly City to Fremont, and now pays $79.00/mo. for his 1.5/768k DSL line and he also has a cable line, which he pays $29.00/mo. for. He's getting two broadband connections at more than 10x my speeds, for less than I pay for one cable connection, per month.
Broadband pricing varies WILDLY from location to location, even a few miles apart, from the same providers and CO.
And for those who don't know what the "Brass Rail" pricing is, "..just firmly grasp this brass rail on the front of my desk as I step behind you for a moment.." -Broadband Provider
Something just struck me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Broadband is just one example where the USA lags behind other parts of the first world. Mobile telephones is another where the Euros and Japanese seem to be in the lead. With technologies such as Digital Cameras, Camcorders, DVD etc. Japan seems to be clearly in the lead. The XBox is trying to catch up with the Japanese PlayStation and Gamecube. With cars, it seems that the Germans increasingly have the lead.
Thinking through all the technology I have, hardly any of it is American. My laptop is Sony. My mobile phone is Ericcson. My car is German. My watch is Swiss. My DVD, television, Playstation, PDA etc. are all Japanese. My building architechture is European. About the only American technology I have is a HP printer.
The funny thing is that this is probably going to provoke a load of responses from Americans saying what bullshit it is to suggest that the USA does not lead the world in technology and it will probably get modded down to -1. Go on then. Whatever.
Yeah, and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact is (speaking as an American if it isn't already obvious), the US is the leader in technological development, not always, however, in its application into the market at large. I think Japan has everybody beat in that arena...
Different theory (Score:2)
As to the "And, as usual, we learn that countries such as Japan and Korea are far ahead of the US in terms of innovation and technological saturation." bit, Gee... no biased there, huh? Granted, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in their workforce and schools as well, in addition to the huge number of unreported rape cases, but hey, they are saturated with innovative technology... As usual. It's not nessisarily the topic, I realize, but loaded comments like that so irk me.
San Francisco status (Score:3, Informative)
The cost, per month, is $50, from PacBell. Of this, $40 is the rental fee to use the same line they had already installed for my phone. Due to government regulation, anyone can be my ISP, as long as they pay PacBell $40 per month to rent the line. This process effectively killed all competition, since the ISP margin is razor-thin, whereas PacBell is raking it in. Now, the ADSL works fine, outages are rare, and service is pretty good (excepting the slow time to get connected after ordering). But if the line rental were $10/month (or even $20/month - about what local phone service costs), I would have something that approached the value I receive. Remember - this uses the SAME LINE that my phone uses.
Recently I visited Japan. The hotel had free high speed access with DHCP. This wasn't even a costly hotel. It is seemingly ubiquitous there. And the blame in the US is a complete lack of appropriate government regulation on the people who own the lines.
The funny thing is, I signed up for DSL 3 years ago, and got a static IP address. Recently I moved, and now I have to use PPPoE - for the same price. That is right, after three years, they offer me worse DSL service for the same price. Something is rotten in Denmark.
It seems I'm a troll... (Score:2)
It has been pointed out in previous commentaries that the main reason why many other countries can achieve a higher amount of technical sophistication is the cost of roll-out.
Japan is a lot smaller than the US. They can deploy new technologies with the risk [cost] of failure a great deal lower. In addition to that, US consumers don't often pay the prices that the Japanese routinely pay.
History has shown, however, that companies in the US have to be forced into compliance and into change very often. For example, the mandate of touch tone service... the utility commissons of various states had to insist they upgrade their equipment.
Broadband is another matter since it's not yet seen as a "utility" as I consider it to be. Soon enough it will be I think... give it about 5 years.
Price isn't the only problem. (Score:2)
Someone FINALLY understands!!! (Score:2, Informative)
my experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Aside from the gratuitous and annoying bashing of Republicans, it was an interesting article. However, it missed the real reason that broadband is such a pain in the ass.
About 4 years ago, I got a cable modem from Marcus, our local cable provider. The infrastructure was designed so that few homes would share a line, and the speeds were estimated to max out at 6Mbit/6Mbit. There was no cap on bandwidth. There was no hassle about servers. I had 5 static IPs for $45 or so per month. I did not get any cable TV service. The provider was @Home, but I ignored them. Marcus' tech support was clueful and useful, the few times I had to call them. Uptime was excellent.
Charter bought out Marcus about 2 years ago, I think. The first thing that happened was that the prices started rising (to about $55 per month). Then the bandwidth got capped at 3Mbit/512Kbit. Then they hassled me about the server. Then the uptime started getting a little iffy. Then they required that I have basic cable service in order to get the cable modem, split the fees, and ended up charging another $5 per month net. Then they tried to rent me the cable modem I owned (that failed when I threatened them). On top of all of this, their technical support was miserably uninformed and useless.
When @Home died, I lost the ability to get static IPs (DHCP only) and the price was going to go up. Despite my $200 investment in a cable modem, I switched to DSL from Verizon. The cost was about $55 per month, the data rates were OK, but they set me up on the wrong service plan. I was unable to get static IPs, and to switch from the (wrongly-provisioned) home service to the business service (complete with IPs) would not only take 3 weeks, with all of the coordinating done by me (even though Verizon owned both DSL services, the modem, the phone line and so forth), but it also cost me another $30 per month to switch over, and I'd have to send back my DSL modem and get another one! On top of that, their uptime was not good, and their tech support was clueless. (Once, I called them to let them know that their nameservers were down. The tech support person told me it was not them, it was me, and that I would have to fix my problem. Note, I was on the DHCP only service, and was using their nameservers, etc., with nothing on my end but clients. I asked the tech to go check, and he came back with (I kid not!) "I can't check, because the network is down.")
I decided to get Earthlink's DSL, because I could get a static plus several dynamic addresses for $65 per month without any hassle about servers, and with better bandwidth, and because the sales guys appear clued in. I didn't want to wait weeks without service, so I reattached my cable modem and got it turned on for the interim period. I was told that for $45 or so per month, I could get 5 dynamic IP addresses. (Bandwidth now 384Kbit/128Kbit!!! and no possibility of static IPs.) When it was hooked up, I could only get three. I called tech support, and was told I was on the wrong package. I should only have one. Tappity, tappity, voila! Two of my computers stopped working. Call to sales got my package upgraded to one that "supports home networking" for another $10 per month. Still no additional addresses. Call to tech support informs me that while my package supports home networking, I had not purchased any additional addresses. Call to sales gets me 4 additional dynamic addresses for $7 per month each, total now up to $85 or so. I can get 3 addresses. When I bring my laptop home from work to use the VPN, I have to unplug the cable modem, turn off all of the machines, plug in the cable modem, and turn on the machines in the order that I want them connected to the network. Usually, I can get three, and sometimes four, to work at one time. I have stopped calling customer service or tech support, because they don't want to help me very much, and appear unable to help if they wanted to. I am expecting the Earthlink service to be working any day now, so I can shut off the Charter crap.
In the end, bad customer service, high prices and terrible difficulty just making things work will drive me off of traditional broadband. I am looking very seriously at moving to a community that has broadband installed throughout and run by the homeowners' association (they are building a number of these in my region now) rather than put up with the hassle of dealing with any of these companies. Maybe Earthlink will save me (I've heard good things) or maybe I'll move.
Don't move just to get broadband. Get T1 instead. (Score:2)
I'm considering moving just to get [an Internet connection with throughput greater than 56 kbps and ping less than 1 second].
It costs $200,000 to buy a new house, generally with 360 month financing. For that price, you can probably get a T1 line to your current home.
Re:Don't move just to get broadband. Get T1 instea (Score:3, Funny)
Ahem.
Having said that, I have cable access, but I'd rather have cheaper access and more choices. But that's because I'm a greedy bastard... But hey, that's capitalism at work!
Very "interest"ing (Score:2)
and usually the proceeds of sale from your previous house.
Which are taxed out the wazoo. After taxes and other fees, the amount a typical homeowner keeps from the sale of a house is barely enough to make the downpayment.
Besides, you can't buy a $200,000 house for $200,000. The bank will want a lot of that in finance charges.
Re:Don't move just to get broadband. Get T1 instea (Score:2)
A: Obviously you've never been to SF.
I'll ask again. Why on earth would you continue to live there? I've been to SF, and except for the great chinese food, why?
I currently live in MD, in the distant DC suburbs. $300k in this area will buy you a basic 3bed 2bath house. Get closer to DC and you're looking at around $500k-$800k for the kind of house that would run you $150k anywhere else in the country.
Re:Broadband not in my area (Score:2, Informative)
The loop charge is $29/month for 712Kbps in my area, and my ISP is pretty reasonable at $25/month.
It's more expensive than cable and plain 'ol QWEST service, but it suits me well--my ISP is the type that's very non-restrictive, I can have servers or whatever, and they don't care. They have mutiple DS3s to a level3 backbone, and techs that know what to do when some asshole puts a rogue DHCP server on the ethernet segment.
In all, a very good comprimise.
not in my part of raleigh... (Score:2)
i have the choice of TimeWarner or AOL using TimeWarner or EarthLink using TimeWarner. BellSouth won't bring DSL to my neighborhood and MCI's sphere of influence doesn't come this far east. so, i have TimeWarner.
i guess it's better than no choice at all. but i sickens me to give them yet another $50 every month.
-c
Re:not in my part of raleigh... (Score:2)
then don't.
get Juno for 10 bucks a month.
Re:Price (Score:2)
Re:Price (Score:3, Insightful)
From the story:
While other kinds of telecom prices--from long-distance and wireless-phone rates to super-high-speed oc-3 lines--have fallen, prices for high-speed cable and DSL connections have actually risen.
People vote with their wallets. If you want to sell more of anything it has to be percieved as being worth the money.
For most people, internet connectivity is not nescessary, and a faster connection is even less so. Especially for 3x the money.
Re:In the UK (Score:2, Informative)
BT seem to not bother adding all the registered people to the count tho, not very quickly anyway.
Re:Nice quote (Score:2)
Try substituting "citizens" every time you mean to say "consumers". It will get rid of that sick feeling, and give you lots of Karma! (The cosmic kind, not the /. kind!)
Re:Bells to blame (Score:2)
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 seems to have put the lie to that statement. If they want access to the long distance market so badly, all they need to do is open their local circuits more to competition and have the FCC rubber-stamp the whole deal. Six years and counting, and it would seem the Baby Bells would rather enter the long-distance market and hold on to their local monopolies...
Re:In Canada (Score:3, Informative)
It's not like we have a huge amount of choice in Canada though. I had this choice: Cogeco for a cable modem, or Bell for DSL. I wanted a DSL, but when I signed up with Bell, they did a line test and said my phone line wasn't good enough quality. That left me with a cable modem, or satellite I suppose, but to me that's no option.
The fact is, even though I can choose from dozens of long distance providers, I still can't choose from different cable internet, or DSL providers unless they run a new wire to my house. The last mile is very monopolistic. Perhaps wireless will change that, but I'm still waiting.
Re:In Canada (Score:2)
The DSL market in Canada is actually wonderfully competitive. The govt. regulators did a good job in forcing the monopoly telcos to offer up the last mile at (almost) reasonable wholesale rates. In most major cities you have several DSL suppliers to choose from.
Cable broadband, however, is not open. If the regulators would do the same thing to cable that they did to telephone broadband, Canada would be broadband nirvana.
Re:Statistics and lies. (Score:2)
Re:Statistics and lies. (Score:2)
Re:Statistics and lies. (Score:2)
The Real Expense... (Score:5, Interesting)
The real expense comes in being recruited into a polcing role to enforce the interests of others (like RIAA) because of the DCMA.
Qwest one day just turned off my DSL after a year of service, resulting in my first ever call(s) to their tech support line, after several hours of hold/idiot/hold/idiot/hold/idiot They told me it had been turned off, they wouldn't tell me why, only that a FedEX was on it's way. Well, the next day an overnight FedEX ($14) informed me that MPAA had sent an email claiming that I was distributing a copy of "101 Dalmations"! WTF! I've never seen the movie, it's certainly not something I'm going to waste my bandwidth sharing, even if I had it.
Cost to MPAA to send Qwest an email - $0.00
Cost to Qwest to enforce interests of MPAA
$14 - Sending FedEx
$30 - 50 minutes of Tech support call time!
$20 - to deactivate and reactivate the service
at least $64.00!
Cost to me for MPAA's mistake - 2 days broadband withdrawal pain, 3 hours wasted on the phone.
The other main expense is supporting customers that won't RTFM! If Joe consumer wants on-(the phone)-line training they should pay for it not me just because we use the same ISP.
If legislation continues to increase the cost to ISPs, the cost to consumers will continue to rise in direct proportion (plus a margin).
Re:att is at it again (Score:2, Insightful)
Nationally, it's an oligopoly, but in to any particular customer/metro area it's a monopoly... unless they're allowing 2 companies to coexist on the same poles in certain places now.
Re:att is at it again (Score:4, Insightful)
In terms of broadband access as a whole, many places are lucky to have a duopoly (cable plus a single DSL provider). Slightly better, but still not enough competition for my blood: when one raises prices, the other is just as likely as not to sacrifice an increased market share and choose a higher price and profit margin.
Granted, there might be places where there really is an oligopoly at work, but my belief is that those places are the lucky, small minority. Now, if you had no choice (i.e. like auto insurance in most states, doing without was not an option) but to buy cable modem service from your city's franchisee, then I suppose one could say that cities with a less expensive cable company were competing on the cost of living there. I really hope the U.S. doesn't reach that point of corporate domination, however...