Slashdot Mirror
What's Holding Up Broadband in the U.S.?
ProfBooty writes "A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post discloses that the broadband could potentially aid in the economy's recovery (and that Canadians are 2x as likely to have it, South Koreans 4x), but it's not regulation that is the hold up, it's *surprise* content holders' fears of 'piracy' as well as unwillingness to adapt to new markets. Also discusses the governments of Canada and South Korea and how they were involved in bringing broadband to the people. In additon discusses how in the past, Congress would pass laws as to protect innovators as well as the old guard." The article's by Lawrence Lessig.
"What's holding up broadband in the world?"
Mostly last mile issues. Here in Germany DSL is available in larger cities, but little towns like mine will never get a taste for broadband since DSL is pretty much the only option for now.
Lets see ..
.. that is unless some person finds usenet / IRC for software / MP3s / video / anime / P2P usage.
1. The Drought of VC money of late.
2. ILEC's / MSO cable operators not opening access lines easily
3. Cost - for smaller operators, the mantra of "stick new headends on either end of the fiber" is true, except those digipeaters are $$$$.
4. Incremental need, People are not making quantum shifts in usage, it grows over time
5. Virus threats are contained quickly anymore by most people, so the network crawling to a halt because of traffic is a temporal thing.
Here in Kansas city we actually have a company called everest-kc.com that has done a full overbuild of some of the cable infrastructure in the area. phone, Long distance, cable modem & television on a competing / seperate wire. Imagine that. .
BTW: I know the blurb above says that regulatory issues aren't the problem, but I don't buy it - not while content-control interests can buy something like the DMCA.
And of course, I can't get to the article at the post - likely because they can't get enough cheap, high-bandwidth connections. Who says irony is dead?
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Can't help but think that part of this is due to the LACK of regulation rather than regulatory delays. Thanks to careless deregulation (read Reaganomics), the telcos have merged with the content providers, and as a consequence the new behemoths are hedging, looking to provide a utility service at luxury-good prices.
In the Western suburbs of Philadelphia (mainly Chester County), unless you live near the center of town, DSL is nonexistant. As for cable modems, Comcast has been saying they will be ready "Real Soon Now" for the past 3 years.
As for the DSL, I claim that its mainly cheapness on the part of Verizon as for the reason we cannot get it. Verizon is a Fortune 10 company, and as a result, we could have DSL tomorrow if they were willing to set it up here. What surprises me is that this is a fairly rich part of Penna., meaning that any DSL upgrade for the phone company here would result in an immediate ROI. But oh well
As for the cable modems though, that is a different story, prior to Comcast's buying out of the previous mom and pop cable company, there was no hope of getting cable modems here (the original company was saying 2006). It seems though, based on more and more of my friends in the county who are getting cable modems, that their availability is slowly spreading. As for me, I am near the bottom of the list for it. Not much to complain about, just sitting here waiting for Comcast to get going and deliver it... real soon now... hehehe
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
That said, some telcos are making the investment, particularly in new neighborhoods.
Looks like it's already /.'ed, so I'll punt.
If what is described is the case, then why is AOLTW selling broadband? Why isn't TW's Road Runner shutting down instead of expanding?
The problem is that phone lines have never really been built to handle DSL and the phone companies don't want to spend a lot of money to upgrade (see Robert X. Cringley's comments). The cable companies have only so many houses hooked up, and satellite has too much lag and often requires a phone line anyway.
The demand is there, but I think there are people who would rather go through a root canal than put it with all the BS associated with getting DSL or cable installed.
DSL, with its ridiculously long install wait time, crappy PPPoE platform (In other words, shell out another $100 for a router that will do it for you so all your machines can have a 'normal' connection), and a general lack of value (+$15 for a static IP? Get real Ameritech)
On the other hand you have cable, which @home and all their partners managed to bumble enough to make people stay away from cable for a LONG time.
The content is THERE, these pundits are screaming that there is no killer app for broadband, as if having it will make things easier for users.
I pay around $80 a month for 768 kb/s downstream, 384 kb/s upstream to Internet America. $15 of that is for a dedicated pair they lease from SW Bell because, at 15.6 kft from the CO, ADSL is not guaranteed to work piggybacked on a POTS line.
But even at $65 a month, that's way too expensive for most people.
Now, it is true, that I can get SW Bell's offering for around $50/month, but it is PPPoE hell with lousy TOS (in my opinion) -- my neighbor suffers with this.
Airmail.net (Internet America) has no problem with me running an "smtp" server to sink my email (of course, they appreciate that I do not relay) or any other server as long as I do not have "excessive" upstream bandwidth. Other ISPs freak at the mere suggestion of doing something like that. On the PPPoE issue, "we looked at that and held our noses" was their unoffocial comment. SOLD!
In short, I am a satisfied customer.
You could've hired me.
Straight up, when I saw "holding up", I read it as meaning "propping up".
When you look at the beatings that broadband providers are taking, it seems like the only thing keeping the whole broadband "revolution" going is the mindless optimism of marketing droids, based on the mythical "average user" spending all of their time (and disposable income) sucking down advert laden pay-per-stream postage stamp sized Britney Spears videos from the provider's portal. It's insane (gee, do I pay-per-view for a postage stamp, or do I pay-per-view to the same provider down the same cable, but have it go to the big widescreen TV on the other side of the splitter?) but it seems to be the only thing keeping the rollouts going.
This is an interesting piece, but it doesn't address the basic problem of broadband. Those of us who already have it know exactly why we want it: we want a fat and unmetered pipe to go find and create our own content with. But the pricing is aimed at bringing in Ms Average User. Frankly, I just don't think that's going to happen, not until the price is way down (in which case you've got to gouge that bit deeper on the pay-pers), and sooner or later broadband providers are going to give up this nonsense about selling content, and are going to have to start charging a sustainable amount for a sustainable service. And those of us who have got used to (fairly) affordable broadband are going to catch it right in the shorts. Oops.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I've been thinking about broadband (here in Canada - I'm Canadian). What most Americans don't know is that Canada's Confederation (in 1867) was based on the promise of a coast to coast railroad (that is, the Atlantic and Pacific coast).
In a country as large, unpopulated, and diverse (geographically, lingusitically, and culturally) that connection is very important. Recently, the Canadian government started rolling out a very fast fibre optic network that was put in the ground along the (surprise surprise) railroad.
Broadband is a tool to further our national identity.
In addition, thanks to near monopolies in telephone and cable, we have homogenous suppliers of DSL and Cable broadband. And, despite what most people think about monopolies, my DSL costs $25 US a month for 1.5 megabits, and my phone line costs $30 US a month for basic access and voice mail.
It almost seems that the extra competition in the US has ultimately led to the failure of broadband.
I hate to boast, but a broadband over cable only costs $CDN 29.95 per month up here in Frezzeyerassoffland. Since our dollar continues its slide against the mighty greenback, that works out to about $US 19.25 per month.
When you combine that with the fact that I don't have to put up with strip searches when I fly off to Moosejaw, it just proves the point that Canada is the best country in the world for high speed internet users that like to keep their clothes on in public places.
It's because of those horrible people who give away things that most people wouldn't pay for in the first place that we can't have nice things. Those pirates who "share" the quality musical works of "artists" like N(insert random punctuation here)Sync, Britney Spears, and whatever celebrity or his brother/sister/child/neighbor/dentist/etc. feels the need to shout at the general public... Pirates who have the nerve to try to watch movies from other parts of the world, use alternate DVD player software, or copy still images or audio or video clips from a movie... Pirates who can't be bothered to buy a new copy of a movie or audio CD in the event that the original is lost or damaged, or every time the version of the movie or CD won't work right with a player... Now it's their fault we can't get decent broadband access. The solution is clear - we can't allow the pirates to get access to this "broadband." We must thoroughly regulate it to make sure that no improper files are transferred and no protected materials are recorded, or even remembered. Only then will we be safe from overdue market corrections, um, I mean evil, naughty pirates.
Yes, but did they loose because the market wasn't there, or because they placed unnecicary and unacceptable restrictions on their service. We will never know.
I live less than 15 miles from AOL's Dulles VA headquarters. I am 1 mile from the telephone switch in the middle of town. I live in Northern Virginia, a hotbed of high-tech. I live less than 15 miles from Verisign, and 35 miles from Washington DC. I can't get a DSL line because in my new housing development Verizon saved a few bucks by "bundling" the phone lines on fiber. The cable provider has been promising high speed cable for three years with nothing yet. Because of the bundler I can get a limit 28K max connection, and the people on the phone company have told me repeatedly that 28K is all the bandwidth they are legally obligated to provide.
So, even though you and a friend have broadband, its not quite proof positive that universal access is here. Why do you think 802.11 NAN's are popping up all ovcer the place?
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
Broadband is not available everywhere in the US. I've noticed many people post stating that they have several broadband options available to them. I don't doubt that's the case, as where I currently live I have both cable and DSL options available for me. Of course, I also live in a major metropolitan area.
However, let's take the case of my parents that live in a small town in the Shenandoah Valley. They've been asking about broadband options for their house for several years now. They own a Bed and Breakfast, and a dedicated high-speed Internet connection would definitely be a benefit for them. Every time they inquire at the local Cable provider, they're told that "We're still testing it in the big town up north." Whenever they go to any DSL provider, they're told "We haven't upgraded the hardware in the area for that. However, we can offer this 64k ISDN line at 3x the going DSL price, or a fractional T-1 at 10x the going DSL price."
I doubt it has much to do with hardware or anything like that. It has more to do with the following lines of thought...
So long as the major broadband providers can get away with pushing around the local carriers, nothing's going to change. Even when the major broadband providers are responsible for delivering the product direct to the consumer, there's not much difference. Verizon has long waiting lists to get DSL in their service area's (Oh, and they don't allow smaller local carriers to gain access to their DSL lines. They pay the minor fines and screw the competition until it dies and Tauzin-Dingle passes/goes into effect.) Cox Communication is the monopoly Cable Internet provider for Fairfax County, VA. Their Road Runner service is notorious for outtages, high latency, dropped packets, etc. Do they care very much? Not really. So long as customers are willing to pay them $50/m for crappy service, they will continue to provide it and stuff their wallets with their massive profits.
When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
If the local Bells didn't have a monopoly on the last mile of copper and cable companies didn't have monopolies on the last mile of, er, twisted copper, all of LL's concerns would be dealt with.
But the simple matter is that the Bells were allowed to drive out 3rd party DSL, Congress regulated internet service on cable INTO bigger monopolies (at least local cable companies had to compete with DSL).
Of all the reasons I've heard for people not going with "broadband" (and little since my inital experience on a cable modem has truly been "broadband"), I have never, not once, heard anything about content. In fact, I've wanted to do things for people with dialup access that I couldn't do because downloading that nifty new 13.4 MB program was just too long to tie up the phone line.
Lessig is an interesting writer, but he really pushes his arguments into places they just don't work.
Because many, many people who use AOL also have a second phone line to support their AOL connection so the phone doesn't get tied up. At something like $15/month (YMMV) for the phone line too, you're actually talking about $23/month for AOL (correct?) + $15/month for the phone line = $38/month for just AOL. If broadband is $46 month for them, like it is for me, then that's just another $8/month.
Hell, that $8 will be more than made up for in the sheer number of other things I *don't* spend money on because I'm too busy online.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
The site's not responding for me (Slashdotted? big site for that), so I'm going by the summary, which *completely* misses the mark with broadband's failures. Broadband in the U.S. is failing for two reasons: the infrastructure is owned by companies who are neither competent to nor motivated to provide broadband, and population densities are such that updating antiquated infrastructure is expensive.
Consider the telcos, who are responsible for providing DSL. They want DSL dead, because it cuts into their massive-profit sales of T1s. They're also big, lumbering bureaucracies, which deal badly with change. I won't recount my own DSL horror stories, but there are plenty to be had at DSL Reports. Technically DSL is functional and capable, but the businesses behind it, and the support bureaucracies, are not.
Cable has different problems. First, there's the cable companies; in my area, and in others, cable Internet is simply not an option because the local providers don't offer it. There's also the problem of bandwidth sharing. It's true that DSL bandwidth is also shared, but it's shared at a central point, which is easily upgraded; with cable, mis-estimation of demand or usage can leave people drastically short on bandwidth. (DSLReports again for horror stories).
Finally, consider the population layout in the US, as compared to elsewhere. If you have population-dense cities, surrounded by low-density farmland, you can provide access to most of the population simply by providing short-range access in the cities. In the US, most of the demand is in the suburbs, which involve much longer distances and are, therefore, much harder to provide for. (This is especially true in my home state of Massachusetts, where economics are such that the demand and the money is all in the suburbs).
I think Broadband hasn't caught on because it's the fact that the U.S. has too many toys right now to pay for. Something's got to be cut out.
1. Cable TV $40
2. Car Note $250
3. Car Insurance $100
4. Regular Phone $30
5. Cell Phone $45
6. Tivo $10
7. Cable Modem $40
That's $515 a month and it's missing the cost of 2 little of things:
1. FOOD
2. SHELTER
It's easy to say something like:
"Well, I could get AOL for 20 bucks less, I don't use the internet that much anyway." --Quote from my Mother.
Having been a cable modem customer, and now a DSL customer, I've had mixed experiences.
With cable, until the @Home debacle, I had 3 static IPs and ran my domain off the cable modem. I had decent performance, but the it was expensive, not as highly available as I would have liked, and I knew that I could lose access at any time for running a server.
Now I have DSL, albeit the consumer service. Soon, it will be set up with static IPs and my domain will be back up (grumble). It will be even more expensive, for probably less performance, but is supposed to be more reliable (certainly has been so far), and I won't have to worry about running the domain (plus I'll get another pair of static IPs).
Both cable and DSL share a common downfall, and it is the reason that most dial up customers I've talked to are slow to switch: no choice of ISPs. With a phone line, I can sign up for any ISP, and can leave for another if I don't like the service I'm getting. With DSL or cable modem, I get one ISP, and cannot switch providers and keep my connection otherwise. There is therefore no price or service incentive for the vendor to improve.
For me, I'd select no ISP. My wife would use AOL. My father-in-law would use his current local provider, and my Dad would be happy just to get broadband at all. The imposition of service has nothing to do with the architecture, and everything to do with decisions made by the broadband access providers. However, as a consumer, I am forced to pay for services I do not want and will never use.
Certainly, content should not be a problem: every web designer out there seems to assume that you are plugged into the server room judging by the amount of bloated Flash and Java pages out there.
-jeff
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
--
Power to the Peaceful
What's holding it up? Nothing, cheap-ass. Call up your phone or cable company and get it.
I'm happy that you and your brother both have broadband access. I'm also suspicious that the circle of people you speak with through the internet is rather small. If you'll step outside your front door for a little while, you'll quickly see that this is not the case for many Americans. (OK, maybe you'll have to go a little further than your front door. :) )
There are many reasons why people may not have broadband access, but the two prominant ones are cost and availability.
COST
Some people are forced to pay $50 per month for broadband, and they just can't afford that. It's a big jump compared to the $9 they are used to paying for dialup.
AVAILABILITY
I think this is the real big one. It's just plain not available everywhere. DSL has such extreme distance limits that many people living in suburbia are not close enough to a central office to take advantage of it. And the 128Kbps promised by iDSL (which works over longer distances) is not really what I'd refer to as high-speed. Plus, the huge monopolies possessed by companies like Verizon lead to very poor performance and customer service. I know quite a few people that have actually gone BACK to dialup in disgust because of problems with DSL and lack of customer service. I never thought I'd see that happen. I, like your brother, live in a small town. We have cable modem available. This is only because our cable company is small enough and progressive enough to be able to provide this service. Many people live in areas covered by such giants as Comcast. There has been no real incentive for these companies to hurry up their deployment because there is just no competition. If you look at where cable modem is most likely available, you'll find that it is in the same areas where DSL is available. The cable companies plan to compete with the telecomm companies first, then add other areas later. From a business standpoint, this makes sense, but it also leaves quite a few people without the broadband access they desire.
One final thought. Yes, I know that satellite is available to most people. However, be warned that satellite is nowhere near an optimal solution. The latency times caused by the amount of time it takes a signal to bounce off a satellite located outside our atmosphere are significant enough to discourage many from using it as a viable internet connection.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
...I know whats holing it up in New England, its spelled V-e-r-i-z-o-n...
Amoung other interested companies, why provide high speed service to the customer, and better infrastructure, when you can turn enormous profit and treat the customer like shit,because well where else they gonna go. Even Broadband modem is just plain stupid, they can go much faster, and this game playing with TOS contracts, and you can do this but not that is rediculous. Stop protecting the entrenched old guard, give us high speed connections(fiber, they can do it they just don't want to) to the home, let us buy IP6 Schemes(more than enough space there) to put on them, nd get out of the way. I should be able to get 100mps to the home, cram all the data I want down that pipe, and support everything I want to do(Telephone, Servers, Video, etc) off the one line or a 39.95 flat rate. If the local Telco won't do it the Cable-Co should, hell they are putting fiber on the Poles to support Digital cable, just tkae it to the next step. 'nuff said.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Cable companies don't want to merely be the last mile for unconstrained flat-rate video streams. They want to be in the pay-per-view business. Telcos don't want to be merely the last mile for third-party DSL providers. And content owners are terrified of systems that let anyone pass video around.
The game industry wants a general-purpose wire with low latency and high bandwidth, but doesn't have the clout to get cable and telco plants rebuilt to support it. Web advertisers play a lesser role than they did two years ago, and the pressure for high bandwidth ad delivery is down. So the pure-Internet mass market applications don't really need much beyond minimal DSL bandwidths.
And finally, if a new infrastructure is to be deployed, it should have the capacity for real HDTV, or it will be obsolete by 2006.
That's closer to the real problem than what Lessig says.
Establishes a direct connection from your wallet to our bank account!
I Trust Lessig and the WP About as far as I can throw them. Larry writing for the WP? That's like putting a red star on a red flag, if you catch my drift.
I live in NoVA. The reasons we don't have broadband are simple. We got analog cable before internet. Cox is struggling to upgrade all the analog stuff. Then of course DSL just sucks, but it sucks everywhere.
Wanna lay fiber in DC? The city slapped a moratorium on digging because they couldn't coordinate digs properly. Before, company A would lay fiber, then a week later company B would tear up the same street that was just patched. Residents and businesses said "enough is enough" and justifiable so. Now they have to coordinate through the city, but that takes time. DC has some infrastructure that dates back to the Civil War, and a government that is just beginning to recover from being run by a mayor who smoked crack. Literally.
If you want to look for reasons why broadband isn't making it in the US I'm sure there are plenty of them, but this business of suggesting that "content providers" are totally to blame, or even partially to blame seems like a stretch. This just smacks of political posturing and disinformation from the radical Leftist AIP movement, of which Lessig is a leader.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
a utility like power and water
:)
:) i visited my parents for xmas, their cable modem had decent download times but there was this feeling of 'lag' which i just can't stand. give me 256Kbps downloads and 40 msec ping time rather than 1Mbps downloads and 400 msec ping time ANY day. well, except the days i am the one downloading all the divx and porn...
the utilities you mention are metered, which means charged for actual use of the service (watts and gallons become bytes). and this is, i think, the kind of plan which has to happen to save broadband providers from themselves. of course we, as (ab)users of the system like our unmetered, wanton ways, but how many gigs of porn and divx would you be downloading if it was costing you.
the best comparison i think could be to cell phones. you pay X for service, you have Y bytes per month, and if you pay extra you get unlimited nights and weekends. this is the kind of thing which can give the broadpand providers an actual business model to get the service out the door. then, like cell phones, they can offer special things to you based on a model like USENET, where they have the content locally, you are just saturating the pipe to the provider. you can pay Z per month to get unlimited access to local content.
but the 'logical' comparison is to a service like cable TV. you pay your X per month, and you can watch as often as you like, unmetered. unfortunately that model simply doesn't work for broadband, because that does not reflect the manner in which THEIR costs are incurred, which is by your downloading gigs of porn and divx from the internet at large, meaning they get to pay THEIR providers for that usage.
There's nothing better than an always-on, FAST cable modem
how about an always-on, LOW LATENCY DSL modem
-sam
burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
Someone already has. Qwest was founded to take advantage of this opportunity. The funny thing is that no one bothered to take note that the railroads only had the surface rights to the land- which means that all those lines are running through land that Qwest doesn't own. Now there's a liability that I bet they don't put on their balance sheet... I wonder if buying US West with their over-inflated stock gave them the assets needed to survive such a fiasco.
It's telcos, stupid!
All the Qwest and Verizons are neither skilled nor motivated enough to change the situation.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
All these ideas about cheap broadband for the entire country are great. I love them. Heck, I'd *love* to have inexpensive ($30/mo) broadband where I live (rural WI)...but I don't see it happening soon, unless a lot of unavailable tax dollars are thrown at it.
It's the same basic reason that broadband came to metro areas first: they can afford it and most of the neccesary infrastructure is already there. Now take an area like a town in the midwest with a population of around 15,000. Even better, a town that used to have a thriving industry at some point (be it a steel or paper mill or whatever). What reason does a cable company (or phone company to get the people just outside of town) have to offer broadband? The meager monthly charges coupled with the lower population density just cannot justify the huge costs of implementation.
Well, maybe it *could* justify the cost, if utility companies were willing to look 5 or 10 years ahead. Over that stretch of time, the costs could be recovered, but that's a *very* long term investment, especially with the bad case of the flu dealt to the US economy of late.
Again, I'd love to have cheap broadband everywhere, but let's get serious. It ain't gonna happen by some altruistic whim. Somebody in DC is going to have to get it into thier head that this is a Good Thing and push to see it happen. But then again, the FCC has been trying to get HDTV adopted as well for 5 years now, and it'll be surprising if we make *that* deadline 5 years from now.
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
I am an about-to-graduate college student at Appalachian State, a universty of meager endowment and funds (due to the NC state budget crunch). I and millions like me are absolutely spoiled rotten by the 100 Mbps campus networks hooked up to gargantuan pipes, not to mention the cheap 802.11b access that floats around in many college towns for those who want to live in apartments. We exist on our peer-to-peer apps and our gratutious bandwidth consumption - personnally, I'd rather stream the headlines from CNN or MSNBC with my PC than have to reach 3ft. for a remote control.
My point is that in the next 10 years, a huge hunk of the workforce will have attended schools with broadband. Broadband is like crack. If I ever have to dial pu with a 33.6 modem again like I did last summer I am gonna go nuts. That huge hunk of workforce is going to be a major part of the constituency of our democracy, and if broadband isn't cheap and available, we will demand it be so (just like cable TV, which operates under heavy price controls in many places).
I predict the Internet will become like the roads and sewers of the nation - it will become public infrastructure. See Chicago MAN project article.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why does everyone expect to receive a T-1 in their home for less than $50/month? It costs MONEY to deliver bandwidth. It costs money to lay fiber and copper. The technicians earn a wage to install the fiber and copper. The wages they earn is what it is because they have to be trained and have to learn how to install telecommunications equipment. This is why local loop charges can end up in the thousands of dollars range. Port charges for a T-1 are about the same between providers. If a broadband provider pays $1500/month for a T-1 and then resells that for $50/month there has to be a limit somewhere or one person could hog the entire pipe and end up causing the provider to spend $1450/month to server one customer. $50 per month for a 768kbps pipe with 5GB of monthly transfer is more than fair. NONE of our current subscribers use even 1GB in a month and most of them are businesses with multiple computers. Sure, I could sell less bandwidth with unlimited transfer but people want a fat pipe. You sell the fat pipe with unlimited transfer and a couple people can monopolize the entire pipe. Clauses in contracts stating that people who abuse the bandwidth will be charged extra are futile. Get with an attorney and draw up a contract stating they get X amount of bandwidth for X amount of dollars per month. DSL and Cable aren't going to cut it either, you have to include wireless and I don't mean these community FREEnets. ISPs are in business to make money, not to convenience people. Until this is realized by more people broadband access will be limited to certain markets where a provider is guaranteed to make money.
...has tended to throttle the rapid development of broadband.
To wit, the last mile of wire to the house is owned by a heavily regulated monopoly.
Hence, said owners of last mile wire can do weasily things to anyone that wants to put boxes in the central office.
Hence, said owners of last mile wire, when attempting to offer service themselves, are subject to all kinds of litigous cries of unfair advantage, have they provided comparable service in high cost rural areas, etc.
The net result is higher costs and slower roll-outs of new technology.
It's a mess.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
- 1640 Kbps Down
- 640 Kbps Up
- 5 E-mail addresses
- Two dynamic IP addresses
- A VERY cool TOS/AUP
Guess how much I pay? $35.99/month CAD. That is $22.30/month USD. For Shaw High-speed Internet (Cable), it comes with a higher speed and costs about $5 more ($40.99 CAD which is $25.40 USD).After seeing some people pay $49.99 ($79 CAD) for Cable Internet, and about 10 bucks less for dial-up, I am sure as hell not going to move to the Internet with Internet rates THAT high. Hell, you can get 56.6 Kbps Dial-up for $6.30 USD/m.
You Americans are getting ripped off or we're getting a pretty impressive deal.
Back in ancient times, there was ISDN (It Still Does Nothing). ISDN was deployed extensively in Europe, but there was a very slow rollout in the US. In the beginning, it was overpriced and offered speed that most people didn't need. Back in those days, people used terminal emulation, and 9600 bps was just fine. By the time anyone wanted 128K bps, ISDN was STILL overpriced, and dialup speed eventually hit 56K for a fraction of the cost & hassle.
Twenty years later, the telecom companies are only a little smarter. This time they know broadband has to be priced right to avoid "ISDN syndrome", but they will only commit the capital to deploy it where there is (1) a sizeable market, and (2) lack of competition. This leaves out huge sections of the country. As an added bonus, many of the prime customers live in areas with a low population density.
Here in the US, the government doesn't make the telecom companies do anything they don't want to do. That means broadband is only going to be delivered in the most lucrative markets. None of this has anything to do with copyright issues.
What kinds of applications would people develop if it only took creativity and technical skill and wasn't forbidden by usage policies? Most interesting applications include at least some kind of server somewhere - even an ICQ or IM "client" is technically a server, because it's sitting there on your system waiting for people to connect to it, and it's often advertising its presence using some kind of presence server (the ICQ login stuff or Napster index servers or whatever.) Some successful applications were carefully planned by a small or large group of people, but many of them just happened - somebody tried it, and a few people liked it, and it caught on. And the more opportunity you have for people to develop things that probably won't catch on, the more chance that somebody will develop things that DO succeed. Maybe it'll be a "neighborhood watch" or "home traffic/weather cam" application, or maybe cheap cameras and better PC audio will allow the ICQ-phone to replace large chunks of the phone company (so duhh, either team with a gateway company like Net2Phone or a long-distance phone company to profit from professionalizing it), or maybe simply getting $40/month instead of $80/month from people working at home over VPNs is enough to be happy with, or maybe you can provide a $5/month IP relay service an 802.11 client software so that wireless users will become paying customers instead of service-stealing evil leeches. Or maybe it won't come from home developers, it'll come from game developers, like the integration of networking, Dancepads, and Quake into Combat Aerobics, or the World Wide Rave Network, burning its 15 minutes of fame before something else takes over. Whatever. More likely, it'll be something I haven't thought of, and much more likely, it'll be something the cable companies haven't thought of, because it's a decentralized decision-making process, not central planning.
But if you're a cable modem company desperately needing enough customers to sign on to pay for growing your infrastructure, decreasing the chances of potential customers finding the killer-for-them app that makes *them* want to buy service from you is really, Darwinianly stupid.
Cablecos do have things they're legitimately afraid of, though it was worse in the past than today. Upstream bandwidth is still limited, and people running popular amateur porn or warez websites on their cable modems could dog down performance for their neighborhoods (unlike commercial sites, which need better performance than the typical 128kbps upstream of current cable modem.) And that gives them a bad reputation for performance, and encourages the local phone company to run "Web Hog" ads taunting them. And Napster and Movie-ripoff-ster and other copyright-violation-promoting services directly hurt the business of their major business partners, so they need some way to discourage them. And the band on "email servers" is partly driven by fear of spammers, though it's largely driven by the sheer corporate greed assumption that if it's a mail server, it's either a business that you'd be willing to pay more money for or that you're taking away potential cablemodem customers instead of encourage more people to get cable. But blanket "can't serve anything because we don't want to monitor your content or upgrade our hardware to meter" policies are just stupid.
Moore's commentary on Sturgeon's law says that the 90% of stuff out there that's crap keeps doubling every 18 months, and typical Freshmeat experience says that lots of projects will die out before they reach usable stages. But that's ok, and if we're lucky many of them would be in the 90% and not the 10%, or that the ideas in the good ones will get recycled by somebody else.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks