Slashdot Mirror


The Problems with Broadband in America

Tenken writes "Salon has an article about the state of broadband in America. After seeing what many other countries have accomplished with their broadband markets, namely Japan, Korea, and (gasp) even Canada, the current state of affairs in the U.S. is looking pretty dismal. I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of paying $45 a month just for cable internet." From the article: "Across the globe, it's the same story. In France, DSL service that is 10 times faster than the typical United States connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are common for less than $30 per month. Places as diverse as Finland, Canada and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition."

8 of 800 comments (clear)

  1. Here the problem arises. by Knight+Thrasher · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you suddenly had a better alternative to paying $45 a month for your cable or DSL internet, you'd take the alternative. Instantly. I know I would, without second thought. There's just nowhere downhill to go, without going back to dialup.

    That means the existing monopoly corporation providing broadband to you would suddenly have to invest major capital into revamping their business to approach a competitive edge with this new alternative that everyone smart like you and I would switch to immediately. This would cut into profits. Businessmen like their profits, so they look for an alternative, hmmm, how not to have to revamp their networks, think think think...

    So the company instead pays out campaign donations the right people in senate and congress, hires some lobbyists to naysay revamping impractical and backwards laws, say if they do change the laws the terrorists will get us over the intrawebs on their haxxor boxenz and copyrighted material will be given away on the street corners. And the people of the country that invented and played a major part in developing the internet into what it is today, lose out to nations with 1/100th of the population and GNP.

    God Bless America. What would Liberty be like without a caring, guiding corporate hand to slow things down to maximize their own profits? I rarely rant on like things about this, but let's face it; American broadband users are sheer cash cows to their ISP's.

    1. Re:Here the problem arises. by NMerriam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What gave you the right to use the copper verizon bought fair and square on the open market?

      You mean the copper that was subsidized by taxpayer dollars?

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  2. How can we change this? by MicroPat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More importantly: How can we, as consumers, change this in America?

  3. what's with the gasp? by xutopia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it too hard to fathom that Canada exceeds the US in something?

  4. Re:Important differance...government... by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are you talking about????

    Let me see the countries that were mentioned in the article: Japan, France, Finland, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong... control over telecom? owns telecom?

    You're almost right in one respect, but I don't think it's how you intended it to be. The reason why many of these places are successful are NOT because the government owns the telecoms but because the government regulation is better. The reason why we've failed here is because if big money interests that have bought lobbyists and support in the FCC. It's not that they own the networks, it's that they have better regulation.

    --


    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  5. Re:Apples and Oranges by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So why do the more densely populated areas of the US not have access to good broadband either? By the logic of your Canadian comparison, The Eastern seaboard, the Mississippi River cities, CA, FL and the coastal PacNW should all have fast broadband access.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  6. Re:Some minor defenses... by thisissilly · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If population density were #1 factor in cheap-high speed Internet, why are there not cheap fiber connections for everyone in NYC and NJ?

    France has a population density of 284/square mile.
    South Korea has 1275 people/square mile.
    New Jersey has 1133 people/square mile.
    New York County, which includes Manhattan, has 66950 people/square mile. No, that's not a typo.

    Obviously, NYC and NJ have "a tremendous advanage regarding broadband penetration". So why don't we have cheap broadband?

  7. The problem is ideological, not market-driven by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The high cost and low speed are not caused by high infrastructure costs, or low population density. The telcos and cable companies have plenty of cash to lay down fiber to the home. They spend it on acquisitions of competitors and huge payouts to executives. It's not a problem of population density differences between, say, Tokyo and New York. If that were the rule, NYC would have 10 dollar a month fiber connections for everyone in Manahattan. They keep the prices high because they can.

    The difference between Japan and the U.S., between France and the U.S., between Canada and the U.S. is this: they still have a liberal social policy -- the concept of the public good. They spend tax dollars and regulate providers so that the cost of high-speed telecom stays very low indeed.

    The U.S., in what can only be called the era of Bushism -- he didn't invent it, but he is the shining avatar of all that it embraces -- has gone Ayn Rand, and no longer has a core concept of the public good, with perhaps the exception of highways and of course the military. We don't have an emotional understanding of why regulation of commerce is needed, or why taxes sometimes should be spent to build things that private corporations simply will not provide at a reasonable cost.

    After all, if you, in your car driving from your suburban home to your job, had to pay a private corporation to build and service every inch of asphalt from your driveway to your job -- how much do you think you'd be paying? Oh baby, I'm clenching thinking about it. Protect us, O Lord, from the thieves in the broad daylight...

    They'd be the cheapest crappiest roads they could get away with. They'd lobby Congress to exempt them from liability from death and damage caused by baseline maintenance. Look at what happened in Ohio -- that massive electrical blackout was caused by a conglomerate cutting powerline maintenance beneath the bone to pump up profits. Private companies SUCK at that sort of thing. All the drive for higher profits at all costs. Since the people who actually run corporations have no personal responsiblity for their actions, they have no sense of same. Elected officials at least can go to jail, lose their jobs, be exposed as lying jackasses. Companies are faceless machines which just don't care. ESPECIALLY when they are monoplies. We practically fought a civil war to disable the trusts in the early 20th century for just that reason.

    Most technologically advanced countries have good public health care, fast internet, and good highways because they still adhere to the concept of the public good overriding the possiblity of someone making an immense profit. It's as simple as that.