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."
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.
Other countries are claiming that the U.S. has mismanaged the internet. Which has led to broad speculation that the internet will splinter soon while those other countries work on their own "Internet."
If one were to judge our use (read: underuse) of the internet on the public level... well, that's just a whole new angle on our lack of efficacy in educating our own. Think about it, at $50/month for a typical broadband connection in this country it's cost-prohibitive for a large segment of the population to access the internet regulary. Sure, there's dialup, but the frustration involved in dialup could discourage an internet "newbie" from using it. Let us also not forget that many, many metro areas have horrible phone lines. Our infrastructure in the U.S. is sad when you consider the fact that we're still (for now) the largest economy in the world.
The best way to build your population up intellectually is through information. The undisputed king of information is the "Internet." Imagine all the eyes that could be opened. Mixed in, of course, with all the idiocy, smut, and exploitation...
But some locales are contemplating making wireless accessible to the general public. So there is a movement. It's just a shame that in the most mighty economy in the world the cost is still prohibitive for a good segment of its population.
Keep squeaking about it... perhaps the corporations will grease the wheel. But I doubt it. What we need is a brave provider to go for the quantity, and not the quality (I never thought I'd say that) -- in other words, make the pricing attractive for everyone.
My ZooLoo
You have cable? Must be nice. All I can get is satellite, and this post probably won't even go through because of all the jerks on direcway :(
I'll bet that if MY DSL were 100 times faster than my current DSL, I would have gotten first post.
More importantly: How can we, as consumers, change this in America?
has anyone stopped and thought about how big america is?
It's going to take awhile to replace all the old infrastructure in america...
that's why many smaller countries have already have newer systems in place.
Free American broadband!
In France, you can get super-fast DSL, unlimited phone service and 100 TV channels for a mere $38 a month. Why does the same thing cost so much more in the U.S.?
By S. Derek Turner
Oct. 18, 2005 | Next time you sit down to pay your cable-modem or DSL bill, consider this: Most Japanese consumers can get an Internet connection that's 16 times faster than the typical American DSL line for a mere $22 per month.
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.
How did this happen? Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the rest of its economic peers? The answer is simple. These nations all have something the U.S. lacks: a national broadband policy, one that actively encourages competition among providers, leading to lower consumer prices and better service.
Instead, the U.S. has a handful of unelected and unaccountable corporate giants that control our vital telecommunications infrastructure. This has led not only to a digital divide between the U.S. and the rest of the advanced world but to one inside the U.S. itself. Currently, broadband services in America remain unavailable for many living in rural and poorer urban areas, and remain slow and expensive for those who do have access.
For instance, when farmers gathered at this year's Iowa State Fair to discuss their policy concerns with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, the topic on the minds of many was broadband. And for good reason. Twenty-five percent of Iowa's rural communities have no access to high-speed Internet service, and over half of the remaining rural communities are serviced by only one provider. Those lucky enough to live in areas served by Iowa Telecom can pay as much as $170 per month for a DSL line.
President Bush has called for "universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007," and Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin recently declared broadband deployment to be his "highest priority." Martin recently took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to tout "the dramatic growth in broadband services." In his editorial he boasts of "fierce competition" among broadband providers and tells us we're "well on our way to accomplishing the President's goal."
The facts tell a different story. Today, major cable companies and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. This trend is the direct result of FCC policies that fail to encourage real competition among broadband providers, giving free rein over the market to the cable and DSL giants. The corporate giants are also vigorously fighting to stop cities and towns from building "Community Internet" systems -- affordable, high-speed broadband services funded in part by community groups and municipalities -- even in places where the cable and DSL companies themselves don't offer service. Yet, like rural electrification projects in the early 20th century, today's Community Internet projects offer the best hope of achieving universal broadband service.
Like so many other challenges faced by the Bush administration, the response to the growing digital divide has been to redefine success and prematurely declare victory.
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the FCC to oversee the timely deployment of Internet services that "enable users to originate and receive high quality voice, data, g
The US has lagged lots of the "new economy" networks. Mobile phones in the US are behind the networks in Europe, and miles behind Japan. Even basic technologies like SMS are only just being adopted in the US. And now with broadband a similar picture is evolving of other markets seeing the opportunities for MASS adoption rather than trying to fleece people with a few high cost offerings.
Considering that the US is the leader of the market economies, something the French detest, its amazing to note that in many ways market economics is working more effectively for consumers in France than they are in the US.
Has the US gone too far towards corporate economics and too far from consumer economics?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
In most of those places, the government either owns or has significant control over the Telcoms industry.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Rogers Hi-Speed Extreme, 6mbit down, 800k up = CAD$46.95/month.
t ent/compare.asp
http://www.shoprogers.com/store/cable/InternetCon
It's fantastic. I don't understand how the US can be lagging so far behind though.. Shouldn't they be cheaper and faster then us?
Why is the rest of the world complaining? The US pays for all that content so the rest of the world can get it for free. After all 3rd world countries like France can't afford premium content at our rates, so we have to amortize the rates and charge more in the US and less across the pond.
Last I heard, most of these countries have per minute phone service, and bandwidth usuage caps as low as 6G per month. Also, in the US, High speed internet is considered a luxury. Of course, I also know of people who spend $100(US)+ but the extra $25-30 for Internet is too much.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
With FITL, it's fiber optic cable from the central office to a "lightspeed box" in your neighborhood, where it gets converted to copper wires to go to your home. If you're lucky enough to be in a FITL neighborhood, the best you can get is IDSL (aka ISDN). The Megababy Bells insist on putting the DSLAMs in the central office, when they could put it out in the lightspeed boxes, thus creating IFITL (Integrated Fiber in the Loop). By pushing the DSLAM out to the neighborhoods, a vast majority of people could get broadband... but that means opening up the lines to competition, which I know Verizon doesn't want to do... thus the concept of FIOS... which takes advantage of a loophole in the law, allowing them to maintain total control/access of those fiber lines because they've put brand new ones out there from the central office to your home.
Since nobody other than your local power company, local cable company, and local phone company can put lines up on the phone poles (or in the conduits, if you have underground lines), they're going to kill off the broadband companies.
OCO is Loco
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.
Yes, and in China you can buy a house for a couple thousand dollars. That doesn't mean that houses here are overpriced.
Not only that, but each small chunk of the country down to the city level has different regulations for laying new infrastructure.
Is it too hard to fathom that Canada exceeds the US in something?
It seems to me that this article doesn't take into account the size and disbursement of the US population. Its not as hard for Finland and France to cover their country with broadband access, and to even upgrade it to handle higher speeds, but neither country are as large as Texas, just 1 of 50 US states.
Broadband in America is fucked.
I live in Ohio. I've had DSL for about 5 years. In two weeks, I'm moving. I'm moving less than 10 miles away from where I live now.
I checked into getting DSL at my new home. It isn't offered. The CO hasn't been upgraded.
I looked into getting a cable modem. Cable isn't offered.
I checked into getting ISDN. It isn't offered.
I even checked into getting a T1 business class line and starting a coop. It isn't available.
I asked them (SBC) when the CO is going to be updated. Their answer: They have no plans to upgrade that CO.
Aside from dial up, satellite is really my only option (they can't take the sky from me - but lets face it, satellite internet sucks).
Let's play Comparison!
The USA has a population density of 17.
Japan is like 325 and Korea is #3 in the world for population density at well over 400.
So, seriously. This is an intelletual exercise? Comparing the telecom infrastructure of Asian nations like Japan and Korea, among the most heavily populated people in the world per land area, to the United States? Canada would indeed make for a better comparison, with its insanely low population density of less than four, except something like 90% of Canadian citizens are condensed to areas that are within 200km of the American border, so the overwhelming majority of their land mass is almost entirely unpopulated and probably does not have cheap Canadian fat pipe broadband access.
American broadband blows because it's hard to wire the 450,000 people in Wyoming using the same deployment strategy that wires the millions that live in Chicago.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
My thinking is that the issue is political. With the MPAA/RIAA cartels in place with their hooks buried deep within our government, who in their right minds would risk offering consumers with high enough broadband speeds, making their system efficient enough to transfer high quality content in mere seconds? Knowing our legal system, they'd probably get sued for facilitating large scale P2P file sharing of copyrighted materials.
That's not to say, of course, these services are entirely innocent of playing games with the consumer. By trickling higher bandwidths to us slowly over a period of several years "for $10 more" each upgrade, they stand to make a huge fortune off the generally ignorant population we have here.
8==8 Bones 8==8
We've had 10 mbit up/down no caps since the 90's, 24 mbit for several years and you can also get 100 mbit connections (both up and down, no limitations or caps) for a mere $30 / month in some places. I myself live in a very small town of 3000 people in the middle of the woods, and almost all of us have 8 mbit, or at least 2 mbit. It's even better in the universities.
Canada has long been a telecommunications leader. It's 50%+ the site for the world's first trans-atlantic wireless communication on Signal Hill in Newfoundland. It's had a transcontienent microwave network for phone and TV communication since at least the 1960s [and possibly longer I don't recall], and it's the home of Nortel Networks, and Research In Motion [makers of the Blackberry email device PDA].
Even lowly Saskatchewan has had broadband in smaller markets [compared to US markets of similar size], since the late 1990s.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes. It's the socialism. That must be it.
Actually the last time I looked, I, and not the government of Canada or the tax dollars that said government takes from me, was still paying the DSL bill.
The United States is very, very big. It has a population density nowhere NEAR Korea and Japan, the posterchildren of "supermegaultra internet to the door".
You can afford to run fiber, switchgear, etc if you get a lot of customers for your effort. Japan is 145843 square miles and 127M people; New York state is a THIRD of that alone (54471 sq miles) and has 19M people.
Let's think that through- Japan has about half the US population, yet is only about 3 times bigger than NY state.
PS:I had to post this from home via an SSH tunnel because I've been "downmodded too much". I have mod points, but I can't post from work. Funny that. Can't get more than a form-reply from "Robert Rozeboom", either...which consisted of: "You have been downmodded too many times and are in timeout for a bit."
Please help metamoderate.
Even in major cities we only get crap Internet access. I live in metro Atlanta. When I can get 10Mbps downstream and upstream for $40/month, then you can use that excuse to explain why people can't get broadband in Boonieville, North Dakota.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
All the states listed are pretty socialist, compared to the US anyway. I wonder if France and Canada and so-forth have subsidised internet from the government. I'm not certain I want my tax dollars (and tax increases) going towards discounting broadband for everyone.
But what if you gained more in the amount saved than you paid in taxes? Or what if you didn't actually have to pay anything extra in taxes, and the funds were just reallocated from, say, defense spending? Other countries have proved its possible, and that it works better for more people than the way America does it. Will you really be so foolish as to let ideology stand in opposition to demonstrated proof of benefit to your own person?
Taboo to say round these parts, I know, but socialism works pretty well. Taxes are the cost we pay for a civilized society.
But subsidizing this in Canada would go against the NAFTA agreement, and we dont ignore NAFTA do we?.
In japan you can download an HD movie in 5 minutes. Just because you've had it for 6 with 'no problems' doesn't mean it can't be better, as in faster and cheaper.
I bet you're paying the same or higher prices as you were all those years ago. If you rented a brand new car and paid the same price for 6 years, you'd be a fool. If you rented the same computer for 6 years for the same price, wouldn't you expect the technology to improve, or at least for the economies of scale to make it cheaper? Why not expect more from your Internet provider?
You have been successfully groomed into a consumer with low expectations.
The article fails to seriously consider the following factors accounting for the cost, speed, and availability of internet service in different regions:
* Population densities
* Area to cover
* Income levels & cost of living differences
* Government subsidies, taxes, and regulatory costs
It does, at points note that some of these are arguements against his point, but the author fails to adequately address them. (Ex: while arguing against the area factor, he uses san francisco as a counter arguement, while failing to provide any information about how SF is performing more 'poorly').
The article jumps to the conclusion that "the man" is trying to screw you. This may or may not be true. However, without accounting for the above factors the author doesn't have a logic basis in making that conclusion and is just ranting.
You would rather see your tax dollars go to fight neverending wars against terrorism then? Or perhaps you'd prefer that our money go to rebuild city after city as natural disaster strike although building below sealevel is obviously a "bad idea". Or perhaps you'd prefer that our money goes to build a feasible long-term network infrastructure for the future of this country? ... Nevermind you probably voted for Bush.
"extra infastructure cost"
Sure, but aren't you suppoed to have "extra money" to build it, compared to a small country like France ?
Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
I don't have the figures, but maybe we need to report this as "percentage of mean national monthly income per month". We're constantly told that wage earners in some countries make less per month than US workers (hence the outsourcing we see happening) - which could mean their cost for broadband is actually more expensive for them in relative terms. If a US worker makes 54K a year, or 4500 per month, then $45 of that for broadband might be a bargain if a Korean worker makes 19K a year, or 500 a month, and pays $38 a month. 45/4500 = 1% 38/500 = 7.6% of monthly incomes Therefore the Korean worker would be allocating more of his/her pay to broadband. As I said, I don't have actual figures - I just think this should be reported in these terms. Don't know about anyone else, but the allocation of my monthly funds can mean more than the actual amount(especially when the required allocations start to exceed 100% of the income!)
absolutely - its the state of porn in america that is dismal.
granted, i may not agree with shitting my pants and licking throwup off of my girlfriend.. but at least the other countries try to make it a little different and interesting. wtf america. make porn worth watching.
What, you say two established monopolies (cable/phone) don't truly "compete" when you put them against each other in a doupoly?
The next things you'll tell me is that:
1. Pepsi and Coke are behind fizzy water costing 50 cents for 12 ounces,
2. Republicans and Democrats collude to keep everything "right vs. left",
3. Management vs. labor is an illusion, and
4. Good vs. evil is too black and white!
How un-american! Two competitors makes a market or you support terrorism. AND AT A TIME OF WAR!!
(Hey, what are those free market regulators we pay to work in Washington up to anyways?)
Er... Canada is even bigger and an order magnitude lower population density and has cheaper and superior broadband and telecommunication services. There's more than "the country is too friggin' big" going on here and it has to do with the inefficiencies of the partially (de)regulated Baby Bells and cable fiefdoms in the US...
Canada, the largest country in the world, has much better internet access even in remote communities -- communities that would make what Americans consider remote seem down right cosmopolitan.
...and they brazenly go along with it because that's what the market dictates to be the best value for their campaign war chest...
I moved from a job in NW Ontario where I provided service for the Hudson Basin -- towns that were hundreds of miles from roads, hours by plane -- these towns had better broadband access than most of rural Wisconsin.
The average household in NWO has better access than the average household in Chicago... but of course, they had broadband available many years before most people in Chicago. The difference is the politicians, both local and national, see the value of providing their citizens with connectivity.
Finland had a much higher percentage of landline-less communities a little over a decade ago. They responded by building one of the best cellular networks in the world. Additionally, they saw the value of broadband and integrated that into their infrastructure too, despite very low population densities and long, cold distances.
Whereas in the US, politicians seem to find it better to leave it to the "freemarket", as dictated to them by the deep pocketed telecoms and media conglomerates who tell the elected official what is best
Very similar complaints are raised all the time about US literacy rates, per capita health care or pharmaceutical costs, and so forth and so on. Any small and more homogenous country with a top-heavy government is going to seem "better" by these measures than the US, often, first of all, because the US is a motley collection of seriously varying communities, with a relatively weak and small central government. What works for and is valued by urban New York City twentysomething hipster stockbrokers is not the same as what works for and is valued by the 65-year-old rural Wyoming farmwife, mother of five and grandmother to twenty. Having a heterogeneous market in which all kinds of people can find their solution is expensive.
/. crowd? Is this a social justice forum or a geek forum??! I dunno about the rest of you, but I want to live in the country that's blazing trails, technology-wise, and I expect that means it will cost a little more, and there will be more of the oopsies and confusions that accompany being on the bleeding edge.
Additionally, when you expect technology innovation all the time, that also costs. You can provide any service cheaper if you surf off other people's R&D, but if you have to do it yourself -- if as a nation you expect to be living on the technology frontier -- then you've got to pay more. I think a pretty strong case can be made that most (I don't say all) innovations in networked computer technology are being made in the US. Well, that adds to the price for basic service.
Finally, why would the average or per-capita performance even be interesting to the
In other words, metaphorically speaking I don't give a damn about living in a country where Joe Average can buy a Kia Sportage for a more modest price if I can live in a country where it's possible to buy Ferraris and Lamborghinis or rocket-cars half a decade before anyone else in the world can.
With the exception of Canada, the countries mentioned have a tremendous advanage regarding broadband penetration, and that is relative population density.
As has been pointed out many times before, Canada is actually more "urban" than the US. Something like 3/4 of Canadians live in cities whereas about 2/3 of Americans do, or something like that. Yes, queue jokes about huddling together for warmth, etc., but the facts are there. It helps that only 20% of Canadian land is "habitable" (meaning you can grow crops on it), which is the type of land typically settled on hundreds of years ago. So, Canada has an easier time hitting more of its population with broadband due to population density.
Also, Canada has certain government initiatives to get broadband access to the more remote parts of Canada, such as the far north. Canada has always been on the leading edge of communications technology, and is actively trying to stay that way. The first commercial communications satellite was Canadian owned, as was the first national coast to coast microwave telephone network. This is all because the politicians realized from the start that the only thing stopping the small relatively isolated colonies that became Canada from being absorbed by the US was to overcome the vast communication and transportation obstacles that separated them. Those ideas continue today.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Other countries have proved its possible, and that it works better for more people than the way America does it. Will you really be so foolish as to let ideology stand in opposition to demonstrated proof of benefit to your own person?
Are you being anti-American? Unpatriotic even? Even... a terrorist?
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
The US seems to have stagnated in its own corporation architecture.
First they were the most innovative country (technologically speaking). But upon their technological advances, they built a structure conformed by companies, associations and organisms (The FCC, RIAA, MPAA, the Patent Office, and yes, even political parties). But they became more and more powerful, inhibiting the growth of additional economical resources. Sooner or later, their inner resources will exhaust. And the U.S. will be left with nothing.
In other words, the U.S. has become a corporative timebomb.
France: 259596 square miles, 62M people, so roughly 238 per square mile.
NY: 54471 square miles, 19M people, about 348 per square mile.
So, your argument does certainly not hold for New York state. Sweden for example has a very low population density, so this can't be the only answer.
The current deal here (Germany) is something like 30 Euros for 6Mbit DSL + 30 Euros for telephone (includes flatrate for calls to all landlines).
I just came back from a vacation in france, at my parent's house, in a lost "village" in the middle of the alps. There are maybe 4 farms on a square kilometer. What do you know, over there I had 20meg dsl line with wireless hotspots. Their cost: 12 euro a month (around 15 bucks).
Why do I pay 40 bucks in LA for a crappy connection ? The US has guaranteed local monopolies to corporations who have zero interest in investing anything in infrastructure when they can bring it insane profits on obsolete products. Telcos in the US function like energy and healthcare companies. They are not a public service like in most european countries, it's a racket that gets blank support from politicians to milk a captive market as much as they can.
Take a look at this picture. See the problem? Compariing the US to a densly populated and wealthy small country is not valid. It might be valid to compare NY to France. But revamping the US infrastructure to support this stuff and maintain backwards compatability takes time. Plus companies have to earn back their investment in the current infrastructure. I lived in Bahrain in theearlly 90's and they were one of the first countries with cheap handheld cellular. Revamping that country's infrastructure amounded to replacing a handful of towers. Imagine what it would take for the entire US. Still, I don't see why select US cities don't push to be on the bleedign edge of comms infrastructure expecially since it would likely lead to more hightech jobs.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I would gladly pay $45 a month for a high speed connection if they WOULD JUST MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO ME!
Want the price to go down? The company needs more customers. How does the company get more customers? Make it available to more people!
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Sure... lots more area to cover, though
France 2004 gdp: ~1.7T
USA 2004 gdp: ~11T
France sq miles: 211k
USA sq miles: 3537k
France gdp/sq mi: $8M
USA gdp/sq mi: $3M
Vote intelligently, just voting got us the balloon knots we have in ofice now.
Even if you grant (for the sake of argument) that it may be possible to "gain more in the amount saved than you paid in taxes" there are still several issues.
1. You may be experiencing the gain simply because all Americans are taxed... not just those using the internet. I would consider this unfair in that case. If you just put an excise tax on internet access that would be less unfair, but is still wrought with potential issues.
2. The US Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from participating in such a plan. The states could do this sort of thing but... they wouldn't have the same economy of scale that the feds would... and I don't want a state government that wanted to do such a thing. (Sadly my home state, Washington State, is particularly bad in this arena.)
3. The federalist principles that I generally espouse say that even disreguarding constitutional issues, the Federal government should only do the things that only the federal government can do and leave the rest to the states, local governments or directly to the people. I personally would apply the same to the state governments. I believe this because of the two reasons mentioned above... and also because when it comes to how efficient spending is from federal to state to local to private levels... the feds tend to waste about twice as much of each dollar in red tape as the states... the states about twice as much as the locals and the locals about twice as much as a private business. From the economic efficiency point of view most federal programs are either a wash because of economies of scale... or (most likely) a waste of money.
And if socialism works so well, why isn't Johnson's "Great Society" a reality today? The democrats had decades to implement plans to eliminate poverty, racism and social injustice from the federal level... so why isn't poverty eliminated? Why do Dems still beat the drum on racism and social injustice issues? If you look at all the money poured into federal programs... one would think that we could have accomplished more than we did.
This is where most liberals miss one of the key points of federalism. If you want to live in the Great Society, do it from a state or local level. The tax dollars will go further, local control will mean the system will be more responsive and I can go live in a state with people who don't want to be socialists.
Sadly because of the erosion of federalism states will never tackle these issues because "the feds are taking care of it" and we may never know if your socialist adjenda will work in an efficient way.
So to sum it all up, it's not just a cost/benefit issue. It's also a political, moral and "freedom" issue. Even if the cost/benefit analysis looks good your solution (for me at least) fails on the other issues.
If you dissagree, let me know where I went wrong with my analysis. I'm not here to insult you, just have a good spirited political discussion.
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?
Still, though, why should the federal government subsidize broadband Internet access for everybody? The job of the government isn't to hand out free-for-all Internet access. Besides, that just gives government more power to try to control certain aspects of the Internet. Instead, let the free market take care of that; governments are the wrong institutions to do this type of thing, as they are very bureaucratic and like throwing their power around. We also don't need a government monopoly on Internet access. Government functions should strictly stick to courts, military, police (locally and state only), roads, environmental protection, and school funding.
Socialism may provide all of these welfare services and "extras" like free high-speed broadband internet access, but it comes at a cost (and much more than paying heavy taxes): your freedom. Your tax dollars go to various special interest groups and some other services that you may not want (or need), just because some representatives or the majority of the people decided to approve them. What if you don't want (or need) broadband Internet access? In a socialist economy, too bad, the majority wanted broadband access, so it looks like your taxes will be raised another 3% to pay for a service you don't want or need. In a free market, however, you have a choice whether or not to have broadband Internet access. Nobody is subsizing it; the only people paying for it are those who want the service.
Call me another person who read too much Milton Friedman, but I believe that the free market just works better for things such as broadband Internet. It is not a right, it is not a necessary service needed for commerce and transport (unlike roads, for instance), and giving the government more rope may backfire (e.g., censorship laws, laws restricting free speech, etc.). I also don't approve of government monopolies. I'm sorry, but I don't and won't accept socialism of any form. No matter how much socialist governments try to implement all of these services for "the common good", even though they have good intentions and starry eyes, the government normally ends up doing more harm than good in the long run. Socialism to me just leads to a slippery slope leading to totalitarianism and communism.
Most American cororations benefit from socialism in the form of government regulations. As is the case here where by the cable companies are exmepted from opening up their networks through government regulations.
True free markets do not exist in America or pretty much anywhere for that matter. We live in a corporate run socialist republic that pays benefits to corporations as entities as well as individual people.
Ten times faster than what? Up until the telecom collapse there were a number of CLECs deploying DSLAMs with ADSL with a max speed of 7MbpsX1Mbps. Most have cut back on speed offerings due to lack of takers. The phone company offers maybe 3Mbps with a premium price paid and you have to be on top of the CO to get it.
Cable? I get 15MbpsX2Mbps which is about the speed of the big fiber push from Verizon. I pay $65 a month and it is totally worth it to me given the speed, reliability, and price. I looked at every option and this was the best one.
Ultimately, that is what it comes downt to. The paying AVERAGE consumer and NOT the whiny "I want everything for free" brigades and they're the loudest complainers, not the ones who've already adopted and been paying for years. I have had a cable modem for years, worked in DSL installation and tech support, and cable modem installation and tech support, so I know the relative strengths. I don't own a laptop and won't until milspec ruggedized books come down in cost (my big performance vs. reliability vs. cost concern is hardware not connections).
If you want T-1 speeds with the guaranteed SLAs, fine. Pay for them. Or don't. Hundreds of thousands already do just as I pay for the modem I've got at the service level I get. It is up to the end users.
As of now, there is no financial incentive for broadband to jump in speed and fall in cost for the purveyors that they themselves don't create such as several cable providers jumping their speed ahead of schedule in areas that Verizon and company hadn't bothered pushing fiber to yet, thus cutting them off at the knees by providing it early to an already existing audience at the same speeds and nearly the same price point. The lack of need to change e-mail addresses and networking specifics is an added bonus. Why save $5/month when it would cost me weeks of downtime making the transition and changing all my network set-ups and accounting?
Again, my decision. Not whiny pontificators in magazine articles. Seems like another bs article designed to arouse and anger the same usual suspects and not a serious delving into why the broadband scene is the way it is.
The kids going on about greed and corporations should grow up already. Their hypocrisy is showing when they spend 9/10 of their Internet posts on tinfoil hat rhetoric about government censorship and interference with "their internets" but then suddenly are all hot to toss total Internet access control over to the government as long as they get taxpayer funded "free" net access. Yeah, let the same government you despise, distrust, and live in fear of control your access to the net.
When pushed, what is the theory? That what they browse won't get banned or be interferred with. Of course a similar theory was had by many during WWII regarding the Nazis and who would be come after and saying nothing until they came after that last group. Everyone is fine as long as its free, and they ain't the ones being oppressed. Well the world works thus: the nail that sticks up gets pounded down; when the only tool in your box is a hammer everything looks like a nail; the only tool of government is a hammer. Sooner or later government run Internet will screw you and you'll wish you'd paid for it in a proper economic relationship.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
All the states listed are pretty socialist, compared to the US anyway. I wonder if France and Canada and so-forth have subsidised internet from the government.
Don't know about them, but I live in Germany, with a 6 Mbit DSL connection, 16 Mbit coming my way this winter (ADSL2+). This is for 60,- a month, including flat rate, telephony, etc.
No, the phone company is not subsidised, it is a private company and to add insult to injury, it is profitable. I happen to know because I work there. (which also means I don't pay the 60,- thanks to an employee-special).
Sorry, but the reason everyone is ahead of the US in broadband is simply that everyone is ahead of the US in broadband, and your conspiracy theories should be better applied to the "baby-bells" than to the rest of the world.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And if socialism works so well, why isn't Johnson's "Great Society" a reality today? The democrats had decades to implement plans to eliminate poverty, racism and social injustice from the federal level... so why isn't poverty eliminated?
Because the goal was to reduce it, not eliminate it. Poverty can (probably) never be eliminated, and outside of political speeches no serious student of public policy would ever make such a claim. This sounds suspiciously close to a straman.
Be that as it may the results of the Great Society are still alive and well, thank you. AFDC, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, etc. These have all been successes. Between 1963 and 1970 America saw a full 10% decrease in the number of Americans living below the poverty line; this was the most dramatic decrease in the nation's history.
This is where most liberals miss one of the key points of federalism. If you want to live in the Great Society, do it from a state or local level.
But you said it yourself: the economy of scale means that the federal government can do it more efficiently than the states can.
Fundamentally this is an ideological issue. Libertarianism works in theory, socialism works in practice. For evidence you need look no further than the world at large. And whereas it is nice to believe that we have fully earned every penny of our paychecks, the simple fact is that we owe our personal successes not only to our own hard work but also to the society as a whole and the government which set up the support structures, from educational systems to laws on corporate governance to SEC regulations and fair hiring regulations.
So to sum it all up, it's not just a cost/benefit issue. It's also a political, moral and "freedom" issue. Even if the cost/benefit analysis looks good your solution (for me at least) fails on the other issues.
So like the OP, you are willing to sacrifice personal (and even social) gain for the sake of ideological purity. You would reject something that works better for no reason other than the adjective attached to it.
Pardon me if I think that is... silly. What is the justification for a belief system if not the underlying belief that it works better?
I have no doubt your numbers are correct, but at the same time can the 2/3 vs 3/4 difference in urbanization really account for the difference in penetration and pricing? I would argue not. While there has been a focus on greater communications infrastructure by government (just look at Alberta Supernet for a dramatic example. Services every community in the province with high-speed internet that has any of a school, a library, or a medical centre), IMO it definitely was the co-location and promotion of competition that made the REAL difference. Telus (as well as the other big incumbents in Canada) fought tooth and nail against co-location, but it NEEDED to happen, and it has succeeded (somewhat).
But this gets into a bigger discussion about government involvment in industry. Personally I think government's main role in the market should be to encourage competition, and BREAK UP monopolies, not encourage them. With almost-no exceptions, there are always better results from MORE competition, and MORE players in the market, rather than fewer. And when the "natural" market starts creating dominant giants, either introduce factors to break their monopoly with new initiatives (mandating co-location would be one example of such), or break the companies up (more extreme, and necessary only when the previous option fails). But above all they should be ENSURING that meaningful competition always occurs.
Governments have an essential role in economies completely seperate from government spending and federally (or provincial/state) run companies. More competition is almost always good, and should be the government's PRIMARY responsability (aside from money flow), not encouraging monopolies.
New York County, which includes Manhattan, has 66950 people/square mile. No, that's not a typo.
In fact, New York County is only Manhattan. (Queens is Queens County, Brooklyn is Kings, Bronx is Bronx, and Staten Island is Dutchess.) So that number is a bit skewed - Manhattan is far denser than any other borough in New York City or any part of New Jersey.
According to Wikipedia, NYC's population density is 26403 people/square mile (that's rounded up just to match the look of your number). Newark, NJ's population density is 11400 people/square mile and Jersey City's is 16093 people/square mile. Other areas close to NYC in NJ have lower densities (those are the two main "cities" in NJ on the edge of NYC). So the average of the whole NY metro area would be a lot lower than 66950. And nobody's going to bother laying infrastructure for a single borough, although typically the telcos and cablecos will start with one borough and work their way out.
Just to compare, Tokyo is similarly difficult to calculate (it depends on if you're talking the 23 official wards of the city, the prefecture of Tokyo, or something else), but the 23 wards have a density of 34734 people/square mile. So, both cities are pretty dense, but NYC is not even close to twice as dense as Tokyo, which your numbers suggest.
I do sort of agree with your main point, though, which is that there's no real reason why the Northeast Corridor, the California Corridor or the cities of the upper midwest shouldn't be wired up better, if population density is the problem. The USA is extremely regional, and there are whole areas that are just as urban and just as large (in terms of population) as all of South Korea, for example. The NEC has a greater population than South Korea in a smaller area, so it should be theoretically cheaper to wire up on a per capita basis.
With statements like: "Like so many other challenges faced by the Bush administration, the response to the growing digital divide has been to redefine success and prematurely declare victory. " and: "The current plan is to auction off this valuable resource to the cellphone companies to cover the cost of the war and tax cuts." we see that this guy has an axe to grind, which greatly dimininshes the credibilty of his message, by undermining any semblance of objectivity. The US broadband situation is a mess, but I'm doubtful that the causes of and solution to the problems are so easily distilled into this simplistic offering as our author would have us believe. It would be nice to hear from an adult on this complex, and very important topic.
Ahh yes. My freedom.
:-)
My freedom to die young because I can't afford health insurance.
My freedom to slave forever on poverty wages because I can't afford college.
My freedom to starve because I can't find a job that pays enough for food *and* housing.
Ahh yes. Freedom. I forget how lucky I am.
If you can't afford to go to college, it's because you didn't get off your lazy "I'm should be entitled to it" ass to do so. I worked 2(sometimes 3) low paying jobs(fast food, grocery checkout, valet parking, data entry, etc) at the same time to put myself through college. As a student I had access to campus health care. To afford housing I had roommates. There's plenty of inexpensive ways to keep yourself fed(working fast food helped a lot).
Because of the time I invested in college, I now have an excellent paying job, healthcare, my own home, and probably eat a little bit more than I should
Yep, Freedom - how lucky I am.
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.
Hmm... while we may be more clustered... why are your own clusters of population not similarly enriched with broadband... yes the average american might be more rural... but I can't see why places like California (which has a bigger population than all of Canada) with cities like LA, and SF that do not have as affordable a broadband connection as a city like Edmonton, Alberta(about 1 million people) which is like $30 CDN (about $25 US) for a 1.5Mbps connection?
Of course even while I'm living here in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (pop. ~ 20,000) I can get a 1.5Mbps connection... (about 1500 km north of Edmonton, Alberta) so I'm unsure why it would be that difficult to wire most of rural America... maybe there's just no incentive to... where there's a will there's a way... and telcos in US seem to have no will as there is no competition based on the fact they do not need to allow "Open Access" to their networks at wholesale prices... as stated in the article.
I really feel the population density excuse ... while somewhat valid... is used too much as a crutch and excuse for why the 75% of Americans living in Urban areas (http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/h iscendata.html) are not given competitive rates for broadband. I think the article has some great ideas as to why that may be...
Clearly there isn't a roadblock to those with drive.
No-one owes you anything. No-one should be forced to pay for you. Pay your own way. If you won't, then you bring misfortune upon yourself.
Ah, the old "poverty is a moral failing" excuse of the well to do not wishing to part with "their hard-earned dollars". Often mentioned by people who were either never truly poor, or who did work themselves up from nothing, but did it by pushing down others, not looking back with anything but malice.
For every person you show me who worked himself out of poverty through hard work I will show you five who worked just as hard and are still dirt poor. Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone can do it, or that it should be done. Why should poverty mean you have to work twice as hard to get the same thing as someone born to more money?
Will you really truly claim that every american gets the same identical opportunity in life? That everyone can get the same results through the same amount of effort? If not, why do you think a system that is not like that is fair in any way?
What you say is right but you have to correct USA sq miles by putting off all no-people areas like deserts, huge national parcs and huge mountain regions. In this areas where virtually nobody lives, you don't have to invest money to put broadband service. On the contrary while in France we have one of the largest countryside area (in percentage) of Europe, there is very few area empty of people and we have to dig broadband cables everywhere.
True free markets can't exist. Not for long anyway. In an unregulated market it is profitable to merge or acquire until only a few dominant players are left, and it is then profitable to abuse that newly gained position of power to keep new players out of the market. An unregulated market is a diseased/dying market.
>2. The US Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government >from participating in such a plan.
I disagree. Establishing a communications infrastructure via the Internet seems to fall within the broad category of allowing the Congress to legislate about things doing with "Inter-state Commerce". There is a very strong argument, even using a very narrow definition of the Commerce Clause, that the internet allows people to engage in commerce between the states.
I think similar programs have passed constitutional muster, such as Rural Electrification, the laying of telephone lines, and the federal regulation of radio frequencies.
I think you missed the article's point...that legislation in other countries allows for ISPs to provide cheaper and better services. Rather than doling out monopolies for corporate kickbacks, they force communication networks to be rented out at wholesale prices so any ISP can compete for the consumers Euro, Yen, what have you. They see it as a public utility to some extent, feeling that the entire economy benefits when the general populace has access to fast, always on, broadband connections. Increased education and all that. Note, that most other countries define broadband as being in the Mbps and not Kbps like the FCC does.
Oh, and if you think that population densities are a real factor, which they are to come extent, they are not impossible to overcome. Case in point, Canada, with lower population densities than the US has better service for less, because their legislation keeps monopolies out.
Like the example from the article where a small town with zero broadband ISPs which started to have companies leave for that reason decided to do somethin about it. They asked the ISPs if they could serve the community, but they refused citing the small amount of profit they'd make there not being worth their time. So the community started a public community internet project to offer WiFi throughout the town. The ISP's reaction? Trying to convince the state to pass a law to make that illegal.
That's the kind of mentality we as a nation have, and it's hurting us. We should stop being so high on ourselves, admit our faults, look to others which do it better than we, and fix it!
You missed Canada, which has better service for less than we do due to their citizenry friendly but business fair legislation. I mean business *fair*, not business gets everything they ever wanted without having to give anything really back to the community.
Country Area (sq km) Population Pop. Density (ppl/sq km)
United States of America 9 631 418 295 734 134 30.7
France 547 030 60 656 178 110.9
Korea, South 98 480 48 422 644 490.7
Canada 9 984 970 32 805 041 3.3
Canada is 1/10th the density of the US and still provides better service for less, so clearly the population density problem is surmountable with the right attitude from the legislature.
P.S. I don't know from where you got your data because you did not site it. I got mine from the CIA World Factbook which has been updated in July of 2005.
Okay, cut the US area in half to account for these 'no-people areas'. (I seriously doubt that 50% of the US doesn't need high speed infrastructure, but just for the sake of it)
France sq miles: 211k
USA sq miles: 1768.5k
France gdp/sq mi: $8M
USA gdp/sq mi: $6M
You think you have it bad in the US? In New Zealand, we only have one telecommunications company essentially - New Zealand Telecom. There are other broadband providers, like Telstra-Clear and Orcon, but because NZ Telecom solely own and operate the exchanges the competition is pretty much irrelevant.
I pay 45$ a month, for 1Mbps ADSL with a monthly cap of 1GB. That's the best deal going in the country. Australia, is somewhat better off.. but not significantly.
At any rate, for those of you in the states that think your broadband providers are lousy.. you've actually got it reasonably good. Not south korea good, but good all the same.
Bwahaha, how do you like your nice free market NOW, capitalist-boy? ...
And in case you hadn't figured it out, we granted those cheap bastards a monopoly, gave them the public right of way in which to put their cables, they OWE us for that. If we want to regulate their sorry asses we will. If they don't like it, tough, we'll give out that monopoly to someone who'll appreciate it.
Yeah! Regulation caused this problem, so surely MORE regulation will solve it! Wait, err, um, no.
You can't point to an example of a higly regulated market as a failure of the free market. That's just stupid.
The fact that a regulated market got us into this mess doesn't mean we shouldn't free the market now. Maybe freeing the market will alllow things to shake out and stabilize in the future. Unless you want to continue with the regulatory equivilent of herding cats.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
When I saw compared negativley with I expected the usual bout of trolling, defensive excuses and outright off topic criticism of those other places, but this really takes the cake. What is it, in this day and age, that makes so called educated americans who use the internet, so utterly unable to comprehend that some little thing, somewhere else on the planet might be better than in their country?
Why do they use the excuse that America is much bigger and more rural than any of those countries and simply ignore Canada sitting right next door with routine 2mbit connections in towns 400 kilometers from anywhere else in a country that is bigger than America and has a far smaller population? Why do they make up utter bullshit statements about so called socialist governments and other crap.
The simple answer would be that realising that you are in a unfavourable position is the first step to changing it. Denial, however, never helped anyone.
For the record, I live in Switzerland, which, while having one of the highest rates of broadband penetration is ridiculously expensive and the only cable company, which has a total monopoly on cable connections, has only just introduced 6mbit connections at around $60 per month. That's the best you can get here. And switzerland is ridiculously capitalist and has very little in the way of regulation, just like the USA. Just across the border in France, an hours drive from where I live, you get 20mbit access, free phone use and free wireless modems for around $20 per month. And while the telcos are all privately owned, there is market regulation.
Think about that. It has nothing to do with socialism or size of your penis. It has a lot to do with regulation keeping the market free of monopolies who can and do abuse their positions if left unchecked. If you're still unsure about what I mean, ask someone here about Microsoft.
Anyhoo, I am American. Fifth generation Texan. The way socialism is defined here is "government spending to enhance the public good". Not as any step between capitalism and communism, but as a thing in and of itself that is used more or less synonymously with communism. It's ridiculous, of course, but true.
Hence the opposition to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare (except by Bush &c), public schools, and so forth: they're all communist ventures.
So while I am well aware of the Marxist connotations of the word "socialism" and it being a step on the road to communism, that is not how it is commonly used in this country today.
With the exception of Canada, the countries mentioned have a tremendous advanage regarding broadband penetration, and that is relative population density.
I wonder how many times I have said this.. but just about any nordic country has lesser population density than the US and our population is quite spread out. You know, telecom corporations used to be in a similar monopoly position like in the US but our broadbands got a LOT cheaper when they were forced to share their copper.