How Much Should Broadband Cost?

An anonymous reader writes "The difference in cost between broadband options seems to be the primary motivator for consumer spending, reports News.com. Frugal consumers are opting for the lower-priced DSL options, while those with more money to spend on services are opting for cable modems." From the article: "A year-and-a-half ago, pricing of DSL and cable modem service was roughly the same. But over the past year, the phone companies have launched an aggressive assault by dropping prices. At the end of 2005, the average price of DSL service was about $32 per month, roughly $9 less than cable, according to research firm IDC. AT&T has twice lowered the price of its DSL service and now offers its 1.5Mbps service for $12.99 for the first year."

Comments

No competition = higher prices in the future

[IntelliAdmin]

These low prices are only to gain market share, and things will change. I think it should cost as much as the consumer is willing to pay - at least that is how it works when you have a properly working capitalist system. But you see, the large telcos and cable companies have co-opted the system, and now are using legislation, and unfair practices to keep any competition from getting into the market. When is the last time you saw a new DSL provider *other* than the phone company? I am really worried that our options are getting smaller, and not larger - thus the prices will go up, and our bandwidth will not increase with the extra cost.

In that same vein, I feel that their next step is to start trying to sand-box their corner of the Internet. That way they control the content too. It is no good as a commodity to them, they want to monetize it to a greater extent. The only way in their eyes it to first keep you from going anywhere else, second make it so their content and services are always faster, and better. Look at what some of them do already with VOIP. When my VOIP provider is choppy, and high latency who do I blame? Most customers are not smart enough and blame the VOIP provider.

Remote Admin Tools for Windows

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[deadboy2000]

The landline companies' biggest threat isn't not the cable company, it's the wireless cell phone company. If they can add DSL as a bonus feature on your landline, that gives them an edge. There's no reason the price shouldn't continue to drop.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[proxima]

I think it should cost as much as the consumer is willing to pay - at least that is how it works when you have a properly working capitalist system.

Actually, with perfect competition, firms would charge their marginal cost of producing it. The intuition behind this is that if they did not, and there exists free entry (a requirement of perfect competition), then another firm would charge slightly lower, and thus get all of the customers. Of course, in the broadband industry, there exist fairly natural monopolies because of the huge fixed costs of the infrastructure and "last mile" runs.

Now consider what you said: the consumer's willingness to pay. If firms are able to charge as much as each individual is willing to pay, this is perfect price discrimination. DSL and cable operators do some degree of price discrimination by offering the different tiers of speed at different prices. If I understand you correctly, I'm pretty sure having DSL cost what consumers are willing to pay is not what you want. After all, I'd certainly be willing to pay a bit more for my DSL considering how much I use it.

When is the last time you saw a new DSL provider *other* than the phone company?

I am really worried that our options are getting smaller, and not larger - thus the prices will go up, and our bandwidth will not increase with the extra cost.

Yes, in reality, internet service is fairly consolidated. If you're lucky, you'll have three good choices for broadband (many have two -- cable or DSL -- or fewer). Still, in many areas services like Speakeasy are available as alternatives in the DSL market. In my experience, options for broadband are not getting smaller, as you suggest. Some communities or apartment buildings even form their own co-op style internet service providers if they're truly unhappy with the choices. Before, when most people were on dialup, it'd be hard to convince enough of your neighbors to want to start such a service.

As for prices, we're seeing a bidding war. I would expect this to be good for consumers, so long as enough options remain. I haven't seen evidence that DSL or cable operators are selling below cost, as some have claimed. I seem to recall paying about $55/mo 5 years ago for cable internet access (in addition to the TV channels), and now prices are (much) lower and speeds are still good in most areas. The bidding wars don't seem to be driving out players like Speakeasy, so I personally just don't see such a pessimistic trend.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[iminplaya]

That wireless cell phone company could possibly own a big chunk of the cable company or vise versa. Competition is limited at best. The only real threat to the communications monopoly is ad-hoc wireless mesh, created by the users. If you are tied to a landline or corporate wireless, then you are owned by them.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[h4rryc4ry]

Isn't the fact that the "real world" speeds are far less then ever advertised a part of the equation for the consumer? I pay $39.99 for Cox cable broadband. They advertise a 4Mbps connection but my "real world" experience averages 1.5, maybe 2Mbps.(going on 7 years with this co.) I know that there are inherit techincal differences in DSL and Cable broadband connections but if the "real world" speed using DSL is anything like with my cable, then the cost for cable is justified IMO. If the real world speed was as advertised, I could be happy with DSL speeds at the prices(and speeds) advertised in my area.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[787style]

I wished I lived on your planet where the price of cable access has gone down. I've paid $50 a month for RoadRunner since 1999.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[i3iz]

"As much as they are willing to pay" "well what if someone is willing to charge less" (I think you are ten levels too deep.) Well then the consumer is willing to pay less. Therefore they are paying what they are willing to pay. on another note in response to the first guy It is essentially the same as saying "they should charge as much as people pay" let alone their will. How do you even figure out what the median is with that anyway? what if i am willing to pay 50 dollars and my neighbor 40? My wife and I are people, and we are willing to pay 50. So should they charge 50? My opinion is they should charge as minimum as possible while still being able to produce a great product and take care of their workers. Rather than the Fat Cat taking all the bene's it should go to make the workers happy. Then they will work harder and make better products. Definately it is a supply and Demand curve. I am willing to pay more for better service. The NetZero's of the world don't have a place on my plate.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[FractalZone]

My real world experience with InsightBB is that I routinely get at least the 4Mbps I expect and often (just now, at 5:47pm, for example) get over 5Mbps. Upload is usually at least 512Kbps and sometimes closer to 1Mbps. I think I am getting the premium service at the regular service price. I note that while there are the usual delays in contacting tech support, they are available and are usually helpful rather than evasive when there are problems. I am very concerned about the effective cost to the consumer of high-speed Internet access going up for no technically valid reason (when the cost of providing the bandwidth is fixed or dropping, in other words). I'd like to see the telcos and cablecos required to sell bandwidth as bandwidth to anyone who wants to compete with them in the phone or ISP business. They'd maintain the physical infrastructure but would not be allowed to benefit from their monopolies over it in any significant geographic region. That way we, as consumers, would be assured that if the cablecoes or telcos started jacking up rates or charging extra for "premium" service (read: the plain old network neutral service we've come to expect) we could take our business elsewhere...maybe even to a competitor who uses the same infrastructure more efficiently. Their competitors would be in a much better position to cry "Foul!" when the companies that provide the physical infrastructure abuse their control of it in an unfair manner. I'm very libertarian, but realize that cablecos and telcos are wont to use the monopolistic benefits they get from the rights of way they have been granted by the government to shove their competition right out of the market. We need more competition, not less, so Network Neutrality is a Good Thing(tm)!

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[toadlife]

But you see, the large telcos and cable companies have co-opted the system, and now are using legislation, and unfair practices to keep any competition from getting into the market. When is the last time you saw a new DSL provider *other* than the phone company?

If you have DSL, there is a good chance you have a choice of providers.

My ISP is AT&T (SBC). I can also buy my DSL service from Sonic.net and DSLExtreme.com and one other provider that I can't remember the name of right now. Sonic and dslextreme's promo prices are slightly higher than AT&T's promo prices, but they are still much lower than AT&T's regular month to month prices.

For three years now, I have been paying the "introductory" rate for my DSL service with SBC/AT&T. It was $39.99/mo for 3mbit service in 2004 when I first signed up, $29.99/mo for 3mbit service last year and I just renewed for this year at $19.99/mo. This year they tried to force me into switching to $39.99/mo after my contract expired and I told them to cancel my account and I would switch providers. They decided to give me the $19.99 rate.

My case is not a special one. Just about everyone is the US who can get DSL service can buy their DSL from someone other than their phone company. Most people just don't realize it.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[TheQuantumShift]

"Still, in many areas services like Speakeasy [speakeasy.net] are available as alternatives in the DSL market."

You may pay Speakeasy, but never forget who owns the actual lines. Where I live, there are tons of people who will sell you DSL, but in the end, they all get screwed by the service and support side of Qwest. I know why they didn't participate in the phone records scandal, they were already over their "Customer Cornholing" limit for the decade...

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Millenniumman]

When is the last time you saw a new DSL provider *other* than the phone company?

Earthlink? Speakeasy?

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Nom du Keyboard]

I think it should cost as much as the consumer is willing to pay

Not all consumers are willing to pay the same. In fact, few will agree on any price. So how many different levels of service do you feel should be available since there's not one theoretical consumer -- but many!

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[kirk__243]

So if I'm willing to pay $1 per year for broadband, that should be how the price is determined?

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[TheScottishGuy]

there are local DSL providers in most markets, but generally they don't have the national ad campaigns that att can afford, check out dslreports.com for good reviews of local providers, in santa cruz, CA for example we have cruzio, who kick major ass

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Of course, in the broadband industry, there exist fairly natural monopolies because of the huge fixed costs of the infrastructure and "last mile" runs.

Add wireless into the mix and they cease to be natural monopolies. It's way cheaper to point an antenna at a house than to dig a trench to it. This is why telcos are fighting so bitterly and so unethically against muncipal wireless projects.

Thank you, by the way, for what seems to have been the first correct explanation of economics in the comments.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[proxima]

I wished I lived on your planet where the price of cable access has gone down. I've paid $50 a month for RoadRunner since 1999.

I had RoadRunner myself at that $55 price ($50 + $5 cable modem rental). These days, it looks to be about $45/mo including modem. That doesn't include the promotional pricing that lasts 3-6 months depending on your provider. Perhaps not a huge decrease in price, but still a promising general direction for consumers.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[samkass]

In my area next month, according to rumor, FiOS rolls out. That will move me from 6Mb cable to 15Mb fiber (and more significantly, 0.3Mb upstream to 2Mb upstream) for slightly less money than I pay today. My guess is that FiOS will trigger rapid price competition in the broadband markets in which it's an option.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T has twice lowered the price of its DSL service and now offers its 1.5Mbps service for $12.99 for the first year.

If you discuss this with internal financial analysts at a respective ILEC, the driver for this discount is an aggressive cross-subsidy from the dying copper voice "monopoly" business to establish the new monopoly for the next 40-50 years. Cable is seen as weak, given heavy and increasing content costs and does not yield sufficient margins to prop up a dumping approach in broadband. Wireless is considered a terrible threat and needs to be killed while it is trying to recoop serious capital investment costs. There is nothing of higher priority in AT&T / Verizon / Qwest / etc. now. They firmly believe that if they don't eliminate the competition now, their laggard approach to tech and fat corporate structures won't survive another attack by the cable and wireless barbarians. Rome will not go down easily.

The ILECs have gotten all the support needed to pay off both parties and get their dumping program and cross subsidies in place. Like Rome, they have crooked Senators in both parties - McCain, Hagel, Tauzin (now working for them), McCurry, Sen. Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer all receive heavy ILEC support and are thought of as safe votes. Gore is a critical chess piece for them, as he failed them the first time around with their plan to control the NAPS and understands any future run and money will be expected to generate a return. Just 10 years ago, it would have been immediately attacked when post-divestiture auditors observed funds being transferred from the phone business to broadband, but nobody cares anymore. The FCC clearly understands that neither party wants any roadblock to ILEC resurgance.

To the consumer, they should enjoy the next years, and understand in 5+ years that their $120 to $240 per month in monopoly phone, broadband (without the frills necessary for today and measured/restricted use provisions), blocked VoIP, limited port options (e.g. HTTP/HTTPS is permitted, all non-authorized ports denied, http proxy required, no third party SMTP permitted, no IRC, no FTP, no SSH, VPN at a commercial rate, etc.) is the cost for their savings today. Expect pervasive DRM and surveillance of every click.

They did it to themselves years ago by supporting consolidation in the gas business and are paying for it now (with record multi-billion quarterly profits) and will pay for it again with the new Bell system.

Don't believe me. Look at the contributions yourself and ask any mid-level or higher ILEC manager about the briefings from senior management about their "owning the Internet" strategy. Ask them about how their ILEC has capitalized several years of loss through restructuring charges to gain control. Read their 10Ks on edgar.sec.gov.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[kannibal_klown]

I pay for 3Mbps DSL from Verizon. I'm about 1/2 or 3/4 away from the Corporate Office to get the 3Mpbs service.

I have to say, it's been as close to as-advertised as I need. I regularly clock at around 2.7 or 2.8 when downloading.

Cable, sure I wouldn't mind the extra speed bump but Comcast cable is crap around here. Signal quality sucks, outages, etc. And the "technicians," please... they usually don't know anything. Their solution to every problem is "cut the ends of the cable, attach a new connector, and walk away" even though the problem didn't go away the LAST 4 times they were here doing the exact same thing.

Verizon, eh they may be evil but they're nowhere near as bad as the Comcast center near me.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[terranman2]

you'd be surprised by how many cable techs can't put on proper f connectors, so it's not really so crazy to think that you're service tech will look there first, and then the problem goes away, at least for a while, but they're only there for an hour, so to them it looks like it's fixed. if you get a different tech to your house everytime you have a problem, it's not likely the problem will ever get fixed, most techs are trained to go about finding a problem the same way, because most of them were never trained with any real technical skill, they were just told how to do installs, and sent on there way, so don't blame your service tech, we're way too overworked, and there just isn't time to look at everything... p.s. i do more than replace connectors, cable service tech(not for comcast however, they do suck, my company isn't so much better, but our techs are better trained, at least around here)

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[SacredNaCl]

These low prices are only to gain market share, and things will change. Maybe, but for the moment the telcos are using DSL tied to a land line as an incentive to keep you on their high profit copper land line service - and to try to force you to take one of their long distance carriers to keep your low DSL prices. They aren't worried about cable as much as they are worried about VOIP. If the customer goes VOIP - they likely lose everything. Most people have a cell phone, they have no need for a landline if they can get broadband reasonable elsewhere. Thus the phone company gets 0 business in that scenario. That is their real fear, and the primary motivation behind the pricing structure. Its also the primary drive behind their lobbying efforts to be able to end net neutrality.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Mike_K]

Actually, with perfect competition, firms would charge their marginal cost of producing it. The intuition behind this is that if they did not, and there exists free entry (a requirement of perfect competition), then another firm would charge slightly lower, and thus get all of the customers. Of course, in the broadband industry, there exist fairly natural monopolies because of the huge fixed costs of the infrastructure and "last mile" runs.

Actually, you're wrong. With perfect competition goods should cost at least marginal cost of producing plus small percentage to have a positive return on investment. Otherwise, nobody would sell it, because buying bonds would be a better investment.

m

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[proxima]

Actually, you're wrong. With perfect competition goods should cost at least marginal cost of producing plus small percentage to have a positive return on investment. Otherwise, nobody would sell it, because buying bonds would be a better investment.

Well, it all comes down to the formal definition of "costs of production". Economists like to simplify things by including opportunity costs implicitly in the definition. This allows for nice results like "zero profit", which means "zero economic profit". And thus is also leads to nice conditions like "P = MC". Since I was talking about econ theory, it made the most sense to talk in terms of economic costs (as opposed to accounting costs).

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

He said as low as possible while still making a great product, you ignorant, argumentative twat.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[proxima]

I should add that economics often deals with one-period versus multi-period. In a one-period model, production, consumption, etc. take place essentially instantaneously. Thus, the opportunity costs of taking cash and investing it in bonds has no meaning in that context. Economists tend like such simplifications because they allow analysis of particular issues of interest without getting terribly bogged down in unrelated matters.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

I know what you mean, my landline provider was Ameritech and my cellular provider was MCI Worldcomm. Worldcomm went belly up and had their mobile phone section bought by AT&T Wireless. Ameritech then got bought by SBC. AT&T Wireless got bought by Cingular which was half owned by SBC and half by BellSouth. Then SBC went and bought AT&T, inc. and becoming at&t. Finally at&t is merging with BellSouth and all of a sudden my landline and cellular providers are soon to be the same company! At least it doesn't seem as though my cable (TV and internet) provider Comcast is going to be merging with any of the above anytime soon (I hope...).

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[The Man]

The landline companies' biggest threat isn't not the cable company, it's the wireless cell phone company.

This might be true except that they're usually the same, or have a common parent. The two largest mobile providers are Verizon and Cingular, which is owned by AT&T and BellSouth. A few of the smaller players could make providing Internet service a way to gain share, but I don't seriously see that happening. The pattern will be, large company does nothing, small company spends itself into bankruptcy innovating, large company buys small company and its innovative infrastructure at fire sale price, large company charges 2x as much for previously innovative service and places numerous restrictions on its use to ensure that the new service generates more revenue for its other business units as well, customers start to look for new innovative services to get away from large company. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[iminplaya]

At least it doesn't seem as though my cable (TV and internet) provider Comcast is going to be merging with any of the above anytime soon (I hope...).

Hope no more. It may have happened a long time ago. I can't tell. The world is just one big corporation.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

As far as I can tell from that website, that is just information from when AT&T sold their cable internet services to Comcast. I was kinda worried there for a moment ^_^;

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[iminplaya]

Yeah, I wasn't sure what it meant. It was from a long time ago. I only threw it up there because I don't know where or how to do a shareholder search on SBC or Comcast. I'm interested in seeing how much overlap there is.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be true except that they're usually the same, or have a common parent. The two largest mobile providers are Verizon and Cingular, which is owned by AT&T and BellSouth.

1. The FCC has not finalized the merger.
2. Verizon business lines, both wireless and land, have at least a 45% minority shareholder stake from foreign investors, NYNEX and a UK company, which will still impact the isolated competition (as little as it is at present) over the following years. Those foreign investmentors don't answer to any parent company.
3. Even after a merger, competition will actually increase directly in multi-channel video services (aka, the Cables).

Wireless will never compete with the Cable companies providing those services. It's for that very reason this merger was initiated by AT&T. If you don't believe me, just ask Verizon or AT&T about the billions in fiber investment spent over the past few years for that very reason. You will see a severe drop in video services pricing over the next few years should this merger be finalized. Comcast just doesn't compare to what packages Verizon alone offers at present with their multi channel fiber services being deployed all over the DFW metroplex, for example. There just isn't any comparison. I should know, since I have their video, phone, and broadband package service now. Comcast got a swift kick in the ass recently by Verizon, and they're still rubbing their ass. Watch and see what develops in the near term on your broadband billing statements. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised...

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not well-informed on video service pricing, so I'll take your word for it. But I don't really care about television, VOD, digital music, or any of the other "content" or "enhanced services" offered by the cablecos and telcos. To me, "Internet access" simply means a bidirectional pipe, with performance and reliability characteristics commensurate with cost, through which bits can be shoved onto and retrieved from the Internet at large. I'm not a media consumer; I don't care about Survivor, American Idol, or the latest machinations of the RIAA. I stopped doing business with those people years ago and have no intention of giving them my custom in the future. The topic of interest here, therefore, is the selling price of that bidirectional pipe relative to its performance and reliability characteristics. My assertion, simply, was that the mobile carriers are not in competition with the landline providers in this space for the primary reason that they're one and the same. Therefore the mobile carriers will have no large effect on the prices charged for Internet access, even if they expand their offerings in the space, because any new offerings are likely to be much more expensive than landlines for similar performance and reliability characteristics (for technical reasons) and to be bundled with existing landline services and/or new "content" services (for business reasons) that will further increase their effective price. For consumers of digital media, these developments may or may not be beneficial, but that has little bearing on the prices that will be charged for Internet access, through whatever medium it's provided. In short, any new landline (fiber) based service is going to be tied to expensive video content services and other "digital media" services, with much of that additional cost going to the so-called entertainment providers. It makes little difference whether the company that bills you is Verizon, Cingular, or Comcast; the price of the service will be higher (for the same quality) than is being charged today, and much of the difference will go to BMG, Sony, Disney, and their friends and subsidiaries.

In effect, the changes you observe belong in a discussion of the cable TV market (that is, the market for content), not the Internet access market (that is, the market for content transmission infrastructure), even if the Internet is to be used as the delivery mechanism. To pretend otherwise is equivalent to arguing that using bigger and faster trucks to deliver stamped DVDs to retailers will lead to lower prices on truck rentals. It may, to the extent that more infrastructure exists for building trucks more economically, or it may not, to the extent that the added demand for trucks to deliver DVDs results in decreased availability of trucks for other purposes. In general, increased demand means higher prices, and in this case the demand for the ability to transmit data is coming not so much from Internet access end users as from the content providers. A temporary increase in competition among firms providing that access to content providers may well lower the prices they pay, but it's unlikely to have any lasting impact on the Internet access market as a whole, since any capacity added will already be sold, effectively, to the content providers (even if the end users pay part or all of the bill, the content providers are the ones who demand the transmission capability because they are the ones who make money when people watch their advertising, and the expansion of infrastructure will be determined primarily by the content providers' demonstrated ability either to pay for it directly or to convince end users to do so). That is, supply will increase only to keep pace with the content providers' increased demand; there will be no inherent decrease in provisioning cost nor any fundamental change in the market for access.

Re:No competition = higher prices in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

there exist fairly natural monopolies [wikipedia.org] because of the huge fixed costs of the infrastructure

If government is entangled in the market (which it is -- heavily) then all bets are off. Obviously, a natural monopoly must occur 100% voluntarily, as coercion (whether organized, i.e. government, or unorganized, i.e. criminal) is how it becomes unnatural. If we don't define this in terms of coercion vs. voluntary association, then what meaning does it have?

Cable all the way

[LiquidCoooled]

I currently pay £34.99 per month for my 10Mb connection from NTL here in England.
Even though its more expensive than ADSL, W00000t is all I can say!
I prefer my cable because ADSL still appears to dialup and the IP changes every time you sneeze.
The ethernet cable out the back of my machine is designed for super quick data connections and thats exactly what it does.

As an example:
    I just downloaded Ubuntu (697.8MB) over http in under 10minutes, ~1200kB per second is nice.

as a FYI for other NTL broadband customers get a cable modem the set top boxes cannot handle 10Mbit (but NTL will be happy to take your money anyway).

Re:Cable all the way

[fatgav]

What ADSL are you talking about? I'm on plusnet ADSL and get a static IP, 8Mb/s, all for less than 20 squid! Also my traffic isn't shafted through an array of transparent proxies and monitoring equipment like it is on ntl. It's much more reliable too, and better ping responses.

Re:Cable all the way

[iangoldby]

I used to have NTL cable on their 2Mbps tarrif. But after a long argument about their use of RBLs to block emails from even entering their networks (not just spam emails) I moved to a 1Mbps ADSL plan with PlusNet. What has surprised me is that in normal web browsing I haven't noticed the reduction in speed at all. I'm now paying £15 a month, which is considerably less than I paid NTL. NTL were fine when everything was working, but they are well known for their almost non-existant customer service. If something breaks, you're screwed.

Re:Cable all the way

[LiquidCoooled]

A static IP on BT adsl costs £10 per month extra last time I checked.
As for the transparent proxy I haven't noticed any problems with it.
Likewise with pingtimes, I play CS and HL2 multiplayer online and can't remember the last time I had a problem with it.

I might just be lucky with my connection, but its been like this in the previous 3 houses we have lived in in recent years.
The set top boxes themselves are a different issue however and when you get a bad one its constantly bad, but get one that sits nicely and your net experience is quick and simple.

Re:Cable all the way

[onebuttonmouse]

Don't tar all ADSL providers with the same brush. I have an "up to 8Mb" service, more like 4Mb in practice for £20 per month. More importantly for me, its got a 448k upload speed, and my IP address has never changed, even when I upgraded to a higher speed. Moreover, my provider doesn't complain about me running things like SMTP, HTTP, FTP or DNS servers like NTL used to.

Re:Cable all the way

[DanielSchuller]

I pay 5000yen about £25 for 50Mb from Yahoo :D

Re:Cable all the way

[pete6677]

In every case I've seen or heard of, the slowest cable modem service is faster than the fastest DSL service. I've never seen or heard of any exceptions to this.

Re:Cable all the way

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy with my 15/2Mbps service from the local cable co. in Virginia. Also, I find that I get more use out of the upstream then the downstream.

768Kbps Down - 256Kbps Up $24.95
5Mbps Down - 2Mbps Up $39.95
15Mbps Down - 2Mbps Up $54.95

Re:Cable all the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you living in some sort of a parallel Universe where NTL services can actually be considered good? In my experience, their TV service is awful and their Internet is both slow and unreliable..

Re:Cable all the way

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer my cable because ADSL still appears to dialup

Only if you insist on using a crappy USB modem. ADSL here, and the connection to the outside world is provided over ethernet or wireless to a router, and never a dial do I need.

Re:Cable all the way

[eyewhin]

Here in Germany, I am paying 49 Euro for 20mbs ADSL2 plus telephone flat rate. Before I could finally convince my girlfriend to switch from ISDN, we were paying the same price for 64kbs and flatrate telephone service. All I can say is 20mbs screams :-)

Re:Cable all the way

[really?]

What a rip-off. ;-) Power company in Hiroshima - ChuDen - charges that for 100 Mb fibre. Makes me want to move back to Japan. :-|

Re:Cable all the way

[smoker2]

I pay £24 / month for "up to 8Mb" ADSL from BT - I actually get 6Mb down and 448Kbps up.
I use a switch with built in modem so it doesn't have to "dial up" every time. My ip hasn't changed for at least 6 months.

As for actual download speeds, 10Mbit means nothing if you are dloading from anywhere outside the providers network, due to the various overheads involved in switching and traffic levels. As an example, I just downloaded the FC5 dvd iso (3.5GB) over http in just under 6 minutes, but that was over 6 feet of Cat5e from my linux box ! Using bit torrent direct from Fedora it took around 10 hours. Statistics are meaningless without context.

BTW, I was paying £24 / month for a 2Mbit line then BT upgraded it for free. Previously it was a 1Mbit line. So I've gone from a 1Mbit line to a 6Mbit line with no increase in cost, in just under 2 years.

And people complain about BT as the incumbent telco !

Recently Bulldog have been advertising a 16 Mb line for around £9.75 (for the first 3 months), but the small print shows that the dload limit is 1Gig a month AND you have to buy a phone line from them too. Bulldog are shite. They are worse since Cable and Wireless bought them out. You also have to live within 2 inches of one of their PoPs.

Re:Cable all the way

[grahammm]

Here is an exception, not only that but the fastest DSL is faster than the fastest cable. There are 2 providers (Bulldog and Be) who have 24Mbps ADSL2+ service, but this is not available in all exchanges and only those with short lines can get the full speed. 8M/800k rate-adaptive ADSL is generally available from most exchanges country wide, but again not everyone can get the maximum speed. The slowest cable modem service is 1M and the fastest 10M.

£24.99 for 512/256.

[caluml]

£24.99 for 512/256.
But I stick with them because they have decent fast newsgroups with all the binaries. I'm talking about you, Zen.

I rang up though, and asked for IPv6 connectivity. They said they didn't do it because there was no demand for it. I said, "Well, now there's demand for it", and they said that that didn't count.

Next UK ISP with native IPv6, and newsgroups with binaries, and I'm off. You hear that, Zen? :)

Re:£24.99 for 512/256.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do YOU need IPv6? Are you runnnig out of addresses already?

Re:£24.99 for 512/256.

[rjshields]

£15 for 2meg/256 with basic cable TV package thrown in. It was perfect until Telewest got bought up by NTL. I expect the general level of service to go downhill from here :-(

I don't know about binary newsgroups or IPv6.

Re:£24.99 for 512/256.

[dodobh]

Easynet offers v6, IIRC.

Don't They Know?

[MudButt]

Most neighborhoods have a free wireless broadband provider... Apparently called "Linksys"...

Re:Don't They Know?

[RickPartin]

I seem to recall seeing this comment Here.

Re:Don't They Know?

[Explodicle]

An old joke... on SLASHDOT? No way!

Re:Don't They Know?

[shelterpaw]

Yeah and I offer mine on a blue network for a half mile range, so be nice and be courteous.

Re:Don't They Know?

[Ma3oxuct]

Yeh, I use it all the time. Sure, it does not have any fancy encryption, but it works. It's speed varies from time to time (probably due to entire apartment comlex connecting), but its all good. And heck, I can't get in trouble for all of the p.., excuse me, stuff that I download.

Re:Don't They Know?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Linksys have free neighborhoods.

$0?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Broadband should be free -- provided by spread-spectrum radio-on-chip systems that people just generally get used to requested when they buy laptops, cellphones, automobiles, etc.

These scale backward: the more users, the better your connection.

Re:$0?

[rob1980]

Somebody's going to have to pay for the hardware. Your $0 broadband is a pipe dream that nobody will buy in to.

Re:$0?

[geekoid]

I think he is saying it is built into all devices, creating a mesh. So the laptop you buy, or pda, or vehical would be the hardware.

Re:$0?

[colinrichardday]

But what about access points/routers? Or does everyone route everyone else's traffic? Or am I missing something?

Not to brag but...

[fredistheking]

I get 3MB cable for $20 a month from Charter Communications. No contracts and I don't have to have cable TV service. I live in Long Beach, CA.

Re:Not to brag but...

[twistedcubic]

Is this a promotional deal? Maybe I should move down there. By the way, where in Long Beach do you get free wireless internet?

Re:Not to brag but...

[colinrichardday]

I suspect that the GP that one gets free wireless anywhere that someone is running an unprotected access point. :-)

I switched for price

[Doctor Memory]

I used to have cable (TW RoadRunner service). Never had a problem with billing or availability, speeds were advertised as 5M/768 and I was seeing about that. But I was paying $55/month for it, and when my local phone company (Alltel) started advertising 1.5M/768 for $30, I couldn't say no. Yeah, downloads are a bit slower, but still not bad (I generally see ~170MB/sec down, vs. 280 or so w/cable). Latency seems to be about the same. My only real complaint is that with RR, I had a quasi-static IP that I could access from anywhere. Now my DSL modem gets a 192.168.x.x address, so I'll have to pay if I want to put my web site back up... :/ Still, I figure I'm saving $300/year, so I'm happy.

Re:I switched for price

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure your modem isn't just acting as a router (not a network guru) and putting you behind it's firewall? The single port actiontec modem I got from Qwest worked like that. You can probably access your modem's config by going to 192.168.1.1 or the like then port forward. Won't help with your IP changing, but the IP won't change if your modem is always on and connected.. at least I don't think.

Re:I switched for price

[awksedfred]

Oh yeah one other thing I forgot. You'll need to enable http requests in the services part of your router as well ;-)

Re:I switched for price

[awksedfred]

Arg.... for some reason my first post didn't work. Here it is:

There should be another IP in your router besides the 192.168 since your router cannot be accessed for the outside with that address. If you poke around in there it shouldn't be too hard to find although the unfortunate part is that it changes sometimes. Also you should be able to specify a host on the inside for your web server. I think you just put in the host name or something.

Re:I switched for price

[DittoBox]

I generally see ~170MB/sec down

Well hot diggity!! Where do I sign up?!?!

Re:I switched for price

[Abcd1234]

Actually, it can if the DHCP lease expires, which depends on your ISPs configuration. Typically it's on the order of weeks to months.

Re:I switched for price

[llefler]

I've got TW RoadRunner too. I used to pay $44.95, then Unite started competing with them and they offered me $29 if I upgraded to digital cable. I went from $85 a month for RR and basic cable to $70 for RR and digital cable with HBO. At the same time, my cable has gone from 2m when I signed up 6-8 years ago to something over 5m. (not sure, I rarely hit the DL cap, I don't P2P and only grab ISOs when I need them) I'm surprised you didn't get a competitive offer from TW/RR.

I do wish they would increase the UL cap though. It would make it faster copying things to my hosted site.

Re:I switched for price

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why slashdot is going to shit.

a guy with broadband can't figure out what his static ip is. /me shrugs.

i think it's time to move to another site. this one's getting a mite crowded with the wrong peeps.

(he's probably got a cell phone too -doubling up of services, a land line and a cell phone, so in effect that dsl really cost him $30 + POTS [aka plain old telephone line])

Re:I switched for price

[jjeffries]

I have a cow-orker with Alltel DSL, and their setup was messing up his VOIP. That fake IP was coming from his modem--it's got NAT in there and uses PPPOE on the WAN side. Complain loudly and to enough people and it is within their power to send you a modem set up to bridge, or get your own ADSL modem (almost any will work) and run PPPOE on your own box--you'll get a quasi-static IP just like on cable.

not really cheaper

[aichpvee]

"At the end of 2005, the average price of DSL service was about $32 per month, roughly $9 less than cable, according to research firm IDC."

DSL is still more expensive than cable unless you have a landline already. Home telephone service is around 40$/month here, which would make DSL (assuming I could get 32$/month anyway, which seems low) that would put me at over 70$. Compared to cable which is under 60$ and comes with "free" basic cable, since there's no way not to pay for that too.

I've already got a cellphone and don't have any use for a landline. Maybe if the DSL providers were actually any better than comcast (local cable monopoly), but until they are it's not worth the extra cash.

Re:not really cheaper

[Eldrik]

I just received a phone line from SBC for $5.20/month. Now this is before taxes and fees, and has no long distance, and a limit on 60 local calls per month. But because I only ordered it so I could get DSL from another provider, that's alright with me.

Basic phone service for $40/month? Sounds like you're getting ripped off and/or exaggerating.

Re:not really cheaper

[proxima]

DSL is still more expensive than cable unless you have a landline already. Home telephone service is around 40$/month here, which would make DSL (assuming I could get 32$/month anyway, which seems low) that would put me at over 70$.

My case was the opposite, actually. I didn't want basic TV nor a landline. DSL at the faster speed is about $50 + taxes (including land line), whereas cable would be about $60 + taxes (sometimes they had deals for the first 6 months or whatever). Some people might find basic cable more useful than a landline, so YMMV. Still, it's nice to have dialup as a backup (not that I've used it since I got DSL), and not having the option to watch TV saves quite a bit of time wasted watching programs I don't like all that much anyway.

Re:not really cheaper

[banjou]

My old contract use to run me $21.00(DSL) + $6.41 (Basic Landline) = $30.00. I re-upped my contract and now I am still paying roughly the same but I get DSL ($14.99) + phone w nationwide long distance and other misc bells and wistles ($15.00). Oh wait... and I have Satellite service that gives me 60 channels for $34.00. soooo for about $65 dollars I get DSL, Phone with long distance and Satellite! hmmm..... better do some checking around you're getting reemed!!!

Re:not really cheaper

[evilviper]

DSL (assuming I could get 32$/month anyway, which seems low)

Low? With a 1-year contract, you can get it for $15/mo, easily.

Besides, cable companies often try pulling the same crap as telcos, and telcos sometimes have minimal fees for DSL-only lines, so YMMV greatly.

Re:not really cheaper

[_Wizurd_Uv_Odz_]

Thus spoke aichpvee: "DSL is still more expensive than cable unless you have a landline already. Home telephone service is around 40$/month here, which would make DSL (assuming I could get 32$/month anyway, which seems low) that would put me at over 70$. Compared to cable which is under 60$ and comes with "free" basic cable, since there's no way not to pay for that too.

I've already got a cellphone and don't have any use for a landline. Maybe if the DSL providers were actually any better than comcast (local cable monopoly), but until they are it's not worth the extra cash."

Actually, Verizon _does_ offer DSL without a landline. I don't know about any price differentials for those who have a landline, but I don't recall having seen one. On the other hand, Comcast will let you have Internet access only. (Remember, the cable line goes from the wall outlet to either the set-top box, the modem/router/gateway, or even both. It's why they include a line splitter in their start-up packages.) The difference is about $15-20 per month.

So, the cable company penalizes you for not buying other services from them, while the phone companies do not. (At least in my area. As always, YMMV.)

Re:not really cheaper

[LackThereof]

My DSL provider charges me only $5 extra per month for not having a land line telephone. Even the telcos will give you DSL-only packages these days for similar prices. Your quoted prices are from the ancient past.

Re:not really cheaper

[tylernt]

DSL is still more expensive than cable unless you have a landline already.

Not always. I had naked cable (no TV, just internet) that was $50/mo. When Qwest finally put a CO near me, I switched to naked DSL (no voice, just internet) for $42/mo. Of course, I'm using their no-frills ISP service that doesn't even come with an email account, but who cares when you have Gmail.

Re:not really cheaper

[cyngus]

I get DSL and a landline for $54/month in San Francisco with SBC. Comcast would charge me $58/month for just Internet access (after 3 months at $19.99/month). I don't have much use for the landline, but it does provide some utility if I lose my cell phone or the network is experiencing problems

Re:not really cheaper

[aquarian]

Actually, Verizon _does_ offer DSL without a landline. I don't know about any price differentials for those who have a landline, but I don't recall having seen one. On the other hand, Comcast will let you have Internet access only. (Remember, the cable line goes from the wall outlet to either the set-top box, the modem/router/gateway, or even both. It's why they include a line splitter in their start-up packages.) The difference is about $15-20 per month.

So, the cable company penalizes you for not buying other services from them, while the phone companies do not. (At least in my area. As always, YMMV.)

YMMV indeed. I know Verizon offers DSL-only in some places, but not here.

Our cable company is Adelphia-now-Comcast. They're so awful you'd have to be crazy to deal with them. Maybe the Comcast takeover will improve things, but it's been awhile already and I see no evidence of it. Unfortunately here in the red states there's no consumer protection. Whatever laws we do have are not enforced.

Re:not really cheaper

[Brandybuck]

And how is this worse than having to buy basic cable service when you don't have a television?

Re:not really cheaper

[Sublmnl]

Comcast is a monopoly. And twice I have had to miss a day of work because of their "contractors" incompetence. The managers were unapologetic and refused compensation for my wages. I chose DSL which actually has better upload speeds than Comcast....which suits me fine...I use Bitorrent...the faster the upload, the faster the download. I rarely max out my 3mb download speed. And it's a dedicated line. I don't want to share my "girlfriend" with the rest of the people on my block. And I only pay 4 dollars more for my my landline and dsl. Why do I need cable? I watch the news online, listen to radio, and CBS now offers their shows online.

Re:not really cheaper

[hedwards]

At least here, the dsl providers are much better than comcast. I used to have a cable modem through comcast. The couple of months running up to my cancellation of the service saw daily chunks of 4 or 5 hours where the service was completely unavailable.

Calling for support resulted in no help, and also no apology. Their solution was to keep track of the hours and call them to get credits. By contrast Earthlink, my provider for dsl, hasn't been down a single day in the time I have been with them. I think I couldn't get on once, but it was my own fault.

I personally don't consider comcast to be a provider worth considering; since they don't even do a good job with cable tv service.

Re:not really cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

What is cost with fees and taxes? Probably close to the figure the grandparent claimed.

Re:not really cheaper

[rfc1394]

I just received a phone line from SBC for $5.20/month. Now this is before taxes and fees, and has no long distance, and a limit on 60 local calls per month. But because I only ordered it so I could get DSL from another provider, that's alright with me.

That is the least expensive phone service you can get and where they offer it it's not a bad idea if you don't use your phone much. In the Washington, DC area you can generally only get that from Verizon in Maryland, and you could only have one phone line. I suspect you also couldn't add features to your line; it was what they called "life line service" and it was for people who couldn't afford full unlimited local service but didn't qualify for subsidized service. The problem is that it's really easy to go over your minimum call allotment if you aren't careful. Found that out once a few years ago when I was looking for work and didn't know we only had minimum service, and ran up $80 in message units, in one month. (I sent out more than 1,000 faxes). Thing was, full local service would have only cost an extra $8. Having dealt with Verizon back when it was Bell Atlantic and C&P Telephone, and all the times I've ordered service from them and had the back office screw up my order in one way or another, I refuse to do business with them any more, since I now have a choice. I'd rather pay the extra $10, get unlimited local service, and buy it (for usually less than Verizon charges) from someone else.

Basic phone service for $40/month? Sounds like you're getting ripped off and/or exaggerating.

No not exaggerating (ripped off maybe, but not exaggerating). Basic phone service - which, in the Washington, D.C. metro area, generally means unlimited local service for residential customers - with taxes and fees runs about $40 a month. And if I wasn't getting service from someone other than Verizon - it's a company called Cavalier - it might be even more expensive.

Right now, with DSL my phone bill runs about $65 a month. Taxes and fees run about $15 of that. My phone bill would be about $40 a month if I wasn't taking the $25 a month DSL service. For $20 more I could get unlimited long distance as well, but seeing how for the last three months our long distance usage has been averaging less than 50c a month I think we can do without it.

Re:not really cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you haven't gotten your bill yet?

In January I ordered a similar service from Verizon: $8.50 for 50 calls per month. That was to qualify for a $15 per month DSL deal, which is half the price of most broadband services being discussed here.

But you won't see me crowing about the "good deal" I found. That is because after taxes and fees, I somehow have never yet paid less than $60 for a month's service.

This didn't really surprise me, because I have been forced for years and years now to subscribe to these oligopolistic American telcos. They all rip us off like that.

Please don't pretend that the amount they claim to charge means anything.

Queue up the anecdotes and arm-chair economists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really going to get an answer? 50 "I pay $x for y", some "it should be free", a bunch of posts just bitching about evil corporations, complaining, trolling, some flamebait and maybe a funny post or two.

Not necessarily true.

[IANAAC]

... while those with more money to spend on services are opting for cable modems."

I don't know that I agree with that. I definitely spend more on DSL than I would with either Cable or plain DSL from ATT (I get mine from Speakeasy). I'm one their Onelink plan, which means you don need a phone /line/number from your telco. I choose to pay more for my DSL because: 1) I get pretty incredible customer support from Speakeasy and 2) Speakeasy allows me to ANYTHING with my connection. I also have VoIP through them, but for my home business I also have another VoIP account with Broadvoice. My provider has no problem with this.

I've never had cable or internet access, so I can't compare with that, however, I used to have SBC and, while the were lower priced (although not really when you take into account the phone service needed), the service itself was horrible. So was their customer support.

I'm more than willing to pay a little extra to get everything I'm getting.

forget 9 bucks difference.. what about faster line

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously.. the US has become a backwater when it comes to individual residential line performance.

They lower the prices and refuse to upgrade the infrastructure. I want better infrastructure. Nations like japan and norway have shown that the consumers consider $100 a month worth it if you give them 25 to 100 mbps with an upload better than the craptastic 32kBps we get on average in the US.

Oh.. and having a modem that doesnt cut out every 5 minutes would be good too.

(Here's a source on that)

[Mateo_LeFou]

The Economics of the Wireless Last Mile

Re:(Here's a source on that)

[nosredna]

I stopped reading that when he said "Contemporary engineers say that "interference" is not given by the laws of physics."

That's the most asinine statement I've encountered all week, and I've been dealing with customers.

Re:(Here's a source on that)

[Bryansix]

I fyou read the article it is talking about radio's listening to one frequecy at a time and the article is pointing out that they do not have to limit themselves in that way.

To get the best DSL price...

[not_anne]

...they lock you into a long term contract. The pricing for DSL without a contract is about the same as Cable.

Re:To get the best DSL price...

[RingDev]

Like anyone here doesn't need long term internet service ;)

-Rick

Re:To get the best DSL price...

[geekoid]

1 year contract, 14.99 per month.
768/128

Re:To get the best DSL price...

[tepples]

Like anyone here doesn't need long term internet service ;)

Many college students live with their parents for 3 months out of the year, and their parents cannot justify the extra DSL fee for the other 9 months out of the year. Generally, the DSL contracts have a minimum term of 12 months.

Re:To get the best DSL price...

[Duhavid]

And the next year?

Re:To get the best DSL price...

[not_anne]

If you compare 8 megabit cable to 128k dsl, yeah, there's going to be a big price difference. If you look at the pricing with no contract, dsl is the within a dollar of cable...

1. AT&T: 3-6 megabit, no contract, $44.99/month

2. Comcast: 6 megabit, no contract, $45.95/month

This is in zip code 95831.

Lucky Bastard!

[RingDev]

They just upped my rates again. I pay $115 for a 3Mb connection, Digital cable, and the premium movie channels. If I drop the premium channels and down to a lower connection, my bill would actually increase to $120. As much as I hate over paying, I hate paying a company that I know is packet forwarding to the NSA and attempting to get a QoS billing scheme even more.

-Rick

Wrong...

[Ogemaniac]

In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers. In most circumstances, this means marginal cost plus fair return on investment.

Think about it this way. What are the things you are willing to pay the most for? How about water, for example? It surely is much more important than DSL. Yet you pay pennies for water, even though your willingness to pay is much higher. This is because the COST of providing water is very low, and competition assures that the price tracks these costs.

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the competition in supplying water? Bottled water? NOT!

Re:Wrong...

[plasmacutter]

In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers. In most circumstances, this means marginal cost plus fair return on investment.

whoever taught you your economics, they should be fired.

the price is determined by the desires of the buyers first, with the costs of the sellers a close second.

You cannot market a product nobody wants, or a product everyone wants out of their price range or they dont buy, plain and simple, and thus the market collapses.

Further, if you are not pressured by consumer needs and competition for those needs (e.g. if a monopoly or oligopoly is presently stifling competition) there is no reason to develop greater efficiency and lower those costs. Therefore the consumer suffers, they do not get optimal service for their dollar, and arguably the producer and even the environment suffer, as they are not making efficient use of their inputs.

Re:Wrong...

[wik]

I don't know where you live, but in Pittsburgh I pay more for water (including sewer service) for a house of 3 than I pay for DSL. Water is a municipal service and there is no competition.

Re:Wrong...

[quanticle]

/*This is because the COST of providing water is very low, and competition assures that the price tracks these costs.*/

Huh? How is there competition in the water market? In most every city, there is a single provider working under a government enforced monopoly. The water market is probably the single most regulated market in the nation.

Also, if the cost of water reflected the costs of providing it, users in Phoenix, AZ would pay more than users in Buffalo, NY. This is currently NOT the case. The fact is, the price of water usually reflects the government subsidies, rather than actual market costs resulting in huge inefficiencies, and excessive depletion of groundwater supplies in many parts of the West.

Re:Wrong...

[ch-chuck]

In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers.

Whahahaha - you must be new to this planet. I think "properly working market" is the key phrase, as they don't exist, and businessfolk pay legislatures big bucks for "fair competitive advantages" so they can charge as much as the market will bear. The margin above cost has nothing to do with it. Time after time, if a business can reduce their cost, they will never pass the savings on to the consumer unless they have to.

Anyway, my point is, I have no DSL option, and cable costs $49 / month. I also have to laugh when these people arguing against a Net-Neutrality bill claim the 'free market' will solve the problem. For me, it's the Charter Cable monopoly or nothing [except for far out stuff like satellite Internet or something].

Re:Wrong...

[evilviper]

In a properly working market

No such thing. Companies know they can charge more and make more profit, so long as the competition doesn't undercut them, and they do exactly that.

the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers.

That's only even possibly and remotely true if there is unlimited supply and unlimited competition.

Yet you pay pennies for water, even though your willingness to pay is much higher.

That's because 95%+ of us don't really need to go through a company to get it. They need to keep their price low because they are competing with nature itself.

Re:Wrong...

[geekoid]

Is that for water, or your water bill?

The 'water bill' in many places includes sewage and possible other services.

What does a gallon of water cost you?

Re:Wrong...

[maxume]

People are also willing to pay quite a lot more for water than they pay for the water that comes out of their tap. It boggles my mind that people regularly pay $1 for 16 ounces of water when the same amount barely shows up on the monthly bill. Of course, the water that comes out of the tap is only safe and clean, it isn't crystal or magic or whatever.

In these parts, the water is always provided by the municipality, the government doesn't just enforce the monopoly, it is the monopoly.

Re:Wrong...

[Millenniumman]

It is possible to provide water for oneself in most areas. There are several systems for filtering water collected in gutters. The same is somewhat true of electricity, although that is more expensive to implement.

Re:Wrong...

[proxima]

So the grandparent made the assumption that a market exists for broadband. I don't see the need to be quite so critical of him/her for going straight to the producer side.

Further, if you are not pressured by consumer needs and competition for those needs (e.g. if a monopoly or oligopoly is presently stifling competition) there is no reason to develop greater efficiency and lower those costs. Therefore the consumer suffers, they do not get optimal service for their dollar, and arguably the producer and even the environment suffer, as they are not making efficient use of their inputs.

Monopolies and oligopolies certainly do have an incentive to lower costs; it allows them to raise profit. The key is that they are able to keep prices higher than costs. Still, it is in general the best interest of any firm to make efficient use of their inputs, in the sense of using the cheapest inputs per unit of good or service produced. A monopoly, for example, will just (in general) choose to produce less quantity in total than a competitive market would.

Re:Wrong...

[ninjojitsu]

erm... no. Read Schumpeter or even Adam Smith. In a world of perfect competition, the price of a good or service is simply the marginal cost plus the cost of capital for that industry (ie the fair margin). In a perfectly working economy. Which nobody has. Hence the fact that prices are determined by willingness to pay.

Re:Wrong...

[no space left]

i took eco101.. the term you are looking for is called consumer surplus:

"Consumer surplus is the economic gain accruing to a consumer (or consumers) when they engage in trade. The gain is the difference between the price they are willing to pay (or reservation price) and the actual price. If someone is willing to pay more than the actual price, their benefit in a transaction is how much they saved when they didn't pay that price"

the consumer surplus is normally very high on water but evaporates (heh) the second you go to a concert :)

Re:Wrong...

[plasmacutter]

you didnt say anything different from what I said, you simply framed it differently:

Hence the fact that prices are determined by willingness to pay.
would you not agree that if a firm's cost was too high the consumer would not be willing to pay? same thing I said.. consumer desires outweigh cost in the formation and maintainance of a market.

A market with all producers is not a market, and while a market with all consumers is also not a market there would be no reason to produce unless there was some tangible consumer demand.. consumers come first.. I don't deny cost is a factor, thus why they call it supply/demand equilibrium, but consumers come first.

Re:Wrong...

[plasmacutter]

well he was trying to make a point that these firms are charging what theyre charging because it is consistent with their cost, at least that's how I read it. That's not true.. it's more consistent with monopoly/oligopoly rent.. which is supposed to be illegal, though laws against it are never enforced as some of that rent goes straight into politician's pockets.

Re:Wrong...

[geekoid]

Different ditrict will bid for water contracts, and some municipalities will have there own supply they could use instead of who ever there buying from now.
The person paying the water bill doesn't have direct competion(except delivered water), but there municipality may.

And there are some subsidized area, Like Arizona, most is an overstatment.

I ahve never seen a water district that had "huge inefficiencies" granted, I hacen't seen them all.

I have seen what people think are huge inefficiencies, but it turns out they were ignorant of some fact.

Re:Wrong...

[quanticle]

/*I ahve never seen a water district that had "huge inefficiencies" granted, I hacen't seen them all.*/

I'm not saying that the water districts are inefficient distribution systems. I'm saying that the current highly-regulated water market encourages inefficient *use* of water (for example: swimming pools are popular in Phoenix due to low water prices).

/*And there are some subsidized area, Like Arizona, most is an overstatment.*/

Again, most of the western states (including California) have subsidized water due to the agricultural demands for irrigation and growing cities.

Re:Wrong...

[quanticle]

No need to filter gutter water. You can usually get acceptable quality water (in most areas) by digging you own well, and having a septic system to handle wastewater exhaust. Though, given increased pollution and the costs of digging wells and septic systems, its not surprising that most go for municipal hookups when they're available.

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it this way. What are the things you are willing to pay the most for? How about water, for example? It surely is much more important than DSL. Yet you pay pennies for water, even though your willingness to pay is much higher.This is because the COST of providing water is very low, and competition assures that the price tracks these costs.

Wow, didn't look up those figures did you? Water is cheap because it's heavily subsidized for the greater public good. In most of the United States (maybe all), the cost of water is heavily regulated and providers are not allowed to charge different prices to different customers based on distance from the pumps or anything like that. The cost is basically spread over the entire populace utilizing the source.

The guy living on top of the hill pays the same for water as the guy living next door to the pump, but who do you think it costs more to provide water to? That's right, the guy living next door to the pump is subsidizing the cost of supplying water to the guy on top of the hill.

That doesn't even bring into consideration that in many locations the cost of water is subsidized by tax dollars...

Rest assured, if the suppliers were allowed to charge more, they would, because you're right, they have a natural monopoly.

Oh, and by "properly working market" you are implying that perfect competition in a free market is "proper", Maybe I like barter-based economies you insensitive clod!

Re:Wrong...

[SimplyI]

In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers. In most circumstances, this means marginal cost plus fair return on investment.

That is correct.

whoever taught you your economics, they should be fired.

That is incorrect. No cookie for you! You are probably one of those people that think competition is the goal of capitalism. That is, of course, wrong, for two reasons. First being, capitalism has no goal; it is just a term used to describe uncoerced trade. It can't have a goal. People who believe in capitalism can have goals. But saying capitalism has a goal is a logical fallacy. It is a confusion of capitalism with those who believe in it. Secondly, I realize that it is unnecessary to continue decrying the thought that competition is the the goal of capitalism as I've already shown it is not true, but it is important that one realizes the relation between competition and capitalism.

If you believed the other relation, you clearly are confused about the matter. Competition can be thought of as a beneficial side-effect of capitalism. It is, generally, one of the consequences of free trade, and it, generally, is beneficial to the market.

"marginal cost plus fair return on investment." The market is most stable when it is so. If everyone who produces/has anything to offer anything(basically everyone) cannot make enough to recover the marginal costs of the service they offer, everything goes to shit. Likewise, if they are merely able to break even, it stagnates. If they are able to make more, the economy flourishes. This is just what happens. I'm merely speaking observed results here. Government enforcement or any form of regulation in order to "ensure" this is preposterous.

And monopolies are fine. Stop whining about them. Do yourself a favor, go out and make yourself useful to yourself. You're wasting your time.

By the way, I have a monopoly on myself and my property. Also, I am a conspiracy in restraint of the trade of myself and my property. I have often refused work and other trade, such as trade in my property. Also, I recognize you as one of the many threats to my person. Please, attempt to understand what I have said here. It is in your best interest and mine. And, by that I mean, it is in my best interest if you and others realize the asshat stuff you're doing as it helps me be free. That is also one of the reasons that is in your best interest.

I'll take my offtopic, trolling, tin-foil-hat man mod now, please. Thanks.

Re:Wrong...

[wik]

As I said, I include sewer charges. Water comprises more than half of the bill and it still costs more than DSL.

Given that you can't separate water from the sewer charges (at least in Pittsburgh), reasoning about them separately makes little sense from a consumer's point of view. Even if your water predominantly goes in beer, you still pay for the sewer service.

Re:Wrong...

[colinrichardday]

But what would you pay for the last gallon of water that you use each month? If the price of water increased, you might well cut back on your use of it. It is the marginal utility that affects the price.

Re:Wrong...

[colinrichardday]

Where does Adam Smith ever mention marginal cost?

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on the most retarded post ever to be on /.

In no way during your incoherent ramblings did you ever come close to coming up with anything that can be considered a rational thought. Everyone is now dumber for having read your post. I award you no mod points, and may Adam Smith have mercy on your soul.

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, my downstairs neighbors are going to love me putting a septic tank in their bathroom.

But seriously, don't a lot of cities pipe in water from nearby areas because there simply isn't enough on site and/or the water table is way too low?

Re:Wrong...

[tacocat]

No, actually he's only half right. It's a long aged discussion (177x?) about the differences of intrinsic values. How many pounds of diamonds will you pay for a glass of water? What if you have been in the desert for a week? But without the demand (desert) the product (water) has little perceived value.

The biggest problem with this whole picture is that the market availability of DSL versus Broadband is severely warped and everyone knows it. But we are unable to get the congress-critters to recognize that it's really problem at the consumer level. I can't get DSL for love or money. But I can get this expensive broadband that is only offered by one company. No choices.

I'm becoming a fan of DSL being applied to the United States in the same fashion that the Rural Electification Act was used. It required that EVERY house have electricity. I think it should be required that every house which currently have a phone line also have DSL made available at a consumer price that is consistent. You can't charge the guy with a 12 mile special line $599.99 a month and $9.99 in the big city.

But I don't think this will happen in these times. 10 years ago I was of the opinion that the Federal Government should gaurantee delivery of a TCP/IP connection in the same manner that the US Post Office works. I still am.

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, when there is only one option of a cable company or a DSL phone company, the buyer can not set the price.

Broadband is nothing but a monopoly.

Re:Wrong...

[Fallingcow]

In some (many?) places, tap water is friggin' DISGUSTING.

Ours actually has a scent. A bad one.

Even if we're just making a pitcher of iced tea, we can easily tell the difference between one made with filtered gallon-jug water from the store and one made with tap water.

It's worth another $5-$10 a month to get a few gallon jugs and 20-oz bottles of filtered water.

Re:Wrong...

[plasmacutter]

Where the heck did all that come from? since when did I say capitalism had a goal, and what's with that OT spewing forth of ultra-right ideology?

I just dont get what fuels this tremendous rant.

If everyone who produces/has anything to offer anything(basically everyone) cannot make enough to recover the marginal costs of the service they offer, everything goes to shit.

yes it does and if it does nobody cares too ; ), and guess who determines weater they make enough to recover marginal costs.. the consumer...the consumer's tastes and tolerances come first.. then the marginal cost, as I said.. this is why it is called supply/demand equilibrium instead of supply/demand dictation.

Further, no, you are not a monopolist in the labor market.. you are one of several hundred million of the same thing.. a worker. if you don't like this inconvenient truth don't blame me, blame the corporatists who continue to quash labor rights nationwide through "right to work" and anti union legislation.

Competition isn't a side effect of capitalism without consumer, antitrust, and labor protections, centralization of power among a wealthy few and the development of plutocratic government are.

Also, I recognize you as one of the many threats to my person.
You are the one threatening your own freedom by propping these people up on some abstract and patently false "big lie" that anyone can get rich if they work hard enough and follow the rules. The big boys don't play by the rules, they buy the rules to keep you down where you belong.

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several systems for filtering water collected in gutters. The same is somewhat true of electricity, although that is more expensive to implement.

Can you provide more information on your gutter-collected electrical scheme?

Re:Wrong...

[ClamIAm]

In the water market, most of the competition is jockeying to see who gets to control the supply. The book Water Wars explores this, and is really interesting.

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

must have been the steroids in his chicken that killed his sense of smell.

_I_ on the other hand can smell chlorine in a glass of municipal water, and I can smell the faint smell of rotten eggs in it as well.

I can also boil two large pots and have enough dirt left over to plant a small garden. (his kidneys must love that).

can't smell anything or boil out anything from highly filtered water from glass jugs.

Re:Wrong...

[larytet]

and 12 miles is not a problem really. i participated in the creating of device which bundles E1s and Ethernet links over twisted pairs. the problem is solvable and it is not much more expensive than your regular ADSL.

the problem is that providers simply do not care about small cities. they need earnings first. why to try to gain that 0.1% if there is a war over 10%. when the larger markets reach saturation they will have no choise but try to serve smaller markets

i read that in Canada there is a non-profit organisation which buy/rent point-to-point fiber links and deploy WiFi. their goal - broadband Internet access to every house in Canada (and Canada is a large country with little of population). consider establishing of such company in your city. call it Internet fan club or something.

Re:Wrong...

[SimplyI]

You didn't say capitalism had a goal. I shouldn't have mentioned my own evaluation of the likelihood that you thought that. It popped into my mind and spurred the line of thought about capitalism having a goal. It had no bearing on the matter, though. And ultra-right? I didn't think that sounded neofascist...

A chance to gather my thoughts on things and get in some writing practice. That's the primary fuel. Also, it's a subject I enjoy discussing.

It appears that I agree with you on supply and demand. I just have an odd way of interpreting and saying things. It is always the cost of the sellers that determines the price of a product, unless one is going to steal it. If the cost of a product from a sole supplier is X, X is the consumer price. If this price is too high above demand, the business will probably not remain in business long. Now, if someone else begins to supply this product, and they supply it too far below their costs, they won't remain in business long either. So, the price for a product which is in demand and able to be supplied by a wide variety of people, will tend towards the marginal cost plus a bit to keep the supplier supplying this product rather than doing whatever everyone else is doing.

The perhaps verbose conditions are necessary. If some person is the only one able to supply some product and decides to charge too much for the demand, that person, again, will likely not remain in business long. But, while that person is supplying that product and after that person stops supplying, there's no one else to supply it. So, the cost that person sets, is the cost for that product. Of course, such cases as these which fall outside of the conditions of my statement are not the majority, so the market does indeed tend to the marginal cost and a bit... through interaction of supply and demand.

Also, as prices of everything are determined by sellers, no matter what influences them -- demand or otherwise -- prices are determined by sellers. If prices are too high for demand, the market for a product, and the market, in general, will adjust, meaning some combination of prices lowering and demand increasing(negative values a possibility ;D). However, even though the demand of the consumer is a primary motivation in these adjustments, it is, in the end, the will of sellers which adjusts prices. Consumers who take up selling because they see an opportunity are now sellers and can choose what they want to demand in return for their product.

It's ridiculous; I know. But, that's how I see it, and, in the end, it agrees with your statements about supply and demand except on very fine points.

I didn't intend to say I was a monopolist in the labor market, but, rather, a monopolist on the commodity which is me. I may not be in very high demand(in fact, i might be negatively demanded haha), but, nonetheless, I am still hold a monopoly over me.

It depends what is meant by consumer, antitrust, and labor protections. Proper enforcement of the constitution would solve all these issues. Any more laws are superfluous. For instance, consider union laws. I generally disagree with unions, but they have my full support in their right to exist and act unrestrained. If they negotiate a contract with a company that says, for example, that the company will hire only union members. Great. That should be enforced. If it makes a contract that the company will only deal with the union and never with individuals. That's cool, too. Now, labor laws. If you mean laws like the minimum wage, I don't agree. The government has no authority to create such laws and they do not make a market function better or be more free or allow competition. Simply going by the supply-demand thoughts about things, that doesn't make sense(not that I'm saying you agree with these laws. I don't know). Why the work of a single person should be treated differently than any other service or product, I can't understand(not that I'm saying you think they should be treated differently).

Re:Wrong...

[troll -1]

In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers. In most circumstances, this means marginal cost plus fair return on investment.

When the cost of a wireless phone service is more than a wired one and where the wired service costs more to build and maintain, it seems the service providers charge what they think the consumer will pay.

Re:Wrong...

[cengique]

At&T $12/month deal doesn't apply to me for example. The AT&T standard 1.5Mbps download service still costs $30/month. They don't even specify the upload rate.

Not only that, to sign up for DSL you also need to have a land line. In these days, paying for cell phone *and* a land line is not reasonable, especially for the one-person home. Therefore, you need to add the land-line price on top of the DSL to get a fair comparison with the cable company prices. I'm happy with my comcast cable internet of 4Mbps download and 384Kbps upload line for $40/month. It's more than I'd like to pay, but the competitor DSL is slower and more expensive.

Re:Wrong...

[ChrisMaple]

12 miles is a problem. Long lines have loading coils to boost the line's characteristic impedance in the voice range. These coils effectively block high frequencies. They must be replaced with repeaters or other expensive devices. The twisted pairs must be consistent (to avoid reflections) and in good condition (no broken or degraded insulation). Replacing the twisted pair to your isloated farm every twenty years or so as the cables age is not an inexpensive operation.

Some rural areas don't have twisted pair, but still rely on open pairs. Sending high frequencies through these is not likely to be practical.

Re:Wrong...

[benna]

You need to think at the margin. While the absolute utility of water is extremely high, obviously much higher than diamonds, the marginal utility of water is fairly low (drinking one more glass of water isn't all that important). It is the marginal utility and cost which set the quantity supplied. Granted, in a monopoly there is distortion, but even a monopoly cannot charge anything it wants, or it would lose its customers. If prices were high enough, people would just walk down to their local lake. A monopoly essentially faces a downward sloping marginal revenue curve (as opposed to the horizontal price = marginal revenue curve in perfectly competitive markets) and so they produce less than would otherwise be produced, and this makes the price they can charge higher. But if they were to produce even less, in order to send prices even higher, they would profit less.

Re:Wrong...

[bladernr]

Not only that, to sign up for DSL you also need to have a land line. In these days, paying for cell phone *and* a land line is not reasonable, especially for the one-person home.

You have the option of not having a cell phone.

Some carriers will sell you DSL without a fixed line phone. I worry about the damage to the phone infrastructure though. You see, without sealing current on the line (provided by the -40 VDC that powers your home phone), the copper twisted pair could degrade due to corrosion over time. I am a fan of line-powered DSL for that reason, although it is a very uncommon service. With line-powered DSL, you don't "plug in" your DSL modem and, just like your home phone, it works fine during power outages.

Re:Wrong...

[quanticle]

If prices were high enough, people would just walk down to their local lake.

I respectfully disagree. The appropriate substitute good for municipal water is a well and septic system of your own. The cost of those is considerably higher than a municipal water hookup.

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that depends. Municipal water hookup often charges absurd amounts. Even if the water lines go right past your property, you are likely to pay "road frontage" which is to recover the costs of diging up your lawn all the way across. That is absurd when the pipes are already there. It may be cheeper to dig a well then to set up municipla water, but city sewage is almost always cheeper to set up than a septic system.

Re:Wrong...

[benna]

Well fine. I just meant to point out that substitutes exist, whatever they are.

Re:Wrong...

[pommiekiwifruit]

So why don't you put a water filter on your kitchen tap? They are fairly cheap aren't they? I know "Brita" advertises on TV a lot, but they are mainly to get rid of limescale from your water.

As for bottled water IIRC the coca cola company attempted to market a product called "Dasani" water, but it was taken off the market after the government found out it was worse quality than the (London) tap water it was made from (some chemicals they used to make it with were contaminated perhaps).

Re:Wrong...

[fireboy1919]

I really hope not. DSL doesn't have the bandwidth that cable does; it's a bad solution. I don't want to have to pay $10 a month for crappy .3MB/sec connection (what I get with DSL near me - advertised as 768KBS) when I'm also paying $50 for my 5MB/sec connection (what I get from Cable near me - advertised as 6MBS).

The reason that DSL is undercutting cable's pricing is because they can't offer the same download bandwidth.

They are now price more in line with the quality of service they offer.

DSL is the new dialup.

Re:Wrong...

[plasmacutter]

If you mean laws like the minimum wage, I don't agree.
I generally disagree with unions

So you're for laws which allow the producer side to amass tremendous market power and through limited liability to the actual owners and controllers, but you're against similar laws allowing the workers to amass similar market power by protecting them from liability for starting a union.

that's awefully biased. If you want a pure free market then we should be removing the regulations which shield stockholders from liability. Then maybe corporate owners would spend more time assuring the actions of their companies are socially responsible.

If you don't like that prospect however, the only way to restore balance to the market is to allow the workers to collectively bargain as a powerful entity in the same way corporations do.

Re:Wrong...

[bob frost]

TS is 100% on point and correct here--and he's addressing something the silly discussion of the economics of pricing didn't, viz, that in most instances broadband services are a "natural monopoly." Such was the theory behind the regulatory framework over electrical power, natural gas, telephones, airlines, etc. The deregulation craze started about 1978 (with airlines), and the economist who designed it, Albert Kahn, now admits that it was a mistake. Dereg of power gave us Enron, dereg of phones gave us SBC and its buy-up rather build-out business model.

TC writes about the Postal Service--and it was the original natural monopoly, as understood by Madison, Jefferson, et al. We should revisit the logic there, as it was a good one, and it certainly applies to broadband.

A colleague and I did an experiment. We both get broadband from Comcast, but he's in an area where DSL is available, so he negotiates 40% off his bill every six months. I tried, but being out of DSL range, Comcast refused to discount (I noted the pause on their end as the operator looked up availability of DSL at my address). In a number of areas, DSL and cable are priced by collusion (illegal under Sherman Antitrust, but who's enforcing?!) and there is no discounting there, either.

The cost of the famed "last mile" in broadband services is formidable enough that it'd be silly to build a half-dozen different infrastructures. Save everybody money, preclude overbuilding, and regulate broadband.

I know that calling for economic regulation is very out of fashion even now, post-Enron, but it's the only way to keep citizens/netizens from getting gouged. Shucks, if we were in Europe, broadband would probably be provided by the public sector; I wrote my dissertation on Electricite de France, and believe me, that line about "private firms can do it better" is utter ideological BS.

This just in!

[Otter]

The difference in cost between broadband options seems to be the primary motivator for consumer spending, reports News.com. Frugal consumers are opting for the lower-priced DSL options, while those with more money to spend on services are opting for cable modems.

OK, if that qualifies as news, I think it's time to shut the computer down and start the weekend...

Um... How do you figure this is flamebait? (n/t)

[Mateo_LeFou]

When I do flamebait you'll know it 2)

Really?

[i_am_not_a_script_03]

Really?..How much should it cost? It should be free..... But human greed will never let that happen.

Re:Really?

[cranos]

Free? And how exactly is the company providing the broadband meant to pay for the upkeep of the physical network?

Re:Really?

[i_am_not_a_script_03]

I don't know. I don't care.
And that's not the point.
And that's exactly whats wrong with everything today.

Re:Really?

[geekoid]

Stupid script.

Cost of Quality

[Kyokugenryu]

I had Cable for 2-3 years, but after SBC started offering DSL in my area for $20 a month (Where Comcast was upping it soon to $65 a month), I simply had to change over. For the most part I've been happy. The DSL is noticably slower, and I can't run servers like I could before because my IP changes constantly, the price is what I love. Now I have the $12 plan, and I think it's definately worth it. I wouldn't pay any more than the $20 I was paying before, however, because the service from AT&T is terrible. When it works, it works great, but on the rare occasion it isn't working, it takes a while to get someone to fix it.

If I had any moderator points....

[raz0]

... I'd mod you down for flamebait. Damn you!

France wins

[GrAfFiT]

Let's see what 29,99 can get you in France:
24mbit internet
WIFI MIMO router/set-top box, 1gb webspace
Telephone line fees included, you really have nothing else to pay
Unlimited free national and international POTS phone
200 digital TV channels over DSL, HDTV and DVB-T compatible terminal included..

This one company litterally drove the prices down and the offerings up.. Now that the prices are low enough, everybody is catching up on triple-play. They also have other plans, like building a mesh of wifi hotspots using their set-top boxes to route free wireless VoIP calls. Free cell phones, just imagine that..

Re:France wins

[stere0]

You forget to mention that you can watch the free TV channels on your computer over RTSP, and use the phone service with SIP. The SIP service works even when you're not at home. Oh, and the infrastructure all runs on Linux.

Re:France wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see what 29,99 can get you in France: [...]

I was about to say the same thing, but the thing is, France is not so much modern, as US is really lagging nowadays. Compare to Japan, where 100 Mbps fiber is common place, where vendors (most of the time a cutie) will stop you in the street or at any computer shop to offer you an ADSL/fiber/whatever contract. Absolute minimum is 8 Mbps and for a few more yens, the next offer they highly recommand you is 40 Mbps.

Re:France wins

[Anonymous Coward]

They did the smart thing and forced separation of the line access and the line ownership. Japan and I believe Korea have done the same thing. They basically lay fiber to the home and then allow any provider to have equal access to that fiber. Thus you can choose whichever provider you want and the prices for those services go down due to competition.

Here in the US the Telecos are spending much $$$ to guarantee that the laws don't allow such access. Land lines are a natural monopoly and there's lots of money to be made bundling overpriced services to physical cables such that your customers can't chose competitors. We've also had a lot of hoopla about net neutrality legislation but that really addresses the problem at the wrong level and as such is a misguided debate. You don't have to force net neutrality if everyone can chose their own providers, and in fact it's probably a bad idea to do so rather than force line access so that the best solution can emerge in a competitive market.

Re:France wins

[Anonymous Coward]

what happened to the other company?

did it surrender...

Price is not the primary motivator here...

[daoine_sidhe]

There is a local small Telco where I live that offers 3-20mbit with unlimited in-state and out-of-state long distance phone service starting at a flat $70/month. The voice is traditional, non-VOIP (no new-fangled stuff to setup), and their tech support is open 24hrs, and located about 40 miles from where I live. The service is extremely stable, fast, and reliable, and tech-support is top-notch. It's by far the best ISP service I've ever had. What's more, most of the people I interact with (I work for a small PC-repair/system builder type shop; you know the type), are quite content paying more for higher grade service/support than what they get from Verizon.

Cost is not nearly as important as knowing Mom can call tech support and get her internet 'fixed' without feeling like she just had her wisdom teeth out.

Re:Price is not the primary motivator here...

[plasmacutter]

where do you live I want to move there. here we have no CLECS or mom&pop.. we have a bell and comcast =(

Comcast

[stratjakt]

My comcast service went out, and when it came back up I had to re-register it when it forced me to their "sign up and download a 20 meg exe of bullshit to get it going" which made me unplug my linux based router, plug into a windows machine to get it up again.

Once that was done, I noticed they'd pointed me to a DNS server that responded to every request with the same IP- they were bouncing all my requests through one of their servers. This broke a whole lot of shit, as you can imagine. I called to ask about this, and was promptly hung up on when I answered "yes" to "can you load web pages?"

I "fixed" the problem by finding my own DNS servers to use in the meantime, but who knows how long it'll be until they stop DNS requests from traversing out into the real 'net. I am pondering a switch to speakeasy (100 bucks a month for comparable speeds, trying to convince my wife on the its-worth-it-because-they-dont-fuck-with-you angle.)

WTF is up with that? Does anyone know why they're trying to force all my traffic access through a man-in-the-middle like this?

On topic: Comcast costs about $40 more than it should, since this new version of their "service" isn't a real internet connection at all IMO.

Re:Comcast

[cmaxwell]

I haven't had these problems with Comcast, but they certainly charge "what the market will bear". Any suggestions for people who want to run a small-volume webserver at home at better speeds than Comcast or other cablemodem ISPs will offer? I just want to serve my Gallery photos at a decent clip...

Re:Comcast

[jtwronski]

I was running a drupal+acidfree site from home for awhile, but gave up due to connection instability and started forking out the $10/month for hosting over at dreamhost. Photos are pretty bandwidth-intensive, especially if you want folks to be able to download full-res images (slashdot effect, anyone?). When I had my site going, I could tell when folks were on it by the slowness of my connection.

Re:Comcast

[agressiv]

They are probably using a synchronous caching device to "speed" up your service. Thats just a guess though :)

so sad :(

[carlosGames]

the prices here in mexico are 32dlls for 512kbps and 60dlls (aprox.) for 1Mbps :'(

Queue up the Meta Posts

[spun]

You forgot the meta posts listing all the types of posts you are likely to see in this story.

should be like roads

[Anonymous Coward]

broadband should be free, provided by the most-local layer of government, as are most roads, paid for by a fee levied on providers of specific services (could be an exception for "public access channels") and/or a tax, like fuel taxes. users should be able to contract for whatever services they desire, from whomever they desire them. the 'phone companies would compete to provide voice; the cable companies, studios, indies, ... would offer their wares (s, not z); ISP-like entities would handle mail-like services, photo sharing, ...; hosting providers would continue to do what they're doing now; game servers would still be available. the biggest hit would be on ".org" sites that have no specific revenue streams, but those are either paying a provider now, so could pay the fee, or guested on another site, so they can continue. the nice part would be that all of the vanity sites would now pay to clutter up the web.

Re:should be like roads

[robertjw]

broadband should be free, provided by the most-local layer of government, as are most roads, paid for by a fee levied on providers of specific services

Sure, and food should be free, housing should be free, transportation should be free - can't live without those things. Maybe we should just live in a Star Trek world you freakin' Commie.

If the 'most-local layer of governments' provides a service IT'S NOT FREE!!! Where do you think the fees levied on 'providers of specific services' comes from? The consumer, you and I. All getting the government involved does is hide the actual price that the cable company gets paid because they sign some magic contract with the city that you and I will never see.

Re:should be like roads

[geekoid]

"Maybe we should just live in a Star Trek world you freakin' Commie. "
That would be great.
Point in fact, if certian technologies come to fruition, we may be ably to create a world where basic things are free and no longer thought about.

Re:should be like roads

[vertinox]

Sure, and food should be free, housing should be free, transportation should be free - can't live without those things. Maybe we should just live in a Star Trek world you freakin' Commie.

Actually, those things should be free. Doesn't mean they are going to be anytime soon.

But to say that every human on the planet does not deserve food, shelter, water, and basic means... .well... is very misanthropic.

If we find ourself with the means of infinite energy, infinite free machine labor, and infinite resources then we should really take care of these needs.

A world where money is worthless and the only thing that limits us is our ideas.

However, I am realistic to say this wouldn't happen without a technological singularity and we might not see such a thing for about 500-1,000 years.

We as a human race really need to get over this limited supply and demand issues... And this should happen someday. Star Trek had that right.

Re:should be like roads

[Anonymous Coward]

We as a human race really need to get over this limited supply and demand issues... And this should happen someday. Star Trek had that right. Yes... while we are at it... can we get over the laws of physics too? I hate that two objects can not occupy the same physical space.

Re:should be like roads

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate that two objects can not occupy the same physical space.

Actually, they can. Just at different times.

    Einstein - "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen all at once."

Re:should be like roads

[tomhudson]

I hate that two objects can not occupy the same physical space.

... never had sex, eh? No wonder you're posting A.C.

Re:should be like roads

[Anonymous Coward]

That will never, ever, EVER happen. At least as long as humans are in control of this planet.

There are too many fucked up assholes who desire power over other people. They will not allow such a utopian state to exist. If it did, they would lose a major way to exert control over others. Not gonna happen.

Sucks, but true. The traits that made us so wildly successful as a species (greed, lust for power) are the very same ones that prevent us from becoming something even greater.

Re:should be like roads

[jejones]

Should be like roads?

Ah, so you mean that during a hefty part of each year, net traffic should be drastically slowed down or cut off for reconstruction?

Re:should be like roads

[Anonymous Coward]

Um yeah, if this were the case then broadband would be just like our freeways: always running behind the demand and so congested during peak periods that it's almost unusable in the manner it was intended to be used. How'd you like daily traffic jams on your cable or DSL?

fyi...

[zptao]

I use AT&T's service (the 'Pro' plan), and I max out at something like 250kbps/52kbps. They use the diffrentiation between bits and bytes to fool you into paying for shitty speeds.

Re:fyi...

[Anonymous Coward]

No... you're just an idiot and don't know that 3Mbit isn't the same as 3MB.

I currently use SBC/ATTs "Pro" plan as well, advertised 3mbit. It costs $17.99 per month, and I have a 6.50$/month phone line to keep it on. TOTAL: $24.50 before taxes, not bad.

Now I just moved to an older house, and only actually get 2.5mbit, but in the new condo I moved out of I was getting the full 3. You really can't beat it for the price. And anyone is in "the know" knows that you can call and threaten to cancel and get your service renewed at that price for another year.

I also love how Cable One locally advertises their 1.5mbit service as "5 times faster than DSL" (or maybe its eight times, but you get the point). I want to call them and tell them to lick my balls! Their service for 1.5 starts out at 30$ before taxes for the first 6 months only.

Re:fyi...

[VisceralLogic]

Interesting... I have their non-pro plan, and I get 167/32 KB!

Re:fyi...

[dave1g]

Time warner's road runner service for 30 a month for first 6 months (i just cancel and resign up every 6 months) i get 5mbps speed up and about 40-60 KB/s upload.

austin texas :-)

Re:fyi...

[dave1g]

oops 5mbps down

Re:fyi...

[Anonymous Coward]

then that would be KBps not Kbps

Re:fyi...

[kimvette]

No, they use the kilobits/megabits unit of measurement due to legacy reasons dating back to accoustically-coupled modems that ran at 150bps and 300bps, and as speeds improved that unit of measurement stuck.

unhappy comcast customer here

[jtwronski]

I have Comcast cable internet, and tv with some of the goodies. Supposedly, its 6Mbs. Yeah, right. I get at most, 400k down on torrents.

  The problem is, where I live (Southeast of Portland, Oregon) there's no competition for broadband and they know it. Comcast is it. Period. Every time i've called customer service to complain about it going out twice a day, they tell me "well, thats too bad, would you like to sign up for our voip service?".

I pay about $50 a month for it too, which I consider to be way too expensive considering the speed and reliablility, but I'm locked in.

Anybody know an alternative? I've heard bad things about satellite, and as far as I know, there isn't any community wireless around here, except for some belkin router at one of my neighbor's houses, which I assume is hooked up to the same crappy connection i get.

Re:unhappy comcast customer here

[Zed2K]

You do realize your torrent download speed is proportional to your upload speed? I'm willing to bet you are getting 400KB not kb which is 3.2Mb. Yeah its not your 6Mbs that they say but your upload speed is probably only bad like all cable modem users. That would drag your torrent download speed down. A better test would be a huge file from microsoft, those things fly down.

Re:unhappy comcast customer here

[jtwronski]

Correct. I'm not at home right now, so I can't test my upload speed, but I believe it to be somewhere in the 512-768k range. I didn't bother to mention it earlier, but I have gotten comparable download speeds via ftp back before bittorrent was being used as the primary means of getting linux ISOs. Haven't ever gotten anything better than that though. Broadbandreports.com puts me between 2 and 4 megabits.

The speed thing doesn't bother me as much as the connection instability, and lack of features (static IP, real DNS servers). I've asked them to replace my cable modem and gotten a flat "no". Can't wait til there's some competition in the area so I can switch.

Re:unhappy comcast customer here

[CYDVicious]

I was a barely satisfied comcast customer, in Hillsboro, OR...now that FiOS is available in my area I switched over to that and have been blown away by the performance. For about $50/mo I get 15mbps down and 2mbs up with Verizon FiOS. It's fast. After reading about a free fps game nixious or whatever it is, I grabbed the 200+mb file in under 2 minutes. That was a change from what I was used to with comcast. When I had comcast I paid an extra $10 for total of $65 to get 8mbs down 768K up...As soon as the Fiber Optics were available, I switched, and have had no issues as of the past 30 days. ~CYD

Only cheaper for the first month...

[HockeyPuck]

Then they crank up your $12.99 "introductory price" to $49.95/mo.

Resist the running dog scum

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct links to the printable version of the article are disabled, so here it is in handy Slashdot comment form. Muhaha!

A new kind of digital divide is emerging in the U.S. broadband market.

On one side are middle-income and price-sensitive households, which tend to favor DSL service offered by phone companies. On the other are more affluent families, which gravitate toward higher-speed cable modem services.

According to a recent report published by Leichtman Research Group, about 21 percent of households earning an annual income of between $30,000 and $75,000 a year subscribe to DSL. About 18 percent of these households subscribe to cable. By contrast, 37 percent of all households with annual household incomes over $75,000 subscribe to cable broadband and 27 percent subscribe to DSL.

"Clearly price is much more important at this point in the game," said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group. "Middle-income families making the jump from dial-up to broadband are much more price-sensitive, and clearly the phone companies' messaging on low-priced DSL has gotten through loud and clear."

A year-and-a-half ago, pricing of DSL and cable modem service was roughly the same. But over the past year, the phone companies have launched an aggressive assault by dropping prices. At the end of 2005, the average price of DSL service was about $32 per month, roughly $9 less than cable, according to research firm IDC.

ATT has twice lowered the price of its DSL service and now offers its 1.5Mbps service for $12.99 for the first year. Since ATT's prices are promotional, after the first year, the price of the service jumps to the company's regular pricing model, which is $29.99 per month. Verizon created a new tier of service, which includes 768Kbps downloads, for $14.95 per month.

Price pressure
Regardless of household income, the promise of lower prices has also convinced some cable subscribers to switch to DSL. Dan Spencer, 38, of Norristown, Pa., had been a Comcast broadband subscriber for over three years. But after he realized his family was paying over $100 per month for high-speed Internet access and TV service, he decided to abandon Comcast for EchoStar's satellite TV and Verizon's DSL service.

"My wife usually pays our bills," he said. "But one day, when I saw how much we were paying Comcast for our cable TV and broadband, I was shocked. It was outrageous."

Spencer said he now pays about $75 per month for TV and Internet access, and he estimates he is saving roughly $45 per month over what he was paying for the Comcast service.

The low cost of DSL has kick-started DSL subscription rates, helping DSL providers increase their total customer base by 39 percent in 2005, according to Forrester Research. Verizon alone signed up 613,000 new high-speed Internet subscribers in the fourth quarter of 2005, a record for the company. It continued the strong growth in 2006, having signed up 541,000 new subscribers in the first quarter.

But the phone companies' success hasn't meant the demise of cable, which in total saw broadband subscriptions grow 21 percent in 2005. In fact, cable companies have also set new records in recent quarters for the number of subscribers they've acquired.

Comcast, the largest cable operator in the U.S., added 436,000 new subscribers in the first quarter of 2006, the larg

Had no choice

[futurekill]

Where I live I can't get DSL (too far from the CO) we had to get a cable modem. The thing that really blows is that the cable company in my area has a monopoly so there is no competition so the price is never competative.

age discrepancy

[Triv]

For the most part, young people get cable and older people get dsl. Why? Because young people tend to have cell phones and no landlines in their homes, so factoring in the cost of maintaining a phone line that nobody'll use bumps the price way up.

Why cable companies haven't changed their marketing to reflect this, I have no idea. Behind the times, I guess.

--triv

Re:age discrepancy

[TubeSteak]

Most phone companies have a minimum service plan.
You get a dial tone and local calls for $5~$10 a month

DSL + $5~$10 is cheaper than most cable offerings (not including their introductory prices).

Re:age discrepancy

[fermion]

The other issue is that young people tend to have cable TV, and while most cable seperates the two services, having an existed business relationship is alwasy a plus. Only about 60% of US household have cable, but I am sure that it is nearly 100% for young adults who could also afford broadband. OTOH, I am sure that land lines still exist in nearly 100% of such homes.

So, DSL remains useful for those that don't want to deal with cable companies, even if one has to tack on a land line, which is no great expense and is realy cheap insurance given the reletive reliability of phones versus electricity, cable, and complex electronic systems.

However, I am waiting for the 21st cetury to arrive. I am waiting for the day when we are no longer subjigated to the wired communication, like those poor fellows of the 19th century, and can one again move to "the wireless".

Re:age discrepancy

[deuterium]

I think you're right about this aspect. I haven't had a land line in 3 years, and don't plan on getting one. In my area (Tallahassee), there are two options: Sprint (now Embarq) DSL, or Comcast cable. There is no "naked" DSL available, so you need to shell out about $35/mo for the land line, and then $25 for the DSL. If you go with Comcast, you'll either pay $43 + $17 for the cheapest cable/Internet bundle, or roughly the same for just the Internet. So, assuming you didn't need a land line or cable, you're still looking at ~$60/mo for broadband. Considering that I need cable TV more than phone access, I go with Comcast. I'm amazed by all the people with the options for naked services at low prices. What's up with Tallahassee?
Of course, if I were to forgo my cell phones, it would be quite economical to just use Embarq and dust off my old phone. Considering how socially isolated I am, this is beginning to make sense.
I wonder about rural users. Supposedly, the telcos aren't adding any new land lines, or users are too far from an exchange, and most rural households have dish television. What do they do? My parents still have to use dial-up, and they live within 10 minutes of a major metropolitan area (Peoria, IL).

Re:age discrepancy

[Skapare]

I'm in a somewhat rural area. The nearest phone exchange is about 8 miles away. But DSL is available, supposedly by repeater. And cable just started offering internet here this week. But given there have been 3 big cable outages this month, including the past 2 hours this evening, I'm reluctant to go with cable. The basic phone service has not been out for at least 3 years, but I have no idea if DSL would be as reliable. I do have to do some rewiring for DSL because the phone wires in this house were miswired by the builder (basically I'll just run a new extension out to the access point and put the filter in there).

Re:age discrepancy

[swtaarrs]

Everyone I know has cable, not because we don't have landlines but because it's 8x the speed of DSL. Cable from Comcast here is 6mbps, and even though it's significantly more expensive than Verizon's DSL, I only know a few people who have DSL since it's only 768kbps and feels dreadfully slow by comparison.

Re:age discrepancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. I still end up paying $70 per month for a dial tone and DSL. I'd have a cable modem instead, except the local cable company is incapable of providing service adequate for VOIP.

Mediacom sucks

Re:age discrepancy

[torok]

Phone companies are perfectly capable of providing DSL without regular phone service - they just don't want to, in most cases. Years ago when I had DSL and landline, I had my phone disconnected before a move but the DSL kept working for a couple of days. I phoned the telco and finally they admitted that they *could* provide them separately, but they didn't want to. Their loss - I now have only a cell and went with a cable modem.

Re:age discrepancy

[level_headed_midwest]

I used to live in such an area, and we only lived 6 miles away from the CO and no DSL for us. It conveniently stopped two miles away at the city limits (pop ~ 15,000.) You need to be within 20,000 feet (maximum) to get DSL at even crappy speeds, 15,000 feet to get anywhere near decent ones. I am betting that your "repeater" is really another CO, just fed with a fiber line from the other one that's 8 miles away, and the closer CO is 3 mi. away.

So we had the dish and crappy dialup that you were lucky if it was 30 kbps.

Re:age discrepancy

[Phroggy]

I am betting that your "repeater" is really another CO, just fed with a fiber line from the other one that's 8 miles away, and the closer CO is 3 mi. away.

Not exactly, but close - it's a remote DSLAM, basically a smaller version of the same equipment they have in the CO, in a little box at the side of the road somewhere in your neighborhood. Your phone line runs into the box, then there's a fiber line from there to the CO. The actual DSL part of the line is just from your house to the box, which could be only 1,000 feet or so, so you should get better performance than if your line were running directly to the CO but you were at 15,000 feet. Unfortunately a remote DSLAM is typically less reliable than the DSLAM in the CO (more susceptible to weather, etc.) and the DSLAM in the CO might be upgraded to handle faster speeds than what the remote DSLAM can handle. Still, it usually works pretty well, and it's the only option for DSL if you don't live near the CO.

Here's a bit of trivia: the first three digits of your phone number after the area code are called the "exchange". Every CO is assigned a handful of exchanges, each of which has 10,000 phone numbers. Any phone number you see with the same first three numbers as yours is wired to the same CO as you. In some cases, number portability may allow someone to keep their phone number when they move near a different CO or switch to VOIP; this basically works by forwarding the call from your CO to wherever it's supposed to go (if your VOIP provider lets you keep your old phone number, they do it by paying your phone company to forward the number from your CO to the VOIP provider). Phone calls are routed to COs based on the area code and exchange sort of like the way IP packets are routed based on the subnet; you can't just reassign a single IP to another part of the world, because the Internet would break, but you could set up a proxy to forward the traffic to a different IP.

Re:age discrepancy

[paul248]

As far as TV goes, remember that satellite is an alternative to cable.

Re:age discrepancy

[maxpublic]

OTOH, I am sure that land lines still exist in nearly 100% of such homes.

I'm sure the lines still exist, but I'm equally sure that more and more people are abandoning them every year. I haven't had a land line for years, and many of the people I know have also abandoned their land lines for cells. We certainly aren't part of the younger crowd; more like the 'older and ornery crowd, who don't want random assholes calling and bothering us'.

One huge plus of the cell that no one has mentioned: it's illegal (at least in the States) for telemarketers to call you on your cell, for the same reason people can't fax you advertisements - because you end up having to pay for their use of your equipment. That's why my wife and I dropped the land line in favor of the cell (the convenience is a big second point), and many of our friends and family followed.

The phone is here for OUR use, not for anyone else's. If we wanted you calling us, we'd have given you our phone number. With cells, this painfully obvious fact is now an enforceable reality. I haven't had a single telemarketer call in all the years I've owned a cell, and the only people who've called me that I didn't know have been wrong numbers. My phone, in essence, has become a white-list-only device - and that is exactly the way I want it.

Max

Re:age discrepancy

[uvajed_ekil]

The last time I moved, I inquires about naked DSL with SBC. They informed me that it was "impossible" for them to provide DSL service with standard phone service. When I asked them whther "impossible" really meant that it was not possible ot do with DSL technology, or that SBC chose not to offer it. They claimed it could not be done, even though I knew that was BS and it was offerred by other companies in other areas. I have zero use for a landline, and a contract-based service would not make sense for me anyway, so I am paying an arm and a leg for Adelphia's cable service. This stinks.

Re:age discrepancy

[Andy Dodd]

AMEN.

When I moved to my new apartment, due to previous experiences with cable modem companies (port blocking, stealth caps, etc) which are *typically* less prevalent on DSL (partly due to the fact that they have a much lower advertised cap to begin with), I was seriously considering DSL.

One problem: I wasn't in any particular hurry to get a phone line, as my cell phone was mostly sufficient for my needs and my plan was to go with VoIP for my secondary voice line if I ever started pushing the limits of my cell phone plan. Not a SINGLE DSL provider would give me a rate/price quote based on address alone, or even address, area code, and a guess as to the exchange. Every place I tried to shop for service wanted a *complete* landline phone number.

I'm sorry, but if you won't even give me a price quote before I obtain something I don't want/need, I don't plan on buying from you. As a result I'm with Time Warner RoadRunner, and (for the most part) pretty happy with them. They're much better than OptimumOffline.

How does one check this?

[plasmacutter]

I have comcast and noticed something similar.. but I want to use the same procedures you did to check it out.

that said though until I see net non-neutrality rear its ugly head there has been one benefit since this new protocol went up... the service has been about 20 times more stable than it used to be.

When will we quit shopping for price...

[MerlynEmrys67]

And start shopping for service.

Just got of the phone with FIOS (verizon) - for 34 dollars they can get me a nice fast completely non-functional DSL connection. Of course to get what this geek really REALLY wants (simple, static address - ToS that allow me to run services) will cost 99.95 a month for the same upload speed.

Idiot on the phone line couldn't justify the 60 dollar cost difference, other than to say that is the price difference between static and dynamic IP (well, the download speed on the static was a little faster - They couldn't price out a static address on the slower speed).

This was all started by Verizon sending a flunky to my door saying they were REQUIRING me to change to FIOS. Was a fun discussion with said flunky -
"Will you allow me to run a service"
"What do you want that for"
"So I can run my e-mail server"
"We provide an e-mail service"
"No you don't"
etc. etc. etc. Turns out they really were just looking for upgrade oportunities - wonder how many of my neighbors fell for it (I know one didn't because said flunky said the guy down the street was asking the same questions
"The one with the Dogs?"
"Yeah, how do you know"
"Because he is a system admin - and he is smart"

Re:When will we quit shopping for price...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but have you looked at Speakeasy?

Re:When will we quit shopping for price...

[MerlynEmrys67]

Yes, can't get it to my house (Verizon screwed them there). I personally use DSL-only.net which works on the copper DSL lines, but would like the higher speed fibre lines that Verizon doesn't have to resell.

Re:When will we quit shopping for price...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because he is a system admin - and he is smart"

And now we know you're definitely not smart...

Re:When will we quit shopping for price...

[Phroggy]

Out of curiosity, is this because Covad doesn't have equipment in your CO? (SpeakEasy goes through Covad to provide the DSL part of the connection; Covad leases a cage in your local Verizon CO and pays Verizon to route your phone line into Covad's box. Then Covad connects the circuit to SpeakEasy, which routes your traffic to the Internet.) Covad doesn't have equipment in every single CO in the country, which is why they can't provide service to everyone. Perhaps they just didn't think it would be cost-effective to lease a cage and set up equipment in your CO, or perhaps they just haven't gotten to it yet, or perhaps, as you say, somehow Verizon screwed them (but I'd be very interested to know exactly how, if that's it).

On a side note, I recently got a quick tour of Covad's HQ in San Jose. Pretty impressive facility. Their NOC actually looks like something you'd see in a big-budget Hollywood movie. ;-)

Re:When will we quit shopping for price...

[larytet]

"ToS that allow me to run services"

what kind of services we are talking about ?

if this is HTTP server check gomyplace.com completely open source (GPL) reversed proxy allowing you to serve HTML pages (or any other content) without having static IP and accepting incoming connections. Public proxy works according "all you can eat" system.

Re:When will we quit shopping for price...

[Anonymous Coward]

After COVAD went bankrupt they stopped expanding to try to capture market share. They are now expanding into new COs slowly. This makes sense, because if there are already other companies providing DSL out of a CO, you can't expect to pick up many new customers. So they are likely only to expand into new COs that serve a lot of population.
Before they went bankrupt they were planning to expand into my CO, but they didn't make it in time and the last time I checked they weren't planning to.

Re:When will we quit shopping for price...

[Bent Mind]

A few years ago I switched from Comcast cable to QWest DSL. Price was a minor concern. Comcast had just put a 2GB cap on news group access. I gave QWest a call as they own all of the local DSL. It was an enlightening conversation that ended with me switching. From Comcast I had a 3MB line that their rules prevented me from using, no servers, no static IP, and download caps. QWest didn't offer me restrictions, they offered me service. It was a side benefit that QWest was also cheaper.

Phone Companies?

[fm6]

...the phone companies have launched an aggressive assault by dropping prices...

Sad to see that folks are already assuming that RBOCs control everything that comes over their lines. I admit we're getting there, but there are still independent DSL providers. I'm a fan of Sonic.net, which is not only cheap and well-run, but reasonably geek-friendly. Or if you're a serious geek with semi-deep pockets, you can try Speakeasy, which doesn't even require that you have phone service.

Same here, it's really $60

[aquarian]

It's the same with me. I pay ~$30 for DSL, but to get it I have to pay an additional $22 for a landline I don't need or want. Add the BS taxes and fees, and the total is around $60. Local cable internet is also around $30, but you can get it without cable tv or anything else. Cable service sucks though, so I'm happy to pay the extra for DSL.

Re:Same here, it's really $60

[e40]

If you are in CA, then you can get metered service that will cost you 1/2 of that (I pay about $11/mo for my phone).

Re:Same here, it's really $60

[aquarian]

That's the civilized land of California for you! On the east coast, a landline costs anywhere from $20-35/month minimum. With mine I get only 50 "free" local calls, then it switches to major ripoff rates, even for local calls.

Free

[Joebert]

As a consumer, I say it should be free.
As someone who wants free broadband, I say twice as much as it costs now.

In my experience, DSL isn't that cheap

[GyroLC]

My girlfriend recent got Qwest DSL with the $29.99/month promotional fee. However, there are so many taxes and fees (not including installation) the cost is closer to $65/month, which is more than I pay for Comcast's cable internet.

SBC/ATT and DSL Offerings

[mrsteele]

They may have lowered their prices on some options, but they are raising them on others. I just got a notice a month or so ago that they were raising my DSL price by 50%, but offering me "no commitment" (I had previously had 1-year contracts for 2 years). I called to investigate, and to inquire about the advertised $12.99/month deal. It turns out that the advertised special is for a new service that isn't available in my area yet, and might not be for years. So that isn't an option. ANd the company has raised prices on the old service (that I have) to encourage people to switch to the new service. But I can't switch. And after talking with three people (two different supervisors) it seems clear that they can't make any exceptions. Each person agreed it was stupid, but could offer me nothing.

So rather than simply leave me and my service alone, so I can continue to pay them every month until they have the new service to offer me, they are encouraging me to look around at other options. The only other broadband option available is Comcast. I don't like them very much, and would rather stick with my DSL, but priced over the next twelve months getting cable broadband is quite a bit cheaper. I can always reevaluate in a year.

So in some misguided attempt to encourage people to switch services, they are losing customers. ATT is going to fall quite far before it rights itself.

New Mod Label

[R3d M3rcury]

-1, Neener Neener Neener.

Re:Queue up the anecdotes and arm-chair economists

[Anonymous Coward]

So true, and because of that you will get modded down to oblivion.

Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

What should 14.4kbps cost?
Fancy v.90 56kbps? (X2 anyone?)
That awesome dual channel 128kbps ISDN?
Cutting edge (cirka 4 years ago) 1/512Mbit ADSL?
Current bread and butter 8/4Mbit ADSL?
Wish-it-was-faster-still ADSL2?

The last is costing me roughly the same now as the first on my list did not that long ago. The exact numbers are irrelevant. The answer is obviously, less than last year and still less next year in terms of absolute bandwidth.

If you think the "broadband" in the US is at some sort of plateu, think again. If you're a _telecom_ and think than, we'll you're probably already fucked.

4.5mbits

[AnyThingButWindows]

I myself in my office have 4.544 mbits down / 1.544 mbits up cable w/static IP. I pay $119.90 a month. It comes from the local cable company which has somewhere around 3,000 broadband subscribers. The service may go down 5 minutes a month. It doesn't go down often. It has to be a very bad storm for it to go out. On a good download fom a kernel.org mirror I can get 560 kbytes a second.

DSL almost always requires contracts...

[Anonymous Coward]

... There may be exceptions, but I have yet to live in an area with a provider that doesn't require a 12-month contract with a large penalty for cancellation of your DSL. The penalty is often more than just paying the remainder-- I paid $25 a month to my last provider for four months after I moved out of their area because it would have been over $200 to cancel. Not to mention, if there was a problem (like when the DSL was out for a week) they took their sweet time to send someone out... Because what was I going to do, cancel with eight months to go?

The cable provider I use now (like most other cable providers) is month to month, it costs a little more but I can get out at any time and since they are trying to keep me as a customer the service is much more prompt.

Re:DSL almost always requires contracts...

[Skapare]

The offer I just got in the mail last week was for DSL at $24.95 a month after the first month free and the next 2 months at $19.95 a month, and specifically on a month to month basis. There is an early disconnection cost only if I don't send the modem back at my cost. Supposedly I'm even off the hook for that after a year. I wonder if this is related to the fact that the cable company here just finished rewiring the system and just turned it on 3 days ago, and is now offering cable internet service. I suppose I should hurry up and make a decision as the new Slackware 11.0 is coming soon. I guess I'll call each company and tell them what the other is offering and see what they can do.

It's not necessarily price driven..

[wangmaster]

For me, the choice between cable and DSL was a nobrainer. I've had DSL since 1998 with Qwest. I could have had cable about a year later than that, and initially cable and DSL was slightly cheaper than Qwest DSL and significantly faster for download, and slightly slower for uploads. Over the years, comcast cable has surpassed Qwest DSL in cost and in downstream bandwidth, and depending on the service level is pretty close to equivalent with Qwest DSL in upstream (at my current service level, Comcast cable has 6M/768k down/up for roughly $10/month more than my 3M/640k down/up Qwest DSL).

However, it was never a choice between Qwest DSL or Comcast cable for me. Comcast cable uses dynamically allocated addresses, has restrictions on servers. Qwest DSL allowed me to pick an ISP that I wanted. Qwest itself has very little restrictions on the usage of the DSL line itself, and my ISP allows servers, and pretty much whatever I want to do with practical and legal limits. I have a /29 netblock, which I couldn't have gotten as an option with Comcast cable, and in order to get static addresses and allow servers I'd be looking at 2-3x the cost of what I'm paying for DSL.

While, admittedly, my needs are a "niche" consumer market, and one not likely to be targetted by any providers, DSL is far more suited for my use than anything cable gives for reasons beyond pure bandwidth.

Now if only US providers would get off their asses and offer ADSL2+, I might be able to get 7/896 service that I'm currently out of range for :)

Brighthouse Commercial Cable Service

[electronerdz]

I pay $190 a month for 5Mbs/712Kbs service and 4 static IPs. I think its outrageous how Brighthouse can charge this for their commercial customers. And I'm not even in a commercial building, so it's less that what it is for most people. But, it is cheaper than a couple T1's.

Uh, try for the first *year*...

[denebian devil]

After which time you can cancel your contract and get the current "new customer" rate for cable internet. And once that deal is over, go back to DSL as a "new" customer (or try a different DSL provider). Ah the fun of a merry-go-round.

The sticks

[Spiked_Three]

I moved to the sticks a couple of years ago. The rednecks here can barely keep the dial up service working. As my ONLY choice, I pay $600 / month for a 3 year contract for a t1. The t1 has yet to stay up for 5 days in a row, so cost recovery via business hosting is impossible. I tried dial up a couple of times, but the line quality was so limited I couldn't even keep up with windows update (or yum update or whatever).

The local phone company people tell me this area is not likely to ever see high speed internet. Man I wish I could bitch about the high costs of my adsl line / cable connection.

Re:The sticks

[Solder Fumes]

Your problem is thinking that a T1 is your only option, when in fact satellite service exists for a fifth of the price.

Re:The sticks

[wap911]

Get satellite yep it costs http://www.nationwidesatellite.com/HughesNet/servi ce_plans/HughesNet_plans.asp The special is $100 more than the upfront + monthly but you dont have to pony up the $$$ for the equipment. So $100 for the "payment plan" is not that bad Read everything, like no guarantee on speed. YMMV

Re:The sticks

[Anonymous Coward]

"I moved to the sticks a couple of years ago.... As my ONLY choice, I pay $600 / month for a 3 year contract for a t1."

In your situaton I can see only 2 choices:

1) Move out of the sticks

2) Give up on internet entirely

$600.00 a month? INSANE!!!!

Re:The sticks

[Spiked_Three]

I had satellite. In fact I still have the Direcway dish on my roof and right under Direcway I spray painted "SUCKS" so everyone can see it from the road. Plus I fit in with the neighborhood better that way too. Direcway is a rip off - so bad in fact that DirecTV is now selling Wild Blue instead and they used to be sister companies. Maybe some of the other satellite providers are ok - but with the download limits it just didn't fit my needs.

Short term price war

[nurb432]

Once he war is over, and the opposition is wiped off the face of the map, you can expect the prices to return, then exceed, what we have seen so to date.

Re:Wrong again!

[vertinox]

In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers.

In a real market, the price is determined by the costs of the seller and what the competition is willing to price at.

If gas station sold gas at $1.00 while everyone else was $2.00 and they could do this for at a profit and do it without people having to wait in line for a really long time, then those who refused to lower their prices would go out of business. And it doesn't matter if they simply were greedy and wanted the high profit or just couldn't afford to buy gas cheap enough to lower their prices... They will still go out of business.

So if there is some type of competition, prices will be lowered or otherwise it will be set by whatever the single provider thinks they can sell for at the highest profit margin.

Even then... They must keep their at something they will expect someone would buy even if there is not other provider to compete with.

I mean, 100mpbs fiber would be nice... But I'm not willing to spend $500 a month to get it.

It's the government, stupid.

[Pig Hogger]

Government clulessness has a large role to play.

Under pressure of the telecom lobbies, the US government has made extensive non-moves, leaving the issues solely to the frea mahkit, which always translate in the companies gouging their clients with extremely poor service.

In much saner countries where the government does not lick big companies arses, there have been positive measures and involvement so the broadband penetration is much higher.

For instance, I am a member of a telecom co-op and pay around $45 (US converted) per month for 2MB down/ 512 up with a static IP address and absolutely no ports blocked nor bitching for running a mail/DNS/web server.

Such a scheme would be totally unthinkable in the USA where the telecom lobby goes to great length to prevent governments from doing stuff that they would never do (watch the municipal wifi debacle).

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[funwithBSD]

Not to defend the telco's, they can do that themselves.

BUT, such service costs $55 where I live with 5 IP and no restrictions because it is a business account

I can get the same service with 1 IP for about the same price. I don't know if they would limit a webserver or mail. I have run both using DYNdns for several years and no one has complained to me.

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[Brandybuck]

It's not the "frea mahkit", because your local telco owns the copper by law, and your local cableco owns the cable by law. A mass of heavy regulations keeps the competition at bay. What little competition there is exists in the DSL side, but you pay extra for the non-telco due to rent seeking.

In the days before broadband, the argument was that telephone and cable service were not suitable for free market competition, as it would be unwieldly to have several dozen parallel sets of cables and lines. So the AT&T monopoly was mandated by law, then broken up into regional monopolies mandated by law, and finally they allowed competition only if they didn't lay new local lines to compete with the former monopolies. In the case of cable, local governments simply gave out monopoly contracts to the highest bidder, paralleling the history of the government created railroad monopolies of the prior century.

But now the chickens have come home to roost, and we find that there is no competition for broadband. Well duh! Broadband is not, has never been, and probably never will be, a free market.

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[Pig Hogger]

It's not the "frea mahkit", because your local telco owns the copper by law, and your local cableco owns the cable by law. A mass of heavy regulations keeps the competition at bay. What little competition there is exists in the DSL side, but you pay extra for the non-telco due to rent seeking.

It may be so in the Croporate States von Amerika (heil Dubya!), but in other places, where governments are not p0wn3d by the croporations, the law says to the big bad telecom it **HAS** to open the last-mile to other companies ("competitors") and cannot lowball their DSL prices.

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[maxpublic]

Such a scheme would be totally unthinkable in the USA where the telecom lobby goes to great length to prevent governments from doing stuff that they would never do (watch the municipal wifi debacle).

What the fuck are you talking about??? The telecoms are using the federal government to PROTECT their monopoly, specifically lobbying to get projects like municipal wifi shut down. If the federal government didn't have the power that it does, the monopolies would be toothless. They don't have their own armies, you know.

Government power here is part of the problem, not part of the solution. You can't have an artificial monopoly without a strong government around to impose the monopoly by force.

Max

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[Pig Hogger]

Contragulation for saying exactly what I said...

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[Brandybuck]

The core problem, way down deep, is that we have given our governments so much power and control over us, that they now sell the excess to the highest bidder. The solution is NOT to give the government more power. We need to start reducing government power, instead of giving them ever more of it.

Corporations love regulations, particularly in their own industry. That's because a regulatory environment keeps the small competitors out. Small mom-n-pops can't negotiate the regulatory morass. You have to be huge with a legion of lawyers to be able to exist in some industries. It's a big boys only club by design. Add more regulations and you merely transmute what little competition remains into ever more collusion.

p.s. You make some snarky asshole remarks about Dubya. Let me ask you: why if you hate him so much you want to give him even more power?

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[Pig Hogger]

I don't want to give dubya more power, and in any case, like 95% of the people on earth, I don't live in the US. No, what I want is to give far more power to a DEMOCRATIC government that will protect the people against croporations.

We, in the past, have suffered tremenduously at the hands of entrepreneurs, so we eventually gave ourselves governments that take a very active role in the Economy (our electricity, for example, comes from a government-owned utility that gives us the cheapest electrical power in the world, distributed on the only northeast network grid that did not crash during the last blackout) and that has enacted very strict laws to insure that no one will suffer because some rich asshole gets too greedy.

Of course the greedy assholes bitch about it, but they nevertheless stick around, because our nearly-free education system (it only costs you less than $10,000 to become a doctor of medicine) keeps providing high-quality professionals who, when given good jobs and treated well, will never think of starting their own company (why one would want to become a greedy asshole) and thus become competition to their employer...

In case you haven't clued-in yet, we are not anglo-saxons. We are french, even though we are a day's drive from Washington DC, and we believe in big government and we get damn good service from that big government in return of our taxes.

Re:It's the government, stupid.

[Zhe Mappel]

One more example of the frea mahkit at work.

I live in a typical US monopoly market where the pigopolists have protected the cable provider from competition, ensuring the highest profits for its owners and the least choice for consumers.

Gifted with such an enviable position by lawmakers, our cable company likes to run self-congratulatory TV spots to help ensure that the proles understand the natural order of things. The one I like best is "Cable...an American success story!" which purports to tell the story of how the plucky little guys with vision, effort, etc., have seized the day. The montage depicts working class folk engaged in simple, joyful labor--noble to the last dude shimmying up the telephone pole at sunset.

Naturally, this ad is a tax deduction for the cable company owners, who get to a) screw us; b) lie about it; and c) avoid paying their share of taxes to boot.

O, great frea mahkit--like da Lawd, you move in mysterious ways!

I'm a consumer

[i_finally_got_an_acc]

I'm a consumer, so broadband should be free ;)

Re:I'm a consumer

[really?]

Move to my building and use any of the five or six free providers. Let's see:
Default - 2
Linksys - 3
Wireless - 2
Enjoy - 1 - obviously shared on purpose.

It's eight right now, but usually it's only 5~6.

I pay C$40/month for my VOIP line, and they throw in a 6Mbs down /500kbps up cable connection. I hear there are some volume limits - 60GB/month??? - but, I have not reached them, and I have a slingbox "parked" at my friend's place in the US.

comp

[Anonymous Coward]

here dsl and cable. the lowest tier you can buy...

are within 10 dollars of each other.

but. for the extra 10 on cable. you get 3x the speed of the dsl offering.

and ALOT better upload speed.

plus not dealing with the phone company is worth $20 alone.

That's funny, my rates are increasing.

[xplenumx]

"A year-and-a-half ago, pricing of DSL and cable modem service was roughly the same. But over the past year, the phone companies have launched an aggressive assault by dropping prices... AT&T has twice lowered the price of its DSL service and now offers its 1.5Mbps service for $12.99 for the first year."

Over the past three years I've received two letters from SBC notifying me that my DSL rates are increasing. Meanwhile I've noticed that the rates for the first year of service have steadily dropped. I used to think that I was just getting hammered because here in Dallas, my options were pretty much limited to SBC and Comcast (with a touch of Earthlink and a couple of more expensive options). Nope. My parents in Spokane suffered a rate increase in the past year. My sister in San Francisco had a rate increase in the past two years. My brother in New York has also experienced a rate increase recently. Meanwhile while (unsuccessfully) looking around for a new provider, I've noticed that the rates for the first year of service have steadily dropped (just as the article claimed). The ISPs are monopolistic crack dealers - and they know it. For being a free market, I don't feel so free.

Re:That's funny, my rates are increasing.

[funwithBSD]

You just don't know how to work the promo system so you, personally, pay more.

When they announce things like this I call up and politely ask to be given the same deal as a new customer. I get a 1 year price for a one year commitment. Just remember what Jesus says when dealing with them: "Don't be a dick."

My current rate is $21.99 for 1.5. I got about 4 or 5 months left and I can sign up with whatever the promo rate system.

Sprint has my business for the same reason. Every 2 years I get a new phone practically free and I get some kind of discount on monthly rates because I commit to 2 years service.

Re:That's funny, my rates are increasing.

[angelasmark]

If you're in Dallas you can get away from the phone company. EarthLink offers 8MB/1MB DSL+Home phone connections via Covad there. I have the service in SF and its great. The tech support sucks but you're on slashdot so you couldn't possibly need much tech help anyways. Since COVAD is doing your lines you won't be blown off by the phone company if EarthLink decides theres an issue with your lines either. http://www.earthlink.net/voice/bundles/dslhomephon e/

Re:That's funny, my rates are increasing.

[geekoid]

Hm, my verizon DSL has gone down. In fact, the lowered it mid-contract and I didn't have to do anything. 768/128 14.99 a month. Taxes make it about 16 bucks.

Re:That's funny, my rates are increasing.

[larytet]

same story in Israel. no letters, though (this is middle east here, we are less civilized so to speak). i discovered rate increase from my credit card monthly report. long story short - i called the provider and in two hours got one month for free and the same deal as i had before.

another story is my relative in CA. he had to switch from cable to DSL, because cable provider (Comcast ?) insisted that they do not give bargain deals in first 0.5 year. this is a companys policy to give bargains only to new customers. so he had to switch. but indeed he has option to switch and so do i. in many places in the US you are out of luck.

Re:That's funny, my rates are increasing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Covad isn't any better than the phone companies when there is an issue with the lines...

I used to have Speakeasy at my last place, and had some major line problems. Verizon came out and said "not our problem" so it was Covad's turn. They never scheduled anything, but said they would call when they did. So I get a call from an unhappy Covad tech who is wondering why I am not at home, since he was scheduled to come look at my lines...

So, being down the street, I head over - I told him I was less than 5 minutes away even. I get there and there is a nice note on my door saying "Sorry we missed you!"

Finally two weeks later a Covad tech came out again, and I actually knew of this ahead of time.

They wanted to charge me over $200 for the two visits... I called up Speakeasy and complained, the rep on the phone agreed and said "screw Covad" and removed the charge.

For the record, I loved my Speakeasy service. Covad sucks, though.

Internet is no longer just internet

[eebra82]

People who browse the internet today are not the same people who browsed it a few years ago. Let's face it. Some time ago, it would be easy to let go and discontinue the internet connection simply because people watched TV for news and entertainment, paid their bills the old way, met people in real life and through paper ads, communicated solely by phone (from a distance) and browsed through fat books for information.

At first, most people used internet for information and e-mail, but it has evolved to a new level now. A lot of people work with internet related matters and require a connection. A lot of people have established social connections with friends, mates, lovers, etcetera. We also browse for news several times a day and generally get what we're looking for. Books are no longer needed to find the information we need. Paying bills is more efficient. And now there's a lot of free porn, too!

I honestly doubt that people could cut off the connection just like that. Some people could, of course, but every year that passes by means more reasons to get hooked. Who knows what we're doing with it in five years from now? It's changed radically since 2001 - it's not even comparable to what you can do now that you could not do back then.

So to sum things up, I believe most people will pay a lot more than they think. After all, a hundred bucks a month (if I had to pay that much) isn't really that much for all the things I'm doing with it - or am going to do with it.

Re:Internet is no longer just internet

[maxpublic]

And now there's a lot of free porn, too!

The free porn was here first. Everything else followed after.

Max

Lower prices in return for misleading speeds

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the telcos have lowered DSL rates, but what doesn't get discussed is how they are consistently delivering only a fraction of the speeds they're promising. I used to pay BellSouth $45 a month for 1.5 Mbps and I was getting about 1 Mbps actual speeds. Now they're charging me less but the same "1.5 Mbps" service is only giving me 500 KBps speeds. It's a scam.

I only wish Comcast offered a lower price cable broadband service. I want to pay $20-30 a month for REAL 1.5+ Mbps service. I don't need 6 Mbps and I don't want to spend $50 a month for internet service.

Ripped off in Utah

[yeremein]

I pay $15/month for 256kbit DSL (which mostly fits my needs, but I download Linux ISOs at work). 1.5MBit DSL runs $27. Both of these prices are for the line only (I spend another $17 for the ISP).

3MBit cable from Comcast runs $60/month (although they're always sending me flyers advertising $25/month for three months but not listing the price after that anywhere... geez, are there really customers who are so irresponsibly myopic they won't even look three months into the future?)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

econ 101 says price has nothing to do with costs

[bigtrike]

You're entirely wrong in assuming that the prices of good and services have anything to do with the costs of producing or providing them.

In a "proper market" price is determined by the point where supply meets demand. Goods and services are sold at the point where supply and demand meet because this is the price point which maximizes their profits. Sure, this assumes that competition is possible and that the markets are very liquid.

Water is a horrible analogy since it typically comes from a non-profit run government agency. Water purchased from private entities is typically very expensive, typically more than 1 dollar per gallon.

What about toll costs?

[Skudd]

Everyone is likely to be familiar with the battle for "Net Neutrality". Keep this battle in mind when you think of why the price of broadband is dropping. I mean, if the ISP's are getting the money out of the toll (premium content delivery, whatever you want to call it) costs, why should they continue to hit the end user, you, with high prices?

Don't get me wrong now, I'm all for the neutrality myself, and I'm also all for low cost broadband. I'm currently paying $34/mo for 1.5Mbit from Embarq.

Offerings in My Area are Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi there. I want broadband to my home. I want static IP and the ability to run servers. All customer service functions must be browser- and OS-agnostic. Access to a well-stocked NNTP server would be nice, but not required. I do not give a damn about "content partners" or your crufted up version of IE, I just want fast, low-latency, reliable service. I want more than 8000K/sec down or more than 1200K/sec up. I am less than 3000 feet from my CO, and the idea of bonding multiple lines doesn't scare me. I am willing to pay up to $210/month.

Find me a provider within zip code 94070.

Comcast. Windows, DNS

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

If your router interface supports it, clone the MAC addy of the Winders machine you connected with, or take note of it & enter it manually. Keep it handy in case your router ever goes tits up & the MS PC isn't handy anymore. It also seems that the lifetime of the semi-static IP address that Comcast assignes is bound to that MAC addy, so there's some value to keeping it constant.

As far as DNS, I've been able to add `em manually so far - both at the router stage & as a forwarder for my internal DNS server. If crap like this continues though, I expect privacy & stability-enhancing VPN services to become more commonplace; at least I'm getting increasingly willing to pay for a secure connection that trashes all my IP logs & at least minimally obfuscates the packets, regardless the proto.

wa

[Anonymous Coward]

omg I paid in puerto rico $60 for 1mb dsl connection =( there is not a lot of company that offer dsl here

More than just competition

[WebCowboy]

I think it should cost as much as the consumer is willing to pay - at least that is how it works when you have a properly working capitalist system.

I think it should cost just enough that the company can cover the costs of providing the service, maintaining and enchancing their equipment any fairly paying their employees. Any more than that is gouging, even if consumers are willing to pay for it. Incidentally, things costing what consumers are willing to pay is NOT how a "properly working capitalist system" works--it suggests that supply is abnormally short of demand and there is a lack of competition (either a naturally-occurring or legislated monopoly/cartel/etc). That is why gas prices jump all over the place on the slightest of whims--the market for oil is driven by a cartel of sheiks, ther is little product differentiation amonst a limited number of competitors (who undoubtedly practice collusion) and all--and last but not least there are a lot of taxes on fuel in most countries. Gas prices are what they are because *it is what the consumer is willing to pay*, not because some crackpot sheiks in the middle east bickering suddenly makes it harder to dig the oil out of the ground and process in a refinery. I don't think many people would agree that that particular industry is "poroperly working capitalism".

In that same vein, I feel that their next step is to start trying to sand-box their corner of the Internet. That way they control the content too.

Well, in the absence of healthy competition that is certain to happen. However, right now "the sandbox" isn't well established. With healthy competition, the first player to put up fences becomes isolated, and that isolation will anger their customers, who will migrate towards providers of more open service

When is the last time you saw a new DSL provider *other* than the phone company?

Well, *my* DSL connection is not provided by my phone company--the phone company basically provides the copper on which my ISP's signal travells.

When my VOIP provider is choppy, and high latency who do I blame? Most customers are not smart enough and blame the VOIP provider.

Well, then the provider must explain that they are not providing the internet connection that their service uses and the customer is then educated. If the problem is bad enough they may switch to another ISP and discover that the VOIP company was right, or they'll switch VOIP providers and find out the problem remains--or they'll buy VOIP from their ISP and it'll work great--but there will be little tolerance for price gouging when compared to competition. The more free the industry gets, the less likely "sandboxes" will be built. That sort of proctice is largely due to telecom historically being OVER-REGULATED--it has never been a proper capitalist market.

Even lower DSL prices

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a small ISP wholesaling AT&T's DSL packages. Our prices have recently dropped to $9.95/mon (1.5m down), and are expected to go down again in the coming months. The post compares apples to oranges. We offer 6m down for 45$ (USD) a month, which is very competetive with cable speed and pricing.

If you compare US broadband to broadband in Europe, aren't we still overpriced for less bandwidth dollar for dollar?

Re:Um... How do you figure this is flamebait? (n/t

[RobertLTux]

is that because you put a mix of rust and aluminum powder on the hood?? Oh Sparkly!!

More to the point, how much should Gigapop cost?

[WillAffleckUW]

I notice we're comparing cable modem (usually 1-4 or 1-8 and sometimes 1-10 Mbps) and DSL (comes in 128k, 256k, 512k, 1Mbps, up to usually 2Mbps).

But in other nations, like say South Korea, you can get Gigapop internet, which runs at speeds up to 100 Mbps, and you can get it for about $15 a month or cheaper. Because such nations invested in broadband for everyone, realizing that doing so dropped the costs across the board, and gave them a competitive advantage.

So, from that perspective, it's not a question of: Should DSL cost $15 a month, it's a question of: Shouldn't we get Gigapop internet for other advanced nations for $15 a month.

And, from that perspective, doesn't this show that economies of scale, efficient government, and standardization can provide lower cost high-speed internet service if we focus on the real problem - which is that, we're way way behind in the USA and a few other nations, and need to wake up and smell the Internet2 darned fast.

Re:Um... How do you figure this is flamebait? (n/t

[Duhavid]

It is flamebait because someone disagreed with you.

Someone with mod points.

the article is full of shit

[DragonTHC]

the phone companies' assault as it were is $25 a month for 256Kbit DSL

the cable companies' prices are $45 a month for 6Mbit Cable.

only an idiot would choose DSL if those are the options.

now the phone companies offer more options

$46 a month for 6Mbit/512Kbit DSL

still who wouldn't pay the extra $20 a month for 6MBit vs. 256Kbit?

the $25 plan is a total ripoff.

now, I used to be a DSL fanboy using speakeasy 6.0 dry-pair DSL. but it cost $110 a month after taxes.
I'll be the first to say, speakeasy has an excellent network. and even better support.

since I moved to miami, I can't get DSL here (west west miami).

$45 a month for 6Mbit cable is damn good.

though, I think ojbectively it costs way too much for what it provides.

the rest of the world (read- sweden and other such forward looking countries) was providing 10Mbit lines for $20 a month 5 years ago.

the only reason broadband costs so much is because people are still willing to pay for dialup.

Re:the article is full of shit

[wonkobeeblebrox]

>the phone companies' assault as it were is $25 a month for 256Kbit DSL
>the cable companies' prices are $45 a month for 6Mbit Cable.
>only an idiot would choose DSL if those are the options.

I disagree. The question is more properly phrased:
          How much bandwidth does the typical home user need?

I have 256K DSL thru Qwest for 24.99/month. No long term requirements or subscription.

As a general rule, one does not need to upgrade capacity unless one is consistently already using over 70% of the existing capacity. [This "rule" applies to lots of things, I would suspect, including airplane sizes on routes for airlines.] I think most home users are like me-- they want reliable, instant-on service that can serve up a few fast loading webpages (their email, RSS links, liveatc.net running in the background, etc) which are commonly viewed.

DSL 256k @ $25/month is perfect for that. Why anyone would spend more when those are their needs is beyond me, but they do.

The websites I visit load so fast on my mac that I would not notice them loading in an extra .2 microseconds quicker, and the $20 savings a month (I think it is more a difference here between DSL and cable, but nonetheless) is quite nice for other purposes.

Re:the article is full of shit

[colinrichardday]

Some video requires more than 256 kbit/sec. Also, some of us download Linux distributions, where the 16x increase in speed (4 Mbit/sec vs. 256 kbit/sec) makes a difference.

Re:the article is full of shit

[__aainau5532]

10 Mbit internet is fun, but are you going to use it? I know I can say that at least 97% of the people can do with dial-up or the slowest DSL/cable/wifi connection. And why should people need to pay more then they need? So they can pay for bandwidth reservations for the other 3% that wants to get there daily porting of illegal stuff right of the internet? I don't think so and in the end it only matters how much you need to pay and can effort.

Re:the article is full of shit

[__aainau5532]

And you download a Linux distribution every day/night? And pr0n can be better experienced IRL then in a datastream.

Re:the article is full of shit

[colinrichardday]

I said video, not porn. And what about people who sometimes download large files (> 10 Mbytes)?

Re:the article is full of shit

[__aainau5532]

Porn is what made the web to where it now is and it will take it where it needs to be. Porn is a constant factor and can't be ignored. And for the big filetransfers you need to write to your congresman to support him with a new taxes that limits big filetransfers with some new weird and kinky law to collect tax on big filetransfers. But on the other side, there is a difference in slow connections in Europe and in the US.

Maybe it should be free like bheer

[WillAffleckUW]

For example, where I live in Fremont (in Seattle), there are tons of public wireless 10b/g connections. Thus, for the first three months that I had my laptop, my broadband service was free. I could use it on campus at the UW, at SCCC, in the University District, in many coffee shops, and in a number of other neighborhoods.

Our city council is seriously proposing to wire all public buildings to provide free cable broadband across the board in every public building, in addition to wireless services.

After all, why should we pay for the Net?

Re:Maybe it should be free like bheer

[maxpublic]

After all, why should we pay for the Net?

You still pay for it. It's called 'taxes'. Just because you don't get a monthly bill doesn't mean that it's free.

Max

Everything WILL be free eventually.

[crhylove]

As soon as wimax is ratified and in the wild, why pay anyone for net service? Somebody somewhere will be offering it for free within 5 miles. I'll probably be one of them. I do see this infrastructure as inevitably heading towards free. Our economy would be boosted even more if the government mandated a prgram now to foster this, like the way they built the freeways in the 50s. Not likely to happen though, given the awesomeness of our government these days. Regardless though, I do see broadband wimax eventually reaching zero with or without the help of big government and their corporate masters.

rhY

Re:Wrong... or why Economics of Cable/DSL hard

[WillAffleckUW]

good points, but actually, we can either have a sharp demand/supply curve, or a flat one, or a moderately sloped one.

in some markets, we may find that the desires of the buyers are the most significant in determing the price of the service (broadband, considering different flavors/brands/speeds).

in other markets, we may find that the lack of competition amongst competitors (places where the same large corporation owns the cable, wireless, and DSL services or reaches a colluding anti-competitive market agreement in our under-regulated market) means that the price is determined by the sellers and their most efficient return on investment (an example being renters where most apartment buildings are owned by the same conglomerate or are dorm rooms owned by a specific college).

and then other markets may be inbetween these two extremes.

Assuming there isn't a monopoly or oligopoly in our current environment will lead one to inaccurately assume perfect competition, with easy barrier of entry (they may only permit one cable provider or provide barriers to cell towers or land lines for DSL), perfect information (knowing what the current and future rates are and consumers having easy access to information to determine the actual true cost (both teaser rate and lock-in rate and cost/length of service contract and installation/disconnect fees)), and perfect liquidity of capital with sufficient equivalent capital for all consumers.

Such a perfect world (the latter case) doesn't exist anywhere I've seen. Thus, we need to use a better economic model, assuming imperfect information for competitors (no published rates), sticky prices (regulator sets levels), imperfect information for consumers (only teaser rates seen and fine print obscuring full cost so what you think is $15 is really $200 when you install), and high barriers to entry (restrictions on building, long permit schedules, long wait times for new installations, lack of supply for materials to install, shortage of contractors to install, etc).

In other words, you're both right. And you're both wrong.

remember, if you get two or more economists in a room, you'll get a number of different answers equal to the number of economists in the room ...

(grin)

Ask around for IDSL

[dereference]

I wish I could bitch about the high costs of my adsl line / cable connection.

I'm not sure whether you're seriously looking for alternatives, but IDSL is an ISDN-based DSL service. You get 144kbps with practically no distance limits, typically for around $100/month. It's not a great deal in terms of cost per bandwidth, and it's seldom advertised so you have to find a cooperative ISP, but at least it's another option you could try.

Am i the only one?

[Saurian_Overlord]

I see a number of people saying they've had broadband since 1998-99. In 2000, i had AT&T@home, and i was paying $40/mo for 512KB (yes, kiloBYTE, up and downstream; up was changed to 256KB after a while). That was in Peoria, IL; when i moved back to WI a year later, i couldn't even get broadband at all until late 2001/early '02 through Charter. The service i had at that time was 512Kb (kiloBIT) for the same fucking price. I was furious, but it was the only option. Now it's 3Mb for $55, and they offer 5Mb for $60 (which i refuse to upgrade to since i know it won't actually improve my service anyway...i'm lucky to get 1.5MB on the 3Mb plan).

No, he's right...

[DragonWriter]

...in a market with perfect competition (a fair definition of a "properly working market"), price will be set by sellers marginal cost at the quantity sold, that quantity will be set by buyer's willingness to pay that marginal cost.

Re:No, he's right...

[plasmacutter]

no you have it backwards.

the price is set by the buyer's willingness to pay, and the quantity is set by the producer's willingness to produce at that given price. This is only consistent in perfect or near perfect competition however.

in most cases these providers are monopoly or oligopoly, which means they are allowed to either overcharge for existing service or give substandard service for the same price to extract monopoly rent. this of course is shared with legislators to insure against antitrust allegations and regulation to restore competition.

Re:forget 9 bucks difference.. what about faster l

[RobertLTux]

the combo of "speaking the language" and giving the tech a good of a time as possible will work wonders for getting a stable modem connection. (oh btw pull up 192.168.100.1 and check things out)

I took the plunge yesterday...

[rmckeethen]

I have to agree that the aggressive pricing strategy of DSL service providers *is* having an impact. Just yesterday, I switched away from Comcast's residential high-speed Internet service to SBC-Yahoo's introductory DSL plan. After looking at both services, I simply couldn't ignore DSL's ultra-low $12.99 a month rate. To compare, Comcast cost me nearly $50 a month. In my case, it just didn't make any sense to keep paying a higher fee for bandwidth I don't use.

Occasionally, I download an ISO, and then Comcast's higher speed certainly comes in handy. Most often though, that extra bandwidth goes to waste. Email, instant messaging, Internet video and basic web surfing all seem to work fine with SBC-Yahoo's el-cheapo DSL connection. Additionally, I've had numerous problems in the past dealing with Comcast's customer service. The only recurring problem I've seen so far with SBC-Yahoo! is that the dynamic IP address changes *every time* I restart the DSL bridge; in comparison, dynamic IPs from Comcast are so stable they might as well be static. I can live with that one small issue if I get far-cheaper service in return.

I will say this though -- $12.99 a month is probably not a sustainable rate for broadband Internet service. Next year, when the introductory pricing period ends, I fully expect SBC-Yahoo to jack up my rates to something approaching what I formerly paid Comcast.

Like cell phone carriers, broadband Internet providers seem to go out of their way to penalize existing customers, encouraging them to switch to some other carrier with a dirt-cheap introductory rate. Six months ago, a T-Mobile rep. in the mall nearly convinced me to give up my cell phone number when he showed me how I could cut my monthly fees in half, just by canceling my current T-Mobile plan and then signing up again as a *new* customer with T-Mobile. The last time I was down at my local Comcast office, they were offering a 6-month new customer package for $19.99, which is less than half of what they were charging me. At the time, I stood there and helped one of the Comcast sales people talk someone into the deal, because getting more than twice the download speed for $7 more a month more seemed like a bargain. But *I* couldn't get that rate, even though I'd started my service with Comcast just 7 months before, and I hadn't gotten *any* cheap introductory rate. Argh! Why must it be like this with telecommunications services? Can someone please explain the logic to me?

Anyway, for now, I'll give SBC-Yahoo! a whirl and we'll see how it goes. Last night, when I tested the speed, I saw about 1,200 kbps down and 315 kbps up on the DSL line. That's better than advertised for the upload speed, and so close to the maximum download speed that I'm not going to complain. The little hiccough two hours ago from the DSL bridge wasn't encouraging though, but maybe it happened because it's a hot day here in the Bay Area and I had my old DSL bridge -- I'm not using the new DSL router from SBC-Yahoo! because I'm going to return that one -- sitting right on top of the D-Link wireless router. However, I think I can deal with occasional problems like that knowing that I'm saving $360 a year on broadband service.

Interference != interference

[tepples]

The physics term "interference" refers to the additive combination of multiple waves in a medium. The colloquial conception of "interference", on the other hand, refers to a characteristic of radio receivers that are fooled by specific forms of physical interference to the point that it impedes their ability to select one signal out of multiple signals. But with spatial multiplexing methods (such as parabolic reflectors, cylindrical reflectors, MIMO antenna arrays, etc.), it is possible to make much more selective transmitter-receiver systems.

US is expensive

[kalmite]

I'm currently in Tokyo and I am paying about $12/month for a 40Mbps/5Mbps DSL line and the 50Mbps/10Mbps line is only about $15/month. Then there is 100Mbps fiber, but I don't know how much that is. Of course Asia is extremely wired, but come on how long has high speed internet been available in the US??? Long enough to have the price much lower for the bandwidth. Granted Tokyo is one of the largest cities in the world, but New York is up there too. Perhaps the US companies just don't want to upgrade their infrastructure... which is probably the problem.

Re:US is expensive

[sc0p3]

Us is cheap!

Here in NZ we pay $50 ($25USD) for 10GB traffic and 2Mbit connection! Thats enough for 50 cans of coke...5000 1c lollies...17 cafe quality coffees!
I cant wait for speed over 2mbit :(

Re:US is expensive

[Brandybuck]

Due to massive regulations and government encouraged monopolies, there is no competition. And without competition, why bother upgrading your infrastructure?

I'd consider ADSL..

[TrevorB]

I'd consider switching from my cable connection to ADSL if...

a) My phone company wasn't evil (Telus - British Columbia, Canada)

and

b) If I hadn't cut my phone line this past September and switched to Vonage (see (a) above).

At the moment here in BC, we pay about $40CDN/mo for 5Mbps/500Kbps. Telus has some agressive deals (including a 19" LCD monitor if you sign a 3 year contract), but I'm sticking with Shaw for the forseeable future).

DSL and Cable both suck.

[Kaenneth]

Cable does suck more (Comcast vs. Qwest) According to the 'cable guy' we are the only house in the neighborhood on Comcast data service (which, I suppose is why they don't take care of our lines), anyway, if the price of Cable and DSL go down, my plan is: Get Both.

I'm assuming a little linux box could take care of splitting the traffic between two connections, depending on which is 'shorter'/better for that traffic at that time, and with p2p/torrent type applications, ideally allowing both connections to be used for different segments of a transfer. Also log the failures/performance to see if one is drastically better, in which case cancel the other service.

Australia

[VoltageX]

What are you USers doing whinging? 1.5mbit/256kbit ADSL is $80/month here if you live in an area that can get it. Telstra is slowing things down as much as possible.

Re:Australia

[trib]

'zacly. You Yanks have zero to bitch about. I have no idea who VoltageX is with as an ISP, but I'm with a company called Internode who are among the best in Australia. I get 1500/256 with a 20Gb download cap after which I'm shaped to 64kbps for AU$69.95/month (about US$51). My exchange will be upgraded to ADSL2+ capability in the coming months, and I've nominated for transfer to an equivalent plan on ADSL2+ when available. Pricing stays the same.

Given Telstra's monopoly on last mile and the virtual non-existence of cable beyond Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in Australia, Telstra essentially drive the market here. Consequently, there's a regime whereby data volume is the defining factor for ADSL. There is effectively no such thing as unlimited transfer, and in fact, some ISPs (Telstra included as far as I recall) count data in both directions towards your monthly allowance.

If you've some free time, jump on http://www.whirlpool.net.au/ and read through the historical news.

Now, tell me again what you're complaining about?

cheap brings customers, brings cheaper...

[Anonymous Coward]

It costs whatever people are willing to pay, but having a nice net in place gives you a good bargaining position. In my current apartment I have a full duplex 100 Mbit/s connection (which I can max out most of the time I've tried) for about USD 15/month. The price can be that low because everyone wants it when the price is so low. It's also a practical way of getting TV and phone service over IP. This is pretty cheap even here in Sweden, so I have very limited choices when moving next time so I don't get much worse broadband.

Take advantage of the Specials

[DreadPiratePizz]

I currently have comcast cable, and I began with one of those 6 months at 20per month deal. However when the time came, I made it clear I would cancel service if the rate went up, and if couldn't get the deal anymore, I'd shop for DSL, or something else. To my suprise, they agreed to let me keep the modem for 20 bucks. Apparently, you can still haggle in this day and age.

Cable = Increasing Speed, DSL=Decreasing Price

[unfortunateson]

The real equation you're seeing is that DSL keeps lowering the price of the baseline service -- they've picked an ADSL config that they thing is "good enough" and offer $9.99 teaser rates to get you going (more later). Here in a Chicago suburb, I can't even get decent DSL (I think I can get 384 now, but they won't promise anything so I won't subscribe), because I'm over 5 miles from the Central Office -- an odd corner in the coverage area.

Meanwhile, Comcast in the Chicago area costs $42.95 per month -- and another $15 or so if you don't have Cable TV! They claim that the download throughput is 6Mbit, but I'm usually in the 1800-2400 range. Now they're offering some kind of power boost service with 12Mb available for downloading larger files. Somehow I don't think they're really offering a dynamic QOS protocol -- and if they did, I'd rather have it for VOIP than bursty downloads.

But the real trick out there is the AT&T teasers. My mother (who lives nearly across the stree from the same CO) bought into the $9.99 teaser. When the first year was up recently, she was offered the standard $19.99 rate, or twice the speed for $15.99 -- again for a year only. Odds are they'll tweak it a bit more for $17.99 for the next year, until they get you hooked on the fat pipe, then you'll be willing to shell out the same bucks as Cable.

And those worried more about quality.....

[scronline]

Usually find the middle ground with an independant company and rarely have to call support and never have to call india.

This coming from our service record. We have customers that have been with us since 1998 and the only reason they've EVER called us is for non-internet related issues. You know, like buying a new gaming rig, notebook, server...whatever. Looks aren't everything. I once had a '74 cutlass that was beat to crap rusted out, and sounded like the engine was dying. That is until I pulled the cutouts and the exhaust stopped going through the mufflers that had holes poked all through them.

anyway, back to DSL.... Top that off with $16.95/mth for 6 months and $29.95/mth after that you're still beating cable prices and price compares with AT&T out of term.

I won't go into the fact that DSL can be just as fast or faster than cable without the shared network problem of cable. 6meg DSL anyone?

Call me a troll if you want, but I'm not just talking about my own services. There are thousands of other independant ISPs out there and most of them offer better service than all the television advertised ISPs.

Re:And those worried more about quality.....

[Brandybuck]

I switched to an "independent" company too. I got tired of Earthlink ($49) idiocy, had absolutely no desire to go with monopoly SBC ($29), and so went with a little guy for $59. It's ten dollars more, but I get a static address, no usage restrictions, tech support that knows what they're doing, I don't have to install any stupid software (not even PPPoE), and they support my operating system. They even included free domain hosting. This is for 1.5/384, but if I want I could pay extra to go up to 6.0/768.

The best thing is, latency is significantly less, something you don't normally think about. Even with the same speed as before it feels considerably faster.

Re:And those worried more about quality.....

[scronline]

Yup, there's a huge difference when dealing with a company that's responsible to the customer vs. one that's responsible to the stock holder. $59.95 still seems a bit high even for a static IP product, but as long as you're happy, that's what matters.

As you're finding out even though independant ISPs MAY cost more there's a reason they have customer retention. The fact that their products just work without all the "'net experience controlling software" and whatever else you want to talk about.

The OP's hypothesis was a working market

[Ogemaniac]

by which I took it to mean one that closely followed the perfect market model. In that case, the price is nothing other than the marginal cost of production, and has not a whit to do with the desires of buyers.

In real markets, there are distortions which allow sellers to capture extra consumer surplus. However, these distortions are much smaller than many think in most markets. As long as you have more than two or three competing sellers, marginal prices are rapidly approached.

Re:The OP's hypothesis was a working market

[Asklepius M.D.]

And of course none of these pseudo-economic "analyses" take into account the near "necessity" of having high speed internet access today. This is a factor that the free market junkies keep forgetting. Supply and Demand doesn't work properly when people are required by rule or circumstance to purchase the product. Insurance is a great example of requirement by rule, and telecoms are great examples of requirement by cicumstance. This is one of the few instances where a properly balanced gov't (which only exists in the ideal) should begin to distribute the product at little to no charge using our tax dollars. Once a product becomes a public necessity, the market economy fails and an alternative becomes necessary.

Re:The OP's hypothesis was a working market

[benna]

Wrong. Supply and demand just represents necessities as having more inelastic demand schedules.

Re:The OP's hypothesis was a working market

[benna]

Price = marginal cost for each supplier, but marginal cost is itself a function of quantity supplied in a basic perfectly competitive model, and in such a model suppliers are price takers rather than price makers. Price and quantity are set where the supply curve intersects the demand curve, at which point suppliers produce up to the point where marginal cost = price and consumers purchase up to the point where price = marginal utility.

A thumbs up for Speakeasy

[beeblebrox]

I've had Speakeasy for >1 year now, using their naked DSL (OneLink) offering. I believe that under OneLink, the local racket (Qwest) only makes $6/month. I'd like that to be zero, of course.

The service itself has been damn near perfect. Although my speed is limited due to distance from the CO, I'm more than happy paying $50ish/mo for 1024/384 DSL.

I've only had to call support a few times, and in every case the call was answered after a few rings by someone who handled everything - and could understand DNS, ping, decibels and routes.

It would seriously suck if Qwest ever pushed Speakeasy and similar providers off their wires by playing tricks with their "wholesale" rates.

If that does happen, I've promised myself I'll find a non-racket ISP (probably over WiMax or other wireless) and offer free 802.11 connectivity to as many neighbors as I can.

Re:A thumbs up for Speakeasy

[Anonymous Coward]

I also subscribe to their onelink service. I've got an identical experience to parent poster. It's more expensive, thats for sure, however take a look at this:

bash-3.00$ traceroute google.com
  1 dsl093-095-001.mke1.dsl.speakeasy.net (66.93.95.1) 19.533 ms 18.161 ms 17.726 ms
  2 220.ge-0-1-0.cr2.chi1.speakeasy.net (69.17.83.153) 15.718 ms 16.701 ms 17.722 ms
  3 core1-2-2-0.ord.net.google.com (206.223.119.21) 16.741 ms 17.704 ms 17.209 ms

Their voip services are nice as well, very good QoS. They claim the voip traffic never leaves their private network, although I haven't proven that to be true, I believe it. If you want quality, speakeasy is your option. I've traced the route from pretty much all of our local providers in my area, for instance SBC takes 7(!) hops to google's network. No thanks.

I agree, but the market is actually not

[WillAffleckUW]

We all know that in a given town, there is usually a monopoly or oligopoly of cable and DSL providers. Even cell phone coverage varies, but most people don't use their cell provider for broadband, using DSL or cable, so by definition we don't have a perfect model and we can't use that economic model. We instead must use a pricing model based on few participants (sellers) who have high barriers of entry, regulation, and large fixed costs with little variability in rate pricing plans for consumers - you can't pay a different rate at different times of day for cable/DSL, you can't switch providers without significant cost (usually involves up to three months, costs more than $200 to disconnect and get a new connection), you can't observe actual prices (until you get the service you don't even realize the actual taxes you pay - which is fairly substantial - from muncipal/county/state/federal), and it's pretty darned confusing for consumers.

Thus, we must assume an imperfect market and pricing must by definition be based on a monopoly or oligopoly that maximizes their own personal returns at the cost of the consumer.

In other words, it's way more expensive than it would be if there was a true market. By quite a bit.

Now that they're beginning to charge content provi

[melted]

Now that they're beginning to charge content providers, broadband should cost zero dollars. That's "net neutrality" for you, telcos.

Re:Wrong... or why Economics of Cable/DSL hard

[unitron]

"remember, if you get two or more economists in a room, you'll get a number of different answers equal to the number of economists in the room ..."

Only if they are all one-armed economists, so that none can say, "On the other hand...".

Taxes...

[SonicSpike]

Their services might be "cheaper" but how much in real dollars is an average wage earner taxed vs the US?

Socialism is socialism.

Re:Taxes...

[MBraynard]

True, but in some small parts of an economy, a country like France can be better than the US.

Re:Taxes...

[SonicSpike]

My point in my original post was that even though you might can get an 8Mbit up and down in France for $40/month (USD), I am willing to bet that the reason it is that low is due to governmental subsidies, and common infastructure. In other words, the reason it is so cheap is because half of it was paid for by the massive taxes they pay over there.

I bet that if the tax cost was added to the service it probably wouldn't look so great as compared to the US.

Re:Taxes...

[GrAfFiT]

You might be interested to learn that most of the national fiber network in this offer is privately built and owned, the rest being leased from the historical telco (last mile only). The historical telco company is now mostly private though.

We're not in soviet Russia.

I'm in Dallas, and my rates are decreasing

[kenneth_martens]

Over the past three years I've received two letters from SBC notifying me that my DSL rates are increasing. Meanwhile I've noticed that the rates for the first year of service have steadily dropped. I used to think that I was just getting hammered because here in Dallas, my options were pretty much limited to SBC and Comcast (with a touch of Earthlink and a couple of more expensive options). Nope.

I'm in Dallas too, and my rates have decreased at least twice in the last two years. The only trick is that you have to call SBC (AT&T now, I guess) and ask for their new rates. They will require you to re-up your 12-month commitment, but you can get their best rate. I first signed up at $39.99 a month. Later I called and got the same service for $34.95. A few months ago I called up and got my bandwidth doubled and my rates reduced to about $20 a month. (Those rates are the prices for DSL when you have local phone service, so if you don't have SBC landline phone service your situation and rates might be slightly different.)

If you're worried about the 12-month commitment, you should remember that if you move, you can move the DSL with you with no penalty if SBC has service in your new area. I did that and it was no trouble. If you move outside of SBC's coverage area I don't know what the rules are.

DSL is pretty cheap (compared to cable that is)

[GweeDo]

I currently have 6mbit DSL from AT&T for $27.99/month. You do of course need a landline...so you have to pay about $10 for a metered line. So for $37.99 I get 6mbit, that is about as cheap as it gets in the US. As a "benefit" you get unlimited incoming calls too ;)

Variable Variable Variable!

[Tablizer]

Why is it an all-or-nothing thing? Why can't we pay a little more if we want a boost, but less if we don't? Tech jobs are volatile, so should our pricing.

Water bills are based on how much we use, so why can't similar be done with ISP? However, I would rather set the metering rate per day rather than have them count bytes because one cannot easily verify it. For example, say Tuesday I ask to have a speed boost, then I am billed for extra that Tuesday.

Agressive pricing? I wish...

[kaszeta]

A year-and-a-half ago, pricing of DSL and cable modem service was roughly the same. But over the past year, the phone companies have launched an aggressive assault by dropping prices.

I only wish it was happening here (western NH). Verizon doesn't even attempt to compete with Adelphia, and doesn't even offer DSL in many areas. Kind of odd, since they already have most of the expensive infrastructure in place, but they just don't offer DSL. According to my last discussion with them, they plan on rolling out DSL in my area... in 2012.

Adelphia isn't much better, since they aren't very willing to invest in infrastructure.

Frontiernet DSL Sucks.....

[ShyGuy91284]

I just moved into a new apartment a couple weeks ago.. I had DSL at my parents house with no problem, and it had speeds that made most typical broadban users salivate (about 600k/s, which is ususually fast around here). So I decided to get it here... Huge huge mistake... First off, they just changed their policies a couple months ago so that a phone line is _required_ (I was just gonna cell it, but this landline costs an extra $13/mo with who knows how many other misc. phone charges added on). Second of all, they didn't install it right so the phone line did not work. Third of all, they package did not get delivered to my place (said it was delivered here, but it never was). They at least let me go to their office about 10 minutes away and get one in its place. Fourth of all, DSL is not meant for old complexes. I'm getting under 100k/s here, about 1/3 what a friend of mine in another building here gets. Terrible wiring kills your connection quality. Sure, the package delivery wasn't their fault, but other then that, these are all things I wouldn't have had to deal with probably with cable (assuming the line is already running here). DSL is faster _if_ the conditions are right (good household phone system, close central office), but without it, yeah, it sucks...... A bit off topic.... But I had to vent........ Haven't gotten my bill yet, but it'll surely be more then $30, around $45 or $50 I'm assuming....

Re:Frontiernet DSL Sucks.....

[Phroggy]

The botched installation you mentioned is VERY typical for any phone company; I used to work in DSL tech support so I've seen it a million times, but I've run into it quite a bit outside of work as well (not my own line, though). But aside from that, as you say, it's not their fault.

See if you can find the point of demarcation - the box where the phone line comes in, than the lines in your apartment are connected to. For a house, it's usually a grey box on the side of the house; I have no idea what it would look like in an apartment complex. One side of this box is the phone company's responsibility to maintain; the other side is the apartment complex's responsibility. Since the chance of getting the apartment managers to fix your lines is approximately zip, see if you can run your own cat5 line into this box (connect the blue wire to red/ring, the blue-and-white striped wire to green/tip, and cut the rest off; keep the blue pair twisted as far as you can, don't straighten out the two individual wires). Try not to make it obvious, and keep your mouth shut.

Re:Frontiernet DSL Sucks.....

[ShyGuy91284]

Yeah, that "point of demarcation" as you said is a bitch... I (ironically) had two of the tree jacks in my apartment dead. (I would be sure as many readers are probably saying to themselves right now that they didn't screw up the installation, but 90% of my testing was thankfully done at the one jack that worked from the start, so something was def. off). It sucks when it's not your house.... The apartment isn't your responsibility, the phoneline going into the house isn't..... I was afraid I was going to be caught in the middle of finger pointing where I'd be paying the phone company for "something that wasn't there fault" and an apartment complex that claimed it wasn't there fault either.....

Re:France wins (not)

[arbi]

For the same $29.99 USD you can get 100mbps symmetrical (100m both uplink and downlink) internet in Hong Kong. Comes with phone and IPTV as well. They also throw in an Ipod Nano if you sign the 2 year service contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HKBN

heres the kicker

[The Cisco Kid]

Yeah, they are making DSL cost less becuase it has a mas speed of 1.5Mbps (cable could theoretically go to 45+ Mbps), becuase they want to force you to get a phone line from them, and becuase they want to lock you into a year or more contract with a hefty 'termination fee'.

While cable does usually require you to subscribe to at least 'basic cable' (usually $12/mo), but I've never heard of a contract, so you can cancel anytime if it later sucks. And offered speeds of 3 and 6 Mbps aren't uncommon - DSL just cant support that.

Regardless, both industries are monopolies in their own right. It would be nice if there was an open competitive market (as opposed to a duopoly) for wired broadband Internet, sold ala-carte so you could get *just* the broadband, without paying for other crap. Many people are looking into VOIP, and cable really makes more sense there unless you intend to keep a regular line too, and are willing to obligate yourself to a longterm contract.

Re:heres the kicker

[BCW2]

"speeds of 3 and 6 Mbps aren't uncommon"
Unless you are stuck with TimeWarner's RoadRunner. They don't invest enough in their hardware and if to many people in your neighborhood are on it the speed drops through the floor, it is "shared bandwidth" after all. The computer store where I work had RR and is one block away from a high end neighborhood. Four years ago we tried to download a few drivers in the summer with all the kids at home. It was so slow, I went home, downloaded 6 drivers and put them on 2 floppies. Got back to the store and RR was on download 3! At the time I still had dial up at home! Two days later RR wanted to raise the price by 25%! The next day the local phone company installed DSL at half the business price of RR and equal speed of RR at it's best. Haven't thought of changing since. This is in the Triad area of NC.

Re:heres the kicker

[The Cisco Kid]

Remember download speed isnt just about your end of the connection - the driver download site could have been the slow end. Youd need to try transferring from many different sites to get a true picture.

And how long of a contract are you in with your local monopoly telco, for both the DSL and the mandatory local line? What if it starts to suck in a month, and another company started offering a deal that was twice as good? - could you switch to see if it worked better, without paying an expensive termination fee?

In any case, I acknowledge the options suck in both cases. Two choices is the maximum that the average person has for wired broadband. In some cases the telco seems the lesser of two evils, sometimes its the cableco.

But as far as the tech itself is concered, if done right, DSL has a max of 1.5 and cable has a max of 40+. Obviously they are going to rate limit you to whatever you pay for in any case, but thats the tech max.

Fiber-to-the-home, might prove a better option, but even if it ever catches up to where cable and DSL are today, you still wont be able to choose between multiple providers (Eg You arent going to see any of the incumbents competing against each other - in each's monopoly geographic rea you'll have exactly one provider - the monopoly.

Re:heres the kicker

[Maxo-Texas]

Warner & Earthlink do not require you have cable TV. Warner gives you a $5 break on your bill if you have cable.
But I have Dish and Warner internet.

Frequently if you have warner and warner internet and then turn off warner cable, it can be months before the cable actually goes off. I think I had it for about 8 months. Basic only of course- but that's 70 channels and it was a nice backup when we would have a heavy storm and Dish went out for a half hour or so. (Happened twice- about as often as I lost Warner cable for other reasons).

Re:heres the kicker

[The Cisco Kid]

Earthlink isn't a cable company, afaik.

As far as Time-Warner, I would rephrase that as 'They charge you $5 extra if you dont pay for cable too'.

Charter charges $10. (Oh and 'basic cable' is $12, so its a no-brainer, really, unless you are so tight that the $2 diff would put you over budget :P)

Re:heres the kicker

[BCW2]

This is a business, you need a land line anyway. The yellow page ad is more effective than anything but the sign on the building. Four years later there is no desire to change because RR in this area is not any faster than DSL and never has been worth the price charged.

Why does necessity drive up costs?

[Ogemaniac]

I need clothes, yet because there are a large number of suppliers, competition pushes the prices down to the margin. Same is true with housing and food. All else is trivial.

I would be willing to spend a much larger chunk of my income on the basics (food, shelter, clothing, electricity, water, etc) than I currently do. In the case of the last two, there are few suppliers and price regulations of these natural monopolies. However, why are the prices low in the first three, given that my "willingness to pay" is obviously extreme?

Re:Why does necessity drive up costs?

[maxpublic]

I need clothes, yet because there are a large number of suppliers, competition pushes the prices down to the margin.

And that is an illusion. The actual number of companies producing clothing world-wide (off the rack, at least), is quite small. They dictate price agreements to retailers, which is why the same shirt or pair of pants can cost X in America, X*1.5 in Europe, and X/3 in Korea. The margin is very close to the price in Korea, but consumers in America and Europe will never see clothing priced close to the margin because of price agreements. Americans suffer the delusion their clothes are 'reasonably' priced primarily because of most of them have never been outside the country.

Same is true with housing and food.

Food is rarely priced in accordance with the cost of production. Price supports are rampant for farmers in-country, while a combination of tariffs and quotas raise prices for food produced out-of-country. If the free market actually held sway in food prices they'd be a fraction of what you pay now and a good many American farmers would be out of business, but the actual price would stabilize a good deal below what you currently pay at the supermarket.

Max

$22 FYI

[mosb1000]

Just FYI, I have DSL only from verizon (they call it "dry loop") and it only costs $22/month with a 1 year contract, $79 early termination fee. Nearest I can that, that's the best deal out there right now, so you might want to get switched over to that.

Less than it does more than people want to pay

[tmortn]

Seriously. I can't wait for someone to get a nationwide wireless going. I still think Google is going to do it and usurp the old TV model. IE all you need is the hardware and an antenna and you get access. People say free net access can't pay and yet for 50 years we had free TV broadcasts via major networks and ad revenue. Then we can watch current monopolistic structures like Telco and cable based on last mile control crumble if they don't adapt some how.

With a little luck wireless will reach a capability point where we no longer need data lines run to the house and we can get rid of an awful lot of unsightly cables. Then if we could get swapped over to fuel cell powered homes we could dispense with tradditional power lines as well and nix all the above ground stuff. Fuel cells could be powered by underground gas lines. Or perhaps via liquid gas that is reformed on site. Would avoid tranmission losses and distribute the grid. Think going from main frames to PC's (central power plants to distributed).

Needing a want.

[Anonymous Coward]

*shrug* I'm on dialup even though I could get either one (and possibly more). The main reason is that unlike the majority I can tell the difference between a want and a need. And even the degrees that wants/needs come in (hence the dialup). I can do the majority of activities that the internet provides. The only things I can't easily do are things involving large quantity over a short period of time, or things time-sensitive. And for the record I've had both cellphones and broadband in the past. Also for the record most "evil corporations"* are irrelevent to me.

*Feel free to substitute any corporation that tickles your fancy.

Impossible

[aepervius]

If you think the tax cost for the infrastructure for cable would cost 30$+ per month per taxpayer/connected people, think again.

FIBER!

[infosec_spaz]

I don't fucking care!!! I just want an OC-148 to my peecee.

Three fitty

[rolandog]

No more, no less.

Comcast deals

[jroysdon]

$60/month for just a cablemodem (no cabletv) will get you 3mbit/s download.
$15/month mini-basic cable (normal broadcast channels plus 1-2 more) + $45/month cablemodem will get you 6mbit/s download.

If you didn't do the math, it costs the same (actually about $.50 less for the combo deal), and you get perfectly clear broadcast channels and twice the speed.

I'm sorry, DSL just can't touch that. While I don't have a guarantee of a static address, I've had the same one for 2 years now, even after moving 6 months ago across town.

Anywhere I can get Comcast cabletv, I know I can get internet. With SBC/AT&T it's a crap shoot, and often they lie or don't have accurate info. I'm one of those households where all the adults have cell phones and we can't see the point in paying $33/month just to have call waiting, callerid, and pay all those taxes - just to have a land line.

Gah, and the hassle of moving with DSL! Comcast cablemodem, you just move, plug in the cablemodem and call them up and they pop in your new address.

Telco's are an endangered species

[RKBA]

Local telephone companies are an endangered species because of the ubiquitousness of the cell phone. Kids growing up these days probably won't ever bother to get land line telephones as adults except for Internet access, and unshielded twisted pair copper wire can't compete with coax for speed; so unless the local telephone companies get busy replacing their antiquated copper with fiber to the home, cable will continue to eat their lunch.

10Mbps in Sweden

[Meneth]

I pay 200 SEK (about 27 USD) per month for my full-duplex 10Mbps connection. Rather cheap even by Swedish standards. :)

speed is more important than price

[Anonymous Coward]

When I pay for a 10Mbit connection, i expect to get close to 10Mbit bandwidth. The price of broadband must be high enough to drive heavy infrastructure investment, maintain suitable virtual circuit bandwidth to deliver good performance for all users (particularly in anticipation of video on demand services), and provide frequent staged speed increases. Ideally I would like to see 100Mbit connections to all homes within the next 3-5 years. I understand that some US ISPs are now providing connections that for the highest proportion of usage time, now fall significantly short of the claimed bandwidth capability. This might work in a country like the United States, where people are probably too stupid/ignorant to notice, but in more forward thinking parts of the world, such unethical behaviour has recieved less tolerance - i particularly remember the case of a certain brittish ISP that was an early provider of 8Mbit DSL, that lost a lot of customers over poor service.

Somebody Needs To Tell Telstra

[Zontar The Mindless]

I just moved 2km down the road and went from paying $59.95 a month for cable (3 mbps down/512 kbps up) to $99.95 a month for ADSL (1500 down / 256 up). Both plans feature 10GB/month *cough* unlimited *cough* transfer.

That's right, I'm now paying nearly twice as much for half the speed from the same company in the same city (same suburb, even). WTF?

Re:Somebody Needs To Tell Telstra

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this offtopic? Mod with an axe to grind, maybe?

germany is cheaper

[tolonuga]

dsl (2mbit): 20euro. flatrate included - not traffic charges. the telephone line is also already included, no extra charges.
if you want to phone - these days you would use voice over ip. free account already included, but with 1ct/min costs for POTS
connections (or 10 euro per month for flatrate). dsl modem / router / voip gateway also included for free. tv? why not use a
digital tv receiver? no extra charges (unless you want pay tv subscriptions, but most people are fine without).

looks like usa did fall quite behind? on the other side who are we to say that? germany isn't that good either, take a look
at japan, south korea, sweden, finland, denmark, ...

Sweden

[turbofisk]

I reside in Stockholm, Sweden and get about 13/1 Mbit from my provider (Bredbandsbolaget - litteraly the Broadband Company) thru DSL. It's not from the Landline-operator (Telia). I pay 399 sek, which is roughly $50 including VAT. There are cheaper operators, but I like the fact that I don't have DHCP. Prices go down to about 299 SEK ($40). I don't really know anyone surfing with less than 8Mbit either... 0,5Mbit isn't very popular here... It's dirt cheap though, $20. Much of the progress Sweden has seen in pricing and speed has been due to the goverment giving subsidies for building in rural areas and because Bredbandsbolaget seemed to make it their business to give everyone 10Mbit (this was about 6-7 years ago) thru Ethernet. A year ago they upped all their customers (Ethernet-customers) to 100/10... Thanks!

Here in Denmark..

[1.000.000]

The currently cheapest (where you dont need to buy more then 1 line at a time) is metronet, which is

8Mbit/1Mbit for about 50$
24Mbit/1Mbit for about 70$

But you can only get 12-15Mbit over most copper lines here in Denmark and you have to live close to the central, so the last offer might not be so good. The electrical companies have started placing optical fibers in some areas providing 10-100Mbit down- and upload for reasonable prices, and they expect to cover 98% of the country with this in 10-12 years. This will place the current providers under extreme pressure, seeing as thier market is all tied to copper lines, which will effectively be obsolete by then. The death of landline telephones is predicted to be in 5 years here in Denmark, all replaced by mobile phones.

And since i saw how it went with the French guy trying to claim victory and having people saying the low price in france is due to low income and low living standards i can proactively defend Denmark with a small piece from the cia factbook about Danish economy:

"Because of high GDP per capita, welfare benefits, a low Gini index, and political stability, the Danish people enjoy living standards topped by no other nation."

same?

[kurtdg]

What makes you think they're using USD in France? Last time I was there, it was still part of the Eurozone.

Re:same?

[arbi]

When a specific currency isn't specified on messages in forums such as slashdot, it usually implies either USD or the rough equivalent price in US dollars. In this case the latter since the service was in France. If the original poster indeed meant euros despite not mentioning it, then the 29.99 USD would be even cheaper by comparison.

In my post about the HK connection, had I posted $29.99 without mentioning the currency, would you have automatically assumed it was in HK dollars?

Re:same?

[kurtdg]

When a specific currency isn't specified on messages in forums such as slashdot, it usually implies either USD or the rough equivalent price in US dollars. In this case the latter since the service was in France.

Come on, so you're saying he took a retail price in Euro, roughly converted it to USD, and came out at USD 29.99?? Sorry, but common sense yells at me that the 29.99 number contains too many nines, so it must be the original retail price, thus in Euro.

If the original poster indeed meant euros despite not mentioning it, then the 29.99 USD would be even cheaper by comparison.

Yes, of course. I certainly hope (but don't think) we'll import the Hong Kong kind of telecom price/performance in Europe soon.

100/10, ~27$

[Zoolander]

I get 100Mbps down, 10 up for 195SEK (ca. $27) here in Stockholm. Pretty cheap. If i want 100/100, I would have to pay around 300 SEK. But this is a very good provider (www.blixtvik.com), even by Swedish standards. The biggest 'real' company in Sweden (www.bredbandsbolaget.se) charges about 300 SEK for 10/100, which i consider very reasonable.

Free.

[jb.hl.com]

Talk Talk offer free broadband if you sign up for their (already cheap) phone package. In total it costs £21 a month (about 40 dollars). We just switched, partially because my current provider (NTL) have had connection problems all day and their technical support is crap.

Re:Free.

[easter1916]

Best. Sig. EVER!

Market Share

[guisar]

Instead of fighting over consumers who are already connected and may have a plethora of options- why don't the telcos put their money where their advertising mouths are and try to offer access to those who have no other option than dial up currently? From what I can see, and I am no lover of cable, cable is in the forefront in this area. Charter cable is my only option- I'd use DSL if it were offered since cable is so expensive. However, 8 years after I first used DSL it's STILL not offered in my community. As a result, I'm an totally off the telco grid- VOIP, cell phone and cable. Verizon doesn't get one dime of my money. In the course of rewiring my house I have not even made provisions for terrestial phone service. So who cares about DSL?

France example

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a little city (about 30k citizens) in france, far away from any major city.
With my isp, the price is 31 euros (39 usd) as follow:
15 euros for DSL 6000kbits down, 600kbits up
10 euros for illimited phone call
6 euros to lease the copper line.

I have to take the 10euros for phone call even if I dont need it.
Not all little city have such offers, lots have only 512kbits/128kbits for 30euros (dsl only).

Dont forget that france is nearly 2 time bigger than japan and 14 time smaller than the USA.
French population is 2 time smaller than japan and 5 time smaller than the USA.

Reliable Dialup is more efficient

[Bachee]

As far as DSL goes, it is a great service if you want information fast, but as far as the average user goes, dialup is still a good choice. I get dialup for $9.00 CND per month, and have never had a problem with the service being down. If i want to download large files, i start the download before I go to sleep, wake up and it's usually done.

Bachee~

Anyone rmember Rogers and @Home.

[mario_grgic]

In 1998 or there about Rogers.com started offering cable Internet access. This required installation of software (and sometimes even public sharing of entire C: drive that Rogers then could access all done by clueless? "modem installation" guys) which customized your browser (default icons, search engine and home page all done in registry) so when you open your browser it would go to @Home portal with their news snippets, and other content. And people thought THAT IS the Internet.

With the death of net neutrality we are going back to those lovely times, when your ISP (or your ISP's ISP) is going to provide priority content (i.e. ads and what ever crap they want to shove down your throats) that loads fast, and everything else is slow and that WILL BE the Internet. And people will pay for this privilege $50 a month (don't laugh people do that with cable TV already, and telcos want to enter into TV market).

Cable or DSL

[malachid69]

Personally, I would not give up my DSL. Since I am getting 6Mb/1.5Mb, it is faster than both Cable and FIOS (which stopped 1 block away)... Personally, I always feel that the Comcast commercials are blatantly false advertisement (both due to being slower than DSL and due to their cable tv screwing up all the time).

cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMNHO basic broadband 3M, should be costing $20 at the most, especially if it is going to replace dialup(which was a complete ripoff at that pricing, until you add in support for dummies).

As a matter of fact I happened to run across an ISP, apparently based in CA, that provides 1.5M for $12.99/m w/free equipment, self-install, 24/7 support(usually useless to me, and when I do have a problem it's not a tier 1 support thing, it's usually a clueless idiot broke your network type of thing, e.g. routing loops, etc.)

My pet favorite of the moment is Comcast trying to hauk 8M connections as "gaming" connections. I guess that no one explained to them that even their original 1.5M provided more than enough gaming bandwidth, that latency is FAR more impoortant. (Hell, dialup is almost good enough esp @ 56k although you make be slightly lacking in bw but not by that much... latencies can also be a problem dependent upon provider, oversubscription, etc.)

The current problem right now is that legislation and FCC rules are supporting artifically high broadband prices as they limit competition(if they even allow it), and the possible passage of dissolution of net neutrality will likely result in a return to the bad old days of metered access. Anyone up to paying $5-$10/h and then a surcharge for "premium" service access(e.g. Google)?

Bandwidth is cheap as long as ISPs are not stupid and do fractional leasing as bw excesses are usually severely charged usually to the tune of MUCH more than leasing, for example, an entire DS3 pipe v. fractional DS3 on a monthly basis. As to overall bandwidth, there is still an awful lot of dark fiber out there, left over from the overbuildouts of the late 90s. (Equipment "costs", upgrades, and maintenance are not nearly as expensive as ISPs would like you to believe either, as they are not going to be upgrading often as evidenced by telephone companies(ever see ISDN make a wide appearance?). (Sheesh where I live the local CO has had DSLAM(DSL) coming soon for going on 8y now... as a matter of fact they just recently replaced the coming soon line to some time, which in my case mean overpriced cable or dialup...)

So here's to hoping for more wireless, and FiOS, which, hopefully, will finally drive down prices. (here's a funny excerpt on "competition" too, we actually have 2 cable companies servicing the area ATM Comcast and WOW. Comcast is $40/m for 6M, and WOW $30/m for 128K(WTF?!).)

Wirless 802.11 5 mile backhaul 91.13 with tax

[thorkyl]

The telco was unable to provide DSL (9 miles from the CO) Cable is $4,000.00 per mile and is 3.5 miles away The 802.11 5 mile link to the tower at 512K both ways Love it better than the 4 chanels of ISDN I was using Its also $350.00 less. I forsee a future of small WIFI providers replacing the telco DSL/Cable

FRA 0 : 0 SUI

[slyborg]

Yo, what's the name of the ISP? How did this get modded 'informative'? I would have modded it "France lacks a real attacking threat" or "France needs to find some younger players"....

Re:FRA 0 : 0 SUI

[GrAfFiT]

Not mentionned to prevent slashvertisement probably. The company is Free Telecom (http://www.free.fr).

Re:FRA 0 : 0 SUI

[slyborg]

The mesh network concept is very interesting, wanted to check it out. Merci beaucoup.

well...

[shnot]

a few years when the president said he was gonna get broadband into every home in america, you'd think it would hafta be kinda cheap...but it wasn't cheap enough to make me stay with a company (comcast) offering a 3-4mbit cable line, bad service, snotty-ass bitches who probably couldn't set the time on a digital watch, let alone get my modem added to the account in under 20 minutes ("oh, oops, that was the wrong address, i'm sorry" not joking) working the support centers. gogo gadget 10mbit-dsl-in-a-low-usage-area. another interesting thing, when i got comcast shut off the rep seemed genuinely surprised that i'd had my service for as long as i did without paying for my cable modem.

me: i bought it a few days before you guys hooked me up. i still have the receipts and warranties.

her: no, that's the one we rented to you.

me: no. it isn't. you guys never game me a modem and you never charged me modem rental fees.

her: well, to date you have incurred rental charges of three hundred and...

me: *sounds of me laughing and rolling around on the floor with snot coming out of my nose and blood pouring out of my ears, eventually shitting my pants because of the aneurysm i got from laughing so hard. EMS hangs up the phone a half an hour later.*

$92/month for 3M / 768k & 5 static IPs.

[ClioCJS]

I've had 6 DSL ISPs in 7 years. The prices only go up. Yea, I can get cheap verizon dsl or cox cable, and have random ports blocked, or not be allowed servers. The fact of the matter is, low prices are only for the bottom feeders. I live inside the d.c. beltway, arguably one of the most internet-connected places on the planet, as we live near the heart of the internet, Reston, VA. My first DSL was only $60/month in 2000. They went bellyup, transferred me to EarthLink (worst ever), then I went to patriot, which was $75/mo or so for 768/768. I wanted more so I went to LighteningBolt, got completely screwed over by the asshole Brent who works there (probably have something on my credit rating now, for refusing to pay for a "broken" modem, which I said I would pay for if they sent it back to me, which they refused to. If I buy something, it's mine and I get to possess it, end of story). So finally I went to speakeasy (by this point, $85/mo), and they reneged on their "unlimited access" flat out giving me an ultimatum: "DOwnload 100G a month max, or we will terminate you", which they did.

Now I'm on Silcon, and their bridge device sucks, PPPOE is slow, but I can still get 290K/s. I just can't surf comfortably, even if I throttle my downloads down to 190K/s. Certain sites are arbitrarily slow. SpeakEasy definitely had a better network; I just wasn't allowed to fully utilize it.

Tell me... Can I move to France?

Re:More to the point, how much should Gigapop cost

[maxpublic]

But in other nations, like say South Korea, you can get Gigapop internet, which runs at speeds up to 100 Mbps, and you can get it for about $15 a month or cheaper.

And South Korea has the same land area as Oregon, which makes cabling the entire country a fuck of a lot easier. Not to mention implementing upgrades to equipment.

Max

Yeah, but they were a good deal

[schwaang]

The net neutrality issue is massively important, but that point aside:

Only this year 2006, has the promotional 1-year contract price of 3-6Mbps DSL in my area fallen to what @Home cost EIGHT YEARS AGO.

[When I had service with @Home back in the day, I got 6Mbps for $34/month. At that time, DSL wasn't even offered in my area, and later, after @Home was eviscerated by a phone company, DSL in my area cost $50/month for 1.5Mbps.]

P.S.: The FCC can get bent.

Telcos aggressive price dropping

[Chas]

And now look at who's at the forefront of the fight against net neutrality.

1: Drop prices
2: Oversubscribe
3: Bitch and moan about content providers "stealing" your bandwidth.
4: Try to double-tap the content providers.

Whoops! Did I say double-tap? I meant EXTORT.

What is this, an ad site?

[PaulRivers]

What is this, a frikin ad site?

"AT&T has twice lowered the price of its DSL service and now offers its 1.5Mbps service for $12.99 for the first year."

It reads like ana AT&T add. No one (on slashdot) gives a rats ass what they charge for their "introductory period". Only their normal, non-introductory rate is what we care about. What's next, "They've lowered their rate to free for the first month! So obviously, by not mentioning what it actually costs, it's cheaper!"

If you can sell clothes for above margin prices

[Ogemaniac]

why isn't everyone and his brother rushing to open up a new clothing store rather than wasting their capital on anything else?

Yep, it is all those secret cabals that can magically stop other companies from entering the clothing market when prices rise.

Yes, a lot of western farmers would be out of business if the government didn't shield them. But that doesn't change the fact that prices are pushed down towards the margin. It just means that they aren't pushed down to FOREIGN margins.

*sigh* Is US the 3rd world of broadband?

[the_B0fh]

In Europe, people are paying $60 for 100mb up and down. In South Korea, people are paying $20 for the same. In Japan, people are getting fiber to the house.

In America, 1.5mb down and 128k up is considered "broadband" *sigh*

free

[lasse_2]

Should be free .. has already been paid for in taxes twice. Lars

Just don't look at Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

or you'll realize what a technological backwater the USA has become in the past few years. Your mobile phones are shit, your broadband is a joke, and all your jobs have been shipped to other countries. The only thing keeping you afloat is your housing bubble at this point, and it too will soon pop.

They're calling their DSL service FIOS now?

[Andy Dodd]

FIOS used to be their Fiber To The Home service only, and not DSL. Their DSL offerings were marketed differently.

Re:More to the point, how much should Gigapop cost

[WillAffleckUW]

Ah, but Oregon is the same size as:

Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia - combined.

You were saying?