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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

£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? :)

Don't They Know?

[MudButt]

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

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.

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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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"

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

[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.

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.

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: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)

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.

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: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...".

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

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!"