Slashdot Mirror
The $200 Billion Broadband Rip-Off
Jamie noted that Cringley has a piece about the US Broadband situation. He talks about where we were and where we are: 'not very fast, not very cheap Internet service that is hurting our ability to compete economically with the rest of the world' and about the $200B the phone companies got to make it that way.
It still costs a lot of money to string fiber up to every residence. Competition could, theoretically, actually impede development of such a network, since they're so expensive to build that you're only going to build it if you have a reasonable expectation of recouping you investment.
Not only that, but it's horribly inefficient for us to build multiple networks. There should be one physical network, and competition should exist on it.
The problem is that in most of the country (Everywhere non-Verizon), this network isn't being built. And in Verizon territory, there is no competition allowed. Worse, in some areas, inferior technology is being installed (FTTN, etc..) that will actually delay the possibility of anything but 7ish Mbit ADSL. Even worse, we paid for the fiber network, but we don't actually have it.
What is needed? We need some politicians with ethics who aren't in the pocket of the telcos to actually stand up and hold them to their promises. Either that, or we need the physical network to be a public utility. The former would be best for everybody, but it hardly seems likely... Everybody up the chain from the local town governments on up to the senate and even the executive branch is used to receiving their cut of what are essentially bribes from last-mile carriers (unscrutinized regressive taxes on citizens, really, funneled through telcos and cable-cos into local treasuries and national campaigns), and nobody is going to give the money back unless the voters hold them accountable. Most of the voters don't even know what's going on.
In most of America, only two companies are allowed to run wires into your home, the local telco monopoly and the local cable monopoly. The existence of the cable and telco monopolies is responsible for the problem. As long as that's the case, you're just arguing about the best way to manage the ripoff. Any regulatory scheme, at best, simply minimizes the ripoff. At worst, it leads to the two companies having undue influence over regulators.... and indirectly gives the regulators vast power to regulate and monitor private communication.
My own feeling is that the very idea of regulated telecommunications is inconsistent with the First Amendment. I don't think it could be any plainer. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the court decision.
...of plant and service.
Personally, I'd rather have two bills - one for the physical layer (cables, swtiches, and maintenance) provided either by the government or pseudo-governmental corporation, and one or more for the data (of any kind - voice, video, internet). By segregating the two, you can allow local issues to be dealt with as a local problem, and offermake up funding for low-density where "the government" feels necessary (rural electric comes to mind as an example, if not the best one). For those afraid of government, realize that most areas run their own water and sewer, and do a fairly good job, on the whole. And I'm not saying it has to be government - a corporation can run the plant (under gov. supervision - any monopoly needs close oversight).
By separating the physical and the data, you can offer _real_ competition by local or national providers. Think of long distance telephone service - it's in a hell of a lot better shape (for the consumers and competitive pricing) than, say, local telephone or cell service (Verizon, anyone?). Most places don't even have the possibility of a competing high speed carrier because the physical plant operators can charge whatever they want for access, and as a result their services will always end up being more competitive.
Power would be nice this way, too. I already have the physical plant portion broken out on my bill with generation costs separate. By prohibiting the physical plant operators from having any financial interest in the service operators, there will be a more level footing - and more opportunity for competition.
Oh, in case you're curious, the incumebents know this, and would lobby to their deaths against any mandated separation.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Totally OT, but still...:
The tax rate percentage is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much money a taxpayes has in his/her pocket after paying taxes, and what he/she can buy with it. In short: purchase power.
I wouldn't mind paying 90% taxes if I lived in a country where my salary was a million USD for the same job I have today.
As it happens, I live in Denmark. Our average taxes are around 46% and on top of that we have a 25% VAT (sales tax). Does that mean I am poor? No! It means my salary and the entire economy around me has been adjusted to that level. My purchasing power is equal to (and in many cases greater than) most other people in other countries with a job just like mine.
And btw... even though we have a social system which gives us free healthcare, free education and better social security that doesn't mean we are a "highly-socialist" country. In fact I think our liberal prime minister would find your comment rather funny.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Let's see... about 24% of my income goes to federal & state (no local) income and payroll taxes... and, my best back-of-the-envelope guess is that I pay another 1%-2% in gas taxes, my car tab, and other user fees. (I own no property.) Yes, I'd happily pay half of my income to live in a country where we really had all of that stuff. Many Americans react just like you did when I say that, because the government is so ineffective here that they can't believe it would actually work. But there are a number of countries where it does, most notably a few of those evil European welfare states.
Obviously, competent management and fiscal discipline are necessary for such a state to succeed. Ultimately, those are political problems and are the responsibility of the people. Ask yourself why certain other countries have them and the U.S. doesn't. I think you will find the answer has to do with how people are educated.
You must be taking your information from post AT&T breakup, 1981'ish. Back when the publicly owned and traded phone "monopoly" was f'd up. HiTF a publicly traded company can be considered a monopoly I would like to know. But, anyway...
The original copper network was a private/public compromise built on private property seized by the government
No sir. The original copper was being put in place in the mid 1800's along with the railways. The land was "seized" from the native Americans.
The federal government allowed monopoly control of the copper by one company, as long as it agreed to follow certain rules
Bell was given credit for the phone making The Bell Telephone Company was the only player in the market. The government owned the copper it put in place until the, then, "American Bell Telephone Company" built enough exchanges to receive through government grants the existing copper because uncle sam didn't want to pay for upkeep not to mention it needed private phone system and couldn't do it due to patents:
Until Bell's second patent expired in 1894, only Bell Telephone and its licensees could legally operate telephone systems in the United States http://www.corp.att.com/history/history1.html
Up until the 80's the majority of old folks had their money tied up in phone stocks and government savings bonds. The industry was broken up to get that stagnant money back out in the world to pump the U.S. economy back to life.
The reason we don't have good network connectivity is the constant fighting for control of what is unarguably the biggest industry in the U.S. Everything, in one way or another, is dependent on communication. The people in the industry are the second most greedy pieces of sh't on the face of the earth. Absolutely everything they do is for their own benefit. The massive tax cuts they received to "modernize the infrastructure of our nations communications" went directly onto their bottom line. The proposals that Google et. el. are putting together are the only signs of hope the people have to break free from the same ol sh't.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
we paid for the fiber network, but we don't actually have it.
Why do the congress critters need to hold the telcos responsible when we the customers can. As you pointed out, we paid for a service that was not delivered. That sounds like a giant class action lawsuit to me. Now if it were an individual person I think that it would qualify as fraud, and that person would face prison, but in this case the criminal is a corporation with corporate personhood. So how do you jail a corporation? Well jail is basically the loss of you freedoms to the state, so that is what we should do here and in other cases of corporate criminal activity, take away control from the those in control and give it to the state for the duration of the sentence. That would mean the stock shares are frozen and cannot vote, the upper management/board of directors is not paid or allowed accept new employment, and a state Warden will run the company with the sole goal of maximizing the public good through the companies line of business, shareholder profits or losses are not considered in state Wardens decision making process, only the maximum quality at best possible cost to the existing customers. Yes the executives and the shareholders will get screwed in this scenario, but they are the ones who's greed and poor decisions lead to the fraud in the first place.
We are all just people.
That sounds like a good excuse until one realizes that in the WWII the USA's involvement in Europe was far behind that of the Soviets, even ignoring the fact that the British faught a prolonged aerial war to hold Hitler at bay. The majority of the WWII action for the USA was its tangle with Japan, not in Europe. As a matter of fact, a significant portion of the business elites of the USA were sympathetic to Hitler and did brisk business with him, until (and for some even after this point) it became very dangerous for them to do so.
As to Communism, if the Soviets managed to take over Holland (an exceedingly unlikely scenario since all the other countries they took over were in their path to Berlin, at which point the Soviet public had no apetite whatsoever for further warfare after paying such a horrendous price so far, and by the time they did, the Western Europe already had nukes), their empire would have crumbled that much sooner, as its inherent internal deficiencies, accelerated by its being an over-stretched military monstrosity, brought it down, Reagan's hand waving nothwistanding.
And to truly put a lie to all these claims of "protection" of Europe in post WWII era (never you mind that both UK and France are nuclear powers) the USA kept on building its ever-more expensive arsenals and armies long after the Cold War ended, and now it seeks to employ these armies in an effort to brutally impose its will on random resource-rich countries. So much for all the bullshit. After Vietnam and Iraq, attempts at painting the USA as a "protector" of anything but its own elites and profits have become an exercise in pathetically comical futility.
A salary of $60k in Iowa is equivalent to $100k in California. $60k/year will buy you a nice family house, decent car, and a easy-going lifestyle. If the national telecom infrastructure was up to date, there would be many jobs that can be done in the middle of Iowa that are now done in California. Alternately, for a bit more than the salary you pay to an Indian programmer (well, a bit more than those who now are demanding more money...), you can get a native English speaker *in a nearby timezone*.
With low-quality or no broadband, you lose this potential workforce.
Or, at least, so goes the theory.
In all fairness, it's not really socialism - none of the countries mentioned (Netherlands, Canada, Scandinavian countries, etc.) have command economies, state ownership of property, and so forth. A lot of Americans seem to think that a national health care system automatically equals gray concrete walls and red stars, but it's not so.
On the other hand, the U.S. is still the best place to go and start a business, thanks in no small part to their labour mobility (easier to hire and fire).
And with the top 2% owning over 50% of all the assets in the USA, you see absolutely nothing wrong with that situation?
The top income brackets in the period I mentioned were 90%. Now they are around 35% or so, not taking into account all the loopholes. Most of the largest US corporations and their billionaire owners pay no taxes whatsoever due to "creative" accounting. Failing that, they move their HQ to Dubai, or some such.
Brewing.
Restauranting.
Just to name two. In 1907, there were a few hundred breweries in the US; after prohibition and into the 50's, there were fewer than 60. Now there are over 1400, not counting house brews, homebrew, and smaller microbrews. In 1980, your options were bud lite or michelob. Now, almost everywhere you go, there are import selections as well as a number of american small brewer options - Sierra Nevada, Blue Moon, Magic Hat, Rolling Rock, Red Dog, etc.
Likewise, in 1907, most people cooked and ate at home 97 times out of 100 or more. Granted, there's a lot of culinary conformity at the exits on the interstates, and there's an Applebees in every large city from here to Houston. But, there's also tons and tons of mom-and-pop restaurants, most ready and willing to give you excellent (or sub-par) food and service - often far more varied than you can get from the commercial conformists. Don't believe me, go to Brooklyn some time and find the Dominos, and compare its volume of business to diFara's on Avenue J. Restaurants are a competitive business - far more so than in 1907, and with far more consumer choice.
~Wx
sig?