We're Number 9! US Broadband Speeds Rise, But Slower Than Many Other Countries'

Vemont's Rating by charles05663 · 2013-07-23 04:30 · Score: 1

The high rating is probably due to VTel's Gigabit service.

Re:Vemont's Rating by reboot246 · 2013-07-23 11:34 · Score: 1

It may be fast, but it seems to drop letters.
Wanna buy an "r"?
Vermont

US Post Office by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's your best case scenario.

Re:US Post Office by unimacs · 2013-07-23 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

The USPS example makes a pretty good case actually. A British study found that the U.S. postal service is the most efficient in the world.

The problem is that snail mail is dated technology and our reliance on it is waning.
Re:US Post Office by DexterIsADog · 2013-07-23 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'll take it. The Post Office provides incredibly good, reliable service, despite the way it is micro-managed by Congress, and expected to operate like a private corporation while providing universal service, which no corporation would do, and prefunding retirement benefits for workers, some of whom aren't even born yet.

I (heart) U.S. Post Office.
Re:US Post Office by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:18 · Score: 0

No, it's not suggested that the US government run the US internet, but that it be regulated the same way electric and gas utilities are regulated, but the US postal system does a good job. That said, CWLP is Springfield, IL's city-owned and run power company, and Springfield has the lowest electric rates in the state, the highest uptime in the state, and the best customer service. But that stands to reason -- if I have Amerin as most of the state does, I have no recourse whatever if rates rise or if customer service sucks or if my power goes out weekly. The company is only beholden to its stockholders, it isn't like you can use a different power company. But if my service sucks, the Mayor loses his job -- the customers ARE the "stockholders".
We had two EF2 (almost EF3) tornados here on March 12, 2006. A large part of the electrical infrastructure was completely gone; no poles standing unbroken, no wires up. The power was back on for everyone within a week, but it was a couple of years before the evidence of a tornado was gone. If you've never been in a tornado you can't imagine what it's like.
A few months later a weak EF1 hit the St Louis area. A month after that I visited some friends on the Illinois side of the river who are served by Amerin. The only evidence that there had even been a tornado there was the fact that the power was still out.
I wish I could get internet service from CWLP.
Re:US Post Office by ebno-10db · 2013-07-23 06:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

The USPS example makes a pretty good case actually. A British study found that the U.S. postal service is the most efficient in the world.
Facts don't deter people with ideological arguments. The GP thought "US Post Office. That's your best case scenario." was some sort of an argument, and that he was modded up supports the idea that he's far from alone. When "debate" reaches that level, only rants and bumper stickers matter.
We all know that government mail delivery was a plot hatched by the pinkos at the Constitutional Convention, and should do everything to fight it. There are more important principles at stake here than silly things like low cost, fast reliable delivery.
Re:US Post Office by Richy_T · 2013-07-23 06:34 · Score: 3, Funny

and prefunding retirement benefits for workers, some of whom aren't even born yet.
This is probably fair. The government has already spent the money they'll be earning.
Re:US Post Office by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-23 09:31 · Score: 1

"A British study found that the U.S. postal service is the most efficient in the world."
Who gives a damn if it's most efficient, if 90% of it is corporate junk mail?

Give me an efficient postal service WITHOUT government-subsidized junk mail. Then I'll be impressed.
Re:US Post Office by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-23 10:38 · Score: 0

"I'll take it. The Post Office provides incredibly good, reliable service, despite the way it is micro-managed by Congress, and expected to operate like a private corporation while providing universal service, which no corporation would do, and prefunding retirement benefits for workers, some of whom aren't even born yet."
The service it provides is only "good" and "reliable" when you have nothing to compare it to. So let me clue you in on a little history.

Before I get to any depth I'll just tell you what I have experienced personally. When I was a small child I had this conversation with my father when he was preparing to mail a letter at the post office. And it stuck in my mind ever since: You could pay about 2-3 times the cost of a "regular" stamp, for an Airmail stamp. And you were guaranteed 2-day delivery anywhere in the contiguous 48 states. In contrast, today, the analogous category of mail is "Priority Mail." It costs more than 10x a regular stamp, and nothing is guaranteed. They say it "usually" takes 2 days. But I have seldom had priority mail I sent actually arrive in 2 days. In the past I had very important mail sent "2nd Day Delivery" (this was shortly before the "Priority Mail" designation) take 9 and 10 days to go from major Western cities to major Eastern cities. When I complained, all I got was a shrug and the comment "You should have sent it FedEx."

But now some real history: one thing that people seem to forget is that a major reason for the very existence of the Post Office is to postmark mail. It is NOT just about cancelling stamps so they can't be re-used. (Although they can be combined and often are... a stamp cancellation along with the dated postmark.) The postmark creates a legal, court-accepted record of when it was sent. But take a look in your mailbox from day to day now, and see how much of your mail is actually postmarked. Very little of mine is. Bulk mail has no postmark, and doesn't really need any. So that's a gimme. But what about the rest?

Well, half of the STAMPED mail I've received lately hasn't even been properly cancelled. Much less postmarked. No visible date anywhere. And metered mail? The Post Office has decided it doesn't need to postmark metered mail. Even though it could have been "metered" two months ago and only sent 3 days ago. I know, because I've sent metered mail myself and in many cases you can set the date to whatever you want. And even if you don't, you can meter it today and send it a month from now. No record anywhere of when it was actually mailed. This is a Big Fail. (I want to point out here, too, that I'm not talking about what Postal regulations say they have to do today. I'm talking about the historical -- and current -- justifications for the Post Office to even exist.

I'm not talking about Certified Mail. That's another matter, and it's very expensive. But there are lots of times when your mail is a legal record, certified or not, and not having a postmark can be a huge problem.

That is just one way in which the Post Office is simply not doing the job it exists to do.

As for retirement funds... do you know WHY they have to pre-fund retirement? That requires a little more history.

Always keep in mind that the Post Office is a government-mandated monopoly. In the very beginning, the government was really the only entity that could establish reliable mail service. But it wasn't always that way and it doesn't have to be that way.

In 1844, Lysander Spooner established the American Letter Mail Company, which competed very successfully with the U.S. Post Office. To the point that Congress outlawed companies that compete with the Post Office (for the simple reason that the Post Office could not compete). That put Spooner out of business of course. He became bitter and he was an outspoken critic of the U.S. government ever since.

My point here though is that it is not only possible for pri
Re:US Post Office by ThurstonMoore · 2013-07-23 12:00 · Score: 1

I like the post office they do a good job, dont really understand all the hate (I am not being sarcastic)
Re:US Post Office by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-07-23 13:59 · Score: 1

Bullshit.
Re:US Post Office by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 23:21 · Score: 0

Bullshit? I wish it was. I really, really wish it was.
Re:US Post Office by Bengie · 2013-07-24 03:52 · Score: 1

USPS is not subsidized , it is entirely self-reliant for money.
Re:US Post Office by DexterIsADog · 2013-07-24 04:26 · Score: 2

The service it provides is only "good" and "reliable" when you have nothing to compare it to. So let me clue you in on a little history.

(lots of rant, some more assumption that I know nothing about the post office, some resentful personal anecdote, blah, blah, blah...)

But don't believe the propaganda. "Pre-funding" is what ALL private businesses do. At least, those that offer retirement at all. They pay into an investment fund, and that's all the money there is. They don't have the option (as the Post Office used to) of simply promising outrageous retirement benefits willy-nilly, without having to worry about where the money was going to come from. Which, of course, was the whole problem. So stop railing against a perfectly sensible regulation. They now have to pay for things the way other organizations do. That's all that "pre-funding" means. And if a government-mandated monopoly can't start doing their jobs again, while balancing their books, then let private industry (APART from government for a change) do it. Private companies can do, and have done, a better job for less. Anybody who says otherwise just isn't telling the truth. And other government-mandated monopolies in all other areas have all managed to not just get the job done, but make huge profits in the process. But that's another story.
Fewer than half of businesses with retirement liabilities pre-fund, so thanks for the falsehood, though I admire the confidence with which you stated it. Also, calling the post office a monopoly is seriously myopic, especially when you go on to mention the private companies that directly compete with a so-called monopoly.

Okay, you don't like the U.S. Post Office. Got it.
Re:US Post Office by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 05:18 · Score: 0

As many posters point out, that's not so bad! A few lines at office maybe, and maybe some of the workers are a little surly (who isn't?), but they serve everybody at a very reasonable price. Make it private and a huge swath of customers are cut off.
Re:US Post Office by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-24 06:58 · Score: 1

USPS is a quasi-government agency. *IT* subsidizes junk mail. (If you want proof, all you have to do is look at their bulk rates.)

That makes junk mail government-subsidized. Q.E.D.
Re:US Post Office by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-24 07:05 · Score: 1

"Fewer than half of businesses with retirement liabilities pre-fund, so thanks for the falsehood..."
It's not a "falsehood". And where do you get the notion that only "half" of companies pre-fund? What are you using for a definition of "pre-funding"?

The fact remains that the Post Office was creating a huge black money hole by NOT funding retirement at all, and leaving it merely as a future government obligation. Even if it was just a USPS obligation, and not government, it was a projected bill that they had no hope of meeting. They were forced to pre-fund as a direct reaction to their former failure to plan for the future. This is historical fact.

"Also, calling the post office a monopoly is seriously myopic, especially when you go on to mention the private companies that directly compete with a so-called monopoly."
You say I was spouting falsehoods, then you call USPS not a monopoly? I daresay I know more of its history than you do. And here is a bit of history for you: IT IS AGAINST FEDERAL LAW FOR A PRIVATE SERVICE TO COMPETE WITH THE US POST OFFICE FOR CARRYING LETTERS, AND HAS BEEN SINCE THE MID-1800S. Period. Spend a couple of minutes on Google and look it the fuck up.

Other companies do compete in specific services that the Post Office does not (or historically did not) offer. THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER. If you offer a service someone else doesn't, that's not competing.
Re:US Post Office by DexterIsADog · 2013-07-25 03:48 · Score: 1

Carrying a retirement obligation as a liability on the bookd does not count as pre-funding, and that's just what over half of companies do in this country. Just a fact, you can look it up. Bloomberg is a good source.

You are the one who mentioned companies who do a better job than the post office, referring to package delivery. Sure, they do great; they aren't required to provider universal service. I'm well aware that only the U.S. Postal Service can deliver letters, but perhaps YOU don't know, or just ignore that essential fact that if your paragons of private industry COULD deliver letters, they would cherry pick only the profitable areas, and NOT PROVIDE UNIVERSAL SERVICE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAIN MISSIONS OF THE POSTAL SERVICE. (You love caps so much, I thought I'd oblige).

You also ignore that the postal service is micro managed by congress. Postmaster General Patrick Donohoe CANNOT RUN THE POST OFFICE LIKE THE BUSINESS YOU SCREAM IT SHOULD BE - when he proposed eliminating Saturday service, congress just said no. They also interfere with the consolidation of low-value post office locations, because Congressman X wants to keep the jobs in his district. With that load of retards second-guessing every decision, I'd like to see YOU do better.

So, keep hatin', hater. You have a bug up your ass for the Postal Service. I should have known something would emerge from the woodwork to rail against it. (Go ahead and post another condescending rant, but I won't read it. I'm done arguing with something that doesn't think.)

My rating... by ackthpt · 2013-07-23 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is very slow because AT&T doesn't see any reason to invest. They're already getting money. Now, if Google came to town, they might see things differently. I'm only a couple blocks from the switch, but the wire is 1970s copper.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:My rating... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-07-23 04:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

Personally I think over regulation is the problem. Wired agrees:
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
Google (or somebody like them) would be more likely to come if it weren't so hard to.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:My rating... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:44 · Score: 1

Given the authors of that article, I would be wary to take it on face value.
Re:My rating... by redmid17 · 2013-07-23 04:44 · Score: 2

Very much so. The geographic monopolies (and probably collusion) are killing broadband internet competition in the US. More Google access the better in my opinion
Re:My rating... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-07-23 04:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

What a dumb article. It's the cable companies and telecoms that asked for the municipal monopolies. So we aren't supposed to blame them for the very monopolies they asked for?
Re:My rating... by stox · 2013-07-23 04:52 · Score: 1

AT&T managed to change that in Illinois. They got their U-verse granted on the state level bypassing the local authorities.

--
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Re:My rating... by SerpentMage · 2013-07-23 04:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Sorry, but that is BS...
"In return, Kansas City got a fiber network it couldn’t possibly afford to build on its own — or maintain. Municipalities like Provo, Utah that thought they could afford to build their own public fiber network found they couldn’t afford to run it. That’s why Provo, Utah sold their fiber network to Google for just $1."
Ok, so the tax payer funds it, and then gives it to somebody else to run for one dollar! Yeah that is the problem! Wow, if we all just did that, fund the thing we want and then give it for free to some private enterprise! Sounds like a bargain to me!
While local government has a role to play, no doubt there, having one company after another dig up the same piece of ground is actually quite silly! Here in Switzerland where we are ranked pretty high the solution has been to allow access to the underlying networks. Competition here is the ability of a competitor to have access to the fiber, or wire that another company has put into the ground. Force the AT&T's to allow anybody to use their pipes for a reasonable fee and very quickly you will get higher speeds and lower costs.

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:My rating... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-07-23 05:02 · Score: 1

The same AT&T that lobbies against cheaper municipal systems that would compete against their outrageously priced service? Oh what saints they are!!
Re:My rating... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:02 · Score: 1

Provo probably can't afford to run their own fiber network because the NSA data center next door is stealing bandwidth.
Re:My rating... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:02 · Score: 0

... the wire is 1970s copper.
Don't you hate that! Big lapels, polyester, orange and brown colors, ....
Then again, the 90s era fiber - Seattle grunge - plaid, black, .....
Makes me appreciate the European clean white and natural wood look.
Re:My rating... by jbolden · 2013-07-23 05:05 · Score: 1

The cable TV companies did not create local governments setting policy for municipal utility services. That's how things are done in America.
Re:My rating... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-07-23 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative

So the local government forced them to lobby for the municipal monopolies? They only exist because of the actions of the cable companies and telecos basically demanding that they be created or else they weren't going to provide the city with service. To then act like they are entirely complicit in creation of such monopolies is to insult everyone's intelligence.
Re:My rating... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-07-23 05:12 · Score: 1

That should be "act like they aren't entirely complicit".
Re:My rating... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-07-23 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one has downmodded them. Go play the victim card elsewhere.
Oh and the big cable companies being defended in that article basically demanded that the municipal monopolies be created or they wouldn't provide service. They are not saints or innocent. They are complicit in what happened.
Re:My rating... by rudy_wayne · 2013-07-23 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Personally I think over regulation is the problem. Wired agrees:
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
Google (or somebody like them) would be more likely to come if it weren't so hard to.
Completely wrong. Even if all the regulations were changed, even if they were completely eliminated, we would still be in the same situation we are today. The person who wrote that article demonstrates that they have no understanding of the issue when they say:

Deploying broadband infrastructure isn’t as simple as merely laying wires underground: that’s the easy part.

Running wire to every home in the country is difficult, expensive (even without all the regulations) and very time consuming. That's why Verizon abandoned their rollout of fiber and why Google will do the same after they connect a couple of cities.
Running all new wiring is a waste of time and money when we already have the infrastructure in place to give people decent speed. If I wanted, I could get 50Mbps from my local cable company. It's not fiber speed but its fast enough for me - and most everyone else. But it's ridiculously expensive, and, it's rendered worthless by monthly bandwidth caps. We know what the problem is -- lack of competition. But having a dozen different companies all running their own wires all over the place is neither practical nor desirable.
We've already wired the entire country. Twice. Running more wires is not the answer. Until we break the broadband monopoly and force the existing companies to open up their networks this problem will remain and everyone reading Slashdot today will be dead and gone long before Google or anyone else wires the entire country with fiber.
Re:My rating... by jbolden · 2013-07-23 05:23 · Score: 1

So the local government forced them to lobby for the municipal monopolies?

Sort of. Given the way you are phrasing things I think you are making assumptions that are false. Local governments regulate the sorts of activities cable companies need to engage in, like digging up land to lay cable. Once you decide to dig up land and lay cable you do so under the rules of a utility. The structure of utilities in most places was a government monopoly, where the government oversees pricing and at the same time the utility has protections against competition. That reduces the civil disruption. There wasn't any lobbying required. This was the structure in place before they started.
As for insulting everyone's intelligence. Government utility regulation in the US dates back decades before cable. Unless you are claiming they own time machines, no they had nothing to do with it. That's not to say they may not like the system in some ways while disliking it in others, but they are not the cause.
Re:My rating... by countach74 · 2013-07-23 05:24 · Score: 2

Of course the telco's want monopolies. The problem isn't that or even the threats of not doing business there, the problem is that the government grants monopolies. If that weren't true, there would be no reason for large corporations to lobby for them. You have to expect companies to do everything they can to stay in a position of market dominance: it would be foolish to expect them to not look after "their best interest." Blame the system, not those who operate in it.
Re:My rating... by shentino · 2013-07-23 05:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

We blame BOTH the companies AND the government.
If the fox raids the henhouse because the dog was taking a nap, you skin the fox AND you send the dog to bed without supper.
Re:My rating... by HornWumpus · 2013-07-23 05:41 · Score: 1

Second most corrupt state in the USA. After Louisiana.
I bet some Illinois politician got one hell of a deal on his house after that.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:My rating... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:55 · Score: 0

AlphaWolf_HK thinks government/regulation is the problem. Stop the presses.
Re:My rating... by Richy_T · 2013-07-23 06:37 · Score: 1

Government is responsible to the public (voters) and has all the guns. Corps are responsible to their shareholders and don't.
Re:My rating... by Sique · 2013-07-23 06:37 · Score: 2

"In return, Kansas City got a fiber network it couldn’t possibly afford to build on its own — or maintain. Municipalities like Provo, Utah that thought they could afford to build their own public fiber network found they couldn’t afford to run it. That’s why Provo, Utah sold their fiber network to Google for just $1."
I wonder why Provo UT couldn't afford to build their own public fiber network. The town of Innsbruck (Austria), which has about the same number of inhabitants (121,000 vs. 117,000) and covers the same area (~40 mi), could build it and maintain it, and now you can get 10 mbit/sec fiber to the home for €20 (currently about $26.50) unlimited bandwith.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:My rating... by Richy_T · 2013-07-23 06:47 · Score: 1

Yes, like allowing multiple companies to produce soup has led to a plethora of soup stores throughout the land...
No, that would be silly, of course. There are services that exist that server to allow purveyors of different brands of soup to concentrate their selections in one location along with many other goods.
It seems that the problems you see from deregulation are actually just another layer of problems caused by too much regulation.
Re:My rating... by PRMan · 2013-07-23 06:47 · Score: 1

10 mbit is pretty slow. I get 35 where I live, although it costs about $65/month.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:My rating... by Sique · 2013-07-23 07:02 · Score: 1

Sorry, my bad. I just checked their website again, and it's 30 mbit/sec for €19.90, or 100 mbit/sec for €49,90.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:My rating... by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 07:05 · Score: 1

Once you decide to dig up land and lay cable you do so under the rules of a utility. The structure of utilities in most places was a government monopoly,
Every cable franchise agreement I am familiar with is non-exclusive. I.e., not a monopoly. Why would it be? The municipalities are keeping the door open to competitors who will also pay their franchise fees into the general fund.

That reduces the civil disruption.
I'm sorry, what? You mean if Egypt had monopolistic cable companies they wouldn't have had a coup?
Re:My rating... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:06 · Score: 0

I haven't read the article, but the way I see it is that there is a shared resource (telephone poles/underground conduits) that is being given to specific companies for a monopoly (phone, cable, and electric). We are lucky that phone and cable were not competing 20 years ago when broadband started to become a thing, we probably wouldn't have had even two providers of data wires to our house.
It's not entirely the communities fault we ended up here, they wanted wires run, they cut deals. Now the deals suck, but for the majority of the deals' lifetimes it was good. I'd like to see regulation similar to 90's (was it 80's) phone regulation. It's hard to remember, but the US was by far the cheapest telecommunication for a while (and even though everyone wines about our cellphone prices, having called European cell phones, I'd argue ours are WAY cheaper).
It'd be nice to see communities doing what Google did, and then allowing ISPs to peer with them for ultimate service, but the time to do that was in the early to mid 2000s property boom (communities getting often transfer and property tax for a huge portion of their income), it's hard to come up with the money now.
You can't have unregulated digging and/or pole building, so deregulation isn't really an answer.
Re:My rating... by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 07:43 · Score: 1

We've already wired the entire country. Twice.
For an unusual definition of "entire", you're right. You forget the vast areas in the US where there is no cable, and phone is marginal. About the most complete wiring is electrical.

Until we break the broadband monopoly and force the existing companies to open up their networks

These imaginary wires that cover the entire country twice do have bandwidth limits. When a cable company is using all their bandwidth, and has oversold it to their customers, just how does it help if they are forced to oversell even more by selling space to every wannbe ISP?
Re:My rating... by thenet411 · 2013-07-23 08:00 · Score: 1

They all are non-exclusive now. At least the ones signed after the 1992 Cable Act made non-exclusive franchise agreements mandatory. There may be a few around that are still exclusive.
Re:My rating... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-07-23 09:08 · Score: 1

Problem with that theory is that cable operates on RF, which means you have limited spectrum to deal with. That's why cable has caps and FiOS/google fiber do not. I'm a network engineer myself, and when we have saturated links, we add more trunk lines.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:My rating... by Bengie · 2013-07-23 09:43 · Score: 1

Provo UT doesn't even know where their fiber is. That gives you an idea of what kind of management they had.
Re:My rating... by camperdave · 2013-07-23 09:44 · Score: 1

I think the time has come. Split all the telcos, the cable companies, etc in two: wire maintenace, and signal production. Put all the wire maintenance together under a single utility - probably government run, but definitely government regulated to prevent the incumbents from muscling out the newcomers. That way, the customer is not tied to whatever signal producer owns the wire. They can choose who provides the dial tone. They can choose who supplies the TV channels. They can choose who shuffles their IP packets back and forth.

Actually, they should only need to choose who shuffles their packets back and forth, as phone and TV should be over IP anyways.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:My rating... by Bengie · 2013-07-23 09:45 · Score: 1

If I wanted, I could get 50Mbps from my local cable company.
I get that'd sell your a sticker speed of 10Gb if they could. You ignore how much they have to throttle to keep their over-subscribed nodes from blowing up during peak hours.
Re:My rating... by jbolden · 2013-07-23 09:56 · Score: 1

Every cable franchise agreement I am familiar with is non-exclusive. I.e., not a monopoly. Why would it be? The municipalities are keeping the door open to competitors who will also pay their franchise fees into the general fund.

Mostly it is a monopoly because the local government doesn't want two companies tearing up the street. They often also have control. GP isn't wrong about the monopoly issue.

I'm sorry, what? You mean if Egypt had monopolistic cable companies they wouldn't have had a coup?

No. Civil disruption like blocking traffic, or having to get rights of way on private lands. Not disruption like tanks rolling down the street. There are levels of disruption.
Re:My rating... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:37 · Score: 0

No we should blame the ass-hat local gov't that gave it to them.
I have amazing FIOS service here in Tampa, but if you go to the other side of the county you are stuck with Bright House cable. I specifically researched where FIOS was and ignored all the areas outside of it when picking which house to buy.
Same problem with most apartments due to decades old cable agreements.
The proper response to 5 years and corporations that want things there way is "tough cookies" (for the corps it's go fuck yourself)
Re:My rating... by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 10:59 · Score: 1

Mostly it is a monopoly because the local government doesn't want two companies tearing up the street. They often also have control.
The local government having control over who has access to the public rights of way doesn't define "monopoly". You can have non-exclusive franchise agreements (which, like I said, all of the ones I have dealt with were, even before 1992) and still have control over who has access.

No. Civil disruption like blocking traffic, or having to get rights of way on private lands.

Why would people block traffic if the cable company wasn't a monopoly? Why would the cable company do so? That's just silly. Every city I've lived in has had no cable monopoly and neither the citizens nor the cable company have blocked the streets demanding one. What lunacy.
As for private lands, guess what? They need rights of way there, too, even monopolies. Most of the rights of way have already been granted, so it's not like a newcomer would have to spend a lot of time going around buying them up. They'll just sign the municipality franchise agreement and get access to the existing ones.
Re:My rating... by Mantrid42 · 2013-07-23 12:19 · Score: 1

It IS a bargain for the taxpayer. The citizens of Provo pay a one time $30 hook up fee, and then they get a free fiber optic connection from Google. The rest of us should be so lucky. I bet the service is great in Switzerland, and I'm going to venture a guess as to why: you're entire country is ten thousand square miles smaller than West Virginia, our 40th largest state.
Re:My rating... by dave420 · 2013-07-23 19:16 · Score: 1

This "but... but... the siiize!" argument is rubbish. The size of countries doesn't matter - the size of cities does. There are plenty of cities in the US with similar population sizes and densities as those in Europe, but the US cities internet services suck. Clearly there is more to play than simple size.
Re:My rating... by Bengie · 2013-07-24 04:04 · Score: 1

As for private lands, guess what? They need rights of way there, too, even monopolies. Most of the rights of way have already been granted, so it's not like a newcomer would have to spend a lot of time going around buying them up. They'll just sign the municipality franchise agreement and get access to the existing ones.
Only certified telcom or cable companies get blanket access to right-of-ways. Everyone else that wants to be an ISP has to get both city permission and individual property owner permission. I've seen new ISPs try to come in and pulled out before starting because one person in the right place demanded that the ISP pay tens of thousands of dollars if they want to poke a hole on the edge of his property.

It only takes a few greedy citizens to be a show-stopper for the entire city.

As for another telecom or cable company coming in, the city doesn't want another set of copper lines getting placed, so that's a no-go. Indirectly, there is a limit saying only 1 telecom and 1 cable company, and no naked ISPs because of greedy citizens.
Re:My rating... by Bengie · 2013-07-24 04:42 · Score: 1

They were LOSING about $1m/year running the network, so giving the fiber for free to Google was better than throwing it in the garbage. Their issue was they paid a 3rd party to install the fiber, but didn't pay them enough to document were they installed the fiber, so little planning, then they paid 3rd parties to manage the network, which were about as good as the company that install the fiber in the first place.

What Provo had was a fiber network were they didn't have documentation on their infrastructure, charged customer an up-front $5k installation fee, and didn't pass houses all at once. It is much more expensive to run fiber to the property line on demand, instead of while they were installing the fiber.

It was a horribly designed and managed network with lowest bidding with no regard to quality.
Re:My rating... by cthulhu11 · 2013-07-24 06:52 · Score: 1

The averages in the article's table really don't span a huge range, not even 2:1. Maybe Latvia ranks highly because only two people there have connectivity, and both are 14Mbit.
Re:My rating... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 09:52 · Score: 0

> Deploying broadband infrastructure isn’t as simple as merely laying wires underground: that’s the easy part.
> We've already wired the entire country. Twice. Running more wires is not the answer.
> Personally I think over regulation is the problem.
> Until we break the broadband monopoly and force the existing companies to open up their networks this problem will remain and everyone reading Slashdot today will be dead and gone long before Google or anyone else wires the entire country with fiber.
sounds like you agree with the gp...

Eff yeaahh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:32 · Score: 0

TL:DR

America's awesome. But not really.

Re:Eff yeaahh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

The United States of America: The greatest country in the world, the last superpower, born of divine providence.
Unless you escaped from being indoctrinated with patriotism.
Re:Eff yeaahh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:42 · Score: 0

Because someone is proud of their country and heritage does not mean they are indoctrinated. On the contrary, I regularly find that the counter-culture is more easily swayed, but of course they deny it.
Re:Eff yeaahh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:43 · Score: 0

The United States of America: The greatest country in the world, the last superpower, born of divine providence.
Unless you escaped from being indoctrinated with patriotism.
sarcasm, noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt
from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sarcasm?q=sarcasm
Re:Eff yeaahh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:16 · Score: 0

Whooooosh!

Q&A by girlintraining · 2013-07-23 04:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

For those who favor the idea of Internet service as a government-run utility, what do you see as the best-case scenario for such a system?

Pretty much what we have now. The NSA spending billions to monitor every aspect of it, something we can be quite sure doesn't slow down or impair internet traffic in any way... while funding to improve it is delayed, debated in committee, or rejected because "there's not sufficient demand for it." Plus the national security argument that upgrading our internet would make us vulnerable to cyber attack because it would require more resources to monitor it. *cough* Oh, and everything would be criminalized. Wait... it already is. And who supplied all that tech to Iran, China, etc., for their censorship programs?

That's the government for you; An epic cluster fuck you wind up paying through the nose for. I prefer to stick with private ownership, thank you very much... it's an epic cluster fuck I wind up paying through the nose for but I have my choice on how to be screwed.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Q&A by amiga3D · 2013-07-23 05:02 · Score: 0

The problem is that with all the government regulation in place now the government actually is running it but through extremely expensive middle men who cripple it even more. At least if it became a public utility we could get greedy cocksuckers like AT&T and their buddies out of the loop.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's the government for you; An epic cluster fuck you wind up paying through the nose for. I prefer to stick with private ownership, thank you very much... it's an epic cluster fuck I wind up paying through the nose for but I have my choice on how to be screwed.
The fatal flaw of all of the libertarian nonsense is that the failure or corruption of certain governments can only be replaced with privatization. The correct answer to ineffective government is effective government. Let me provide you with a concrete example:
In Washington State, in areas where fiber is provided by the state, I can get a 100x100 connection for $59 per month. No contract. From a private entity. How is that possible?
Multiple private organizations, who have an incentive to screw each other over and no incentive to work together to cover different neighborhoods, cannot provide the best plan for modern infrastructure. Even in the face of overpriced (point given: has to be relatively non-corrupt) government costs, it's still cheaper because there is no marketing department, legal department, or endless stratification of middle managers doing fuck-all in a building somewhere. Rent-seeking necessary infrastructure services don't work well with privatization, because they have the upper hand on pricing and will stuff their organization with so much bloat it would make a bureaucrat blush. When it's a government entity, there is at least some chance of oversight and cost control. When it's privatized, the inefficiency and price hikes are all but inevitable, unless there is real competition.
In modern societies the basic physical plants are installed and run by the government and funded through equitable taxation. A similar analogy is that of the road system: multiple private roads would never work, because you couldn't depend on the pricing or the availability, depending on whatever juvenile contract disputes the private corporations were engaged in at the moment. But when those costs are socialized and the infrastructure is available to all responsible parties at a low cost, you can have true competition on common infrastructure.
Let's say I want to ship something: I have an address, provided by the state, a road provided by the state that will absolutely connect me to any other address also provided by the state. So I can choose between Fedex, DHL, UPS, or even a startup like uShip. Imagine if you had a fiber connection to your home, which would cost you less in taxes than you pay for coffee every month, which was available to Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. They're going to listen to customer demands, because there's actually a chance you might switch. Right now I have no choice but to deal with Comcast's endless bullshit, because I don't have any other choices available. They happen to be the provider to my location.
So, keep the libertarian fantasy going. Dog-ear that copy of Atlas Shrugged for the nth time. When you're ready to discuss solutions, consider reality.
PS: Google, Microsoft, Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T have all gladly handed over your data to the government. Being held by private corporations didn't change a damn thing, did it?
Re:Q&A by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:00 · Score: 0

If we didn't have government mandated requirements, I'd probably still be unable to connect to a utility service for electricity, the Cuyahoga River would have probably had several more fires, and the smog in San Francisco would never allow the Golden Gate Bridge to be seen from Walnut Creek. We need government intervention at times. Getting rid of some of the 'private entities' that only want to make a profit regardless of the service that they provide would be a great thing. (Along with allowing research paid for by government grants to be available in front of a paywall instead of behind one, among other things.)
Re:Q&A by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:10 · Score: 0

The really funny thing about this whole NSA tap on the tel-communications network is that virtually all the data they are getting has always been collected by the tel-communications companies. Most of the stuff NSA is gathering is who calls who and when. If they then decide to listen in, then they use the secret court to get a full tap. In actuality, it costs the tel-cos very little to port the data they have already stored to the NSA servers. But they are collecting hundreds of millions for the "service fees".
Re:Q&A by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:10 · Score: 0

Most of what you say are sound but you forgot that government contracts out to private companies to build these infrastructure. Add another layer of middle men in there.
Re:Q&A by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:21 · Score: 1

but I have my choice on how to be screwed
You mean... like we do when we vote?
Re:Q&A by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-23 06:33 · Score: 1

The Netherlands has great roads -- contracted out. But they force the companies to warranty it for a long time, so it doesn't go to shit.
In any case, the US is huge. The "libertarianism is nonsense" guy is himself nonsense-squared. This tech doesn't exist but for a trillion dollars in private investment the past 15 years. Government can't buy it for you until someone develops it. Before that it was a government toy kept alive by cash for 20 years.
In this equation, government is like any other purchaser -- they just have the legal authority to make you pay for what they buy.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Q&A by sckienle · 2013-07-23 06:35 · Score: 1

That's the government for you; An epic cluster fuck you wind up paying through the nose for.
Really? Then I guess we shouldn't be worried about the NSA, since they are a government agency and obviously can't do anything right? Oh, and the Social Security Administration must be missing printing out and distributing I don't know how many truck loads of payments everyone month, since they are.... And don't forget how the US Post Office can't delivery over 99% of our mail correctly.
Every large agency, public or private, have issues and humans have a tendency to focus on issues, not successes. And a lot of public agencies have to air their mistakes in public eventually. Big government isn't pretty or perfect, but it also isn't pitiful either.

--
I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
Re:Q&A by Sir_Eptishous · 2013-07-23 06:55 · Score: 2

So, keep the libertarian fantasy going. Dog-ear that copy of Atlas Shrugged for the nth time. When you're ready to discuss solutions, consider reality.
Fantastic!

Years ago I read Atlas Shrugged to find out what all the hubub was about. I would read it everyday at work during lunch. I had the book at my cube and people I had never talked to before would stop by and talk about the book and how much they were influenced by it, etc; It was like I had joined some secret society...

My analysis after reading it?
Boring and annoying.
Pretty much all the time when I was reading it I was thinking, "yeah, but that isn't how the real world works".
To me the Libertarian Dream makes about as much sense and is about as likely to work as the Communist Dream.

Human Nature trumps ideology every time.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:Q&A by mbaGeek · 2013-07-23 07:10 · Score: 1

I agree with most of what you are saying - with a few comments:
The actual libertarian reply would revolve around "free markets" and "limited government" not the either/or fallacy of "government" or "no government." Libertarians are in favor of individual choice and not an artificial choice between "government"/"anarchy"
government has a place, but "more government" isn't always the answer (e.g. Detroit, Michigan)
We agree that if your service provider is doing a terrible job - you should have the ability to choose another provider. I'm even willing to consider "utility" status for internet access but don't pretend like it will magically materialize out of the ether with no cost and unlimited speed/usage.
to paraphrase Homer Simpson, "Government the cause of and solution to all of our problems."

--
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
Re:Q&A by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 07:16 · Score: 1

In Washington State, in areas where fiber is provided by the state, I can get a 100x100 connection for $59 per month. No contract. From a private entity.

The state is not a private entity. It is your neighbors. All of them. Even the ones who don't care about getting network but find their tax bills coming on a regular basis nonetheless. Or ones who want better networking and pay for it themselves, and then pay for yours too. You kind of allude to the problem -- "in areas where fiber is provided by the state" means there are areas where it is not. Do the have-nots have to pay taxes? Does Washington put "privileged access to fiber for some people" on the tax bills as a line item, so everyone can see just what it really costs for the taxpayer to fund your internet connection?

Imagine if you had a fiber connection to your home, which would cost you less in taxes than you pay for coffee every month,
I seriously doubt that. Would I get a rebate? That's the only way it could cost less than zero. But it will cost everyone else. That's why you think it is so cheap. Other people subsidize your network habits. You're welcome.

Right now I have no choice but to deal with Comcast's endless bullshit, because I don't have any other choices available. They happen to be the provider to my location.
No phone? No wireless? Well, if there is just one provider, then that really shows that the costs are higher than you think, and the only way the government can provide it is by taking money from other people to build it for you. Kind of like the old fees that subsidized rural telephones. Now you want them to subsidize rural internet. If the costs were as low as you claim, someone would have done it and be making money.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 07:27 · Score: 1

In fact, I am a libertarian socialist. I believe that needs should be regulated and the costs socialized -- food, education, healthcare, etc. At the same time, I would not prevent any private entity from forming a school or deploying an internet service without any government help. In Germany they still have a system of private insurance and hospitals, and as long as those entities aren't abusing public goods to provide their own services, good on them.
The bottom line is if a common mistake leads to huge unforeseen social costs, or if something is a basic need in a given society, it should be looked after by the most transparent government that is possible.
So, take an MP3 player: once you have satisfied the regulation that it won't blow up or steal customer data, who cares anything else about it? Worse case scenario you are out a couple hundred bucks and you have a crappy player. Ditto for the nanny state crap -- sure, if there is public healthcare and the guy won't stop doing meth, sentence him to rehab. If you're just lazy and unhealthy, that's a difficult problem to deal with, but making soda illegal probably has nothing to do with it.
With healthcare, roads, and things that are vital, they are just too important to leave in private hands. Accidents happen. People die, get sick, go crazy, or get hooked on heroin, and so on. That's just normal human behavior. The choice at that point is either to have some solid and basic resources for those individuals to get back on their feet and continue contributing to society, including job training and basic housing, or to throw them away in prisons or by bankrupting them and destroying their financial life.
The irony is that throwing people away, at least the way we do it in America, is more expensive than just helping. We pay 3x what Germany does for healthcare, fail to cover 50 million people, and have worse health outcomes across the board. It's insane.
I guess I should direct my hate at Objectivists, not libertarians who believe in limited socialism. Ayn Rand had a few genuine criticisms that were valid, but I'm not sure she understood the basic concepts of human nature or how insurance works.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 07:30 · Score: 1

I seriously doubt that. Would I get a rebate? That's the only way it could cost less than zero. But it will cost everyone else. That's why you think it is so cheap. Other people subsidize your network habits. You're welcome.
So, you believe all roads should be toll roads, and it would be cheaper for everyone? Provide one example that exists outside of your imagination.
Re:Q&A by mbaGeek · 2013-07-23 07:46 · Score: 1

"boring and annoying" sums up Atlas Shrugged very well
I like to point out that it was published in 1957 - so some stuff we take for granted in 2013 was cutting edge at the time. Parts of it aren't bad (Ayn Rand did live through the Bolshevik/Russian revolution - and saw first hand the economic results of central planning and collectivism), parts are terrible (basically the other half of the book not dealing with economics).
I don't think Rand would accept the "libertarian" designation - she was selling "objectivism" which comes across as something Karl Marx intended (a perfect society based on reason).
Meanwhile "libertarian" thought is nicely summed up by The Cato institute's web site: "Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations"

--
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
Re:Q&A by girlintraining · 2013-07-23 07:53 · Score: 1

The fatal flaw of all of the libertarian nonsense is that the failure or corruption of certain governments can only be replaced with privatization. The correct answer to ineffective government is effective government. Let me provide you with a concrete example:
Normally, building a strawman and then huffing, and puffing, and blowing their house down is a cause for -1 on slashdot, not +5. My "Libertarian nonsense" was just an attempt at humor, but what the hell... you want a fight and I can oblige.

In Washington State, in areas where fiber is provided by the state, I can get a 100x100 connection for $59 per month. No contract. From a private entity. How is that possible?
Because Washington State removed exclusive contracts from the equation. It doesn't take a four paragraph dissertation to realize that if the government creates a natural monopoly (land access rights), then you won't have competition. And who asked for this? Private interests, in order to guarantee a return on their "expensive investment" in fiber, etc. But nevermind that... you've got a good rant going. Let us not burden it with facts.

In modern societies the basic physical plants are installed and run by the government and funded through equitable taxation. A similar analogy is

Wait... first you're all like "Privatization is good!" Then you're all like "Privatization is evil!" Well man, which is it? And for that matter, why is it that modern society does it that way? Well, I'm sure it's just more libertarian nonsense to ask such questions.

So, keep the libertarian fantasy going. Dog-ear that copy of Atlas Shrugged for the nth time. When you're ready to discuss solutions, consider reality.
Reality? Your post is shockingly devoid of it. The only story here is that one municipality out of hundreds was able to use government funds to lay fiber, because they had a fat pile of money and a relatively compact population distribution, and then decided they didn't want to administer it, so they sold off access to private companies. There's no "libertarian nonsense" here, or conservative nonsense, or any nonsense. It's just you, failing to understand basic economics.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Q&A by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 07:59 · Score: 1

So, you believe all roads should be toll roads, and it would be cheaper for everyone?
Since cars drive on toll roads, does this count as your inane /. car analogy? I don't think I said anything about toll roads. Did I? But if you can play this game, so can I. You think that your neighbors should pay for the 100Mb network line into your parent's basement so you can play MMORPG all day for free? Why yes, I expect you do. Some of the rest of us have better things to do with our money than support a government program (with paperwork and supervisors and government employee pension benefit costs) so you can have your networking for free. Like make car payments. Or buy food. Or anything else that we think we should be able to do with the money we've worked to earn.

Provide one example that exists outside of your imagination.
Example of what, a lame car analogy?
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 08:00 · Score: 1

Wait... first you're all like "Privatization is good!" Then you're all like "Privatization is evil!" Well man, which is it? And for that matter, why is it that modern society does it that way? Well, I'm sure it's just more libertarian nonsense to ask such questions.
You appear to exist in a self-created world of false dichotomies.
For infrastructure that most everyone depends on, privatization is often bad. For trinkets that don't matter, privatization doesn't matter because the trinkets don't matter. That's because it's less likely that the private corporations will affect third parties when they attempt to find ways to externalize costs and compete unfairly.
If you understand how insurance works, this is not a hard concept to grasp, but it appears you'll hold on to your ideology regardless of what is true. Enjoy it.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 08:04 · Score: 1

You think that your neighbors should pay for the 100Mb network line into your parent's basement so you can play MMORPG all day for free? Why yes, I expect you do
No, I think if it's apparent that the internet is a utility, like electricity and water, it makes sense for the government to invest in spreading that utility to keep the national workforce competitive and educated. It works out well because running a line to one house, and not to the ten others right next to it costs more in the long run if you have to continually go back for installs. So if the pipe, so to speak, is there and ready to be turned on, it's a win-win for everybody: private providers have a vast amount of potential customers, customers have more choice for competition, and those who can't afford the internet can apply for a free government version at practically zero cost to everyone else.
This is very basic economics. You should spend the time to look into it.
Re:Q&A by girlintraining · 2013-07-23 08:09 · Score: 1

You appear to exist in a self-created world of false dichotomies.
Because I suggested that exclusive contracts impede competition, that's a false dichotomy? Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

That's because it's less likely that the private corporations will affect third parties when they attempt to find ways to externalize costs and compete unfairly.
You mean by demanding exclusive contracts from the government?

If you understand how insurance works, this is not a hard concept to grasp, but it appears you'll hold on to your ideology regardless of what is true. Enjoy it.
I wasn't aware I had an ideology, but thank you for enlightening me with your smug demeanor. I bet that translates real well into the real world.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 08:39 · Score: 2

Here's how ignorant you are on the subject of economics:

It doesn't take a four paragraph dissertation to realize that if the government creates a natural monopoly (land access rights), then you won't have competition.
"A monopoly describes a situation where a majority of sales in a market are undertaken by a single firm. A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single firm." (WikiPedia)
If you don't understand the words, I cannot help you understand anything else. Governments do not create natural monopolies. Natural monopolies exist because of certain market conditions.
But let's look at the result of the choices in reacting to the reality of natural monopolies, in this case, broadband access costs by PPP per median mbits/sec:
21.13 Mexico 18.72 Greece 09.86 Poland 09.73 Chile 05.46 Turkey 05.42 United States 04.85 Luxembourg 04.62 Israel 04.39 Spain 04.33 Slovenia 04.08 Czech Republic 03.88 Ireland 03.82 Germany 03.82 Switzerland 03.73 Hungary 03.56 Iceland 03.29 Canada 03.27 Italy 03.24 Austria 03.21 Finland 02.92 Australia 02.77 New Zealand 02.69 Estonia 02.51 Belgium 02.05 Norway 01.84 Netherlands 01.69 Slovak Republic 01.67 Denmark 01.60 United Kingdom 01.58 Sweden 01.45 France 01.41 Japan 01.38 Portugal 00.33 Korea
Socialized or heavily regulated solutions beat our system hands down, and absolutely crush private attempts on maximum speeds (look at the data for yourself, I'm done baby sitting you.) It appears that you are flat wrong on this subject, if data and research are acceptable forms of information.
Also, there is nothing prevent competition in the delivery and quality of internet access over government owned fiber. As I have demonstrated, there is in fact more competition when the negative effects of privatization are removed from rent-seeking infrastructure, which you already know because you use the socialized road system that has a good deal to do with America's success in the modern world, and a good deal to do with how far we are behind more advanced infrastructure programs that have already starting hurting us today.
(And yes, sticking to the facts instead of my own wish thinking has served my quite well over the years. You should try it.)
Re:Q&A by ebno-10db · 2013-07-23 09:39 · Score: 2

Meanwhile "libertarian" thought is nicely summed up by The Cato institute's web site: "Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations"
They forgot motherhood and apple pie. Who doesn't claim to promote those things?
Re:Q&A by Bengie · 2013-07-23 09:53 · Score: 1

That's why you think it is so cheap. Other people subsidize your network habits. You're welcome.
Why should I have to subsidize police? People should pay for their own police force.

Could you imaging how efficient our police and justice system would be if it was privatized?

How many other things that benefit all of society should we not socialize? Ohh, education! Then we could really have a serfdom by controlling the knowledge!

I love this privatize everything game.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 10:17 · Score: 1

You can't have halfway decent government when the idiot majority is enfranchised
So you prefer a government where the majority is disenfranchised? Like North Korea, or more like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Bahrain?

and when female emancipation and the destruction of patriarchal marriage means that men no longer have any incentive to invest in the future.
You can't get laid because you're a misogynist. Your defective sociapathy doesn't have much to do with the government, or with women having the choice to ignore your dumb, bigoted ass -- they're just reminded of how thankful they are to live in a relatively free country when you are around. I recommend a personality and a little bit of self introspection. It will get you further than those bizarre talking points.
By the way, how is the weather back in the 15th Century? A bit cooler, I'll bet.
Re:Q&A by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 10:50 · Score: 1

No, I think if it's apparent that the internet is a utility, like electricity and water,

Which it isn't.

it makes sense for the government to invest in spreading that utility to keep the national workforce competitive and educated.
So then yes, you do think that free internet to your parent's basement is something everyone else should pay for. The MMORPG bit was irrelevant -- watching movies, surfing porn, whatever. The part about "free" is the important bit. You don't want the internet to be "a toll road", you want it free.

So if the pipe, so to speak, is there and ready to be turned on, it's a win-win for everybody:

Except those who have no interest in providing you with free internet, of course. And those, it turns out, you think should pay for their internet so you can have it at "zero cost".

and those who can't afford the internet can apply for a free government version at practically zero cost to everyone else.
Wait. So it's ok for the internet to be a toll road for some people, just as long as you get yours for "zero cost"? It isn't "zero cost" to everyone else, though.
And if it is "zero cost" for you to get it for free, why shouldn't I get it free, too? It's "zero cost".
If you're going to flame me for what you see as my desire to make all the roads toll roads, then you need to keep from wanting the internet to be a toll road for others.

This is very basic economics. You should spend the time to look into it.
You really don't have to be insulting to have an adult conversation, you know.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 11:09 · Score: 1

So then yes, you do think that free internet to your parent's basement is something everyone else should pay for. The MMORPG bit was irrelevant -- watching movies, surfing porn, whatever. The part about "free" is the important bit. You don't want the internet to be "a toll road", you want it free.
No, I want the fiber to by built and managed by one entity in as many places as possible. When someone moves into a home, they can choose to turn it one from a collection of private ISPs, just like the good old days over dialup.

Wait. So it's ok for the internet to be a toll road for some people, just as long as you get yours for "zero cost"? It isn't "zero cost" to everyone else, though.
To those who can't afford it, just like food, medicine, water, electricity, the use of roads, the protection of the military, the protection of the fire and police departments, and a basic public education. Stop pretending that you don't understand this simple concept.

You really don't have to be insulting to have an adult conversation, you know.
Stating the facts isn't an insult. Don't get upset if you don't understand something if you haven't taken the time to read anything about it.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 11:37 · Score: 1

Ahh, I get it. I forgot not to feed the trolls.
In the future, dial it back down a bit, because no one who can read is as stupid as the persona you have created, unless you're writing from the Westboro Baptist Church.
Re:Q&A by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 13:15 · Score: 1

No, I want the fiber to by built and managed by one entity in as many places as possible. When someone moves into a home, they can choose to turn it one from a collection of private ISPs, just like the good old days over dialup.
If this were a workable business plan don't you think this would be how it is done today? Why are there no consumer level fiber companies that provide this service? Why hasn't someone said, "hey guys, I'll build all your fiber to the home for you, you pay me a percentage of each customer..."? Because it costs money and it isn't a universal need so there is no guarantee that everyone will get fibered just in case someday ...? You want to treat it like a utility where someone has to have the capability even if they don't want it. Where the government will say "we're putting fiber in and you're paying for it even if you never use it or you can't occupy that house." You want the costs forced onto other people to subsidize your access. I understand. It's a common character flaw in people. It's part of the reason it is called "the me generation".
And it's still having a "toll road", since you need to pay to access the "public road". Except for the special people for whom the service would be free. You made it look like I wanted all roads to be toll roads in your lame car analogy, so why are you so happy with the toll road analogy for fiber? If it is bad to have toll roads for cars, it must be bad to have toll roads for the internet, huh?

To those who can't afford it, just like food, medicine, water, electricity, the use of roads, the protection of the military, the protection of the fire and police departments, and a basic public education. Stop pretending that you don't understand this simple concept.
There is a difference between food and water and "the internet". And I'm still asking you why YOUR internet access should be free because it is "zero cost" when you expect other people to pay for theirs. If it is zero cost for some, it is zero cost for all. What you really mean is that it will be zero cost for some and the rest will foot the bill, even if they don't need or want it.
I've lived through the days when telephone service was heavily subsidized, just like you want the internet to be now. Maybe you would like to tell me I should go "read up" on the matter again?

Stating the facts isn't an insult.
The "you should look it up" comment is a direct and intentional insult. The assumption that because I disagree with you I haven't "read up" on the matter is, as well. If only we was all as smart as you, we'd all agree with you.
Re:Q&A by deanklear · 2013-07-23 16:25 · Score: 1

I understand. It's a common character flaw in people. It's part of the reason it is called "the me generation"
I want to address this first, because it is a prime example of why it's so frustrating to argue with people who refuse to do any basic reading. This is an excerpt from Tom Wolfe, who coined the phrase "Me Generation" back in the 70s, and is in fact from the essay entitled "The Me Generation":

The husband and wife who sacrifice their own ambitions and their material assets in order to provide a better future for their children . . . the soldier who risks his life, or perhaps consciously sacrifices it, in battle . . . the man who devotes his life to some struggle for his people that cannot possibly be won in his lifetime . . . people (or most of them) who buy life insurance or leave wills . . . and, for that matter, most women upon becoming pregnant for the first time . . . are people who conceive of themselves, however unconsciously, as part of a great biological stream. Just as something of their ancestors lives on in them, so will something of them live on in their children . . . or in their people, their race, their community -- for childless people, too, conduct their lives and try to arrange their postmortem affairs with concern for how the great stream is going to flow on. Most people, historically, have not lived their lives as if thinking, I have only one life to live. Instead they have lived as if they are living their ancestors lives and their offsprings lives and perhaps their neighbors' lives as well. They have seen themselves as inseparable from the great tide of chromosomes of which they are created and which they pass on.
Somehow you have interpreted your own assumption to what the "me" generation stands for, and it's exactly the oppose of what you thought it was, because you haven't read a goddamned thing. You are just imitating the disembodied head of your favorite fake journalist on television. (They didn't read it either.)
But let's move on to the other things you have read nothing about. Perhaps I'll write an essay entitled, "The 'I can't fucking read' Generation." It's not very catchy, but I'll work on that.

If this were a workable business plan don't you think this would be how it is done today?
Taking care of the disabled and the needy and the sick and the old has no profit motive. Defending a nation with a trained army is supposed to have no profit motive. Helping a neighbor move, or a friend clean their apartment because they're too ill to do it themselves has no profit motive. Believe it or not, there are things in this world that are worth having that are more important than money. I know it may shock you to imagine such a thing, but please try. You might surprise yourself.

Why are there no consumer level fiber companies that provide this service? Why hasn't someone said, "hey guys, I'll build all your fiber to the home for you, you pay me a percentage of each customer..."? Because it costs money and it isn't a universal need so there is no guarantee that everyone will get fibered just in case someday ...? You want to treat it like a utility where someone has to have the capability even if they don't want it. Where the government will say "we're putting fiber in and you're paying for it even if you never use it or you can't occupy that house."
Corporations don't want a shared broadband infrastructure because corporations hate competition and fair pricing. The proof is in the legal pudding:

[The] forces against municipal broadband are at it again. TDS Telecom has sued Monticello, Minnesota (pop. 8000) to stop the town from deploying its own fiber network, which the town wants to open to ISPs. TDS claims it is trying to save the residents of Monticello from wasting taxpayer money (how thoughtful),
Re:Q&A by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-25 02:14 · Score: 0

In Washington State, in areas where fiber is provided by the state, I can get a 100x100 connection for $59 per month. No contract. From a private entity. How is that possible?
Your taxes go more towards the lines. $59/mo. is a reflection that most people in the state of Seattle want 100x100. Most poeple won't use more than their netflix account for 2.5mbps. This is government inefficiency.
magine if you had a fiber connection to your home, which would cost you less in taxes than you pay for coffee every month
Substantiate your fiber to the home numbers.

It's about competition by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-07-23 04:33 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm in one of the areas that is served by both cable and FIOS, and my service is nothing like the average 8 or so.

I'm on Cablevison, which recently bumped their Boost tier to 120 Mbps down and 37 up. This tier is only $5 a month more than the base tier.

There are no caps either.

The main thing you need is to get rid of the competitive restraints. No franchises please!

Re:It's about competition by NJRoadfan · 2013-07-23 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Meanwhile the same Verizon is abandoning copper lines and refuses to run fiber in its place. In many areas this is a ploy to get those folks onto cable internet, who Verizon recently made a deal with to get some wireless spectrum, but some areas don't even have the cable option. Talk about progress. Places in a country that once boasted the most reliable wireline network in the world now have zip outside of an overpriced wireless service.
Re:It's about competition by Solandri · 2013-07-23 04:46 · Score: 1

Exactly. My business is in an area where Verizon DSL is your only option. None of the cable companies service the area since it's a business district. Verizon charges $40/mo for 1 Mbps down / 128 kbps up, $50/mo for 1.5 Mbps down / 384 kbps up, and $90/mo for 3 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up. Add $10/mo if you sign up month-to-month instead of a 2 year contract. Half the lines can't even get the 3 Mbps because they're too far from the CO and Verizon doesn't want to bother installing a closer one.
Re:It's about competition by Seumas · 2013-07-23 04:50 · Score: 1

Hey, I know my BILL has increased 30% (from $100/mo to $125).
Thanks, Comcast!
Re:It's about competition by MightyYar · 2013-07-23 04:52 · Score: 1

There is only one place that I know of doing that, and it is Fire Island, and it is being done in a very experimental way (watched closely by the utilities board). It is conceivable that certain areas - such as coastal or rural - could be better served by wireless than by copper. I don't have a problem with such experimentation, so long as the standards are kept up.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:It's about competition by MightyYar · 2013-07-23 04:53 · Score: 1

In my neighborhood, Comcast gives my across-the-street neighbors a better price than me because they have FIOS available and I do not.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:It's about competition by dcw3 · 2013-07-23 04:56 · Score: 1

I'm hoping that this was an attempt at humor. A 30% increase on $100 is how much?

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:It's about competition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:00 · Score: 0

Hey, I know my BILL has increased 30% (from $100/mo to $125).
Thanks, Comcast!
For small values of 30%.
Re:It's about competition by jbolden · 2013-07-23 05:12 · Score: 1

Verizon LECs abandon copperlines.... Running the PSTN is extremely expensive. Business has been slashing their phone usage for decades. It isn't profitable to maintain that infrastructure anymore. If the local people want those services they could buy the LEC and run it as a town service at a loss or pay a subsidy.
Re:It's about competition by Jon_S · 2013-07-23 05:27 · Score: 2

This.
I was in a VZW store and was surprised about a broken cell phone when a salesman came up to talk to me about home internet (surprised since I know VZW is only half owned by Verizon). He actually wanted to know if I was interested in FIOS, but I told him I knew it wasn't offered in my neighborhood.
I then proceeded to tell them the tale about my Verizon DSL service. I am only two blocks from the CO (short copper loop), and have had it for several years (the nerd that I am, before that I had ISDN as it was fastest available at that time). Speed was great. I got letters in the mail asking if I wanted to bump my service up to 7 Mbs from the 3 I had subscribed to, but I didn't bite since I never seemed to be waiting on anything unless I was DL'ing a new Ubuntu distro or something (I don't watch much video or TV).
Recently, even listening to 128 kbs internet radio streams started pausing to buffer. Sometimes I get 1 Mbs in verizon's speed test. I spent an hour with an Indian fellow on the phone for tech support and he said he at the end he would have to escalate it and nothing ever happened.
After telling this tale of woe to the guy in the VZW store, I was floored when he then proceeded to try to sell me on either a mobile hotspot (!!! sure, I'll never need more than a gig or two a month, right....) or, get this, to sign up with a cable company.
Friggin' unbelievable. Meanwhile, still stuck with a ~1 Mbs DSL connection that used to be very very fast. Something fishy is going on here.
Re:It's about competition by MerlynEmrys67 · 2013-07-23 05:54 · Score: 1

Hey, I know my BILL has increased 30% (from $100/mo to $125).
Thanks, Comcast!
Hey my math skills have decreased by 3.8% from 130 to 125.
I would be Ok with a rounding error (say 28.6 -> 30), but this is ridiculous.

--
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Re:It's about competition by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-07-23 06:15 · Score: 1

Some of the coastal areas in NJ had their infrastructure wiped out by Sandy. Verizon is not replacing the copper. So Verizon is supplying fixed wireless for phone service at tariff rates.
Re:It's about competition by operagost · 2013-07-23 06:19 · Score: 1

Find out how to get into your DSL modem interface and check the signal strength and S/N ratio.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:It's about competition by MightyYar · 2013-07-23 06:28 · Score: 1

Thanks, didn't know about Mantoloking, N.J. It's still a limited situation at this point.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:It's about competition by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-07-23 06:28 · Score: 1

I have a hard time believing that Sweden's average is only 8.9 Mbps. In fact, I question how they derived their "averages".
I live in a not especially trendy suburb of Stockholm, and I have 100/100 Mbps fibre. I could have 1 Gbps/500 Mbps up for not much more than I'm paying already, but I'd have to buy a new router and new network cards or adaptors for the laptops. And our phones and tablets couldn't take advantage of it. So I'll just wait until these devices age out and get replaced with something that can handle the higher speeds.
The only way I can take the averages cited in TFA seriously would be if they're including mobile data. In which case, that's a bit deceptive, IMO. Since mobile data is relatively cheap here (ridiculously cheap compared to what it appears people pay for it in the States), people use the heck out of it, which would tend to drive down the overall average.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:It's about competition by Jon_S · 2013-07-23 09:08 · Score: 1

I will give that a try. BTW, the Verizon guy at the VZW store said that my 3 Mbs product was the highest speed they offered at my location, even though I had previously gotten mail offers to increase to 7 Mbs. And again, I am only 2 blocks from the CO.
Re:It's about competition by adolf · 2013-07-23 10:47 · Score: 1

Just because the timing is interesting does not mean that it is fishy. It's not like the VZW sales goon went and poisoned your DSL just because he's vindictive. He's got better things to do, like browse 4chan, take a nap in the back room, and think about what he's going to have for lunch.
You might be 2 blocks from the CO, but your pair goes through the same maze of a cable plant as many thousands of other pairs, and some of that maze might well be approximately ancient. Stuff happens. Have them get someone with a TDR to locate the fault and fix it, and as someone previously said learning how to glean and understand some stats from your DSL hardware is also a good move.
Meanwhile.....
On a whim one day, I went to check out AT&T's page to see what their current pricing is. AT&T has an offer for 18Mbps service that they say they can give me for six months at the same price as my existing 12Mbps service, with no contract or other tomfoolery. So I see this, and I'm like "Well, duh. Of course I want moar Interwebs for the same price!"
So I try to order it online, and the ordering system failed strangely once I logged in to my existing account to try to get upgraded: 18Mbps disappeared as an available option. Being of able mind, I suspected that it was a problem with my current VDSL speed profile and called tech support to have that adjusted, and it turns out that I just can't get a faster profile here.
Which, you know, is kind of a bummer...but it is not particularly fishy.
*shrug*

--
Kid-proof tablet..

Didn't I just read this.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:34 · Score: 0

a month ago?

Re:Vemont's Rating, Ruined By Shentel by some+old+guy · 2013-07-23 04:34 · Score: 1

No doubt offset by Shentel's blazing-fast 500kb/s DSL.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.

We? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:35 · Score: 1

Insensitive clod!

best case by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:35 · Score: 0

best case: prices will only double, speed will only half

There is no best-case scenario by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:35 · Score: 0

Our government is owned and operated by the big corporations... Let the flame-fest begin.

Speed? Access! by Pumpkin+Tuna · 2013-07-23 04:37 · Score: 2

Speed? Screw speed! I live in a relatively populated area in North Carolina. AT&T won't give me high speed. The cable company won't run lines .2 miles into my subdivision. I have a 4G verizon antenna on the side of my house that I use to pay $70 a month for a 10 GB data cap.

This is holding back growth on the net. If I had real access and real bandwidth, I would be creating and consuming a lot more Internet content, and spending money in the process.

Re:Speed? Access! by Bengie · 2013-07-23 10:09 · Score: 1

My local ISP is running fiber to people several miles outside of the city. They even turned down an offer from the government for that Broadband bill because it had too many strings. Entirely private family owned ISP that is making sure everyone gets fiber around here. I guess it actually saves them money in the long run because copper is expensive to maintain.

And pay even more. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:37 · Score: 0

I'm outside any metro, but in a small town that is home to a rural carrier that has decent tech. They have FttH in some areas but not mine. Semi reliable 5 Mbps DSL costs $50 a month .... but you MUST take a phone line too at a minimum $24 and change. Being that cell & Ooma VoIP are my phones, this simply means that 5 Mbps DSL costs me $75 a month.

Re:And pay even more. by Firethorn · 2013-07-23 04:48 · Score: 1

My phone company allows you to not have a phone, but the phone+dsl bundle is equal to just DSL. I still save money by not having to pay all the fees - 911, remote service surcharge(to to give me service, but to give service to people in the boonies), taxes, etc...
Not touching the cable company with a 10ft pole - they have download limits and charge for extra bandwidth at rates that it's cheaper for me to go with DSL despite the lower overall speeds.

--
I don't read AC A human right

This whole post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:38 · Score: 1

I hope the whole "The greatest country in the world" is supposed to be sarcastic.

Re:This whole post by Wintermute__ · 2013-07-23 05:23 · Score: 1

I hope the whole "The greatest country in the world" is supposed to be sarcastic.
It's called irony, and it serves to underscore the point that the author is making.

How are they measuring? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:38 · Score: 0

If they're measuring by average AVAILABLE connection speeds, then fine. But if they're using average connection speeds that people are using, that metric is skewed as most people use "slower" connections than they can afford because they don't need much.

In either case....who cares?

What with all the news lately... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:39 · Score: 0

...I thought my ISP already was a government-run utility.

Re:What with all the news lately... by flyingfsck · 2013-07-23 04:43 · Score: 1

...and you get to pay for it twice: Once in your monthly bill and secondly in your taxes to support the NSA backup service.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Re:What with all the news lately... by Sique · 2013-07-23 04:47 · Score: 2

This reminds me of a phone call an Austrian comedian made to the U.S. embassy when the Snowden papers started to appear. He told them that the pictures he took from the brother's wedding two years ago got lost when the hard drive died, and he asked if the NSA can just provide him with their backup.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Government-run Utility by Krazy+Kanuck · 2013-07-23 04:39 · Score: 2

"For those who favor the idea of Internet service as a government-run utility, what do you see as the best-case scenario for such a system?"

I'm not sure there are too many in favor of that idea anymore (recent privacy issues, corp lobbying). There would need to be an unprecedented amount net neutrality and transparency involved; which we've been promised but received little of in other government projects.

Re:Government-run Utility by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:46 · Score: 0

And you get more privacy and transparency from private providers?
Re:Government-run Utility by TechnoCore · 2013-07-23 10:39 · Score: 1

Here is one solution. (Slides are from 2009, but it still works.)

http://www.slideshare.net/eCommConf/26-brough-turner

This is the way it's done in Stockholm/Sweden. Lowest price and a ton of isp's to chose from (like 300 in stockholm)
I pay like 12 dollars a month for 100/100. Have been for 6 years... could get faster like gigabit but I'm lazy.

nah ah by slashmydots · 2013-07-23 04:40 · Score: 1

Making it a government-controlled utility would give them a darn good excuse to spy and filter even more.

Re:nah ah by shentino · 2013-07-23 11:33 · Score: 1

At least then the 4th amendment would apply directly, instead of using the loop hole of "third party possession" to put pressure on someone else with your information.

Re:Vemont's Rating, Ruined By Shentel by slashmydots · 2013-07-23 04:40 · Score: 1

Wow, any faster and the whole state might light on fire.

Say no to Utilities by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:41 · Score: 0

Just what we need, a government run monopoly to "help" the people. Making the internet a public utility will see worse service and higher prices for all involved.

Re:Say no to Utilities by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-07-23 04:54 · Score: 1

Oh really?

We do have good Internet. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:41 · Score: 0

The people who need good internet, have it. Most in major metropolitan areas have up to 100Mbps speeds available to them via Cable or Fiber, if not at least 25Mbps via something like VDSL.

How long are we going to keep counting people who live way out in the sticks, by choice, and pretending that skewing the average like that results in meaningful information?

Re:We do have good Internet. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:48 · Score: 0

The people who need good internet, have it. Most in major metropolitan areas have up to 100Mbps
[citation needed], because I sure as hell don't have that choice.
Re:We do have good Internet. by Pumpkin+Tuna · 2013-07-23 05:49 · Score: 2

You have a really skewed vision of what metropolitan areas are. The area where I live is really pretty built up. I'm 30 minutes outside downtown Charlotte. I don't live "in the sticks." AT&T offers DSL a mile and a half away from me, but not at my place. Charter runs cable down the road outside my subdivison but they won't run it .2 miles into the subdivision into my house.
The truth is that the telecoms don't want to extent out into the suburbs any further than they have. They want to wait and get us with craptastic home wireless.

NSA is the bottleneck by flyingfsck · 2013-07-23 04:42 · Score: 2

The problem is that the user speeds need to be throttled to something that the NSA recording can keep up with.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

Re:NSA is the bottleneck by Dunbal · 2013-07-23 05:31 · Score: 1

My thoughts exactly. The NSA will need another supercomputer "upgrade" before ISPs are "allowed" to increase available broadband speeds offered to customers. /conspiracytheory

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Definitely some merit to a government option by redmid17 · 2013-07-23 04:43 · Score: 1

I wouldn't mind seeing the lines government owned and then access leased out to ISPs for a price. Private ISPs should still be an option though. I don't want a BT-like situation where the government entity can dictate policy to private companies when it's unpopular and unconstitutional (ie ban on porn).

What does peeve me, though, is when idiotic comparisons are made to countries like Latvia or Czech Republic, which are smaller than most US states and have comparatively much higher population density. There are only a few countries in the world that can really be compares to the US (Canada and Russia come to mind) because of a combination of size and total population. The internet subscription selection in the US sucks in most places and the telcos should owe the US govt about $200 billion from the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html), but the speeds are high where the population density is greater than one human per square mile.

Re:Definitely some merit to a government option by Mashiki · 2013-07-23 11:16 · Score: 1

Canada doesn't really compare. Roughly 80% of our population lives within a corridor. And 70% of our population lives within 200km of the US. The big companies(rogers, bell, telus) who do deployments for broadband simply don't want to deploy along the main roadways. A fine example of massive deployment would be Sasktel(crown corp), in Saskatchewan where deployment is rolling out...everywhere.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Definitely some merit to a government option by Ash+Vince · 2013-07-24 00:02 · Score: 1

I don't want a BT-like situation where the government entity can dictate policy to private companies when it's unpopular and unconstitutional (ie ban on porn).

I am not sure you have any clue what your talking about here.
The UK government can dictate policy to BT because they can pass laws that BT (like any other company doing business within our shores) has to follow and we do not have a list of constitutional rights quite like you do in the US. There are cases when UK laws are shot down by higher powers like the EU or due to us signing treaties on human rights but nobody has yet taken this to our supreme court to decide whether the right to watch violent rape porn is actually included in our basic human rights. I say violent rape porn because that is all the UK government is currently looking to ban and it is currently a long way from being law.
They are also looking at making all ISP's (including ones that are not BT like Virgin) also provide an opt in / opt out to other porn though at the same time but then will just be a case of you telling your ISP you want to watch porn on the net and then them letting you. I am not saying this is not a crap idea or doomed to failure, but I do not think it is quite the same as a ban on all porn. I actually think it is doomed to failure as the filter will have so many false positives that most people have to opt in just so they can browse wikipedia even if it does become law a few years down the line.
Currently though we are still at the point of an unpopular prime minister in a weak coalition government that barely holds a majority moaning about something that he knows will be popular with his own parties supporters in order to distract from the shit storm he is currently trying to keep quiet about as a result of his party being openly bought by various lobbyists from the cigarette and alcohol industries. He knew that his recent climb down on cigarette packets having to be plain was going to be unpopular with parents, so tried to come up with something else that would win him a few votes back or at least distract them.

--
I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.

Stupid summary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:44 · Score: 0

Last time I checked Latvia and the Czech Republic have around 1/5th the area of the US and have 1/150th and 1/30th the population size respectively. That tends to make laying the infrastructure for broadband much easier and cheaper.

Re:Stupid summary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:46 · Score: 0

First figure should to be 1/140th the area of the US not 1/5th.
Re:Stupid summary by flyingfsck · 2013-07-23 07:01 · Score: 1

Yes, and they also have about 1/1000,000th the money that the USA has. So, no excuse there.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Re:Stupid summary by jenik · 2013-07-23 08:08 · Score: 1

Actually, based on nominal GDP the Czech Republic has about 1/67 (at about 1/30 population) and Latvia about 1/500 (at 1/150 population) the money that the USA has. Not exactly poor countries...
Re:Stupid summary by Bengie · 2013-07-23 10:12 · Score: 1

So they have 1/3rd the USA's population density? How does that help?

lt and cz are small; us is big by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-07-23 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

See subject. Of course compact nations are going to have better connectivity than sprawling ones.

I don't often cheerlead the US, but it's impressive that they're in the top ten. Sweden only just pipped them, and it tries awesomely hard to provide its citizens with good 'net access.

Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:08 · Score: 0

Speaking of sprawling nations, Sweden has half the population density of the US.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Princeofcups · 2013-07-23 05:25 · Score: 2

See subject. Of course compact nations are going to have better connectivity than sprawling ones.
Then stop sprawling. Just stop supplying service to locations with too low density.
Waiting for the "it's our god given right to live on 10 acres in the middle of no-where and still expect all the luxuries of civilization" flames.

--
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:36 · Score: 0

Sweden only just pipped them, and it tries awesomely hard to provide its citizens with good 'net access.
I lived there for a while and sure, the government used to have a program around improving Internet access but that was 10-15 years ago. There's almost nothing like that going on anymore, leaving pretty much all of it to private companies. There was a huge outcry in the media when I was there about parts of the phone network being disassembled in certain rural areas and replaced with radio links, which apparently made some emergency services and security alarms inoperable. Right, that will be able to provide Internet access.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by PortHaven · 2013-07-23 05:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

1/2 Population density, but that is an average of population/territory. It's an irrelevant figure. Canada has the same thing, but 90% of Canadians live in a very small area of Canada's territory (surprisingly, almost all within a 100 miles of U.S. border).
I wager, that Sweden, only has to wire a few major metropolis areas to cover 90% of it's population. So a better measure would be, in order to provide coverage to 90% of your population, how much land mass do you need to wire. And in this, no country on the planet comes close to America.
If you graphed this out, we would likely appear an order of magnitude higher than any other nation.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by PortHaven · 2013-07-23 05:46 · Score: 1

Fine, and we'll stop paying taxes and supporting all the millions of assholes living in the cities.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:24 · Score: 0

Not really. Most Americans are concentrated in a few major population centres, generally close to the coastlines. The US has a lot of land, but very little is actually relevant if you want good population coverage.

While the lower half of sweden hosts the bulk of the population - there aren't any particular areas housing that population. The Malmö-Gothenburg (and the extremely close Danish Copenhagen) is a more densely populated area, but its still sparse by American standards.

For the most part, the Swedish populace is scattered amongst a couple of hundred towns and cities with 5,000 to 15,000 inhabitants each - and of course the very numerous villages.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:54 · Score: 0

You just keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-07-23 07:01 · Score: 1

Not sure what your point is, but I get faster speeds with mobile data here than I did with DSL when I lived in Brisbane.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:08 · Score: 0

Absolute bullshit. US population is very urban in comparison to countries like Sweden and Finland. And over there, you can get 100Mbps service in a town of 200 people somewhere north of the Arctic Circle. And again (and again), if a "small" country X can do it, how come a US state Y with ten times the population packed into the same land area is not able to?
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:24 · Score: 0

Nope. All the small places are wired too. Only the truly rural countryside isn't.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by PortHaven · 2013-07-23 07:45 · Score: 1

"And over there, you can get 100Mbps service in a town of 200 people somewhere north of the Arctic Circle."
Where? I am very skeptical of this claim.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by PortHaven · 2013-07-23 07:48 · Score: 1

Hong Kong
SIZE: 426 sq miles
POPULATION: 7 million
DENSITY: 16.5K / sq mile
Los Angeles
SIZE: 503 sq miles
POPULATION: 4 million
DENSITY: 8K / sq mile
Los Angeles is half the population density of Hong Kong. Furthermore, the LA Metro area, which has a population of 12 million.
Let's just look at LA county, which has a population of 10 million, spread over 4,752 sq miles.. For a density of 2K/sq mile.
See the difference?
Southern Connecticut is a great example. No, it's not as dense as NY, but the entire southern half of Connecticut is fairly heavily populated. But you can't really point to a city as the demographic. It's one continous moderate density sprawl.
Connecticut
SIZE: 5,550 sq miles
POPULATION: 3.5 million
DENSITY: 739/sq mile
The result is that to wire most of Connecticut's population one must cover thousands of square miles. Note, Connecticut is 4th dense state. So let's compare the math. For Hong Kong to wire 3.5 million people, they need to cable 426 miles vs Connecticut, same population, must wire over 5,000 sq miles.
So to achieve the same connectivity, Connecticut must wire 10x the area of Hong Kong. Now, we're not talking about a rural/country area. Yes, some parts of the NW/NE Connecticut are rural. Even if we allowed Connecticut to only connect 90% of it's population, we'd still be required to wire around 3,500 square miled (7x Hong Kong).
Remember, this is the 4th most dense state in the United States. I would wager, that few countries spread as much cable to reach as many people over as great an area as the U.S.
Per the links, 82% of rural communities have access high speed internet (25mbps service), 98% can access basic broadband (6mbps).
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/blog/
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/ntia-explores-broadband-availability-new-report-series
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:51 · Score: 0

Fine, and we'll stop growing food for all the millions of assholes living in the cities.
Fixed that for ya.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by khallow · 2013-07-23 07:51 · Score: 1

if a "small" country X can do it, how come a US state Y with ten times the population packed into the same land area is not able to?
If you're talking about Sweden, then it's because that US state is California. It can't even provide basic law enforcement.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:58 · Score: 0

But that also creates an economic incentive in wiring up these spread out metro areas. Wiring up all of Sweden's remote northern parts is just not economically feasible, since it will never get any concluding positive return in investment, even on long range government basis, because of the miniscule amount of population there. If there would have instead been more of an existing infrastructure and larger population base, spread out or not, the net effect could catch up much quicker.
So, the situation in the US is not inherently bad, since a lot of the area should be economically feasible to cover, if long-term investments were considered. I'm guessing this is what hinders the adoption -- lack of dedication to long-term infrastructure commitment in this case.
Sweden's major "metro" areas (Stockholm, Gothenburg, Scania's west coast), still just amount to ~1 million inhabitants each. That's just about 30--50% of the population (depending on definition of "metro"). That Sweden's broadband is fast and cheap has much to do with some major government investments in the 1990's and some pioneer entrepreneurs pushing fiber layout (to the extent that there was no fiber to buy within a large geographical spread, since it was laid faster than it was produced) with early really low prices, with the business plan to turn it to a real profit in 20--30 years, supported by the state. An early "internet meme" (~2000, at least) was that all Swedes had silly-fast connections at 10 Mbps and above, and this early infrastructure expansion still leaves a mark.
I can't see that the situation in the US is inherently worse than in other parts of the world. Perhaps different, but all countries are different.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anubis+IV · 2013-07-23 09:14 · Score: 1

What really matters is distribution, not density, since population density values are a poor indication of how difficult it is to provide service to the majority of the population. For instance, Canada is massive in terms of geographic area occupied and as a result has an incredibly low population density of 3.4 people/km^2 (roughly 1/10 that of the US' 34.2 people/km^2 (which is not quite 2x as much as Sweden's 20.6 people/km^2)), yet most of its population is located within a few hour's drive of their southern border, making the job of providing Internet service to the majority of their population far easier than the population density value might suggest.
Sweden has a similar population distribution working for them, since the nation is geographically very narrow and the majority of their population is located along the Baltic coast, or else inland a bit in the southern portion of the country. You could run a single backbone line starting from the southern end of the border they share with Norway, along or a bit inside of the southern coast, and then up the eastern side, and you'd be within a very short distance of the VAST majority of people in the country, all with just a single line that was about as long as the country is tall.
In contrast, if we laid a backbone in the US that spanned the width of the country from New York to Los Angeles (i.e. we tried to be fair, since we just talked about a line in Sweden that spanned its length), we'd still be around or over 1000km from a large number of urban centers (e.g. Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, etc.). Even if we doubled its length, which would let us get from Boston to Miami to Los Angeles to Seattle, while hitting a number of urban centers in between, we'd still be neglecting the entire interior of the country, which would mean skipping Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, etc., along with the significant portion of the population that lives in the interior of the US. This stands in sharp contrast to Sweden, where very little of the population lives in the interior, meaning that the task of reaching the majority of the population is significantly simpler for the Swedes.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:17 · Score: 0

You raise a good point, however, your facts are wrong.
The US is pretty well known to have its population concentrated on few compact areas. True, this is a huge country and wiring everyone in the central areas is hard and expensive.
Let's start with some facts [1] (feel free to check Wikipedia or a trusted source of yours):
Total Population: 316M
New York Area: 23M
Los Angeles Area: 18M
Chicago Area: 10M
Washington Area: 9M
Bay Area: 8M
Boston Area: 8M
Philadelphia Area: 7M
Dallas Area: 7M
Miami Area: 6M
Houston Area: 6M
Atlanta Area: 6M
This 11 densely populated areas make almost 1/3 of the US total population, combined with other large metropolitan areas about 90% of US population lives on a small fraction of total area and it is not harder, but easier and cheaper to wire the magical 90% mark. For the sake of this argument, I'll just forget the 10% poor suckers that don't live in a metropolitan area (just like the people who calculate such things do).
Because you picked it, I'll take on your wager and tell you, including facts, that Sweden does not have to wire a few major metropolitan areas, because, quite simply, Sweden has only 3.
Let's again consult Wikipedia [2]:
All 3 "metropolitan" areas (which are not by a long shot as densely populated as any of the 11 named US areas), combined have 3.7M people, of a total of 9.5M, making about 40%.
There is no other large city or area, the rest is sprinkled over the country in very small cities and villages. This makes it very hard to reach the magical 90%, because after you're done with 40%, your job gets incredibly hard.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Sweden
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:48 · Score: 0

Physically, USA is about the same size as China. China has 1billion more people AND a government owned firewall and wifi system that snoops on all communication that would put the NSA to shame. Granted, their individual speeds are not so fast (typiclly 5mps), but if you look at the size and number of people there and take into account their firewalling and relatively low cost of living there, they have quite an infrastructure. They are *all* online.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by ebno-10db · 2013-07-23 09:57 · Score: 1

Vermont
SIZE: 9,620 sq miles
POPULATION: 626k
DENSITY: 67.7 / sq mile
Fastest Internet of any state in the Union. If it were still the independent Green Mountain Republic, it would rank #2 in the world.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by ArsonSmith · 2013-07-23 11:41 · Score: 1

They're not the ones demanding it, it's the other countries trying to compare against it in a some sort of dick waving contest to say they are better than the US. It's pretty lame.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by gweilo8888 · 2013-07-23 11:45 · Score: 1

Hong Kong is nowhere NEAR that low population density. (I've lived there, and anybody who had even visited would know that for a fact.)

What you've nicely demonstrated -- albeit unintentionally -- is that simple population density is a meaningless metric.

Is the area of Hong Kong 426 square miles? Yes. Is the population evenly distributed across that area? No. Almost 5% is water, which has low habitation. (Boat people are quite rare, these days.) About 40% is country parks and nature reserves. There may well be some overlap between these two categories.

Much of what remains is too steep to build on.

The long and the short of it is that somewhere around 75% of Hong Kong's land area is undeveloped. Even of that which is developed, much of it is in the New Territories, and has relatively low population density. The overwhelming majority of the population is found in Kowloon, parts of Hong Kong Island, and a handful of new towns in the New Territories.

I'd wager that for these most-inhabited areas, the population density is more like 6-8 times your estimate, perhaps more. And the numbers for LA, CT, etc. will be equally meaningless. All of which is to say, you're comparing worm-filled apples to moldy oranges, and it's a waste of time. Someone out there likely has the real data with which to make a comparison. This isn't it.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by aliquis · 2013-07-23 12:10 · Score: 1

Do we?
We could had been I'd say.
Also I think 10 mbps is still pretty ok, 30 mbps is definitely ok/enough atm. More only serves a purpose if you're into piracy imho.
Also I regulary see the argument and while many Swedes live in cities (I guess many individuals in the US do to) the country is about the size of California with 9+ million people.
How many live in California?
US is 22 times larger with 35 times as much people living in it. Sure some parts are in the wildness but is the average really that much worse / different?
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 12:29 · Score: 0

Ha ha. Perfect comeback man.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Highland+Deck+Box · 2013-07-23 13:18 · Score: 1

This. No-one forced your manifest destiny assholes to spread out and cover the entire continent coast to coast.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 01:13 · Score: 0

82.4% of americans live in urban areas, compared to 50.6% of chinese. the US and China are the same size. Where do you get these 'orders of magnitude' in you graph from?
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by PortHaven · 2013-07-24 02:14 · Score: 1

The POINT of my post, is that this article is comparing worm filled apples to moldy oranges.
Complaining that America's average internet service is 9th in the world as some sort of failure, is ignoring the vast demographic differences. And I hold to my statement, that most of the other countries do not have a broad a spread of populace to cover. That America reaches most of it's citizens, even in lower population density areas. While pointing to nations like Sweden and Canada, as having a lower population density per territory, than America is a red herring. Because a huge part of that population is consolidated. Nearly ALL Canadians live a short distance from the southern border. And most of the time, those not in the populated regions are left without such access.
In America, we have broader spreads of population. That's why I compared LA to Hong Kong. The point is, in order to reach the same number of people, Hong Kong needs to run far less cable than America. The point is, in order to reach a high portion of its citizens, Americans need to run a lot more cable than pretty much any other nation. The point is, the amount of cable run per citizen, is probably higher for America THAN ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANET.
And we still come in on the top 10 list. That says a lot. And if we compared apples to apples, I do believe America would be #1 by nearly a magnitude over most other nations.
***
As for the price of our internet and cell service, that's a totally valid criticism.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by PortHaven · 2013-07-24 02:17 · Score: 1

In the amount of cable we've run per citizen... That is the real measure of connectivity.
Re:lt and cz are small; us is big by PortHaven · 2013-07-24 02:38 · Score: 1

Just pointing out, that you list some of the major cities, and in both cases for US and Sweden it approaches about 30%-40% of population.
LA Metro
POPULATION: 18 million
SIZE: 34K sq mi
DENSITY: 526.5/sq mi
Sweden
POPULATION: 10 million
SIZE: 450K sq mil
DENSITY: 53.9/sq mil
Per the above, one would assume that to achieve a 90% coverage, that Sweden had to run far more cable than the LA Metro did.
15% of Sweden's population is considered rural, what percent
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/population-density-people-per-sq-km-wb-data.html
But let's look at a map of Sweden with population densities.
http://chatt.hdsb.ca/~1lauriesar/FOV1-00144A6C/S0FD9D1B9.0/19102011_55200_2.jpg
Note that probably 60% of the land mass is near vacant (13 persons per square mile or less). In fact most of the population is focused on the southeast coast, and Harnosand (sp?). Much of the rest doesn't get beyond 65 people per square mile. And I'd wager, even in those areas, much of that population is in a singular village or town.
Why does that matter? Because in the U.S. we sprawl a lot more...when you get to rural areas of Pennsylvania, you don't have a little village or town, you have continuous homes spread along roads. The amount of cabling to run a long line into a town or village and then short likes to homes. Is a lot lot less than the spider-web that America must run.

Government efficiency by Sarten-X · 2013-07-23 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

As a socialism-loving liberal, I have to say that I find the idea of an ISP utility ludicrous at best.

Social services are appropriate where there is an absolute goal. We don't want houses on fire, we don't want criminals running around uncaught, and we don't want roads to decay, just because such services are unprofitable. Civilization has an absolute need for those civil services. However, we don't need fast Internet connectivity... Yes, maybe some cities will get government-built fiber downtown, but the rest of the state will be too busy fighting politics to actually improve any infrastructure. We'll mostly just be stuck with whatever minimum service the politicians find acceptable, and the infrastructure budget will go toward filling the requisite layers of bureaucrats.

On the other hand, ISPs have a clear business incentive to improve their speed and capacity (not that they've been actually doing so). By being faster, they can claim an edge over their competitor in a market. Unfortunately, we seem to have hit an impasse where the only options in a region are "crappy cable" or "crappy DSL", thanks to government-granted monopolies in communities.

So why not both? I say we void all community monopoly agreements, and require private ISPs to provide fixed-bandwidth service to a government ISP. The government ISP can be a fallback. If my community's ISP options are too slow or too expensive, I can instead pay some standard rate for government service, which would go over the ISP's lines anyway. The local ISP still has to carry my traffic, but they don't get my money. The downside is that I'm stuck with whatever basic service the government decides is suitable.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.

Re:Government efficiency by sl4shd0rk · 2013-07-23 05:00 · Score: 2

too busy fighting politics to actually improve any infrastructure
"misappropriation of tax dollars" would be a more accurate way of describing the measly end results of infrastructure improvements.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:Government efficiency by GodInHell · 2013-07-23 05:06 · Score: 1

While also a fairly liberal guy, I agree that the idea of a government run network is ... not good. The problem we have here is that there is so little incentive to build out a bigger network that the minimum needed to keep the customers from leaving. The U.S. is too large to do a japanese style 2 or 3 year rollout of a new technology - only a very few companies (comcast and ATT basically) can compete across the nation - the rest, even verizon, are left to pick their markets. That's BEFORE any local municipalities fall for the concept of a contractual monopoly. Here's an idea -- don't take the cable company's money for a monopoly, just TAX the SERVICE. Boom -- you get your money AND you don't give up your citizen's rights. Crazy idea, I know.

Unrelated -- but there should also be a federal ban on tax incentive plans, which are used to lure corporations from one state to another - it interferes with interstate commerce and is beggaring the states.
Re:Government efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:09 · Score: 0

As a socialism-loving liberal [...]
hmm... as a Greek i feel like "lost in translation" again, so... are you a sosialist or a liberal?
(damn USA - stop messing up with the definitions please!)
Re:Government efficiency by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2013-07-23 05:11 · Score: 1

"The downside is that I'm stuck with whatever basic service the government decides is suitable."
And there is the problem with any and all government intervention/rules/regulations/etc. There will be someone (or group of someones) who will be pulling the strings of the government to suit their business/personal interests. Then you will be held accountable (threatened) by an enforced law. On the flip-side, no govt intervention could and does mean, you get one choice. Lump it or leave it.
Somewhere, someday, there will be a balance of govt to business actions. But probably not in my lifetime.

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Re:Government efficiency by nine-times · 2013-07-23 05:15 · Score: 1

However, we don't need fast Internet connectivity... Yes, maybe some cities will get government-built fiber downtown, but the rest of the state will be too busy fighting politics to actually improve any infrastructure.
This logic could be used to claim that we shouldn't treat water, electricity, or sewage as utilities. We don't *need* any of those things, in the strict hunter/gatherer sense.

On the other hand, ISPs have a clear business incentive to improve their speed and capacity.
They also have clear disincentives.

By being faster, they can claim an edge over their competitor in a market.
What competitor?

I say we void all community monopoly agreements
Well there is a bit of a problem in that we can't have people running around digging things up, running cable wherever they want willy-nilly. There's going to have to be some control, which means there won't be real competition. Infrastructure does not do well in the "free market".

and require private ISPs to provide fixed-bandwidth service to a government ISP. The government ISP can be a fallback.
Yeah, I'm sure that will work. Conservatives love having a "public option".
Re:Government efficiency by Hamsterdan · 2013-07-23 05:22 · Score: 1

I don't know for the US, but in Canada (Montreal) we have at least two ISPs in any region (Telco and Cableco). But since they also own TV stations and Media, they aren't really pushing for bandwidth and/or higher caps. (Bell & Videotron). I don't mind the speed, altough I'd like it to be faster, but the caps are preventing people from using alternate sources for shows and movies (ie: Netflix). They're not really competing on either speed, quota or price. Either on tv, cellular, internet access or even phone service. Why should they? it's not like they have real competition. Kinda like the oil companies.

--
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Re:Government efficiency by gstoddart · 2013-07-23 05:27 · Score: 3, Informative

On the other hand, ISPs have a clear business incentive to improve their speed and capacity (not that they've been actually doing so).
Clearly, they don't.
They have incentive to keep the networks exactly as they are, gradually charge us more over time, oversubscribe their services, and do nothing until they're forced to and then directly charge us for network improvements -- because that's pretty much what they do now.
If they were expanding capacity and bandwidth, we'd see the price of telecom services going down -- instead over time, it's been going up and hasn't really been improved.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Government efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:27 · Score: 0

We don't want houses on fire, we don't want criminals running around uncaught, and we don't want roads to decay, just because such services are unprofitable.
The thing is that these services that "only the government can run" are often already, in many places, 99% being done by the private sector, for profit.
You can make plenty of money running roads, and there are private enterprises in all forms of transit. The only thing a private firm can't do is tax gasoline. But since we're moving to hybrids and electric vehicles, we'll need to get rid of the gas tax as the primary source of revenue for roads. If we move to a GPS unit in our vehicles, we may as well make all roads tolled and eliminate the gas tax entirely. That way traffic could be dynamically rerouted by price, which would handle congestion far better than it is presently.
Private services dominate law enforcement as well in all areas except SWAT (which we could, arguably, do without), actual arrests and courthouses. *All* the police gear is made by private manufacturers. Most actual policing is done by private security, forensics of all sorts are largely handled by contractors already, all the administrative resources (especially databases) are done by contractors, and all defense attorneys are private practices, and largely paid for by their clients.
The fire marshall inspects buildings to ensure they're up to code, but of course contractors actually make them to code, so that's almost entirely private. Many smaller areas have volunteer firefighters, so you have the non-profit sector assisting the public sector even there. And, of course, there are private fire departments.
Re:Government efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:28 · Score: 0

150 years ago people made this same argument about public roads in cities -- that we didn't really "need" them. 75 years ago people made this argument about telephone service. Both of those things are now widely accepted as both necessary and generally successful projects. Why is Internet service different? I'd suggest it's merely an updated to our *existing* policy of requiring universal telephone access, to reflect that fact the communications technology is different now that it was in 1917.
I'm also a little confused as to how you can say both that "ISPs have a clear business incentive to improve their speed and capacity" and the immediately acknowledge that that they haven't been doing so, thus demonstrating that they *do not* have such an incentive.
As to why-not both? Because anything that requires running wires to tens of thousands of buildings forms a natural monopoly on the wires. We genuinely *don't* want 15 different companies running wires to every building in the city. Plus history has shown (all the way back to the telephone network) that what you actually get is some profitable areas served by a bunch of competitors and most other areas with no service, or with only one, inferior provider.
The alternative being suggested is that we install one of the long-established standard physical infrastructures -- nothing cutting edge or controversial, just fibre technology from 2003 -- and let the government own those lines. They can then lease access to those lines on whatever basis makes sense, to any number of competitors, to allow different ISPs to compete on actual features, speed, and price, rather than competing on which type of wire was installed to the building 6 generations ago.
Re:Government efficiency by houghi · 2013-07-23 05:28 · Score: 1

On the other hand, ISPs have a clear business incentive to improve their speed and capacity (not that they've been actually doing so).

If it was a clear business incentive, then why don't they do it? The reason is because that is not their objective. Their objective is to make money. The means to do that is by providing internet and if their is extra money to be made by faster Internet, then they will do that.
The board will ask how to make more money and there are two proposals on the table.
1) 100Million investment in the network over the next 10 years. This will result in X amount extra customers per year. This will bring us Y1 profit.
2) 30Million investment in advertising over the next 3 years. This will also result in X amount extra customers per year. This will bring us Y2
You can be sure they will go for 30 million, unless Y1 is larger then Y2.
Do understand that this is a very limited example. Sometimes getting market share is more important then making profit.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Government efficiency by dkleinsc · 2013-07-23 05:45 · Score: 1

So let me get this straight: you're a socialism-loving liberal who is advocating a free-market libertarian solution? Something suggests you might have mislabeled yourself.
For what it's worth, I'm in the unusual position of being able to compare electric service between a private utility and a public utility, because I'm on the private one while my buddy a few blocks away is on the public network. The public utility is cheaper, more responsive, and faster at getting power back on after an outage (which happen about equally frequently to both the public and private utilities). The private utility in question also has the distinction of being the prime cause of the 2003 Northeast Blackout. Suffice to say I'm not of the opinion that private utilities do better than publicly run utilities.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Government efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:47 · Score: 0

urine idjit
why do you hate people ? ? ?
Re:Government efficiency by Sarten-X · 2013-07-23 05:48 · Score: 1

I prefer that the government handle civil services, but at my option. In essence, the government is a fallback option to ensure a minimum level of service. If the private companies can't even manage to do better than the bureaucrats, they don't deserve the competition-free market. This style of socialism is different from true socialism, where the government owns all businesses and the public only has one (generally bad) choice.
As for the "liberal" term, that's an American lie. I just prefer one particular style of having my freedom curtailed. The style I prefer is where I am, generally speaking, not free to harm others (even indirectly), but otherwise I can do what I want. This is in contrast to being "conservative", which generally holds that people should be free to create their own lives, and any misfortune (even indirectly caused by someone else) in one's life is due to a personal failure to properly prepare for or respond to such an event.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Government efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:49 · Score: 0

While there are only two backbone providers, there are many resellers of the service that offer better deals. Check out Primus, or Teksavvy, or Netfox or many others. Unlimited high speed internet for about $40/month.
There are other options than just the monopoly cable and phone companies.
Re:Government efficiency by Sarten-X · 2013-07-23 06:02 · Score: 1

I'm advocating a monopoly-free solution where the government is a player that effectively replaces some regulation laws with market share. It's not a pure free market, because the government is applying market pressure and direction. It's not really libertarian, because the ISPs are also being required to support the government with bandwidth.
Of course, since it's advocating a private enterprise, it's not really socialism, either. I guess I'm just not an extremist. Go figure.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Government efficiency by Sarten-X · 2013-07-23 06:33 · Score: 1

The incentive to improve is undermined by the lack of competition. Normally, a company must offer better service than its competitors, but today there's nobody else in the game. With only a couple providers allowed in each community, and an implicit collusion between them, there is no need to improve.
That's why I'd rather see a new competitor that the current players are required to support, that also sets a minimum level of service. Rankings like this don't mean much to private ISPs, but they're noticed by Congress, who can then raise that minimum level. At that point, the private companies must either improve their own service to match (and support the government-mandated service), or lose customers (and pay even more to support the government subscribers they can't attract).

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Government efficiency by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-07-23 07:04 · Score: 1

In the US, "liberal" = left, and "conservative" = right. So the GP is saying he's socialist/left-leaning.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Government efficiency by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-07-23 07:06 · Score: 1

Sweden is a very socialist country, and the government certainly does not own all businesses here.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Government efficiency by Pentium100 · 2013-07-23 07:08 · Score: 1

If we move to a GPS unit in our vehicles, we may as well make all roads tolled and eliminate the gas tax entirely. That way traffic could be dynamically rerouted by price, which would handle congestion far better than it is presently.
So, while you would not want the government putting a tracker on your car, you would be OK with a private company doing it? Don't forget that the private company would keep one set of backups in the NSA servers.
Re:Government efficiency by PRMan · 2013-07-23 07:09 · Score: 1

MOD Parent UP

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Government efficiency by Sarten-X · 2013-07-23 07:45 · Score: 1

Sweden is a welfare state, not a socialist state. The two concepts are closely related, since the goal of state-owned corporations is usually public welfare, but Sweden is not really politically socialist.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Government efficiency by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 09:10 · Score: 1

I say we void all community monopoly agreements
Well there is a bit of a problem in that we can't have people running around digging things up, running cable wherever they want willy-nilly.
Huh? How did you leap from "void all monopolies" to "digging things up willy-nilly"? Do you have some odd belief that a company that isn't a monopoly has a right to dig things up "willy nilly"?

There's going to have to be some control, which means there won't be real competition.
I'm sorry that you think that the franchise system means there is no competition. All it means is that anyone who wants to compete must abide by certain rules, like not digging things up willy-nilly in the city rights-of-way. For access to the rights of way they pay a fee. Gosh, how awful.
That's hardly the thing that prevents competition. That fee is put on top of every bill, so every company would simply pass that cost on to the subscriber.
Re:Government efficiency by khallow · 2013-07-23 09:53 · Score: 1

150 years ago people made this same argument about public roads in cities -- that we didn't really "need" them. 75 years ago people made this argument about telephone service. Both of those things are now widely accepted as both necessary and generally successful projects.
Acceptance doesn't imply fact. Who actually thinks about that sort of thing? Acceptance is meaningless, if the same people would be accepting private roads and less than universal phone access with the same lack of consideration in an alternate reality?
Re:Government efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:58 · Score: 0

Huh? How did you leap from "void all monopolies" to "digging things up willy-nilly"? Do you have some odd belief that a company that isn't a monopoly has a right to dig things up "willy nilly"?

Well, yes. If only one company is allowed to "dig things up" then it de facto has a monopoly. Only if any company was allowed to lay a connection to your location do you then no longer have a monopoly. With most new connections being underground, it necessarily requires digging things up. Now, they would likely be subject to various requirements, like they shouldn't breach gas supply lines, can't dig up streets, but yeah, any Joe Schmoe would be able to dig, subject to the same requirements as AT&T, in order to run a network connection to your house. Of course, the city could do something like require posting a $50 million USD bond prior to digging, which effectively means only entities like AT&T, TWC etc., could do the work, in which case you're back to having a situation in reality much like the monopolies of today, but not in name.
Re:Government efficiency by Obfuscant · 2013-07-23 10:38 · Score: 1

Well, yes. If only one company is allowed to "dig things up" then it de facto has a monopoly.
Logic fail. "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A".

Only if any company was allowed to lay a connection to your location do you then no longer have a monopoly.
That is not true. "Any company that pays the franchise fee to access the public rights of way" would make that a true statement. You certainly don't have to allow any company that wants to to dig things up "willy nilly" to keep from having a monopoly.

With most new connections being underground, it necessarily requires digging things up.
Never heard of 'conduit' on your planet, have you?
Re:Government efficiency by ArsonSmith · 2013-07-23 11:49 · Score: 1

20 years ago I was paying ungodly amounts per hour for dialup 9600-14.4k speed internet access with bills reaching $100 if I wasn't careful, now I pay around $50 month for unlimited 3m speeds, I also have the option of going cheaper but I just haven't gotten around to doing it purely out of laziness. I pay much less today for several orders of magnatude more than I did back then.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Government efficiency by ArsonSmith · 2013-07-23 11:56 · Score: 1

I like the idea of a government run ISP. Think of the government efficiencies that can be gained by just avoiding all the information requests and what not and just having all data piped directly to the NSA where it can be searched and everyone made into criminals. Just like how all our healthcare data and care is now going to be at the whims of the next George Bush!

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Government efficiency by ArsonSmith · 2013-07-23 11:59 · Score: 1

Sorry that should be 30Mb not 3m.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Government efficiency by Beren+Erchamion · 2013-07-23 12:22 · Score: 1

However, we don't need fast Internet connectivity
Yeah, we do.

Have you tried a job search on dialup in the past, say, five years? Or accessing online banking? What about comparison-shopping for cars or living arrangements? Submitting a research paper online (even for an in-person class, as all mine always have been when I was an undergrad--professors still often required online submission)?

Because I have.
Re:Government efficiency by jez9999 · 2013-07-23 22:39 · Score: 1

Do you seriously think a new company would have the resources to lay new cable to millions of homes? What about 2 new companies, or 3? This would be ridiculous redundancy, like laying 3 or 4 roads down parallel to each other. Don't you see that? Telephony infrastructure is a natural monopoly and should therefore be in the hands of the government for the common good. Even phone lines and cable are basically redundant; every home should have one high-speed "data line" whose services can be provided by any company but whose infrastructure should be managed by the only entity that stands a chance of not fucking people over, the government (yeah, I did say a *chance*).

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Government efficiency by cavebison · 2013-07-25 10:14 · Score: 1

Social services are appropriate where there is an absolute goal. [...] However, we don't need fast Internet connectivity
You don't *need* all those nice trees along the sidewalks and roads. You don't *need* so many public spaces, parks, benches, etc. So why don't you privatise parks, public toilets and tree maintenance? You don't *need* your mail delivered to your post-box. Get off your butt and pick it up at the privatised post office. Personal delivery is extra, baby.
Also it depends what you think fast internet will bring. Building roads builds infrastructure needed for commerce. Wider roads allow traffic to move faster. There are benefits to this for the entire community, the entire economy. Faster internet isn't just about just getting your streaming MTV.

Size matters by Trimaxion · 2013-07-23 04:46 · Score: 1

Look, I hate the local telco/cable monopoly as much as anyone. I live in the suburbs of Orlando, FL and only have one provider that can offer me truly high speed service at my house. My cable options are 20/1, 30/2, 60/5, and 90/10, all from Brighthouse Networks, and the 30/2 costs $70ish a month for just the internet connection. I wish I had more options because it would likely lead to lower prices. These guys have no real competition here. Unfortunately, Verizon stopped their FIOS buildout and have no plans to move east toward my area.

That said, I think the article is misleading. The United States is big. Some of the countries on this list are the size of some U.S. states. When you're pulling cable, size and density matter.

I'd like to see some better stats beyond a country-wide average. In areas of the US with population densities similar to those in the other countries on the list, how does the US fare? How does the service in our major cities and metro areas compare to theirs? How do our rural areas compare to theirs?

Re:Size matters by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:13 · Score: 0

I'd like to see some better stats beyond a country-wide average. In areas of the US with population densities similar to those in the other countries on the list, how does the US fare?
Terribly, I imagine. Since e.g. Sweden has half the population density of the US, it should be compared to parts of the US that are less densely populated than the US average.
Re:Size matters by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:08 · Score: 0

Brighthouse, huh? I had to call them up when the wireless in my hotel room didn't work one time. Dude didn't give a fuck. Asked me for my MAC address and then hung up on me after grumbling something. He was in one hell of a hurry. But the wireless started working immediately with no signup portal bullshit.
I can't imagine what he would have done if I didn't know how to get my wireless adapter's MAC address... LOL!
Re:Size matters by HornWumpus · 2013-07-23 07:08 · Score: 1

Median vs mean. Most Sweeds live in a few cities. The rest is more or less empty.
'Median' population density is more interesting. (Median population density defined as the population density around the 50% person, not the 50% km^2).

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Rights of way by MozeeToby · 2013-07-23 04:50 · Score: 2

Don't make ISPs a utility, make conduit a utility and throw out all the local government granted monopolies. Conduit should be put down any time the road is torn up, anyone should be able to lease space in the conduit to run whatever they want through it. New cable company wants to move in? They lease spot in the conduit. Google wants to install fiber to the home? They lease a spot. Alternatively the same could be done directly with fiber, the city puts it in and leases bandwidth to 3rd parties, but that doesn't seem as flexible to me.

Re:Rights of way by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:56 · Score: 0

Yes, this is pretty much what was done in Sweden in the '90s. Right of way lies with each city/municipality. Under Swedish law they must allow anyone who wish to lay fiber through their city to do so. In response basicly all cities/municipalities have invested in conduits and in most cases in fiber for rent (dark fiber). This was done as you say whenever a street was dug up, conduit and fiber went in. In addition, the large telcos that owns their own fiber must offer both fiber and capacity at fair market price to anyone who wishes to set up/run an ISP. This means that conduit is open for everyone and there is real competition at all levels; fiber, capacity and connectivity.
In addition, many cities have provided last mile fiber to homes and businesses, in many cases resulting in open access networks where homes are connected to fiber and home owners can choose between several different ISP:s with one uniform access fiber.
As a result I can, where I live (Stockholm area) choose between 16 different ISP:s all offering 100/100 Mbps+ at around 34 USD a month. In a small village in the North of the country it's slightly more expensive at 36 USD per month, roughtly half the number of suppliers and just one offering 100/100 while the others let you have 100/10. This seems fairly typical. According to public statistics from 2010, 54% of businesses and households have fiber within their block, growth rate 3%-units per year meaning that this should now be around 63% that can easily get fiber.

Government as your ISP by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:51 · Score: 0

Pros:
1. Nothing can enforce a standard quite like the law.
2. No "ulterior" profit motive means bandwidth and routing for dumb pipes. Net neutrality eat your heart out.
3. No more peering arguments.
4. Rural communities get high speed internet connections no matter how much it costs.
5. Government can operate on the assumption that all of its citizens have internet connections. (Internet voting, transparent government initiatives, etc.)
6. People who cannot afford internet access will finally receive it.

Cons:
1. At the mercy of politicians who have no idea what ISPs do and could honestly care less. Congress is a study in "that's a great idea, now how can I screw it up in a way that makes people who voted for me the most money?"
2. Filtering and other legal pursuits. See #1. The RIAA would love having the government in charge of your internet connection.
3. Connectivity issues. See #1. The internet would snap in half every time a country decides it doesn't like yours.
4. Poor quality. The government won't do this itself, it will sell the opportunity to the lowest bidder, who will proceed to screw it up in a way that makes it even more expensive just to fix (which will go to the lowest bidder, and so on).
5. The expense of serving rural or under-privileged communities. Since the 1900s people who don't live in cities have been fighting to be recognized as full members of society without realizing how much they cost their neighbors.
6. Standards will change at a glacial pace. Internet technology has a shelf life of less than two years.

I'm just going to conveniently leave out the whole NSA thing, which would happen no matter who is in charge of your internet connection.

Population Density by Monty845 · 2013-07-23 04:52 · Score: 1

Look at the population density, it is a lot easier to provide services like high quality broadband to a dense population. South Korea - 1,303/sq mi Japan - 873/sq mi Hong Kong - 16,876/sq mi Switzerland - 505/sq mi Netherlands - 1,287/sq mi Latvia - 80/sq mi Czech Republic - 344/sq mi Sweden - 60/sq mi United States - 89/sq mi Denmark - 337/sq mi Only Sweden and Latvia really out perform us without having several times higher population density.

Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:15 · Score: 0

I think you have managed to show that in the top 10 the broadband stats correlate very weakly with population density. You may need to search for other explanation models.
Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:31 · Score: 0

Your operating under the assumption that the population is spread evenly across the total area. This is not the case at all. For example, population density of New York City is higher than that of Tokyo but Tokyo still has much better internet services. Or look at individual States, New Jersey has a pop density of 1.2k per square mile but they don't have internet connectivity comparable to the Netherlands or South Korea.
Re:Population Density by YrWrstNtmr · 2013-07-23 05:45 · Score: 1

Or look at individual States, New Jersey has a pop density of 1.2k per square mile but they don't have internet connectivity comparable to the Netherlands or South Korea.

And if you were to look at the second graph on the linked article, you might see that New Jersey, if it were a country, comes in 4th, just behind Hong Kong, and ahead of Switzerland and Netherlands.
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Delaware would all come in second, just behind South Korea.
Re:Population Density by Bengie · 2013-07-23 10:58 · Score: 1

List of places in the USA with densities great than 12,000 per square mile. What's your excuse now?
1 Guttenberg New York City New Jersey 56878.9
2 Union City New York City New Jersey 52977.8
3 West New York New York City New Jersey 44995.1
4 Hoboken New York City New Jersey 30239.2
5 New York City New York City New York 26402.9
6 Maywood Los Angeles California 23887.2
7 Cliffside Park New York City New Jersey 23847.7
8 East Newark New York City New Jersey 23330
9 Passaic New York City New Jersey 21804.7
10 Cudahy Los Angeles California 21627.7
11 Great Neck Plaza New York City New York 20853.4
12 Irvington[b] New York City New Jersey 20528.3
13 North Bay Village Miami Florida 20267.1
14 Huntington Park Los Angeles California 20252.4
15 Kaser New York City New York 19342.6
16 West Hollywood Los Angeles California 18992.7
17 Somerville Boston Massachusetts 18868.1
18 East Orange New York City New Jersey 17776.6
19 Bell Gardens Los Angeles California 17721.3
20 Paterson New York City New Jersey 17675.4
21 Sweetwater Miami Florida 17439.7
22 San Francisco San Francisco California 17179.2
23 Poplar Hills Louisville Kentucky 17036
24 Long Beach New York City New York 16594.9
25 Central Falls Providence Rhode Island 16146.7
26 Jersey City New York City New Jersey 16093.7
27 Chelsea Boston Massachusetts 16036.8
28 Lawndale Los Angeles California 16036.7
29 Weehawken[b] New York City New Jersey 15891.3
30 South Floral Park New York City New York 15776.3
31 Cambridge Boston Massachusetts 15766.1
32 Mount Vernon New York City New York 15689.3
33 Fairview New York City New Jersey 15585.5
34 Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles California 15389.5
35 Stone Park Chicago Illinois 15378.2
36 Hempstead New York City New York 15366.1
37 Sunny Isles Beach Miami Florida 15231.1
38 Orange[b] New York City New Jersey 14903.7
39 Bell Los Angeles California 14802.5
40 Cicero Chicago Illinois 14645.2
41 Lynwood Los Angeles California 14389.2
42 Palisades Park New York City New Jersey 14112.4
43 Fort Lee New York City New Jersey 14001.7
44 Garfield New York City New Jersey 13976
45 Hawthorne Los Angeles California 13879.4
46 Berwyn Chicago Illinois 13876.2
47 Bay Harbor Islands Miami Florida 13875.4
48 Millbourne Philadelphia Pennsylvania 13749.1
49 Daly City San Francisco California 13703.8
50 Elmwood Park Chicago Illinois 13328.4
51 Boston Boston Massachusetts 13321
52 South Gate Los Angeles California 13084.6
53 Manorhaven New York City New York 13055.6
54 Mount Rainier Washington, D.C. Maryland 13038.5
55 Hermosa Beach Los Angeles California 12982.4
56 Woodlynne Philadelphia New Jersey 12939.4
57 Island Park New York City New York 12865.7
58 New Square New York City New York 12811.8
59 Chicago Chicago Illinois 12750.3

Best case scenario... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:53 · Score: 0

Something as good as the IRS, TSA or the Post Office. Oh boy.

How about MEDIAN rather than AVERAGE? by evilviper · 2013-07-23 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Much like fuel mileage ratings on vehicles, we get a lot more benefit by getting people with the lowest numbers up to more reasonable numbers (eg., dial-up to 1Mbps DSL) than we do by giving a select few a very high speed connection to bring up the "average" speed, while many people suffer with dial-up speeds...

Perhaps it would be best to measure MEDIAN speeds, rather than AVERAGE. Or better yet, a percentage of people in the country with available speeds below XYZ.

And where does the whole EU rank? I'm sure if we broke the US down into individual states, some would come out higher than average as well, putting them ahead of most EU member nations. And there are clearly a number of EU member nations falling well behind the US average, which would bring the EU average down. The other comparable countries, like Russia, China, India, etc., all are far behind the US average. So even with these numbers, it doesn't look all that bad for the US.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:How about MEDIAN rather than AVERAGE? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:21 · Score: 0

Remember: mean, median, mode, and others are types of averages.
I believe you are assuming that the article is referring to an arithmetic mean -- which is a fair assumption -- but the terms in your post are all wrong.
Re:How about MEDIAN rather than AVERAGE? by cheesybagel · 2013-07-23 07:49 · Score: 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23079610
19.7 Mbps EU average
Re:How about MEDIAN rather than AVERAGE? by evilviper · 2013-07-23 09:31 · Score: 1

19.7 Mbps EU average
Nope. That number Just doesn't mesh with those Akamai numbers AT ALL. They don't list ANY country, ANYWHERE near that speed, yet several would have to be well above that speed to bring up the average. South Korea is the fastest on the map, at only 14.2 Mbps There must be a vastly different methodology used to come up with the different numbers, so it's just not comparable.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:How about MEDIAN rather than AVERAGE? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 14:40 · Score: 0

a 1000 Mbps connection that replaces 30 Mbps connection, raises the average the same amount as upgrading 80 3 Mbps connections to 15 Mbps. Hint, a that one connection costs 1/40th or so to upgrade, than the cost to upgrade the 80.

s/Government-run/Government-regulated/ by PoochieReds · 2013-07-23 04:53 · Score: 2

I don't think a government run utility would be better than what we have today, and would likely be worse. What would be better? What should have been done in the original 1996 laws:

Force the telcos and cable companies to break up.

Really, it's as simple as that...

The main problem with the current situation is that there is near-zero competition. At best you have "competition" between two ILECs (cable and telco). In some cases they will "lease" their lines to competitors, but who wants to be in a business where you're the customer of your main competitor? That's guaranteed not to go well.

So in my "dream" solution...

Last-mile providers would be a regulated monopoly (duopoly I guess in the case where there is both twisted-pair and coax) that would just be in charge of the cabling and infrastructure between actual customers and the "central office". They would then lease the lines to "dialtone" (bandwidth?) providers at rates set by the local public utility commission, but would be barred from providing any content on those lines.

That would set up the situation such that multiple companies could compete based on the services that they could provide to customers and price.

I'm not holding my breath for such an outbreak of sanity though... ;)

Re:s/Government-run/Government-regulated/ by mwooldri · 2013-07-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Sounds like a plan to me... a well regulated infrastructure provider providing the "last mile" and different ISPs competing to provide services down this "last mile" (which is owned by the ISP but the infrastructure provider is required to maintain). Mandate the infrastructure company to supply fiber to the premesis as much as is possible. The UK have this kind of arrangement - Openreach runs and maintains the infrastructure, other communications providers purchase use from Openreach. There's no need to make it a government owned company, or even separate the ownership between the incumbent telcos / cablecos. This can be done in the USA, on a regional basis, and ensuring that the "last mile" company is in itself a separate business entity from whoever owns it, even if it is the present incumbent companies.
Some might be skeptical of separation between a "last mile" company and a communications provider when both are owned by the same company. Again, it is regulation that is key. In the financial sector, larger financial companies may own more than one bank but these separate banks have to operate at arms length from one another. Banking regulations make this a requirement. It makes it interesting when the two "banks" are in the same building... an employee of one bank is not to talk about their work or what their bank is doing with employees of the other bank - even though the two banks are owned by the same company and the employees of both banks get their paycheck from the same parent company.
Re:s/Government-run/Government-regulated/ by jez9999 · 2013-07-23 22:44 · Score: 1

Last-mile providers would be a regulated monopoly
Out of interest, why do you think a company that would have to be so regulated most of its behaviour would be dictated by government would be any better than just having the government flat-out run it?

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:s/Government-run/Government-regulated/ by PoochieReds · 2013-08-03 23:08 · Score: 1

What government will control it? City? County? State? Federal?
I think in practice, it wouldn't make much difference either way, but splitting them up this way would likely be less disruptive since these companies already have trucks, linemen, etc that maintain this infrastructure now. By just splitting up the company those "assets" would naturally flow to the company maintaining the lines. A government takeover would be more "messy" and would probably involve a lot more court battles.
Also, there is something of a precedent for this sort of arrangement. Electricity is usually provided by a local monopoly provider, and the state/local utility commission generally sets the rules for how it's run. ISPs are generally beholden to the PUC as well in the current situation. This would just reduce the part that the PUC runs while allowing free market competition for the rest of the company.
Unfortunately, I don't forsee our current crop of govt. officials having the stones to do anything like this anytime soon.

Just like the train problem by avandesande · 2013-07-23 04:56 · Score: 1

I don't think it is as simple as that- getting the same penetration over a large area costs a lot more in the US because of our geography.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Very different from other measurements by Kjella · 2013-07-23 04:58 · Score: 1

As this measures the speed to Akamai's servers, the numbers are not comparable to other numbers. I found the numbers way too low, for example here in Norway it says broadband penetration (>4Mbps) is 50%, actual figures (and the numbers for this are very good, they're very hard on you delivering agreed speeds) is about 77%. I'm guessing the difference is people who use their Internet connection for other things while connecting to Akamai, if your connection is busy with other things and you only got 3Mbps to spare for Akami you'll be counted in the "slowband" category.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

TVA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Alternatively, best case could be TVA which is more or less self sufficient, well loved by most people it serves, and provided a nearly unimaginable prosperity boost to a region that was behind the times and lacked the resources to catch up.

Re:TVA by Artifakt · 2013-07-23 06:48 · Score: 4, Informative

When the last New York power grid failure caused a cascade effect that dragged down parts of 13 state's grids, the wave of failures stopped where TVA's grid starts. Stopped cold. There was a point where TVA systems were regulating the entire national grid, spinning up idle hydroelectric turbines as fast as possible to keep stable power flowing all the way to the west coast and down into Mexico. If your lights went out when New York went down, but came back on in a minute or two, that was TVA Hydro and your local grid was very probably being remotely controlled by TVA engineers. If you got power back in a day or two, that was probably TVA nuclear (it takes time to ramp nuke power up - sorry, but it just does). If you got power back faster than New York itself, ask your local sources if a bunch of TVA engineers were involved. If you live west of Chicago, and you didn't see an outage, most of the pros agree you would have if TVA hadn't been able to hold the line - an outage in all 48 contiguous states and probably affecting all of continental North America.
But it's a US Federal program, begun by Liberals such as FDR, so, you know, it's Eeevilll!!!

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:TVA by dkf · 2013-07-23 09:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Last year at Christmas time I had to replace a string of lights cause one went out and rather than search for the one of 150 I just purchased a new set, can I thank TVA engineers for that?
Unless someone who happens to work for the TVA was helping you out personally, no.
That said, the grid isn't a string of christmas lights. It's much more complex than that because you've got long transmission lines arranged in a mesh and many sources of power. Oh, and you critically need to keep the phases of the power sources synchronized or you cause even more damage. That makes your analogy suck. Sorry.
The principal reason the TVA has a better ability to respond to a cascading failure situation is precisely that they're not very efficient. The spare capacity meant that they had the capability to increase power output when the shit hit the fan when nobody else did. For the overall stability of the system, a public good that you clearly benefit from, not running everything as close to the edge as possible is required. But that in turn means that the short-term profit of the power producer is not maximized; if every producer is being forced to maximize short-term profit over everything else, that's most strongly enabled by pushing everything into the domain where nearly any unexpected problem causes total collapse. Think of it like cooling a liquid so that it becomes supercritical; the tiniest speck of dust can cause it to flash-freeze. You see similar effects in public transportation networks, road traffic, financial systems, etc. Focus too strongly on optimizing for the case where everything is doing fine and you'll get catastrophic failures more frequently as the system will have reduced ability to absorb random shocks (which happen all the time, even if most go unnoticed).
Which isn't to say that power production has to be government-run. It clearly doesn't. What it does have to be is somewhat over-provisioned so that the extra load of a squirrel self-immolating in a backwoods substation doesn't cause total systemic failure, and that over-provisioning has to be paid for somehow. Oh, and the regulator has to force this on providers; letting the shit hit the fan just to get one more quarter of increasing profits is too damaging. (Alternatively, you could regulate by lawsuit, but that also sucks...) Welcome to complex systems; the real solutions aren't always the ones you want.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:TVA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:51 · Score: 1

TVA? Loved? You been listening to the hype man...
TVA aint loved. They are fucking despised...
Some of the highest electric rates in the country. And we're SURROUNDED by power plants.
Not to mention they killed a buncha of people and ruined the lives of others. Said 'our bad, fuck off', With the fly ash spill here. And that's just the most recent big thing.
TVA must have good PR department tho. You think they're loved.
Re:TVA by slimjim8094 · 2013-07-23 13:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Sorry, you don't know much about how power generation works. All your points are valid, but there are market incentives in the system to provide the redundancy you talk about.
Basically a regional grid authority asks each power plant what their marginal cost is (there's separate consideration for fixed costs). This all gets put on a graph of capacity vs marginal cost - i.e., hydro and wind is lowest (negligible marginal costs), followed by nuclear, coal, gas, etc all the way to "peaker" plants. Everybody is paid the "clearing price" - the marginal price for providing the last megawatt of capacity requested (determined the night before, broadly)
- There's tons of excess capacity. Some is a hot-spare and ready to take on load at a moment's notice in case a plant goes offline, or some other fault. Some just is sitting around because they don't think they'll need it that day (peakers are usually unused, gas plants are usually unused overnight, etc).
- There are economic incentives involved to power plant operators, in the form of premiums for things like black start capability, that address exactly the sort of "redundant" excess capacity (over the unused capacity from above) that's sometimes necessary.
The blackout in question was a transmission issue. A line failed, load was shifted to another one, that took on too much load and sagged and died, power couldn't go anywhere, grid goes kaboom. That's completely separate from generation - the problem was too much generation, not not enough.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:TVA by delt0r · 2013-07-23 21:24 · Score: 1

OT

it takes time to ramp nuke power up - sorry, but it just does
Current plants yes. But they don't have to be slow. They can be designed to load follow even.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

I'm a Google Fiber subscriber by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 04:59 · Score: 1

... and it's phenomenal. If they can start penetrating more markets, they can absolutely make a dent in the status quo.

Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:00 · Score: 0

The United States of America: The greatest country in the world, the last superpower, born of divine providence

If you guys believe any of this shit, you're more delusional than we've feared.

Divine fucking providence my fucking ass. That Americans continue to believe that god himself blessed America tells me that as a group you're a bunch of morons.

Re:Bullshit ... by bmk67 · 2013-07-23 07:58 · Score: 1

It appears you failed to notice that whooshing sound sailing over your head.
P.S. The summary is employing irony. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Big Companies Oppressing America by SpaceManFlip · 2013-07-23 05:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

AT&T and Verizon are both working to keep broadband out of people's hands, because they see more money in their shitty expensive "4G" wireless service.

I have a perfect example: I live a half-mile from a major Internet fibre line, which AT&T owns the hardware to access, and I have a max available 3Mb DSL as the only choice for Internet. One of my neighbors would love to get on the same shitty "broadband" that I pay for, but AT&T told him "there are no more ports available" in our area, after multiple attempts to get through to someone with real answers. Same story about copper going away etc.

Taxpayers actually paid for that Internet fibre run that runs nearby, and AT&T somehow keeps anyone from accessing it with their Congress-owning money powers. Fuck those evil bastards.

Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by jbolden · 2013-07-23 05:08 · Score: 1

There is no more port available sounds like a good excuse.
If your locality wants to step up to the plate and guarantee revenue there will be more port. Get 100 of your neighbors who agree with you and go to a town council meeting to propose a guarantee.
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by Richy_T · 2013-07-23 06:39 · Score: 1

How about the council tells them that if they don't open up more ports, they'll give access to the infrastructure to someone else?
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by PRMan · 2013-07-23 06:49 · Score: 1

Report them to the FCC and your local PUC. It has done wonders for me in dealing with AT&T, twice.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by bonehead · 2013-07-23 08:03 · Score: 2

This sounds much more reasonable.
AT&T should be expected to EARN their revenue by offering a quality service at a competitive price. They should not be "guaranteed" revenue.
If AT&T can't figure out a way to derive profit from ownership of a taxpayer-subsidized Internet backbone, then control of that backbone should be handed off to a company with competent management.
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by Richy_T · 2013-07-23 08:58 · Score: 1

I'd prefer competition. But the companies have to realize there's a trade-off for the access they're granted. If they won't supply this guy's neighbor with service, perhaps they should lose the right to run their wires across his land, no?
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by jbolden · 2013-07-23 10:03 · Score: 1

Well first off they don't own the infrastructure. The only infrastructure they have access to the infrastructure that is already at capacity, i,e. they sold all the port. If they want more infrastructure someone has to come up with the cash. Your LEC doesn't want to. AT&T is not going to undercut their own LEC and sell port to a 3rd party, unless the town made it very worth their while. It would be cheaper for the town to just guarantee the port, or just buy the LEC and run it as a municipal service. Even if AT&T were going to sell more port, the economics for a new LEC would be worse than for the existing LEC.
It is pretty easy. Someone has to come up with millions of dollars to create more port. They aren't doing that because they are jerks, they aren't doing it because they don't see enough market to justify the risk. That is your LEC isn't doing it without a subsidy of some nature. So as a town either pay the subsidy via. a guarantee or just cofund the port or subsidize the purchase for residents. Those are your options. Port costs money. The same as if the town needed an extra 5000 cars they can't create them by trying to void dealership agreements someone has to buy an extra 5000 cars.
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by jbolden · 2013-07-23 10:05 · Score: 1

You are confusing the LEC and the IXC. The local government has no authority over the IXC, that under the FCC.
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by SpaceManFlip · 2013-07-24 02:45 · Score: 1

The real problem is that AT&T owns the only box in the area that taps in to the Internet fibre. Nobody else gets to hook up to it and offer service, so there is no competition. It makes no sense that they are being allowed to squat on a public resource and deny competition.
It makes me want to fight my way into starting some kind of Internet company and set up long-range Wifi on towers all over the place, to beat them at their own game. There are network adapters for long-range wifi that could beat the speeds and latency of 4G all day. Just have to lease a plot on the ole Internet pipeline somewhere and get the bandwidth to spread around through the air...
Re:Big Companies Oppressing America by jbolden · 2013-07-24 02:56 · Score: 1

You can buy a LEC you don't have to go to all that much trouble. There are ones all over the company to sell.
As far as long range wiifi towers all over the place... most likely that falls under the FCC and they would tell you no. The FCC is currently focused on moving everything else off, including government reserved and television, to make room for cell. They aren't going to want to use up lots of bandwidth for wifi.
Besides all that sounds much more expensive then just paying for port. The LEC would be happy to buy more port is someone else was guaranteeing it, they just don't to make the investment themselves. So tell the LEC you will buy the port and setup a local ISP using them as your local backbone. I think you lose but at least it is cheaper.

LESS government, NOT more! by Paleolibertarian · 2013-07-23 05:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hasn't the government caused enough problems with granting monopolies to telecom companies. The whole industry needs to be totally deregulated. With deregulation comes competition and with competition comes better service and lower prices. The total over-regulation of telecom is the reason we have such lackluster service and higher costs. Telecom companies who have limited competition don't fear raising prices and don't need to improve service in order to attract new customers. Costs to business can be prohibitive. I still have clients that are still using ADSL (1.5 down and .5 up) because that's all they can get and that costs about $60/mo. Another has cable at 5/1 for $80/mo in a second office while the home office has decent cable from a different provider gets 50/4 which costs $200/mo and runs a VPN link between offices which is almost useless but at least they can get Terminal Services in the satellite office but the users complain a lot. Their only other choice is ADSL from AT&T which in a small town is only good for some light surfing and email assuming you have a lot of time.

Because governments limit the choices and regulate prices in a lot of cases we have crappy service. Can you imagine what it would be like if internet service were socialized? This country is already bankrupt. Can you imagine what a cluster f**k ObamaNet would be like? How about in Detroit?

Are you for real? Give me a break!

Remember, any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it all away!

Edwin

Re:LESS government, NOT more! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:20 · Score: 0

Hasn't the government caused enough problems with granting monopolies to telecom companies. The whole industry needs to be totally deregulated. With deregulation comes competition and with competition comes better service and lower prices.
Do you believe any of this shit?
Your free market is a myth, and every actor in it will try to game the system for their own ends and invalidate all of the assumptions about good information and available choices.
What utter bollocks. If you deregulated everything, people would be putting melamine into baby formula and dumping toxic waste into streams.
The standard Libertarian response is that people would be free to not buy contaminated baby formula or drink from contaminated streams -- and it mostly proves your pipe dream of economics is founded on bullshit and bad assumptions.

Are you for real? Give me a break!
Nothing you claim is provable as fact, and it is easy to find counter examples of how it simply won't work.
So either you believe this crap, or you're just parroting it.
But this entire philosophy on how economics works is false. In any other country in the world, Libertarians are considered crackpots on the topic of economics, and I see you're living up to your nick.
Re:LESS government, NOT more! by Ksevio · 2013-07-23 06:41 · Score: 1

Yet in cities with municipal utilities they citizens have much better service for much less money. It's the companies that have been pushing these agreements with municipalities to have monopolies, not the cities. It's too much cost to run separate lines for each company (not to mention the difficulty a smaller company would have.

Just look at the phone market where there are options available and very little preventing people from switching. You'd thing the free market would have brought the prices down, but instead I can often get my TV/phone/Internet at home for the same price as a phone plan.
Re: LESS government, NOT more! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:45 · Score: 0

The country with libertarian impulses has 25% of the world's economy and 5% of the population, maybe its the rest of the world that's loony
Re: LESS government, NOT more! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:42 · Score: 0

If I could get 4g lte at my house l would get a cell internet device for my local network because it's almost 3x my AT&T Uverse internet. Problem is the roll out of lte is just to damn slow.
Re:LESS government, NOT more! by Paleolibertarian · 2013-07-25 03:56 · Score: 1

AHA! Another product of the government monopoly on education. The Idea that left to themselves vendors would "game the system" to the detriment of the consumer is actually MORE prevalent under government granted monopolies that otherwise. It is up to the consumer to be aware of what he/she is getting for their money. However, people have been lulled into the false belief that the government is the great protector.
Corporations, without the involvement of government via corporate shield laws, tend to be evil because the individual stockholders are shielded from the evil actions of the corporation. Without this shielding, every owner would be liable for the wrongdoing and would take steps to prevent the evil. Corporations are inherently inhuman because, by law, a corporation is a "person" and that person is only entity liable for damages cause by the actions of the corporation. Only in cases of clear criminality can individuals be held liable while the stockholders have no liability at all.
You should pull your head out of the governments collective ass and learn how things work in the real world before you spout more of the drivel in your post.
Edwin

Salary caps by zarmanto · 2013-07-23 05:02 · Score: 1

First, I will preface my comment by saying that I am not actually in favor of government regulation of the internet... but if we were to actually go down that road, I would opine that the only step necessary to dramatically improve US broadband, would be to incorporate salary caps into the C- level positions at the existing telcos. If the money can't be siphoned up the chain to the bank account of those money-hungry CEOs, then it seems to me that the most likely places for all that cash to go would be a) back into the company, (as in, both the lower level employees and the infrastructure) or b) back to the customers and stockholders.

I mean, I'm all for a free market and the capitalistic system and all that... but good grief! Salaries at the top are positively obscene!

Re:Salary caps by shentino · 2013-07-23 12:39 · Score: 1

Never underestimate the creativity of accounting. The top dogs could always get kickbacks by having contractors working for them charge the company exorbitant costs for services and whatnot.
No, the only way to straighten things out is to put them at the mercy of demanding customers through competition.

Personally.... by nine-times · 2013-07-23 05:03 · Score: 1

For those who favor the idea of Internet service as a government-run utility, what do you see as the best-case scenario for such a system?

Personally, I'd favor working on some kind of split responsibility. I've said this over and over again: part of our problem is that we have these large companies who are vertically integrated. You have a company like Comcast which builds the infrastructure, acts as the ISP, provides TV and VoIP service, online TV viewing services, and is also tied into the channels and content on their TV service. This creates some obvious opportunities for conflict of interest, e.g. Comcast might not be highly motivated to provide a high level of service for their Internet customers to access Netflix, since it competes with their TV offerings.

The potential for conflicts of interest are exacerbated by the fact that ISPs are generally either a monopoly or part of a duopoly. For example, Time Warner Cable is literally my only option for broadband Internet, unless I want to spend over $1,000/month. If TWC decided to block Netflix, I wouldn't really have an other competing option to switch to.

So my opinion has long been that there should be laws to control this effect by classifying the companies who own/build/maintain the infrastructure, and barring them from providing service over that infrastructure. My reasoning is that it often won't be practical to build many competing networks to every area that needs Internet, so competition between Internet infrastructure companies is unlikely. If you want to have a free market for Internet providers, there should be a relatively open/public network infrastructure created and maintained by an uninterested party (uninterested because they're barred from providing service over their own network).

To some degree, this is already happening. If you get an internet connection from a company like Speakeasy/Megapath or XO, they are actually providing internet access over Verizon's infrastructure. However, they are also competing with Verizon, who is also competing with (and colluding with) TWC, Comcast, and other vertically integrated providers. As a result, the only people who want faster Internet speeds are customers, who have no other option, and Netflix, who the ISPs would like to see fail.

Metrics by jxander · 2013-07-23 05:03 · Score: 1

I do wonder how the metrics are gathered. Not much detail in TFA or the actual survey which is linked in TFA. (two levels of TFA deep, pretty sure the /. police are coming after me soon)

I'd wager that part of our "problem" is early adoption, combined with sheer size. I don't think many people in Prague were connected during the dial-up days. Earthlink probably doesn't have much of a foothold over there, even today. Here in the US, however, there are probably still hundreds of thousands of people connecting via phone lines which bring our average down. And so I wonder, if all of those dialup connections were hypothetically terminated would our average speed go down (56.6k is still better than 0) or would those non-connections drop off the radar, thus improving our standing?

This is compounded even further with mobile phones, explicitly not a part of this survey. If you want a mediocre internet connection these days, why even bother with dialup? Just get AT&T, or the Latvian equivalent.

--
This signature is false.

Number 9 by jbolden · 2013-07-23 05:03 · Score: 2

I'm sorry. We have a country with almost all major services well behind the western world. We have a lower practical population density than most other countries because of suburban living. We come in 9 and you are throwing a fit. That's better than our bridges, our roads, our schools, our hospitals... I'm thrilled we ranked that high.

Re:Number 9 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:58 · Score: 0

Agreed, with the exception of Latvia and Sweeden, all the others in the list have significantly higher population density, thus cheaper to run and maintain a network.
Re:Number 9 by jbolden · 2013-07-23 06:32 · Score: 1

Sweden has a huge percentage of its population in the southern tip and a high rate of internet spending. I don't know Latvia.
Re:Number 9 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:13 · Score: 0

...And this doesn't stop the Swedes living in rural areas two days' drive north of the "southern tip" from having their 100+Mbps $15 connections. Next!
Re:Number 9 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:25 · Score: 0

Yes. But the northern tip is wired just as well as the southern.
Re:Number 9 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:26 · Score: 0

ProTip: Tossing out data points that don't fit your thesis does not make the thesis valid.

Peering? by PhrostyMcByte · 2013-07-23 05:04 · Score: 1

Maybe someone here can explain this --

Considering peering, your bandwidth consumption is basically free for your ISP if you stay within their network, right? Is it technically feasible for them to give you uncapped speeds for connections which never leave their network?

Re:Peering? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:48 · Score: 0

You are mistaken: routers, switches, space, power, bringing fiber to a common meeting place, and upgrading this equipment almost annually isn't free.
Re:Peering? by shentino · 2013-07-23 12:40 · Score: 1

Yes, but it hurts profit so they *won't* do it.
Re:Peering? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-25 11:02 · Score: 0

Upgrading equipment almost annually? Get real. Try once in a decade, in my area, and they only did it because AT&T installed U-Verse.

Look where it has been done by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:05 · Score: 0

There are some places that have municipal broadband providers. Take Cedar Falls, IA -- the municipal utility company there offers internet access:

http://www.cfu.net/

From my experience -- it is decent (but not significantly better), and doesn't really cost any less than a private provider. Customer support is about as crappy as everyone else.

As far as I can tell ... this #9 ranking is a worthless metric and the system in place appears to be reflecting user demand appropriately. Why fix it if it isn't broken.

Re:Population Density - VOTE PARENT UP! by Ubeor · 2013-07-23 05:05 · Score: 0

Thank you! Someone finally gets it! When comparing countries, people often forget how FRIGGIN HUGE the United States is, and how much of that is empty space. Piping broadband into the middle of a desert or corn field is not cheap. If you compare on a state-by-state basis, I'm sure the denser northeastern states would rank much higher on the list.

How Much Is Enough by dcw3 · 2013-07-23 05:07 · Score: 1

While the numbers may be statistically insignificant, I suspect some folks don't have higher speeds by choice. Using my own area (Northern VA) as an example, we have choices of cable, FIOS, and satellite. My cable company offers several tiers of service. The basic home service I receive gives me ~25Mbps. There are several offerings at higher prices with more bandwidth (up to ~150). I have no need for more, and certainly don't want to pay more.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Its' Good to Share by carrier+lost · 2013-07-23 05:10 · Score: 1

It's my understanding that it is a lack of competition in the broadband marketplace which is to blame for the slow pace of advancement. When so much of urban US is serviced by two (and in many places one) provider(s), there is not much incentive to improve access and service.

I also believe that if the FCC were to re-instate the line-sharing rules they scrapped years ago, it would go a long ways towards promoting competition which would lead to improvement.

Techdirt has tons of articles and stories about the subject:

http://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=line+sharing

--
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen

speed ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:15 · Score: 0

or perhaps bandwidth.

We have other national priorities by davidwr · 2013-07-23 05:17 · Score: 1

The difference between an "average" of 8.6 and 10.9 isn't that big of a deal.

The "bigger deal" are the very high speed countries like Japan and South Korea and the underlying reasons for the gap in the United States.

Some things we can't control or wouldn't want to if we could: Less-dense populations, the fact that many customers are satisfied with the speeds they got during the "digital cable rollouts" and "DSL rollouts" of the early 2000s and don't want to pay more, the fact that many voters don't want to heavily subsidize communication beyond "the basics" with tax money, etc.

The take-aways from charts like this are:

* What are other countries doing that we COULD do?
* SHOULD we do those things?
* Does the voting/taxpaying public WANT to do those things and if not, SHOULD we honor that or should proponents of higher speed access try to change their hearts and minds?

I for one don't want to live in a city as dense as Tokyo or Seoul or force my 300M fellow Americans to do the same just so we can have 50+% faster possibly-cheaper Internet.

--

I bet if The Vatican wanted to, it could get uber-fast Internet to all the residents and offices and jump to the top of the list very quickly assuming there was a high-speed provider in the area. But I for one don't want to live in a teeny-tiny country.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:We have other national priorities by Pentium100 · 2013-07-23 07:22 · Score: 1

I now get 300mbps connection for the same price I paid for 4mbps DSL 4 years ago.
Actually, there was a time when I paid a bit more for 80mnbps connection, but since then the ISP increased the bandwidth and reduced the price. I pay ~23EUR/month no data caps or anything.
This is Lithuania. We have many ISPs in the cities and the government is laying fiber to rural areas (the private companies will be able to lease it).

Government glass yes by silas_moeckel · 2013-07-23 05:20 · Score: 1

A monopoly on the physical plant make sense it's expensive to build etc etc etc. Build an all optical physical plant and you can then hand off CWDM connections. This can easily be layered upon middle men fanning out vlans over a single channel to make things even cheaper. Government can play a role as well deploying school, city, library, and baseline internet access. But in the end the point is to give a connection to anybody that asks for a defined fee. Soon you will see long haul carriers pop up connecting towns to local cities and local cities to larger ones lowering the barriers to entry. Businesses can connect remote offices and workers with high grade secure connections. Schools can embrace remote learning.

--
No sir I dont like it.

We're number 9! ? BS. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:26 · Score: 5, Funny

There aren't even 362,880 countries on Earth. How can we be 9!?

Re:We're number 9! ? BS. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-07-23 06:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Before somebody without much of a clue mods the parent down, please allow me to point out that 9! = 9 factorial = 362880.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:We're number 9! ? BS. by bmk67 · 2013-07-23 07:25 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I think you're going to find that difficult now.

Country size? by jklovanc · 2013-07-23 05:29 · Score: 1

Notice that the US is the first large country on the list. It is much easier to service a small country or a country with a small population than a country with such a large spread out population like the US. In it's concentrated areas like the North East the US does very well.

Re:Country size? by Sir_Sri · 2013-07-23 05:38 · Score: 1

No, Japan is the first large country on the list, and maybe RoK (south Korea), but I agree, overall that looks pretty good for the US, and even Japan and the US are very different geographies and population distributions. Other relatively big developed western countries (France, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia etc.) are all not on there. So a bunch of smaller countries have faster internet.. and? If you want to compare the EU to the US then the US seems to be doing alright.
Re:Country size? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:08 · Score: 0

Japan is the first large country on the list
Don't be pedantic and pretend the GP meant population. Japan is the size of Montana and about 60% the land area of France. Japan is a small country, geographically. Very small, in fact.
Re:Country size? by Sir_Sri · 2013-07-23 08:32 · Score: 1

Wealth and economic diversity matter more than absolute size.
If you're sticking to absolute size you're only into nonsense comparisons. Russia is twice the size of the US but half the population (and 1/5th the per capita income). China is 4x the population and the same size as the US. Canada is 1/9th the population but same size, brazil is 2/3rds the population and ~80% the size but 1/5th the per capita wealth, and australia is ~75% the size of the US and 1/13 the population.
So there wouldn't be any sensible comparisons to the US really. You could do based on population density over all, or population density per arable land (the latter being preferable) but that puts the US in comparison to such similar countries, like the Central African republic, and Ukraine.
The US belongs in charts with other western countries with decent per capita incomes, with asterisks for Canada, Australia and the US for being big, and Luxembourg, The Netherlands etc. for being really small.
As I say the US is doing pretty well overall. But you really can look at Japan and South Korea and ask whether or not there is something worth copying from them to make better policy.

Competition is good by wjcofkc · 2013-07-23 05:30 · Score: 1

I live in Kansas City where google has been steadily expanding their rollout for some time now. In response to this Time Warner has been quietly bumping up our bandwidth. They can't compete with Google Fibre speeds by a large margin, but getting fifty down is unfortunately pretty good for my part of KC, so it's nice while waiting for fiber. It's funny that the only thing that would keep me with them is my thirteen-year-old kc.rr.com address -- the thought of giving that up is painful. I would easily continue paying $20 or possibly even more just to keep that address while using google fiber. Where fibre has been rolled out, Time Warner has been proactively lowering peoples monthly bill--although I don't see how it's legal to give some people billing breaks over those areas where we are still waiting. The bottom line is, Time Warner has received the swift kick in the ass that they have needed since they started offering service here over a decade ago. It might be too late for them since google roll out will complete soon--long before Time Warner could even get started on an upgrade, but I'm overall suspicious that copper wire yet has more bandwidth to be squeezed out of it in the future. Finally, I think Time Warner vs. Google's first fiber rollout will be a wake up call to providers around the nation that they better get in gear and be ready to compete with ridiculously fast internet, tagged with a low price. Perhaps spurring everyone else was google's point with the project to begin with.

Somewhat ironically, my bandwidth has been nearly useless shit for several days now. There is no point in calling their so called 'tech support'. I accepted years ago that several days of shitty bandwidth a few times a year is simply the level of service they offer, which is low.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.

We're number 9! Eh, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:32 · Score: 0

I presume by 'We' you are refering to the US, the country that is No1 for arrogance. Like the rest of 'us' I'm not surprised by this, but that doesn't stop it being distasteful.

Communicare (like Medicare)? by bshell · 2013-07-23 05:32 · Score: 1

Since public health is considered a primary good, virtually all advanced nations have some system of medicare whereby citizens get free health care, paid for by tax dollars. If we can agree that communication is a fundamental basic human need--it's what makes us human--then why not provide Communicare as well? Especially today, in the 21st century when for the first time in history global communication has become incredibly cheap thanks to the Internet and wireless telephone technologies. If you eliminate the profit component, which in some cases is 1000 fold (e.g. for text messages), it probably would cost no more than about $100/person/year to provide free telephone and Internet service to every citizen in a country. In fact you can make a philosophical argument that it is fundamentally immoral to profit from the human need to communicate, just as it is immoral to profit from human illness. What is needed is a politician, a champion, someone like the great Tommy Douglas of Canada who brought medicare to all Canadians in the 1960s. I wonder which country will be first to wrestle communications from the relatively small number of for-profit corporations and give it to its citizens for free, or more accurately, for a tiny fraction of their tax dollars. Think how much cheaper it would be than medicare.

Re:Communicare (like Medicare)? by HornWumpus · 2013-07-23 07:23 · Score: 1

Many nations had government run phone systems. It didn't work out very well. They have virtually all privatized. You wouldn't like the ones that didn't.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

government-run utility, are you stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:39 · Score: 0

Do we really want to our internet connections updated as often as bridges. Too many city goverments agree to local monopolies as it is. competition drives down prices and up speeds. Do you really want the tyranny of goverment monoply?

--mwd

We're #1.... by PortHaven · 2013-07-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Seriously, factor in land mass, coverage, vs population density. And we pretty much kick butt. Every year I see this post, and every year I think DAMN, SLASHDOTTERS ARE !@#$% DUMB !@#$

Okay, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong (wait are they a country or a province now), Switzerland, etc. What do ALL of these nations have in common?

A) Small Land Mass
AND/OR
B) High Population Densities

Both have to be factored, I mean sure you can point to Canada. It has a huge land mass, and an average population density far lower than the US. But in reality, 90% of Canadians live in within a short distance from the southern Canadian/US border. 90% of Canadian population is grouped together. So the amount of cabling needed to reach 90% of Canada's population is far far less than the U.S.

The United States has one of the most spread out populations. We have cities, like most advanced nations. But then we have urban sprawl, and suburbs after suburbs. These are moderate population densities spread over tens of miles. That's a LOT of cable/fiber.

Lastly, we have massive amounts of rural areas. And amazingly, even many of those have internet be it cabled or wireless. And that's damn impressive. And if instead of using such stupid things as who has the fastest internet, or who reaches the highest percentage of their citizens with broadband. You measured who manages to reach the most backwatered, rural, and broadest amounst of land.

Who has more land area wired than the U.S. with broadband? NO ONE!!!!!

WE'RE #1

Re:We're #1.... by Cimexus · 2013-07-23 10:29 · Score: 1

A good argument, although there are plenty of very densely populated areas in the US (on par with the more densely populated countries you mention) that still have poor speeds. I think the issue in the US is the inconsistency of the speed available. One guy might have 100 Mbit FiOS available, whereas his friend a few blocks away can only get 3 Mbit DSL. Competition is also a problem - I know for me in my mid-sized midwestern city, I have precisely ONE broadband option (one cable provider who fortunately provides a healthy 30 Mbit, though my previous place only had AT&T DSL at a maximum of 6 Mbit available which sucked ass).
The US could see a big jump in its average speed merely by switching out the ADSL1 exchange equipment in DSL-only areas and replacing it with ADSL2+ and/or VDSL (ala U-verse, but available universally, not just in select areas). Those people stuck on 3 or 6 Mbit DSL could then get 12, 18, 24 Mbit speeds using their existing phone line.
So yeah the US appears to be the fastest large (geographically) country on the list (though, one of the most expensive still) and I agree that it's actually doing quite well in terms of its ranking, all things considered. I expect it won't stay that way for too many more years though (Australia in particular should leapfrog the US in the 2015-16 timeframe once the NBN hits critical mass - this will provide 100 Mbit to 93% of the population and is already available in some areas, but not enough to make much of a difference yet).

We were first by Tony+Isaac · 2013-07-23 05:43 · Score: 1

We were early to the party, rolling out broadband before most other countries. That early broadband was between 256Kb/s and 1Mb/s. By the time these other countries got on the bandwagon, 5-10 Mb/s technology was already the norm, so they naturally started at that higher speed. Here in the US, there is less motivation financially to upgrade from 1 Mb/s to 5 Mb/s, than the other countries had to go from 0 to 5.

Very often, the country that invents a new product gets stuck with version 1.0, while everybody else leapfrogs directly to 2.0.

Re:We were first by neminem · 2013-07-23 05:52 · Score: 1

Indeed. Given that we're already paying too much for our current internet, it's not like we'd all jump on the "pay twice as much for faster service" wagon, so that's a good point - we all pay for whatever crap service they deign to give us anyway, so why should they spend billions of dollars giving us better service, for no reason? It's not like we could choose someone else; there isn't anyone else.
Yay for monopolies!

Yeah but commie nazis and stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:43 · Score: 0

Socialist fascist countries like in Yerp don't have our Freedoms! That's why they hate us and conned America into invading Iraq.

Re:Yeah but commie nazis and stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:31 · Score: 0

Put down the bong NOW.

Czech republic... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 05:44 · Score: 0

Now that's funny as there is no government ISP over here in Czech republic.... and you still read things like 'the government should improve the speed of internet access'...

simply a matter of size by KernelMuncher · 2013-07-23 05:44 · Score: 1

Just look at the countries ahead of us with high bandwidth: South Korea, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Latvia. All of them are tiny compared to the US. Even the largest ones - Japan and Sweden - are only the size of American states. So it's no surprise that it would be easier to have all of their citizens on high speed internet.

Re:Population Density - VOTE PARENT UP! by starless · 2013-07-23 05:45 · Score: 1

Except that the US population is not spread out evenly over the entire country. Instead there are very high concentrations of people (of course!) in urban area. However, even the densely populated areas such as, Los Angeles, mid-Atlantic Washington/Baltimore/Philadelphia/New York/Boston have connection speeds that are mediocre by international standards. It's really a red herring to talk about the national population density as we're not really worried about connection speeds in, for example, rural Iowa.

We're Number 9! US Broadband Speeds Rise, by l3v1 · 2013-07-23 05:48 · Score: 1

"We're Number 9! US Broadband Speeds Rise,"

Well, don't raise those speeds, work on lowering the prices instead. I mean come on, I'm paying more in soCal for a 3mbps service than I'm paying in Europe for 20mbps! Really. I sometimes just feel the need to punch someone when I see US broadband prices (the same goes for net-phone-tv bundle bundle prices). So yeah, keep on improving, but not just on the bandwidth/speed front. I couldn't care less for a gazillion gbps connection if it has an outrageous pricetag...

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

separate ownership and management by DriveDog · 2013-07-23 05:59 · Score: 1

A model that has worked very well is rarely found. A municipality contracts for the build-out, pulling fiber or whatever throughout the city, paid for by a bond. The municipality then contracts for operation, and recompete occurs every year or two. The operator has to charge enough to make bond payments, but beyond that, whatever combination of service and pricing that wins the annual bid is what you get. Ownership of the fiber, copper, whatever remains in the hands of the municipality. Obviously this isn't easy to do well, because you need a well-informed board with allegiance only to citizens to write specs and rules, etc. But it can work very well. It avoids putting what should be public infrastructure in private hands and it avoids putting what's managed better by private concerns in the hands of bureaucrats. Most of all, providers of poor service, maintenance, etc. can be booted out quickly without worrying so much about what happens to the infrastructure. If troubles lie in top management, then workers can be re-hired by the next management company. If troubles lie with workers, management can replace them.

Re:separate ownership and management by EmagGeek · 2013-07-23 06:23 · Score: 1

My county tried that, and AT&T lobbied the state for a Law that prohibited municipalities from rolling out infrastructure for Internet that citizens could connect to. This Law was passed, of course, only after the Federal Government spent tens of millions in subsidies under contract with the county to roll out universal fiber. So, now the county has to pay back all of that money having breached the contract, and after having spent it rolling out the infrastructure.
So yay, I get to keep my 1.5mbit DSL from AT&T, with no plans to ever upgrade. In fact, "never" was the word that AT&T used to describe to me the chances of ever seeing anything more than legacy ADSL.

Not sure "government run" is the answer by wcrowe · 2013-07-23 05:59 · Score: 1

Isn't already on par with other utilities like electricity, gas and water? It is where I live. It's run by a public company that has been given a monopoly, just like the electric company and gas company. In fact, there is actually some level of competition, because there is a choice between cable and DSL. Whatever the problem is, I don't think it is completely due to how the utility is organized.

--
Proverbs 21:19

Re:Population Density - VOTE PARENT UP! by rwise2112 · 2013-07-23 06:01 · Score: 1

Thank you! Someone finally gets it! When comparing countries, people often forget how FRIGGIN HUGE the United States is, and how much of that is empty space. Piping broadband into the middle of a desert or corn field is not cheap. If you compare on a state-by-state basis, I'm sure the denser northeastern states would rank much higher on the list.

The last table in TFA breaks down the top states. Vermont is the top with an avg. of 12.7 mb/s, and it only has 67 people/sq mi.

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"

Technology devolution by Alouster · 2013-07-23 06:01 · Score: 1

Trying to connect to the Internet in the USA is just the beginning of you pay more for less. As these large companies & banking institutions consume each other, evolving into giant monopolies that control the law through government lobby. They effect change from within, making competition simply impossible to compete in the US market place unless it is controlled by them in one form or another. Looking ahead, it doesn't get any brighter because they now control, view, listen to, analyze, and store all the data emitted from every source. Including sources that until a few years ago were considered imposable such as any movement outside from satellite monitoring, drones, street cameras, your home computer, your car, your home appliances, your neighbors, your doctor, your taxes, all purchases, dental records, your school, the police, the courts. Who would have thought that these large companies would have complete legal access to all these areas to invade our lives? So, now since these mega companies control all information, the law, and they are strictly financially driven. The devolution begins to roll rather quickly gathering more and more momentum as their legal and monetary growth flourishes. They grow financially from inside the very heart of the government itself. The offloading of costs and expenses are easily downloaded through the government onto the tax payer, and only the cream profit is taken. Leaving in their wake anything that is deemed as unprofitable to be tossed back the puppet government to further rape the unlimited resource of tax money provided by the people. We can expect the unthinkable to become more and more the norm because this takeover is so complete. So locked in. So unreversible. So immoral, that now the quick march to things like food control, air control, even life itself, and future generations going extinct is give over to these companies to extract as much cash as they legally can, and they will whealed their power mightily, unrelenting toward more profit regardless of the consequences. Paying head only to the laws that they control, and to profit that must be gained without any other considerations what so ever. They will consume everything unrelentingly drive by greed, having no moral, you can expect mass develution of everything you once thought was good. Very dark indeed...

How about not assuming I'm an American. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:04 · Score: 0

If I wanted my news outlet to assume I was an American I would watch Fox News.

Excuse me! by TheSpoom · 2013-07-23 06:04 · Score: 1

Paying more for less is an American tradition.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Re:Excuse me! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:32 · Score: 0

More like Person A paying more so that Person B can have something.
Urban Internet users pay a huge tax to subsidize rollout of infrastructure to rural users, who still don't have adequate access.
Re:Excuse me! by jd · 2013-07-23 06:49 · Score: 1

Not just American. The Fashion Industry uses it for both clothing lines and supermodels.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Std. "APK Challenge"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:12 · Score: 0

"Courageous downmodder" (not):Validly disprove my points I stated in my initial post you bogusly downmodded with valid computing technical facts.

You obviously can't so, thank-you for proving my point there too as usual & "good luck" - LMAO - you'd need MORE than that though (like a miracle) & you know it (as does anyone reading with 1/2 a brain) since your unjustified downmod is the "best you've got", lmao!

(Especially since so many of you "hit-n-run" downmodding trolls have tried, & failed @ it, miserably, literally 100's of times on this website forums alone (Which, yes, truly makes me laugh that all you have is technically unjustifiable downmods, but nothing to disprove my points of fact)).

* :)

There's NO combatting facts & truths trolls - accept it! I do, since the "best you've got" = hit & run downmods, & nothing more - EASILY proving my point on that note now as well!

APK

P.S.=> Don't worry IF I don't reply right away to your b.s. response (assuming you even have the balls to TRY one that is) - I will, once the STUPID "6 posts per day" /. restricts me to fades, trust me (and I will "SMOKE YOU" as always & to quote Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell from Star Trek TOS "I'll just keep getting stronger - you know that, don't you?" - the BEST part) & yes, others here see it anyhow, since most here browse WELL below the default bogus moderation view threshold set on us AC users here

... apk

Nationalization != Lower Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:18 · Score: 0

In fact, it will drive up cost, because nationalization and universal coverage will cost a goddamn fortune and never pay for itself.

This is what the "Free Internet" crowd doesn't understand. Nothing is free. It costs a fortune to roll out universal, 100Mbit Internet to rural populations. The result of that cost is that it cannot be cheap.

I could go on, but I know this is just going to fall on deaf ears.

ranking by beefoot · 2013-07-23 06:18 · Score: 1

If the ranking/studies is sponsored by the telcos in my country, Canada would be ranked 1.

Re:ranking by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-07-23 07:20 · Score: 1

Lol, actually if it was sponsored by the Canadian telcos they would rather nobody knew the internet existed.
But I am sure Canada is #1 for the cost of Cable TV and Home Phone services because we all know that someone living in Vancouver needs to subsidize having Cable TV infrastructure in Nunavut.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

let locals decide by k6mfw · 2013-07-23 06:23 · Score: 1

Some say USA is just too big but that's bankrupt reason. You don't need uniform highspeed across entire country. Some municipalities seek local funded highspeed internet for their small cities (i.e. towns people vote on local ordinance of small additional to property tax fund highspeed internet). Rather than coming up with a solution to solve entire state or county, they proceed with their own city. Or a local ISP provides highspeed, they are not that big to provide service for millions but for thousands (hey, can't wait for the big boys to provide so we'll have a local business). However, some of these proposals get shot down (i.e. local municipality accused of socialism). Or if a local ISP comes up with a fantastic system only to be squelched by goons from The Big Companies. Disclaimer: I'm not a broadband expert

--
mfwright@batnet.com

The Answer by deanklear · 2013-07-23 06:28 · Score: 2

The French rail operator SNCF told the California High-Speed Rail Authority that it could cut $30 billion off the projectâ(TM)s $68 billion estimated price tag. San Francisco can barely build underground light rail for the price that Tokyo pays for high-capacity subways. Los Angeles's planned subway to the sea will be a bit cheaper, but is still very expensive considering the area's lack of density.
The budgets for other types of urban public-works projects can be just as shocking. Who can forget Boston's Big Dig, the $24 billion highway boondoggle? But mass-transit networks stand to lose most from out-of-control infrastructure costs.
A huge part of the problem is that agencies can't keep their private contractors in check. Starved of funds and expertise for in-house planning, officials contract out the project management and early design concepts to private companies that have little incentive to keep costs down and quality up. And even when they know better, agencies are often forced by legislation, courts and politicians to make decisions that they know aren't in the public interest.

US Taxpayers Are Gouged on Mass Transit Costs

It's the same reason we pay 1 trillion per year for our military. The same millionaires who infest congress also infest massive corporations, and their goal is to make cash and get re-elected to keep the ponzi scheme going. The latest fad answer is privatization -- despite all the evidence to the contrary -- and privately held corporations love to continue furthering that myth because it's in their own interest. There's no reason for corporate owned media to report the truth either.

The actual answer is a few millennia old:

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

-Plato

But, per the norm, America prefers solutions that are cheap, easy, and completely inefficient if you consider anything beyond the next financial quarter. We are democratically lazy, and we pay dearly for our societal incompetence, in treasure as well as blood.

Re:The Answer by deanklear · 2013-07-23 06:35 · Score: 1

Also, it's 2013, Slashdot. A news site for nerds can't implement UTF? Get off your asses.

Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 06:39 · Score: 0

If you compare the size of the US over the eight other countries with faster internet connections, it becomes obvious why the US is lagging. The eight countries faster than the US are much, much smaller and have much denser populations.

Now, how did this study make it on /. anyway??? This 'study' is an embarrassment.

It is extremely simple. by jd · 2013-07-23 06:48 · Score: 1

Picture this. The Federal Government buys up dark fibre, or lays new fibre, such that there is a "Tier Zero" multi-path network between significant population centres regardless of State boundaries. Tier 1 ISPs can hook into this but the Government's networking is transparent so ISPs can't charge for traffic distance. Tier 1 ISPs aren't obliged to do so, though, and in either case this would not alter any peering agreement between Tier 1 providers. All it would do is provide extra stability, extra bandwidth and extra reach (Tier 1 ISPs could, via such a Tier Zero network, form peer-to-peer agreements even when a hostile Tier 1 geographically isolated the two).

Extra stability would cut Tier 1 costs (fast maintenance costs money, this would buy time for the Tier 1 to make quality repairs rather than cheap, natty repairs) but this would require the Government to charge for "diverted traffic" in a way that would make it cost-prohibitive to simply use the Government network and ignore their own but cost-effective as a way of handling the bursts the Tier 1s can't cope with without expensive upgrades. That's not getting support, that's becoming a parasite.

State Governments would then be allocated money specifically to connect schools, colleges, universities and accredited research centers (or to boost speeds where connections exist, or to offset costs if the speed is perfectly fine), and to build metropolitan mesh networks (at the wired and wireless levels) with support for Mobile IP (since users can be expected to move from node to node). This need not affect ISPs, as most of their customers are in the suburbs/sprawls anyway and the cost of laying down or replacing high-end hardware under city roads is going to be high enough that the profits there will be eaten into very quickly. What it does do is free up ISPs to reach customers further out where access has traditionally been poor. Not that they will, but they could. Customer-level ISPs wanting to remain in cities because they can add value would obviously be able to.

Virtually everything would remain private, except for those areas where individual companies don't have the means and/or motive to do the job right.

The level of security doesn't change, since the ISPs are all pwned by the NSA, you wouldn't get coast-to-coast disconnects due to a single fibre being cut by accident, and a city-wide mesh would speed up access to local information. Government would do what it does best and industry would do what it does best. So, naturally, everyone would complain.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

To Survive: No, To Compete: Yes by Araes · 2013-07-23 06:55 · Score: 1

You don't need internet to survive, not going to argue. However, in the modern world, to be a competetive, contributing member of society, you do need internet to be on a leveled field of competetition. Most services are transitioning to a model where it is far easier and far less costly to you to gain their benefit with internet access.

For example, other utilities.

I pay my water, sewer, electricity, and gas over the internet. I don't have to, but it vastly reduces the opportunity cost in time to me. However, people without internet are not given this choice. They Must stand in line for upwards of an hour in under-staffed cattle corals to hand someone a $50 check. That is an hour they had to take off work or that they could have been spending on themselves. Multiply that by the array of gov't services which are moving to primarily internet based access, and the opportunity cost to individuals without internet is vast. And this doesn't even touch those services which are nearly, or utterly, inaccessible without internet. Those are simply lost.

The internet is a common good, like roads, which is not necessary for survival, but which should be a universal benefit to all of society

Re:To Survive: No, To Compete: Yes by Sarten-X · 2013-07-23 07:12 · Score: 1

But you don't need fast Internet access, though. Dial-up might be too slow to be mentioned today, but low-end DSL is still available across practically the whole country. Stuck in the hands of politicians, I'd expect improvement plans to roll around once every few years when elections are coming up, then be quickly forgotten when budgets are due. We'd have the same crappy service we do now, but with extra bureaucracy.
In fact, it is much like local water services. My home town's water system spent 20 years with usage restrictions each summer, because no politician wanted to be responsible for the expense of upgrades. It wasn't until a private company built a new facility and donated a whole new pump system and water tower that the upgrade finally happened. What we had

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:To Survive: No, To Compete: Yes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:41 · Score: 0

Sounds like your city should have been setting a fire under the mayor. My city Mayor is a locally born 24 year old Business graduate with a minor in IT that started his own computer business when he was 15 and still runs it. He's been doing a pretty good job of things.

He's been working with the 120 year old family owned telephone company to get fiber to the entire city. Charter can't do crap. You should have seen the line of people returning their cable equipment at the local Charter office when I went to turn in my modem.
Re:To Survive: No, To Compete: Yes by Araes · 2013-07-24 02:11 · Score: 1

You're trading one for the other. Politicians don't want to do it, as they're beholden to their constituents. Businesses don't want to do it, as they're either behold to shareholders, or would rather deliver the minimum service that will still make a profit. Anecdotal evidence of "kind" companies doesn't disprove that the majority are still AT&T's and Comcast's who are less than benevolent.

What is the first step? by turkeyfish · 2013-07-23 07:07 · Score: 2

"For those who favor the idea of Internet service as a government-run utility, what do you see as the best-case scenario for such a system?"

The first place to start is by voting out all republicans and tea party types, as otherwise you are never going to pass laws that permit the internet to be run as a government run utility. The modern republican party simply doesn't believe in the concept of government. They would prefer to live in a state of nihilism that reverts to a feudal system, in which the 1% rule and everyone else is a serf. In their minds the only people that count are corporate people.

As far a government utilities go, Jefferson County, WA recently took over the production of electricity, which resulted in a significant reduction in my bill. Presently, I pay Comcast about $75/month for internet, pay CableOne $50/month for my other residence in Mississippi. If both were run as public utilities, I suspect I would probably pay about half that amount for the roughly the same service, since the top management in a public utility doesn't need to pay 7 figure salaries to the CEO and other corporate officers nor to they need to waste money advertising, which would save me having to watch at least a few commercials on TV.

Go back to north korea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 07:25 · Score: 0

you sociaism-loving animal! they are #1 in internet speed!

Last superpower? by Tough+Love · 2013-07-23 07:40 · Score: 1

Forgot about China, did we?

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:Last superpower? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-25 11:10 · Score: 0

Carefully pretending China's manufacturing base isn't capable of cranking out 100,000 fighter planes the way the now vanished US manufacturing base did for WWII.

What do I see? by g0bshiTe · 2013-07-23 07:42 · Score: 1

For those who favor the idea of Internet service as a government-run utility, what do you see as the best-case scenario for such a system?

I see the same thing we currently have, paying more for less.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Re:Vemont's Rating, Ruined By Shentel by Austerity+Empowers · 2013-07-23 09:01 · Score: 1

Because of heat and dry conditions, I believe Texas' DSL is throttled by the government to ensure internet speeds stay cool and slow. I'm not sure what else justifies the ATT/TimeWarner blockage that we endure, maybe fear of the porns...

Re:Land area or population density by tragedy · 2013-07-23 09:06 · Score: 1

If you account for land area, or population density, the U.S. is at (or near) the top of the list

Naturally you have an analysis of the data to support this theory rather than just a blind assertion, right?

Latvia by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:19 · Score: 0

Well, I live in that "economic powerhouse Latvia" I pay ~30$ for 100 Mbps up/down, no caps, fiber. The average speed probably is that low because alot of people consider 10 Mbps fast enough. In most cities you can get 100 Mbps (probably even 200 Mbps) fiber. Though we have a big problem with 4G, because some frequencies are used by digital TV and others are in hands of people that just sit on them (probably got them not quite legally) and will only sell them to mobile service providers for a sum that is not worth (small country) it.

Multitask a Utility Tunnel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:27 · Score: 0

Just thread 150million fibers into Elon Musk's Transit Loop tunnel. That ought to make it cheap enough.

Best Case: Greenlight by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 09:39 · Score: 0

The best case would probably be Greenlight (http://www.greenlightnc.com/) in Wilson, NC. However, government legislation lobbied for by ISPs would probably keep that from happening too many times in too many places.

...and funded through equitable taxation...... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 10:49 · Score: 0

la la la....and funded through *equitable* taxation....la la la

Equitable to/by whom ?

Yes, a government takeover is the solution by J'raxis · 2013-07-23 11:10 · Score: 1

Because our public electric grid is such a shining example of modernity, right?

--
Liberty in your lifetime

Also the super power troll by aliquis · 2013-07-23 12:12 · Score: 1

Also what's up with the super power stuff? I assume it's just there to turn this news item into more of a story.

Personally I think China will be a super power not long from now. They are growing economically and they are many. Simple as that.

The bigoted truth is that by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 12:48 · Score: 0

people with college educations tend to trust (worship) the government for everything. Even when these people with college educations become lampshades (human nature trumps Godwin, sorry) they will still continue to trust government. It is loyalty to an ideology that survives even death. This is how Karl Marx rules from the grave.

--
Manage a payroll? WTF? That is why I spent X years and $Y to earn Z plaques on the wall so I can use that ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY to get paid like I manage a payroll. That is unsustainable.

Its good enough for our size by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-23 13:04 · Score: 0

I don't think there is a need to provide broadband to everyone. It's too expensive and the US is very big compared to other countries that aren't as dispersed

2nd-world problems by yusing · 2013-07-23 13:55 · Score: 1

The US has increasingly been facing second-world problems for several decades, since Reagan. That suggests that our "superpower" is flowing through a second-world infrastructure. Good luck finding engineers to disagress with that assessment.

Most of the first-world countries are now limited to a small region of northern Europe.

--

"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

Jesus. by poofmeisterp · 2013-07-24 01:38 · Score: 1

The U.S. is also a greedy rich asshole-growing location where said rich own the businesses that provide Internet service - the whole idea is to take transport media that has so much bandwidth capability it makes your head spin and word it as if said media is SO CLOGGED (OMG OMG) that everyone has to pay tons of money for this RARE bandwidth.

G.R.E.E.D.

I'm shocked the placement number isn't increasing quarterly.

We? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 01:55 · Score: 0

WTF is that now? slashdot.us?

GTFO

Size of the Country vs Rank on List by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-24 07:50 · Score: 0

It is simply a matter of size and money to rebuild the lines. Largest Countries by size(area):

1.Russia: 17,075,200 km2 (6,591,027 mi2)
2.Canada: 9,984,670 km2 (3,854,082 mi2)
3.United States: 9,631,418 km2 (3,717,727 mi2)
4.China: 9,596,960 km

County size vs rank on chart:
1. South Korea 99,678 km2
2. Japan 377,915 km2
3. Hong Kong 1,104 km2
4. Switzerland 41,285 km2
5. Netherlands 41,543 km2
6. Latvia 64,589 km2
7. Czech Republic 78,867 km2
8. Sweden 450,000 km2
Total size of the countries above(1-8 on Internet Speed Chart):
1,154,981 km2 (8.339027222 times less than #9)
9. United States: 9,631,418 km2 (3,717,727 mi2)

Thats a whole lot of line to run.

Works Cited:
http://geography.about.com/od/countryinformation/a/bigcountries.htm
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/countries_by_area.htm
http://www.xconomy.com/national/2013/07/23/were-number-9-u-s-slips-in-internet-connection-ranking/

The Numbers by deanklear · 2013-07-25 04:38 · Score: 1

Top cost estimated cost for to the home in Australia: $3500 per residence (more spread out, should be lower than this).
30 year Municipal AAA bond rate: 4.35%
Cost per household per month: $17.42

If the Fed loaned counties money at the same rate they charge banks: 0.75%
Cost per household per month: $10.86

That doesn't take into account the economic benefits, or the idea that you just charge Comcast or AT&T a base rate of $10-15 per month to use the government fiber. The math isn't hard. The problem is that our nation is a failed state.

Socialism! by cavebison · 2013-07-25 10:01 · Score: 1

It’s a perplexing problem that has led some to call for Internet access to be treated as a public utility

How can anyone suggest something so un-American!

Not economically viable by rhalstead · 2013-07-26 15:58 · Score: 1

The US is far larger with a much lower average population. I would think that for the US to out pace most of them would make the cost per customer and in total, far more than these other countries. We'd have a difficult time justifying the cost per customer just for bragging rights. I'll admit having a 100 Mbs connection, although you won't see near that during prime time. I ran a test and made 60 Mbs download and only 2.3 Mbs upload at roughly 10:30 PM local. I think, but will have to test to be sure that it's considerably slower around 8:00 or 9:00 PM. The government already has too much of a view of the citizens. Them running the net would be worse than the cloud and with the cloud they claim any information you put on servers other than your own the govt says they have free access to it.

Slashdot Mirror

We're Number 9! US Broadband Speeds Rise, But Slower Than Many Other Countries'

355 comments