Slashdot Mirror
Why Is US Broadband So Slow?
phantomfive writes "Verizon has said they will not be digging new lines any time soon. Time-Warner's cash flow goes towards paying down debt, not laying down fiber. AT&T is doing everything they can to slow deployment of Google fiber. How can the situation be improved? Mainly by expediting right-of-way access, permits, and inspections, according to Andy Kessler. That is how Google was able to afford to lay down fiber in Austin, and how VTel was able to do it in Vermont (gigabit connections for $35 a month)."
This article is in the Wall Street journal. That's suspicious right there. Of course they'd find a way to blame government regulation and interference for the problem, rather than abuse of government power to form and support monopolies.
I'm not saying their point is completely without merit. But I tend to think other factors exert more influence over why we have such relatively slow Internet service.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Agreed - more competition is needed.
I moved here to the US from Australia last year. While speeds in Australia are nothing spectacular, we did have a LOT of choice when it came to ISPs. In Australia, in a mid-sized city (~350,000 people), there was a choice of 20-30 ISPs (ADSL2+, VDSL2 or in some areas, fibre). Here in the US, in a similarly-sized city, I have a choice of precisely one provider (the local cable monopoly).
Ok that's not entirely true - I also have AT&T DSL as a choice, at a whopping maximum speed of 6 Mbps down / 512 kbps up. But really, that's a non-option - it costs roughly the same and is 10 times slower than cable. (That upstream speed in particular is ridiculous in the year 2014 ... no idea why they don't use ADSL2+ with Annex M or similar tech to boost that up to 1-2 Mbps at least ... but I digress)
Having at least just a couple more options for ISPs would help, you'd think. With the vast majority of people in the US having only one or two choices of provider, what incentive do those providers have to improve their product? They have a captive customer base who literally have nowhere else to turn.
Didn't we give the telecoms a shitload of money during the Clinton years to build out high speed internet?
Here is a heartwarming story. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Too bad "Basic Broadband" as classified by the FCC is a minimum of 4mbps down and 1mbps up. "Upto" 2mbps isn't even close.
"Broadband" means multiple signal on the same wire. It's the opposite of baseband, like ethernet.
The FCC might just as well define "Basic Broadband" as "a box of cookies"... It's just that stupid.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Me. I pay 15€/month for 100Mbps down 10Mbps up over fiber in east Europe country. Another 6€ for TV and phone delivered on the same connection. The rest of the life here sucks, but that internet connection is great.
20 mbps/$76mo. Steadily increases. It started out $20 for first 6 mos, then $50 something after that, 5 years later in the same apartment it's ~$76 with nothing but internet.
Because just going to their web page is hard ...
http://ny-offer.aiprx.timewarn...
You're such a lazy fuck.
Thats $15 for 2Mbps down / 1Mbps up... My internet provider here in Sweden don't event have something that slow.
My mobile phone is 60Mb down / 10 Mb up on a good day, 20Mb down 3-4Mb up on a bad day. Unlimited data.
The US has serious issues.