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)."

Comments

How can the situation be improved?

[fustakrakich]

Competition... From the government, if necessary. Let's put our tax dollars to work for us for a change.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not competition, it's service. The government is meant to serve the people, and sometimes that means providing utilities for the public, with the public's input and desires accommodated.

As long as we keep private enterprise from buying up the regulations anyway.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[Taco Cowboy]

It's not competition, it's service

Say what ??

Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, US used to be the top country in the world in term of broadband competition.

I was one of the many thousands who were pulling cables in order to hook up the communities - and then the government stepped in, and gave the telco / cable operator the rights over others - which leads to what we have today, a scene where competition has been artificially choked off, and the country has suffered for it !

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[Cimexus]

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.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[antifoidulus]

Yup, the government should step in when private industry is either unwilling or unable to provide essential services at a reasonable cost, the keywords being essential and reasonable. Case in point roads.

The macroeconomic costs of having all roads be private would be huge. There would be a lot of lost productivity(not to mention fuel wastage) just on the collection of tolls. And of course anyone who owns property anywhere could find themselves at the mercy of a private interest who can essentially blackmail them by cutting off access to their home or business. Another example of an essential service where the government should, and in most rich places in the world, has intervened is insurance. The fact that the US pays so much more for getting so much less than countries with private health care systems has shown that private industry is either unwilling or unable to provide insurance at reasonable cost, and thus it must be taken away from them. Same with broadband, if US providers don't prove they are capable of *gasp* actually providing a decent service at a decent price then the government should step in. Broadband is in the new economy an "essential service", essentially the "roads" of the internet.

The classic straw man argument is of course "well then why doesn't the government run food stores? Everyone needs food!". While this is true, food retailing(not really going to go into production, which is a separate story) is actually one of the most competitive industries in the US. Competition forces companies to provide decent service at very low margins(1-2% in some cases). If the broadband industry were more like the food distribution industry then we wouldn't even have to discuss a government take-over.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[cold fjord]

You've just noted that there is an existing infrastructure, and it is common to live off of existing infrastructure until forced to move off it. To that I will add that if I recall correctly, 10 years ago 90% of the optical fiber that existed was dark - there wasn't enough demand for it due to overbuilding in previous years. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with the leisurely pace in adding both capacity and speed.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's not competition, it's service. The government is meant to serve the people, and sometimes that means providing utilities for the public, with the public's input and desires accommodated.

As long as we keep private enterprise from buying up the regulations anyway.

Arguably, 'internet access' can be broken down into two (broad) components, one a fairly natural 'utility' and one much easier to build a functional marketplace for.

The last-mile bit pipe between your house and whatever the local aggregation point is is, like most 'utilities' strongly inclined toward being a natural monopoly. Not as bad as something like roads(where running multiple competing roads simply wouldn't fit, in most cases); but between the cost and the disruption of laying additional runs, there is very, very strong pressure toward a sharply limited number of, typically incumbent, wireline players, with maybe a feeble wireless competitor that is compelling if you use under 5GB a month.

Once you hit the aggregation point, though, anything that flows over IP can, relatively easily, be offered for hookup to your pipe. Cheap residential ISPs, fancier offerings with loads of static IPs and symmetric bandwidth, assorted VOIP and video offerings, anything you can shove down a pipe.

Keeping the connection between me and the aggregation point installed, maintained, and lit seems like a perfectly sensible function for either the local municipality, or a suitably-tamed contract operator(It's a matter of pragmatism and local choice whether the work be done by municipal employees or an outside firm; but natural monopolies are to be kept on very short leashes). Once you hit the aggregation point, though, the more the merrier. Subscribing or unsubscribing is just a few ruleset changes, so can be fairly frictionless, and this avoids any...potentially unseemly....favor or disfavor by the municipal government toward specific content or services. They just keep the lights on, you buy what you want, or nothing at all(though, even if you buy nothing, it might well be cost-effective for the municipality itself to still offer access to its own site, emergency services contacts, etc. to residents, since traffic on the LAN costs near zero.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[Camael]

Yup, the government should step in when private industry is either unwilling or unable to provide essential services at a reasonable cost, the keywords being essential and reasonable.

The reverse sadly is true today. Local governments, likely under the influence of paid lobbyists working for existing corporate/telco interests, are actively writing laws to block the spread of broadband. Read for yourself the story of how the Kansas Legislature is trying to stop Google Fiber from expanding in Kansas.

Best part is: the Senate bill states that the goal is to

"encourage the development and widespread use of technological advances in providing video, telecommunications and broadband services at competitive rates; and ensure that video, telecommunications and broadband services are each provided within a consistent, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory federal, state and local government framework."

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just noted that there is an existing infrastructure, and it is common to live off of existing infrastructure until forced to move off it. To that I will add that if I recall correctly, 10 years ago 90% of the optical fiber that existed was dark - there wasn't enough demand for it due to overbuilding in previous years. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with the leisurely pace in adding both capacity and speed.

Bingo. The ISP I work for isn't looking at laying new fiber in trenches, what we're looking at is upgrading the equipment on either end. There are plenty of situations where an existing fiber pair can carry 10x or 100x more data simply by putting better optics on it, but that shit isn't cheap. Then you have to figure that Carrier-grade routers and switches also need to be upgraded, and those things can get really fucking expensive. And all the internal bandwidth in the world won't do your customer jack shit if you can't find peering/transit partners who are willing to increase the capacity at the handoff points without charging a shitload of money.

Sure, more fiber is better, but it's only a small part of the overall picture.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[alen]

yeah, but if pay $20 a month for internet you should upgrade all that like yesterday so netflix can send 50mbps blu ray quality streams to me

Re: How can the situation be improved?

[AudioEfex]

Cute. Who the hell gets high speed Internet for $20/mo? Most of us are stuck with cable, which costs far more than that. Even though I don't live in the sticks, DSL is not an option available to me because I'm between two stations. And even where DSL is an option, it's speed is unreliable and not great to begin with. So I have two choices - Time Warner, or EarthLink - which just resells...Time Warner. The problem is the cable companies being in control of the majority of the broadband services in the country. They want to keep up the status quo and everyone in the dark ages as long as possible. The entire industry is anti-competitive to begin with, we should have a slew of cable providers to choose from, but we don't because they grease so many palms in Washington. They get to be anti-competitive like a utility (I can't change water or sewer companies, either) but don't have the same restrictions and other controls to keep them from overcharging for their services.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[Concerned Onlooker]

"Do you pay to drive from one end of a WalMart parking lot to the other? It's private. Why aren't there any tolls?"

Two thoughts on that.

1. They don't charge tolls because they don't want to irritate potential customers.
2. The are charging a toll. It's built into the cost of their products.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys aren't that bad, you just can't compete with Europe or Asia (how should you? the US is quite bigger and harder to lay down fiber)

That is a bit of strange myth. Apart from central US perhaps being a bit empty many states are comparable to European nations.
Take for example California, it is just marginally smaller than Sweden and approximately the same shape. With four times the population one would think that the internet should be faster, cheaper or at least comparable.
It is all just politics.

Re: How can the situation be improved?

[evilviper]

"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.

Re:How can the situation be improved?

[sjames]

A property owner's association eh? If only there was some slightly larger public body that could provide broadband internet strictly for the benefit of it's members rather than for profit. Perhaps it could feature democratically elected managers. Of course it would have to collect dues from each resident in the area somehow.

You know, that's starting to sound a lot like local government.

Meanwhile horror and comedy stories about HOAs are legion.

Re: How can the situation be improved?

[rastos1]

Who the hell gets high speed Internet for $20/mo?

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.

Re: How can the situation be improved?

[AmiMoJo]

Who the hell gets high speed Internet for $20/mo?

Japan. Korea. Eastern Europe. Even some western European countries give you pretty good speeds for $20/month, with no cap.

Apologists will point to differences in population density, geography, history and so forth, but the simple fact is that the US is being raped by ISPs. The UK is in the same situation, if it makes you feel any better.

Re: How can the situation be improved?

[Rasit]

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.

Re: How can the situation be improved?

[Ex-MislTech]

Correct the US does not even place in the top 20 internet connection world wide anymore.

Mostly due to greed of US Telcos which is obvious after you read about them stealing
$300 billion in tax payer money like the thieves that they are.

http://www.newnetworks.com/bro...

Why Is US Broadband So Slow?

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: corporate greed.

Big picture remedy

[oldhack]

Cut down the biggest branch of our government - the lobbying industry.

I could be wrong, but...

[The Grim Reefer]

Didn't we give the telecoms a shitload of money during the Clinton years to build out high speed internet?

Re:I could be wrong, but...

[symbolset]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu...

Re:govt enforces the monopoly. Want govt monopoly?

[TheGratefulNet]

you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Government.

I have issues with them, too; but I'd rather a non-corporate entity build out and even own our infrastructure than profitmongers!

roads, water, electricity, bridges: all were started by government and that was the major funder. we would not have postal system and roads 'to everywhere' if the decision was left to the profiteering ones.

infrastructure is one of the things goverments do best.

as for your bullshit distraction about how well congress works, that's neither here nor there nor part of any thread on this topic. sheesh.

Why do we keep asking this question?

[SeaFox]

This has been covered 2-3 times in the last year already, and the answers aren't going to change.
Corporate greed is the overwhelming reason.
Lack of necessary infrastructure is the other. But then that's because there is no system upgrading being done because of -- corporate greed.

Instead of having the same discussions about the problem, a more productive discussion would be about how to solve the issue and steps people can take to actually realize those solutions.

Re:Why do we keep asking this question?

[buddyglass]

Corporate greed is the overwhelming reason.

This doesn't work as an explanation because corporations in countries other than the U.S. (with faster speeds) are also greedy. So corporate greed isn't the cause per se. It may be necessary, but its not sufficient.

Re:Why do we keep asking this question?

[AnalogDiehard]

This doesn't work as an explanation because corporations in countries other than the U.S. (with faster speeds) are also greedy. So corporate greed isn't the cause per se. It may be necessary, but its not sufficient.

Other countries don't have lobbying loopholes where corporations can buy their own laws or have the issues with regulatory capture that the US does.

Municipal Fiber

[worldthinker]

The best way is to allow cities and counties to create municipal fiber utilities that provide uniform and universal access of its citizens to ISP's. Municipalities can require multiple ISP's to service the city providing service level and price competition. The capital outlay for the fiber infrastructure is born by the city/county and is capitalized in use fees. Cities would set SLA standards for customer service response and repair times. Penalties for non-compliance and the right to replace ISP's that don't perform.

We would get the fastest and most robust internet connections available on the planet. We would get TV and phone service bundled on one wire. We would get lower monthly bills.

Re:it's not that slow

[RR]

i'm 40 and have seen the internet grow up and settle for the cheaper plans. i'm at 20/2 now

why do i need to pay for super fast internet?

The point is that the super fast Internet is way too expensive. You're fine with 20/2 now, but if you could have 100/100 for the same price, would you stick with 20/2?

Not everything is publish-subscribe. I want to be able to set up storage boxes in friends' houses or the cloud or whatever, so I can have off-site backups of my data. I want to be able to play with various decentralized communications programs. Some people your age are starting to have grandkids. It would be nice to talk to them in HD, like those science fictions of the 21st Century were saying we would be able to do.

Don't worry about what you'd use the bandwidth for. If you have bandwidth, eventually you'll find a use for it.

Re:national franchise rights and debt

[symbolset]

Here is a heartwarming story. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu...

The tradgedy of the comms

[TapeCutter]

Yes, as with the "tradgedy of the commons" the network is by it's very nature a shared resource which means everyone wants to use it but nobody wants to pay for it. In the early 90's, many western governments (eg: UK/AU) sold their public phone networks to private investors. Here in Oz that resulted in the two major telcos rolling out two fibre (pay TV) networks covering the profitable suburbs of the major cities and nowhere else.

I had both hooked up and several months of free pay TV since they were both running at a loss to attract customers with "free trials", I also tripled the money I paid for 1000 shares in the initial government prospectus. The major telco who inherited the copper from the government was forced to split the business into wholesale and retail companies. The retail end was supposed to compete on a level playing field with other retailers, ( which going by the plethora of independent ISP's we have today is one part of the sell off that seemed to work rather well). Now we have gone full circle and are building a single publically funded fibre network under the banner "NBN" which started off as "FTTP for everyone" but has now been trimmed to "FTTN for most". The NBN basically owns and maintains the network and will charge retailers a usage fee.

In other words, after a 20yr lead, private enterprise has failed to deliver the infrastructure that the government is now attempting to build. For now most people outside the middle class suburbs (or living in a flat/unit) are on DSL over the original (government built) copper network. My hope for the next 20yrs is that they can claw back that taxpayer investment from the private companies who will profit from the new "free market" that the infrastructure will provide.