Submitted by The reason the United States lags many countries in both speed and affordability, according to people who study the issue, has nothing to do with technology. Instead, it is an economic policy problem – the lack of competition in the broadband industry.
Nothing like a new article pointing out what the average person here has known for many years. Unfortunately nothing is going to be done about it either. If anything it will only get worse, and in many places it already is. Just one of the many ways we get fleeced here. Not surprising considering politicians, law, and (regulatory) policy makers are for sale to the highest bidder.
I think Google Fiber might have something to say about that. I’m on TWC, and got a boost from 20gb to 100gb for $0, just because GF is coming to my area. Competition is a good thing
Google Fiber is only available in a few cities. Their future expansion map only counts 9 total potential candidate cities. Meaning, if you live somewhere that actually has Google Fiber, GREAT! You are one of the lucky few in the extreme minority. For the rest of us, it’s getting fleeced as usual by our local/regional monopoly or duopoly.. That’s sad considering I live in a city with major technology companies, aerospace, (e)commerce, medical, banking, and etc etc.. While not completely related, we’ve been hosting an internet2 hub for years.
It seems like everything else in this country is nothing more than a money-grab these days, why should ISP’s be any different?
It seems like everything else in this country is nothing more than a money-grab these days, why should ISP’s be any different?
SO TRUE!!
Replace ‘country’ by ‘world’…
Yeah, it’s crisis, yet some people haven’t earned that much nowadays and sharing profits/bonuses no man could imagine possible.
But see over there, terrorism, ebola, starvation, let’s spread some FUD to keep those pesky citizens quiet while we steal them.
Kochise
So simple, so obvious, so true. And unlikely to change with congressional leaders voting as directed by the money power of business lobbyists rather than in the nation’s interest.
See also Canada. The “competition” up here owns an NHL hockey team together in Toronto amongst other things (citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_Sports_%26_Entertainmen…). The regulatory board (CRTC) who’s supposed to oversee telecommunications here is entirely captured.
But hey, no collusion, and please disregard all those studies indicating we’re paying too much for too little service. And those usage caps are there to help you!
that’s the biggest problem here. Low population density and headaches with retrofitting existing areas is a barrier here when it comes to traditional wired networks. And yes, entrenched companies do also fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo so they can make the most money possible while investing the least amount possible.
The explosion of the size of web pages in the past few years and of course cross site scripting and poor advertising servers doesn’t help the situation much either.
bnolsen,
Theoretically that’d make sense, however the lack of investment seems just as pervasive in populous areas. That’s what the lack of competition does.
Cablevision has a strong monopoly out here in NY. As recently as 2013 we were looking forward to Verizon Fios coming into town…eventually. My inlaws have it and it blows cablevision’s service away, but Verizon made a statement 2013/14 that they didn’t intend to grow the Fios network into non-verizon turf. What a disappointment that incumbents are more than happy not competing. Not surprising though, existing ISPs make more money by not competing with one another.
Anyways, Cablevision charges $60/mo for “up to” 15/5. My parents have a different monopoly with Armstrong in Pennsylvania: $60/mo for 30/3. BTW these are internet-only packages, with no other services.
I’m ok with download speeds, but upload can be disappointing. The highest package for Armstrong is 100/5 for $150/mo. Cablevision’s highest package offers 100/35 for $110/mo (*unclear if this price requires other bundled services). On top of this if you want a static IP with unfiltered ports, Cablevision charges $30/mo and I think it’s $20/mo for Armstrong.
Anyone in Europe and elsewhere able to offer a comparison?
Edit: Forgot to mention, Armstrong this year implemented a 150GB cap. Cablevision doesn’t publish a limit. Though not available to me, fios apparently stands behind it’s “unlimited” packages:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/fios-customer…
Edited 2014-11-04 22:18 UTC
I’m paying about $115/month (incl. “modem rental fee”) for 50/20 and home phone service. About a month ago I inquired what my internet service would cost if I dumped the home phone. I was told without the home phone “bundle” the would be “a little over $100/month”. HORRIBLE. Obviously they know the home phone isn’t worth jack anymore since everyone uses cell phones now. The landline is just something they threw on to make me feel better about being raped.
During that phone call I was told my rates are going to be going up $5-$7 soon. When I asked why, I was told it’s just “the usual rate increase”. I then asked what expansions or upgrades they have planned for my area that increase is supposed to pay for. Their reply, “there are no expansions or upgrades coming to your area”.
It’s hard to discuss this subject without getting completely pissed. Providers openly admit they’re in no rush to invest but have long-term scheduled rate hikes planned. To rub salt in that wound, the people who are supposed to be looking out for us, the consumers/little guy, only seem interested in solidifying the fleecing even further.
ilovebeer,
What region & ISP?
Yea, nobody’s really keeping these guys honest.
From what I’ve read, municipal ISP services are cheaper while offering much higher speeds since the municipal services just need to cover costs and never need to siphon money away for profits. Does anyone here actually have municipal internet? How is it?
Seems every time a city considers doing it, they face legal battles. Many cities have been banned from offering municipal internet to the public:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-wo…
Edited 2014-11-05 05:38 UTC
I’m using CenturyLink in the greater Seattle area.
I wasn’t up on those battles but after reading a little about it, I’m even more pissed. There’s seemingly nothing we as the public/consumers can do about it either that doesn’t include relocating.
Seattle? Is that partly why there’s some affinity with you toward Redmond?
Ultimately, low population density seems just a bad excuse in the case of US – Nordic countries have population densities ~half that of the US…
Known fact of life in the states, it’s very true.
I live in a very populated area and have had exactly 1 choice for wired broadband into my house for over 10 years now.
They charge about $80/month for 15 down, 2 up!
That comes through the coaxial cable. They won’t even include basic television without another $20/month. If you want to watch most sports or movies it’s another $20/month.
Much of this can be blamed on the Communications Act of 1996, one of the biggest mistakes Bill Clinton ever made. It’s also the primary reason our FM radio is a wasteland of sex and country music and our AM radio is conservative propaganda.
“Sex music”?