dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1886
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

Short version is that the US and other developed countries spend less of their income on broadband than many places with cheaper prices.

The price of broadband is dropping around the world when it is measured as a percentage of GNI per capita. And yes, even in the US. And it is amongst the cheapest in the U.S., Austria, Monaco, Macau (China), and Liechtenstein. Most industrial countries are spending about 1% of the income per person on broadband. Developing countries prices are cheaper, but they make MUCH less income, so still can't afford broadband.

Story:
»news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-200639···1_3-0-20

Full report:
»www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/ipb/
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88


HappyAnarchy

@iauq.com
I didn't really think european countries wages were that low. I certainly can't imagine the average income of poeple in Paris is substantially lower than major cities in the US anyways.

Certainly comparing with South Korea and the like is a bit crazy, but that still puts us behind.


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Short version is that the US and other developed countries spend less of their income on broadband than many places with cheaper prices.

The price of broadband is dropping around the world when it is measured as a percentage of GNI per capita. And yes, even in the US. And it is amongst the cheapest in the U.S., Austria, Monaco, Macau (China), and Liechtenstein. Most industrial countries are spending about 1% of the income per person on broadband. Developing countries prices are cheaper, but they make MUCH less income, so still can't afford broadband.

Story:
»news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-200639···1_3-0-20

Full report:
»www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/ipb/

Nice try at deflecting and obscuring the real topic here. All you are showing is that people will purchase what they think they can afford in relation to the bandwidth they need for doing what they need to do right now.

We are truly a sorry lot here in the US compared to the type of service you can get in Europe, even in the "boonies". While they work to improve their infrastructure, especially where data is concerned, we just "Pete the Puma" whistle along with our hands in our patched overalls watching the Europeans and the rest of the world laugh at us from the high speed train going past us...

Wipe the drool off your chin and wake up to the fact that high speed Internet service is no longer a luxury in the 21st century economy. If we are going to compete rather than slide off the tracks into the ditch, we need to get on the ball!

JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


HaloFans

join:2006-12-18
reply to FFH5
Doesn't explain that the ISPs are nickel and diming their customers.

You are giving them excuses to not improve their infrastructure.

This is why the US's Internet is terrible.

The politicians take the money (and other mystery benefits) from lobbyists, and the big corporations continue to charge more. In the end, it's the customers who did nothing that are paying more.

You give a thumbs up that people are bending over and taking it.

Mission accomplished.


JasonOD

@comcast.net
reply to coldmoon
Sorry lot?!? (lol). Every broadband company in Europe that's been interfered with, forced to line-share, or otherwise tasted EU regulation would love to have a business environment like we have in the US.

While it might seem like some of the EU countries are ahead of us short term, those companies serving them won't be able to sustain infrastructure gains and momentum long term without EU taxpayer support. In short, they're going to get fed up.


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 recommendation

said by JasonOD :

Sorry lot?!? (lol). Every broadband company in Europe that's been interfered with, forced to line-share, or otherwise tasted EU regulation would love to have a business environment like we have in the US. ...

...and I bet the same could be said for the electrical companies at the turn of the 20th century or MA Bell later on - same arguments, just dusted off a little and re-presented because none are expected to be able to remember their history.

The only "problem" I see is where the window to extract excessive profits is concerned. As we go forward, this window is going to become ever smaller with a shorter life-span. Better to get on the train now than wait to try and catch up in the future when you are forced to move or be left at the side of the tracks... OR implement the regulations even your short-sightedness should know is coming sooner or later.

JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 recommendation

reply to HaloFans
The whole infrastructure in the US is crumbling. Watch the "Inspector America" series on History channel, I believe. While it would cost hundreds of billions to fix it, we do not have the money, since we spend it for stupid wars on behalf of oil companies and the defense of Israel.

Wake the hell up.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to JasonOD
Correct! In fact they already have received massive subsidy.
It is a differance between our govt and the role of govt's in the euro zone.
Taxes there are massively higher, but a great deal of the extra is put into "public" infrasturture, telcom/rail/highways/public health/retirement-pension plans.
It really shows the different mindsets of
there- for the greater good of most the group
here- for the individual, to plan* their own risk/reward.

* hard to plan when the markets are highly manipulated by other individuals planning to retire on your savings.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by tshirt:

Correct! In fact they already have received massive subsidy.
It is a differance between our govt and the role of govt's in the euro zone.
Taxes there are massively higher, but a great deal of the extra is put into "public" infrasturture, telcom/rail/highways/public health/retirement-pension plans.
It really shows the different mindsets of
there- for the greater good of most the group
here- for the individual, to plan* their own risk/reward.

* hard to plan when the markets are highly manipulated by other individuals planning to retire on your savings.

What are you talking about??? What evidence does anyone on here have that European countries invest more money into their networks?
Let me tell you: they don't. They just use line-sharing to spur competition and growth.

There's no doubt the US has spent far more money per capita on broadband- all for it to be pocketed. How many hundreds of billions have been lost to USF funds? What about the $200 billion in tax breaks as part of the '96 Telecom Act that were meant to build FTTH to every household?

No one has spent more than us, and we've gotten practically nothing for it.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
I'd be curious to know the actual cost differences for laying new lines (fiber, etc) in both different countries and states.

I know around here it can be as high as $xx,xxx per BLOCK, in highly populated areas, to lay fiber. So when you're just a few blocks away from the nearest fiber, it could be a 6 figure bill.

Rural areas are cheap to lay fiber, but typically very long distances, while populated areas are short distances but very expensive per foot.

That, to me, is the biggest hurdle.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :

Sorry lot?!? (lol). Every broadband company in Europe that's been interfered with, forced to line-share, or otherwise tasted EU regulation would love to have a business environment like we have in the US.

While it might seem like some of the EU countries are ahead of us short term, those companies serving them won't be able to sustain infrastructure gains and momentum long term without EU taxpayer support. In short, they're going to get fed up.

What the heck are you talking about? The FCC's own commissioned study from Harvard's Berkman Center found line-sharing increases capex and competition while lowering prices. Look at free.fr in France, where they offer a triple play of TV, Phone, and FTTH for $40/month. They started off as a third-party ISP.

And what does "fed up" even mean? What are they going to do- take their profitable business and shut everything down? Why would they do that?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to BlueC
said by BlueC:

I'd be curious to know the actual cost differences for laying new lines (fiber, etc) in both different countries and states.

I know around here it can be as high as $xx,xxx per BLOCK, in highly populated areas, to lay fiber. So when you're just a few blocks away from the nearest fiber, it could be a 6 figure bill.

Rural areas are cheap to lay fiber, but typically very long distances, while populated areas are short distances but very expensive per foot.

That, to me, is the biggest hurdle.

It doesn't even matter what terrain you're looking at. In Sweden where density is extremely low they have FTTH without government investment.

In higher density countries they have FTTH. The US has cities, rural areas, suburbs.

In the end no one can compare to how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been sunk into broadband in this country by the federal government only to be pocketed by the incumbents or used to build their 40% profit margin wireless networks.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
said by sonicmerlin:

It doesn't even matter what terrain you're looking at. In Sweden where density is extremely low they have FTTH without government investment.

In higher density countries they have FTTH. The US has cities, rural areas, suburbs.

In the end no one can compare to how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been sunk into broadband in this country by the federal government only to be pocketed by the incumbents or used to build their 40% profit margin wireless networks.

Well, you missed the point I was making.

There are real $ costs with laying new lines. They vary by location greatly. Different cities = different permit requirements.

I agree there has been a lot of wasted money (USF). I don't dispute that part.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to sonicmerlin
"Prior to 1993 the Swedish state controlled incumbent was the public service corporation Televerket. Although the Swedish market has never protected a legal monopoly, Televerket was for a long time the only provider of public voice telecommunications services in Sweden. In 1993, the government transformed Televerket from a state-owned public utility into a limited company and changed its name to Telia AB. In June 2000, the Swedish state sold 30 per cent of Telia shares in an initial public offering.

In December 2002, Telia merged with Finnish telco Sonera to form TeliaSonera. The merger brought together two of the leading telecom operators in Scandinavia and resulted in the formation of a leading telecommunications group in the Nordic and Baltic regions with strong market positions also in Eurasia, Russia and Turkey. In Q2 2007, the Swedish government sold an 8 per cent stake in TeliaSonera to institutional investors for SEK18 billion. The Swedish government is still the single biggest shareholder in the operator with a 37.3 per cent stake, while the Finnish government owns a 13.7 per cent stake."


In fact swedish telcom including FTTH exists only BECAUSE of govt investment and policy.
each time they sold a portion to private industry the proceeds were used to expand the plant rather than being return to the public coffers.
In esscents they gave away the govt owned telco in return for the (sales price) investment in the new govt mandated medium (first for DSL, now some FTTH (FTTH doesn't reach everywhere and won't for a long time without further investment)

In the US we had private companies build the telco system given exclusive rights and some govt subsidy in return for forfilling certain mandates (Universal service) and certain govt projects (largely military/the hardened comm systems for the coldwar. )
While I can't defend how the USF was run, much of the money mention was spent correctly, on early internet broadband efforts, ISDN, DSL, dark fiber, some/a lot of which has out lived is useful ness by the time the next phase was wide spread and demand arrived.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :

Sorry lot?!? (lol). Every broadband company in Europe that's been interfered with, forced to line-share, or otherwise tasted EU regulation would love to have a business environment like we have in the US.

Yes, every business would love to have a duopoly market with collusion.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to sonicmerlin
Yes terrain matters, in the Netherlands freezing is rare (frost heaves are unknown, the soil is sandy to sandy loam, and the elevation basicly flat, with wide (post WW2) ROW to everywhere, making efficient FTTC (and eventually to the home) duct runs realitivly cheap.
Sweden has a much different climate, much varied geology, and much different population distribution, but has had (overtime, as I just explained) a much higher public investment in the infrastructure, due to the higher cost.
looking to the far east (or west from my house ) extremely high density (Hongkong, Japan, Korea) presents short large capacity, but expensive (per mile) duct runs (this is basically FTTC/basement with the building owners responsible for the delivery to residents above)
each has different costs, different subsidy, and different policy guiding it.
The US has just reach the point where we will still allow private companies to build it(rather than nationalizing the company) but we are starting to have the public (or our representitives) control the purpose (policy) and thus control the cost, scope, capability, and goal.
It took us longer because we are bigger, more diverse (geography, population, socal, and political) and the cost will be MUCH higher, and the process will be longer.


cob_
1310nm Of Goodness
Premium
join:2003-07-08
Tulsa, OK
reply to FFH5
Sadly, I don't think that will change. I think the industry's position on surveys like this are something along the lines of "it is what it is".

noisefloor

join:2010-05-09
reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:

The whole infrastructure in the US is crumbling. Watch the "Inspector America" series on History channel, I believe. While it would cost hundreds of billions to fix it, we do not have the money, since we spend it for stupid wars on behalf of oil companies and the defense of Israel.

Wake the hell up.

At the same time then we should cut the pork spending your communist buddies get. No more light rail to nowhere and billions to scam americans with "green technology".