dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Yet Another Study Shows U.S. Broadband Mediocre
We're Still Average At Speed, Price, Availability...
by Karl Bode 12:35PM Monday May 23 2011 Tipped by Gbcue See Profile
The United States continues to lag behind other nations in broadband speed and availability, according to a new report by the Federal Communications Commission. The agency's second International Broadband Data Report (pdf) merges OECD data and FCC-collected and analyzed broadband data on service plans and pricing in 38 countries. As with previous studies of this type, the data shows the United States as a rather mediocre player in the broadband space, ranked ninth out of 29 countries when it comes to mobile broadband adoption on a per capita basis, and 12th out of 33 countries when it comes to the percentage of households with fixed broadband.

Click for full size
The FCC makes it clear that they're still pulling a lot of this information from OECD broadband data, and that they're working to integrate more original data culled from the FCC's new speed tests and their in-home subscriber broadband tests via SamKnows. The report notes a speed deficit in many U.S. cities, when the mean actual download speeds in cities like Paris (24.8 Mbps) and Seoul (35.8 Mbps) are compared to San Francisco (6.9 Mbps), Chicago (9.4 Mbps) and Phoenix (9.9 Mbps). Also noted in the study is that U.S. broadband remains pricey:
quote:
One recent study used a hedonic regression technique to estimate the average broadband price difference between broadband plans offered in OECD countries. Results from this hedonic model suggest that U.S. stand-alone residential broadband prices are generally "in the middle of prices in OECD countries,” after accounting for speed, terms of service, data caps, and service delivery technology. Similarly, prices in the United States for business stand-alone broadband services were fourteenth out of 30 among the OECD countries.
Not mentioned in the FCC report is the fact that the FCC's consistent unwillingness to stand up to incumbent carriers and implement policies that foster competition continues to contribute to the country's mediocre showing. The country's FCC-created first ever national broadband plan, as just one example, focuses on political rhetoric and rather empty goals, but does almost nothing to try and solve the monopoly and duopoly logjam in many U.S. markets that creates stunted upgrades and deployment and high prices. Meanwhile, you've got more than a dozen states like North Carolina that have passed restrictions on communities looking to upgrade their own infrastructure in instances where the private sector fails to meet community needs.

view:
topics flat nest 

FFH
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

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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

said by FFH:

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

JasonOD

@comcast.net

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
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

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
"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.

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
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.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
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.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
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.

HaloFans

join:2006-12-18
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.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 recommendation

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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.
noisefloor

join:2010-05-09

Re: Price is good when accounting for relative income levels

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".

cob_
1310nm Of Goodness
Premium
join:2003-07-08
Tulsa, OK
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".
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Unless...

...you live in suburban Boston, Northern Virginia, or a few other privileged area, and then you have the best broadband anyone could dream of. I shouldn't complain too much, since there are people stuck with 3G, fixed point wireless, and, worst of all, WildBlue.

runzero

join:2005-09-16
DC

Re: Unless...

Nope. Even FiOS can't match the speeds and prices of East Asian and European broadband. Sure, there's a 150 Mbps plan available, but it's too damn expensive at $200/mo while the Japanese are paying just $60 for the same thing.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: Unless...

Well, its still pretty darned amazing to get 43/35 as part of a normally priced triple play package.

Escrssdc

@mycingular.net

Prices of wireless broadband are also very expensive

Just look at all 4 big carriers, even smatphone /tablet data plans are overpriced.
BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

Educate the consumers

We would have much better results if consumers had a way to be educated properly. That's my theory on improving things.

Further regulation might make it, more, difficult for new companies to jump into the industry. It's quite backwards as-is, but I don't see how more laws/regulation will improve things because most of the larger ISPs will just have a way to have loopholes in place to get around most of it.

Consumers, as they are educated on what they are paying for, will be able to voice their opinion properly, which will help push for changes in the way service is managed.

I really don't see it any other way. I only say this because I have watched consumers be blindly mislead, when they easily could have prevented a provider from earning the business if they had asked the right questions and done the needed due diligence. It's amazing how many things become overlooked in this industry.

Educate the consumers, have them hold the companies accountable for their actions. The consumers are the ones paying them after all. Free market works, but only when the consumers know what's truly acceptable.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 recommendation

Re: Educate the consumers

said by BlueC:

We would have much better results if consumers had a way to be educated properly. That's my theory on improving things.

Further regulation might make it, more, difficult for new companies to jump into the industry. It's quite backwards as-is, but I don't see how more laws/regulation will improve things because most of the larger ISPs will just have a way to have loopholes in place to get around most of it.

Consumers, as they are educated on what they are paying for, will be able to voice their opinion properly, which will help push for changes in the way service is managed.

I really don't see it any other way. I only say this because I have watched consumers be blindly mislead, when they easily could have prevented a provider from earning the business if they had asked the right questions and done the needed due diligence. It's amazing how many things become overlooked in this industry.

Educate the consumers, have them hold the companies accountable for their actions. The consumers are the ones paying them after all. Free market works, but only when the consumers know what's truly acceptable.

"Educate" the consumer ? On what, how to get raped ? "Free market works" ? Really ? Where, in the world of regulatory capture ? How can the consumer "keep the companies accountable" when the consumer is screwed by binding arbitration and the government is NOT doing its job to punish monopolies and collusion agreements ?
BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

Re: Educate the consumers

Why do you think companies take advantage of everyone? Because no one knows what's even going on. I'm not talking about the people on this site, we all know the opinions here, but if you honestly took a look at the majority of broadband consumers, you'd be surprised how little knowledge is there.

Don't you think consumers would have a larger impact if more of them understood how the service even worked?

This is how things got so screwed up to begin with. I've been watching companies taking advantage of people, and not because of regulations/laws/franchises/etc, but because they blindly allowed a provider to provide them crappy service.

Allow consumers to set a higher standard. Most people don't seem to even care because they don't truly understand it. Obviously on this site consumers have a better idea, but that's not the case with 99.99% of consumers outside of this site.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Educate the consumers

said by BlueC:

Why do you think companies take advantage of everyone?

Because using regulatory capture they have rendered useless the government agencies that were supposed to keep watch over them.
sonicmerlin

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

Why do you think companies take advantage of everyone? Because no one knows what's even going on. I'm not talking about the people on this site, we all know the opinions here, but if you honestly took a look at the majority of broadband consumers, you'd be surprised how little knowledge is there.

Don't you think consumers would have a larger impact if more of them understood how the service even worked?

This is how things got so screwed up to begin with. I've been watching companies taking advantage of people, and not because of regulations/laws/franchises/etc, but because they blindly allowed a provider to provide them crappy service.

Allow consumers to set a higher standard. Most people don't seem to even care because they don't truly understand it. Obviously on this site consumers have a better idea, but that's not the case with 99.99% of consumers outside of this site.

You're just blaming consumers. There has never been an industry where consumers collectively "punished" a monopoly for high prices. It all boils down to trust-busting and price regulation.

Solutionary

@sbcglobal.net

Re: Educate the consumers

As I've said before, regulation is supposed to SUPPLEMENT personal responsibility, not be an outright substitute for it.

You want a corrupt government to uncorrupt itself somehow?

Solutionary

@sbcglobal.net
said by WernerSchutz:

"Educate" the consumer ? On what, how to get raped ? "Free market works" ? Really ? Where, in the world of regulatory capture ? How can the consumer "keep the companies accountable" when the consumer is screwed by binding arbitration and the government is NOT doing its job to punish monopolies and collusion agreements ?

If your solution is to regulate the hell out of everything, all you will find is that the corps will find loopholes.

Regulation is supposed to supplement your own due dilligence, not be a substitute for it. THIS is why America has gotten itself into so much trouble. People rely on regulation way too much that they think that they don't have to do their own homework.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 recommendation

Re: Educate the consumers

said by Solutionary :

said by WernerSchutz:

"Educate" the consumer ? On what, how to get raped ? "Free market works" ? Really ? Where, in the world of regulatory capture ? How can the consumer "keep the companies accountable" when the consumer is screwed by binding arbitration and the government is NOT doing its job to punish monopolies and collusion agreements ?

If your solution is to regulate the hell out of everything, all you will find is that the corps will find loopholes.

Regulation is supposed to supplement your own due dilligence, not be a substitute for it. THIS is why America has gotten itself into so much trouble. People rely on regulation way too much that they think that they don't have to do their own homework.

The solution is not to "regulate the hell out of everything" but do some/ANY regulation of these monopolies/duopolies that are monuments of corruption targeted toward the government entities that should do their job and are not doing it.

Punish the corps that ruthlessly find loopholes, close the loopholes. THAT is the government's job, not wait around and rubber stamp corps' written "laws" while waiting for their next job WITH the corps they were supposed to regulate in the first place.

Why not abolish also the EPA, FDA and all the citizen protecting agencies ? Abolish police, let the consumer do the "due diligence" about everything (poisoned water and food, have their own guns to protect against crime, drive half tracks on broken roads) since the government really should do nothing except collect taxes and use the money for wars to enrich the rich corporations even more.
BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

Re: Educate the consumers

said by WernerSchutz:

The solution is not to "regulate the hell out of everything" but do some/ANY regulation of these monopolies/duopolies that are monuments of corruption targeted toward the government entities that should do their job and are not doing it.

Punish the corps that ruthlessly find loopholes, close the loopholes. THAT is the government's job, not wait around and rubber stamp corps' written "laws" while waiting for their next job WITH the corps they were supposed to regulate in the first place.

Why not abolish also the EPA, FDA and all the citizen protecting agencies ? Abolish police, let the consumer do the "due diligence" about everything (poisoned water and food, have their own guns to protect against crime, drive half tracks on broken roads) since the government really should do nothing except collect taxes and use the money for wars to enrich the rich corporations even more.

How companies service their consumers is not the same thing as a company dumping toxic waste into a river.

Take the time to look over the existing regulations and how telcos function. It was never setup to be straight forward. Hell, the government and the corporations work together all the time, and not always to better the consumers.

Consumers being educated means educated votes. Plain and simple. I see more talk about criticism but very few wanting to know/understand more.

••••
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by BlueC:

We would have much better results if consumers had a way to be educated properly. That's my theory on improving things.

Further regulation might make it, more, difficult for new companies to jump into the industry. It's quite backwards as-is, but I don't see how more laws/regulation will improve things because most of the larger ISPs will just have a way to have loopholes in place to get around most of it.

Consumers, as they are educated on what they are paying for, will be able to voice their opinion properly, which will help push for changes in the way service is managed.

I really don't see it any other way. I only say this because I have watched consumers be blindly mislead, when they easily could have prevented a provider from earning the business if they had asked the right questions and done the needed due diligence. It's amazing how many things become overlooked in this industry.

Educate the consumers, have them hold the companies accountable for their actions. The consumers are the ones paying them after all. Free market works, but only when the consumers know what's truly acceptable.

This is such a meaningless argument. Do you even know what a "free market" is? Have you even read an Econ 101 book?

What part of broadband has *no barriers to entry*, *perfect competition*, *near zero profit margins*, etc. etc.? It's a natural monopoly.

Education has nothing to do with this. You're using such a bizarre excuse to blame consumers for being stuck with a duopoly- cable or DSL.

Line-sharing has been shown to be the most effective regulation for spurring competition, capex growth, and lowering prices. The FCC's own commissioned study from Harvard's Berkman Center concluded line-sharing was the most effective tactic for the National Broadband Plan's goals.

The science says line-sharing is the best solution.

•••

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by BlueC:

Further regulation might make it, more, difficult for new companies to jump into the industry. It's quite backwards as-is, but I don't see how more laws/regulation will improve things because most of the larger ISPs will just have a way to have loopholes in place to get around most of it.

Gov't regulation is almost always a failure in keeping prices in line or creating competition. And that is because regulated companies and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists ALWAYS find a way of manipulating the regulators in to rulings advantageous to those being regulated. And to add to that failure to create competition, the other government side effect is loss of innovation as companies spend more time and money manipulating the regulators than they do on research and development.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Educate the consumers

said by FFH:

said by BlueC:

Further regulation might make it, more, difficult for new companies to jump into the industry. It's quite backwards as-is, but I don't see how more laws/regulation will improve things because most of the larger ISPs will just have a way to have loopholes in place to get around most of it.

Gov't regulation is almost always a failure in keeping prices in line or creating competition. And that is because regulated companies and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists ALWAYS find a way of manipulating the regulators in to rulings advantageous to those being regulated. And to add to that failure to create competition, the other government side effect is loss of innovation as companies spend more time and money manipulating the regulators than they do on research and development.

Sure. Let the crooks "compete" and "innovate", we see the results all over the US, the country that INVENTED the Internet. Worked real well. When countries like South Korea and Japan kick our ass while we are spoon fed the corporate propaganda by the providers and their shills I have the utmost faith that giving them freedom to "innovate" will turn even way better.
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
Its simple as this:

Government owns backbones ("dumb pipes") throughout the country then it leases to telcos. Anybody can rent and provide end line service to a house through a national telco. Suppose country has 3 national telcos with 1 (A) having 60% control and other 2 (B, C) 20% each. Company has to share its end lines with B,C and B,C have to share their end lines with A. They get reimbursed for it. Then you have virtual providers joining in game, hundreds of them, at least tens in market. Thats how the market should be with dsl, vdsl, ftth. Cablecos are forced to compete and lower prices. Everybody benefits but nobody dominates the market.

This model works in most european countries since traditionally there was one national provider originally run by government and later privatized and regulated.

The U.S had MA Bell like most other countries in the beginning, laying down and owning the copper but its fate met with a different course in history. Can anybody please give insight into this?
cyberbeing

join:2005-02-18
Sacramento, CA

FCC SpeedTest fixed?

I never tested it two weeks ago when the original news post was made (followed by complaints of inaccuracy in the comments), but testing now, the FCC SpeedTest appears to mimic geolocation-based tests done on speedtest.net and measurementlab.net directly (Mlab definitely is, Ookla it's hard to say for certain). MLab is accurately measuring average speed on both, and Ookla is still giving misleading split-second burst speed measurements on both. A good sign for accuracy of FCC data collection efforts if now MLAB/FCC_MLAB match up as well as Speedtest.net_OOKLA/FCC_OOKLA match up for everybody.






MyTechTake

@verizon.com

What Should We Have Expected?

Let's be clear about this - in countries 1/10 or 1/100 the U.S. geographical footprint, deployment can be considerably more efficient. More importantly, however, is the fact that 20, 15 or 10 years ago the desire to develop universal fast access broadband through government policy and subsidies never happened. That's a political issue.

This is a fractious society in which we live and to get the U.S. Congress to agree to spend $10-30 billion to shore up the New Orleans levy system after Hurricane Camille never happened. Should we expect Congress to say it is in our enlightened interest as a nation to take resources from across the country to protect NO from a category 5 hurricane?

If not, is low-cost subsidized broadband to the boonies and everywhere else realistic? Everybody wants something as either a social good or competitive need but we are unwilling to pay for it.

So, when the private sector makes a decision to invest and bring 35M/35M service to a home at $30-65/mo and people DON'T buy it, what's the point about 150/35 or 1G, 10G or whatever speed you want? The vast majority of the public is unwilling to pay more than a certain amount for broadband at high-powered speeds, but companies shouldn't be expected to charge them low prices.

If broadband is a public utility in people's minds, then the government either will need to provide a subsidy or use the classic model - an untenable one IMO - of having a company PROVE a reasonable return on investment for a guaranteed share of the market, as it were.
stridr69

join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA

Re: What Should We Have Expected?

Best Frack'n Take of this entire thread. I have a family member that lives in Fios country and he almost didn't get it because he was pissed off by all the construction that went on prior to completion in his "hood". Now he has Fios-and loves it(I checked out the installation-way classy job by the installer-wired whole condo, ONT in the garage, ect). BUT...he's happy as a clam with 15/2 service(that's what he told me he's getting). Great TV though(HD looks great). Why did he get it? 'Cause the cable co. wouldn't wire to a specific part of his condo. Go figure... Most people don't care about 35/35 speeds. That's why Fios is having such a hard time getting customers, people feel they don't need the service. This is a marketing issue....and Fios needs to do some sort of marketing that blows away cable. Like ALL channels are 1080p HD. 35/35 internet for $60 a month. That can be done. Question is...do they want to.

FreedomBuild
Well done is better than well said
Premium
join:2004-10-08
Rockford, IL

Overpriced

"We're Still Average At Speed, Price, Availability..."
Considering or technology and advancement thereof. We are well overpriced period for the service we generally get
--
»www.rockfordremodeling.biz
»www.rockfordremodeling.biz/blog/