Susan Crawford: How US companies can gouge us for slow internet access...

Anonemous

Diamond Member
May 19, 2003
7,361
1
71
Kinda obvious but a good watch nonetheless.
http://vimeo.com/59236702

TLDW:
So Verizon/AT&T made an agreement with Comcast/TWC not to compete with each other and this is legal.
Also alot of the former FCC regulators are hired as lobbyists for the companies.
 

xanis

Lifer
Sep 11, 2005
17,571
8
0
What? You mean businesses are giving us less for more money on purpose? I'm shocked.
 

gamefreakgcb

Platinum Member
Sep 2, 2004
2,354
0
76
I hope these "upstanding, law-abiding, positive-contirbuters-to-society execs get to experience surprise buttsekcs soon.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Kinda obvious but a good watch nonetheless.
http://vimeo.com/59236702

TLDW:
So Verizon/AT&T made an agreement with Comcast/TWC not to compete with each other and this is legal.
Also alot of the former FCC regulators are hired as lobbyists for the companies.
I hope these "upstanding, law-abiding, positive-contirbuters-to-society" execs get to experience surprise buttsekcs soon.
A nice thought, but it's not likely to happen, at least not through any of the usual legal channels. It's all too corrupted - no investigations will happen when the one engaged in illegal activity is your good friend. Any underlings who chance upon any wrongdoing can easily be reassigned or quietly fired.



I guess it's just another risk-vs-reward evaluation on their parts. If the reward is control of an industry worth many billions of dollars, and you're able to set it up such that the biggest risk is that you might get your face slapped lightly by the government, and called lots of mean names, all while your own chunk of the wealth is virtually assured...yeah, I think quite a few people would go for that.

If the risk is a nighttime visit from a pissed-off, armed mob...well, some people would still go for it, but maybe not quite as many. :\
 
Last edited:

Lyfer

Diamond Member
May 28, 2003
5,842
2
81
A good example of this is both Verizon and Att both have made the analripoff ShareEverything plans standard.
 

MarkXIX

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2010
2,642
1
71
Unfortunately, Google just can't move fast enough with Google Fiber. It would be nice if other major IT companies like Microsoft or Apple would take on similar projects to compete against the cable and telephone companies who have what is best described as regional monopolies. The industry should definitely have tighter regulations that allow for far more competition in the marketplace.
 

Anonemous

Diamond Member
May 19, 2003
7,361
1
71
Unfortunately, Google just can't move fast enough with Google Fiber. It would be nice if other major IT companies like Microsoft or Apple would take on similar projects to compete against the cable and telephone companies who have what is best described as regional monopolies. The industry should definitely have tighter regulations that allow for far more competition in the marketplace.

Verizon basically stated there is no need for 1Gbps in today's news (http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/what-broadband-speed-can-do-and-cant)
and they stopped their FIOS expansion (wink wink secret handshake TWC/Comcast).

Then you have Google fiber which shows them how you can get affordable 1 Gbps for $70/mo and there's so much popular demand that TWC in Kansas City magically increased all their Internet speeds and dropped their prices.

The Cable ISPs are gonna fight Google tooth and nail on their expansions.
 
Last edited:

lamedude

Golden Member
Jan 14, 2011
1,219
35
91
AFAIK AT&T are still expanding U-verse. Verizon probably thought they get a better return investing in wireless than FiOS.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
^I'm glad I rent and do not own, I've been thinking of moving into the area covered by google fiber.
 

Demo24

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
8,356
9
81
AFAIK AT&T are still expanding U-verse. Verizon probably thought they get a better return investing in wireless than FiOS.

Uverse is not terribly fast though so its hardly a threat to the existing cable networks, more of them playing catch up in speeds since their DSL network tops out at 6mb. Not sure why they haven't gone up to 12 ,guess they don't deem it worth it.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,301
20,011
146
I am confused, how do you force companies to compete with each other?

It's my understanding that a "free" market will do this already, until companies make agreements to not compete against each other.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
59193113865330816.gif


If you wanna bring a monopoly suit (anti-trust suit) against them go ahead.
Otherwise quit whining.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
Please objectively define "gouging" so I can apply it to any price.

You cant. Its a bullshit term frequently used by people who dont understand how things work.

Free market doesnt mean everybody is happy. It means everyone is free.
I DH Lawrence was right.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Didnt watch the video only read the description. I think she is correct. Govt backed monopoly is stiffling innovation and hurt the consumer.
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
I think they are on their last breath before wireless internet is free (at some point in the near future....one would hope).

They are milking it.

To be honest, for what I pay ($30-40 a month) for Cablevision internet is great on my end. I never really said to myself "I need faster speeds" past 10-15 years.

But it also depends on the need...
 

MarkXIX

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2010
2,642
1
71
Sure, gouging is a bullshit term, but here's the problem. In my municipality I have two providers that provide services (Cox and AT&T). Cox provides the faster service (DOCSIS 3.0) over AT&T (DSL) and charges a slightly higher price. Given the population of approximately 60k people, they pretty much own the market because they own the cable plant. Neither provides the service that I WANT though, which is 100Mbps or faster at a reasonable price, my cap for monthly service price is probably about $50, but I think $30 is reasonable.

So, basically I have two service options that are far less than what I WANT, but what choice do I really have? Sure, you'll say "if you don't like the product, don't buy it" or some other inane comment, but the reality is, when there is a duopoly, there aren't a lot of options or means to force competition.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Damnit! I want Korean internet speed here.

Wow, I wonder how it's ever possible that fast internet is cheaper in a place with 15x the population density of the U.S. and the size of Kentucky. No, it can't possibly be those factors influence the provider company costs in SK, it must be price collusion in the U.S.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Wow, I wonder how it's ever possible that fast internet is cheaper in a place with 15x the population density of the U.S. and the size of Kentucky. No, it can't possibly be those factors influence the provider company costs in SK, it must be price collusion in the U.S.

Yet the speed in even highly dense areas like NYC still suck compared with Japan / South Korea, and Cable companies fight municipalities on the state legislature level (via lobbying) from creating their own broadband service.
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
Sure, gouging is a bullshit term, but here's the problem. In my municipality I have two providers that provide services (Cox and AT&T). Cox provides the faster service (DOCSIS 3.0) over AT&T (DSL) and charges a slightly higher price. Given the population of approximately 60k people, they pretty much own the market because they own the cable plant. Neither provides the service that I WANT though, which is 100Mbps or faster at a reasonable price, my cap for monthly service price is probably about $50, but I think $30 is reasonable.

So, basically I have two service options that are far less than what I WANT, but what choice do I really have? Sure, you'll say "if you don't like the product, don't buy it" or some other inane comment, but the reality is, when there is a duopoly, there aren't a lot of options or means to force competition.

100mbps for under 50 bucks?

riiiight

also it doesn't matter what your speed is. If you get on at night (6Pm >) your speed will drop A LOT anyways as people get back from work and are on the internet.

Your speed WILL get effected.

Besides, why in the world do you want 100mbps anyways?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Sure, gouging is a bullshit term, but here's the problem. In my municipality I have two providers that provide services (Cox and AT&T). Cox provides the faster service (DOCSIS 3.0) over AT&T (DSL) and charges a slightly higher price. Given the population of approximately 60k people, they pretty much own the market because they own the cable plant. Neither provides the service that I WANT though, which is 100Mbps or faster at a reasonable price, my cap for monthly service price is probably about $50, but I think $30 is reasonable.

So, basically I have two service options that are far less than what I WANT, but what choice do I really have? Sure, you'll say "if you don't like the product, don't buy it" or some other inane comment, but the reality is, when there is a duopoly, there aren't a lot of options or means to force competition.

Heh why stop at 100Mbps? :D

There is 100Mbps service out there. But you will need to pull fiber for it. And it wont be 50 bucks.