Why America's Telecom System Stinks - PC World

[Ballatician]

..because I enjoy reading the debates about telecommunications prices we always have here on ATOT

http://www.pcworld.com/article/194506/why_americas_telecom_system_stinks.html

Why America's Telecom System Stinks
Analysis: Technologist Lawrence Lessig exposes a rigged system of poor service for higher cost.

Paul Venezia
Apr 19, 2010 10:43 am


I had a cathartic experience last week courtesy of Lawrence Lessig, legendary open source champion and Harvard law professor. Though the choice of Lessig as keynote speaker at Storage Networking World in Orlando was odd -- he wasn't going to be talking about storage, after all -- he delivered an electrifying speech on broadband, Net neutrality, God, the universe, and everything. Suffice it to say, I was fired up.

After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision last week to overturn the FCC's authority to enforce Net neutrality, I was peppered with requests for a response, probably because I've taken a hard line defending Net neutrality before. I should have had something to say, but a thousand obligatory words decrying the court's decision seemed pointless. I figured a response would come to me eventually, and it did -- about 60 seconds into Lessig's talk.

[ Read Paul Venezia's classic letter to the enemies of Net neutrality. | The normally snarky Robert X. Cringely has some serious thoughts about the awful Net neutrality ruling. ]

There's no way to do justice to his presentation in print. Fortunately, you can watch the whole thing [7] for yourself, and I encourage you to do so right now. It's nearly an hour long, but worth every minute -- seriously.

At times, it has seemed like there was no point in assailing the enemies of Net neutrality. Even the FCC itself seemed to believe that Washington wasn't ready for a coordinated effort to free us from the shackles of the carriers. No matter the logic, the proof, or the reality of the situation, the companies who pour buckets of money into Washington seem to have it all locked down so tight there's no room even for discussion.

As Lessig points out, that's true inside the Beltway -- but those of us on the outside can keep pushing the issue. In fact, that may be the only way to turn this tide. And oh, but does that need to happen.

Some of the more shocking points in Lessig's talk revolved around the reality of broadband access speeds, pricing, and openness around the world. Oft-used comparisons between the United States and South Korea or Japan are generally dismissed as non-comparable given the population density of those countries -- so Lessig chose to examine France.

In France, Internet access generally costs $33 a month, provides 20Mbps fixed broadband to the home, and includes unlimited local and long-distance calling to 70 countries, plus HDTV and even wireless voice and data access through cooperative agreements. That's about what AT&T charges just for the 3G data plan on an iPhone in the United States. France also has open network legislation in place. Yeah, that's right: France. (Désolé.)

I added up what I pay for access here in the States. Between HDTV and data through Time Warner, voice through FairPoint, and wireless through AT&T, I pay over $350 a month for slower access, though some of that cost is due to a business-class Internet circuit. If I delete that extra cost (yet it's 10Mbps -- half of the French example), I'm still at $275 per month. Worse, the carriers are looking for a way to charge higher rates for certain data and retain carte blanche to do whatever they like with my traffic. That's just insane. Yet it's reality in the United States.

Lessig goes beyond the simple fact that the United States is getting screwed out of the future by the big ISPs: He conjures the specter of an Internet Patriot Act. Just as 9/11 provided the Bush administration with an opportunity to ram through the Patriot Act and gain vast new powers to spy on American citizens, a total crash of the Internet (caused by accident or design) could be a pretext for hurriedly passed legislation that grants the U.S. government sweeping Internet monitoring powers by a fearful and technologically irrelevant Congress.

If that's not enough, he brings it all home by discussing the disturbing Beltway economy that underlies all of these decisions: the lobbyists who pour so much money into politics that it's no longer a matter of right or wrong, only how much.

I realize that assessment goes well beyond tech issues, even for The Deep End. But if there's one thing that all technologists know, it's that fixing the problem at the core is always the best solution. Addressing the symptoms alone won't get us anywhere.

Viva la revolucion!

This story, "Lawrence Lessig exposes a rigged system," was originally published at InfoWorld.com [9]. Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality and read more of Paul Venezia's The Deep End blog at InfoWorld.com.

For more IT analysis and commentary on emerging technologies, visit InfoWorld.com. Story copyright © 2010 InfoWorld Media Group. All rights reserved.

 

[guyver01]

Cliffs?

Tldr

 

[Ballatician]

Cliff's are in the second line of the quoted part. "Analysis..."

 

[drinkmorejava]

Not trying to defend anyone, but it's ridiculous to think $33 is a feasible number when the subscribers fees the cable company pays for tv channels are on the same order of magnitude.

 

[drebo]

I never put much stock in anything from PC World, and this article is no different. He basically says "There's a problem".......and that's all.

The Telecom Act of 1996 is a huge problem now, even if it was a good idea then. Basically, even AT&T wants out of it now. Phone service is available on so many more mediums than just copper that it doesn't make sense for the ILECs to provide wireline last mile service to every single development in their jurisdiction. Hell, I'd bet a majority of residential customers don't even use it anymore. AT&T isn't even using it anymore (UVerse Voice is VOIP based and FTTN, not copper to the CO anymore). But AT&T still has to maintain the copper, the COs, the ports, and everything else that goes along with it.

What I think the real solution is would be for municipalities to buy up the copper infrastructure from AT&T. At that point, they could lease CO space and copper lines to whoever wanted them for whatever reason. This gets those evil ILECs out of the last-mile, allows for open access, and gets competition into the game. Turn local COs into IXBs (essentially free points of peering between ISPs). That'll reduce overall bandwidth strain on the nation-wide backbones by introducing a more tightly knit mesh, and it'll allow more companies (and particularly regional companies) into the business of providing internet service.

Now, I am not a big fan of government control. This is something that must be done at the local level. The federal government has no business in this, other than issuing a repeal of 1996. Most municipalities probably don't currently have the wherewithal to administer something like this, but they could contract the current ILECs to administer it in a transitional period and it will grow the industry of network consulting at least for a few years.

 

[drebo]

Not trying to defend anyone, but it's ridiculous to think $33 is a feasible number when the subscribers fees the cable company pays for tv channels are on the same order of magnitude.

Not so for the "top 200" or so channels.

Additionally, greater access to cheaper delivery will drive services like IPTV which will greatly expand premium networks' subscriber base. Economies of scale dictate that subscriber fees drop as subscriber base increases.

 

[ElFenix]

espn is the single most profitable thing disney owns, and i can guarantee you they will do nothing to jeopardize that cash cow.

 

[tcsenter]

I had a cathartic experience last week courtesy of Lawrence Lessig, legendary open source champion and Harvard law professor.

Well that's pretty much all I needed to know in order to know that what follows would be filled with bias and one-sided truths.

The real reason that America's telecom system sucks is that, it does or doesn't suck depending on the region in question. Regions with newer infrastructure tend not to suck, regions with older infrastructure tend more to suck.

The USA built much of its infrastructure 20, 30, 40 years before just about any other country had any mass telecom to speak of. The USA is not one big giant cohesive geopolitical entity, as most other countries are. There are 50 states, each with its own degree of sovereignty within their own boundaries. If the federal government wants to give mandates to the states, it usually has to pay for it. We have a little principle known as federalism, which is actually quite rare in the world.

It also true that we don't subsidize broadband and wireless infrastructure with public monies on a national level as much as some other countries do. We have different priorities (e.g. we spend a LOT more on military and defense than any other country), and for the most part, our populace is supportive of that.

There are several more good reasons. But the bottom line is, we're not South Korea, or whoever they are comparing us to.

 

[RbSX]

Well that's pretty much all I needed to know in order to know that what follows would be filled with bias and one-sided truths.

The real reason that America's telecom system sucks is that, it does or doesn't suck depending on the region in question. Regions with newer infrastructure tend not to suck, regions with older infrastructure tend more to suck.

The USA built much of its infrastructure 20, 30, 40 years before just about any other country had any mass telecom to speak of. The USA is not one big giant cohesive geopolitical entity, as most other countries are. There are 50 states, each with its own degree of sovereignty within their own boundaries. If the federal government wants to give mandates to the states, it usually has to pay for it. We have a little principle known as federalism, which is actually quite rare in the world.

It also true that we don't subsidize broadband and wireless infrastructure with public monies on a national level as much as some other countries do. We have different priorities (e.g. we spend a LOT more on military and defense than any other country), and for the most part, our populace is supportive of that.

There are several more good reasons. But the bottom line is, we're not South Korea, or whoever they are comparing us to.

Speaking of biases and one sided truths, your post sounds more like excuses than anything else.

Here's a comparison I dare you to shoot holes in. I live in Canada, geographically larger and a population significantly less dense than the United States. Our infrastructure is archaic.

This is how much I pay for my cable, telephone, and internet.

$29.99/mo for 15mbps upstream/2meg upstream (up from 14.99 last month when my promo expired)

$14.99/mo for my VOIP service for my home phone.

$29.99/mo for basic cable, digital cable, and high def cable and it includes my PVR rental fee.

Make all the excuses you want, I'm not the one getting fucked for my bills.

 

[grrl]

There are several more good reasons. But the bottom line is, we're not South Korea, or whoever they are comparing us to.

You obviously didn't read the article. He rejects comparisons to S Korea or Japan and uses France instead.

 

[tcsenter]

Here's a comparison I dare you to shoot holes in. I live in Canada, geographically larger and a population significantly less dense than the United States. Our infrastructure is archaic.

Already dealt with this in full. Where in Canada do you live? How much does Canada rely upon our defense and military spending indirectly for its own protection without paying or contributing to it?

When you have a bordering ally who is pulling all the weight for your continental protection and defense, its a nice thing to have the money to spend on other things, eh?

I'm sure you have a lot of "excuses" for, you know, this:

http://www.guypilon.com/CanadianCoastGuard.jpg

http://members.gamedev.net/nordwindranger/images/canada.jpg

Make all the excuses you want, I'm not the one getting fucked for my bills.

Right, as with Canadian's contribution to innovator drugs and medical therapies, you're just the one freeloading off of us. e.g. Canadian drug companies have an abysmal record of innovation. To the extent that Canadian companies do any R&D, they are usually doing it in hopes that they can market it in the USA.

IOW, Canadians do not develop or innovate anything. They let other countries shoulder that burden (primarily the USA), then pay the "copy" price after the R&D has been paid-off by someone else. What a sweet gig, if you can get it.

 

[tcsenter]

You obviously didn't read the article. He rejects comparisons to S Korea or Japan and uses France instead.

Even worse.

 

[RbSX]

Already dealt with this in full. Where in Canada do you live? How much does Canada rely upon our defense and military spending indirectly for its own protection without paying or contributing to it?

When you have a bordering ally who is pulling all the weight for your continental protection and defense, its a nice thing to have the money to spend on other things, eh?

I'm sure you have a lot of "excuses" for, you know, this:

http://www.guypilon.com/CanadianCoastGuard.jpg

How did defense and military spending get brought into this?

It's irrelevant. The fact is if we didn't have you as a fucking neighbor, we probably wouldn't have to deal with half the shit that we do have to deal with. But the fact is the relationship between our country goes back to the inception of both of our countries, as a result we have each other's back.

Speaking of which, my girlfriend is American, I love her, and I love the United States, but it's people like you, and the bastards like you that voted bush in (twice, to add insult to injury) which makes us shake our heads in despair, because once upon a time your country led by example, worked hard for everything, innovated, and never made excuses like this.

Stop being a fucking cop out.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that your companies are raping your population?

 

[RbSX]

Even worse.

But guess what, they still do it better than you.

What's your reason this time?

France is arguably the laziest country in the world.

 

[tcsenter]

How did defense and military spending get brought into this?

Re-read as many times as you need. Its all there.

But the fact is the relationship between our country goes back to the inception of both of our countries, as a result we have each other's back.

Right-O! We shoulder the costs of R&D and you pay the post-R&D "copy" cost. Thanks for having our back!

Speaking of which, my girlfriend is American, I love her, and I love the United States, but it's people like you...

Awww...that's very sweet, and irrelevant to the discussion. Still haven't answered my questions. Hint: fully 1/2 of Canada's area is virtually uninhabitable (or at the least, uninhabited to any significant degree).

 

[grrl]

Even worse.

Please enlighten us then.

 

[shortylickens]

It doesnt stink, it actually better than what most of the people in the world have.
Its just got issues, which can be said for everything we have, which again is: Better than what the rest of the world has.

 

[Phoenix86]

It doesnt stink, it actually better than what most of the people in the world have.
Its just got issues, which can be said for everything we have, which again is: Better than what the rest of the world has.

If I pay x10 I expect a bit more than "Better than what the rest of the world has."

Is there a reason the France comparison isn't valid?

 

[lupi]

Damn we're getting fucked. Shame to want to be like france. ;(

 

[vi edit]

Here's a comparison I dare you to shoot holes in. I live in Canada, geographically larger and a population significantly less dense than the United States. Our infrastructure is archaic.

Doesn't like 90% of Canada's population live within 100 miles of the US border?

 

[sdifox]

Doesn't like 90% of Canada's population live within 100 miles of the US border?

yeap. Est 2010 Population is 34M so that is still sparse.

 

[vi edit]

yeap. Est 2010 Population is 34M so that is still sparse.

I guess when I look at something like this, I don't think of "sparse".
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007001/figures/figure35-en.gif

Seems more clumped together than the US.

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/MapLinks/NAmerica/USpop1990.gif

 

[sdifox]

I guess when I look at something like this, I don't think of "sparse".
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007001/figures/figure35-en.gif

Seems more clumped together than the US.

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/MapLinks/NAmerica/USpop1990.gif

The golden horseshoe has about 8 of those 34M so yes that region is dense like your Greater NY, but it is obviously still no where near your numbers simply because there is a lot more people there. 18M for Tri-State area alone.

Take out GTA and the rest of the population band does look sparse. And we don't really have any sort of viable fibre connection in Toronto. There is fibre available but the prices and caps make the US providers look good.

1 sq mi=2.56sq km so we need to divide the US numbers by that.

 

[techs]

What it really comes down to is education.

Most Americans don't understand that cable companies were given franchises. A non-free market tool that allowed the cable companies to undertake the large expense of wiring up the homes in their franchise area. By guaranteeting exclusive cable tv service the companies could borrow money to do this.

However, the cable companies have long since paid off the initial investment.

Then, cable companies were allowed, yes, allowed, to offer internet over the same lines the built under the franchise agreement. This sets a very high bar to anyone who wants to compete. In fact, wiring up homes for high speed internet, to compete with cable companies, is a losing proposition for competitive companies. The cable companies can use their exclusive tv franchise to make it uncompetitive for a company to make money on only the internet.

FIOS is trying to compete, under the free market, by offering both tv and cable. The bars for them are the high cost, and that they have to get approval from each locality to do this. Without the original government granted franchise. Plus, when FIOS enters a market there are now two companies. Which means they won't get everyone in that area.

I believe its time to end the cable companies monoply. There should be one entity that provides the copper (or fiber optic) and as many other companies that want to, to provide the content.

 

[KMFJD]

Already dealt with this in full. Where in Canada do you live? How much does Canada rely upon our defense and military spending indirectly for its own protection without paying or contributing to it?

When you have a bordering ally who is pulling all the weight for your continental protection and defense, its a nice thing to have the money to spend on other things, eh?

I'm sure you have a lot of "excuses" for, you know, this:

http://www.guypilon.com/CanadianCoastGuard.jpg

http://members.gamedev.net/nordwindranger/images/canada.jpg


Right, as with Canadian's contribution to innovator drugs and medical therapies, you're just the one freeloading off of us. e.g. Canadian drug companies have an abysmal record of innovation. To the extent that Canadian companies do any R&D, they are usually doing it in hopes that they can market it in the USA.

IOW, Canadians do not develop or innovate anything. They let other countries shoulder that burden (primarily the USA), then pay the "copy" price after the R&D has been paid-off by someone else. What a sweet gig, if you can get it.

Another insecure American!