Why America's Telecom System Stinks - PC World

[dainthomas]

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


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


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).

But if everything regarding R&D and installation has already been paid for, then what's the excuse for us still paying double or triple the cost for inferior service? What is the technical or financial reason that a dense population area like San Fran or NYC should have to pay so much more than Seoul or Paris? Hint: the answer is NOT that we buy aircraft carriers.

 

[Fingolfin269]

But if everything regarding R&D and installation has already been paid for, then what's the excuse for us still paying double or triple the cost for inferior service? What is the technical or financial reason that a dense population area like San Fran or NYC should have to pay so much more than Seoul or Paris? Hint: the answer is NOT that we buy aircraft carriers.

Maximum profitability. I know you weren't really fishing for an answer but it might as well be written out anyway. PROFIT. I'm sure the French are trying to make some money too but apparently they aren't quite as greedy as we are.

 

[RbSX]

Maximum profitability. I know you weren't really fishing for an answer but it might as well be written out anyway. PROFIT. I'm sure the French are trying to make some money too but apparently they aren't quite as greedy as we are.

Bingo.

 

[Taejin]

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.

HAI GAIZ im an idiot named tcsenter! shitty rates from telecoms in america is cuz we spend money on the military!!111

 

[Howard]

HAI GAIZ im an idiot named tcsenter! shitty rates from telecoms in america is cuz we spend money on the military!!111

I hope he gets diabetes.

 

[SunnyD]

Cliffs?

Tldr

Corporate greed fucks over the US. News at 11.

(Same as always really)

...

So tell me, which telecom/content company do you work for anyway?

 

[CPA]

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?

Oh Jesus, now it's Bush's fault. Nobody's getting raped you moron. No one forces you to have any of that crap.

Also, if wanted an American can get VOIP for $14.99/month and basic satellite for $29.99/month. Most Americans do something different, it's called Choice.

 

[Blackjack200]

Are there any other countries that pay more money for slower connections?

 

[Genx87]

I get 16Mbps internet that routinely tops out in the mid 20s for 29.99.

France, who knows, maybe they subsidize the cost somewhere along the line. That doesnt mean it isnt there, it is just hidden. Maybe they are a smaller country geographically and population wise. And I would think it all depends on where one lives in France for that kind of speed.

That said France still has a population density nearly 3 times what we have in the states.

 

[skace]

I know you are all highly intelligent individuals who know exactly why internet services function the way they do in America, but just curious, has anyone actually watched the video. Or are we all arguing off a small summary of a 1 hour presentation? I cannot watch it from my current location so I err on the side of not stuffing my foot in my mouth by thinking I have all the answers. I'd like to believe the guy who gave the speech has more knowledge on this topic than the rest of you, however.

 

[Molondo]

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.

Settle down nancy. So much hate, you might as well start a war.

 

[Blackjack200]

I get 16Mbps internet that routinely tops out in the mid 20s for 29.99.

Where do you live? I can't pay any less than $40.00 for 3Mbps unless I want to bundle up with cable, which I don't use.

Is your $29.99 part of a bundle or is it straight?

 

[actuarial]

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

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.

 

[tcsenter]

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.

Interesting, because what follows were the comments of other people. haha

 

[tcsenter]

But if everything regarding R&D and installation has already been paid for, then what's the excuse for us still paying double or triple the cost for inferior service?

I wasn't referring to R&D for telecom infrastructure. Why would Canadians be expected to pay the R&D on our telecom system? Think.

What is the technical or financial reason that a dense population area like San Fran or NYC should have to pay so much more than Seoul or Paris? Hint: the answer is NOT that we buy aircraft carriers.

Uhh...yes it is. We buy aircraft carriers and spend $200 billion for the F-22, other countries spend those billions (or more of them as a proportion of their budgets/GDP) to subsidize telecom infrastructure (they have to, since they're essentially nationalized or state-run telecom companies).

You can't buy a burger in San Fran or NYC for less than $20. Bad examples, one would expect the massively higher-than state or national median cost of living and costs of doing business in these communities to influence the price of everything, including telecom or internet services.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

I agree 100%.

 

[Ballatician]

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.

The article is originally from InfoWorld if that makes any difference but thanks for the informative post.

 

[drinkmorejava]

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.

Way to fact check

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/list-of-subscriber-fees-shows-what-you-pay-for-channels-you-hate.html

Economies of scale dictate the per subscriber production cost, not whatever CNN decides to charge the cable company.

 

[ShawnD1]

So tell me, which telecom/content company do you work for anyway?

I'll guess Comcast. It would make so much sense

 

[ElFenix]

Uhh...yes it is. We buy aircraft carriers and spend $200 billion for the F-22, other countries spend those billions (or more of them as a proportion of their budgets/GDP) to subsidize telecom infrastructure (they have to, since they're essentially nationalized or state-run telecom companies).

what's the subsidy of being able to borrow the .gov's eminent domain power in order to secure right of way worth?

 

[lupi]

Way to fact check

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/list-of-subscriber-fees-shows-what-you-pay-for-channels-you-hate.html

Economies of scale dictate the per subscriber production cost, not whatever CNN decides to charge the cable company.

and as we've seen with the likes of ESPN, more subscribers is due to your available channels so they see fit to charge more to the provider...and where do you think those fees then go.

 

[BeauJangles]

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.

Where do you live? I paid out the ass where I was in Canada. Also I found Canadian cell phones to be much, much more expensive than even America's crappy plans.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Thanks for posting that article. I actually watched the lecture, and it's very informative. It's always escaped me why anti-competitive practices are so thoroughly investigated in most markets except cable internet. How much money did intel have to pay out? hundreds of millions? Yet the government actually encourages monopolies in this market. And the American telcom apologists make me wanna vomit in my mouth.

 

[vi edit]

Yet the government actually encourages monopolies in this market. And the American telcom apologists make me wanna vomit in my mouth.

When my hard drive blows up intel doesn't have to trouble shoot it. When my power supply fails intel doesn't have to come out and trench me a new line. When I want to install new a new computer intel doesn't send out a technician to do it for me.

Somebody owns those lines running into my house and has to install and support them. With the structure that's been in place for decades it's been a regional company simply because it's easier/more cost effective to own a whole region than pieces of it.

 

[Toonces]

The situation here in Japan is ideal, IMHO.

The lines (mostly fiber in the city) are owned by NTT, which were installed subsidized by the national gov't. I pay approx. US$20 a month for access to these lines.

After, I'm free to chose any one of the competing ISPs to offer service over those lines. Each is allowed agnostic access meaning the barrier to enter the market is much lower than in the US or Canada and competition here is fierce. My current service is 50Mbps VDSL for US$20 a month.

Previously, I had a 100Mbps fiber line for US$40 a month with OCN. http://www.speedtest.net/result/597290968.png