DrJBHL DrJBHL

Why your internet isn’t as good as it should be.

▼

Why your internet isn’t as good as it should be.

from JoeUser Forums

 

Not discussing the content.

I’m discussing how the basic principal of Capitalism has failed us: Competition in a free market.

We all agree that when power is concentrated in the hands of a few, our freedoms are inevitably curtailed.

This is true, as it turns out, regarding the internet as well.

“At the heart of the problem lie a few powerful companies with enormous influence over policy making. Both the wireless and wired markets for high-speed Internet access have become heavily concentrated, and neither is subject to substantial competition nor oversight. … As a result, prices are too high and speeds too slow.” – Susan Crawford

Susan Crawford is the Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Professor, and a former special assistant to President Obama for science, technology and innovation. Her central thesis is that if you live in the U.S.A., you’re probably paying a lot more to your ISP for inferior service when compared to other countries.

At the heart of the problem, she maintains, is the above quote. Huge cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast have no reason to to expand the infrastructure to lay down fiber. Also, Verizon and AT&T have abandoned fiber in favor of LTE. This will limit us to average speeds.

Further: The government has policies to protect and give them resources to propagate their grip on the internet service market. I wonder how those laws got written, and by whom.

“The resounding success of Google Fiber in Kansas City has already started to help this shift in expectations. People around the country are already jealous that some people have access to 1 Gbps Internet for just $70 a month, but most of us don’t.” – Andrew Couts

We need more companies and people pressuring local government to lay down fiber optic cable to provide better and faster service. The key to this is providing low interest, long term loans to allow small companies to germinate and do the things the big boys won’t.

The Connect America Fund is the way to do it. The bottle neck is the FCC and it’s allocating monies to the big internet providers which aren’t doing what’s needed. The problem is the laws which constrain the type of company eligible for the funds. They need change. If that happens, the CAF money can get many more players into the action. Competition. It works.

There are many (Like Steve Largent CEO of CTIA, the Wireless Association) who say, “The service you’re getting by existing cable and LTE are just fine. There is no problem.”

Reminds me of truly self serving statements. If you were the fox, would you tell the farmer about the hole in the wire fence?

How can anyone argue against improving our infrastructure? Like this:

Their argument is basically, the status quo is just fine, you’re getting what you paid for. No reason to expect more or better and no reason for us to improve.

Really? If that weren’t absurd enough, then how about this:

“Take a look at your most recent Internet service bill, and think about the fact that people in Hong Kong can get a 500Mbps symmetric fiber connection for just $25 per month, and tell me you’re happy with the way things are.” – ibid

Why am I reminded of what happened with Ma Bell?

Just as “too big to fail” needs to be fixed, so does this.

Source:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/its-time-to-get-angry-about-your-crappy-internet-service/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/opinion/how-to-get-high-speed-internet-to-all-americans.html?_r=0

92,537 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top

You don't have to have big entities for the network.  It will just be a bunch of little companies servicing smaller areas.

Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting tazgecko, reply 23
We never wanted Telstra to be sold off in the first place, we want a optical network and yet powerful people, with a strong ideology, keep telling us how private companies do to right thing for our country ... no they don't, they look after themselves.
End of tazgecko's quote

Right on!  The sale of Telstra [formerly Telecom] was the single worst thing to happen to telecommunications in Australia:

* One; it failed to properly maintain the copper network... thus it is forever breaking down, getting congested and overloaded.

* Two; it's monopoly status ensured it could charge whatever it wanted and people would have no choice but to pay.

* Three, Telstra's ownership of the copper network means that competitors must pay it in order to operate, thus competitors are forced to charge higher prices than necessary to cover high wholesale prices to Telstra.

* Four, Testra's ownership of the terminals that service households and businesses means that is has the NBN [National Broadband Network] by the short and curlies.  The NBN, although it will own its own firbre optic network, still has to cow tow to Telstra in order to deliver its services.

* Five, we already owned the copper network and terminals, it belonged to the taxpayer, and now were being forced to pay again for this poorly maintained, rundown equipment as it charges the NBN rental fees on the terminals.

Sadly, the orchestrators of the NBN did not forsee this situation to create its own terminals... as self-sufficiency would have provided consumers with better than Telstra prices.  As it is, those who have been connected are paying premuim prices for high speed broadband because Telstra controls the terminals

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #28 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 25
The only way to finance it is via the government or a consortium. Did anyone ever try to put one together?
Did anyone bother to bring suit on the grounds that the company has to buy out what it owes to the people of Oz for the equipment and lines?
End of DrJBHL's quote

Telstra is too big. It was a giant profitable company before the government sold it, all they did was make a monopoly. The government first went to Telstra to build a fiber network, Telstra didn't like having to let other Telcos use the network at cost price, that and they had control of the copper network and was able to keep wholesale prices high.

When the government put forward the NBN, all the other Telcos were on board and wanted it to happen. So Telstra threaten to build a fiber network as well, basically to make the NBN unprofitable and to keep their monopoly. If the government didn't have the guts to take them on and forced their hand by calling them a monopoly, and a threat to split the company up, we will still be on a copper line for the next fifty years .... or more.

Markets work when there's competition. Once a few companies controls an infrastructure, prices go up and maintenance goes down.

Quoting starkers, reply 27
Telstra controls the terminals
End of starkers's quote

Ah, I thought the NBN would take control of the terminals ... so much for keeping prices down.

 

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting G_Bison, reply 25
Just to talk about North Carolina again, a list needs to be made on who is in the pockets of Time Warner and ATT. And vote them out of office, what they did is about the same time Chattanooga, TN brought in Giga speeds and were the fastest in the country till Google came in to Kansas City KS/MO. Yea Google, yeah the snoop you emails so they can sell you stuff, but who doesn't these days...

Where I live in the North East, everyone overlaps, Verizon, Time Warner, Cablevision. Google is forcing competition which is good for all of us in the long run, better service speeds at lower cost to the consumer. But the downside is it is going to be a while before Google wires up the US....
End of G_Bison's quote

 

Sen.Tillman from Randolph County is one of the big ones- but good luck kicking out folks in gerrymandered districts.   Sad thing is that at a personal level, his family is pretty nice, but he's a horrible politician.

 

 

Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting tazgecko, reply 28
Telstra is too big.
End of tazgecko's quote

Just what I said as well. Someone should bring suit. Really.

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

While I agree with a lot of things said in this thread, the following statement is just plain ignorant.

I’m discussing how the basic principal of Capitalism has failed us: Competition in a free market.
End of quote

As I said before anyone with basic knowledge of economics will tell you that internet companies don't operate in a competitive market. Secondly, as every country in the world is aware of this they highly regulate this sector.  Everyone here is discussing how already existing regulations should be changed, free markets never factor into this discussion at all.

The bottle neck is the FCC and it’s allocating monies to the big internet providers which aren’t doing what’s needed. The problem is the laws which constrain the type of company eligible for the funds. They need change. If that happens, the CAF money can get many more players into the action. Competition. It works.
End of quote

This is actually an argument for a freer market with less regulation.

Thus the above statement should be changed to "I’m discussing how the basic principal of Government has failed us: Regulation in a naturally monopolistic market"

Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top

Telecom isn't a naturally monopolistic market.  In both the AU and US the companies got significant help from the government to create an artificial monopoly.  Google providing competition outside of their trust driving down prices in KC confirms this.

Reply #33 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting DsRaider, reply 31
internet companies don't operate in a competitive market.
End of DsRaider's quote

1. You mean ISPs?

2. That is exactly how Capitalism has failed: It isn't a free market and there is no competition. Why are the proponents of Capitalism so silent about this. Worse, why are the victims of this not demanding action? 

The reason?

Poorly written law, corrupting election laws masquerading as free speech, and lobbies which (quite openly) buy politicians and their further action/inaction, all causing futility.

I want real Capitalism and a real, free market place to be allowed to work. You didn't understand that.

 

Reply #34 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 33
I want real Capitalism and a real, free market place to be allowed to work.
End of DrJBHL's quote

And I'd like honest businessmen running it... but isn't that an oxymoron...honest businessmen/women.  Had to add them... some of those bitches are worse than the men.

Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top

What proponents of Capitalism?  The politicians on the left and right just want to regulate different things, neither of them are free market capitalists.

 

You're not going to hear complaints about government created monopolies from the people that created them.  For the same reason, you can't blame Capitalism for something the government did.  The government gave particular companies money to build networks on public land without paying for it, giving them monopolies, while guaranteeing that no one else could afford to build competing networks by making it prohibitively expensive to join the game.

Reply #36 from WinCustomize Forums Top

It's all a simple calculation of population density.

The more people + smaller country ...the cheaper things will be [assuming equivalent economy otherwise].

Whether it's gas, electricity or comms ....it's the same deal re service provision aka 'connection'.

Hopefully our current PM will be around long enough to ensure those idiot Liberals don't pull the plug on optic fibre.

Reply #37 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 36
Hopefully our current PM will be around long enough to ensure those idiot Liberals don't pull the plug on optic fibre.
End of Jafo's quote

That's looking doubtful given the current polls.  She is trailing Abbott by quite some margin, so unless that trend reverses significantly before the next election, we'll have that idiot dipshit running the country instead... and frankly, he's by far the worst alternative to Juliar, so no, I don't want him inflicted upon us any time soon... at all/not ever.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

We all agree that when power is concentrated in the hands of a few, our freedoms are inevitably curtailed.
End of quote

That goes for the government as well.  While I agree with the premise, I do not agree with the solution.  Indeed, the biggest threat to freedom is not business, but government.

Reply #39 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 33


Quoting DsRaider, reply 31internet companies don't operate in a competitive market.

1. You mean ISPs?

2. That is exactly how Capitalism has failed: It isn't a free market and there is no competition. Why are the proponents of Capitalism so silent about this. Worse, why are the victims of this not demanding action? 

The reason?

Poorly written law, corrupting election laws masquerading as free speech, and lobbies which (quite openly) buy politicians and their further action/inaction, all causing futility.

I want real Capitalism and a real, free market place to be allowed to work. You didn't understand that.

 
End of DrJBHL's quote

 

It's not a failure of Capitalism as much as it is the application of Capitalism to something Capitalism is currently unsuited to handle.

 

Capitalism only works when there is competition and market power equality.  Neither of this exist in the American broadband space.

 

Reply #40 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 38
 Indeed, the biggest threat to freedom is not business, but government.
End of Dr's quote

We control the government, it represents us. If a government fails then it's our fault, people have fought to get a system where we have some control, complacency is the enemy of freedom ... 

Reply #41 from WinCustomize Forums Top

"We control the government"

Right, that's how we ended up with the carbon tax nobody but Juliar wanted.

... and like that wanker, Abbott's going to abolish it when he comes to power later in the year.

Nope, he'll just view it as a nest-egg and let it accumulate to his benefit.

That's why it's called government... to govern; rule; be in charge; boss everybody else around.

After winning an election it's called "coming into power" for a reason... they have the power to do all that and more.

So voting in an election isn't about who you want to elect, but about who will do the least amount of damage... to rip you off.

"If a government fails then it's our fault"

No, governments fail because they're all tarred with the same self-serving brush and seek only to feather their own nests'

Abbott leads the polls right now, but if anybody thinks he's any better than Juliar in the lying an deception stakes, then they have rocks in their heads.... 'Work Choices' anyone?