|
icantfindaname posted:So what exactly is the basic reason that broadband is so expensive in the US? Is it that ISPs are unwilling to build new infrastructure because of monopolism, or is it something else? I recently read this article claiming it's local governments setting up barriers to building new infrastructure, however the guys who wrote it run a think tank affiliated with people like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and the usual suspects. IS broadband in America actually expensive compared to most of the world when you adjust prices for buying power in the first place though? And no, you don't get to compare broadband in some random hick town in the US with some major city in another country, which would naturally tend to get the most performance for the least price in that country either.
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:IS broadband in America actually expensive compared to most of the world when you adjust prices for buying power in the first place though? And no, you don't get to compare broadband in some random hick town in the US with some major city in another country, which would naturally tend to get the most performance for the least price in that country either. It's surprisingly hard to find but from what I'm able to tell the largest ISP in Germany is a DSL provider, not anything related to fiber.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So what exactly is the basic reason that broadband is so expensive in the US? Then they sit back and laugh while the idiotlogically motivated people do PR for them for free. (Sometimes here on this very forum!) Even Forbes is on to this. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rajsabhlok/2014/05/13/forget-net-neutrality-why-are-americans-getting-screwed-by-internet-fees/ quote:So what’s the deal — why do we pay so much for the Internet? The simple answer is supply and demand. There are limited suppliers (i.e., ISPs). In many markets, there is only one broadband provider, typically AT&T or Comcast. Essentially, these two providers form a duopoly that controls the market price for service. The FCC proposal only feeds this duopoly. quote:
Ignore the idiots defending deregulation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/28/the-price-of-internet-is-too-high/ quote:Americans are still paying through the nose for what residents in some cities overseas get at a substantially lower rate. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 02:50 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago" is a bullshit quote because high speed internet access was never in a regulation regime. It's also really funny to knowingly use broadband package only prices when the standing policy in this country is for double or triple play services. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:04 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Good thing literally everyone who wants internet service also wants cable TV and land line phone service.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago" is a bullshit quote because high speed internet access was never in a regulation regime. Triple play pricing is in the quote though?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:Triple play pricing is in the quote though? "This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:"This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom." And are triple play prices lower than broadband-only prices?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:"This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom." Considering the number of people cutting off TV service from their cable I don't think that the lack of double and triple play comparison is valid.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:And are triple play prices lower than broadband-only prices? For me right now double play is! This is kind of the reason most people are on at least a double-play, providers have a habit of adjusting the prices so that single-play doesn't have any appeal. karthun posted:Considering the number of people cutting off TV service from their cable I don't think that the lack of double and triple play comparison is valid. A number that is still rather insignificant.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
I just submitted my comment on 14-28. Hopefully it does some good. Use the first link in this article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2458143,00.asp
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:A number that is still rather insignificant. Of course it's a small amount when the providers purposefully gently caress over people who don't go for the bundles. That's the point people are trying to make, they already gently caress over the consumer in every legal way they can.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Of course it's a small amount when the providers purposefully gently caress over people who don't go for the bundles. That's the point people are trying to make, they already gently caress over the consumer in every legal way they can. Getting free TV isn't being hosed over. A comparison based on Internet only plans is as irrelevant to actual use as making comparisons based on landline phone plans where local calls aren't free. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:12 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
The TV is only "free" in comparison to the unbundled prices, which are artificially inflated to force people into bundles. That's why the charts posted earlier are relevant. If you compare the bundle prices to the price of broadband internet in other first world countries, you're not getting "free" TV, you're getting TV for an extra cost whether you want it or not.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:The TV is only "free" in comparison to the unbundled prices, which are artificially inflated to force people into bundles. That's why the charts posted earlier are relevant. If you compare the bundle prices to the price of broadband internet in other first world countries, you're not getting "free" TV, you're getting TV for an extra cost whether you want it or not. Except you do want tv, if you're like the vast majority of Americans. And very often the phone service as well. Or the cross company bundling with a cell phone service. Or the home alarm. ETC. Not to mention you can just look to Canada for mostly higher prices, way lower data caps, and bizarrely restricted upload speeds. Or Australia for all around limited Internet beyond the bounds of what undersea cable restrictions would justify. Or many parts of the UK where you'll be advertised 20 plus megabit DSL for the package but the actual run only allows you 4 megabit. Or rural Japan where there's often still little more than sub 6 megabit speeds and not for cheap either..... Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:22 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind.
ShutteredIn fucked around with this message at 06:23 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
And of course people ignore that most cable ISPs are in the midst of ending analog cable to free up more space for digital TV and more room for internet, often doubling or tripling available speeds for the same price tiers over the past two years.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
quote:In Seoul, a triple-play package for phone, TV and Internet at speeds of 100 Mbps for both uploads and downloads will run you $35 a month. By contrast, Verizon will charge New Yorkers $70 a month for a triple-play package with Internet at 15 Mbps down and 5 Mbps up on its FiOS service. Verizon's Internet is both more expensive and slower at the same time. It is right there and fits with things I've heard with regards to pricing in Japan also. Why do you have a boner for cable companies? It's really weird how aggressive you are about this.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Except you do want tv, if you're like the vast majority of Americans. And very often the phone service as well. Fortunately I think this is a trend that will slowly die off with the older Americans. I foresee segregated demand for Internet, TV, and land-line phone service in the future. Unless the NFL or some other major market player intervenes and rewrites the landscape. Dancing with the Stars exclusive to Triple Play?! 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Except you do want tv, if you're like the vast majority of Americans. And very often the phone service as well. then why inflate the prices of non-bundles at all if people want to buy the bundles?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Getting free TV isn't being hosed over. Go ahead and keep pretending that ISP's aren't doing everything in their power to gently caress the consumer as hard as they possibly can. It's cute 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Good thing literally everyone who wants internet service also wants cable TV and land line phone service. Do you also use Gramophones in America? Around here, the Land lines are practically dead. Around 10% of households (mainly elderly) still have them and no new ones are being built.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:And of course people ignore that most cable ISPs are in the midst of ending analog cable to free up more space for digital TV and more room for internet, often doubling or tripling available speeds for the same price tiers over the past two years. You are ignoring the refusal by ISPs to upgrade their systems, attempting to bleed as much profit as possible from a captured market before they upgrade to anything like....I dunno...fiber-to-the-home. Their backbones are falling apart, they're refusing to upgrade peering connections, and so on. Comcast recently came out and snipped the connection to my entire building, then they had the balls to have phone support pushi upgraded plans to everyone who called in to complain (I spoke to my neighbors about it and boy are we all pissed). I finally bitched enough that they sent a REAL technician out and reconnected the snipped wires. Besides that, I insist on broadband-only plans. I don't want cable TV or need a home phone.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
anonumos posted:You are ignoring the refusal by ISPs to upgrade their systems Ah yes, I'm ignoring a thing that doesn't exist. How observant of you! anonumos posted:Besides that, I insist on broadband-only plans. Sorry about your weird psychological problem.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Go ahead and keep pretending that ISP's aren't doing everything in their power to gently caress the consumer as hard as they possibly can. It's cute It's Fishmech. Everything he says, for good or ill, is pedantry. He'll zoom in on more and more picayune details of every single argument until the points he's making are quantum-sized, and about as significant. He doesn't care about the original argument, only about getting to the part where he can snip out those little details and go "actually, that's wrong." It's basically a brain problem. I don't know if the fact that his noise dominates this thread means the current neutrality crisis is serious or underplayed. Oxxidation fucked around with this message at 20:59 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:It's Fishmech. Everything he says, for good or ill, is pedantry. He'll zoom in on more and more picayune details of every single argument until the points he's making are quantum-sized, and about as significant. He doesn't care about the original argument, only about getting to the part where he can snip out those little details and go "actually, that's wrong." It's basically a brain problem.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:It's Fishmech. Someone who thinks that you have a psychological problem for not watching enough tv...  Its also the same Corporate Defense Squad members in every thread. It doesnt matter if its food, medicine, internet, taxes... their response is canned: "You dont 'understand' because I am smart and you are crazy and corporations are cool!" twodot posted:If you're saying that they correctly find wrong details in an argument, then I think the problem would lay with the person making arguments that contain wrong details. Claiming things are wrong that aren't wrong would be a different matter of course. Its a persuasion method that works on people that dont know much about a topic. It is also lovely, and only certain kinds of people could possibly stick to a single trick for years on end. In real life you call those people "people with poor interpersonal communication skills". And thats assuming that they are honest to begin with. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304908304579565880257774274 quote:A number of companies sell gear that would let Internet providers segregate traffic and bill for different speeds. They include Sandvine, Allot Communications Ltd. ALLT +3.62% , Cisco Systems Inc. CSCO +0.79% and Procera Networks Inc. PKT +0.77% In a nutshell. "Never improve the structure again! Just charge more for the same dwindling supply! Pocket all the BONUSES from your acute business acumen!" "Oh you have a degree in "business"... "acumen" means "smartyness"!" From the ACLU page on the topic: https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality quote:... This wont stop the corporate asslicking. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Look at those grinning lobbyists. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2155940/fcc-moves-forward-on-net-neutrality-plan-what-now.html quote:The proposal seeks comment on whether the FCC should ban pay-for-priority business models. During Thursday’s hearing, Wheeler also emphasized that he would consider any broadband provider’s efforts to throttle traffic to customers to be an unreasonable and prohibited practice.  quote:Wheeler believes his approach would be the quicker way to restore net neutrality rules "Let us quietly redefine some terms... you see I think "net neutrality" means..."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
If he redefined under Title II there won't be any net neutrality in force for a decade, at which point they'd probably lose in court. ( also, common carriers can still discriminate, they just have to do so in a reasonable fashion, so I hope you like paying a tariff for IP video because it consumes a disproportionate amount of their interconnect and they have to make sure there's room for email.) The 706 option gets net neutrality rules back in a short time frame in an essentially court-approved fashion.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Can you explain what option 706 is? As I understand it, ISP's being common carriers would lead to a dsl like situation where any innovation stagnates. Why would one company spend money on infrastructure only to be forced to let their competitors use it? The current system of municipalities forcing companies to cover the whole town instead of just the highest profit/density areas seems like the best solution for the long term.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
lampey posted:Can you explain what option 706 is? Option 706 is justifying the "commercially unreasonable" anti-discrimination rule under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
They could make it a restricted market wherein there was a legally mandated profit cap and the remaining funds must be used for infrastructure and ratio-mandated wages. Lets call it "soft socialism".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They could make it a restricted market wherein there was a legally mandated profit cap and the remaining funds must be used for infrastructure and ratio-mandated wages. No, actually, the FCC couldn't. They have absolutely zero authority for those things.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They could make it a restricted market wherein there was a legally mandated profit cap and the remaining funds must be used for infrastructure and ratio-mandated wages. Your understanding of the powers of the FCC is rivaled only by your understanding of well, everything else. FRINGE posted:
It's very amusing to me that you think descriptors of the fact that most people watch TV is an assertion that you are insane. Kalman posted:If he redefined under Title II there won't be any net neutrality in force for a decade, at which point they'd probably lose in court. ( also, common carriers can still discriminate, they just have to do so in a reasonable fashion, so I hope you like paying a tariff for IP video because it consumes a disproportionate amount of their interconnect and they have to make sure there's room for email.) Over the course of this whole thing, I've found it funny how so many people seem to think "common carrier" is a magic word that gives you everything you want. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:46 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Your understanding of the powers of the FCC is rivaled only by your understanding of well, everything else. Kalman posted:No, actually, the FCC couldn't. They have absolutely zero authority for those things.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I am very aware of who can do what. Just as I am aware that you have no ability to parse language like a normal person. Must be all that tv. What's extra-fun is that what you want isn't really achievable via legislation, either, and if you think there's support for a constitutional amendment for it, well, you'd be proving fishmech's point.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Kalman posted:What's extra-fun is that what you want isn't really achievable via legislation, either, and if you think there's support for a constitutional amendment for it, well, you'd be proving fishmech's point. The problem is that we only faux-nationalize things in order to prop them up with public money. We never do it to reign in abuses, correct patterns of public progress that have been crippled by greed, or punish corrupt entities.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If they went on a nationalization warpath, they could certainly construct a fixed-profit model that included mandates for the use of remaining income. Well, yes, they could do that, but they'd run into the Takings Clause, meaning they would quite possibly have to pay the carriers for all the things they mandated. Which kind of ruins the whole point of nationalization, doesn't it? And, again, you're an insane person if you think there's a single chance of the US nationalizing existing private enterprises long-term; the only nationalization that's been done has been with an eye to spin it back to private control sooner than later. I mean, the US government is literally more likely to buy every single inhabitant of the US a laptop than they are to nationalize telcos.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And, again, you're an insane person if you think there's a single chance of the US nationalizing existing private enterprises You and your buddy are so cute. Fringe posted:There is still a near-zero chance of what I want
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:You and your buddy are so cute. So why are you talking about something that is unconstitutional (unless we pay the carriers just as much as they make already, except now they get it for doing nothing) and has a near-zero chance of passing?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 06:57
|
|