WSJ Says Gov't Money Injection Won't Help Broadband 647
olddotter writes "According to the WSJ, The US government is about to spend $10 Billion to make little difference in US broadband services: 'More fundamentally, nothing in the legislation would address the key reason that the US lags so far behind other countries. This is that there is an effective broadband duopoly in the US, with most communities able to choose only between one cable company and one telecom carrier. It's this lack of competition, blessed by national, state and local politicians, that keeps prices up and services down.' Get ready for USDA certified Grade A broadband."
Cognitive dissonance... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the WSJ, viewed by slashdotters as a heavily conservative news source, is advocating a position that most slashdotters agree with?
Head explosions commencing in 3...2...1...
Re:Big Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't think government can help with anything.
Do you think the government issuing franchises that creates monopolies backed by the power of the state has helped?
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
The article does a poor job of identifying two separate problems: rural areas with no broadband vs all other US areas with crappy and overpriced broadband. We need to solve both problems, and the WSJ article doesn't offer a real answer to either, so the main point of the article appears to have been to whine about the stimulus package.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way to stimulate the economy is to get the banks lending [slashdot.org] again and get consumers spending again.
Ah, the hair of the dog. Wasn't it poor lending standards and people living beyond their means (i.e: greed on everyone's part) that got us into this mess? Just once I'd like to hear somebody talking about people needing to save in addition to talking about them needing to spend....
Re:So we've got a duopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that a non-governmental for profit company is going to take a massive guaranteed permanent loss to give Joe Redneck in the sticks a 20mb/s connection?
why not? they did it with the copper wires for phone. and last I checked, 4 pair Fiber was cheaper than 4 pair copper.
Oh and laying copper costs EXACTLY THE SAME as laying fiber.
If they could get off their asses in the 60's and 70'stio lay the copper then they can get off their overpaid asses and lay the fiber or upgraded copper. Honestly moving telcos from a regulated agency that had to do things the Govt said to unregulated caused more issues than anything.
Right now they all care only about maximizing profits. They dont give a flying rats ass about the customer or future.. If they could cut 90% of their infrastructure and charge the difference to the 10% in the big cities and tell all rural people to go to hell they would do it in a heartbeat.
The only thing keeping telcos from telling most of america to "GO AWAY" is government regulations.
Re:I used to read the WSJ (Score:4, Insightful)
ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
the reason the usa lags behind other countries is that the other countries are small, compact and densely populated. like korea, or any european country
if you were to examine say, new york and new england, alone, or california, alone, the usa does fine in broadbrand penetration. but the usa is still sparsely populated in vast rural areas in the middle
want proof? look at canada. canada obviously has different governmental mechanisms, but it has virtually the same digital access ratings as the usa:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/list3.htm#dai [internetworldstats.com]
broadband penetration has to do with only two factors:
1. how rich the country is
2. population density
all other factors, including government policy, are neglible in comparison
Did you guys already give them billions... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure they got some nice jets, and while they can hold a tremendous amount of data, the latency on the things is terrible.
Re:Big Surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
It won't help fix the core issues. (Score:4, Insightful)
This massive injection of money, which is being obtained through printing money and borrowing, will not fix the core problems that caused this mess, namely:
All this talk about need more credit and more lending is a red herring. Over-consumption and over-spending is what got us into this mess in the first place. The US$1.5 trillion would be better spent buying up bad mortgages or just giving an equal share to every legal resident in the U.S. than what they are doing with it.
This will only put off the inevitable correction (crash), and it when it does happen, and it will, it will be even worse.
More help from the Moderators (Score:3, Insightful)
The WSJ article is opinion, and is leaving out the fact that the monopolies will not be broken without government interference.
Re:Cognitive dissonance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because the way to get out of a 10 foot deep hole that is filling with water is to dig deeper.
Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
A mainstream media property actually "gets" something technical related to the Internet. Assuming the summary is right, they've got it dead-on.
The stimulus money should only be permitted to go to non-incumbent providers.
Alternatively, it should only be permitted to be used by a given provider to extend full wired (or fiber) service to geographic areas currently completely unserved by that provider (Eg AT&T would have to extend into non AT&T areas currently serviced by other telecoms, etc, ditto for cable)
Re:Big Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
A government mandated monopoly whose goal is to maximize private profit is a whole lot different than a government administered network whose goal is public service.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for getting off topic, but I figure if I kill off my debt, save up my cash to give an emergency buffer and can still once a paycheck afford a nice steak dinner, I should be happy. The 'I need it now' mentality, almost killed me here.
I guess what I'm getting at is this 'Gotta have it now!' mentality and the illusion of easy money got more than just me into trouble with money.
Re:I used to read the WSJ (Score:1, Insightful)
Oddly enough, most so-called "conservatives" today are actually from what, classically, is the center of the political spectrum. It just doesn't look that way because so much of the major media outlets are hard-core lefties claiming that they are the "center."
Let's take a few examples:
- Health care. The "right wing" position would be hands-off government and competition between services. The "left wing" position is socialized medicine. The "center" would have a balance, with people going out of their own pocket for minor things and shopping for insurance for the major, and government assists for those who truly were unable to pay. Unfortunately, we effectively today almost have "socialized medicine" - when's the last time you had a choice of your HMO/insurance instead of having whatever your workplace provided? When's the last time you realized that yes, there are independent clinics out there that are actually cheaper (for the little stuff) than your copayment, except that for anything major you have to go see your bullshit "primary care provider" for a referral or the insurance company will dick you over?
- Immigration. The "right wing" position would be isolationism. The "left wing" position would be unfettered open borders. The "center" should be responsible, controlled, legal immigration so that we bring in people on (a) a sustainable level and (b) fill in spots in the economy where we need workers. Unfortunately, the left-wing open borders crowd insists that the responsible center are actually a bunch of "right-wing haters" when we say that hey, maybe we should know who's coming in to the country.
- Social services. The "right wing" position would be to do away with them altogether. The "left wing" position would be to stick everyone on them. In the center, we would try to provide the ones that are really needed, while getting rid of (or tightening down on) those that are either (a) being abused, (b) counterproductive, or (c) just plain unnecessary. Yet the moment you even try to have this debate, the left wing types call you a "hater."
I'm a proud member of the center. Where do you fall, honestly?
Re:WSJ says (Score:1, Insightful)
The USA was founded under the assumption that government can't do anything right. I wish people would remember that.
WSJ Says Broadband Is (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad juju.
No likey series of tubes.
Broadband not truck. Can't fill up.
Bad juju cause bad thing happen.
Paper good juju.
Old ways best.
Good juju make good thing happen.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I used to read the WSJ (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, as others have pointed out, "liberal" and "conservative" are false dichotomies, most people are somewhere in the middle.
Second, "classic liberalism" is now libertarianism; neo-liberalism is not "liberal" at all.
While "neo-conservatives" may include religious fundamentalists, many modern conservatives are very much more liberal by definition than most people calling themselves "liberal" in the nomenclature of U.S. politics.
Lastly, there's different matters on which to be conservative and liberal, the most common (if overreaching) ones are socially and fiscally. I'm a libertarian, generally conservative based on the common nomenclature, I'm socially liberal (you can do whatever you want as long as you don't violate the rights of others) and fiscally conservative (which grants much more freedom to people and businesses to use their own money as they see fit). Both positions are actually "liberal."
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
You cant really call it overpriced if people are buying it.
That argument doesn't really work in a monopoly. For instance, when AT&T was broken up, nearly everyone in the US already had phone service, and yet prices came down. It's hard to argue that AT&T monopoly phone service wasn't "overpriced". At the very least, it illustrates how hard it is to determine a fair price in the absence of competition.
Typical WSJ Bias (Score:3, Insightful)
The WSJ is one of the most predictably biased editorial pages I've ever seen. Their very raison d'être is to beat the drum of laissez-faire capitalism. This allows consolidation/ buyouts and produces monopolies and higher prices to consumers.
We need to regulate and provide broadband as a utility like all the countries ahead of us do.
Re:So we've got a duopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Rural copper layout for POTS was legendarily subsidized. Unfortunately, we didn't get the same guarantees for rural broadband.
Re:Cognitive dissonance... (Score:4, Insightful)
The article claims such a thing, but does nothing to support that claim. I will quote the claim in full: "In contrast, most other advanced countries have numerous providers, using many technologies, competing for consumers."
The obvious and unanswered question is, why do countries like Japan and France have more and better options for bandwidth? It is because the telecom industries there are controlled by libertarians? I doubt it. My guess is the opposite.
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you happen to live in an area that isn't profitable to run service to I suppose you should just move then, right?
Yes. Just because you want the benefits of living further from other people, don't expect me to subsidize the costs that decision incurs.
Re:Cognitive dissonance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the major problem with the US is distance.
Japan is the size of California, France is 4/5th the size of Texas (size of France / size of Texas).
We've spread out- look at the cities of Asia and Europe- fairly tight; but they too have the same problem of broadband out in the country side.
That said, there still is no excuse for the crappy service that we live with, and the competition should be encouraged by ending excursively.
Two Extremes (Score:3, Insightful)
The current national duopoly is the result of two extremes screaming at each other for the past 70 years or so.
One said screams that we need to regulate everything and have the government put everything in order so that everything works one way.
The other side screams that we need to degregulate everything and let companies do what they want to do in order to make more money.
Well, we've got both right now. These companies - cable and copper providers - are both regulated and deregulated and we have, in effect, a system that simply looks at numbers and says "this is good" or "this is bad" - and now both sides are screaming even louder to regulate or deregulate.
You know what we really need? More options. It's not about regulating or deregulating an industry, it's about competition.
You can regulate the shit out of an industry so long as there is enough momentum to allow new players to move in and drive down prices. Without competition, over regulation becomes a burden on the business and the consumer - by forcing a business to comply with a standard of practice, they (the monopoly/duopoly/*opoly) will pass costs associated with regulation to the consumer, either in direct billing costs, reduced support overhead, or poor infrastructure maintenance.
You can have a completely deregulated industry as well, but you still need that competitive momentum in order to keep the consumer from being raped in the ass. In a completely deregulated environment, the *opoly turn into the local Barrons of the community and become the almighty gatekeepers of the industry.
In either environment, if you have real competition, consumers become valuable again (as opposed to the business commodity they are in the telco and entertainment industries).
In the end, I think the best fit for America is a mixture of deregulation and dynamic "as needed" regulation (as opposed to the blanket industry-wide regulation that's currently enforced), and a breakup of local monopolies.
High speed internet trains. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a wild idea.
We need a decent rail system in the US, we have trackbeds all over the place in bad shape. Railroads ran through almost every major town. Take the trackbeds, fix them up for a new rail system. While that's being done, since you're digging up anyway, lay new commuinication cables to each town alongside the rail bed. Now you've pretty much addressed broadband and rail transportation at the same time.
Last mile can be handled either through local cables that the town can build out, OR wireless broadcasts at the railroad stations and using the local post offices as repeaters.
There, federal rail, and unified communication. Oh, and don't let the NRPC or the USPS run this, they have enough problems.
Re:It won't help fix the core issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the problem I have with the FairTax. It hurts lower class the most. Poor people, college students, etc who already struggle to get buy now have a 30% markup on goods and services?
Additionally how does it take into account people who have massive amounts of wealth, assets, etc. but live frugally? Are they paying their fair share?
Neglecting the fact it will never happen because Congress would never authorize it. It would likely increase their own taxes. No congress person would ever vote to increase their expenses.
Re:Big Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
than a government administered network whose goal is public service
You'll forgive me if my experiences with DMV don't inspire confidence in the ability of government to run anything.
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the "authority" model might work. Let a local authority handle the connection to the home, just as they do with water, sewer, etc. Then allow you to utilize the data pipe in any way you wish - select from any ISP willing to hook up to the authority. This way it would be up to the local authority how to best connect each home... fiber, copper, even over-the-air. When it comes to these hookups to the home, you can't have unbridled competition... so why do we pretend?
Re:High speed internet trains. (Score:3, Insightful)
Take the trackbeds, fix them up for a new rail system.
Would you like to do the environmental impact study? We're talking years.
The other challenge is that the few places that actually have high-quality rails for Amtrak barely breaks even. Amtrak as a whole has never turned a profit. It is likely that even an improved passenger rail system would need a larger permanent subsidy to survive.
Re:stuff that matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course WSJ says this.
They doctrinally believe, and are paid to amplify the message that the ills of the world can be cured by giving a free hand to the same people responsible for the global financial collapse.
Re:ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
So what's their excuse here. It's too densely populated?
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WSJ says (Score:3, Insightful)
Energy independence Stimulus Package. Tax rebates for people who buy cars made in America
That won't stimulate the economy. That will spark a trade war with our European and Asian trading partners and the resulting decline in industries that rely on imports/exports will more than outweigh the resulting increase in Detroit.
Re:I used to read the WSJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddly enough, most so-called "conservatives" today are actually from what, classically, is the center of the political spectrum. It just doesn't look that way because so much of the major media outlets are hard-core lefties claiming that they are the "center."
Actually, both American political parties are what most of the rest of the world would call right wing parties. Just a few examples: neither party argues against unfettered capitalism (although you're starting to hear some from the public after the events of the last six months), neither party argues against massive military spending, neither party argues for gay marriage, and neither party argues for more liberal drug laws.
You may honestly believe that the country is in the hands of left wing lunatics, but let me assure you that, by international standards, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are left wing.
Re:ridiculous (Score:1, Insightful)
You are correct except for one non minor point. Places like New York, New England, California might be able to compete in terms of the the percentage of the population with broadband server available. However, the prices are still outrageous when compared to those European companies or Japan, and that is still due to the Mono/Duopoly setups that occur almost no matter where you are in the US.
Bogus argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cognitive dissonance... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the major problem with the US is distance. Japan is the size of California, France is 4/5th the size of Texas (size of France / size of Texas). We've spread out- look at the cities of Asia and Europe- fairly tight; but they too have the same problem of broadband out in the country side.
That said, there still is no excuse for the crappy service that we live with, and the competition should be encouraged by ending excursively.
I've got one word for you: Sweden
They've got a lower population density and faster connections.
Re:It won't help fix the core issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a "FairTax" supporter by any means, but your first point has been answered a number of times already. Yes, everyone would pay a 30% markup on new goods -- but everyone would also get a yearly refund amounting to 30% of whatever the government deems to be a base level of spending. Essentially, if you spend exactly that amount you'd pay no net taxes; if you spend less than that amount you'd get an automatic handout. (Talk about not paying their fair share!). The lower class actually does extremely well under the "FairTax" proposal.
As for the frugally wealthy: that depends on what you mean by "fair share". If you refer to the (somewhat arbitrary) market value of the services they receive, they already pay far more than that under the current system, and would likely continue to pay much more than their "fair share" under the "FairTax" as well; someone has to fund those handouts and "free" services to the lower classes. On the other hand, if you mean "would the 'FairTax' be as effective as current income taxes at confiscating and redistributing wealth from the materially rich to the materially poor", then I certainly hope not.
My main problem with the "FairTax" (aside from the simple fact that no nontrivial tax can ever be "fair") is that it assumes the new sales tax would replace the current income tax. In my estimation it's far more likely that we would eventually end up with both, eliminating any possible benefit.
Re:Two Extremes (Score:4, Insightful)
"One said screams that we need to regulate everything and have the government put everything in order so that everything works one way.
The other side screams that we need to degregulate everything and let companies do what they want to do in order to make more money."
Straw man.
One side says deregulate everything, that government is incapable of doing good, that only business, unencumbered by anything other than the profit motive, can solve problems. That is the right, who call themselves conservative. That truly IS the definition of the right, of Bushism, of Reaganism, of Limbaughism.
And there is everyone else, whom the conservatives call "liberals". And not a one, not a solitary, single, identifiable human-unit of those "liberals" has ever said the government needs to control everything so that everything works one way. Not even communists, should you find the odd one in a coffee shop, would say such a thing.
Your other points are well made. The problem with the argument is the above, because you are letting the right define the terms. No such opponent to the right exists. Our "left" is so far to the right that we can barely find money to buy textbooks. We won't even build schools anymore, for such activity is socialistic. Such cash was cut from the stimulus fund because Republicans find it so.
We had - emphasis *had* - government licensed monopoly in cable TV franchises for two simple reasons. First, it was damned expensive to drop cable to American homes, and no company wanted to do it if another company were to drop cable down as well, causing competition. They impressed upon localities to regulate things so they could make a nice profit by making sure individual companies were gifted with exclusive zones of coverage. Some gimmes like public access and a standard package of broadcast TV was included, and we were off. I was there, I remember.
Secondly, because of *deregulation*, NOT regulation, the cable companies started to absorb each other and formed powerful monopolies of their own design. The few real competing cable companies were ruthlessly forced out of business by underpriced services or being bought outright.
We have a duopoly because, after we collectively decided to open the business up to competition, over the EXTREMELY VOCIFEROUS objections, both vocal and campaign-contribution-wise of the cable companies, we let the telcos in to play. And then let AT&T reform after so agonizingly breaking them up. So now, thanks to dereg, we have two real players left. And they are cutting up the pie according to their own internal profit lines, making enough money to buy god.
Can you imagine how much roads would cost if we had built them up this way, rather than competitive contracts according to government (ie people-driven) specs? Ever tote up how much our "free" market internet has cost us as consumers? Vs. how much it would have cost had a federal plan simply dropped the fiber to every house - once and for all, and let a price controlled, competitive bid system decide who provided the internet access itself?
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, blaming the victim.
Ah, selective hearing. It's ironic that you quoted me and still only read part of my sentence. If you'd bothered to read it all you would have seen that I blamed poor lending standards as well as people who wanted to live beyond their means.
Sell people on loans -- for commissions, of course -- regardless of the borrower's chances of being able to keep up with it
And the borrower doesn't share in the responsbility in that scenario? Would you take out a loan that you had no chance of being able to repay even if the bank was willing to let you do it?
they only cry to blame the citizenry while simultaneously begging for handouts from them
The citizenry does share some of the blame here. Have you seen the neighborhoods in CA and FL that were hardest hit by this? They are all filled with McMansions that invariably had two SUVs in the driveway and at least one big screen TV in the house. I have very little sympathy for this "keep up with the Jones'" manner of living.
The people trying to absolve Main Street of blame in this crisis are just as bad as the people trying to absolve Wall Street. We all fucked up. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can start fixing the mess we've created.
Re:WSJ says (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you can't protect your rights, you deserve to lose them. Why do you think that right to life is less deserving of protection than other rights?
Still, at least you deserve credit for being honest about what libertarian ideology means: the poor should just die. Not that it wouldn't be obvious to anyone anyway, which is why libertarians get so few votes; but at least you aren't trying to hide behind "voluntary charity" or other bullshit.
Since death prevents you from exercising any rights, it logically follows that you lose all of them in the end, and thus none of them are inalienable.
And since we've already established that death strips your rights, it follows that people who would deny me the resources I need to live are included in that list. Not that that matters; I value my life higher than liberty, since without life I can't have anything, including liberty.
Government and companies both. That's why you need to play them against one another; use government to limit corporate power.
I am. I'm voting for politicians who are for regulating companies, thus forcing them to behave.
Like I said above, voting for more regulation is doing something about it.
Re:stuff that matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
People are greedy and your isp is not your friend they make money from you it's what they do. If they can squeeze 30 bucks more a month without you giving up completely and going back to dialup or quiting the internet they will.
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Just because you want the benefits of living further from other people, don't expect me to subsidize the costs that decision incurs.
You already do.
And BTW, this was the argument made against Rural Electricification, one of the most successful social programs in U.S. history. The initial investment was paid back in spades by increased farm productivity.
Whether that lesson can be applied to Internet access is debatable, but you're just avoiding the debate.
Re:stuff that matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I used to read the WSJ (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it's because you come into a discussion assuming that anyone that's a "liberal" is evil and hates Amer'ka and wants the terrorists to win, thus immediately putting them on the defensive if a political topic comes up?
I have lots of friends from all over the political spectrum, and we're all able to have rational, respectful debates about what we think is right. Maybe you and/or the people you spend time with just aren't capable of rational debate and instead rely on ad hominem attacks?
--Jeremy
Re:Right Wing Nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
Firstly, note the loaded language, with words like "controversial" and "radical". The bias is obvious. It implies that anyone who would have the audacity to believe that our main information arteries should not be throttled and/or censored is some kind of unrealistic dreamer. Never mind that this openness itself has been the primary reason why the internet has been such a success. Without the internet, we'd be paying exorbitant sums for proprietary services such as AOL. Their bias is short sighted, shallow, and mechanical.
The idea that competition will solve all of our problems in regards to the internet is a fallacy. Network access will always be a monopoly/duopoly or and oligopoly. The idea that the network business could actually sustain enough market players to allow true competition is laughable. And they know it. Other countries that have better network infrastructures have highly regulated duopolies/oligopolies, with strong enforcement of the regulations. The market players in other countries know that if they abuse their monopoly power, they will be punished. Their apparent bias against net-neutrality indicates they are likely against other regulations too.
I would argue that internet access can be helped by "competition", but that such competition will in actuality be a highly regulated oligarchy. As soon as the regulations disappear, the system will break, and the oligarchy players will show their true colors, charging whatever the market will bear for as bad a service as possible. The Wall Street Journal is hypocritical for promoting competition, when they surely must know that true competition is impossible in this industry.
Re:stuff that matters (Score:3, Insightful)
All because 2 trillion were given to banks - no strings attached. Socialize risks and privatize profits.
You were raped, and think that means someone LOVES you!
Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple. So simple I find it hard to believe that no one else has mentioned the reason yet:
Japan and France (and places like them that score consistently high in terms of connectedness and bandwidth) have significantly higher population density than the US.
Loads of people in a tiny space makes it very easy to justify running fibre all over the shop, for example.
I'd call the fair price a free-market price (Score:3, Insightful)
Where free market is a market without artificial barriers to entry, collusive price-fixing, monopolistic prevention of competition, etc.