Are America's Big Telecom Companies Suppressing Fiber? (salon.com) 446
Salon just published a new interview with Susan Crawford, the author of "Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution -- And Why America Might Miss It."
Crawford has spent years studying the business of these underground fiber optic cables that make fast internet possible. As it turns out, the internet infrastructure situation in the United States is almost hopelessly compromised by the oligopolistic telecom industry, which, due to lack of competition and deregulation, is hesitant to invest in their aging infrastructure... This is going to pose a huge problem for the future, Crawford warns, noting that politicians as well as the telecom industry are largely inept when it comes to prepping us for a well-connected future...
"The decay started in 2004 when -- maybe out of gullibility, maybe out of naivety, maybe out of calculation -- then-chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, now the head of cable association -- was persuaded that the telcos would battle it out with the cable companies, that their cable modem services would battle it out with wireless, and all of that competition would do a much better job than any regulatory structure could at ensuring that every American had a cheap and fantastic connection of the internet. That's just turned out that's just not true. Since then, he deregulated the entire sector -- and as a result, we got this very stagnant status quo where in most urban areas -- usually the local cable monopoly has a lock in the market and can charge whatever it wants for whatever type of quality services they're providing, leaving a lot of people out."
"Because Americans don't travel," she adds, "you don't get the sense of what a third-world country the U.S. is becoming when it comes to communications."
"The decay started in 2004 when -- maybe out of gullibility, maybe out of naivety, maybe out of calculation -- then-chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, now the head of cable association -- was persuaded that the telcos would battle it out with the cable companies, that their cable modem services would battle it out with wireless, and all of that competition would do a much better job than any regulatory structure could at ensuring that every American had a cheap and fantastic connection of the internet. That's just turned out that's just not true. Since then, he deregulated the entire sector -- and as a result, we got this very stagnant status quo where in most urban areas -- usually the local cable monopoly has a lock in the market and can charge whatever it wants for whatever type of quality services they're providing, leaving a lot of people out."
"Because Americans don't travel," she adds, "you don't get the sense of what a third-world country the U.S. is becoming when it comes to communications."
Third-world country (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when it comes to communications, really? What about health care? Taking care of your poor? Having a proper democracy?
The U.S.A. has been a third-world country for quite a while, just ask the other civilized countries.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Using checks is still a thing.
I suspect this has little to do with the banking system and a lot to do with the nice old ladies who will let go of their checks when you pry them from their cold dead hands... in the express lane at the grocery (puts head on shopping cart and sobs).
Affordable eductation.
This has a lot to do with how media is portraying education. What universities list for tuition and what the average student pays after scholarships is often two different things. And people could get a plenty good education at many of the fine public colleges
Re: (Score:2)
The banking system is a laughing matter. Using checks is still a thing.
What? The last time my bank gave me blank ones was more than 20 years ago and the last time I cashed one was about 18 years ago when some company invited me to the US and they gave me a check for the travel cost. These things are ancient! Interbank transfers in Europe are universally available and so cheap you do not actually pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Our electronic banking system is older, and therefore less secure - and it's not changing any time soon. Your account number is basically your password here, so you can't offer it up to accept a transfer. You have to keep it hidden and private.
Reason may be Market-based (Score:2)
Last summer our local Canadian phone provider, Telus, laid fibre to most of my city and since then they have been increasingly desperate for us to sign up to use it. However, the prices they are
It's because the U.S. was first. (Score:5, Insightful)
That wasn't because the U.S. is backwards third-world country (well, the sign instead of PIN part was, but not the slow rollout of chipped cards). The rest of the world got to do it better because the U.S. did credit cards first. So the rest of the world got to see all the problems with magnetic swipe credit cards before implementing their credit card systems. The U.S. by virtue of being the first adopter, has to deal with the additional overhead of replacing a much larger legacy system, instead of just implementing a clean system mostly from scratch. Virtually every merchant in the U.S. already had credit card readers which weren't capable of reading chipped cards, so the transition to chipped cards took a lot longer here than in other countries where merchants hadn't widely adopted credit card readers.
Same thing happened with digital cell phone service. The U.S. already had an extensive analog cellular network, so was slowest to transition to digital cellular. The cost to implement digital cellular was the same here as in other countries, but the marginal gain was less because the gain in the U.S. was analog to digital cellular, while the gain in other countries was from no cellular to digital cellular. Consequently there was less market pressure to roll out digital cellular, and it progressed more slowly than in other countries. Likewise, the standard electrical socket and plug in the U.S. is the worst-designed, because other countries to got see the problems with the U.S. design and got to implement designs which fixed those problems as their standard, before they rolled out electricity in their countries. (e.g. Ground wire connects first; and live wires are covered before they're connected so you can't accidentally touch wires carrying current.) The U.S. was saddled with the inertia of that initial socket design being standard, and has never managed to overcome it and replace it with a newer, better socket design.
So these problems aren't because the U.S. is some backwards third-world nation. it's because the U.S. is the world's spearhead - the trailblazer and first adopter. And the first attempt at implementing something is almost never the best way to do it. Other countries get for free the lessons learned from the suffering and pain of trial and error that the U.S. had to go through. Mocking the U.S. for it just means you're an ungrateful prick.
Re:It's because the U.S. was first. (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world got to do it better because the U.S. did credit cards first. So the rest of the world got to see all the problems with magnetic swipe credit cards before implementing their credit card systems.
You really need to get out more.
The US, and the rest of the world, implemented credit cards using imprinting of the front of the card, with a signature. Because credit cards predate the widespread use of computers.
Once computers were widespread, the US, and the rest of the world, implemented magnetic stripes.
Once the problems with that became widespread, the rest of the world implemented chips in their cards.
Once the problems with that became widespread, the rest of the world added PINs to the chips.
Then the US added chips to their credit cards.
The rest of the world faced the same problems with upgrading their infrastructure, and they upgraded their infrastructure. We cut taxes instead.
Same thing happened with digital cell phone service. The U.S. already had an extensive analog cellular network, so was slowest to transition to digital cellular.
So did Japan, so did most of Europe.
(e.g. Ground wire connects first; and live wires are covered before they're connected so you can't accidentally touch wires carrying current.)
It seems odd you have spent such little time around electrical sockets. Guess why the ground pin is longer than the hot and neutral on US plugs. Also, you'll never guess just how far you have to put the plug into the socket before it supplies voltage to the hot terminal.
So these problems aren't because the U.S. is some backwards third-world nation.
I have bad news for you. It's because we are now a backwards third-world nation. We haven't been the "trailblazer" in a very, very long time.
Re:It's because the U.S. was first. (Score:5, Informative)
The US has more retail space, and more retailers, both in absolute terms, and on a per-capita basis, than any other country. There were many more POS terminals to replace/upgrade than there were in the EU as individual countries made the switch piece-meal.
Wrong metrics. You need to compare number of POS terminals to something like GDP or retail sales to measure how affordable the transition was. Because affordability is the metric you're claiming, not total number.
The US had large-scale cell service deployments several years earlier than any other country
Japan would like to remind you they exist, and beat the US by 4 years.
The first US cellular network started in 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The first European cellular network started in 1981, in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. It was a 1G network called NMT.
The first Japanese cellular network started in 1979: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
GSM (a digital, 2G technology) was the first cell phone system deployed in the EU.
Nope. GSM was developed in part to unify the various 1G systems that were already present in Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only when it comes to communications, really? What about health care? Taking care of your poor? Having a proper democracy?
The U.S.A. has been a third-world country for quite a while, just ask the other civilized countries.
The rest of the world looks at the USA and wonders how they put up with it the same way the USA looks at North Korea and wonders how they put up with it.
Simple answer: "Ignorance is bliss".
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious from the outside, apparently hard to see from the inside. A whole large country as a filter-bubble.
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Insightful)
what about health care?
We have health care system that is the envy of most of the world. There is a reason why the kings of the middle east come here and say not the UK or Canada when they need life saving care.
Yeah, that is exactly his point. State of the art healthcare that only the kings of the Middle East, american oligarchs and the moneyed classes in the US can afford but that will bankrupt the middle class and that the working US classes simply cannot afford. If you think there is no state of the art medicine available elsewhere in the developed world you are full of bovine rectal secretions. Even Cuba has a better and more affordable healthcare system than the US from the common citizen's point of view and so does all of Western Europe.
Taking care of your poor?
Abject poverty is at its lowest level in history. Nobody is starving to death in America ANYWHERE.
That's not what he said. He was referring to the more than 40.0 million Americans live in households that struggle against hunger.
Having a proper democracy?
Yes voter id laws would help a lot.
Voter ID to do what? Give the GOP the opportunity to make voter ID's much more easily available in heavily Republican districts and nearly unobtainable in Democrat districts in a portfolio of measures intended to 'adjust' democracy to make sure the GOP wins elections despite a majority of the electorate voting for something else? Let's not forget that the most outrageous case of electoral fraud in the 2018 midterms was perpetrated by the GOP, not the Democrats, not the 'Socialists', not tons of 'liberals' bussed in by George Soros from neighbouring states, not millions of illegal immigrants, not the shadowy forces of the Deep state, it was perpetrated by the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Widespread voter fraud has been exposed as a fraud for several years. Hint: there's no money in it, so there's little incentive to commit it. However, if the U.S. insists on dumping tons of money into political races, that could change (Citizens United). What people will do for sex is amazing, what they will do for money is insane.
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Insightful)
I really dont understand opposition to voter id. We have to provide ID to open a bank account, get a drivers license, travel on public transportation, and even load cash on prepaid credit cards in some venues. As long as the ID system is universal and taxpayer funded, I don’t see a problem. Voting in more than one district or voting as someone else is just as much fraud as any other form of identity theft. The power of the vote is just as big of a deal as the power to buy a pistol. Nobody would dare suggest requiring ID to buy a firearm was a deliberate ploy to ensure impoverished from self defense. We expect people to show ID to buy various goods. I have to produce ID to buy damn 1 box of sudafed for gods sake. At this point opposing an ID system to vote makes it look like someone knows something shady keeps going on. How do you know mega corporations arent stacking the deck to continue to screw us, the people, over if there is no cross reference? Thats just as likely as illegals voting for some form of socialism.
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that you are missing the point. It's not opposition to voter ID per se, but caution against the combination of voter Id being required and then denied to segments of the population. Before you can require voter ID it is absolutely necessary that you can guarantee it to absolutely every citizen.
Most countries can do this.You don't need a special voter ID though - typically a country gives every citizen an ID number when born or naturalised. Since you already have an ID you don't need a new special one just for voting.
Re: (Score:2)
The US already gives such a number. Proving it is your number is the issue here.
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Informative)
Then those IDs need to be free and shouldn't require you to drive a long distance to get to them. In many parts of the country the local branches to get a ID or license have been closed.
"According to the Texas driver’s license handbook, the closest driver’s license office to Terlingua is in Alpine. According to Google Maps, that is 83.4 miles one way, or about 167 miles round trip. "
While this is a extreme situation, it still disenfranchises US citizens who have a right to vote. Driving is a privilege so I have no problem with a barrier to entry for a driver license, but voting is a right, there should be little to no barrier of entry beyond being a citizen. This is a difficult problem, but one even my home town is effected by. The last place in the south side of my town to get a ID was closed. Most people on that south side are too poor to drive and now have to travel to another town to get a state ID. Its a 30 minute car ride, or a 30 minute bus ride and a 15 minute walk. That doesn't seem like much, but the offices close around the time these people get off work and they are typically too poor to have nice things like PTO to waste on getting a ID.
Re: (Score:2)
Terlingua is in the middle of nowhere in ridiculously massive state with a whole lot of nowhere. It is a literal ghost town attraction with a population of 58 people who operate it and a lodge a tourist attraction.
Re:Third-world country (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you're OK taking away peoples' voting rights, as long as it's just a few people?
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't recall the part of the Constitution that says rights are guaranteed depending on a "cost benefit ratio".
When you find it, can we start looking at 1st and 2nd Amendment rights in terms of "cost-benefit ratio"?
I've lived in Texas. Do you know it's illegal in Texas to take more than three sips of beer while standing? That you have to get a five-dollar permit before you can go barefoot? Did you know that the Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas by state law? My point is, fuck Texas. We really shouldn't use Texas laws as anything like an example for the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:3)
The state will go to any length to be sure that the citizens there pay their taxes, so they should also go to any length to make sure that they are able to vote.
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Insightful)
I really dont understand opposition to voter id. We have to provide ID to open a bank account, get a drivers license, travel on public transportation, and even load cash on prepaid credit cards in some venues. As long as the ID system is universal and taxpayer funded, I don’t see a problem.
Many places that try to enact Voter ID laws also enact rules at the same time that limit when you can get to IDs, such as reducing the number of locations and having them only open Mon-Fri from 9-3 with Wed only open until 1. Oh, and 1 hour each day where the entire office is closed for lunch. It directly limits the ability of the working poor or elderly/disabled to access IDs, either because they can't physically get to the offices, or because they cannot afford to do so because they are paid hourly and have no time off. If a locality wants to implement Voter ID they should be allowed to, with a caveat that the government MUST provide, free of charge, an ID to all residents. That means going door to door if they have to, every house and every apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
Going door to door wont work buy having the office be the same office for drivers license and car registration would work. You cannot get on the plane now without one of the new IDs. Not every state has even fully implemented this new ID system. My state is still a few months off. They claim, alternatively, you can show your passport. Now a US passport cost $150. It takes three weeks to process unless you want to pay even more money, and the hours of availability through the post office are even more e
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just let the Post Office and PO substations give out ID cards for voting, and do it for free? If they can issue passports, they can goddamn well issue voting ID cards.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, though it's worth mentioning that none of the things on your first list are particularly relevant to the poor.
Again, the point is not that there's an inherent problem with voter ID laws. The problem is that the motive behind voter ID laws is almost always to disenfranchise citizens likely to vote for the opposition.
So long as the real motive behind voter ID laws is to disenfranchize voters, it doesn't matter how many easy solutions there are to avoid it - the laws will be crafted to make sure it hap
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Third-world country (Score:4, Insightful)
Opening a bank account, obtaining a license and using public transportation are not constitutionally enumerated rights.
The constitution is very very sparse on the specifics of many different things .. but unencumbered access to the ballot box _is_
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much voter ID that's the problem for many people, it's the suite of suppressive laws that always accompanies voter ID laws. For example, closing polling places in minority districts, closing DMVs in minority districts, preventing students who live in the district 9 months out of the year from voting, revoking people's voting rights for having the same name as someone else, etc etc.
Plus, how would you feel about a requirement of an ID to exercise 1
Re: (Score:2)
the same way I feel about having to require an ID to exercise my 2nd and 5th amendment rights. the last point is not really valid since only citizens are entitled to amendment rights and proving citizenship is essentially required to retain protection of them.
Re: (Score:3)
You answered you own question. The opposition to voter ID is because it is not:
As long as the ID system is universal and taxpayer funded
My state has a "free" voter ID. To get it, I need a certified copy of my birth certificate. That costs $50. It is possible to get one for free if I go to the county where I was born and pick one up in-person. But since that's on the other side of the country, it would cost a teeny bit more than $50.
I also need to confirm my address with information like a lease or utility bill. Which is a bit of a problem if I'm living with
Re: (Score:2)
Even Cuba has a better and more affordable healthcare system than the US from the common citizen's point of view
That's utter nonsense.
That's like saying that the Soviets had a great economy - just ask them!
People use rafts to escape Cuba and to try to get to - wait for it - the United States.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no it's not. Cuban doctors are recognized around the world as some of the best, and are in high demand especially in emergency relief situations where available resources are scarce.
People aren't fleeing Cuba because of the quality of the health care, they're fleeing because of the political climate and lack of economic mobility. High quality affordable health care is one of the few things Cuba really excels at.
Re: (Score:2)
"Let's not forget that the most outrageous case of electoral fraud in the 2018 midterms was perpetrated by the GOP, not the Democrats..."
The most outrageous case of known electoral fraud was definitely perpetrated by the D's. Millions were spent on "voter report cards" to shame voters in D districts while sending absentee ballot forms to R districts. Fall for it and mail in the form and you are disqualified from voting on election day and only counted in a recount.
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Third-world country (Score:4, Informative)
Spin up your fantasies, guy.
Let's not forget that the most outrageous case of electoral fraud in the 2018 midterms was perpetrated by the GOP,
How can we remember something that is your frothy fantasy? You need to cite, not just assert.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Republica... [lmgtfy.com]
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I didn't post evidence because it was to FB friends in my community warning about mailers and the assorted mailers all clearly stated they were from the "Center for Voter Information"
But you are welcome to just do this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=q="center+for+voter+information"+absentee+ballots
https://www.google.com/search?q="center+for+voter+information"
And yes, the lion share of their funding does come George Soros as it turns out.
"The Center for Voter Information is an organization that works t
Re: (Score:3)
The only problem is that nothing in the searches you suggest imply anything about illegal activity. It was a get out the vote effort. They weren't actually stealing ballots and changing them like the NC Republicans were.
Give it up, dude. Pointing to George Soros and suggesting some vag
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Money can buy anything. However, those that aren't as rich as Sir Mick will just have to suffer. Ain't 'merka great?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is ridiculous - you can get paid medical services in the UK or any European country. Just because state covers medical expenses doesn't mean you are not allowed to pay more to get private health care without it being covered (if you want to have an appointment immediately and so on).
Besides, the quality of a health system is not measured by the few services that the top 1% of the population purchased.
It is measured by the quality of the health services provided to the other 99%.
So yeah, the US ranks pr
Re: (Score:3)
You will get emergency treatment immediately in all of these countries, you will have to wait for non urgent treatment if you want that treatment for free, you have the option to pay if you want treatment sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know, it's illegal for a hospital to turn you away because you cannot pay. They have to provide emergency services. At least we can get services in the US, unlike the months-long waits in Canada, the UK, and most of the rest of the socialized medicine countries.
You think they don't have emergency rooms in Canada?
Re: (Score:2)
They have an obligation to treat you if you show up at emergency (spoiler alert this also holds true for all countries with universal health care). The difference is that in the US the hospital can them bill you for those procedures and take you to court if you can't pay. Just because they are obligated to treat you doesn't mean that they won't also try to reclaim those costs later.
If there is absolutely no way that the patient can pay and suing them wouldn't change that fact then the hospital may write off
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck showing up for an emergency organ transplant.
Re:Third-world country (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, I have very good insurance through my job which is the envy of most other workers. And I live in a college town with a medical school, so we pump out doctors every year.
The last time I switched providers I asked for a routine physical, and they told me they were scheduling 9 months out at that point. But in 2 months they could get me in on a Tuesday afternoon for a 15 minute "establish care" visit, where they'd review my medical history and take my vitals. At that point they'd be willing to call me a p
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully in the US if you need care, you can get it - guaranteed. Broken arm? Go to the emergency room and get it set. Canada? Get sent home for the weekend to come back in on Monday [louderwithcrowder.com] during normal office hours.
Eh, in college I walked around on a broken foot for 3 days. Broke it during a football scrimmage on Saturday, it didn't get diagnosed as broken until the morning of the following Tuesday. A broken arm is nothing, at least you can avoid using it. And after a visit to the ER for a kidney stone cost me 2k out of pocket (out of a total billing of 10K for less than 3 hours in the ER), I'd rather wait the 3 days to have the broken arm set for free.
Re: (Score:3)
Hate to tell you but the video you linked is total BS. Sure clinics are closed on the weekend. Guess what, the clinics in the US are also closed on the weekend (I'm sure there are some in each country that may be open on the weekend though). You will also notice that they went to the emergency room and clearly stated that their problem was "not super urgent". Basic triage dictates that non-serious problems get put at the back of the pack (this would also be the case in any US emergency room). At that point
Re: (Score:2)
"So you're saying that in the US you can pay for immediate care"
No, hospitals are required to provide emergency care in the US whether you can pay or not. It will be minimal and you'll sit in a chair for hours with that broken arm but they'll treat you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Emergency care cannot be refused for payment reasons. Go get your arm set - and you hassle out the bill afterwards."
Incorrect. Lifesaving emergency care can't be refused. When they determine you only have a broken arm and there is no threat to your life they can toss you out.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure he was not already in the USA, because taking an entirely unnecessary transatlantic flight for a heart valve operation would be stupid. Oh and the announcement of the surgery was combined with news that the Rollings Stones USA tour due to start in like two weeks time was postponed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In Sweden you have a couple of month's waiting time to get a simple ultra-sound.. There are articles about people DYING while waiting to get to see a doctor, and it's not an uncommon thing!
The only thing i don't like about healthcare in the US is that insurance companies can exclude pre-existing conditions, but that's something that could be regulated while keeping the rest the same.
So in the US how long is the waiting period to get an ultrasound if you don't have insurance (or if you only have basic insurance)? How many Americans die waiting to see a doctor in the US? I would assume that there are many that can't afford insurance in that die because they can't afford to see a doctor. I would also assume that you could find people in the US that do have insurance that also die waiting for a doctor.
Is universal government health care a perfect solution to health care? No. But I would ta
Re: (Score:2)
"Compare that to the $200-400 monthly health-insurance costs you can get in the US, where some even include dental."
That isn't an apt comparison. The only healthcare you will get for that low a rate will come with a massive deductible and an HSA. It is only viable for people who don't need insurance at all.
You are conflating two separate things, the cost of insurance vs the cost of healthcare. Insurance is not healthcare it is something which is supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare. So to start your co
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to the $200-400 monthly health-insurance costs you can get in the US, where some even include dental.
There is nowhere in the US where this gets you any real coverage unless your employer is providing it and also paying 2x-3x your cost in additional premiums.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans want freedom at the expense of all else.
Are you saying America is the freedom capital of the world? LOL!
Look up "Jim Jefferies - Freedumb" sometime. He says it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Jim Jefferies is a comedian. He moved to the United States, where he lives and works; in 2018, he became a citizen of the U.S.
I'm guessing that his experience living in other places is where he gets his unbiased insights into the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of what Jim Jefferies says would get him imprisoned or killed, in most of the rest of the world. Maybe having a bit of freedom is a good thing.
And that is a nice instance of how clueless you are of what is going on in the rest of the world. Because it is simply not true. Sure, there are some states where that would happen, but "most" is a vast overstatement. But I can see the class in power keeps you under control by a combination of keeping you clueless and in fear. That is a time-honored method.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, you get investigated and harassed by the police [spectator.co.uk] for using the wrong gender pronoun for transgender people. Seriously, that's so much better?
Claim that Islam is evil in most of the EU and you get charged and then sent to jail for 6+ months [theissue.com]. It's not just Germany, but wonderful Sweden [hopeforourtimes.com] as well. And of course the UK [theverge.com].
Say anything against the Government in much of the world and you end up in prison (or just - gone). Yes, most of the rest of the world has a lot less freedom of speech. Provably so.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that is actually true or at least not true in the simplistic form you present it. It just demonstrates nicely how misinformed you are and how very much kept in fear and ignorance. Bit thanks for demonstrating that I am right.
Re:Liberty is what matters (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a lie. Most Americansdo not want that.
75% were opposed the repeal of net neutrality.
56% support and only 16% oppose the creation of a publicly-owned internet companies to fill coverage gaps in rural, urban, or remote areas.
And hell, let's throw in some health care statistics too
70% want healthcare for everyone, even the poor who can't afford it.
51% are for and only 21% are against the government manufacturing and selling generic drugs (and that included revoking patents granted to pharma companies that make them too expensive for the average person to afford).
I could go on with similar poll results across every industry... energy, housing, food, utilities... everything.
Americans do not want freedom at the expense of all else. That is a lie that is continually pushed by the same interests that lobby the government to keep their monopolies in place and put former corporate executives into positions of power where they can undermine all regulation of the companies they worked for.
The only reason that lie continues is that the wealthy who benefit the most from this bullshit can use their wealthy to force it to be the only story. They hire PR firms to astroturf the story, buy media outlets and control what stories get published, pay off legislators to ensure that regulations always favor the wealthy and take every step they can to ensure that no other story gets heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? And then why do people vote the way they do? Because, assuming your statements are true (well possible, I am too lazy to verify though), these preferences seem to be pretty incompatible with who gets voted into power. Are people just very stupid and very easy to manipulate in the US?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not my point. The opposing candidate would not have been that much better on the issues. The US basically has a right-wing party and an ultra right-wing party. None of those actually care about citizens.
Well, I guess the US population is basically doing it to itself. Not the only place where that is happening. People, on average, are astonishingly stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not the point. The point is that a large number of voters voted against their own, stated by them, best interests here and that includes not only those that voted for the, aehm, "stable genius", but also those that voted for Hilary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's got a house in Los Angeles, as well as London, and lives most of the time on the road. "Coming to America" for him is trivial. He probably went wherever his doctor recommended.
Its all about content (Score:3)
Its got nothing to do with exactly what technology is being used to provide internet service and everything to do with making sure any new players who want to come in and compete with the big boys don't get that chance. And it all comes down to content.
All of these big ISPs know that if these new players come in, they will not only take away the revenue from the internet side of things but they will take away the far more lucrative TV revenue. Even more so for those ISPs like Comcast or AT&T who actually own content producers and channels rather than just cable platforms.
Portugal case-study again... (Score:5, Informative)
This reminds me of a ruling by ANACOM (Portugal's FCC) where the subsidised Fiber, granted installation and exploitation rights to a single one of our ISPs, which should be providing infrastructure to people that paid for it in secluded areas, is only ever made residentially, commercially available by that ISP when there is no alternative whatsoever. And guess what ANACOM accepts as an alternative: 2-8Mbps WIRELESS 3/4G or COPPER DSL!
There are thousands of villages in Portugal that have multi-Gbps Fiber installed but also have a faint, miserable 3 or 4G connection and/or copper, where Wireless and Copper fail to reach even the tens of Mbps and are always unstable. Yet since both Wireless and Copper have the POTENTIAL of reaching those numbers (even though they never ever do), the ISP is allowed to NEGATE access to the state-sponsored network, and only sell residential copper and wireless, because those services simply bring in more revenue (Copper: requires a phone fee that adds up to 50% cost; Wireless: is much more expensive and has data caps)!!!
This mostly happens because that infrastructure is also exclusive to the ISP in such a way that they don't even have to re-sell the Fiber to competitors, because in rural areas ANACOM exempts competition rules that would force the ISP to re-sell the Fiber!
This is Big Telecom at its worst. They fed from state funding to expand their networks, then lobbied the state authority to allow them to make use of the state-sponsored infrastructure as they please, even by keeping the villages initially targeted to benefit from the infrastructure in the shadow!
I build fiber (in my spare time) (Score:5, Interesting)
I can tell you much of the problem is about how to retrofit existing areas. New builds get fiber, but anything that existed before 2014 or so is a legacy build. I live in an area that was built in the late 90s and there's no hope of getting anything fast out here so I'm doing it myself. The costs are reasonable (about 30-50k/mile) but the majority of the issue is in permitting to go underground. (If you go on poles, it's actually just as expensive as underground in many cases due to annual fees on the poles, engineering studies, tree clearing fees, make-ready, etc.. Plus then you need to own a bucket truck and other expenses).
The wholesale cost of the bandwidth is nothing, it's all about the cost to put the stuff in the ground and the permit process. Expect 30% of your costs (and 90% of build-time) to be constrained by engineering and permitting costs. The rest of that 30-50k USD/mile cost is the labor and materials needed. You need to put in a place every 2-3 homes you pass to deliver service. There are a lot of people doing this in rural areas to close the gap but most people have only heard of the incumbents so there's a market awareness problem. Many people that are WISPs (see WISPA.org) are now moving into the fiber world, but the capital costs are around 50-250k to get all the equipment you need for underground construction.
Rough costs if you care: 35c/ft for conduit, 7-10c/ft for fiber (once you get large counts like 96 count, it's closer to 1c/strand/foot) and $100-300 for a pedestal or hand-hole, plus splice trays, etc. $1/foot (linear) * $1/foot (depth) for your route if it's not complicated. Costs go up in urban environments very quickly if you have a lot of requirements or other utilities to dodge.
Re: (Score:3)
We flipped this around in our town. The voters voted to make the local power utility _own_ the fiber and deploy it. So my fiber runs right along my electrical and comes out of my power meter! I pay $30 a month extra on my utilities to be hooked up... and from there I can choose (from 6) an ISP and one of their packages to go with for bandwidth. Now I have gigabit bidirectional for $70/month!
My house is a newer build so it was easy to run the fiber through existing conduit. In other areas of the city th
Wireless. Now. (Score:2)
And so TMO, in the midst of a merger plan with the Sad Sack of the industry, is also working on Band 71 deployment as a rural broadband (oh, and yes, mobile service) solution. This is an excellent time to refocus on fiber, engage in another round of subsidized buildout, and let this new fiber, 'everywhere', sit dark.
How much fiber was laid by Ma Bell pre-breakup, and how much was resold to us for long-distance rate reductions that never actually happened?
How much of that fiber was laid as expense, not inves
Full of lies (Score:2)
Americans travel. 42% of the population owns a passport.
Fiber != fast. There are consumer ISPs that are offering multi gigabit service over copper. Stop parading the myth that fiber is needed to provide extremely fast Internet speeds. Sure there are some competition issues at the local level (a lot of it created by the local government allowing a monopoly so they can receive extra revenue) but that can easily be resolved.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a lot less than most other western countries...
And just because someone has a passport doesn't mean they ever travel, many people possess a passport to use as a form of ID as many places demand to see a photo id.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans travel. 42% of the population owns a passport.
Only because you now need passports to go to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. In 2006, there were 70 million passports in circulation according to the Sate Department. By 2010 there were over 100 million in circulation. In 2007, the US government required passports when traveling by air to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. In 2009 they were required for land travel to Mexico/Canada as well. Most Americans haven't even left this continent, much less this hemisphere.
Stop using NN to hide a lack of service. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask them for a 1000/100 service.
When they say no ask them again for 1000/1000 service for the town.
Plan for community broadband.
Ask for 1000/1000 around the town again.
Wait for the NN telco to say no. That wireline is going to stay. That is the NN approved network is the network they have to offer as a monopoly telco.
Tell the city your granted telco monopoly no longer deserves any monopoly protection as they are doing nothing of value with the monopoly.
Get community broadband working.
Connect the community at 1000/1000 when they request that type of connection.
Theres a reason.. (Score:2)
The telcoms know that between 5G Home Service and services like Star Link, running fiber to the house is a looser..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
^^^THIS^^^ The broadband situation in America is a story about government intervention completely breaking the marketplace not a failure of the market place. We really need to be passing state laws that prohibit the creation and renewal of such agreements by local municipalities. That is how you fix this situation.
Re:No, government is. (Score:5, Informative)
Municipal monopoly agreements DO NOT EXIST in the United States. Period. They have been banned, at the Federal level, since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. True story.
What you have is an example of first mover effect and natural monopolies. But Libertarians hate to admit to those, as they are natural market failure mechanisms, and they don't like to admit that the market can have inherent failure modes.
Re: (Score:3)
Monopolies are not a libertarian topic. Monopolies rarely occur without assistance from congress and any government intervention inherently means its not a libertarian concept. Granting patents on vague language such as verizons alleged patent against vonage is a perfect example. They were allowed to get a patent in 1998 that literally, and I do mean literally, described how DNS works. They then used that patent to win a lawsuit against vonage. It’s a little known secret that the biggest pushers fo
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, you don't know that it could have never worked.
Secondly, it's a straw man; nobody has argued that every 100 feet should be negotiated.
All it takes is 1 NIMBY right next to the brand new treatment plant to say "no" and those miles of sewage lines you dug are useless. What are you going to do, force the guy to sell/take his land? The government can't force him to do anything. Odds are, in your libertarian paradise, the guy probably bought up all that land just for the purpose of screwing it up for the lulz, because people tend to be dicks when they are do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
While government interference in the market has been detrimental, a totally unregulated market would not work either except in very densely populated and affluent areas.
A different approach is required...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is poor resource utilization. Unless you have extremely low subscriber density, fixed infrastructure provides better performance a slower cost.
Re:5G (Score:5, Insightful)
There are huge limitation of using a broadcast medium (wireless) vs a point-to-point medium such as fiber. With all advances in wireless technology (such as MIMO or beam forming) - you will never get the same quality that you can achieve with fiber connection. Now imagine all homes using that same 5G technology in addition to mobiles - it will create additional overhead to an already congested spectrum. It is more efficient to dedicate 5G to devices that really need it - cars, public transport services, smartphones and so on, while connecting homes through fiber.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a dedicated 1gbps pipe per user, or a 10gbps (5g) pipe shared between 1000 users...
If you're sharing broadcast spectrum as with any wireless technology, then you are absolutely at the mercy of other users and environmental conditions. Where i am, i can get a strong 4g connection so at times i can download at close to 100mbit/sec with reasonable latency, but at other times the latency will spike massively and the throughput can be extremely poor. It's useful as a backup and for casual browsing,
Re: (Score:2)
How many consumers want (or would utilize) gigabit fiber to the home?
How many people thought they would ever need more than 56K? And that was less than 20 years ago for some. Instead of maximizing short-term profits, they need to actually reinvest in infrastructure. We never would have had the copper lines to rot out in the first place if there was never a big buildout before.
Re:5G (Score:4, Insightful)
5G won't provide fibre speeds to all. It can't, there just isn't enough bandwidth. Say you live in a city in an apartment block and everyone is using 5G for their broadband. Well for a start 5G uses higher frequencies so you will need an external antenna to get anywhere near the theoretical 10Gbps it offers.
10Gbps between how many users? If it's more than 5 then it's already slower than symmetrical 1/1Gbps cable, and of course the latency is much worse. That 10Gbps is the on-air rate too, not the speed you get after all the protocol overhead and switching time to allow other uses to communicate.
Re: (Score:2)
Im a bit concerned over the most recent whistle blown about them hiding studies that linked it to lukemia and a few other cancers. The odds of getting some form of cancer are now 1 in 3. I believe it was rarer than 1 in 25 back in the 80s. I would much prefer fiber than saturate the airwaves with even higher powered EM radiation. Do you know how much more space junk we are going to have floating around to support 5g? Eventually we are going to have to cruise to the arctic circle just to get a good view of t
Re: Americans don't travel? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fiber is available in places where it's already run, but not generally expanding at the rate which it should. Verizon stopped their roll out about a decade ago and has only expanded in places where municipalities are suing or as a replacement for failing copper lines. Comcast is pushing gigabyte service over it's coax, but has limited fiber roll out if the community insists on it. AT&T is plodding along only in metropolitan areas. Google has went as far as to dig up some test deployments and hasn't
Re: (Score:2)
The cellular companies will probably decide they don't want to compete with fixed-line Internet services even if their 5G service is capable of doing it. They probably figure that most of the future of 5G is mobile devices and there's just more money to be made from keeping data caps high and charging extremely high rates for blurry and incoherent versions of "unlimited".
They could compete against fixed-line Internet if they wanted to, but then they would have to come with a scheme for lower prices/GB for
Re: (Score:2)
Any wireless service will only work where there aren't many users...
Even with 5G there is a fixed amount of spectrum, which must be shared among the users. Once it's gone, its gone, whereas with cable you can run a separate fibre to each user.
Whenever i've used a wireless technology, the latency and throughput varies massively and randomly whereas a wired connection is usually consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with 5G there is a fixed amount of spectrum, which must be shared among the users. Once it's gone, its gone, whereas with cable you can run a separate fibre to each user.
The whole premise of 5G is more and smaller cells. With cable, that's more nodes for a given number of subscriber comparing apples to apples. If you run a fibre to each user, then that's not cable Internet - that's fibre.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't forget Charter Spectrum! Around here they advertise their "fiber-rich" internet all the time. It's hilariously depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they actually sell you fiber (Do you have an ONT device in your house?) or did they lie about the DSL that has a DSLAM much closer to you than traditional DSL?
That's what AT&T was doing in my town lately. Selling everyone "fiber" but no fiber optic cable comes anywhere near the house. It's just DSL.