digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at mises.org

Why Can't the U.S. Have Cheap Broadband?

mises.org — If you think the answer is more government intervention, then please read on...

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 26, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

376 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 12/26/2007, -7/+220Answer: ISP monopoly
  • acu8509, on 12/26/2007, -5/+175***** the FCC.

    If they move into cable networks (HBO, Showtime, etc) like they plan to, it will be a sad day for entertainment nationwide.
  • radink360, on 12/26/2007, -36/+137FCC - another useless government department Ron Paul needs to get rid of.
  • PierceNBoy, on 12/26/2007, -2/+101The US Government has already paid subsidies to the phone companies to get fiber optics to your house. We seem to forget so easy and demand so little. What a sad passive people we have become.
  • Innova69, on 12/26/2007, -2/+88Our 'entertainment' options are already pretty slim (quality-wise) and so diluted with advertisements that I do not even bother with watching TV anymore.
  • zeblith, on 12/26/2007, -1/+50Correction: Telecom monopoly.
  • inactive, on 12/26/2007, -6/+55This was a pompous and poorly written article, and I do agree the speed/cost is poor in the US.
    However, we all know it is because cable/DSL monopolies, have no incentive to create better, high speed networks like in other countries.
  • BlueSkyfish, on 12/26/2007, -10/+52I live in Philly and I get 2mb/s up, 670kb/s down for $40 a month. Yes, that's in bits, not bytes. FiOS isn't available in my area.

    And how come Japan can get 100mb/s using just broadband? Most of Japan is farmland also. The whole "America is less dense" argument is *****.
  • ariez84, on 12/26/2007, -23/+64Actually its because the US have large unoccupied areas. It just isnt worth the money to lay out fiber optics to places such as ***** nowhere. Live in a city such as NYC, Philly, Chicago, LA, and have speeds which surpass most of Europe. I have FiOS and cant complain. 20/5 for $45 bucks a month, and 20/10 for just 5 bucks more.
  • JamesBrown, on 12/26/2007, -2/+41At least you can get a 8Mbit connection. Most places in the US can't
  • dgp1, on 12/26/2007, -3/+37Hahahaha. Oh you POOR THING. The best I can get is 6mb and its regular price is $56.95 a month.* And that's the dominant #1 cable provider. In most areas the phone company can't even get you a 3mb connection. Oh and this is in San Francisco, third largest city in the state. Another part of SF (one of my company's offices in the center of town) NO BROADBAND is available. You read that right. Thank god for Verizon EV-DO (3G cellular) service--we use a router with a PC-Card to serve that whole office.

    Some people in the US have FiOS. Those people are called "Verizon subscribers." Unfortunately AT&T serves about 65% of the country and they have stated in the past that it's not profitable enough to them to bother with fiber-to-the-home ANYWHERE, even in big cities. So we in AT&T territory get screwed.

    * I sometimes get a cheaper rate, but I have to call them and beg/threaten in order to get a reprieve for a few months.
  • gnilrets, on 12/26/2007, -2/+34One of the interesting points of this article is that there need not be a special agency to regulate the spectrum, common law will do (and did, before the FCC was invented). Property rights are all that are needed to "regulate" the spectrum. The problem with any body granted the power to regulate a market is that it eventually gets run by the very people who benefit the most from regulation, thereby making things worse off than prior to any regulation.
  • inactive, on 12/26/2007, -10/+39Its mainly because stupid americans will pay an extra 30 per month for 1mb/s speed. We used to pay 85 a month just for 3mbps. Other countries have higher speeds and dont pay anything, like japan who get speeds faster then 10mbps and some get 100mbps or more. WTF.
  • worthone, on 12/26/2007, -1/+28True, competition is the main reason which set Finland so high in the broadband list globally.
  • altgeeky1, on 12/26/2007, -20/+45***** theoretical article by Austrian money theory site.
    It's pretty clear that governments that ENCOURAGE (there's that socialism boogeyman folks!) broadband are benefiting, for example South Korea with 95% broadband penetration at rates 95% of people can afford.
    On the other hand, there's always a percentage of compatriots who say governments should NOT invest in the country, but let the market do as it will. We see the effects of the market, with torrents of cash being sucked out of the US. That's OK with these folks, since they've already prepositioned their investments to the places where the money is flowing...
  • inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+25it's the same excuse they use for australia... i don't live on a friggin farm, i live in the third most populated area in australia, and am still stuck with 512 kbps for 60 bucks a month
  • inactive, on 12/27/2007, -8/+29"Stupid" America has hundreds of thousands of miles of existing copper infrastructure. While the rest of the world was in the stone age we were laying copper. Thanks to our money (we'll give it out to everyone but ourselves, so yes I guess we are stupid) everyone else is now able to lay out their own infrastructure, meaning the latest available technologies such as wireless and fiber. Do you think corporations are just going to pull up the billions in copper to make people happy? We're having to catch up, which means slowly replacing our existing infrastructure, something places like China can completely skip and start with fiber, etc.

    Makes a HUGE difference.
  • dagamer34, on 12/26/2007, -2/+21Japan is a culture thing. They believe in the "greater good" of their country, meanwhile companies are loosing money from FiOS installations. No way in hell you'll get Americans to believe in that sort of thing.
  • inactive, on 12/26/2007, -1/+20You know, I don't buy it. Companies won't pass savings on to consumers. Take Valve - by distributing Half-Life 2 online, they cut out the middle man, and yet they still charged the same $50 it would cost in a store.
  • iticu, on 12/26/2007, -3/+21What has this got to do with Ron Paul?
  • Justaddchips, on 12/26/2007, -0/+18Same is true with cab License in Pa. I wanted to start a taxi service in PGH and soon found out how Yellow cab has complete monopoly. They make it impossible. This government is far cry from what they portray themselves to be. People need to rise up!
  • masterm1nd, on 12/26/2007, -10/+27Ha, the internet wouldn't even exist without capitalism.
  • FatherG, on 12/26/2007, -1/+17It's on digg, thats good enough for some people.
  • oldhick, on 12/26/2007, -23/+39Right, its the rich who are screwing you. Guess what, I'm not rich and I don't want to give you free health care.
  • voetsjoeba, on 12/26/2007, -0/+15Belgium has close to no competition at all on the ISP market, and we pay extremely high prices for our internet connections here. That, and we are probably one of the last countries in Europe to have a monthly traffic limit imposed onto us. Wouldn't be much of a problem, except that it's a grand total of 12GB/mo. You want more, you pay more (at a hefty pricetag of course).
  • jjmckay, on 12/27/2007, -1/+16Corporatism, not capitalism. Know there is a big difference between the two!
  • JamesBrown, on 12/26/2007, -5/+19*****. I live right in the middle of a large American city and I can't get faster than 600kbps down. That translates to about 70 kilobytes per second. Terrible. Atrocious. I've contacted AT&T about if and when they plan to upgrade their infrastructure, and the answer I got was "not in the foreseeable future". The US is technologically backwards in so many ways. It's pathetic.
  • Tippis, on 12/27/2007, -0/+14Interesting, then, that plenty of countries with half the population density of the US still manage to be 10x faster on average...
  • suinmind, on 12/26/2007, -5/+18Greed.

    Is this a hard question? Why even ask?
  • rebrad, on 12/26/2007, -5/+18If you want something overpriced, inefficient and with poor customer service you must let the government do it. Overpriced, inefficient and with poor customer service is the government's forte.
  • freff, on 12/26/2007, -1/+14It seems you missed the point PierceNBoy was actually making...
  • pintomp3, on 12/26/2007, -1/+14the problem is corporate intervention is our government.
  • thomasprebble, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15Well in New Zealand the government intervened here and broadband prices have been slowly coming down.
  • coinman987, on 12/26/2007, -1/+13Yes and when local government try to create their own broadband service, the ones that large telecoms consider to small to be profitable, the large telecoms ends up suing the local government because of unfair competition.
  • masterm1nd, on 12/26/2007, -7/+19Care to elaborate on that same reason? Or is that just a yey socialism, boo capitalism comment with no actual reasoning or logic behind it?
  • inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+12Not everyone has the choice of anything better...
  • carlosos, on 12/27/2007, -0/+12This is always one of the worst excuses. You have many bigger cities in the USA that are also very dense populated and you still don't get those speeds.
  • inactive, on 12/26/2007, -23/+34The US DOES have cheap broadband. Try paying $50 per month for an 8Mbit connection and see how it feels. (United Kingdom)
  • pipipie, on 12/26/2007, -1/+12your isp is linksys too?
  • Darkhacker, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11It's not that the government needs to force them to replace their infrastructure, they just need to stop them from acting like a cartel so that we get true competition.
  • Jawshie, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11We complain about corporate monopolies and the absence of cheap broadband EVERYWHERE. I have to pay $40 USD a month for my 1.5Mbps DSL and I am pretty damn lucky to even have that in a town of 200.
  • rebrad, on 12/26/2007, -2/+12They are overly regulated by the government with government approved monopolies. Yes, I'd say they'd fit the mold of government entities.
  • SiNN4R, on 12/26/2007, -3/+13The notion that we have to regulate the spectrum is archaic.
  • jjmckay, on 12/27/2007, -0/+9MacEnvy please listen to what rebrad is saying. Comcast, time warner and Adelphia act the way they do because of strong government backing. Take away their government backed monopolies and see how very differently they behave.
  • Tippis, on 12/27/2007, -0/+9Scandinavia has half the population density of the US, and still have 10x the speed, both on average, and looking at metropolitan areas.
  • Djharlock, on 12/26/2007, -0/+9Torrenting becomes efficient when more peers seed a file. It doesn't really matter what service you have when you've got a 1:5 Seed to Leech ratio.
  • Chakat, on 12/26/2007, -3/+12Monopolies which are encouraged by local governments. If local governments hadn't signed exclusivity agreements for cable and telephone service, we wouldn't have these monopolies and the problems they bring.
  • willfe, on 12/26/2007, -1/+10Heh. There are plenty of "premium cable" packages that go for over $100 a month and many of the "fastest" cable broadband options are $70 a month or higher, in the US. Australia hasn't got a monopoly on overpriced services :)
  • patch6, on 12/27/2007, -1/+9Japan's broadband model is the most successful, which is evidenced by their average bandwidth per user of over 93Mbit/sec that eclipses the averages of every other country, while maintaining a monthly price average of $34.21 USD. (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0711/ , sourcing OECD)

    The guidelines that lead to such success can be seen in the "Basic Guidelines on the Promotion of an Advanced Information and Telecommunications Society" (http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/990209guideline-ai ... that were set in 1998, which advocated a loosening of telecommunications regulations, with language such as:

    "ii) Creation by the government of an environment favorable to the private sector's initiative
    �@The fundamental role of the government is to create an environment that allows the private sector to operate with optimum vitality. The government must keep in mind that the development of information and telecommunications technology is rapid, and that there are many directions in which businesses and society may head. The government must be careful to avoid imposing unnecessary regulations and restrictions that may inhibit such possibilities. If the government participates in the establishment of new regulations, its participation must be well-defined, transparent, and minimal. The government must restrict its administrative measures to the minimum necessary, and avoid creating an atmosphere of uncertainty. Guidelines on the involvement of the government should be implemented on a sector by sector basis, following thorough discussions."

    Prior to 1998, Japan's internet development was stifled by a telecommunications monopoly that offered inferior quality and service. Deregulatory actions lead to that sector's rapid advancement, and to the country's current position as a world leader in broadband quality and cost-effectiveness.

    A history of that activity can be read at: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/delamar ...
  • niczar, on 12/26/2007, -5/+13The internet wouldn't exist without government-funded DARPA.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 377 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.