Comments on: What U.S. broadband problem?

Policy analysts Scott Wallsten and Seth Sacher say the conventional wisdom is ripe for debunking.

[LarryLo]

I don't know where to begin....

Before you consider the message, take a look at the messenger and decide for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

These fellows offer very slanted view of the state of broadband in the US today. The fact is, we ARE in 11th place, and that is not a good thing, anyway you look at it.

We will continue to loose our internet dominance if allow policy to be written for the highest bidder instead of the good of the population.

I could write a whole article rebuking these points but I won't, the facts are out there. Believe what you want.

[orbital318]

facist!

I work for a media company, not Time Warner. All I can say is that if net neutrality doesn't pass, you will wake up with a very different very censored internet. The telecom interests have already attempted such maneuvers and just so you know. We currently HAVE net neutrality so not having it will hurt the businesses of many entrepreneurs. Look for instance at Craigslist... if eBay decides to pay Time Warner a fee to block Craigs list... then NYC users of Time Warners Internet would not be able to access this free service. Its fascism in its purest.

[orbital318]

fascist!

I work for a media company, not Time Warner. All I can say is that if net neutrality doesn't pass, you will wake up with a very different very censored internet. The telecom interests have already attempted such maneuvers and just so you know. We currently HAVE net neutrality so not having it will hurt the businesses of many entrepreneurs. Look for instance at Craigslist... if eBay decides to pay Time Warner a fee to block Craigs list... then NYC users of Time Warners Internet would not be able to access this free service. Its fascism in its purest.

[LarryLo]

I don't know where to begin....

Before you consider the message, take a look at the messenger and decide for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

These fellows offer very slanted view of the state of broadband in the US today. The fact is, we ARE in 11th place, and that is not a good thing, anyway you look at it.

We will continue to loose our internet dominance if allow policy to be written for the highest bidder instead of the good of the population.

I could write a whole article rebuking these points but I won't, the facts are out there. Believe what you want.

[orbital318]

facist!

I work for a media company, not Time Warner. All I can say is that if net neutrality doesn't pass, you will wake up with a very different very censored internet. The telecom interests have already attempted such maneuvers and just so you know. We currently HAVE net neutrality so not having it will hurt the businesses of many entrepreneurs. Look for instance at Craigslist... if eBay decides to pay Time Warner a fee to block Craigs list... then NYC users of Time Warners Internet would not be able to access this free service. Its fascism in its purest.

[orbital318]

fascist!

I work for a media company, not Time Warner. All I can say is that if net neutrality doesn't pass, you will wake up with a very different very censored internet. The telecom interests have already attempted such maneuvers and just so you know. We currently HAVE net neutrality so not having it will hurt the businesses of many entrepreneurs. Look for instance at Craigslist... if eBay decides to pay Time Warner a fee to block Craigs list... then NYC users of Time Warners Internet would not be able to access this free service. Its fascism in its purest.

[shiveman]

Incomplete picture at best; Misleading at worst.

While I respect anyone's right to lobby for their (or their buddy's) own perspective, there are several careful misdirections and omissions in this op-ed piece with an obvious agenda to protect the telecom companies. The most ominous is the misinformation about protecting "net neutrality". What they don't mention is the fact that net neutrality has always been the standard and the present legislation actually regulates on behalf of the telecom industry to tip the balance in their favor away from historical precedence. Also, they carefully avoid the issue of right of access to information over a telecom company's networks. Without net neutrality, a telecom company can block or slow access to a specific site they don't agree with - and this is something that's already being done! I hope too many people won't be fooled by this ploy and help to prevent Congress of stripping Internet users from their long standing right to open access by stripping away the principal of net neutrality.

[nasser0000]

Yep

Of course. Why do you think Congress is moving in this direction? Corporate lobbying and donations. Unfortunately, this country is less of a republic (it's never been a democracy in the strictest sense) now and more of a corporate-run oligarchy.

[shiveman]

Incomplete picture at best; Misleading at worst.

While I respect anyone's right to lobby for their (or their buddy's) own perspective, there are several careful misdirections and omissions in this op-ed piece with an obvious agenda to protect the telecom companies. The most ominous is the misinformation about protecting "net neutrality". What they don't mention is the fact that net neutrality has always been the standard and the present legislation actually regulates on behalf of the telecom industry to tip the balance in their favor away from historical precedence. Also, they carefully avoid the issue of right of access to information over a telecom company's networks. Without net neutrality, a telecom company can block or slow access to a specific site they don't agree with - and this is something that's already being done! I hope too many people won't be fooled by this ploy and help to prevent Congress of stripping Internet users from their long standing right to open access by stripping away the principal of net neutrality.

[nasser0000]

Yep

Of course. Why do you think Congress is moving in this direction? Corporate lobbying and donations. Unfortunately, this country is less of a republic (it's never been a democracy in the strictest sense) now and more of a corporate-run oligarchy.

[nasser0000]

Never one to pass up a chance

to make fun of Bush. 10th is ten spots too low. Someone doesn't know his math; that would make 0th place :-)

[nasser0000]

Never one to pass up a chance

to make fun of Bush. 10th is ten spots too low. Someone doesn't know his math; that would make 0th place :-)

Oh please . . .

So the best way to serve the American consumer and promote economic growth is to let the unregulated telco and cable companies charge whatever they want for infrastructure they amassed before they became unregulated monopolies, and let them also be the economic abiters of Internet content? Give me a break. The American Enterprise Institute's take on broadband is about as credible as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's disinformation campaign on the "debate" over global warming. Before anybody buys into these self-serving industry-funded think-tank versions of reality, they should ask their mothers how they like their new Medicare prescription coverage.

Oh please . . .

So the best way to serve the American consumer and promote economic growth is to let the unregulated telco and cable companies charge whatever they want for infrastructure they amassed before they became unregulated monopolies, and let them also be the economic abiters of Internet content? Give me a break. The American Enterprise Institute's take on broadband is about as credible as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's disinformation campaign on the "debate" over global warming. Before anybody buys into these self-serving industry-funded think-tank versions of reality, they should ask their mothers how they like their new Medicare prescription coverage.

[Akiba]

Real perspective on Japanese service.

Service in Japan was $33 for 50mbs and it wasn't even a big city. For $50 you can get 100mbs and 1gbs is available for $90. I can safely say that even if the advertised speeds were inflated (Hong Kong the only example with no rates given) the connections in Japan are many times faster. Now in the US I have a business dsl connection (6mbs) for $90 a month that is many times slower then the $30 service in Japan. To top it off the author doesn't mention that most dsl and cable services require you to get phone or cable service which usually doubles the price.

I'm sorry but your claims that innacurate advertised speeds in Asian countries actually put them on par with US service is downright ludacris.

[Akiba]

Real perspective on Japanese service.

Service in Japan was $33 for 50mbs and it wasn't even a big city. For $50 you can get 100mbs and 1gbs is available for $90. I can safely say that even if the advertised speeds were inflated (Hong Kong the only example with no rates given) the connections in Japan are many times faster. Now in the US I have a business dsl connection (6mbs) for $90 a month that is many times slower then the $30 service in Japan. To top it off the author doesn't mention that most dsl and cable services require you to get phone or cable service which usually doubles the price.

I'm sorry but your claims that innacurate advertised speeds in Asian countries actually put them on par with US service is downright ludacris.

There is no broadband parity

I live in the most densly populated state in the US, yet I am unable to choose my broadband provider, and I am limited to a 512KB connection. My neighbors are unable to get broadband at all, and neither cable not the telco's are willing to invest in infrastructure to provide service. How can this be, while neighboring towns and neighborhoods are able to get multi-megabit connections? Because providers are only willing invest where the ROI is highest. If this is the case in the most densly populated state, I can only imaging how bad it must be in the rural central states. Where does the person writing this article live?

There is no broadband parity

I live in the most densly populated state in the US, yet I am unable to choose my broadband provider, and I am limited to a 512KB connection. My neighbors are unable to get broadband at all, and neither cable not the telco's are willing to invest in infrastructure to provide service. How can this be, while neighboring towns and neighborhoods are able to get multi-megabit connections? Because providers are only willing invest where the ROI is highest. If this is the case in the most densly populated state, I can only imaging how bad it must be in the rural central states. Where does the person writing this article live?

[Terry Murphy]

What exactly are these guys smoking?

The state of broadband in this country isn't simply sub-par, it's
appalling. The fact is ISP (Telco and Cable) broadband services
(underlying infrastructure/tech) has stagnated for years in the
US. If, as this article contends, providers have been "investing
bundles" in broadband, it isn't apparent in any way shape or
form to the end user as of today.

Sure broadband signups have increased over the years, but
that's due primarily to the cost of already existing, long-
standing broadband services finally arriving at the same cost of
basic dial-up, which had been the cheaper and dominant
method of internet access in the US up until very recently. So
dialup customers could finally afford broadband (DSL) without
having to pay at least double or more per month for the
privilege. And the DSL providers could dangle increased new DSL
subscriptions to their stockholders to bolster the vitality of their
companies and depreciate the less profitable dialup connections.
However, this success story doesn't hold true for the cable
providers, who insist customers will always pay a premium for
the incrementally higher bandwidth of cable connections (but
still grossly sup-par compared with other countries) over DSL.
That's essentially the present state of the art for broadband
access in the US and it's as laughable as it is pathetic.

And it just pales in comparison to foreign markets. Here the
authors are left with only one excuse to offer: ISPs in markets
such as Korea and Japan allegedly inflate advertised bandwidth
that are never realized in the real internet world. Guess what
boys, the same holds true here in the US. US DSL and cable
connections never achieve their advertised speeds either, for the
very reasons cited in the article. In that regard, the playing field
is level throughout the world, including, of course, the US.
However, even inflated claims, to the extent that they actually
exist, are ultimately relative. If a 50mbps overseas ISP provider
actually realizes, say 40 mbps, that's still heads over heels better
than anything we'll ever see here in the US from the Telcos and
Cable - now, or for that matter, in the foreseeable future.

Finally, net neutrality doesn't in any way "restrict how broadband
providers can charge to use their infrastructure" an absolute
load of BS. What net neutrality strived to achieve was to prevent
ISPs (again Telco and Cable) from introducing NEW charges to
"use their infrastructure." Both Telcos and Cable have long had
their sights on being the kings of media (film, tv, etc.) providers.
With media content rapidly shifting to the internet, the prospect
of the internet becoming the tech of choice for delivering media
caught the Telco and Cable companies with their pants down.
Now, theoretically, ANYONE based on the internet could be the
new media king, leaving Telcos and Cable out in the cold, as the
transaction between the media provider and the customer
wouldn't involve the ISP - it manages just fine on the existing
infrastructure.

Thus, the Telcos and Cable companies have envisioned their
media plans going up in smoke and suddenly played the so-
called "preferred packet" card. In other words, if you choose to
get your media from the internet and it's from someone other
than the offerings directly provided by the Telcos or Cable
companies, they still want a piece of your transactional action -
regardless of where you get it from. It isn't a "charge for using
their infrastructure," it's a tax for using someone other than the
Telcos or Cable companies media offerings. Think of it as
superhighway robbery.

Oh yes, the state of broadband it just terrific here in the US...

[Terry Murphy]

What exactly are these guys smoking?

The state of broadband in this country isn't simply sub-par, it's
appalling. The fact is ISP (Telco and Cable) broadband services
(underlying infrastructure/tech) has stagnated for years in the
US. If, as this article contends, providers have been "investing
bundles" in broadband, it isn't apparent in any way shape or
form to the end user as of today.

Sure broadband signups have increased over the years, but
that's due primarily to the cost of already existing, long-
standing broadband services finally arriving at the same cost of
basic dial-up, which had been the cheaper and dominant
method of internet access in the US up until very recently. So
dialup customers could finally afford broadband (DSL) without
having to pay at least double or more per month for the
privilege. And the DSL providers could dangle increased new DSL
subscriptions to their stockholders to bolster the vitality of their
companies and depreciate the less profitable dialup connections.
However, this success story doesn't hold true for the cable
providers, who insist customers will always pay a premium for
the incrementally higher bandwidth of cable connections (but
still grossly sup-par compared with other countries) over DSL.
That's essentially the present state of the art for broadband
access in the US and it's as laughable as it is pathetic.

And it just pales in comparison to foreign markets. Here the
authors are left with only one excuse to offer: ISPs in markets
such as Korea and Japan allegedly inflate advertised bandwidth
that are never realized in the real internet world. Guess what
boys, the same holds true here in the US. US DSL and cable
connections never achieve their advertised speeds either, for the
very reasons cited in the article. In that regard, the playing field
is level throughout the world, including, of course, the US.
However, even inflated claims, to the extent that they actually
exist, are ultimately relative. If a 50mbps overseas ISP provider
actually realizes, say 40 mbps, that's still heads over heels better
than anything we'll ever see here in the US from the Telcos and
Cable - now, or for that matter, in the foreseeable future.

Finally, net neutrality doesn't in any way "restrict how broadband
providers can charge to use their infrastructure" an absolute
load of BS. What net neutrality strived to achieve was to prevent
ISPs (again Telco and Cable) from introducing NEW charges to
"use their infrastructure." Both Telcos and Cable have long had
their sights on being the kings of media (film, tv, etc.) providers.
With media content rapidly shifting to the internet, the prospect
of the internet becoming the tech of choice for delivering media
caught the Telco and Cable companies with their pants down.
Now, theoretically, ANYONE based on the internet could be the
new media king, leaving Telcos and Cable out in the cold, as the
transaction between the media provider and the customer
wouldn't involve the ISP - it manages just fine on the existing
infrastructure.

Thus, the Telcos and Cable companies have envisioned their
media plans going up in smoke and suddenly played the so-
called "preferred packet" card. In other words, if you choose to
get your media from the internet and it's from someone other
than the offerings directly provided by the Telcos or Cable
companies, they still want a piece of your transactional action -
regardless of where you get it from. It isn't a "charge for using
their infrastructure," it's a tax for using someone other than the
Telcos or Cable companies media offerings. Think of it as
superhighway robbery.

Oh yes, the state of broadband it just terrific here in the US...

[briannj]

WHAT? Such a strange prospective

I started reading the article with an open mind, interested in the topic. I realized shortly on that this is a political message. It almost sounds like the telephone and cable ISPs paid to have this article written.
Having lived the last year in Germany, it is very easy to seem the problems in the US internet market due to the duopoly situation we have here. In Germany the options include a cable modem or DSL access from at least 5-6 providers. The result is the service is cheaper, quality is better and speeds are faster than what you can get in the US. The market here is in desperate need of competition. Instead of helping the telephone and cable companies, we need to do something to force them to compete.

I am amazed to read an article with this strange perspective on CNet.

[briannj]

WHAT? Such a strange prospective

I started reading the article with an open mind, interested in the topic. I realized shortly on that this is a political message. It almost sounds like the telephone and cable ISPs paid to have this article written.
Having lived the last year in Germany, it is very easy to seem the problems in the US internet market due to the duopoly situation we have here. In Germany the options include a cable modem or DSL access from at least 5-6 providers. The result is the service is cheaper, quality is better and speeds are faster than what you can get in the US. The market here is in desperate need of competition. Instead of helping the telephone and cable companies, we need to do something to force them to compete.

I am amazed to read an article with this strange perspective on CNet.

[briannj]

WHAT? Such a strange perspective

I started reading the article with an open mind, interested in the topic. I realized shortly on that this is a political message. It almost sounds like the telephone and cable ISPs paid to have this article written.
Having lived the last year in Germany, it is very easy to seem the problems in the US internet market due to the duopoly situation we have here. In Germany the options include a cable modem or DSL access from at least 5-6 providers. The result is the service is cheaper, quality is better and speeds are faster than what you can get in the US. The market here is in desperate need of competition. Instead of helping the telephone and cable companies, we need to do something to force them to compete.

I am amazed to read an article with this strange perspective on CNet.

[briannj]

WHAT? Such a strange perspective

I started reading the article with an open mind, interested in the topic. I realized shortly on that this is a political message. It almost sounds like the telephone and cable ISPs paid to have this article written.
Having lived the last year in Germany, it is very easy to seem the problems in the US internet market due to the duopoly situation we have here. In Germany the options include a cable modem or DSL access from at least 5-6 providers. The result is the service is cheaper, quality is better and speeds are faster than what you can get in the US. The market here is in desperate need of competition. Instead of helping the telephone and cable companies, we need to do something to force them to compete.

I am amazed to read an article with this strange perspective on CNet.

[1st]

problems?

(1) many $ spend on overhead rather than real progress (too
many justification, policy making, even patent filing, ECO pay
etc. etc.)
(2) overhang of the bubble in early 2000
(3) lack of tech roadmap, such as model in EU ACTS, to promote
consortium, many "me too" products
(4) lack of killer application, small and large alike due to
fragmented "competitive environment". e.g. tracking husband
proven to be $ generator for Korean, not sure will be good fit to
US.
Tracking kids may cause few law suits...
(5) The other country do not have mentality of "free". The
service has to be paid, what ever small fee is.... but the key is
not unwillingness to pay, but the MBA's unwillingness to charge
new service...(marketing got weak knee... carreer killer) and lack
of meaningful new service... (slowly sneak the fee upwords is
real... but not new service)... just look at the ipod music
download, as long as price at the right level...the useless
ringtone is another example of market success.
(6) The speed matters only for the same group of people... due
to lack of the new application (again... the lack of tech progress).
the same group of users "shopping around" DSL, cable, wireless,
etc. causes price instability (cyclic pressure of the price
downwords at bits/$). No body win in the situation.
(7) instability of the company... you can pay less for the duration
of those start ups, until they buff... company V as example... As
discussed before, the unwillingness to pay/to charge... many
resources wasted... just look at the M&A asset write down...
(8) instability of workforce... lack of continuous tech progress
due to loss of knowledge...
(9) etc. etc.)

[1st]

problems?

(1) many $ spend on overhead rather than real progress (too
many justification, policy making, even patent filing, ECO pay
etc. etc.)
(2) overhang of the bubble in early 2000
(3) lack of tech roadmap, such as model in EU ACTS, to promote
consortium, many "me too" products
(4) lack of killer application, small and large alike due to
fragmented "competitive environment". e.g. tracking husband
proven to be $ generator for Korean, not sure will be good fit to
US.
Tracking kids may cause few law suits...
(5) The other country do not have mentality of "free". The
service has to be paid, what ever small fee is.... but the key is
not unwillingness to pay, but the MBA's unwillingness to charge
new service...(marketing got weak knee... carreer killer) and lack
of meaningful new service... (slowly sneak the fee upwords is
real... but not new service)... just look at the ipod music
download, as long as price at the right level...the useless
ringtone is another example of market success.
(6) The speed matters only for the same group of people... due
to lack of the new application (again... the lack of tech progress).
the same group of users "shopping around" DSL, cable, wireless,
etc. causes price instability (cyclic pressure of the price
downwords at bits/$). No body win in the situation.
(7) instability of the company... you can pay less for the duration
of those start ups, until they buff... company V as example... As
discussed before, the unwillingness to pay/to charge... many
resources wasted... just look at the M&A asset write down...
(8) instability of workforce... lack of continuous tech progress
due to loss of knowledge...
(9) etc. etc.)