"Tenth is 10 spots too low," President Bush declared in 2004, referring to the share of Americans with high-speed Internet connections compared with citizens of other countries. Today, the U.S. doesn't even make the top 10.
At the same time, the Internet and investments in broadband infrastructure have brought huge economic benefits--possibly accounting for a third of our productivity growth over the past decade. The economic importance of broadband and the relatively poor standing of the U.S. in broadband penetration have led to calls for government subsidies, investment, and regulations on how broadband providers can use and charge for their infrastructure. Policymakers and others hope that telecom legislation working its way through Congress will improve U.S. international broadband competitiveness.
Despite the hype, it's not clear that there's really a problem, and it is important to ensure that new legislation does not create one.
Critics contend that the broadband market is a "cozy duopoly" of DSL and cable providers that leaves consumers poorly served. But the facts suggest otherwise. The vast majority of broadband connections are indeed DSL or cable, but they compete vigorously with one another and with new technologies like wireless broadband, whose share is growing steadily.
Companies are investing bundles in broadband, and consumers are signing up for it at record rates. According to the Federal Communications Commission, the number of high-speed lines in the U.S. increased by nearly one-third to almost 43 million between June 2004 and June 2005. And a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that the number of Americans with broadband access at home increased by 40 percent between March 2005 and March 2006.
Meanwhile, prices for broadband access are coming down while available speeds are going up.
While the U.S. does lag 11 other countries in broadband penetration, international comparisons must be considered carefully.
The Pew survey found that the average price of residential DSL service decreased from $38 per month in February 2004 to $32 per month by December 2005. Some evidence suggests prices may have fallen further still, with Verizon Communications, AT&T, Comcast, and others offering service plans at less than $20 per month. And as prices fall, providers are upgrading connections and investing in new infrastructure to provide higher speeds to consumers.
The rapid growth, price declines, and increasing speed and service options suggest that this market isn't really so cozy. New technologies should ensure a competitive marketplace for years to come.
While the U.S. does lag 11 other countries in broadband penetration, international comparisons must be considered carefully. The share of the Americans who are Internet users, for example, compares much more favorably with the rest of the world and is higher than those of other countries often held up as models to be emulated, such as Japan.
What explains this difference between broadband penetration and Internet users? For one, about half of U.S. Internet users still connect via dial-up. Unlimited/flat-rate local telephone calls, innovations like "Web accelerators," and competition that has pushed subscription prices below $10 per month have allowed dial-up to remain an attractive option for many people. While the number of people with dial-up connections will surely continue to fall, the Pew survey reports that nearly 60 percent of dial-up users claim to have no interest in broadband.
What about broadband speeds? In some countries, notably Japan and Korea, providers advertise Internet speeds that are many times faster than those available here. Advertised speeds, however, may not accurately represent actual speeds. For example, providers in Hong Kong advertise some of the highest connection speeds in the world, but the island's telephone authority recently censured the Hong Kong Broadband Network for misleading claims regarding the speed of its service.
Numerous factors affect the speeds actually available to customers, including line lengths, the number of users sharing the bandwidth connection and the location of the content accessed. Simplistic international comparisons do not account for such considerations.
Nevertheless, universal broadband could bring real benefits, so it is worth asking what the government could do to encourage it. We offer three suggestions.
First, make more spectrum available and allow it to be tradable to ensure that it goes to its highest-valued use. Some of that use would likely be for broadband.
Second, eliminate costly franchising regulations that require providers to negotiate with local governments in order to offer video services over broadband lines. These franchising rules represent anticompetitive and anticonsumer barriers to entry. The House recently passed legislation to eliminate such requirements; the Senate should do the same.
Third, do not mandate "Net neutrality," which would restrict how broadband providers can charge to use their infrastructure. In a market as dynamic as broadband and the Internet, the price regulations that Net neutrality would entail are likely to be counterproductive.
So take a deep breath, relax and keep browsing. Scant evidence supports the idea of a U.S. broadband problem. At the same time, let's recognize the importance of broadband--and in terms of policy, as Hippocrates said, "First do no harm."
Biography Seth Sacher is a partner at the economics consulting firm of Bates White. Scott Wallsten is a senior fellow at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and a resident scholar at the 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
(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.)
Any op-ed piece that fails to mention Brand X decision deserves ridicule...
In short, Brand X and related decisions allows cable and telco companies to completely control the last-mile. No longer does a carrier have to unbundle the last-mile and allow others to resell the connectivity.
Instead, the cable/telco duopoly -- through massive lobbying expenditures and other questionable tactics such as "astroturf" -- has come dangerously close to revamping the Internet.
Their vision: to pick and choose the winners and losers in the content space: from search engines, to telephony, to file-sharing, to IM. In other words, they seek to turn the Internet into Cable TV.
Then go to <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> and make your voice heard over the ringing of the lobbyists' cash registers.
Any op-ed piece that fails to mention Brand X decision deserves ridicule...
In short, Brand X and related decisions allows cable and telco companies to completely control the last-mile. No longer does a carrier have to unbundle the last-mile and allow others to resell the connectivity.
Instead, the cable/telco duopoly -- through massive lobbying expenditures and other questionable tactics such as "astroturf" -- has come dangerously close to revamping the Internet.
Their vision: to pick and choose the winners and losers in the content space: from search engines, to telephony, to file-sharing, to IM. In other words, they seek to turn the Internet into Cable TV.
Then go to <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> and make your voice heard over the ringing of the lobbyists' cash registers.
If articles like yours are red herrings intended to increase site registrations, it worked for me! I live in an area with a metropolitan population of 600,000, an area that has a reputation for high-tech industry. There are TWO choices for broadband here, DSL and cable. Both cost $50/mo and have been at that price level for years. With DSL, that $50 figure is for the 640kbps service level on up. If you can only get 640kbps at your home due to distance from the central office or poor line quality, you still pay $50/mo, the same amount as someone who can get much higher transfer rates.
This area is in the broadband stone age due to a lack of REAL competition. Don't tell us that there's no problem. Perhaps not in YOUR area of the country.
If articles like yours are red herrings intended to increase site registrations, it worked for me! I live in an area with a metropolitan population of 600,000, an area that has a reputation for high-tech industry. There are TWO choices for broadband here, DSL and cable. Both cost $50/mo and have been at that price level for years. With DSL, that $50 figure is for the 640kbps service level on up. If you can only get 640kbps at your home due to distance from the central office or poor line quality, you still pay $50/mo, the same amount as someone who can get much higher transfer rates.
This area is in the broadband stone age due to a lack of REAL competition. Don't tell us that there's no problem. Perhaps not in YOUR area of the country.
ooooh, I read this whole article, that tries to flip the debate, and then at the end say, oh by the way, don't support net neutrality.
You dedicated very little time to discussing net neutrality, ironic that it's the debate of our time. You also, with overall contradictions, arrive at your point. Comparing DSL and cable, as highly competitive falls a bit on deaf ears.
Let me summarize your article "Since competition has been fairly mild between the duopolies, we should change that by giving carriers more control"
Net-neutrality means protecting from carriers at the minimum, blocking webcontent, that is all that net-neutrality is asking for, to prevent blatant abuse, by networks, which is a very real concern, and deserves at minimum a shred of protection from possible new pricing extorting.
we provide no net-neutrality provisions in any respect.
Then we are simply making it possible for internet providers to block FREE SPEECH. It doesn't seem likely, but it is entirely possible that this could happen.
Supporting the minimal net-neutrality legislation, would in no way prevent ISP's from selling faster service!
Google creates an animated doodle that features a boy, a girl, Google's search engine, and a jump rope. But might there be darker, more analytical, more troubling interpretations to this tale?
The Silicon Valley online payments startup grew by 1,000 percent last year and is hopeful it can repeat that level of growth this year. To do that, it's had to move away from its early friends-and-family roots and embrace small businesses.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute</a>
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.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute</a>
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.
I'm sorry but your claims that innacurate advertised speeds in Asian countries actually put them on par with US service is downright ludacris.
I'm sorry but your claims that innacurate advertised speeds in Asian countries actually put them on par with US service is downright ludacris.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
Instead, the cable/telco duopoly -- through massive lobbying expenditures and other questionable tactics such as "astroturf" -- has come dangerously close to revamping the Internet.
Their vision: to pick and choose the winners and losers in the content space: from search engines, to telephony, to file-sharing, to IM. In other words, they seek to turn the Internet into Cable TV.
You can find some background material here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/stand-with-john-kerry-on-net.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/stand-with-john-kerry-on-net.html</a>
Then go to <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> and make your voice heard over the ringing of the lobbyists' cash registers.
Instead, the cable/telco duopoly -- through massive lobbying expenditures and other questionable tactics such as "astroturf" -- has come dangerously close to revamping the Internet.
Their vision: to pick and choose the winners and losers in the content space: from search engines, to telephony, to file-sharing, to IM. In other words, they seek to turn the Internet into Cable TV.
You can find some background material here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/stand-with-john-kerry-on-net.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/stand-with-john-kerry-on-net.html</a>
Then go to <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> and make your voice heard over the ringing of the lobbyists' cash registers.
This area is in the broadband stone age due to a lack of REAL competition. Don't tell us that there's no problem. Perhaps not in YOUR area of the country.
This area is in the broadband stone age due to a lack of REAL competition. Don't tell us that there's no problem. Perhaps not in YOUR area of the country.
You dedicated very little time to discussing net neutrality, ironic that it's the debate of our time. You also, with overall contradictions, arrive at your point. Comparing DSL and cable, as highly competitive falls a bit on deaf ears.
Let me summarize your article "Since competition has been fairly mild between the duopolies, we should change that by giving carriers more control"
Net-neutrality means protecting from carriers at the minimum, blocking webcontent, that is all that net-neutrality is asking for, to prevent blatant abuse, by networks, which is a very real concern, and deserves at minimum a shred of protection from possible new pricing extorting.
we provide no net-neutrality provisions in any respect.
Then we are simply making it possible for internet providers to block FREE SPEECH. It doesn't seem likely, but it is entirely possible that this could happen.
Supporting the minimal net-neutrality legislation, would in no way prevent ISP's from selling faster service!