The Market Works!!

Sing it, Al!

George Bush accidentally had a thought! And look what came of it. Surely, he won't risk doing that again.

We need all that bandwidth for all those "internets."

weren't we going to mars too? whatever happened to that?

Kevin,

I am a little confused. Who, exactly, counts as a broadband provider, in your opinion? Is it the pipe/infrastructure owners, or is it the company that puts it's page up first and sends you the bill? If Fios runs a fiber optic/broadband connection to my house, are they they broadband vendor, or do you want to force them to sell pipewidth to AOL so that AOL can continue to offer me service, but at broadband speeds?

In other words, I would like to know what you think Bush should have done to speed the spread and speed of broadband.

Can you say tip of the iceberg ?

Keep tryin

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact....Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - newshog@gmail.com

It's the selection of captains of industry that's baffling to me. Broader access to broadband would benefit almost everyone EXCEPT the telecoms. My hometown in Illinois was looking at setting up a broadband network -- and they saw the chief benificiaries as local businesses. Tech companies and media companies too would benefit -- as they have in Japan. Why do the telecoms get to decide what's good for the others? If I were tech CEO this would make me even madder at the telecoms.

"I am a little confused"

No kidding. Did you go to Liberty University, perhaps ? That might explain it.

"If Fios runs a fiber optic/broadband connection to my house, are they they broadband vendor, or do you want to force them to sell pipewidth to AOL so that AOL can continue to offer me service, but at broadband speeds?"

FIOS is the broadband provider, and due to the fact that we still (barely) have network neutrality in place, FIOS does not and cannot care what sites and content (AOL) you access via that broadband connection. What you're describing is the right-wing masturbatory fantasy version of the Internet in which the whole thing becomes a useless, disconnected mess because some idiot like yourself decided that it would be a good idea to tinker with one of the most successful and life-altering technological achievements in the history of mankind. I gotta give you guys credit, though. There isn't a great thing that this country has done that you don't think that you can dismantle, all in the name of giving your wanker buddies a couple of extra bucks.

"In other words, I would like to know what you think Bush should have done to speed the spread and speed of broadband."

Read the post again, and try to comprehend what is being stated. In order to reduce the price and increase the penetration, broadband providers need competition. The Bush administration has not only *not* encouraged competition in this space, but has actively taken steps to prevent competition.

I thought the Go-Go's were a pretty good broadband.

(ducking for cover)

The Ayn Rand worshippers, who think the glorious "free market" will solve every problem never acknowledge that monopolies and oligopolies, like you find in public utilities and capital-intensive industries like telephone and internet, cause distortions in pricing and the allocation of services and thus, corrupt the operation of markets.

If it was truly a "free market", I could set up my own internet company and start offering faster throughput and force assholes like Comcast to lower their prices. However, there are massive barriers to entry, such as capital required, property rights issues, existing infrastructure already in place, etc. that effectively prohibit me from doing so. In these cases, only government regulation and oversight can provide a solution. These dimwit "free marketeers" simply need to open their eyes and get a clue.

The "free market" is not truly free!!

In other words, I would like to know what you think Bush should have done to speed the spread and speed of broadband.

What do you think Bush actually did to speed the spread and speed of broadband?

The US is not "falling behind its Asian competitors," it's in a coma. As for its European competitors, in France, for example, it has been possible to have Internet access (at 10mb), telephone service with unlimited domestic and international calls (to more than ten countries, including the US), and 150+ channel cable service for 30 euros. Although Free.fr began this kind of radically economical package pricing more than two years ago, all its principal competitors have since (nearly) caught up. Add broadband service to the list of reasons why we're beginning to resemble the old "old" Europe.

Other countries are kicking our rear in broadband access.

Good article on France's free market successes in this area: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,495369,00.html

South Korea is also destroying us, though I believe the government there does more subsidizing and the like.

In any case, Bush's stated goals can actually be realized through an actual free market, but we all know he doesn't believe in one.

Another thing the US was once the world leader at, is now a sideshow, all because of Bush and his gang of "free market" sycophants.

I thought the Go-Go's were a pretty good broadband.

Dude. The Go-Go's were chicks. The Bangles were broads.

The Go-Go's were chicks. The Bangles were broads.

And I love 'em both, though I only saw the Bangles perform live.

"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

--GW Buah, Oct. 19, 2000, at the Al Smith Dinner in New York.

On the surface it was a joke, but it really wasn't. Kevin pretty much said it: W is not pro-free market, he's pro-big business.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is not falling behind its UK competitors.

When I (UK) mention my cheap 8Mbps broadband to US correspondents, they say they don't mind, because with free local dialup they can afford to wait half a day for that TV episode to download.

Which, sorry, is the weakest and least convincing act since Aesop's fox insisted he wasn't hungry, he didn't need those grapes, and he didn't want those grapes. We know what Americans are like; if they had it, they'd be all, U! S! A! We're Number 1! :-)

Derek, where do you get cheap 8Mbps broadband? And is it really 8Mbps, 24/7? Or only a few minutes during the day, thus allowing them to claim 8Mbps?

JD, your speeds are slow. A guy in Sweden has a 40-gig system, with his mom the first customer:

Sigbritt will now be able to enjoy 1,500 high definition HDTV channels simultaneously. Or, if there is nothing worth watching there, she will be able to download a full high definition DVD in just two seconds.

http://www.thelocal.se/7869/20070712/

Ah, Kevin.

Oh horror of horrors! You mean we're actually going to let the free market work on this one? YOu mean the government won't be allowed to fleece any CEOs this time and give handouts to welfare queens in their stretch cadillacs?

Ha, ha! I was being sarcastic, you losers!

Ohnonotagaing,

Ok, so I at least I know what we are debating without having to redefine who owns the pipeline.

If I buy a subscription to Fios' service, does the government set the rate in your ideal way of regulating? Is it wrong for Fios to want to charge me on a per/bit basis, or are we free to set whatever rates for which we come to a mutual agreement? Or do you propose that all users get the same rate regardless of the burden they put on the service? The latter seems to your's, and most other commenter's position.

How does government encourage competition? If you want competition on the pipeline aspect of it, then the government should get itself out of the business of protecting the current pipeline providers from competition. The high cost to entry (having to build your own infrastructure to compete) is outside the government's purview unless you wish to use the government to subsidize competitition; or, in other words, create more corporate welfare, not less.

The only area that I can see for more government work in this area is ensuring that the necessary right-of-ways are sufficiently big so that competition can lay its own lines. This is not a herculean task.

I agree, what the Bush Administration has done is pretty worthless, but the common theme of this thread seems to be more government regulation and subsidization rather than less.

Good grief, how hard is it really to get reasonably-priced broadband nowadays? Some towns are starting to offer Wifi for free.

Sounds like another imaginary crisis.

"If I buy a subscription to Fios' service, does the government set the rate in your ideal way of regulating?"

What are you talking about ? The government isn't even involved, except for some minor telco taxes that have been around since forever.

"Is it wrong for Fios to want to charge me on a per/bit basis, or are we free to set whatever rates for which we come to a mutual agreement?"

No, and no.

"Or do you propose that all users get the same rate regardless of the burden they put on the service? The latter seems to your's, and most other commenter's position."

How on earth did you come to this conclusion ? The broadband providers can choose to structure their pricing in any way they see fit. However, they cannot, under any circumstance, charge differently based upon the *content* being transmitted. For example, my business has a 1.54Mbps T1 line that comes in through a fiber line that could support a much higher bandwidth. Our telecom provider has no problem making sure that our connection is throttled at the proper rate, nor have they ever. The discriminatory pricing that you're talking about is just some crock of shit cooked up by the telecoms as a way to squeeze customers and businesses for more money because their "growth" has dried up at the current monopoly price levels. IOW, it is corporate welfare at its finest, which shouldn't surprise anyone that has been awake for the last 6 years.

"How does government encourage competition? If you want competition on the pipeline aspect of it, then the government should get itself out of the business of protecting the current pipeline providers from competition."

The government doesn't protect anyone. In fact, they've done the opposite. Look up the 1996 Telecommunications Act signed by Clinton. It forced the telcos to open up their infrastructure to outside companies. For example, our telecom provider uses the local Verizon equipment building for our connection. In fact, they had Verizon actually run the T1 line at no charge to us. It has been a good step towards encouraging competition, but more needs to be done, and without it, I would only have the option of Verizon for our T1.

"The high cost to entry (having to build your own infrastructure to compete) is outside the government's purview unless you wish to use the government to subsidize competitition; or, in other words, create more corporate welfare, not less."

It's the same issue as the electrical grid, and a good reason why both should be government-controlled. They're essential services, just like health care and our water supply.

"The only area that I can see for more government work in this area is ensuring that the necessary right-of-ways are sufficiently big so that competition can lay its own lines. This is not a herculean task."

Are you serious ? You actually think it's a good idea that every single telecom runs their own lines ?

"Good grief, how hard is it really to get reasonably-priced broadband nowadays? Some towns are starting to offer Wifi for free."

We've been paying the same rate on our T1 line for the last 5 years and it is fairly expensive. Consumer access to asymmetrical bandwidth may be fairly cheap, but symmetrical bandwidth for businesses is still way more expensive than it needs to be.

We ought to have a universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.

But universal, affordable healthcare? Screw that.

Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Affordable access too unregulated communications for all? Have you been paying attention for the last six years? These guys couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone or anything except controlling their message to the exclusion of all others. Easy access would defeat that goal, so you won't see it.

For another perspective see
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070720_002525.html

Quote:
"My friend Ira, who lives in Yokohama, Japan, has 100-megabit-per-second fiber-optic Internet service in his home. This costs Ira less than $30 per month. What the heck is up with that? Ten years ago, the United States had the fastest and cheapest residential Internet service in the world. Today U.S. residential Internet service, especially broadband, is among the slowest and most expensive."

Imagine if these clowns were in charge of implementing rural electrification? America would be a bigger version of Vietnam (or supply your own third world hell hole here).

Welcome to America, a super power in decline.

I live in Tokyo and get the $30/mo., 100 Mbps line myself, from KDDI (though similar plans are available from NTT and others). Now, Japan does benefit from being a small country, but the biggest advantage was a proactive government. Japan had a policy called "e-Japan," which set goals for affordable, high-speed Internet connections, giving subsidies and incentives to the Telecom industries, but also using competitiveness policies to make the Telecoms do what's best for the people instead of just for themselves.

The result: the national policy achieved its goal (affordable 30 Mbps access to 10% of the country by 2005) three years ahead of time--and today, I think a majority of Japanese can get at least 30 Mbps.

This is an example of how a country can get stuff achieved; in 2001, when they made this policy, Japan lagged behind the U.S. considerably. ADSL was just not happening; I had to make do with dial-up and then later ISDN for quite some time, while my family in the SF Bay Area was getting 300 Kbps ADSL. Worse, because dial-up and ISDN both used a regular telephone connection, and because Japan has no free local calls, a 10-cent-per-minute surcharge was applied on top of regular access fees.

Within a few short years, Japan vaulted past the US. Six years later, my family in the Bay Area--just a stone's throw from Silicon Valley--still has 1.5 Mbps for more than I pay for 100 Mbps. Shameful. And it's not just because Japan has small land area and so could so FTTH--ADSL here is also great, offering up to 50 Mbps as a standard package.

When I tell my Japanese students that when they move to the U.S., their Internet will slow way down, they don't believe me.

See Paul Krugman's column in todays NYT.