suppressing capitalism in the US

[Old Rocks]

How our monopolies are preventing our nation from being competative with the other industrial nations.

Scientific American: Why Broadband Service in the U.S. is So Awful | KnightComm

The average U.S. household has to pay an exorbitant amount of money for an Internet connection that the rest of the industrial world would find mediocre. According to a recent report by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, broadband Internet service in the U.S. is not just slower and more expensive than it is in tech-savvy nations such as South Korea and Japan; the U.S. has fallen behind infrastructure-challenged countries such as Portugal and Italy as well.

The consequences are far worse than having to wait a few extra seconds for a movie to load. Because broadband connections are the railroads of the 21st century—essential infrastructure required to transmit products (these days, in the form of information) from seller to buyer—our creaky Internet makes it harder for U.S. entrepreneurs to compete in global markets….

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yawn.

Japan is the size of California and SoKorea is I dunno the size of Massachusetts or something.

How is that a fair comparison?

 

[Revere]

There is only one internet provider? Where do you live?

 

[konradv]

There is only one internet provider? Where do you live?

Is this about the provider or the infrastructure?

 

[konradv]

Yawn.

Japan is the size of California and SoKorea is I dunno the size of Massachusetts or something.

How is that a fair comparison?

But we're Americans, Frank. That should be irrelevant, unless you've given up on us!!!

 

[midcan5]

Why Broadband Service in the U.S. Is So Awful: Scientific American

"Here consumers generally have just two choices: the cable company, which sends data through the same lines used to deliver television signals, and the phone company, which uses older telephone lines and hence can only offer slower service.

The same is not true in Japan, Britain and the rest of the rich world. In such countries, the company that owns the physical infrastructure must sell access to independent providers on a wholesale market. Want high-speed Internet? You can choose from multiple companies, each of which has to compete on price and service. The only exceptions to this policy in the whole of the 32-nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are the U.S., Mexico and the Slovak Republic, although the Slovaks have recently begun to open up their lines."

 

[Revere]

Why build a fast network if you have to sell it to your competitors?

 

[konradv]

Why build a fast network if you have to sell it to your competitors?

If you sell something, you make money, right? What you would be selling is acess, not the network itself. You're also assuming that the network builder would have to also be a service provider. GM and Ford don't build roads, do they?

 

[Revere]

Why build a fast network if you have to sell it to your competitors?

If you sell something, you make money, right? What you would be selling is acess, not the network itself. You're also assuming that the network builder would have to also be a service provider. GM and Ford don't build roads, do they?

Why force them to unbundle the access and the infrastructure? What is their competitve advantage otherwise?

Unless...you think networks are a public good...

 

[konradv]

Why build a fast network if you have to sell it to your competitors?

If you sell something, you make money, right? What you would be selling is acess, not the network itself. You're also assuming that the network builder would have to also be a service provider. GM and Ford don't build roads, do they?

Why force them to unbundle the access and the infrastructure? What is their competitve advantage otherwise?

Unless...you think networks are a public good...

Competitive advantage should come from providing a better product or service, not monopolizing the infrastructure. That leads to poor service, not better. Look what happened when ATT was forced to divest. We got a lot more options.

 

[Revere]

If you sell something, you make money, right? What you would be selling is acess, not the network itself. You're also assuming that the network builder would have to also be a service provider. GM and Ford don't build roads, do they?

Why force them to unbundle the access and the infrastructure? What is their competitve advantage otherwise?

Unless...you think networks are a public good...

Competitive advantage should come from providing a better product or service, not monopolizing the infrastructure. That leads to poor service, not better. Look what happened when ATT was forced to divest. We got a lot more options.

Verizon paid to lay fiber optic cable in my condo complex. It blows away the Time Warner service I used to have. Why should Verizon sell that to Time Warner?

 

[konradv]

Why force them to unbundle the access and the infrastructure? What is their competitve advantage otherwise?

Unless...you think networks are a public good...

Competitive advantage should come from providing a better product or service, not monopolizing the infrastructure. That leads to poor service, not better. Look what happened when ATT was forced to divest. We got a lot more options.

Verizon paid to lay fiber optic cable in my condo complex. It blows away the Time Warner service I used to have. Why should Verizon sell that to Time Warner?

They'd make money. What's your solution, dozens of different cables running all over the place? I guess I'm saying it would be better for the general public, if infrastructure and service were seperated. A company would bid on the building of the system and then sell space to providers. Bandwidth is a commodity. To suggest we'd benefit from the branding of it, is short sighted.

 

[Revere]

Competitive advantage should come from providing a better product or service, not monopolizing the infrastructure. That leads to poor service, not better. Look what happened when ATT was forced to divest. We got a lot more options.

Verizon paid to lay fiber optic cable in my condo complex. It blows away the Time Warner service I used to have. Why should Verizon sell that to Time Warner?

They'd make money. What's your solution, dozens of different cables running all over the place? I guess I'm saying it would be better for the general public, if infrastructure and service were seperated. A company would bid on the building of the system and then sell space to providers. Bandwidth is a commodity. To suggest we'd benefit from the branding of it, is short sighted.

Yes, that's my solution. Nobody should be forced to invest in R&D on network infrastructure only to hand it over to a competitor.

Unless you believe those networks are a public good.

Like telephone lines and dial up phones used to be.

 

[konradv]

Verizon paid to lay fiber optic cable in my condo complex. It blows away the Time Warner service I used to have. Why should Verizon sell that to Time Warner?

They'd make money. What's your solution, dozens of different cables running all over the place? I guess I'm saying it would be better for the general public, if infrastructure and service were seperated. A company would bid on the building of the system and then sell space to providers. Bandwidth is a commodity. To suggest we'd benefit from the branding of it, is short sighted.

Yes, that's my solution. Nobody should be forced to invest in R&D on network infrastructure only to hand it over to a competitor.

Unless you believe those networks are a public good.

Like telephone lines and dial up phones used to be.

Exactly like that, and roads, for another example. We're falling behind as the OP indicated. We can't be tied to an old model. Time/Warner and Verizon are service providers. They shouldn't have the ability to limit acess to anyone. That should be the pervue of a third company, acess not limiting, or perhaps two to keep competition going, but not the providers themselves.

 

[Revere]

They'd make money. What's your solution, dozens of different cables running all over the place? I guess I'm saying it would be better for the general public, if infrastructure and service were seperated. A company would bid on the building of the system and then sell space to providers. Bandwidth is a commodity. To suggest we'd benefit from the branding of it, is short sighted.

Yes, that's my solution. Nobody should be forced to invest in R&D on network infrastructure only to hand it over to a competitor.

Unless you believe those networks are a public good.

Like telephone lines and dial up phones used to be.

Exactly like that, and roads, for another example. We're falling behind as the OP indicated. We can't be tied to an old model. Time/Warner and Verizon are service providers. They shouldn't have the ability to limit acess to anyone. That should be the pervue of a third company, acess not limiting, or perhaps two to keep competition going, but not the providers themselves.

US networks are not inferior to anyone else's in the world. If you can't get the service you want as a gift in the area you want it, that doesn't mean the free market isn't working.

 

[konradv]

Yes, that's my solution. Nobody should be forced to invest in R&D on network infrastructure only to hand it over to a competitor.

Unless you believe those networks are a public good.

Like telephone lines and dial up phones used to be.

Exactly like that, and roads, for another example. We're falling behind as the OP indicated. We can't be tied to an old model. Time/Warner and Verizon are service providers. They shouldn't have the ability to limit acess to anyone. That should be the pervue of a third company, acess not limiting, or perhaps two to keep competition going, but not the providers themselves.

US networks are not inferior to anyone else's in the world. If you can't get the service you want as a gift in the area you want it, that doesn't mean the free market isn't working.

You seem to have changed your argument. First, it was about not being forced to divest, now you're saying Scientific American's article is untrue. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Who said anything about gifts? Whether it's a government project that's paid for by taxes or worked into the fee you pay for service, we still pay. If we listened to your argument, we'd have a system of private roads and you'd have to pay a toll every few miles. But now you've changed your argument to "autobahns be damned, the old pre-50s system was good enough". Make up your mind.

 

[Revere]

Exactly like that, and roads, for another example. We're falling behind as the OP indicated. We can't be tied to an old model. Time/Warner and Verizon are service providers. They shouldn't have the ability to limit acess to anyone. That should be the pervue of a third company, acess not limiting, or perhaps two to keep competition going, but not the providers themselves.

US networks are not inferior to anyone else's in the world. If you can't get the service you want as a gift in the area you want it, that doesn't mean the free market isn't working.

You seem to have changed your argument. First, it was about not being forced to divest, now you're saying Scientific American's article is untrue. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Who said anything about gifts? Whether it's a government project that's paid for by taxes or worked into the fee you pay for service, we still pay. If we listened to your argument, we'd have a system of private roads and you'd have to pay a toll every few miles. But now you've changed your argument to "autobahns be damned, the old pre-50s system was good enough". Make up your mind.

Same opinion. There are no substandard networks in the US, except where private carriers choose not to invest.

If you get a nationalized network, you'll return to the days of rotary phones. Those were "good enough" and there was no incentive for innovation.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. Turning the internet into a heavily regulated version of AT&T pre the Modified Final Judgement of US District Court Judge Harold Green is hardly going drive innovation and excellence.

ObamaNet would be just as horrible as ObamaCare.

 

[Revere]

Government wired electricity and communications when nobody in the private sector had the capital to do it.

That was then and this is now.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why Broadband Service in the U.S. Is So Awful: Scientific American

"Here consumers generally have just two choices: the cable company, which sends data through the same lines used to deliver television signals, and the phone company, which uses older telephone lines and hence can only offer slower service.

The same is not true in Japan, Britain and the rest of the rich world. In such countries, the company that owns the physical infrastructure must sell access to independent providers on a wholesale market. Want high-speed Internet? You can choose from multiple companies, each of which has to compete on price and service. The only exceptions to this policy in the whole of the 32-nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are the U.S., Mexico and the Slovak Republic, although the Slovaks have recently begun to open up their lines."

You forgot a 3rd option - fiber optics...which is what I am on.