General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhy is American internet so slow?
http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slowAccording to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong at 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps. And America? Averaging speeds of 20.77 Mbps, it falls behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Uruguay.
Its upload speeds are even worse. Globally, the U.S. ranks 42nd with an average upload speed of 6.31 Mbps, behind Lesotho, Belarus, Slovenia, and other countries you only hear mentioned on Jeopardy.
So how did America fall behind? How did the country that literally invented the internet and the home to world-leading tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Google, and Cisco fall behind so many others in download speeds?
Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."
snip
How? The 1996 Telecommunications Act which was meant to foster competition allowed cable companies and telecoms companies to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly, allowing them to charge customers higher and higher prices without the kind of investment in internet infrastructure, especially in next-generation fiber optic connections, that is ongoing in other countries. Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010 citing high costs just as other countries were getting to work.
Crawford told the BBC:
We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies Left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight. [BBC]
Other countries have done more to ensure that the market is open to competition. A 2006 study comparing the American and South Korean broadband markets concluded:
[T]he South Korean market was able to grow rapidly due to fierce competition in the market, mostly facilitated by the Korean government's open access rule and policy choices more favorable to new entrants rather than to the incumbents. Furthermore, near monopoly control of the residential communications infrastructure by cable operators and telephone companies manifests itself as relatively high pricing and lower quality in the U.S. [Professor Richard Taylor and Eun-A Park via Academic.edu]
And the gap between the U.S. and Korea has only grown wider since then.
The idea of a regulated market being more conducive to competition may be alien to free market ideologues, but telecoms and internet is a real world example of deregulation leading to monopolization instead of competition in lots of markets.
So, many including Crawford and others are now calling for stronger regulation of the existing market. At The New Yorker, John Cassidy argued last month:
What we need is a new competition policy that puts the interests of consumers first, seeks to replicate what other countries have done, and treats with extreme skepticism the arguments of monopoly incumbents such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable. [The New Yorker]
But he's skeptical we'll get it, noting that: "The new head of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, is a former lobbyist for two sets of vested interests: the cell-phone operators and, you guessed it, the cable companies."
more at the link
think anyone is paying attention?
TexasProgresive
(12,159 posts)have been with real fianacial support of their governments and not relying solely upon "free" market to drive it. In other words, the socialists have better internet.
1. Telecom deregulation is a mixed bag
Innovation was stifled under the regulated monopoly that was the Bell system. All equipment had to be to Bell system Blue Book and evidently they were loath to add new products. That was bad. What was good with regulation is that the phone companies were required by law to grant service to anyone requesting it. Also there were financial subsidies that made universal service possible.
When wireline was king long distance was the most profitable, so LD subsidized Local service, business service subsidized residential and all of them subsidized rural. Rural service can never pay for itself. If the industry is totally deregulated the rural citizens will have to do without. This included cell service for many because cell service is spotty in less populated areas especially off main roads. Cell providers tend to transmit up and down primary roads.
In many rural parts of Texas there is no broad band internet service other than expensive satellite. This is very expensive and people who cry about net neutrality should be happy they don't have the data limits of this service. 50 bucks for 10 GB a month and then upward from there. No Netflix allowed.
The to tightly controlled regulation of the Bell system was bad and needed to be revamped but the stripping of regulation from any industry has never seemed to do the consumers any favors.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)while non-commercial sites take forever during a slow spell?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)House of Roberts
(5,189 posts)Faster internet would just make them more impatient.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)in a 2nd world country.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Important stuff here.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)NBachers
(17,149 posts)Hawhawhawhaw *choke*gasp*wheeze* Oink Oink Squeal smirk!
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)the cost is $187/month for 100mbps. I personally pay $50/month for 40mbps.
rickford66
(5,530 posts)download = 3.08 mbps
upload = 0.37 mbps
It actually feels pretty fast tonight.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)I have the main fiber optic cable for almost entire northwest running about 100 yards from my back door, I have frontier providing my DSL via copper, they (frontier) have a fiber line running down the road in front of my place, I have what they laughingly call "high speed internet" it is supposed to be 1.3 down and 256 up most times it is more like .200 or down and .035 up I pay almost 70 a month for this. My only other choice is to get screwed by the sat. co's they are a lot faster but they have limits that are almost impossible to stick to if you want to do any more than just read the mail, log on here and generally surf some, anything more and you are over your limit right away.. So nothing in any real way for choices but they will not do anything to help, when I cal with complaints they may send someone out and play like he is doing something to it to make it better but so seriously over subscribed that it is almost unusable except late at night... Have 3g maybe on cell phone and it is almost as fast as my DSL..
rickford66
(5,530 posts)When I have problems they wait until it hardly works before they correct it. They usually blame my computers and have me do a bunch of diagnostics. I guess I'm the only one who complains on this hill. I see a lot of disconnected satellite dishes around here so I guess they bite also.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)But only a grade of B- and only faster than 62% of Ukraine. But it's one of the cheaper plans.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)tclambert
(11,087 posts)I need to download cat videos. Now!
loudsue
(14,087 posts)It takes more than 1 sentence to explain, and a good 1/2 of the country, and 100% of faux snooze viewers, just can't wrap their minds around more than that.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)never leave its borders. We think we are exceptional because most of us haven't been to places such as Europe.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Internet, medical care, public works construction, you name it.
Oligopoly - greatest way in the world to amass great wealth without doing much.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)But it sure doesn't show up in our inflation numbers, does it? In fact, nothing that is actually germane to our lives shows up in our inflation numbers. Yet I pay $4.00 for a block of cheese that cost me $1.29 when bush first took office. Hell. When bush took office, gas at the pump was something like $1.50.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)mbperrin
(7,672 posts)The price of gas inauguration week 2000 as Bush comes in: $1.269
The price of gas inauguration week 2008 as Bush goes out: $3.068
I had to find this link because of all the stupid Republicans who think gas was $1.50 when Obama took office, and now it's $3.259, when it started at $3.068 and is NOW, 6 years later, $3.292
Yes, now that food, energy and rent have been removed from the cost of living index, it seems the only things left are meth and huffing fluids. The argument for removing those other things? "Too volatile."
Sigh
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)NickB79
(19,276 posts)Try to convince most Americans that we need to invest a few billion dollars to improve the nation's high-speed Internet services, and you'll get plenty of jokes about downloading high-def porn and streaming Netflix.
Few people here seem to think of the massive advantages cheap, widely available high-speed Internet brings for business.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)There are a lot of things that a more civilized country would have that we don't have.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)for access. NSA paranoia draws focus away from the extortion commited by the telecom industry.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thanks, Mr. Clinton. I will so vote for your wife. NOT!
Lancero
(3,015 posts)It's not a issue of the infustructure being able to support it. It can. The companies just have limits put in place.
Google announced they were coming to another city. Time Warner shat themselves. They quickly bumped up the speed in that area, 4x-5x the current speeds.