

Case closed: why most of USA lacks 100Mbps 'Net connections - markerdmann
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/case-closed-why-most-of-usa-lacks-100mbps-net-connections.ars

======
patrickgzill
One estimate of over $200 Billion has gone in extra payments and fee
allowances to telecoms.

In Pennsylvania, Verizon et al. were given billions of extra fees, in return
they were to provide high speed broadband of T1 speed or better. They took the
fees, but did not deliver the broadband; later it was found that due to the
way the law was worded, no penalty for non-performance could be applied.

IMHO, the ONLY thing that telecoms understand is force or the threat of force.
Get serious about opening up rights of way that the state government already
has, to all comers, and they will act quickly to drop prices and improve
service.

~~~
thewiglaf
No kidding. Apparently getting your city to build its own fiber network is a
sure fire way to get a telecom off its ass, as demonstrated by a Minnesota
suburb:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=907617>

------
jsz0
I'm still not sold on the idea that we all need 100Mbit+ Internet connections.
It's like building 4 lane highways to replace rural backroads. Most people
aren't going to pay significantly more so it's not an appealing venture for
private companies to make on their own except where competition exists and
they have to offer more competitive packages in an effort to play defense.
They're not doing it because offering a wideband connection brings in tons of
new customers or more revenue from existing customers. It's purely a defensive
move. There's also some question of how much bandwidth is enough. I move from
a 10Mbit connection at home to a 100Mbit+ connection at work and I don't
notice any difference. Sure files download quicker but we're talking 10
seconds versus 20 seconds in most cases. I can't really think of anything I
can't do on a 10Mbit/sec connection. I'm also at a loss to figure out what
room exists for innovation. Better quality streaming video? Sure I guess so
but all things considered that's not my top concern.

So instead of focusing on raw speed maybe we should be focusing on
reliability, pricing, latency, improved customer service, and a modest
increase in speeds to get us all to this 10-15Mbit/sec range that is
completely acceptable performance. Get people some choice so they at least
have 2 or 3 providers and, over time, they will compete with each other as
faster speeds are actually something customers need/want and not just a
statistic that has almost no real meaning today.

~~~
drinian
Is there anything that you do in the office or within your home LAN that you
can't do remotely? Extremely large video files, transparent network storage,
etc.? Then you'll find a use for 100 mbit Internet.

------
FluidDjango
Perhaps if someone researched where most telecom lobbying dollars went - and
which government/(congressional?) positions tend to have their people siphoned
off by the telecom corporations... we might discover where there is
disincentive to get these recommendations into action.

As one famous whistle-blower said, "follow the money." [/cynicism]

~~~
rudyfink
If this chart ( [http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/corporate-
campaigning...](http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/corporate-campaigning-
where-do-politicians-get-their-money/) ) is to be believed, ATT was the
largest donor in the 2010 election cycle.

------
onedognight
AT&T stopped by my home to say that they ran fiber (uverse) to my building.
Great, but I have to buy a TV subscription to get internet from them! Same
policy from Verizon FIOS.

Ironically, my cable company allows me to get internet only _and_ they are
faster (20/2 vs 18/1.5). Certainly none them are 100Mbps.

~~~
brianobush
I have verizon FIOS and have no TV contract.... hmm

------
jessriedel
"And a huge chunk of the population (over 30 percent) never go online at
all—less because they're retired and not interested; more often because they
can't afford the prices."

From the survey, the main reasons given for no internet use at any location
are...

Don't Need/Not Interested: 47.2%

No Computer or Computer Inadequate: 22.3%

Too Expensive: 18.6%

Lack of Skill: 4.3%

Can Use Somewhere Else: 1.4%

Other: 5.5%

To me, it looks like more people don't go online because they aren't
interested (47.2%) than because they can't afford it (22.3%+18.6% = 40.9%).

Of Americans without internet access (31.3% of the population) only 18.6% go
without because of the cost of access. That's just 5.8% of population who
can't afford access, which seems like a very small fraction to me. Now,
slightly more of those without access attribute it to a lack of a computer,
but this isn't something that can be fixed through the market for internet
access.

------
sili
This is not the first time where deregulation of an industry that happened in
the past decade has brought about bad results.

~~~
anamax
Giving an industry subsidies and protecting it from competition is not
dereguation. It's regulation.

