Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^ It's unfortunate that we do NOT have competitive markets in telecommunications, due in most cases, to regulatory capture. Note that compared to other developed countries, our internet is slower and much more expensive. This is largely due to (1) town franchise agreements that gave exclusivity to one broadband provider (2) state laws that make community owned broadband difficult or expensive (3) the decision to not treat broadband as a regulated utility (4) consolidation (mergers) that give extraordinary pricing power to a small number of incumbents.
So yea, Mr. H, our markets, such as they are, work great, for the stockholders. Us consumers? Not so much.
12-11-2016, 09:25 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Hospitality
Phone, Internet and Cable should be treated the same, yes. Electricity and Roads cannot practically work in the private sector due to physical limitations.
However, Phone, Internet, and Cable do not have these limitations.
In response to:
1) There's plenty of competition that covers most of the U.S. population. There's cable providers, FO providers, DSL providers and 4G providers... and more on the way.
2) It was already pointed out by a previous individual that rural areas would be the exception.
Only in very limited cases is (1) actually true. You're generally limited to a single real option. You might have two options if you live in the right part of a city.
I don't know why you'd even bring up wireless considering the truly insane cost and the lack of solid coverage.
Municipal broadband is great. However, I am not sure how it would work in most areas.
In our county, the county asked private companies to lay fiber optics at the turn of the century. They refused. So the county decided to lay their own fiber network.
At this point, the liberal Democrat Governor tried to stop the project stating that ONLY PRIVATE INDUSTRY could provide fiber services. The local Republican county government stated that is is OUR GOVERNMENT and we can do anything we want with it!! We do have the "best government money can buy"!!
The compromise was that the county could only wholesale, but not retail cable, internet and phone services to local residents. That pretty much kills municipal broadband in most cases.
The county they spent 120 million dollars for the fiber network. Yes, we have 1Gbps service. But there were NO state or federal funds involved it was all local monies. The total county population is only 75,000 so you can use that it probably will not work unless the local government agency can RETAIL services.
The county has written off the 120 million dollars. They are hoping that the fiber system can now be self-supporting. Currently, pay $50/month for 100 mbps service, with the 1Gbps service at $130/month.
It might be time to develop and national fiber optic infrastructure that link schools, hospitals, and government offices in most cities. Then leave it to local communities to build out the rest of the local network. Be it wireless or whatever.
We did it with roads, airports and other public services. I believe at this point, broadband is just as essential as public roads.
^ It's unfortunate that we do NOT have competitive markets in telecommunications, due in most cases, to regulatory capture. Note that compared to other developed countries, our internet is slower and much more expensive. This is largely due to (1) town franchise agreements that gave exclusivity to one broadband provider (2) state laws that make community owned broadband difficult or expensive (3) the decision to not treat broadband as a regulated utility (4) consolidation (mergers) that give extraordinary pricing power to a small number of incumbents.
So yea, Mr. H, our markets, such as they are, work great, for the stockholders. Us consumers? Not so much.
You do realize that it had nothing to do with any of the things you listed, right. It has to do with the size of the nation and how spread out the population is. Yes, smaller countries such as Korea have much faster speeds. But they also have less land to cover. Expanding wired broadband across the U.S. is exponentially more expensive.
As another poster mentioned, it's best to keep broadband in the private market. I
Only in very limited cases is (1) actually true. You're generally limited to a single real option. You might have two options if you live in the right part of a city.
I don't know why you'd even bring up wireless considering the truly insane cost and the lack of solid coverage.
4G has great coverage where the population is dense and covers the vast majority of Americans. It's also improving at a rapid rate. By 2019, we'll have nearly 100% population coverage of multi-band 4g. More than fiber.
Municipal broadband is great. However, I am not sure how it would work in most areas.
In our county, the county asked private companies to lay fiber optics at the turn of the century. They refused. So the county decided to lay their own fiber network.
At this point, the liberal Democrat Governor tried to stop the project stating that ONLY PRIVATE INDUSTRY could provide fiber services. The local Republican county government stated that is is OUR GOVERNMENT and we can do anything we want with it!! We do have the "best government money can buy"!!
The compromise was that the county could only wholesale, but not retail cable, internet and phone services to local residents. That pretty much kills municipal broadband in most cases.
The county they spent 120 million dollars for the fiber network. Yes, we have 1Gbps service. But there were NO state or federal funds involved it was all local monies. The total county population is only 75,000 so you can use that it probably will not work unless the local government agency can RETAIL services.
The county has written off the 120 million dollars. They are hoping that the fiber system can now be self-supporting. Currently, pay $50/month for 100 mbps service, with the 1Gbps service at $130/month.
It might be time to develop and national fiber optic infrastructure that link schools, hospitals, and government offices in most cities. Then leave it to local communities to build out the rest of the local network. Be it wireless or whatever.
We did it with roads, airports and other public services. I believe at this point, broadband is just as essential as public roads.
The irony... to see republicans for big government and see the democrats be conservative.
12-13-2016, 12:54 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
4G has great coverage where the population is dense and covers the vast majority of Americans. It's also improving at a rapid rate. By 2019, we'll have nearly 100% population coverage of multi-band 4g. More than fiber.
And at $10 or so per gigabyte on top of the basic plan cost, it's not really a solution. The cost simply prohibits using it like cable or DSL or fiber.
So basically you've suggested an unrealistic option for cities and...nothing at all for rural.
12-13-2016, 12:55 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
You do realize that it had nothing to do with any of the things you listed, right. It has to do with the size of the nation and how spread out the population is. Yes, smaller countries such as Korea have much faster speeds. But they also have less land to cover. Expanding wired broadband across the U.S. is exponentially more expensive.
As another poster mentioned, it's best to keep broadband in the private market. I
Maybe you could explain your last statement, which you've supported with nothing. In fact, if anything, your first statement is more of an argument *for* government getting involved in this (as they have with phone service), because otherwise people in sparsely populated areas are out of luck.
You do realize that it had nothing to do with any of the things you listed, right. It has to do with the size of the nation and how spread out the population is. Yes, smaller countries such as Korea have much faster speeds. But they also have less land to cover. Expanding wired broadband across the U.S. is exponentially more expensive.
As another poster mentioned, it's best to keep broadband in the private market. I
On this we disagree. I guess you view consolidation and lack of competition as a good thing? You a telecom investor?
Turn back the clock 80 years to look at the rise of electric power. Private sector would not touch less settled areas. Took government support to do so. Internet could be built out now with no govt financial support, especially given the cheaper cost of capital for governmental entities. But the political power of cable companies blocks this, probably because they fear municipal broadband could also work well in areas where they do provide services, albeit at obscene prices. So much for the success of private markets.
Korea has much faster speeds, to use one example, because the state made access a political goal. Did its size and pop density help? Perhaps, but that was not the key factor.
And at $10 or so per gigabyte on top of the basic plan cost, it's not really a solution. The cost simply prohibits using it like cable or DSL or fiber.
So basically you've suggested an unrealistic option for cities and...nothing at all for rural.
This is a bit shortsighted. Remember when an SMS cost $1? And then 50 cents? And then most recently (late 90s) 10 cents? And now, almost nothing.
I would expect that within the next 5 to 10 years, the cost per gb will go down significantly to the case where it's a moot point.
Hardly unrealistic. It will be cheaper to put up towers than it will be to lay down fiber.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
