Telecom: another deregulation scam ...

[Jim]

Meanwhile, the market (and great lobbying) solution:

 

If you simply look at broadband "penetration"—a measure of broadband subscribers relative to the population—the U.S. is ranked 15th by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, with 27 broadband subscribers per 100 people. And another key organization, the International Telecommunications Union, ranks the United States 16th. Just one decade ago, the United States was at the top of the list.

 

But penetration doesn't tell the whole story. To get an up-to-date picture of where we actually stand, the New America Foundation recently took a very close look at both speeds and prices in more than a dozen leading broadband countries. As it turns out, U.S. residents paid more for bandwidth than nearly every other country surveyed. Typically, the lowest price for broadband in the United States, not counting promotions and bundled deals, costs an average of $35 a month for a measly 1 megabit per second connection. Twice this speed is available in Denmark and Canada for lower prices; more strikingly, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Sweden have broadband available for under $20 a month. Additionally, the fastest speeds in the United States are comparatively slow. The common top speed available for residential services in the Unites States is 50 Mbps (and costs $145 a month), while several nations have speeds available that are up to four times faster, for less than $60 a month.

According to the FCC's National Broadband Plan, the no. 1 reason that those without broadband cite for not having broadband is cost. Given that broadband is more expensive here than abroad, it's no surprise the United States lags behind a growing list of other countries. Subscribers in the United States pay more per megabit of bandwidth than countries across both our oceans.

 

 

Much of this can be attributed to other countries actually developing and implementing a national plan - what a concept. Yea, yea, we have a lot of land area here but even when you do a city by city comparision the results are the same. Similar to the hodge-podge cell tower system and standards we have here, compared to other countries where cell towers are on one standard and you don't have seperate phone companies planting their own and duplicative towers.

[j_b]

Nonsense. The cost of entry in telecoms is so high that it is effectively a natural monopoly where competition is only limited to small parts of the market and momentarily. The cost of doing business and providing the nation with the communication networks it needs is the object of the article starting this thread and telecoms are refusing to pay that cost (pocketing the surcharge instead). It is precisely because it is a natural monopoly that it should be regulated.

 

JayB talks from both corners of his mouth: on the one hand he cheers on media/telecom consolidations into oligopolies and on the other he claims to want competition.

[Hugh Conway]

Exhibit A: GM, Ford, and Chrysler - all of which should have been wiped off of the map 40 years ago

 

why does ideology always blind peoples so hilariously? Jay_B shitting on GM, a pinnacle of capitalism.

 

the nature of wired broadband makes it impractical to service the wants of Americans in their "market preferred" low density housing.

[ScottP]

You seem upset.

 

If you aren't, you should be.

Please explain to me what you are going to do to alleviate this perceived wrong.

[JayB]

Nonsense. The cost of entry in telecoms is so high that it is effectively a natural monopoly where competition is only limited to small parts of the market and momentarily. The cost of doing business and providing the nation with the communication networks it needs is the object of the article starting this thread and telecoms are refusing to pay that cost (pocketing the surcharge instead). It is precisely because it is a natural monopoly that it should be regulated.

 

JayB talks from both corners of his mouth: on the one hand he cheers on media/telecom consolidations into oligopolies and on the other he claims to want competition.

 

There's no more effective means of creating an oligopoly that stifles competition than bribing the government to rig the game on behalf of a few well connected players.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You seem upset.

 

If you aren't, you should be.

Please explain to me what you are going to do to alleviate this perceived wrong.

 

You mean besides posting to the spray forum on a climbing-related web site?

[JayB]

Meanwhile, the market (and great lobbying) solution:

 

If you simply look at broadband "penetration"—a measure of broadband subscribers relative to the population—the U.S. is ranked 15th by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, with 27 broadband subscribers per 100 people. And another key organization, the International Telecommunications Union, ranks the United States 16th. Just one decade ago, the United States was at the top of the list.

 

But penetration doesn't tell the whole story. To get an up-to-date picture of where we actually stand, the New America Foundation recently took a very close look at both speeds and prices in more than a dozen leading broadband countries. As it turns out, U.S. residents paid more for bandwidth than nearly every other country surveyed. Typically, the lowest price for broadband in the United States, not counting promotions and bundled deals, costs an average of $35 a month for a measly 1 megabit per second connection. Twice this speed is available in Denmark and Canada for lower prices; more strikingly, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Sweden have broadband available for under $20 a month. Additionally, the fastest speeds in the United States are comparatively slow. The common top speed available for residential services in the Unites States is 50 Mbps (and costs $145 a month), while several nations have speeds available that are up to four times faster, for less than $60 a month.

According to the FCC's National Broadband Plan, the no. 1 reason that those without broadband cite for not having broadband is cost. Given that broadband is more expensive here than abroad, it's no surprise the United States lags behind a growing list of other countries. Subscribers in the United States pay more per megabit of bandwidth than countries across both our oceans.

 

 

Much of this can be attributed to other countries actually developing and implementing a national plan - what a concept. Yea, yea, we have a lot of land area here but even when you do a city by city comparision the results are the same. Similar to the hodge-podge cell tower system and standards we have here, compared to other countries where cell towers are on one standard and you don't have seperate phone companies planting their own and duplicative towers.

 

It's not clear to me what compelling national interest is served by insuring that everyone, everywhere has super-high speed broadband connections. What are the concrete benefits of such a plan, and what are the costs, and why should the public foot the bill from them instead of the people who are sad because it takes an extra 10 minutes to stream the Youtube video that their Aunt Judy forwarded to them? The whole concept reminds me of the "Underpants Gnome" episode of South Park. "Stage 1 = steal underpants. Stage 2: . Stage 3 = Profits!"

 

Moreover - why should city dwellers be forced to subsidize the extension of broadband services to rural or suburban households? Rural households already pay far less per square foot of housing, have lower tax assessments, benefit from massive transport subsidies, etc, etc, etc. If you want the rural life - fine. Sounds appealing to me in many ways - but be prepared to pay extra for some things in exchange for the big yard, like broadband. Buy a dish and quit whining or STFU and relocate. No free lunch.

[JayB]

These guys don't have enough to do at the moment. Let's send them out to the King County's rural hinterlands with a spool of fiber-optic cable....

 

http://www.kirotv.com/news/25320520/detail.html

[Hugh Conway]

It's not clear to me what compelling national interest is served by insuring that everyone, everywhere has super-high speed broadband connections. What are the concrete benefits of such a plan, and what are the costs, and why should the public foot the bill from them instead of the people who are sad because it takes an extra 10 minutes to stream the Youtube video that their Aunt Judy forwarded to them? The whole concept reminds me of the "Underpants Gnome" episode of South Park. "Stage 1 = steal underpants. Stage 2: . Stage 3 = Profits!"

 

Moreover - why should city dwellers be forced to subsidize the extension of broadband services to rural or suburban households? Rural households already pay far less per square foot of housing, have lower tax assessments, benefit from massive transport subsidies, etc, etc, etc. If you want the rural life - fine. Sounds appealing to me in many ways - but be prepared to pay extra for some things in exchange for the big yard, like broadband. Buy a dish and quit whining or STFU and relocate. No free lunch.

 

way to live up to the regressive moniker jay

[Jim]

Moreover - why should city dwellers be forced to subsidize the extension of broadband services to rural or suburban households? Rural households already pay far less per square foot of housing, have lower tax assessments, benefit from massive transport subsidies, etc, etc, etc. If you want the rural life - fine. Sounds appealing to me in many ways - but be prepared to pay extra for some things in exchange for the big yard, like broadband. Buy a dish and quit whining or STFU and relocate. No free lunch.

 

No argument regarding rural issues. But you haven't addressed the market failure in U.S. cities where it is easier to provide access. And your assumption that high speed internet is only applicable to entertainment and not commerce and academics is false. The issue is why are we paying such high rates for lousy service in the US compared to the rest of the world where there is comprehensive planning, and lo and behold, solvent communications companies making a profit.

[Nitrox]

Moreover - why should city dwellers be forced to subsidize the extension of broadband services to rural or suburban households? Rural households already pay far less per square foot of housing, have lower tax assessments, benefit from massive transport subsidies, etc, etc, etc. If you want the rural life - fine. Sounds appealing to me in many ways - but be prepared to pay extra for some things in exchange for the big yard, like broadband. Buy a dish and quit whining or STFU and relocate. No free lunch.

 

No argument regarding rural issues. But you haven't addressed the market failure in U.S. cities where it is easier to provide access. And your assumption that high speed internet is only applicable to entertainment and not commerce and academics is false. The issue is why are we paying such high rates for lousy service in the US compared to the rest of the world where there is comprehensive planning, and lo and behold, solvent communications companies making a profit.

 

What percentage of all US internet use is commerce and education related?

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

Moreover - why should city dwellers be forced to subsidize the extension of broadband services to rural or suburban households? Rural households already pay far less per square foot of housing, have lower tax assessments, benefit from massive transport subsidies, etc, etc, etc. If you want the rural life - fine. Sounds appealing to me in many ways - but be prepared to pay extra for some things in exchange for the big yard, like broadband. Buy a dish and quit whining or STFU and relocate. No free lunch.

 

No argument regarding rural issues. But you haven't addressed the market failure in U.S. cities where it is easier to provide access. And your assumption that high speed internet is only applicable to entertainment and not commerce and academics is false. The issue is why are we paying such high rates for lousy service in the US compared to the rest of the world where there is comprehensive planning, and lo and behold, solvent communications companies making a profit.

 

What percentage of all US internet use is commerce and education related?

 

 

youtube is commerce, dolt

[tvashtarkatena]

Anyone who has to question the massive productivity gains of faster internet connectivity is either a) a fucking moron or b) digs ditches for a living.

[Hugh Conway]

I believe it's c) enjoys the pay benefits of the free market but without that nasty compeitition thing

[Hugh Conway]

see, it'd be much better to fire the current boat crew, then hire new people back again a month or two when the boats back, and stuff the state of Washington Unemployment system with their wages. GENIUS!

[Hugh Conway]

WHO CARES ABOUT RATIONAL THOUGHT! THIS IS RELIGION! FREE MMMARRRRKKKKEEEET BAAAABBBYYYYY!

[JayB]

Moreover - why should city dwellers be forced to subsidize the extension of broadband services to rural or suburban households? Rural households already pay far less per square foot of housing, have lower tax assessments, benefit from massive transport subsidies, etc, etc, etc. If you want the rural life - fine. Sounds appealing to me in many ways - but be prepared to pay extra for some things in exchange for the big yard, like broadband. Buy a dish and quit whining or STFU and relocate. No free lunch.

 

No argument regarding rural issues. But you haven't addressed the market failure in U.S. cities where it is easier to provide access. And your assumption that high speed internet is only applicable to entertainment and not commerce and academics is false. The issue is why are we paying such high rates for lousy service in the US compared to the rest of the world where there is comprehensive planning, and lo and behold, solvent communications companies making a profit.

 

My claim wasn't that the internet has value for entertainment only, but that whatever people value it for - they should bear the cost of providing it for themselves. I met a radiologist in Wyoming who makes a lot of money reading x-rays remotely a few years ago. Evidently that takes quite a bit of bandwith. I'm not sure how much the guy made, but it was probably enough make it worth his while to set it up on his own dime.

 

Which is the essential point. If there's a high economic value associated with having a superfast internet connection at place X, as opposed to an imaginary one, then the people who stand to make money at place X will fork over the cost. Which is why I suspect that data transmission to and from, say, oil platforms isn't an issue awaiting public resolution.

 

I'd be astonished to learn that there's no amount of money sufficient to secure superfast internet to either a private home or a business that wants it and is prepared to pay for it. I'm sure that there are plenty of homeowners and business that would much prefer to transfer the cost of generating the broadband capacity they'd like to exploit onto someone else, but that's not quite the same thing.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

see, it'd be much better to fire the current boat crew, then hire new people back again a month or two when the boats back, and stuff the state of Washington Unemployment system with their wages. GENIUS!

 

It'd be much better to fire all unionized ferry workers and replace them with equally capable people who are willing to do the same jobs at a much lower cost. But that's only if you think that the ferry service should have...providing ferry services as efficiently as possible with the public money it spends as its central aim. If that priority is commingled with providing a comfortable living to as many unionized workers as possible at the public's expense, then the way things are currently being run is fine.

 

Ditto for Metro, etc. Why staff with part-time employees on a regular time basis when you can stuff senior employee's schedules with enough OT in the last three years to give them a permanent boost to their publicly financed pensions.

[j_b]

Little did I know that people lived in rural area because they liked the country life. It's not like society needs people in the country to grow stuff and that it'd be advantageous to us if they were connected and could learn about sustainable agriculture (for example). I guess we'll have to wait for Monsanto to tell them about it. I mean why should we pay for culture in poor neighborhood since the peons manage pretty well spending all of their time at the factory or in front of TV?

[Hugh Conway]

see, it'd be much better to fire the current boat crew, then hire new people back again a month or two when the boats back, and stuff the state of Washington Unemployment system with their wages. GENIUS!

 

It'd be much better to fire all unionized ferry workers and replace them with equally capable people who are willing to do the same jobs at a much lower cost. But that's only if you think that the ferry service should have...providing ferry services as efficiently as possible with the public money it spends as its central aim. If that priority is commingled with providing a comfortable living to as many unionized workers as possible at the public's expense, then the way things are currently being run is fine.

 

Ditto for Metro, etc. Why staff with part-time employees on a regular time basis when you can stuff senior employee's schedules with enough OT in the last three years to give them a permanent boost to their publicly financed pensions.

 

so would you pay the non-union workers while the boats are being repaired or not?

 

My claim wasn't that the internet has value for entertainment only, but that whatever people value it for - they should bear the cost of providing it for themselves. I met a radiologist in Wyoming who makes a lot of money reading x-rays remotely a few years ago. Evidently that takes quite a bit of bandwith. I'm not sure how much the guy made, but it was probably enough make it worth his while to set it up on his own dime.

 

if you want "free market" maybe the medical profession should start paying the actual cost of their education?

[j_b]

Nonsense. The cost of entry in telecoms is so high that it is effectively a natural monopoly where competition is only limited to small parts of the market and momentarily. The cost of doing business and providing the nation with the communication networks it needs is the object of the article starting this thread and telecoms are refusing to pay that cost (pocketing the surcharge instead). It is precisely because it is a natural monopoly that it should be regulated.

JayB talks from both corners of his mouth: on the one hand he cheers on media/telecom consolidations into oligopolies and on the other he claims to want competition.

There's no more effective means of creating an oligopoly that stifles competition than bribing the government to rig the game on behalf of a few well connected players.

 

You are not answering to the fact that Telecoms have a huge entry cost to do business, which as I said already once, make these not really amenable to market competition, i.e. they are natural monopolies. Until you learn to answer to the point there is little reason to try engaging you in a rational discussion. Ignoring what you can't answer isn't good enough.

[JayB]

1) If I couldn't wave a magic wand and immediately fire all unionized ferry employees and replace them, then I'd give the folks who aren't doing any useful work the option of taking unpaid leave or vacation time. Alternatively, I'd allow any unionized ferry workers who wanted to share the pain with their brethren to show their solidarity by donating shifts to them to offset the lost pay. Or they could quit and try their luck in the private sector.

 

Efficient use of taxpayer money > a guaranteed income for ferry workers.

 

2. Yes, and no reason to stop at medicine.

[j_b]

see, it'd be much better to fire the current boat crew, then hire new people back again a month or two when the boats back, and stuff the state of Washington Unemployment system with their wages. GENIUS!

 

It'd be much better to fire all unionized ferry workers and replace them with equally capable people who are willing to do the same jobs at a much lower cost.

 

that is blatantly false. Paying employees non-living wages isn't sustainable. We can now see all around us the results of 30 years pushing for the bottom labor costs: communities falling apart, middle class disappearing, etc ..

[JayB]

Nonsense. The cost of entry in telecoms is so high that it is effectively a natural monopoly where competition is only limited to small parts of the market and momentarily. The cost of doing business and providing the nation with the communication networks it needs is the object of the article starting this thread and telecoms are refusing to pay that cost (pocketing the surcharge instead). It is precisely because it is a natural monopoly that it should be regulated.

JayB talks from both corners of his mouth: on the one hand he cheers on media/telecom consolidations into oligopolies and on the other he claims to want competition.

There's no more effective means of creating an oligopoly that stifles competition than bribing the government to rig the game on behalf of a few well connected players.

 

You are not answering to the fact that Telecoms have a huge entry cost to do business, which as I said already once, make these not really amenable to market competition, i.e. they are natural monopolies. Until you learn to answer to the point there is little reason to try engaging you in a rational discussion. Ignoring what you can't answer isn't good enough.

 

There is a huge cost of entry in *any* capital intensive industry. What specifically makes entering the telecom business more daunting than starting a company that makes supertankers or delivers cell phone service?

[JayB]

see, it'd be much better to fire the current boat crew, then hire new people back again a month or two when the boats back, and stuff the state of Washington Unemployment system with their wages. GENIUS!

 

It'd be much better to fire all unionized ferry workers and replace them with equally capable people who are willing to do the same jobs at a much lower cost.

 

that is blatantly false. Paying employees non-living wages isn't sustainable. We can now see all around us the results of 30 years pushing for the bottom labor costs: communities falling apart, middle class disappearing, etc ..

 

Who's manning the commercial fishing fleet, amigo? How about the cruise-ships? Are the risks and complexities associated with either less demanding than driving a ferry back and forth across the Puget Sound? How do they manage to staff their fleets?