[Macworld]

Post your comments for U.S. needs more broadband competition, expert says here

[flybynight]

In general, I think you find that areas of higher population density have more competition, because there are more customers there and because it costs less to put in the infrastructure, per potential customer, when they are geographically closer. This is the case wether it is Europe, Japan or areas like the NE US sited in the article. Maybe mobile service aren't a viable solution yet, but they will be eventually as their speeds and penetration increases.

[Speed_Racer]

flybynight said:

In general, I think you find that areas of higher population density have more competition, because there are more customers there and because it costs less to put in the infrastructure, per potential customer, when they are geographically closer. This is the case wether it is Europe, Japan or areas like the NE US sited in the article.

No, there's still no competition, exactly as the article said. Even in the biggest cities, you take either cable or DSL. In some areas, fiber might be available. But in all cases, you have exactly one company providing each service in your area. You don't get to choose which cable company to use because there's only one per area, a government-allowed monopoly. Same with phone companies providing DSL.

I laugh when they talk about "falling prices." American companies always lie through their teeth. My cable bill has not fallen one cent, not even the section covering Internet service. So big deal the speed gets faster every once in a while. I'm still stuck at about 12mbps and often as slow as 3mbps, thanks to the cable company not upgrading my node and letting my non-guaranteed bandwidth get slowed down by neighbors. This simply can't compare with Japan or Korea, where they get up to 100mbps for half the price.

[phoenixjim]

Where I live (Eastern upstate NY), there is even less "competition". No cable service, now or in the foreseeable future. No cell signal here. DSL is provided by "Fairpoint", a paltry 768kb (yes, 768kilobit), priced at 44.95 per month, with no credits for downtime. They offer a really high speed 1.5megabit connection for only $99.95 LOL.
I would LOVE to see real high speed internet, even at $7 per mbit - but that's not going to happen here, or anywhere else rural like this place, unless (as with the utilities that came before) regulation requires it.
Monopolies don't work for the customers. And I'm not seeing real competition anywhere in the US.

[dparry]

I concur. The notion of competition in the broadband market is a sham. I live in the Los Angeles area, and even in such an extensive megalopolis there is no real choice. I was an early subscriber to Earthlink, at the time the only DSL provider even though it leased its lines through AT&T. After years of spotty service and increasing migration of technical support to outsourced agents, my service was strangely disconnected and no one was able to understand what happened. After spending hours, days --nay, weeks-- on the phone and three visits to my house by Covad, EL's street technicians, no one could resolve the issue. Needless to say, the billing department had no such disfunction. Out of frustration I canceled my Earthlink account and signed up with AT&T (now a direct provider), thinking they, owning the lines, could provide DSL without a hitch. I was approved, ordered the equipment, connected my new modem, and still the signal was missing. At least I figured I could speak directly to those in charge now that I was no longer filtered through a middleman. However, no one seemed to be able to figure out why service wasn't working. Two months into trouble-shooting, I finally barked my way to a supervisor who told me the problem was that, in fact, I never would get service because there was no longer any allotment of available lines in my area -- they were filled! Apparently, I had been unplugged and my seat on the bus was sold to somebody else. Sorry, but I was SOL. I had no choice but to order cable (Charter Communications), which turned into another nightmare on the installation side, another three weeks lost to ineptitude (no-shows for appointments, excuses, apologies, etc.). I had, at this point no recourse but to swallow my pride and accept the runaround because no further alternatives existed. It is incredible that such shoddy enterprises can survive because consumers are over a barrel. It is a shame when our economy is so beleaguered that ill-deserving companies continue to rule this sector.

[doglesby]

"If you don't separate out broadband"? RIght, because consumers don't see a distinction. And where's the competition when you don't separate broadband? When I bought my house, I had to change phone companies and get a new number (even though my area code didn't change)--despite paying a so-called number portability fee for 2 years! I kept the same cable company though--it was the only choice at both locations.

[alansky]

@Speed_Racer:

This is exactly the situation in the San Francisco Bay Area (pop. 7.5 million). Comcast or AT&T---these are the choices. Vanilla or chocolate. And the prices keep going up, not down. This is especially true of Comcast. Both companies dangle attractive introductory offers almost constantly, but the price skyrockets after six months or a year at best. The hit is even worse on bundled services (internet, tv and phone) because once they've got you, it's just that much harder to switch---as if it's ever any better on "the other side" when there's so little competition.

[kingarthur]

It is the same 2 companies who dominate the Chicagoland area.

Comcast has been INCREASING their fees while cutting services(Usenet) & tv channels.

AT&T isn't much better since they have slower speeds.

[heisetax]

Prices keep going up here in Omaha, NE with Cox Cable. DSL wasn't available until about a year ago when QWest figured out how to extend the maximum range from a switching station to your house or business. This is even though I live in the middle of town.Prices used to be $29.95, then $34.95, 39.95, 42.95 & now $44.99. They claim that speed has gone up during this time. This means that by many peoples calculations the cost of MB may have gone down, but the price paid to Cox has gone up by 50%. Cable TV has done the same with much higher prices & fewer channels available every month.
I finally go better service after my old cable modem would no longer function in the changed network. Downloads from Apple came at 3-400k/sec. After switching to a new modem speeds went up to 1.2-1.5 MB/sec. They claimed that my cable modem only allowed for the lowest rate speed available to come through. This rate now is $2995 to compete with QWest's DSL. But they were unwilling to give me a refund of the difference between the 2 rates even though they knew which modem I had & did not me or anyone else in my situation of the problem. That means that many have paid for a service that was not capable with the equipment Cox Cable knew we all had.
Cox claims that their 444.99/mon service is a 9 MBit/sec service. QWest says that because of my distance from the switching station my speeds would only be 256 kb/sec, but the price would only be $30/mon. If higher speeds would come available, then they would max out at 3 Mb/sec for a much higher price.
I could always go back to dial-up which is about 51kb/sec from Cox & 14.4-19.2 Kb/sec from QWest.
This means that there is a little competition, but not really much. Things like wireless to your portable is $60/mon or so for 5 GB/mon of traffic. Things are probably a little cheaper with cell phone internet service, but then there are limits to what you can do. My friend checked to see if he could download Apple's OS 10.5.5 Combo Updater file, but no go because of its size. So can this really be mentioned as competition with its severe limits?
Here in the Great Plains we can always go back to sending smoke signals.

[bonesb]

Consumers need a political lobby engine - competition just isn't going to happen until a revolt to the system rears it's ugly head.
Users are addicted to broadband, and providers know it (they can track our data usage, right?). Users of broadband aren't going to cut their service to revolt - and we can't switch to another provider!
Two perspectives: (1) why a great lobbyist like Nader wastes everybody's time running for President is beyond my comprehension - working to combat the lobby team working for telecom (and other real causes) seems like a better use of time; (2) Using a little exaggeration now - Texas is about the same geographical size of France - the US telecom companies have to supply infrastructure to a heck of a lot more locations than the French do - before comparing the French success to what could be achieved in the US - let's try to get France hooked up and networked to 49 other countries first; the EU fights that battle, not France...
I use a wireless broadband card with ATTWS. The national providers all have the same price, same data cap, outrageous overage charges in some instances (I'm grandfathered with the 0 cost overage) that make credit card and bank overage fees look cheap - and they're getting away with it. They can't prove material damage to their systems for overages that justify the outrageous charges, but the FCC's letting them do it. Switching to a different wireless provider gets me similar terms; there are four wireless broadband providers where I live - competition does nothing for price competition in that market.

[flowney]

Back in 1935, we saw the same thing with electricity in sparsely populated areas as we are now seeing with broadband. The government launched a plan called the "Rural Electric Association (REA) (see: http://newdeal.feri....tva/tva10.htm). This is usually referred to as the "rural electrification" initiative.
Today, we need a "rural datafication" initiative. Otherwise, people in rural areas will continue to be barred from full participation in strengthening our economy and national well being.

[fernblatt]

Over the past few years AT&T has been buying up telecom/wireless companies left and right and has been giving folks in the areas it serves even fewer choices.
Recently ClearWire and Sprint were attempting to merge to provide a nationwide high speed wireless network, but were challenged by AT&T for attempting to create a "monopoly".
In our particular area - Middle Tennessee - ClearWire provides wireless internet service to areas (that supposedly should be) served by AT&T, but where things like DSL, decent quality phone lines for dial-up and even cellphone service aren't always available in most cases. The partnership between Clearwire and Sprint would make this wireless network even more accessible by more devices.
Who's being the monopoly here? I'm sure I should count myself lucky that Clearwire is even available here rather than disallowed because of some obscure AT&T requirement that wouldn't allow it to be on their turf.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry when I read stories of areas upgrading to their third or fourth generation of fiber, when this part of the US is lucky to have a phone line with good enough quality to support a dialup modem. This isn't a good thing when many content providers are discontinuing dialup connections because "everyone has high speed available now" grrrr
I'm in the Nashville TN area, not the middle of Montana, and there is no choice here either.

[john-d]

Amen!
Here in the boonies of CT it's Comcast cable or two lame DSL telcos running on the same ancient copper. Comcast has made it's will to throttle downloads clear, standing directly in the way of the next wave of media distribution. Sometimes I can't even finish an OS X Update download here.
In New York, there were several DSL providers, Time Warner cable (whose TV offering should shame Comcast) had, at least, a few competitors. Monopolies generally degrade into disservice, in business to stay in business, and consumers can take a hike.

[tatilsever]

flowney said:

Today, we need a "rural datafication" initiative. Otherwise, people in rural areas will continue to be barred from full participation in strengthening our economy and national well being.

Considering rural folks do not help us the city folk with our high cost of rent, why should the city folk subsidize the rural folk for their electricity, postal services, phone or data links?

It sounds much easier to wire high density housing areas, so I am not surprised that Europe has better broadband service. Although I would appreciate the additional competition and lower prices, I don't see a third broadband service provider coming unless Verizon decides to roll out its fiber service to areas traditionally served by AT&T. I don't think Verizon would risk AT&T's retliation, so they will keep the status quo.