The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007) • Hacker News Board

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#111

Post by mixwhit » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:06 AM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #76

It took fierce competition to even get broadband companies to advertise what they are offering. I had to deal with a very small local monopoly in Western Maryland that just advertised "faster than dial up," had typical pings of over 200. It was thick on the local board, had a deal with local government as the sole authorized supplier in the county. Now I'm in a different part of the country, can get FiOS, but while V…

I live literally across the street from the Univ of Illinois, in a fairly big college town (150k), and Comcast is my only option. No competition at all. ATT used to provide DSL here, but they weren't interested in upgrading so they just let it become obsolete.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#112

Post by ChrisNorstrom » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:11 AM UTC

My Charter High Speed internet went from $60 to $40 a month on the spot just by threatening to leave them and go with AT&T U-Verse. And I did it all through their chat with a sales rep online without calling anyone. They even gave me a free cable modem.

Moral of the Story: Shop around and make threats, you are the customer they need you and your money. They'd rather lose $20 a month than lose $40 so you can almost always talk the prices down.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#113

Post by gametheoretic » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:15 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #85

gametheoretic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've tallied the votes, and it turns out it didn't matter who you voted for. Sorry. We hope it felt, for a fleeting moment, like you had influence over anything outside your immediate surroundings.

I see the old 'representative democracy' fallacy is still quite prevalent in broadband talks. Maybe another decade of complaining on the internet might do it?

HEY BUDDY, if you don't think the country has come a long way from where it was in 2004, then I just don't know what to say to you.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#114

Post by alayne » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:25 AM UTC

dangrossman wrote: post #108

alayne wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not just talking about simple static websites. Please, let's not pretend that upgrading everyone to fiber will be sufficient. You know better than that.

I don't know what systemic tech problem you think exists for web hosts. There's no lack of bandwidth on their side of the internet -- heck, if you excluded Netflix and YouTube, over 60% of last mile capacity in the country would be completely unused during peak hours. Those few sites, like video streaming services, that are bandwidth-limited also tie their revenue to consumption -- more bandwidth on the consumer end…

There are many infrastructure changes that are needed in order to increase the performance of the Internet besides faster home connections. CDNs / caching / DNS performance / SPDY / distributed computation and on and on and on. The OP makes it sound like the only thing between us and 0 ms response times on every service and every web page is some politics.

In other words the reason we don't have Google Fiber levels of performance is because 1) we don't have Google Fiber and 2) all the infrastructure to maximize the potential of that last mile connection isn't there. 2) is a problem!

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#115

Post by catmanjan » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:25 AM UTC

lotharbot wrote: post #80

catmanjan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor... >We're also much less racist than Europe That's like comparing apples and oranges or countries and continents

> "Does rough it mean suffer?" With a few seconds on your favorite search engine, you could discover that "rough it" is an idiom commonly used to refer to camping in a nature-heavy setting (without electricity/plumbing.)

Haha, excuse me for not jumping to that conclusion straight away, I have never heard the ability to live in the bush being used as an argument for another country in a discussion about Australia!

Also first link in Google: rough it - to live in a way that is simple and not very comfortable

Don't pretend search engines deliver the same content to everyone

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#116

Post by freeasinfree » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:27 AM UTC

zw123456 wrote: post #65

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the problem is that all of these (broadband provider, phone company) are regulated by the government. Once you have the government involved, forget about competition, the market won't fix. You have to fix politics.

Too bad there is not a tech way to work around them. Maybe using some kind of unlicensed wireless?

There is, actually. They're called Wireless ISPs or WISPs. http://www.wispa.org/find-a-wisp

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#117

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:29 AM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #83

brownbat wrote: post #76

It took fierce competition to even get broadband companies to advertise what they are offering. I had to deal with a very small local monopoly in Western Maryland that just advertised "faster than dial up," had typical pings of over 200. It was thick on the local board, had a deal with local government as the sole authorized supplier in the county. Now I'm in a different part of the country, can get FiOS, but while V…

lol at calling all the providers. the free market fails if left alone, under shady regulations it is almost a joke. i found a aDSL number for ATT that was not advertised (and you reached a person on the first minute!) that was the result of some obscure regulation that they had to provide dsl without charging for a phone line if so i wanted. it was a very good service. as i was next door to their trunk. i moved, less…

[deleted]

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#118

Post by amjaeger » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:39 AM UTC

funny how this article came back today, I'm visiting my grandma, she has an ipad as her computer (first successful adoption of a computer for her btw, she previously had bought 2 computers and didn't take to either one) and I'm looking at her internet speeds and I can't deal with it. She is paying $28 for 3 mbps (max) speeds. It's dsl from at&t. I ran a speed test and she only gets about .5 mbps. I get about 300mbps(when plugged into ethernet) when I'm at school...

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#119

Post by jmspring » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:43 AM UTC

In the bay area, if you can get our bandwidth needs at the level you need from them, I highly recommend Sonic.Net. They seem to be trying to do the right thing/build infrastructure/and bring better broadband speeds to people in the bay area.

I recently left them to go from DSL to go to Wireless w/ a local reseller of some of Sonic's service. I gave up a few static IPs to get 20Mbps symmetric. I'm one of those where upload is just as important as down. Price is reasonable given I could get rid of my land line and some other costs.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#120

Post by uxp » Wed, Jan 08, 2014, 5:47 AM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #94

ojbyrne wrote: post #68

The first comment on the page sums it up: "America is the only country in the world where BRIBERY is legalized and stupidly called lobbying."

To be precise, bribery isn't just legal, it's mandatory under the current campaign finance setup. Campaign finance reform is a prerequisite for addressing any of the anti-consumer legislation we are stuck with today. Best of all, it hasn't been turned into a partisan wedge yet, so there's hope, assuming we can find a way to make people care. Unfortunately, last time I saw a campaign finance reform proposal cross the…

Campaign finance reform has always been a partisan wedge, insofar as the party that loses the most seats in a given election cycle is the one touting how much it's needed, but shuts up the next cycle when they gain the most seats. Thus, the only politicians willing to put money into that fight are either already outnumbered, or just crazy (or smart) enough to vote against their own future reelection.