Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

corp.sonic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 70 posts

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#11

Post by robterrell »

makecheck wrote: post #3

The conclusions are interesting, although I think they give government intervention way too much credit. If other product lines are any indication, people can become pretty content pretty quickly; they may not demand more even if they might achieve it. I suppose life is just too short and people move on to more pressing concerns. If tomorrow all TVs in the world stopped working and shows could only be watched online,…

But it's entirely true that the FCC was under the watch of Republicans when the telecom act was defanged and shared access to customer copper was rolled back. Maybe you don't remember, but ten years ago you could get various providers on the copper you had -- I had DSL from a local company over my Verizon-provisioned phone line. My dad had earthlink service over his time-Warner cable line. There was a price difference and most definitely a difference in service. Nowadays the best you can do is speakeasy, and they have to pay covad to roll a truck and use a second pair of copper. This change was courtesy of the FCC, who agreed with an industry assessment that competition was really driving them nuts. And like it or not, the FCC was run by Republicans (Kevin Martin, remember him?) when this anti-consumer change was made. Your comment that "people become content" more accurately describes today's marketplace, where people are faced with a dearth of options for home and mobile broadband and just suck it up, pay the outrageous amount, and get on with life.

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#12

Post by xyzzyz »

makecheck wrote: post #3

The conclusions are interesting, although I think they give government intervention way too much credit. If other product lines are any indication, people can become pretty content pretty quickly; they may not demand more even if they might achieve it. I suppose life is just too short and people move on to more pressing concerns. If tomorrow all TVs in the world stopped working and shows could only be watched online,…

My mother lives in a small European 5k residents town, she does not spend much time on the Internet and she watches mostly satelite television. Yet she was interested in choosing the best among 4 or 5 offers -- just because she had a choice. Her offer was much better than everything I've seen in the US, and it still was only medium price to speed ratio, because she does not live in a big city. She does not actually need the amount of bandwidth she bought, but it was cheap, so she got that nevertheless.

It's not the customers demands that drive the prices down, it's the fear that other companies put better offer. If there are no other companies to worry about, they happily retain high prices, and that's what happens in the US.

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#13

Post by chc »

nantes wrote: post #6
blahedo wrote: post #2

Having just moved (and thus done my shopping for a new internet connection), I found it pretty galling that I was pretty much expected to either get a $30 land line or a $50 cable-TV package if I wanted to get internet. Technically I didn't need to get the bundle, but they didn't even list prices for an internet-only connection. I have line-of-sight to our local water tower, though, so I was able to get a wireless in…

Hey, as a WISP employee myself, thanks. It is really frustrating sometimes that potential customers have been trained that the duopoly the article mentioned is reality. In truth, there is a vibrant, resourceful, and outspoken group of entrepreneurs out to take all of the incumbents marbles. But, like the article says, we have to fight at every turn for access that telco's and cable co's take for granted.

It is a reality in most places. I've looked for smaller ISPs in several areas where I've lived, and there is nothing. It's basically AT&T or Cox/Time-Warner or jump in the lake.

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#14

Post by sliverstorm »

ary wrote: post #7

The last line stood out to me. > ... passing by along the way the idle fiber infrastructure that the FCC set aside nearly a decade ago. Can anyone elaborate on what exactly they mean? Is this dark fiber sitting around somewhere? Did the FCC sanction the deployment and private companies built it out (and then ignored it) or was government money spent to lay the wires?

I'm not sure what they mean by "set aside", but back in the 90's there was a huge buildout of fiber as part of the dot-com bubble.

It's refereed to today as "dark fiber"; fiber optics that are not active.

However, I don't know that using that dark fiber would improve our internet. The backbones are already extremely fast; it's the downlinks and uplinks that are slow, and I'd guess most dark fiber is not routed to homes.

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#15

Post by techsupporter »

Or, you could do what Verizon did: Build a large fiber optic-based network in several metropolitan areas and, for the first time, give Comcast, Charter, and Time Warner a run for their money. Then, turn around and dump several "second-tier" markets (Portland, Redmond/Kirkland/Bellevue, most of North Carolina, etc) onto a company that is actively trying to persuade customers not to use that network.

Sometimes large telcos just baffle me.

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#16

Post by Xlythe »

ary wrote: post #7

The last line stood out to me. > ... passing by along the way the idle fiber infrastructure that the FCC set aside nearly a decade ago. Can anyone elaborate on what exactly they mean? Is this dark fiber sitting around somewhere? Did the FCC sanction the deployment and private companies built it out (and then ignored it) or was government money spent to lay the wires?

In exchange for less regulations, the FCC had private companies build out fiber networks in the 1990's. Most of it was never used, though, as companies instead focused on increasing bandwidth in copper wiring.

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#17

Post by qeorge »

ary wrote: post #7

The last line stood out to me. > ... passing by along the way the idle fiber infrastructure that the FCC set aside nearly a decade ago. Can anyone elaborate on what exactly they mean? Is this dark fiber sitting around somewhere? Did the FCC sanction the deployment and private companies built it out (and then ignored it) or was government money spent to lay the wires?

Actually, yes. Tons of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#18

Post by baltcode »

Why doesn't another big company step up and lay down its own copper/fiber into homes? Sure, it will be a BIG investment but the return should be awesome. I am sure it will be worthwhile in at least some areas like NYC, Bay Area, Boston etc.

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#19

Post by cooldeal »

baltcode wrote: post #18

Why doesn't another big company step up and lay down its own copper/fiber into homes? Sure, it will be a BIG investment but the return should be awesome. I am sure it will be worthwhile in at least some areas like NYC, Bay Area, Boston etc.

Can you fathom how much it will cost to dig up the streets, lay fiber and fill them back in? Will cities even allow that, due to the impediment to the traffic?

Re: Why U.S. Broadband is So Slow

#20

Post by yummyfajitas »

ary wrote: post #7

The last line stood out to me. > ... passing by along the way the idle fiber infrastructure that the FCC set aside nearly a decade ago. Can anyone elaborate on what exactly they mean? Is this dark fiber sitting around somewhere? Did the FCC sanction the deployment and private companies built it out (and then ignored it) or was government money spent to lay the wires?

There is tons of dark fiber, due to the economics of laying cables.

Digging a ditch is expensive. The fiber you put in the ditch is cheap. So if you are already digging a ditch, you load it up with 100x as much fiber as you imagine yourself ever needing in the future.

This is vastly cheaper than digging a second ditch 5-10 years down the line.

Post reply on HN