4 ms·

Broadband: other countries do it better, but how?

7 points by Sam_Odio 18y ago

javert 18y ago
This article is wrong. There exists a duopoly all over the US in broadband Internet - one can choose DSL or Cable - because every local municipality grants a local monopoly to one phone company and one cable company (and they usually choose one of the largest national companies in each case). We need to break these monopolies and allow any company to build infrastructure. Then we will see competition increase and prices go down. Not mentioned in the article is the UK, which has exactly the system I am proposing - one with almost no government regulation - and is at least on par with all the countries listed in the article, if not doing better. This example goes to show that socialist infrastructure and regulation is not the essential factor that makes broadband access better.
- xlnt 18y ago
  according to my friends in the UK, the internet options available for their home are bad/unreliable.
- menloparkbum 18y ago
  Broadband access in the UK is definitely not on par with the countries listed in the article.
  - paulsb 18y ago
    So very true. The best you can get in the UK is about 24 Mbps down, and 1.3 Mbps up - and that is with ADSL. When it comes to cable, there is only really one operator and that is Virgin Media. When it was NTL it was really good: fast, reliable, no throttling and no monitoring. But when Virgin bought it, then everything went tits-up: throttling, unreliable and part of the phorm debacle. If I had my choice I would go for the Scandinavian or Japanese system, i.e. fast and relentless.
    - nki 18y ago
      Yep, UK access isn't that great. 24Mbps down? Only if you're sitting directly on top of the exchange! From Be*, I get around 13-14Mbps down and 1.3Mbps up with the option to move to Annex M to increase my upload speed to around 2.3Mbps, for an equivalent (or greater) drop in download speed. However, a very good thing about unbundling is the ability to combine several SDSL lines from different providers to give a leased-line-like connection for a fraction of the cost.
      - javert 18y ago
        So maybe it's not that great (that's not what I had heard), but you have different providers!! That is at least a huge step up from what we have here. That is like music to the ears of an American. Here you pretty much have no choice except, Cable or DSL.
smanek 18y ago
It just isn't economically viable to run fiber/copper out to areas below a certain population density. Particularly because those low density area also have less demand for broadband. Also, why is it automatically assumed that more broadband is better? How much more productive is broadband going to make a farmer or a welder (over 56K or ISDN?). This is just as bad as thinking more education is always better. A doctor with 20 years of school may be more productive than one with 14, but would a mechanic with 20 years of school be that much better than one with 14? (Note: I'm talking about formal in-school education. Both doctors and mechanics have considerable on-the-job training in addition to their schooling).
- nki 18y ago
  That's very short-sighted. Broadband in a rural area means that the area is more appealing to business, leading to development of the area and economic improvement. This can be seen happening in various European countries. Some of the farms outside of the city where I live have been able to convert some of their land into serviced offices, making them a pretty penny since broadband access was mandated.

7 points by Sam_Odio 18y ago

This article is wrong. There exists a duopoly all over the US in broadband Internet - one can choose DSL or Cable - because every local municipality grants a local monopoly to one phone company and one cable company (and they usually choose one of the largest national companies in each case). We need to break these monopolies and allow any company to build infrastructure. Then we will see competition increase and prices go down. Not mentioned in the article is the UK, which has exactly the system I am proposing - one with almost no government regulation - and is at least on par with all the countries listed in the article, if not doing better. This example goes to show that socialist infrastructure and regulation is not the essential factor that makes broadband access better.

xlnt 18y ago
according to my friends in the UK, the internet options available for their home are bad/unreliable.
menloparkbum 18y ago
Broadband access in the UK is definitely not on par with the countries listed in the article.
- paulsb 18y ago
  So very true. The best you can get in the UK is about 24 Mbps down, and 1.3 Mbps up - and that is with ADSL. When it comes to cable, there is only really one operator and that is Virgin Media. When it was NTL it was really good: fast, reliable, no throttling and no monitoring. But when Virgin bought it, then everything went tits-up: throttling, unreliable and part of the phorm debacle. If I had my choice I would go for the Scandinavian or Japanese system, i.e. fast and relentless.
  - nki 18y ago
    Yep, UK access isn't that great. 24Mbps down? Only if you're sitting directly on top of the exchange! From Be*, I get around 13-14Mbps down and 1.3Mbps up with the option to move to Annex M to increase my upload speed to around 2.3Mbps, for an equivalent (or greater) drop in download speed. However, a very good thing about unbundling is the ability to combine several SDSL lines from different providers to give a leased-line-like connection for a fraction of the cost.
    - javert 18y ago
      So maybe it's not that great (that's not what I had heard), but you have different providers!! That is at least a huge step up from what we have here. That is like music to the ears of an American. Here you pretty much have no choice except, Cable or DSL.

smanek 18y ago

It just isn't economically viable to run fiber/copper out to areas below a certain population density. Particularly because those low density area also have less demand for broadband. Also, why is it automatically assumed that more broadband is better? How much more productive is broadband going to make a farmer or a welder (over 56K or ISDN?). This is just as bad as thinking more education is always better. A doctor with 20 years of school may be more productive than one with 14, but would a mechanic with 20 years of school be that much better than one with 14? (Note: I'm talking about formal in-school education. Both doctors and mechanics have considerable on-the-job training in addition to their schooling).

nki 18y ago
That's very short-sighted. Broadband in a rural area means that the area is more appealing to business, leading to development of the area and economic improvement. This can be seen happening in various European countries. Some of the farms outside of the city where I live have been able to convert some of their land into serviced offices, making them a pretty penny since broadband access was mandated.