2 ms·

> If we're talking about cable rather than copper, the last mile was built by private companies with private money. A significant amount of this infrastructure

by danudey 12y ago

> If we're talking about cable rather than copper, the last mile was built by private companies with private money. A significant amount of this infrastructure was built with government subsidies and stimulus money by local monopolies with no competition. > Yet U.K. internet really isn't faster than U.S. internet in areas with comparable density. It's not so much about denser urban areas so much as the typical case. I still know people in the US who can barely get 3 megabits on their connections no matter what speed they pay for, and they live in proper cities and not tiny communities. I tried to get a proper example, but Verizon's website[1] is somewhat inscrutable, and tells me that my friend in Seattle can't get DSL service. Still, their DSL plans they list go 'up to' 15 megabits down and 1 megabit up; in Vancouver, they go up to 50/10, but my plan is 25/5 for $65/mo on its own (no contract). I would be surprised to see that in the US. [1] http://www.verizon.com/home/highspeedinternet/ http://www.verizon.com/home/highspeedinternet/

rayiner 12y ago
> A significant amount of this infrastructure was built with government subsidies and stimulus money by local monopolies with no competition. No it wasn't, if we're talking about cable and not copper. The cable companies industry is not the phone industry.[1] Almost all the existing cable infrastructure was built after deregulation of the industry in 1992, in which granting exclusive cable franchises was made illegal under federal law. Indeed, almost all municipalities use their cable franchises as a revenue source: imposing a franchise tax as well extracting lump-sum payments to support internet service for municipal buildings, public access television, etc. [1] And even in the phone industry, the subsidies overwhelmingly go to supporting service in high-cost rural areas, where no profit-minded company would otherwise bother to build infrastructure.

by danudey 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

> A significant amount of this infrastructure was built with government subsidies and stimulus money by local monopolies with no competition. No it wasn't, if we're talking about cable and not copper. The cable companies industry is not the phone industry.[1] Almost all the existing cable infrastructure was built after deregulation of the industry in 1992, in which granting exclusive cable franchises was made illegal under federal law. Indeed, almost all municipalities use their cable franchises as a revenue source: imposing a franchise tax as well extracting lump-sum payments to support internet service for municipal buildings, public access television, etc. [1] And even in the phone industry, the subsidies overwhelmingly go to supporting service in high-cost rural areas, where no profit-minded company would otherwise bother to build infrastructure.