Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Scientific American: Why broadband service in the U.S. is so awful, and one step that could change it
#1
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...e-internet

Because broadband connections are the railroads of the 21st century—essential infrastructure required to transmit products (these days, in the form of information) from seller to buyer—our creaky Internet makes it harder for U.S. entrepreneurs to compete in global markets. As evidence, consider that the U.S. came in dead last in another recent study that compared how quickly 40 countries and regions have been progressing toward a knowledge-based economy over the past 10 years. “We are at risk in the global race for leadership in innovation,” FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said recently. “Consumers in Japan and France are paying less for broadband and getting faster connections. We’ve got work to do.”

It was not always like this. A decade ago the U.S. ranked at or near the top of most studies of broadband price and performance. But that was before the FCC made a terrible mistake. In 2002 it reclassified broadband Internet service as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.” In theory, this step implied that broadband was equivalent to a content provider (such as AOL or Yahoo!) and was not a means to communicate, such as a telephone line. In practice, it has stifled competition.

Phone companies have to compete for your business. Even though there may be just one telephone jack in your home, you can purchase service from any one of a number of different long-distance providers. Not so for broadband Internet. Here consumers generally have just two choices: the cable company, which sends data through the same lines used to deliver television signals, and the phone company, which uses older telephone lines and hence can only offer slower service.

The same is not true in Japan, Britain and the rest of the rich world. In such countries, the company that owns the physical infrastructure must sell access to independent providers on a wholesale market. Want high-speed Internet? You can choose from multiple companies, each of which has to compete on price and service. The only exceptions to this policy in the whole of the 32-nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are the U.S., Mexico and the Slovak Republic, although the Slovaks have recently begun to open up their lines.


Now who was it that ran the government in 2002? Must have been some anti-competition Democrat, no?
Reply
#2
Republicans only say they want competition and to prove this they pass a prescription drug bill that by law forbids competition.
Reply
#3
I blame Barney Frank.
Reply
#4
Scientific American - masters of the obvious
Reply
#5
The innefective FTC under Bush/Cheney/Rove will be completely revamped and revised under Obama /Biden by 2009.
Reply
#6
billb wrote:
The innefective FTC under Bush/Cheney/Rove will be completely revamped and revised under Obama /Biden by 2009.

Both Republicans and Democrats are captivated by many corporate interests - though I think it is clear that the Republicans are much more so.

Have Tea Partiers generally expressed concern for this captivation of the political parties by corporate interests that actually diminish competition rather than enhance it? I haven't seen. If they aren't, and if my impression that they seem to be almost single-mindedly focused on reducing government expenditures on social programs is correct, then they are generally missing this immensely big problem of corporate interests using government to REDUCE competition in the "free" market.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)