Why U.S. Internet and Wireless Access Is Slow and Expensive

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to online access and wireless service. Our service is more expensive and slower than it is in many other countries. 80% of Americans have no choice when it comes to selecting a high speed internet provider because there is no competition in their market. Should internet and wireless service be treated as utilities, like electricity or water, so that access, cost, and speed become more reliable?

Quote : Why US Internet Access Is Slow and Expensive US citizens pay more for internet access than those in many other countries—and also get worse connections for their cash. This video explains why. During the interview, she explains how the US government has allowed media organizations to put profit ahead of public interest—through price hikes, rigged rules and stifling competition. As she explains, "the rich are getting gouged, the poor are very often left out, and this means that we're creating, yet again, two Americas, and deepening inequality through this communications inequality." Full article and video interview link: http://gizmodo.com/5983300/why-us...-expensive

Quote from roughnready : The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to online access and wireless service. Our service is more expensive and slower than it is in many other countries. 80% of Americans have no choice when it comes to selecting a high speed internet provider because there is no competition in their market. Should internet and wireless service be treated as utilities, like electricity or water, so that access, cost, and speed become more reliable?

I pay $30 a month for 20MB down and 2MB up with no thresholds. Where, in the first world, is it that cheap? It's been awhile but I recall there being ridiculously low caps down in Oz and NZ and their internet was at the time WAY more expensive to begin with. In a lot of countries you pay for how much you use. There are a lot of people on this board that should appreciate not having that pricing model in effect here!

Also, as someone who used to travel a lot for work I can say with certainty that our internet is far better than virtually everywhere I have ever traveled with the one exception I can think of being Japan.

As for wireless service we pay more because we like our phones to be subsidized. Feel free to use Boost, PagePlus, Virgin, etc. and buy your phone and pay a considerably lower bill. Lastly, it's easier for these other developing regions to put in a kickass fast system. Why? Because it's the first thing they are putting in. They don't have to recoup investment in older technologies. The only place I know of again that has great and fast wireless coverage that exceeds ours that has gone through the various 1G, 3G, 4G, etc. is Asia and they do pay a lot more for tech things than we do so it's not exactly a surprise...

And oh, obligatory "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, those poor disenfranchised!!!!!" - this is my favorite part "we're creating, yet again, two Americas, and deepening inequality through this communications inequality." Hahahahaha, puhhhhhhhhhhhlease! What's next, "we're creating two Americas and deepening inequality through the homes of the rich having dual zone climate control while the poor only having one"

Lastly, I can chose from multiple internet carriers. I've got AT&T for DSL, TWC for Cable, Hughes for satellite, and then all the wireless providers should I want to do that. On the other hand I have only one option for electricity, gas, trash pickup, and water. Talk about outrage! Why don't I have more choices in my utilities!!!!!!!!!!!

don't forget about population density.....

Quote from LivninSC : I pay $30 a month for 20MB down and 2MB up with no thresholds. Where, in the first world, is it that cheap? It's been awhile but I recall there being ridiculously low caps down in Oz and NZ and their internet was at the time WAY more expensive to begin with. In a lot of countries you pay for how much you use. There are a lot of people on this board that should appreciate not having that pricing model in effect here! Also, as someone who used to travel a lot for work I can say with certainty that our internet is far better than virtually everywhere I have ever traveled with the one exception I can think of being Japan. As for wireless service we pay more because we like our phones to be subsidized. Feel free to use Boost, PagePlus, Virgin, etc. and buy your phone and pay a considerably lower bill. Lastly, it's easier for these other developing regions to put in a kickass fast system. Why? Because it's the first thing they are putting in. They don't have to recoup investment in older technologies. The only place I know of again that has great and fast wireless coverage that exceeds ours that has gone through the various 1G, 3G, 4G, etc. is Asia and they do pay a lot more for tech things than we do so it's not exactly a surprise... And oh, obligatory "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, those poor disenfranchised!!!!!" - this is my favorite part "we're creating, yet again, two Americas, and deepening inequality through this communications inequality." Hahahahaha, puhhhhhhhhhhhlease! What's next, "we're creating two Americas and deepening inequality through the homes of the rich having dual zone climate control while the poor only having one" Lastly, I can chose from multiple internet carriers. I've got AT&T for DSL, TWC for Cable, Hughes for satellite, and then all the wireless providers should I want to do that. On the other hand I have only one option for electricity, gas, trash pickup, and water. Talk about outrage! Why don't I have more choices in my utilities!!!!!!!!!!!

You're lucky. Well, in that you have some choice. Not in terms of who you picked.

BTW -- if you pay $30 for 20/2, how much are you paying for cable?

Quote from bonkman : I think he's talking about home internet, not cell phones....

Quote from roughnready : Should internet and wireless service

Quote from LivninSC :

edited my post about 5 seconds later. you're mighty fast.

My instinct always is "wireless = wifi."

Quote from bonkman : You're lucky. Well, in that you have some choice. Not in terms of who you picked. BTW -- if you pay $30 for 20/2, how much are you paying for cable?

I have DirecTV. Cable is WAY overpriced in my market. I don't pay much now because I'm within the first year of my contract. At the end of my 2nd year I'll switch and go to Dish and then after 2 years come back.

What does annoy me is that I can't pay for the channels I want and dispense with the 500+ other channels of complete BS. I would probably only get locals and maybe 5-10 other channels. I tried the whole Hulu thing but the Mrs. wasn't a fan so in the end we went back and got satellite.

Quote from Dr. J : don't forget about population density.....

That's a part of it. But just looking at denser markets, the fact that the big providers have divied them up when it comes to wired service -- Time Warner gets NYC, Comcast gets x, etc. -- really seems anti-competitive to me. I'm not sure it's like this in other countries.

Quote from LivninSC : I have DirecTV. Cable is WAY overpriced in my market. I don't pay much now because I'm within the first year of my contract. At the end of my 2nd year I'll switch and go to Dish and then after 2 years come back. What does annoy me is that I can't pay for the channels I want and dispense with the 500+ other channels of complete BS. I would probably only get locals and maybe 5-10 other channels. I tried the whole Hulu thing but the Mrs. wasn't a fan so in the end we went back and got satellite.

So I'll guess you're paying $35/mo for this year and $55/mo next year, bare minimum? Which means that you're going to be spending on average $75/month for 20/2 internet + TV.

Which is a pretty good price, IMHO. Which I think is the point of this article in the first place, as that's quite a lot of money. You're actually getting quite a good deal on internet. I'm guessing you have at least TWC as a provider option in your area. Where I live, you either have Comcast or Fios if you want HSI, but Fios just came in a couple years ago. Before that (and still in many areas of MA), Comcast is the only HSI provider. My inlaws, for example, pay upwards of $130 for extended basic,15/5, and VOIP.

Even with some competition finally opening up in my neighborhood, unless there was a "deal" (like Fios 79.99 triple play), it was impossible to get TV + HSI for under $90/month, regardless of combination of providers. Mostly because Comcast or Fios both charge only $20 more for TV once you have HSI. Hence you getting a good deal with your DSL.

Quote from bonkman : edited my post about 5 seconds later. you're mighty fast.

It's that darn pop-up, it just well, it just pops up

I'm sure that some people do have fewer choices. I looked at a home in rural Southern Orange County, CA. I had no idea such a place even existed out here. Until a few years ago the community, of say 100 homes, got their power from a community diesel generator. They pump their own water, get their gas from propane (which a lot of people do actually down here), etc.. Kind of sounds like a cult or something but it's totally not. Just about 100 homes up in the hills 15 minutes off the local highway with nothing around it except for national park land. Cell service didn't work up there at the time but land line access did. No cable, DSL, usual internet but you wouldn't ever see me grandstanding and making me out to be some poor family because we didn't have fiber to our front door. We looked in to satellite internet as I work from home off hours a lot and while expensive did solve the problem. In the end we didn't move up there. My point is that people who chose to live in the boonies do so by making a conscious decision. There are pros and cons of each, one of which happens to be less supply and more expensive access possibly. It's not a right to have a mall, Costco, gym, and 10+ restaurants within a 2 mile radius of your home, just as it's not a right to have 10 telco carriers to chose from...

I have a family member who literally lives at the end of the road in this tiny ass Oregon town. It's a big valley and the road literally dead ends in to the mountain where they live. If you want "high speed" it's satellite, although it snows a lot, so my family actually uses dial up. Talk about old school, but that's to be expected when you live in a town that measures it's population in the 100s during the summer and probably less than 100 in the winter.

Quote from roughnready : That's a part of it. But just looking at denser markets, the fact that the big providers have divied them up when it comes to wired service -- Time Warner gets NYC, Comcast gets x, etc. -- really seems anti-competitive to me. I'm not sure it's like this in other countries.

It's hugely anti-competitive. This was done way back in the day and many stories have been written up about it. It was kinda interesting, actually. When the govt was auctioning off the contracts, the companies would place bizarre bids -- 713,216, for example. Eventually, people realized the bids were a code for what area codes the companies wanted. So the companies played a big game of "stay out of my yard, I'll stay out of yours." And hence, telecom monopolies in many areas of the US.

And hence, high price and horrid CS. There's a reason that over 50% of the annual "most hated companies" lists in the US are usually telecom.

Quote from LivninSC : It's that darn pop-up, it just well, it just pops up I'm sure that some people do have fewer choices. I looked at a home in rural Southern Orange County, CA. I had no idea such a place even existed out here. Until a few years ago the community, of say 100 homes, got their power from a community diesel generator. They pump their own water, get their gas from propane (which a lot of people do actually down here), etc.. Kind of sounds like a cult or something but it's totally not. Just about 100 homes up in the hills 15 minutes off the local highway with nothing around it except for national park land. Cell service didn't work up there at the time but land line access did. No cable, DSL, usual internet but you wouldn't ever see me grandstanding and making me out to be some poor family because we didn't have fiber to our front door. We looked in to satellite internet as I work from home off hours a lot and while expensive did solve the problem. In the end we didn't move up there. My point is that people who chose to live in the boonies do so by making a conscious decision. There are pros and cons of each, one of which happens to be less supply and more expensive access possibly. It's not a right to have a mall, Costco, gym, and 10+ restaurants within a 2 mile radius of your home, just as it's not a right to have 10 telco carriers to chose from... I have a family member who literally lives at the end of the road in this tiny ass Oregon town. It's a big valley and the road literally dead ends in to the mountain where they live. If you want "high speed" it's satellite, although it snows a lot, so my family actually uses dial up. Talk about old school, but that's to be expected when you live in a town that measures it's population in the 100s during the summer and probably less than 100 in the winter.

I'd agree with you if it were just "the boonies" circumstances. Where I live and have lived in MA are some of the more populous towns.

And we have little to no choice in providers.

Quote from LivninSC : I have DirecTV. Cable is WAY overpriced in my market. I don't pay much now because I'm within the first year of my contract. At the end of my 2nd year I'll switch and go to Dish and then after 2 years come back. What does annoy me is that I can't pay for the channels I want and dispense with the 500+ other channels of complete BS. I would probably only get locals and maybe 5-10 other channels. I tried the whole Hulu thing but the Mrs. wasn't a fan so in the end we went back and got satellite.

You have cheap internet because you work the system, always getting promotional rates. How many people don't switch after their 2nd year, and pay regular price (of $75, $100, or more per month)?

Quote from LivninSC : I pay $30 a month for 20MB down and 2MB up with no thresholds. Where, in the first world, is it that cheap? It's been awhile but I recall there being ridiculously low caps down in Oz and NZ and their internet was at the time WAY more expensive to begin with. In a lot of countries you pay for how much you use. There are a lot of people on this board that should appreciate not having that pricing model in effect here!

Maybe cause you're wrong. Guess you missed the 60 Minutes piece on this.

British Internet rates [e4s.co.uk]

You have Cox or Comcast which is more reasonable. I pay TWC $20/mo for 3Mbps dl, and that's an intro rate only good for a year. Still better than the crap ATT DSL, which is my only alternative thanks to Congress being in the pocket of the larger Telecoms.

My friend has 20Mb Comcast plan in FL for $20/mo, so you are overpaying.

Where are you getting $30/month for 20MB download and 2 MB upload WITHOUT any required add-on packages?

Here, the cheapest is $35/month for 2MB down and less than 1MB up WITHOUT any required add-on packages.

Wait a minute. . . . your situation doesn't apply to me because you're in a different location. I DEMAND government regulation to lower my rates to your level!!! Why should YOU have lower rates when I'm getting higher rates without any government regulation???