Why is US broadband so expensive

[whell]

I think merrylander has hit on one significant point with the relative size of the USA. The other is that in most other countries, if you want to run cable, utilities, etc., you go to the federal government, get your permit, do whatever environmental impact studies need done and the job is done. But in the US, you have to deal with municipalities. Thousands of them. And that opens the door for exclusive contracts; most are for 10 years, and sometimes more. And it goes to one company for the entire town. My own city is a perfect example of this: one provider (Bright House) licensed by the city, and virtually zero competition until about 6 years ago when U-verse started passing signals here.

Here's another view that suggests that the broadband scenario is actually better than the BBC article would suggest, and it was written a few months prior to the BBC article.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/18/con...dband-reality/

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

I think merrylander has hit on one significant point with the relative size of the USA. The other is that in most other countries, if you want to run cable, utilities, etc., you go to the federal government, get your permit, do whatever environmental impact studies need done and the job is done. But in the US, you have to deal with municipalities. Thousands of them. And that opens the door for exclusive contracts; most are for 10 years, and sometimes more. And it goes to one company for the entire town. My own city is a perfect example of this: one provider (Bright House) licensed by the city, and virtually zero competition until about 6 years ago when U-verse started passing signals here.

Here's another view that suggests that the broadband scenario is actually better than the BBC article would suggest, and it was written a few months prior to the BBC article.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/18/con...dband-reality/

So, are you suggesting that with some things, local control is not the best thing?

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

So, are you suggesting that with some things, local control is not the best thing?

Regards,

D-Ray

Nope. The municipalities are able to insert themselves between the consumer and the provider in this case. Providers have to work with the municipalities to gain access to right of ways to install service, and the municipalities then negotiate for access within the city and cable customers pay a franchise fee ostensibly for the community access channels and equipment (that are routinely underutilized and antiquated, but that's another story). The provider also wants to protect their investment in the city so they are willing to enter into long term contracts.

As providers or communities opt to roll out wireless access, the model will be revisited in years to come.

[merrylander]

Another factor, while walking about London I came upon som British Telecom splicers working on some cable. They simply had to swing back two steel doors and there was the cable, barely a foot below the surface. No bloody great manholes though when Verizon ran the fiber down our court I doubt if it is buried more that a foot and the 'manhole' is a small enclosure with a steel door about one by one and a half feet. They moved us over to FiOS for our land line because of the constant hum on our line.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

I think merrylander has hit on one significant point with the relative size of the USA. The other is that in most other countries, if you want to run cable, utilities, etc., you go to the federal government, get your permit, do whatever environmental impact studies need done and the job is done. But in the US, you have to deal with municipalities. Thousands of them. And that opens the door for exclusive contracts; most are for 10 years, and sometimes more. And it goes to one company for the entire town. My own city is a perfect example of this: one provider (Bright House) licensed by the city, and virtually zero competition until about 6 years ago when U-verse started passing signals here.

Here's another view that suggests that the broadband scenario is actually better than the BBC article would suggest, and it was written a few months prior to the BBC article.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/18/con...dband-reality/

Areas of NY city were exclusively assigned until Verizon successfully
challenged the format.

Now for my section of Brooklyn I have choice between Verizon and Cable Vision(Known as Optimum).

The competition has somewhat stabilized the price.

[CarlV]

I get 2 options, Comcast or AT&T. AT&T just downgraded my service to 150 gb of traffic a month, bastards.


Carl

[whell]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I get 2 options, Comcast or AT&T. AT&T just downgraded my service to 150 gb of traffic a month, bastards.


Carl

That's actually quite a bit of bandwidth, unless you're streaming 2 or 3 movies every night from Netflix.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Nope. The municipalities are able to insert themselves between the consumer and the provider in this case. Providers have to work with the municipalities to gain access to right of ways to install service, and the municipalities then negotiate for access within the city and cable customers pay a franchise fee ostensibly for the community access channels and equipment (that are routinely underutilized and antiquated, but that's another story). The provider also wants to protect their investment in the city so they are willing to enter into long term contracts.

As providers or communities opt to roll out wireless access, the model will be revisited in years to come.

Are you saying that there are distortions to the market forces - just like there would be with any utility? Is there really a reason to treat cable providers different than any other utility?

It is interesting that in both cable delivery and in broadcast media, the companies rely on community property as part of their business model - the public airways or the public infrastructure.

Regards,

D-Ray

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by whell

That's actually quite a bit of bandwidth, unless you're streaming 2 or 3 movies every night from Netflix.

Blu Ray feature movies can be over 40 GB, so it is a service downgrade that is unacceptable for future uses. Turns out netzero has started offering dsl here, same speed, a couple bucks cheaper and no capping.


Carl