Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-speed-is-their-connection? dept.

In an absolute surprise to nobody, six Senators came out today saying something along the lines of 5Mbps should be enough for anybody:

Today's letter from Steve Daines (R-MT), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Cory Gardner (R-CO) is almost hilarious in its deep misunderstanding about how people actually use the internet and what they need. The senators say that the 25Mbps standard is unnecessary because, for example, Netflix only recommends a download speed of 5Mbps for HD video, and Amazon only 3.5Mbps. (The recommendation for 4K video from Netflix is actually 25Mbps, but we suppose lawmakers agree that nobody should enjoy Ultra HD content yet.)

The senators say they are "concerned that this arbitrary 25/3 Mbps benchmark fails to accurately capture what most Americans consider broadband," and that "the use of this benchmark discourages broadband providers from offering speeds at or above the benchmark." If these sound exactly like talking points from Verizon, Comcast, and other major ISPs, that's because they are: Comcast loves to tell Americans that they don't need faster internet, and ISPs join together every time they are about to be regulated to say that regulations will chill their future investments. Ars Technica reported that Republicans in Congress echoed ISP spin about network investments in hearings over net neutrality, but then just three months after the net neutrality rules took effect last year, Comcast posted earnings that showed its capital expenditures actually increased by 11 percent. So the idea that creating a standard will discourage ISPs from meeting that standard is total nonsense.

What about you lot? Does your connection meet the new broadband definition? Mine matches the download side but fails by two thirds on the upload side.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by hash14 on Saturday January 23 2016, @01:56PM

    by hash14 (1102) on Saturday January 23 2016, @01:56PM (#293609)

    Just one small and inconvenient fact for you: the United States is the country which has the LEAST REGULATED broadband industry of any developed world. In fact, it is almost ENTIRELY UNREGULATED! Are your broadband providers obligated to resell their infrastructure at wholesale prices? Are there publicly financed competitors? Are there price/profit controls? Of course not - I'd love to know where all this phantom regulation you're talking about is coming from. And how much have your competitors consolidated lately? [1]

    This has absolutely nothing to do with regulations... unless you're referring to state-wide bans on municipal broadband, which makes things _worse_, not better.

    It has only to do with the fact that the barrier to entry is so absurdly high [2]. Go ahead, try and start an ISP business. First, you'll have to build all the infrastructure out (easily costing close to a billion dollars _per city_). And then on top of that, the incumbents have been known to sue any potential competitor to stay out of their territory [3]. And lots of the time, they're frivolous lawsuits aimed entirely at forcing cash-strapped competitors to waste money on legal fees that they don't need - essentially, a form of legal racketeering. And these companies can get away with it of course, because having a loser-pays legal system would fly in the face of the American Right to be a Litigious Asshole.

    The plain and simple truth is that a privately-owned profit-seeking entity cannot responsibly provide a public service. Time and time again, you see that when they have to choose between serving themselves and serving the public, they will screw over the public and defend their profits using whatever means possible. As such, there's no free market - the barrier to entry is too high and there's all kinds of (legal, but unethical) racketeering going on to keep competitors out. If you want the situation to get better, you're going to have to _start_ regulating them, not continuing the status quo of absolute unregulation.

    You can look at the rest of the world for an example - and when you do, you'l realize how far behind you are.

    [1] http://bgr.com/2016/01/19/time-warner-cable-charter-merger-price-increases/ [bgr.com]
    [2] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ [arstechnica.com]
    [3] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/comcast-allegedly-trying-to-block-centurylink-from-entering-its-territory/ [arstechnica.com]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday January 23 2016, @03:09PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday January 23 2016, @03:09PM (#293626) Journal

    Look at history too. There are plenty of examples of a market developing into an oligopoly and stagnating, rather than competing and advancing faster and providing better products and service than if there was a publicly controlled option. In particular, highway systems share many properties with networks. The first significant advance in roads since the Middle Ages was the railroad in the late 18th century. Around 1820, improved surfaces for wagon trails were developed: macadam, AKA the gravel road. Cement was also developed in the 1820s, but the idea of concrete took another 50 years, and tarmac (asphalt) was about 1900. Brick roads were impractical, too expensive for any but the most high traffic areas. So railroads had a significant technological edge through the 19th century. There were also canals, but their properties are different enough that the competition between systems was modest.

    Railroads are private corporations. At first, they spread rapidly and competition was fierce. Then, as the market matured, they consolidated, began to evolve into monopolies. And of course, the monopolies played dirty. In the context of the 19th century, the term "robber baron" refers to railroad owners for good reason. What made Theodore Roosevelt such a great president was that he took the side of the people against these monopolists of the Gilded Age, and the railroads were one of his primary targets.

    With the advent of the automobile, private automobile roads began to spring up. There was the Lincoln Highway, Dixie Highway, Jackson Highway, Bee-Line Highway, Grand Army of the Republic Highway, etc. One of their biggest problems was a basic conflict of interest: squeezing travelers for more money by giving them the runaround, profiting from delays. It was total Broken Window Fallacy. Travelers who took the wrong road would need more gas, more meals, might have to spend an extra night on the road, and suffered more wear and tear on their cars, might need more maintenance. There were several responses to this. The AAA took on the task of making accurate road maps. Finally, as public pressure mounted, the federal government took over the highway system to clean up the mess these private companies had made, and to expand into areas that the private road companies had neglected, rolling out the numbered highway system Possibly the private companies lacked resources and time, but maybe these regions weren't profitable enough. Sound familiar?

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:30PM (#293704)

    I agree.

    What most people are seeing is what is called regulatory capture.

    Basically thru lots of little deals the companies basically defacto do not compete with each other. All the while saying it is free.

    I have exactly 2 companies to chose my ISP from, AT&T and TWC. I can get earthlink but that is in fact TWC resold (2-3 dollars less). There is no real competition. Why is that? Because both of those companies cut a deal with my city *and* the ones around me to be the single provider for phone and TV.

    So when people talk about regulations they are talking about that contract.

    Basically even *if* someone can pony up the cash to overbuild no one is doing it because of those contracts.