Comments on: Damned lies, etc

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:23:28 +0000

Slocum, do you really think that cable companies aren’t doing everything that they can to achieve local monopolies? IIRC, including lobbying for state laws to restrict the ability of local governments to set up truly competitive systems.

By: stuart

stuart — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:43:49 +0000

Well the only sensible way to not have one company have a monopoly on cable service would be for the government to create (either directly or by contracting out) the infrastructure for it and then rent out the capacity created to private businesses to sell to consumers.

By: Slocum

Slocum — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:17:38 +0000

But the reason the median number is two is that most Americans have the option of either DSL from the local phone company or cable from the local cable monopoly. And why the cable monopoly? Because local governments maximize license fees by licensing just a single cable provider in their area. Stupid rent-seeking local government policies have create the “reality that most Americans have to deal with”. It’s really unfortunate that satellite-based broadband is not competitive technically.

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:50:08 +0000

Also, the FCC’s definition of what constitutes highspeed broadband is absurdly low (something like 0.2 kilobits per second). Japan is building out 100 kbps. Sweden (or at least Stockholm) is building out a GIG.

I’m far from expert in this area, but do you mean Mpbs here? Anyway, comparing a European capital to the rural areas addressed in this report doesn’t seem to be that illuminating to me. Do you have data comparing rural areas in the countries (I suspect Sweden would still come out on top, but that’s just a hunch)?

Nitpick: Henry, the GAO now stands for the Government Accountability Office, having changed from General Accounting Office in 2004, for no obvious reason.

By: Brian Cook

Brian Cook — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:24:03 +0000

By: mpowell

mpowell — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:00:30 +0000

Satellite also does not have uplink ability.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:20:07 +0000

Why is satellite not a significant option for most consumers? I’d have thought that if a location is suitable for dish TV, it’s suitable for satellite internet, and many people have dish TV.

FWIW, we live in a house that lacks availability of both cable service and DSL. I considered Satellite and didn’t see any real problems. It was more expensive than roadrunner broadband alone but compared favorably to what many people pay monthly for their cable TV.

In the end, we went with wireless broadband for the same price as the satellite. We’re in a weird location that is close enough to a major metropolitan area for wireless broadband, but far enough out in the woods that the cable company can’t be bothered.