Free American Broadband

October 18, 2005 5:45 PM

What do you pay for dsl/broadband? (salon.com article)Next time you sit down to pay your cable-modem or DSL bill, consider this: Most Japanese consumers can get an Internet connection that’s 16 times faster than the typical American DSL line for a mere $22 per month. Across the globe, it’s the same story. In France, DSL service that is 10 times faster than the typical United States connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are common for less than $30 per month. Nations as diverse as Finland, Canada, and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition. How did this happen? Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the rest of its economic peers?
posted by halekon (115 comments total)

Many of these countries tend to have large amounts of people in a relatively small space. DSL tends to be easier and cheaper for a provider to set up in population dense areas. Also note that DSL speed goes down the farther away you are from the nearest end station (the point at which your copper dsl line feeds into the fiber-optic trunk). The problem is that America has a spread-out population, with a lot of rural communties that are far from the major population centers. This makes getting fast DSL to everyone a bit more difficult.
posted by unreason at 5:51 PM on October 18, 2005

America used to be first in so many things. Now it seems to be first only in obesity rates. Our country has literally become fat, lazy and soft.

No solutions here, just another mourner for a once-great nation.
posted by CMichaelCook at 5:54 PM on October 18, 2005

But then, why is it still expensive and slow even in major population centers? I've lived in Philly and Atlanta, and it's pretty much the same grade of broadband that I've seen available in the far-flung suburbs of Los Angeles and upstate New York at nearly the same prices (maybe $20-30 a month difference between the two). Just because it's hard to get fast DSL out to the sprawl and beyond doesn't fully explain why even the built-up areas aren't offering cheap fiber-to-your-door. I can't imagine it's an "old infrastructure" issue if France is able to field that kind of broadband.

Ah, the power of the free market.
posted by Mercaptan at 5:57 PM on October 18, 2005

The U.S. has been great like two or three times. It does have intermittent periods of suck, but it'll get back in the swing of things, oh, in about 10 years, after another great depression.
posted by snsranch at 5:58 PM on October 18, 2005

Considering that where I live, the choice of telco providers is:

1) Qwest

you can pretty much figure things out from there. When I lived in Dallas, at least I could choose from two providers, and because there was competition, you could expect at least a minimal amount of customer service and competition for your business. Here, it's "Take it or leave it." And this isn't a backwoods rural area, I'm smack in the middle of one of the most urban strips of land in the West, in a metro area of nearly two million.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:01 PM on October 18, 2005

I have Cox in the southwest and it's expensive. There have been many times when I though about (God forbid) going back to dial-up.
posted by snsranch at 6:08 PM on October 18, 2005

We should federalize the phone company, that would solve all our problems.
posted by smackfu at 6:14 PM on October 18, 2005

In Tokyo, I pay around USD $50 for a 24M ADSL connection. I would pay half that if I actually had a telephone line, instead of requiring an ADSL-only special connection. Upgrading to a 47M connection would cost maybe a buck more per month, but I don't live close enough to the nearest connection-point-thingy for it to make a real physical difference.
If my apartment complex would agree, I could easily get a 100M fiber connection and my costs would actually go down to something like $30 USD.
posted by nightchrome at 6:17 PM on October 18, 2005

It is a sucker's game to compare just one item with one item. How much do those countries mentioned pay for a gallon of gas? Now, the real question: what other country has a flag with50 stars on it? See, we are still top dog
posted by Postroad at 6:20 PM on October 18, 2005

I used to use dialup where I live, but the phone lines haven't been upgraded since the 1950's, so i got a 14.4 connection on a 56k modem.
I went to cable mdem through Adelphia cable, and pay $50-$60 a month (I am too lazy to check, and they keep giving us 3 month deals and such)

I have 2-3 comps on this connection, and hardly have to wait for anything.

I have since cancelled my land phone line (not an easy thing, if anyone has tried, I use my cell as primary phone.)

It's not really cheap, but it's better than cable television. (I don't think I've turned on the TV in two weeks.)
posted by Balisong at 6:23 PM on October 18, 2005

NTT installed the Hikari Fiber VDSL box downstairs for the apartment complex.

The monthly bandwidth fee for 100MBps FLETS[1] comes to Y3,465/month. (~$32us)

There is usually a ISP fee in addition to this (~500?) but since I work at an ISP I don't bother. (Assuming you want email/hosting that is).

I'm trying to see if I can get 100/100 instead of the standard 30/100.

[1] FLETS is the Japan word for "unlimited". No traffic limits per month.
posted by lundman at 6:26 PM on October 18, 2005

But then, why is it still expensive and slow even in major population centers?

Because the same big companies that do DSL in the major population centers also do DSL in rural areas. They basically even out the prices across the board. So while their expense is greater for their rural customers, they even out the subscription fees, which makes pricing simpler, but it also means that if you're in the city you're essentially helping to pay for new infrastructure in those rural areas.
posted by unreason at 6:26 PM on October 18, 2005

The most I've ever paid was for the worst service I ever got: C&W (okay so I split it 5 ways through a router, it was still a crap situation).
posted by tetsuo at 6:30 PM on October 18, 2005

This has to be seen in perspective. The impact of broadband access is over rated. Email and basic web browsing is more important economically than being able to torrent DVDs.

Being #1 in the field is just not that important. It is affected by demography. It is affected by how telcos are structured.

The US will remain the number one powerhouse for IT support. The US's financial system, large, rich homegeneous population are far more important in creating more eBays, Googles, Yahoo and Microsofts than broadband penetration.

This is not to say that getting better access for all should not be a priority and that US governments are not corrupted by business. But it's a bit like the US power distribution. Compared to the rest of the world it isn't good. But it rarely has that much effect, except when the North Eastern Grid goes down or bad privatisation allows Californians to be scewered.
posted by sien at 6:31 PM on October 18, 2005

Canada is even less densely populated than the United States, yet broadband is available to most of the populace. My parents' farm is 3 hours from Winnipeg and 10 km from the nearest town, yet they are capable of receiving broadband for less than $50 CDN / month.
posted by sleslie at 6:33 PM on October 18, 2005

What Postroad said. And considering what I get for my $45 or so each month, my cable-modem is a great value for me.
posted by davidmsc at 6:35 PM on October 18, 2005

I know I'll get slagged for this, but I can't help but point out that this fpp is lifted pretty much from the same entry on the top page of Slashdot, both having come from the Salon article. My crusade against one-link reposts from other sites continues, much to the chagrin of some.
At least I said something constructive first.
posted by nightchrome at 6:36 PM on October 18, 2005

I only pay 35 bucks for DSL through a local provider. Actually, that's the a la carte rate... I actually pay 30 for DSL, and 40ish for unlimited landline phone service. You can find some decent deals if you're looking.

I think most of this junk (Cable, Broadband, Cell-phone service) is overpriced. Companies charge what customers will endure for a service the customers consider vital.
posted by selfnoise at 6:39 PM on October 18, 2005

Actually in Canada if you want a decent connection you end up paying as much as in the US.
posted by clevershark at 6:41 PM on October 18, 2005

I've heard that some people split thier cable internet service with these router things and then share it with their neighbors. I know, it's barbaric but the whole country is going to hell you know.
posted by recurve at 6:42 PM on October 18, 2005

In Massachusetts, I can get dial up (56k or enhanced) for between $10 and $25 a month, cable (4 mbps) for $58 a month or DSL for $15 (768 kbps) to $30 (3 mbps) a month. The dial up and DSL require a phone line, but the DSL is discounted $5.00 if I get the service through the same provider as my phone line. On the other hand, the phone company now requires a year commitment. Cable is discounted $15.00 if I also have any cable television service through the same company, with one service cheaper than $15.00. I can also get a deal on cable for $20 a month for six months with no required TV services.

Surprisingly, when comparing all of my options, including VOIP services without a POTS line, cable was the most expensive without a discounted price, but the least expensive service with the six month for $20, plus $100 back plus a free $50 MP3 player. I tried cable for five months and spent the last month of service learning that Comcast believes 30 kbps is a normal and acceptable speed for a cable modem. Furthermore, Comcast had daily loss of service for periods of just a few minutes to several hours a day. Your mileage, of course, will vary considerably.

What's the quality of service like in other countries for these high speed connections?
posted by sequential at 6:46 PM on October 18, 2005

I pay $15 a month for DSL through SBC
posted by keswick at 6:47 PM on October 18, 2005

Greetings from Australia!

Here, a AU$29.95/mo broadband plan will get you 256kbps speed and a 200mb download limit. (Yes, you read right, mb) with excess usage above that amount charged at about 15c per mb.

Of course, my town doesn't even have an ADSL exchange. There's rumours of one arriving in Feburary. Until then, my 56k modem connects at an average of 28.8 kbps because of the rusty old phonelines.
posted by Jimbob at 6:47 PM on October 18, 2005

"I have Cox in the southwest "

*blinks*

Is there some sort of balm you could use for that?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:55 PM on October 18, 2005

Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the rest of its economic peers?

Being regulated is bad, but being regulated by idiots is worse.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:01 PM on October 18, 2005

This has to be seen in perspective. The impact of broadband access is over rated. Email and basic web browsing is more important economically than being able to torrent DVDs.

That's central planning style thinking. Plus, it assumes criminal intent on the part of the majority. Dandy.

In self governing free market economy, people get what they want.
posted by nervousfritz at 7:08 PM on October 18, 2005

Ah, the power of the free market.

If only! The problem is that virtually everywhere, regulated cable companies are given exclusive licences, one per town. So cable broadband doesn't have any competitors in most locales other than DSL and dialup. Once the cable company gives you faster access than DSL, there is no incentive to do better. Competition has been outlawed.

I read somewhere that in the few major US cities that allow multiple cable companies, rates are far less expensive. I wonder if internet access is faster as well?
posted by LarryC at 7:13 PM on October 18, 2005

Since Adelphia is going out of business, we switched to Verizon for DSL instead of cable. We now pay $15/mo [768kbps] instead of like $50. However, Verizon just started DSL service in my (rural) area this May. Most of my neighbors live in towns with no broadband option at all except satellite. I still can't get cell phone service at my house. Trying to talk to Verizon or Adelphia about bringing broadband to rural areas out here is like talking to a wall.
posted by jessamyn at 7:15 PM on October 18, 2005

I believe Verizon is offering a slower tier of DSL for something the $13-20 range; I pay $29.99 for double that (I forget the numbers...). Given the cost of living in Japan and Europe, and given that I can deduct DSL as a business expense, the premise of this post is based on ignorance.

But, what should I expect when it comes to assessing the US on Metafilter?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:20 PM on October 18, 2005

(3360Kbs/second x 864 Kbs/second)
posted by ParisParamus at 7:25 PM on October 18, 2005

Comcast nails me for about $100/month for its On Demand cable TV and broadband internet. A quick speed check tells me:

Download Speed: 5036 kbps (629.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 348 kbps (43.5 KB/sec transfer rate)

That's about average for my upload speed, unfortunately, but I've clocked my downloads at upwards of 700K/sec on direct file transfers and such.

My parents live in the boondocks and just today found out that the reason I couldn't get the DSL modem Verizon sent them to pick up a connection to their servers is probably because they don't live close enough to the nearest end station. Verizon should have known this, but signed them up for DSL and sent out a connection kit anyway.
posted by emelenjr at 7:31 PM on October 18, 2005

America used to be first in so many things. Now it seems to be first only in obesity rates. Our country has literally become fat, lazy and soft.

Yeah, but if we had even better broadband think of how much more time we can spend sitting in front of our computers becoming even more fat and lazy.
posted by gyc at 7:32 PM on October 18, 2005

We get to vote on an issue related to this next month.
posted by jaronson at 7:35 PM on October 18, 2005

Adelphia Cable service was the shittiest cable service to be had in many and various small new england markets.
posted by longsleeves at 7:35 PM on October 18, 2005

As an aside note, I had decent-speed ADSL for years prior to coming over here to Japan. The east coast of Canada was a testbed for the technology back in the mid-90s, like say 94-95 or so. It was cheap then too, around $40 Canadian.
posted by nightchrome at 7:38 PM on October 18, 2005

I remember how "modern" France seemed in the 1980's with their teletext service, Minitel. At least for a few years. Except I would argue to people I knew in France that one could do just about everything with a touch-tone phone in the US that one could so with Minitel. And then the Internet happen, and the folly of large sums invested in Minitel became exponentially larger.

I don't like Verizon, but they do a good job, and I'll take them any day over France Telecom (or whatever the current equivalent is called).
posted by ParisParamus at 7:41 PM on October 18, 2005

ParisParamus : "I believe Verizon is offering a slower tier of DSL for something the $13-20 range; I pay $29.99 for double that (I forget the numbers...). Given the cost of living in Japan and Europe, and given that I can deduct DSL as a business expense, the premise of this post is based on ignorance."

I don't follow. I'm not saying I disagree, just that I don't understand what you're saying.

I do notice that people in the US talk about the speed of their broadband less, and instead just say "broadband". If that's the case with your argument (and it's just a guess, I'm not at all sure if it's a correct guess), then we may be comparing apples to oranges. "Americans get broadband for $13, Japanese get broadband for $40" makes Japanese prices seem much higher. "Americans get 1.5 Mbps for $13, Japanese get 100 Mbps for $40" does not.

But, regardless, I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, it's a bit of a stab in the dark.

On the side, I should point out that I live in Japan, and I can (and do) deduct my fiber connection as a business expense, so that angle probably doesn't affect the discussion either way.

sequential : "What's the quality of service like in other countries for these high speed connections?"

Speaking for Japan: excellent. I have a 100 Mbps fiber connection to my house, costs about $40 a month. Real throughput is in the neck of 40 Mbps, but keep in mind that that's transferred data after all the IP packet header/etc. is stripped, so I'm probably getting around 50/60 Mbps of "true" traffic. Haven't had a single outage in the half-year it's been installed, either. At my last apartment, I got similar speeds, similar cost, and I think there was a 5 hour outage one time and a 1 hour outage another time (over the course of a year and a half).

---

Keep in mind that another impetus for broadband adoption in Japan is that local phone calls aren't free. With a phone call costing about 2.5 cents a minute, just browsing the net for an hour a day would cost $45 a month in phone bill alone, without any ISP fees. If you're a heavy user, you could easily spend $100 or more in a month. And that's for 64kbps. Needless to say, when they started rolling out DSL ("Connect all you want, the price stays the same!"), people jumped ship like mad. And then Softbank became a Yahoo affiliate and started slashing prices for broadband connections, because it was the bubble and they were of the slightly goofy "revenue doesn't matter, number of users matters!" school of bubble economics. Apparently, they've made good on that concept, and are recouping their money through other arenas. Anyway, the point of that is just that when they did so, they forced all the other providers to slash their prices heavily, and once "$30 is a fair amount to pay for 40 Mbps DSL" took root in the public's mind, no carrier could raise their prices without losing business. So prices have stayed low (Thank you Softbank!)
posted by Bugbread at 7:47 PM on October 18, 2005

PP, sorry, your update came while I was typing, and I forgot to preview. What do those two figures mean? (I'd guess that one is the slow tier and one is the high, but you said high was about double low, and those numbers are more like a 4:1 spread. Is that the Up/Down numbers? And, if so, for the slow, or the fast?)
posted by Bugbread at 7:49 PM on October 18, 2005

What's wrong with France's Telecom service? Especially compared to Verizon who used to require all kinds of proprietary software installed for internet access, terrible tech support, and market thuggery.
posted by destro at 7:50 PM on October 18, 2005

In other news, Japan mefites represent!
posted by nightchrome at 7:53 PM on October 18, 2005

In da housu!
posted by Bugbread at 7:55 PM on October 18, 2005

Huh!

I live in an old neighborhood a little south of Taos, NM. While new construction requires new phone lines, over which Qwest DSL is available, the old lines rot in neglect. I'm lucky to pull 26.4 with an average of slightly under 3 kps throughput.

Solutions:

1) Move

2) Wireless: No go, trees in the way of line-of-site, you-gotta'-pay, transmitters

3) Satellite: WooHoo! I went from number 134 to 140 on the waitng list for the COOP's service in 2½ months...backwards progress documented only on the installer's personal list...after 2 weeks of calls. He kindly put me back to 134...no forwards progress...but, he did promise to note the complaint

Or, what about this:

Why not free wireless aqu en Taos?

or this:

S.F. mayor sees wireless service as basic right


or even this:

Google WiFi hints are on Web
posted by taosbat at 7:56 PM on October 18, 2005

Several responses:

The slower/lower tier DSL: I hear advertisements in the NYC area for "Broadband for the cost of dialup," and the ads always refer to a speed in the 700 kb/sec; so I infer that it's slower than what I have.

The true cost: cost of living in Japan in relation to typical wages is higher, so cheap broadband doesn't make up for an otherwise expensive life. Also, I'm under the impression that business deductions are fairly generous in the US, so if I can deduct my DSL, it's 1/3rd less that the $29.95

Finally, I disagree that with Broadband, faster is always better. My DSL is more than adequate for my needs, which are greater than those of most consumers. I really don't need a faster speed. I can see video; send big attachments quick enough, etc. That's why big investments in residential fiber are misguided. And I certainly don't want my government billing me for that.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:56 PM on October 18, 2005

bugbread, those are Down/Up figures; and Up is always slower than Down with (A)DSL.

Not sure what your beef with Verizon is. As for FranceTelecom, the last time I had contact with them, they were a big hulking government company that was taking tax revenues and making monopoly decisions on what to invest in, what to charge, and what competition not to have. That was back in the 1990's; something tells me France hasn't gone all free market...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:00 PM on October 18, 2005

I live just a few km up the street from Jimbob. 24 Mb, $Aus34.95/month.
posted by Wolof at 8:07 PM on October 18, 2005

Jimbob, you being ripped off. Try Optus.
posted by wilful at 8:11 PM on October 18, 2005

The advantages of living in Adelaide not Riverton, Wolof ;)

Yeah I was quoting the basic-level Bigpond plan that they talked my dad into. Plans can be quite decent in Australia once you go above the basic-level (when ADSL comes, I'm signing up with Internode), but it's still pretty tragic compared to what's available in Japan or the US.
posted by Jimbob at 8:12 PM on October 18, 2005

PP,

True dat about cheap broadband not making up for expensive everything-else. All my hair would probably go white with shock if any of us Mefites in Japan were to say it did. But as far as I can tell, the premise of the post isn't that everything is cheaper overseas, or that cheap broadband makes up for more expensive otherstuff, just that faster speeds are available for lower costs in many countries, which a lot of folks are unaware of.

Now, if, for example, there was a "broadband usage tax" of $200 a month in Japan, then, yeah, saying "BB costs $50 in America, but $40 in Japan. Japan is cheaper." would have a really weak foundation.

Just did some math, assuming you used numbers from a speedtest site, and not the advertised max speeds. You're paying about $8.93 per Mbps. I'm paying about $1 per Mbps. I'm not trying to wave edick here. I've been here long enough that I've gotten over it, and I realize that it isn't because Japan is a kick ass country or that America is backwards, but because Tokyo has insane population density, and non-free local calls drove demand, while America is more spread out and has free phone. I'm also not saying that faster is always better. It is for me, but it isn't for some, and saying everyone needs the most bandwidth possible is like saying my mom needs a dual-core pentium with a 256 Mb graphic card in order to browse the net or write something in Word. So none of this is a challenge to/at you, just information.
posted by Bugbread at 8:15 PM on October 18, 2005

ok mr. bugbread. It's just that the following text is contained in the post: "While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition. How did this happen? Why has the U.S. fallen so far behind the rest of its economic peers?"

Sounds like US bashing to me...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:24 PM on October 18, 2005

I dunno. Japan, for example, has fallen from its position as the economic powerhouse it used to be, but I don't think someone asking "Why did that happen?" would be Japan-bashing.
posted by Bugbread at 8:27 PM on October 18, 2005

well, it's at the very least an effort to place the US in a negative light without a well-founded basis for doing so.

Whateva...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:29 PM on October 18, 2005

Sounds like US bashing to me...

It's a big country, it can take it.
posted by Jimbob at 8:32 PM on October 18, 2005

I NEED to hijack this thread just for a moment to say I HATE COMCAST.
@home gave me the fine service for $35. Comcast buys them and BOOM $60.
Buy cable tv and get it for 45, making my camcast bill $90.
No local oversight, no local control (like cable tv)
Annoyed? Write the FCC, as if they'd take time off from Janet Jackson's boob to regulae big $$ cable companies.

You may have your thread back now.
posted by cccorlew at 8:33 PM on October 18, 2005

Greetings from Australia!
Here, a AU$29.95/mo broadband plan will get you 256kbps speed and a 200mb download limit. (Yes, you read right, mb) with excess usage above that amount charged at about 15c per mb.
My neighbour got talked into one of those deals and it was only when I pointed out to her that the $3 per MB excess fee was $150 per GB compared to the $3 per GB excess fee I pay after paying $30 per month for 4GB download at 512/128 that she realised what she had done. The first month, she got an excess bill of ~$250. She has a 2 year contract ....

It is possible to get a true unlimited connection for $40 per month at 512/128 here and the $30-40 mark seems to be about average. Availability is another thing, however and this is hit and miss at best. My Mother lives in a very central area, close to the exchange but is unable to get ADSL and where we are building our new house is well and truly out of town, but ADSL is available. Generally, newer areas fare better than established places.
posted by dg at 8:35 PM on October 18, 2005

Bring it on.
posted by stbalbach at 8:37 PM on October 18, 2005

$3 MB excess fee

Ouch, someone phone the ACCC.
posted by Jimbob at 8:38 PM on October 18, 2005

The true cost of living in Japan in relation to typical wages is higher, so cheap broadband doesn't make up for an otherwise expensive life.

Who said it did? How is this germane? Why shouldn't we also have cheap broadband?

Finally, I disagree that with Broadband, faster is always better. My DSL is more than adequate for my needs...

Sure, and 640KB should be enough for anyone.

Your ADSL connection (and mine too) is such obsolete crap that it isn't even qualified to call itself "broadband" in (for example) Canada. If 100Mbps residential connections were common, the internet would be different place, and you might decide that your "needs" were different. Were you one of the guys railing against 9600bps modems back in the day, figuring all of your favorite BBSs were only 2400bps anyhow?

Saying that what you've got is good enough is a little like a 19th-century lumberjack turning down the chance to use a chainsaw, saying that his axe is all he really needs. It's not that he's wrong exactly - but the chainsaw is such a radical change, and is so far outside of his experience envelope, that he's not able to appreciate what he's missing.

That's why big investments in residential fiber are misguided. And I certainly don't want my government billing me for that.

Bad news - from the article:

...over the past several years, these [commercial telecom] companies have received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their broadband deployment efforts. The truth is that Community Internet projects pay taxes just like any other competitor. In fact, a study by the Florida Municipal Energy Association showed that private incumbent providers pay fewer taxes than municipal systems and receive more state and federal subsidies.

Your government has already effectively billed you for the infrastructure that exists, and they will be doing so again when last-mile fiber finally becomes mainstream.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:47 PM on October 18, 2005

I think I see what you're getting at: it's built upon an assumption that faster is better. Starting from that assumption, the US is not doing well. However, if you disagree with that foundation, then you disagree with the conclusion.

The crux of it comes down to whether "faster is generally better" is a well founded basis or not. It's easy to decide if "faster is always better" is well-founded, because a single case can disprove it. The same for "faster is never better". However, for "faster is generally better", it's very difficult, if even possible, to determine categorically whether the foundation is well-founded or not.

I've heard good arguments for why cheap access to fast connections is better than expensive access, but I haven't heard many good arguments for why expensive access is better than cheap access, so from where I stand, the basis seems more well-founded than not, and the conclusions therefore don't seem like bashing so much as a statement of fact. Again, in this case and with this phrasing. With different phrasing (I.e. if it had the common MeFi throwaway of "Why is America, like in everything else, so behind the times?" or "Why has America fucked up so much?" or the like, on the extreme end of the spectrum), it'd clearly be bashing.

I am so sleepy right now, that took me like 15 minutes to write. Why does an FPP like this show up when I get home from a night shift?!

---

Sidenote: I did work with an Aussie in Japan who said that the absolutely exhorbitant prices for connections where he lived when he had lived in Oz was one of the reasons that he didn't want to move back. I remember him calculating that, if he wanted to keep using the internet the way he'd grown accustomed, he'd have to pay more than $1,000 a month. Of course, not being insane, even if he moved back, he wouldn't use it the way he'd grown accustomed, but the number was an eye-opener regardless.
posted by Bugbread at 8:48 PM on October 18, 2005

"But as far as I can tell, the premise of the post isn't that everything is cheaper overseas, or that cheap broadband makes up for more expensive otherstuff, just that faster speeds are available for lower costs in many countries, which a lot of folks are unaware of."

Well, in some way, that's precisely what you're arguing. Because if the same system that brings you cheaper broadband brings your expensive citrus fruit, or expensive toilet paper, you have to choose.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:48 PM on October 18, 2005

Verizon is awful. They shipped my sister's DSL kit recently (my job to set it up) including a modem that basically didn't work with Verizon's own software. I got it working eventually, after about 5 hours on the phone, having been disconnected three times. The conversation could have lasted 5 minutes if the tech people had a clue. Maybe it was a fluke, but I've heard similar stories.

As for the service? Not bad. About 30US a month, with a few 5 minute downtimes a day.
posted by bardic at 8:49 PM on October 18, 2005

For reference, some numbers from Sweden:

ADSL
1/0,5: ~$25
8/1: ~$31
28/1: ~$38

Cable up to ~$59 for 28/8

Fiber 100 Mbps ~$40
posted by mr.marx at 8:50 PM on October 18, 2005

Personally, I don't find the cost of living in Tokyo to be all that horrible. Rent is obscene, sure, but there are plenty of other things which are quite cheap compared to back home. Utilities being one of them.
posted by nightchrome at 8:52 PM on October 18, 2005

ParisParamus : "Because if the same system that brings you cheaper broadband brings your expensive citrus fruit, or expensive toilet paper, you have to choose."

I'm really not following (maybe I need sleep). Article says "A is true in America. A isn't true in some other countries. B, C, and D are why A is true." And you're saying it's a flawed argument because in other countries, E, F, and G are also true. I don't see how this negates A being true in America, or A not being true in other countries, or B, C, and D being the causes.

That is, me having to choose does not negate that broadband is cheaper in Japan than America. Me having to choose does not negate that population density is one of the causes. Me having to choose does not negate that non-free local calls are one of the causes. So I don't see what it is that you think choosing systems renders untrue.
posted by Bugbread at 8:54 PM on October 18, 2005

Topic too interesting, but Bugbread too sleepy, and needs to be back at work in 8 hours. I hope this topic is still alive when I get to work.
posted by Bugbread at 8:56 PM on October 18, 2005

I'm just trying to point out that there's a relationship between how free-market a country is, and what a given product/service will cost in that country. There are certainly things more expensive in the US than in France (certain foods come to mind); the same may even true of Japan. But that doesn't mean that it's true for most things, or that the cheapness of a few things compensates for the higher price of the others.

OK. I'm going to sleep. And I apologize if I've taken this way too far.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:00 PM on October 18, 2005

As far as I can tell, this post isn't about how free-market the US is, but about what the given product/service broadband costs in that country.
posted by mr.marx at 9:08 PM on October 18, 2005

We pay $25 for 2.4 mbps up and 400 kbps down in northern California. There are other faster options but contracts, as has been noted above, are the proverbial bitch. Still, I don't complain too much, its fast enough. For now.

I need more storage more than anything else. And a Mac box to use as a server. And a laser cannon.
posted by fenriq at 9:10 PM on October 18, 2005

You have, Paris.

You forget the reluctance that the Ma-Bell monopoly gave up it's phone lines in the first place, that made way for all this competition.

Are there any other monopolies that might be broken up for more competition? (Education, Energy, Security).
posted by Balisong at 9:12 PM on October 18, 2005

I pay $39.47/mo for DSL through SBC. SBC blows chunks

I live in one of those rural areas discussed earlier here so I'm stuck. As for internet providers who charge $10.00 to
$15.00 they don't offer much in the way of 'frills'. No pop-up blocker, virus protection, and sometimes not even a e-mail address.

Beside, I'm suspicious of companies with names such a "Outrageous Internet", "Shocking Internet" or lists their price as $9.95/mo in huge letters but right above in tiny letters is written $14.95/mo.
posted by bat at 9:14 PM on October 18, 2005

We should abandon rural America. If you give cities the power to regulate their providers, you'll find municipal wifi and cheaper broadband everywhere. As long as the providers cry to congress about local efforts, nothing will get done.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:14 PM on October 18, 2005

We should abandon rural America.

Because cheap, fast access for some is more important than access for all. Those nasty farmers are dragging you down.
posted by Jimbob at 9:22 PM on October 18, 2005

I pay 40 bucks a month for 4m cable modem. Add in the cable, the converter box and HBO and you have about $110 a month. Blah. Way too much, I am going to get rid of the HBO and maybe the box too - I would lose the digital music channels but that is the only thing I would really miss. I watch the most TV in winter which means it might be a bad time to get rid of it, but damn. I need the money I am throwing at it.

I have mad cow.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:22 PM on October 18, 2005

weretable and the undead chairs: same here--100 bucks a month gets me some awesome channels and some speedy broadband in NYC, but it's really quite the rip off.
posted by superfem at 10:12 PM on October 18, 2005

Not sure what your beef with Verizon is.

Already listed it. They used to require proprietary software on DSl to get a username and password and their tech support sucked. Please read before posting.

As for FranceTelecom, the last time I had contact with them, they were a big hulking government company that was taking tax revenues and making monopoly decisions on what to invest in, what to charge, and what competition not to have. That was back in the 1990's; something tells me France hasn't gone all free market...

Well they're cheaper than the U.S. as the post points out! Government companies are not monopolies since they are controlled by the people via government. Do you understand basic government??
posted by destro at 10:35 PM on October 18, 2005

$29.95/month for 3m/512kbps here from SBC, but that's because I also have their $50/month unlimited long distance voice calling plan.

The earlier poster who stated that they had DSL for $15/month from SBC - I'm guessing that's the 1.5m/384kbps plan, the lowest "tier", and they're also required to have certain SBC voice services to get that DSL price.
posted by mrbill at 10:42 PM on October 18, 2005

Paris, France. I pay €30 a month for --roughly-- 12Mbps Down and 1Mbps Up ADSL. I also get a Telephone service with some amazing perks, for example: I can have my messages sent to me via email as attached audio documents. Great for when I'm at work, or away with connectivity. I also get TV that allows me to select channel subscriptions with some precision, another example: the basic service is free with about 90 or so channels and I subscribe to BBC World/BBC Prime for €0.99 a month -- all of that is done within a decent interface.

Oh, and they now allow me to stream any media file that works with VLC Player directly through my modem to the TV. It's pretty good.

From the other perspective, I have U.S. friends visit/stay all the time, and when they see the stuff and use it they become incensed at the, and I quote, "really shit" ISP selection and services they can have. They think it's a basic competition thing. Over here, one of the main reasons for this kind of service is the Government. They intervened on behalf of the smaller companies and a policy of promoting Internet connectivity; they 'forced' the Big Telco operator to allow Local Loop Unbundling. That's probably a simplistic way of looking at it but I think it's right.
posted by gsb at 10:50 PM on October 18, 2005

nightchrome Personally, I don't find the cost of living in Tokyo to be all that horrible. Rent is obscene, sure, but there are plenty of other things which are quite cheap compared to back home. Utilities being one of them.

All about where you come from of course. On that "Most expensive cities" link we had, Tokyo was first, and London right after. Moving here from London was seriously no big deal. Rent the same, pay the same, food the same (except veges, fruits and breads here are amazingly fresh - and attention to detail lovely.).

But definitely better bandwidth here. If I didn't just get 100Mbps fiber, I would have tried the 200Mbps DSL over power.

ParisParamus Finally, I disagree that with Broadband, faster is always better. My DSL is more than adequate for my needs...

Now, that's just loser talk!
.. :)

Hell, since it is so cheap, I'm tempted to keep my 12M dsl going even though I have 100M fiber.. for the fun of playing with two routes.. and uh.. redundancy.. or something..

If I owned a car (forget that in Tokyo) it would probably be pimped out too!
posted by lundman at 10:59 PM on October 18, 2005

Everything's faster everywhere else; except the food.
posted by wumpus at 11:25 PM on October 18, 2005

Sorry, coming to this late but one comment in particular helped focus my thoughts on this. I don't mean to single out one post, his/her comments are often repeated.

sian: The impact of broadband access is over rated. Email and basic web browsing is more important economically than being able to torrent DVDs.

The economic impact of broadband is not measured by torrented DVDs. Off the top of my head, there are four significant areas. You can probably add more.

MMPORGs: It can be measured in the 170MM/yr that one company (Blizzard) is collecting off one game: 4MM WoW subs (these numbers may be out of date). Which is as compared to the numbers that games like Lineage are taking in, in countries like Korea (where one out of three citizens have avatars in part because of the cheaper, quasi-municipal broadband). We're talking huge amounts of money, with the scale of population and time. Billions and billions.

Downloadable music and movies: If the recording or motion picture industries are to ever start recuperating some of the money they've lost to their own sluggish half-steps, they need the U.S. population to be properly wired as cheaply as possible. Apple's recent video iPod moves are contingent on broadband; it's a risky move for that reason if no other.

Networked entertainment consoles: Think about Microsoft's bets on XBox live, or linked PS3s. Think about certain aspects of TiVo's future. All of these are colossal bets on infrastructure that is, frankly, shit, with customer service to match. The xbox sub fees are significant, and the premium services that msft and sony hope to add could be quite meaningful economically. They can also be quite damaged by the reduced network effects of geographically-selective, overpriced, poor quality broadband.

VOIP. And that's without even beginning to talk about VOIP. I'm in New York City, fer chrissake, and the atrociously poor Time Warner Cable lines have essentially rendered my small business Vonage VOIP system unuseable. Unuseable. Multiply that far, quickly, and you see why doing business in the U.S. is becoming increasingly difficult. Essential services (like talking on the phone) become contingent on "luxury" infrastructure like broadband.

So: revenue streams against broadband-enabled dowloaded music, movies on demand, VOIP, booming MMPORGs, and networked consoles: a lot of money that is getting sucked down pipes that are still seen as "economically overrated."

By the way, tried downloading your 80% spam-filled email, or your 15MB WinXP system updates on a dialup recently? One of the side effects of the sclerotic effects of viruses and spam is that we need fat pipes just to get narrowband content, because it never arrives on its own.

Also you note:

"...far more important in creating more eBays, Googles, Yahoo and Microsofts than broadband penetration."

so:
-eBay just bought Skype for a few billion dollars.
-Google is building huge WiFi nets.
-Yahoo is in the downloadable entertainment business.
-Microsoft is betting on xBox Live, and a constant patch-download operating system.

These companies depend on Cox, Time Warner Cable, Qwest, Verizon, etc... and these latter companies are some of the worst run ships in the fleet. I've worked with many of them first hand; if you could see what's in the kitchen, you'd stop eating altogether, I assure you. The very companies you mention have strong and long bets on broadband, and the broadband companies are intellectually and operationally underpowered.

As a nation that prides itself on innovation and the machinery of capital, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The other foot, the one that's not in our mouth.
posted by cloudscratcher at 11:44 PM on October 18, 2005

Erm, isn't that a false dichotomy? To have cheap broadband you must have expensive food/gas/housing/etc?

And talking about the broadband situation in America as if it's in a "Free Market" is a horrible joke. All the competitors use the same damn lines here that the biggest company owns, and charges the others for. In many cases there is only one company supplying the service! Free market my ass.

Quite frankly I hope in future that internet access will be seen like roads. Something that is essential and the government should build the infastructure.
posted by Talanvor at 11:58 PM on October 18, 2005

PARIS. What is your deal with France anyway? Every time France is in any way mentioned on Metafilter you follow the thread until the end taking the rather lunatic stance of always trying to pull some argument out of your ass to convince yourself think the US catagorically has it better.

The error in your thinking is typical of a general error we make in the States : being convinced beforehand that we have things so much better than anybody else and acting on that assumption. "We invented the internet"

This error, combined with another of our great misconceptions -- that we can buy most anything that exists -- is what leads Americans to constantly shelling out money for basically anything possible and finding it completely normal.

That, combined with the lack of critical thinking in our schooling -- I'm not talking about those lucky enough to rise to the top of our oh so "free" market and pay to become a "lawya" like yourself -- is what allows a large part of Americans to taking it up the poop shoot on a regular basis and liking it.
posted by pwedza at 12:49 AM on October 19, 2005

And oh PARIS, please just go ahead and tell us what actually did happen to you in "l'hexagon" (France for the uninitiated) so that we can better understand your mania.
posted by pwedza at 12:54 AM on October 19, 2005

In the case of France, the main infrastructure is still operated by the public operator France Telecom, so the major decisions in that regard are up to the state (and to regulation authorities) and do not depend on the good will or conflicting private interest of hundreds of local operators. This situation made it difficult at first to get rid of the Minitel - France lagged behind for a while in terms of Internet capabilities - but once the switch was made it went (relatively) smoothly.
posted by elgilito at 1:10 AM on October 19, 2005

I live in a land where the cable infrastructure was built up early on by Time Warner. They offer an all-in-one package that includes internet, tv, and phone. It took a while, but some of the telcos here are making at least a minimal effort to offer a competing product. DSL is available from my little telco here for about $30/month. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Verizon, who is the ma bell of the northeast.

I've seen people here complain about a lack of options, but you do have some say in how this works. It involves stepping away from your keyboard and getting involved in your community. Believe me, when the town fathers see that reliable connectivity is important for a town's business (and tax) growth, their ears perk right up.

How do you get involved on a personal level? Most communities have a cable tv committee that provides a local level of oversight. You can also go guerilla and set up your own community wifi.
posted by SteveInMaine at 1:45 AM on October 19, 2005

Tokyo MetaFilter.com meetup thread at MeTa...
posted by gen at 3:03 AM on October 19, 2005

Sorry to hijack the thread for our meetup :P

To bring it back on track, let me point to Om Malik's Broadband Wiki, where the users are collecting broadband stats from around the globe.

Om Malik’s Broadband Blog — Five fun facts from Broadband Wiki
posted by gen at 3:10 AM on October 19, 2005

I found this thread funny. It amazes me how you can't say anything anymore without it being politicized in amazingly crazy ways.
posted by srboisvert at 4:03 AM on October 19, 2005

Well, at leat you're amazed - you can't get that just anywhere.
posted by dg at 4:52 AM on October 19, 2005

About all the government/monopoly questions:

I don't want to government offering telecom services; not because I'm a libertarian (I'm not!), but because I think the private sector can do it better, and cheaper. I don't see innovation and customer responsiveness coming from a government monopoly. And that's first and foremost because the people who "aspire" to work for the government are not innovative, risk-takers. Sure, there may be some examples of government doing "it" better, but I think those are exceptional, and/or temporary (Minitel in France wascool for a few minutes...). I want to see the telcos and the cable operators duke it out and get me better services at lower prices in the process. I want to see that Microwave Wifi thing, and the powerline technology arrive! That ain't happening in France or Japan; at least any time soon.

Also, you can talk forever about 100mbs/s being better than 2/mbs/sec, but since I don't run a video business, I really don't care. For all intents and purposes, one has broadband when one can watch Quicktime streams, do VOIP, and send e-mails with big e-mail attachments quickly. Having 100mbs/s in this apartment isn't going to get me anything more that I care about (I don't even own a television!), or hinder my ability to invent something new that might require 100mbs/s. To say otherwise makes you sound very much like the teenager who wants the car with the big engine: it's your penis talking; not your brain.

What happened to me in France? Well, the food, sex and wine were just what I had hoped for, but ultimately, there was a collision between creative, spontaneous me, and a business and economic culture, the pace of which is set by people within a decade of retirement (60 and 70 year-olds a la Chirac). I DON'T LIKE THAT. Also, the frickin cigarette smoke!
posted by ParisParamus at 4:52 AM on October 19, 2005

Whatever, it's better than your options in China. Intarweb here is teh suck. Anything outside China is super slow and prone to timing out, packet loss, etc.

Also, I can't look at the BBC, it's friggin blocked. It drives me loco.

Of course, I have blazing fast access to China Daily, and other PRC propaganda mills.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:08 AM on October 19, 2005

cloudscratcher (or cloadscrather): Well made points, I was waiting for the Windows update point. But I stand by my point that the most important aspects of the net and indeed the ones with the largest economic effect do not depend on whether the US is in the top 10 for broadband penetration and these tables are largely journalist sensationalism designed to provoke a reaction in people.

The total number and thus size of the potential in markets may even be of more importance. And there the US would be in the top 5 for sure, if not more.

Also, check some of the other comments, places like Japan look cheap for telecommunications but have gotchas around the place.

But, other than MMORGS how is South Korea, the usual leader in these tables, gaining an advantage over the US? The US is still, by a long margin, the leader in IT and a leader in technology.

VOIP may be a really large change. But we'll see.

Note also that I didn't say more broadband was not an important thing and that the cronyism isn't causing the US problems in an area that is important, but not that important.

For the US's future growth poor schools are more important than net usage.

Also, I live on the net. I have 'broadband', or at least what qualifies as broadband in Oz, at home. But I realise that there are plenty of people out there who don't really want more than dial up and I don't lose sleep about broadband penetration. It's more like low cable TV penetration, a problem the rest of the world has happily ignored for years than some horror that will slow US growth.
posted by sien at 5:37 AM on October 19, 2005

Grr!

We pay 15 GBP/month for a 2Mbps/256Kbps stream from the teleco, and an additional 13 GBP/month in ISP fees; The connection has a 50:1 contention ratio.

This has only recently (the last 2 weeks) changed from a 512kbps/256kbps connection, but I have yet to see a connection better than 400kpbs...

So basically, what I'm saying is that I hate you all ;-)
(Well, certainly those of you in Japan with these blazingly fast connections!)
posted by Chunder at 6:02 AM on October 19, 2005

i pay (split between 6 people) 30 GBP/month (for the first 3 months of the contract) for an advertised as 8Mbps/1Mbps connection. This will rise to 50 GBP/month in month 4.

this is considered very fast in the UK. i'm depressed now.
posted by knapah at 7:17 AM on October 19, 2005

Yeah, that is 'depressing' for a connection split between six people. I guess anybody who hogs the upload bandwidth gets a collective spank.
posted by gsb at 8:12 AM on October 19, 2005

I'm in Toronto and pay $38 usd for my 3Mbps up / 800 Kbps down DSL through Bell with an option to upgrade to 5Mbps for an extra $5. Though the article linked praised Canada's broadband I think there's still a long way to go here, in faster speeds (especially upload) increased competition, better customer service and price improvements to say nothing of better rural availability.

ParisParamus: Having 100mbs/s in this apartment isn't going to get me anything more that I care about (I don't even own a television!), or hinder my ability to invent something new that might require 100mbs/s.

I think the argument has been made pretty persuasively by Cloudscratcher that the absence of a fast, widely available and affordable broadband network is very much going to hinder your clever broadband-dependent invention. Well you can invent it, but you can't sell it if a large portion of your potential market is still on dialup or outdated broadband lite connections.
posted by pasd at 8:15 AM on October 19, 2005

I don't want to government offering telecom services; not because I'm a libertarian (I'm not!), but because I think the private sector can do it better, and cheaper. I don't see innovation and customer responsiveness coming from a government monopoly.

Why would you expect private monopolies to do better?

It's a fine theory you've got. The linked article is basically saying that it's demonstrably wrong, as far as the present-day, real-world US is concerned. The public broadband utilities that exist tend to embarrass the private systems by being fast, cheap, and good, and by thriving in places the private sector rejected as economically infeasible. Customer responsiveness from the private sector often follows the establishment of public broadband utilities.

Have you got any data, any research, any anecdotes or anything at all to back up your point of view? Basically, it sounds like all you've got is a very strong personal conviction that getting raped by the private sector just isn't that bad. "Hey, they let me lube up beforehand, at least, and I didn't have anything better to do with my evening. It's better than letting some non-profit hug me, that's for sure."
posted by Western Infidels at 8:57 AM on October 19, 2005

I would be tempted to kill for fiber to my doorstep. I'm still new enough to DSL that the pain of dial-up service is fresh in my mind—but 100M fiber at home? Hell's yeah!

My beef isn't with the cost/speed but insane fee for the static [sticky] IP address I need to run my own server[s]. SBC gives me 1.5M/384k for an acceptable price given my location but then essentially doubles the charge for the block of sticky addys. This brings my total cost to ~US$65/mo. Of course, I could use a hosting service and just pay for DHCP connection but a decent shell account costs almost as much as the sticky addy and I lose the flexibility to trick out my server with whatever I toys I want to be playing with.

Of course it's not all angst and goth in Mudville—I have some perspective. My in-laws in BFE Nebraska pay ~$15/mo for advertised 28.8kps dialup which actually nets a 14.4kbps connection on good days. *shudder*
posted by Suck Poppet at 9:14 AM on October 19, 2005

private monopolies suck, too, but that's not what's going on. The phone company and the cable companies are competing, which is far better than nothing. There's Mbs will not get me anything. NOTHING other than video uses that much bandwidth.

Guess what: I envisioned uses for broadband before I actually started paying for it--incredible! And if demand for that much pipe rose, the price would come down. But for the moment, for the consumer, that's like the idiot with the 500hp car.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:31 AM on October 19, 2005

PARIS. You're a madman...with a grudge against old French people.
posted by pwedza at 10:03 AM on October 19, 2005

You are all so fortunate. I would be thrilled, thrilled! to have any kind of broadband offered where I live, which is a rural coastal area of Northern California. Hard to believe that you can only get dial-up 60 miles north of good old San Francisco, isn't it? And it's crappy dialup, too, as our ISP has changed its upstream provider and forced us to use its god-awful "dialup broadband," a non-sequitur if I've ever heard one. So what do I get when I ask SBC for DSL out here? "Why don't you buy your own T-1 line and sell it to your neighbors? Heck, if you guys did that, and got enough folks to sign up, your internet access would be fast and free!" And from a more local provider: "Oh sure, we could put in a wireless tower (this is assuming they'd get through all the Marin County luddites who are afraid of EMF) and it would only cost you $200 a month!" Sorry , that's not working for me either. The FCC website boasts of its rural broadband initiative but tell me, America, has anyone seen the benefits of this program and if you did, where do you live?
posted by Lynsey at 10:25 AM on October 19, 2005

Oh, and our local cable TV provider, I forgot to mention, brags about their cable modem service for all their lucky, lucky subscribers everywhere except, you guessed it, our part of West Marin!
posted by Lynsey at 10:28 AM on October 19, 2005

But for the moment, for the consumer, that's like the idiot with the 500hp car.

Yeah, tell that to the Germans and their Autobahn. Useless!

Of course it's conspicuous consumption, but that's Capitalism, baby!
posted by gsb at 11:04 AM on October 19, 2005

The phone company and the cable companies are competing, which is far better than nothing.

In many areas, this is simply not true. There are lots of comments here in this thread from people who only have one provider available. Places with public broadband utilities tend to have more competition, not less.

NOTHING other than video uses that much bandwidth.

That's just not true. Off-site, net-based backup systems could make good use of any amount of bandwidth one might have. Anyone running a web / webcam / blog / bulletin-board server from home would surely appreciate more speed. Online software distribution (like Valve's Steam) requires loads of bandwidth. Some online games (like Second Life) are so bandwidth-hungry, video actually looks like a cakewalk by comparison.

if demand for that much pipe rose, the price would come down.

Doesn't supply/demand usually work the other way?

Try reading the forums at comcast.net or broadbandreports.com - there is a large market of voracious bandwith junkies out there. But the market response has been patchy speeds, indifferent service, and high prices.

But for the moment, for the consumer, that's like the idiot with the 500hp car.

It's more like Granny Mabel being perfectly content with her trusty Model T - because she's never gone for a ride on the freeway.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:08 AM on October 19, 2005

ParisParamus : "I don't want to government offering telecom services; not because I'm a libertarian (I'm not!), but because I think the private sector can do it better...I want to see the telcos and the cable operators duke it out and get me better services at lower prices in the process. I want to see that Microwave Wifi thing, and the powerline technology arrive! That ain't happening in France or Japan; at least any time soon."

PP, I'm not clear here. You seem to be arguing that you want private sector to provide thing A, which you don't see happening in Japan. However, the whole broadband thing in Japan is largely provided by the private sector. Why would the private sector provide your thing A in America, but not provide it in Japan?

ParisParamus : "NOTHING other than video uses that much bandwidth."

Well, little, but not nothing. I tend to max out through P2P and other downloads (game demos, etc.). Also, high bandwidth allows you to do multiple small bandwidth things simultaneously (I can talk on the phone (IP phone) whily my computer torrents a TV show, downloads a game demo or patch, and downloads a big email attachment at the same time. While that doesn't happen a lot, it is nice to never have to think about shutting down application A in order to provide bandwidth to application B.)

And, again, to make it crystal clear: I'm not one of the folks that is saying that high bandwidth is necessary or essential. But in the absence of a downside, I can't see why high bandwidth at low cost would be worse than low bandwidth at high cost. Rephrased: I've never heard someone complain about having too much bandwidth or paying too little, but I have heard the converse.
posted by Bugbread at 11:40 AM on October 19, 2005

No one's arguing that government regulation could not be better, less money-influenced, etc. But I stand by my position.

And by the way, 'Net-distributed software is already here; backup could be faster, but that's not necessary or some fundamental to the future.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:51 AM on October 19, 2005

Er, clarification: When I say "in the absence of a downside", I don't mean to imply that there definitely is no downside. However, I am not aware of one, and as such having unused high bandwidth seems preferable to lacking desired bandwidth. And corrollary: If there is a downside to high bandwidth that I'm not aware of, then my conclusions will have to change accordingly.

Put into abstracted example:

Situation 1: Country A has no attractive Blorqwizoogles for decorating one's home, though some people want them. Country B has cheap and attractive Blorqwizoogles, though not everybody wants one. In this case, country B's position is better than country A's.

Situation 2: Oh, yeah, Blorqwizoogles cause cancer to the neighbors. In this case, country A's position is better than B's.

Right now, it looks to me like Situation 1. I may be overlooking something, and the situation might actually be Situation 2, in which case my conclusions would become the opposite of what they are now.
posted by Bugbread at 11:55 AM on October 19, 2005

(I'm talking about some major advance...Television an films delivered over the Web? Yes, that would be of interest to some people, but even that wouldn't be fundamentally different. Netflix would bite the dust, as would Blockbuster, but for the consumer, the change would be incremental (if cool).
posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM on October 19, 2005

i get standard cable (no hbo, etc.) with broadband. my cable bill is more than my electric bill, more than my natural gas bill, more than my gasoline bil after katrinal. no one can tell me that's right.
posted by 3.2.3 at 12:43 PM on October 19, 2005

People who haven't experienced a fiber-optic Internet connection don't appreciate what is possible with it.
I have more than a few friends who run multi-million-page-view-a-month websites from a home fiber-optic connection here in Japan. On top of that, one can do VoIP, P2P/downloading, etc. without any drop in speed. While IPTV/Internet TV hasn't really broken out of a tiny niche in Japan, a fiber connection will allow for a seamless IPTV experience once the services are in place.

Truly fast broadband is very, very important for many future services. Those who think that 1.5 Mb./sec. connections are "broadband" will quickly realize how that will not be enough.
posted by gen at 5:37 PM on October 19, 2005

Most major cities in Canada have 10Mbps Internet providers for downtown condo residents. You just run a network cable from your computer to the wall outlet and voila - no modem required. In Vancouver, its Novus. All new highrises condos are built with the outlets in the suites.

The same companies provide TV service and include channels that the traditional cable companies charge extra for. Novus is going to start offering Digital Cable next month as a re-seller of the Starchoice satellite service.

I pay $29.99 per month for internet since I also have the Basic+ TV package. All in, I pay around $87 per month for TV and Internet.

Mind you, Enhanced ADSL is about the same price, but you have to sign up for a 3 year plan! "High-Speed Extreme" cable internet is $53.95 unless you buy a cable modem from them.
posted by SSinVan at 6:29 PM on October 19, 2005

PP: Don't you think widespread video telephony (VVOIP?), especially the ability to conduct multi person conferencing, would be a relatively major change in how people interact? Certainly not feasible with 'regular' broadband.

On the data side of things, I pay $16/month (because I also have basic cable TV service) for "low speed cable" which gives me ~15KB/sec, in B.C.
posted by birdsquared at 7:13 PM on October 19, 2005

My Paris DSL does not compare favorably to my US DSL. (Maybe I have the wrong subsrciption level.) Then again, my recent foray into DSL in West Virginia (Frontiernet) runs circles around Verizon in Cambridge, MA.

ParisParismus has not just an axe but a broad axe to grind with the French. He's trying to shape that baby into a paring knife.
posted by Dick Paris at 7:50 PM on October 19, 2005

birdsquared at 10:13 PM: I would contend that the "picturephone" has been in the offing since the 1960's, and once the novelty is absorbed, no one really cares.

I'm not against greater bandwidth; just having the government take my tax money to invest in it on their terms.

And no, running a e-commerce/web site/whatever from home is not more than a niche market.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:02 PM on October 19, 2005

PP: I'm not talking about a "picturephone" - I'm talking about full motion video conferencing. You're a lawyer - I'm sure you've had the opportunity to have a witness testify, or give a deposition, or some such, over video. The ability to interact not only via speech, but also with body language, etc., over vast distances, is IMHO, going to create a sea change in tele-communications, and vastly expand opportunities for telecommuting and distance learning, among other endeavours. The fact it's been hyped for so long doesn't make it any less so, again IMHO.
posted by birdsquared at 10:57 PM on October 19, 2005

ParisParamus : "I'm not against greater bandwidth; just having the government take my tax money to invest in it on their terms."

Then would it be fair to say, based on the following passage from the link:

...over the past several years, these [commercial telecom] companies have received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their broadband deployment efforts. The truth is that Community Internet projects pay taxes just like any other competitor. In fact, a study by the Florida Municipal Energy Association showed that private incumbent providers pay fewer taxes than municipal systems and receive more state and federal subsidies.

that you are opposed to the approach to broadband taken by countries like France and the United States?
posted by Bugbread at 3:50 AM on October 20, 2005