A recent letter to the editor of the New York Times from Verizon Chairman Ivan Seidenberg had me scratching my head.
Seidenberg wrote to rebut a Times Op-Ed by former White House technology adviser Susan Crawford, in which she argues that the United States' high-speed Internet marketplace suffers from a lack of competition, a problem that drives broadband prices up and services down for American Internet users.
"Over the last 10 years, we have deregulated high-speed Internet access in the hope that competition among providers would protect consumers," Crawford wrote. "The result? We now have neither a functioning competitive market for high-speed wired Internet access nor government oversight."
Our Broadband Backwater
Indeed. It's gotten so bad the U.S. has gone from number one in broadband penetration at the close of the 20th century down to -- depending on the survey -- 18th, 22nd or 25th in the world. And Americans continue to pay a whole lot more and get a whole lot less of the Internet speeds that we deserve.
Compare our circumstances to those in Japan, for example, where Internet users are accustomed to surfing the Web at speeds of 100 Mbps (or megabits per second) at the same prices Americans pay for dial-up. In Hong Kong, one provider now offers a $20 a month "triple play" package that includes a blistering 1,000 Mbps data service.
Despite the evidence, Verizon's Seidenberg wrote that Crawford was wrong; America's Internet is the best in the world.
"America has a very good broadband story; someone just has to be willing to tell it," Seidenberg argues in his letter to the Times. As evidence he cites a 2011 World Economic Forum global survey, which in the words of Seidenberg "ranks the United States first in Internet competition."
Say what? I had to see that for myself.
The most recent WEF "Global Competitiveness" report (pdf) features U.S. rankings on page 363. The good news is that we're ranked first in the world for available airline seats. But the United States' Internet rankings are terrible. We're 18th in the availability of the latest technology, 18th in Internet users per capita and 26th in Internet bandwidth per capita.
Perhaps Seidenberg's evidence is buried elsewhere. On page 294 of another WEF report (pdf) I found a section on "political and regulatory environments" that featured an Internet and telephone sector competition index.
The report allegedly looks at the level of competition for "retail Internet access services, for international long-distance calls, and for digital cellular mobile services," placing countries on a 0 (worst) to 6 (best) scale.
But it doesn't actually measure market competition beyond determining whether these three separate fields remain state-sanctioned monopolies.
Well, U.S. telecommunications isn't a monopoly anymore. We did manage to break up Ma Bell in the 1980s, but her children are showing every intention to reassemble themselves as a modern-day equivalent. That hasn't happened. At least not yet, so on retail Internet access we get a 2, indicating that its not a monopoly market; on international long distance we get a 2; and on digital cellular mobile services we get a 2.
Our cumulative score is a 6, according to the report, the best possible ranking -- or "first in Internet competition" in Seidenberg's profoundly misleading interpretation.
Want to know who else came in "first?"
Sixty other countries, including Angola, Burundi, the Kyrgyz Republic, Venezuela and Vietnam.
We're all Number One!
So if you are proud that the U.S. offers an Internet that's on par with, er... Angola's, stand beside Seidenberg and wave the flag.
But if you agree with Crawford that the lack of true competition in the U.S. has put us on a perilous path, demand that we do more to guarantee universal and affordable access in a marketplace with real choices.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
I'm hard core nerd, and my plain old cable broadband is fine, I don't care if someone in Japan can download the average webpage .2 seconds faster or browse more porn per second (PPS) than I can. Unless you're on an old school POTS modem you have nothing to complain about.
Have you noticed the increase in online video streaming. The TV on demand services. VOIP services. You know all the ones that need high speed internet at an affordable price!
You call yourself a hard core nerd, how much do you pay for your cable broadband? Is it anywhere near the price of the 1,000 mbps offered in Hong Kong?
You seem to imply that because you are happy with your cable broadband that everything is fine. Just think your 20 mbps probably costs you three times as much as their 1,000 mbps. Are you happy paying that difference?
- BTW there is a lot of competition between communications hubs because the US over-built the inter-hub fibre networks.
- There are ONLY three ways to get broadband into a home or business (1) Twisted pair (2) coaxial cable (3) wireless.
- It is impossible to install fibre into most homes and businesses in the US because the labor costs are far too high (the fibre itself is nearly free). Also trying to put fibre into most homes and businesses would cause massive disruption to roads, homes and businesses.
- Wireless will start to fail within a few years because there is not enough wireless bandwidth. All of the available RF bandwidth is already in use and very few of the current users will be willing to give it up. Per Shannon's Law, it is impossible to pump any more data through the available bandwidth. (don't you just hate basic physics?).
- The actual cost to provide data over twisted pair is less than USD 5/month (including a generous allowance for the CEO's jet).
- The actual cost to provide data over coaxial cables is less than USD 5/month (also including a generous allowance for the CEO's jet).
- And yes, I have all the detailed numbers to back up both of the cost statements. Hint: over 90% of all the twisted pair in the US is FULLY paid for (as in free) and close to 100% of the coaxial systems are FULLY paid for - that HFC conversion paid for itself and then some.
If you look at the WEF "Global Competitiveness" report that is cited here, you'll see that on page 30 of the PFD (page 15 of the report) shows that the US overall is ranked 5th.
I really despise people who do this type of twisted reporting in order to confuse the reader and advance a lobbyist agenda.
The page you refer to is showing the overall standing not the standings in the particular areas discussed in the article.
Of course if you prefer to say we are 5th fine but at least state the whole facts, we have DROPPED to 5th from 1st in just 7 years.
To quote from the report:
"By contrast, the United States has experienced an erosion
of its competitive edge. Ranked 1st overall in 2005, the country
is now 5th. Rank-wise this remains a strong performance.
However, the 0.4 point drop in its GCI score is the largest among
the 113 economies covered in this analysis."
Don't you hate it when people pick and choose their facts and use them to confuse the reader and advance a lobbyist agenda. So why did you do it?
(that theory is losing its luster)
If Americans would just realize that only the 1% can truly provide for our needs, we will all be much better off.
Internet porn should be a Human Right.
I'd imagine you'd have to force companies to share the cables, which would be doable if the FCC would step in.
I have had the problem where I live where FiOS is much cheaper than comcast, but because my building already has comcast in order for anyone in the building to get FiOS, the entire building needs to switch to FiOS (which means I need to convince every crazy old lady in the building who doesnt even own a computer to have their cable switched by signing my petition......this is fun to explain to them).
BTW - if you have a southern facing access, the building can not legally prevent you from putting up a satellite dish and getting Hugesnet. My HOA hates that federal law because there are unsightly dishes everywhere and they just have to hate them in silence - sometimes federal laws can be so sweet.
Ya know there is some truth to that.....but that is a whole different argument.
You still want to have the infrastructure ready for new technology. I understand that for me, I get around 25mbps, which is fine. Its not like I'm playing 7 online games while downloading 50 movies at a time. However, as technology grows you need to be ready for it (who knows in 20 years what they will be able to stream through that cable), which is why you want to have those fiber optics installed and structure up to date when it comes.