FCC Report

[tw]

From Scientific American of October 2010:

According to a recent report by the Beckman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, broadband Internet service in the US is not just slower and more expensive than it is in the tech-0savvy nations such as South Korea and Japan; the US has fallen behind infrastructure challenged countries such as Portugal and Italy as well.

A decade ago, the US ranked at or nears the top of most studies in broadband price and performance. But that was before the FCC made a terrible mistake. In 2002, it reclassified broadband Internet service as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunication service". In theory, this step implied that broadband was equivalent to a content provider (such as AOL or Yahoo!) and was not a means to communicate, such as a telephone line. In practice, it has stifled competition.

That was Michael Powell (Colin's son) and the party agenda to enrich the rich providers; the wealthier campaign contributors. While driving off the lesser and innovative competition such as Covad, PSINet, and Cavalier. Also part of a process to charge other 'information providers' (ie Google, Facebook, YouTube, Skype) a fee for access to your home. As Comcast, Time Warner, et al already do for cable and OTA television while also raising your rates. They could do this if called an 'information service'; not if a 'data transport' service. As a result:

Here consumers generally have two choices: the cable company, which sends data through the same lines used to deliver television signals, and the phone company, which uses older telephone lines and hence can only offer slower service.

Only the more populous regions have Verizon's FIOS. If you do not already have FIOS, your region will probably never get it. Verizon announced all further expansion has ended. The competition is in being an information provider; not in providing better communication services.

The same is not true in Japan, Britain, and the rest of the rich world. In such countries, the company that owns the physical infrastructure must sell access to the independent providers on a wholesale market. Want high-speed internet? You can choose from multiple companies, each of which has to compete on price and service. The only exception to this policy in the whole of the 32 nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are the US, Mexico, and the Slovak Republic; although the Slovaks have recently begun to open up their lines.

From the NY Times of 21 February 2011

Home Internet May Get Even Faster in South Korea
By the end of 2012, South Korea intends to connect every home in the country to the Internet at one gigabit per second. That would be a tenfold increase from the already blazing national standard and more than 200 times as fast as the average household setup in the United States.

A pilot gigabit project initiated by the government is under way, with 1,500 households in five South Korean cities wired. Each customer pays about 30,000 won a month, or less than $27. ...

South Koreans pay an average of $38 a month for connections of 100 megabits a second, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Americans pay an average of $46 for service that is molasses by comparison.

The average American broadband speed, if I remember correctly, was about 5.5 Mb/sec.

Comcast and Verizon are advertising new higher speeds - at higher costs. What are they not providing? The numbers. All claims are subjective to keep consumers ignorant. How fast is that speed? If the public had numbers, then Americans would not remain the lemming that they currently are.

A solution starts by changing “information providers” (ie Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner) back into “data transporters” - telecommunication companies. Then their job is to increase profits by moving data faster and more efficiently. Currently they care only little how slow your data rates are. Due to changes made during George Jr’s watch, we are now witnessing slower internet (compared to the world). And a market adverse to innovators such as Google and Cisco. We changed the laws to enrich and protect the few ‘data transfer ‘ companies by making them ‘content providers’ - who make money by charging for the shows/channel - not by moving data.

But that will not happen. The damage was done by the same people who now want Obama to fail. Who do not want to fix anything. And definitely do not want remove barriers that make it only harder for Google (and others) to innovate.