http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10 ... -overseas/
No, price regulation is not the answer. I think the policy change would be to somehow make it financially attractive to compete in this arena. Then competition will naturally drive down price.
But I think something has to be done to normalize for the great expanse of the US as a country compared to anywhere else in the world. At least for wireless, I'm sure it WOULD be cheaper if we had very localized carriers. But is that what we want? Don't we want our phone to work across the country? I just think that small countries and/or packed metropolital locales have a natural advantage where it's easy to serve a great number of people in a small place. Whereas the US has to serve both dense areas and very rural areas. Areas in other countries I wouldn't be surprised to learn don't even expect cellular access.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'd like to see someone look into it.
Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
Re: Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
Eliminating the virtual duopoly of broadband providers in every area would do wonders. Competition FTW!
Re: Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
How does competition work when the tubes are owned by one telecom or another? Would it be like an MVNO for fiber/copper?
Re: Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
That's the problem. There are laws in place to prevent other providers from coming in and adding their copper to my house. This mostly applies to cable providers, but they serve a majority of the high speed internet (at least in New England). Here we have Cox or Verizon FIOS as the two options for high speed broadband (DSL doesn't count as it is slow). If there were two competing cable providers plus FIOS, that would help drive the cost down, in theory.kevm14 wrote:How does competition work when the tubes are owned by one telecom or another? Would it be like an MVNO for fiber/copper?
Re: Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
A counter-point would be that the cost of rolling out new infrastructure (i.e. no shared/leased tubes/MVNO stuff) is very high. Prohibatively high. In fact, Verizon learned this and no longer rolls out new FIOS intrastructure because it's too expensive to do so. If they thought they could make money, believe me, they would be growing their market.
Re: Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
For broadband, it probably would be cheaper if there were caps. The problem is, if they introduced tiers or "pay for what you use" I would obviously be incentivized to use less data. Which means I would then be conscious of it. And that would be really annoying. The LAST thing I ever want to think about is "well we streamed a lot of Netflix this month, so let's watch another form of TV." Hell no.
For wireless, I maintain the size of the infrastructure has a lot to do with it. I think it is flat out more expensive to run a nationwide cell network in the US (even per capita) than elsewhere in the world. Which brings me to another point: people are often critical of CDMA. "The US is so stupid with their mostly-US-only CDMA. The rest of the world is on GSM, so the US sucks." That was a product of choosing the best technology for the job. From my limited understanding, CDMA is better suited to solving the problem of "how do we cover this much area in cellular connectivity?"
Another point was brought up on the thread: are we sure cost of living was factored in? Someone said it was but I'm not so sure. I can say one thing about comparing international costs of things, even things that seem to be the "same" product: it's really hard to do. The exchange rate, cost of living and other factors (some of which I brought up) make it REALLY hard to make an even comparison. A common one is the cost of cars in Australia. I remember reading about the various Holden-platform vehicles coming to our shores (GTO, G8, etc.). In A$, if you just run the exchange rate, the long wheel base Commodore HSV (G8 GXP) was like $65k or something. They build the damn things so why would it be more expensive? Factors OTHER than exchange rate, obviously.
For wireless, I maintain the size of the infrastructure has a lot to do with it. I think it is flat out more expensive to run a nationwide cell network in the US (even per capita) than elsewhere in the world. Which brings me to another point: people are often critical of CDMA. "The US is so stupid with their mostly-US-only CDMA. The rest of the world is on GSM, so the US sucks." That was a product of choosing the best technology for the job. From my limited understanding, CDMA is better suited to solving the problem of "how do we cover this much area in cellular connectivity?"
Another point was brought up on the thread: are we sure cost of living was factored in? Someone said it was but I'm not so sure. I can say one thing about comparing international costs of things, even things that seem to be the "same" product: it's really hard to do. The exchange rate, cost of living and other factors (some of which I brought up) make it REALLY hard to make an even comparison. A common one is the cost of cars in Australia. I remember reading about the various Holden-platform vehicles coming to our shores (GTO, G8, etc.). In A$, if you just run the exchange rate, the long wheel base Commodore HSV (G8 GXP) was like $65k or something. They build the damn things so why would it be more expensive? Factors OTHER than exchange rate, obviously.
Re: Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5047 ... -to-60mbps
Look at the discussion. There IS competition in wireless but the cheaper guys are cheaper for a reason. Basically, the answer is, try the cheaper guys and if their flaws don't affect you or aren't apparent to you, then you win.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5048 ... ead-around
This one probably needs its own thread but it's germane to this discussion as well.
I like the idea of a service provider (not an ISP, someone like Netflix) paying to prioritize their data. But on the other hand, that model would theoretically make it very hard for new competition to enter and compete.
Yet, I also don't think "data is data" so I don't think I agree with NN, either.
I also really disagree with the sentiment that "Spring is just trying to get more money out of people!" Umm. Blind much? Of course they are. Apple is the perfect example of not just trying, but GETTING more money out of everyone. But no one ever calls them greedy. Why? Marketing mostly, and people feel like the price is worth the value of the product (enjoyment, status, whatever it is). I just really dislike the idea that only certain companies are "greedy."
Look at the discussion. There IS competition in wireless but the cheaper guys are cheaper for a reason. Basically, the answer is, try the cheaper guys and if their flaws don't affect you or aren't apparent to you, then you win.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5048 ... ead-around
This one probably needs its own thread but it's germane to this discussion as well.
I like the idea of a service provider (not an ISP, someone like Netflix) paying to prioritize their data. But on the other hand, that model would theoretically make it very hard for new competition to enter and compete.
Yet, I also don't think "data is data" so I don't think I agree with NN, either.
I also really disagree with the sentiment that "Spring is just trying to get more money out of people!" Umm. Blind much? Of course they are. Apple is the perfect example of not just trying, but GETTING more money out of everyone. But no one ever calls them greedy. Why? Marketing mostly, and people feel like the price is worth the value of the product (enjoyment, status, whatever it is). I just really dislike the idea that only certain companies are "greedy."
Re: Wired and wireless bandwidth cost rankings
I just had a thought:
Picture an alternate universe where the ISP has very low or free "internet access." How? Because it would be subsidized by ads and/or the content available on its network.
This is the same as Google's model.
As I said on the verge, when dumb people are confronted with something called "free" it always wins. There is always a cost.
Picture an alternate universe where the ISP has very low or free "internet access." How? Because it would be subsidized by ads and/or the content available on its network.
This is the same as Google's model.
As I said on the verge, when dumb people are confronted with something called "free" it always wins. There is always a cost.