ISPs, net neutrality and open Internet

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

ISPs, net neutrality and open Internet

Another thread started a discussion about the quality of ISPs in various countries. In US the service is generally pretty bad (comparing to Europe).

I think it's mostly caused by the lack of competition. Here are some satiric videos about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp1MAMkIa6A

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I watched those 2 YouTube videos they make sense how internet business is done in America but Europeans are lucky because they get faster internet for cheap going through fiber optic and is subsidized. While in America internet businesses are not subsidized, is very expensive, we can only get whatever package they offer us for whatever price that meets our demands, and have no fiber optic lines unless I go to Google Fiber which does not exist in California yet.

Secondly I can't do anything about it until the US government steps in and takes action which I don't think they will anytime soon not at least for another 50 years probably.

No matter how expensive it is, when there is competition, ISPs spend their money on improving their service. When there is no competition, they have zero incentives to do anything except raising prices for inferior service. It's the result of any monopoly.

Google fiber is great, but it's offered in a very few areas and they have no interest to expand. Some other places offer city subsidized fiber optics, while others have Verizon fiber (FiOS) as well. But vast majority has coax cable or DSL and the situation does not seem to be improving.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

The lack of competition and near monopoly situation is caused by ISPs buying some sick laws which prevent that very competition. Usual situation. Such kind of "legal" corruption is not news. Another example are laws about car dealers (which are causing problems for Tesla Motors who use innovative distribution method without car dealers at all). While in theory there are antitrust regulations which are supposed to prevent such market capture, in practice some just buy laws which override them.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I find the quality of Comcast's internet to be excellent quality. The thing I don't find to be good is their customer service like shutting down my internet or millions of other people's internet sometimes for whatever reason.

Secondly I forgot to mention Comcast got rid of bandwidth caps being placed on Comcast customers every month it is only sometimes that we get bandwidth caps. I should of been more clearer about this in my other comments. Like this month I have 0 download bandwidth cap from Comcast but 2 months ago I had 300GB cap they give you a cap sometimes when there's to much traffic.

The main problem with coax cable companies is that they are primarily media companies, and only secondary they are ISPs. So they bring their whole baggage of disdain towards their users which grows out of paranoia about piracy and ends up in DRM and attempts to mess with your traffic. What else can you expect from them, when it comes to quality. Monthly traffic caps are complete idiocy, it's good that some are getting rid of them.

 

[gab961111.59]

The first video is the exact description of Internet providers in Canada. And I need to pay extra money when i download over 100 GB.

 

[dragonbird]

Until two days ago, I was paying US$20/mth for what was supposed to be 1MB. It never exceeded 200K, even on local sites, it averaged about 80K, and dropped to around 20K at peak times. In April, they introduced a Fair Usage policy but refused to say what they considered acceptable usage, but after that it meant that if you complained about slow speeds they'd just say it was because you'd used it too much and were being throttled. People comparing notes on forums decided that it kicked in at 15GB. After throttling, I've seen it drop as low as 7K.

I lived in a modern housing estate. I still don't know why, maybe some dispute between the estate developer and the relevant companies, but none of the telcos/ISPs provide DSL there, nor was there a digital cable service. Less than two miles away, they have fiber.

I moved house.

 

[AserPik]

In US the service is generally pretty bad

Stand-alone comment there

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

AserPik: It's not really a secret. Most users in US overpay for the Internet service, and get way less than adequate quality and bandwidth for that money.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

AserPik: It's not really a secret. Most users in US overpay for the Internet service, and get way less than adequate quality and bandwidth for that money.

What exactly do you mean by 'overpay'? I have Verizon DSL, with no connection problems, and a fast transfer rate. It was down only coupe of times at night (I tend to work at night), for maintenance. I pay $34.99, which is less than I get for 1 hour of work (right now I get around $40 per hour, after taxes). I think it is a terrific deal, and to whine about the price would be crazy.

 

[Nexus-77]

AserPik: It's not really a secret. Most users in US overpay for the Internet service, and get way less than adequate quality and bandwidth for that money.

You just described what happens in my country. I'm not saying it's a horrible service I get here but it fluctuates too much and it's too expensive. Some competition needed here as well.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

vivaxardas: Prices could be lower, while quality could be higher if the market had proper healthy competition. Right now prices don't reflect the merchandise (i.e. the service). They only reflect the fact that market is monopolized. ISPs since long admitted, that network capacities only grow (technology improves), while the cost of that capacity goes down. Yet prices on the services only go up while the quality of the service almost never improves.

Google fiber is an exemplary experiment by Google to demonstrate that very issue.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

Likewise $29.99 for Charter internet at 30 mbps. Overpaying I think not. Free maintenance and wi-fi router. Very rarely have I seen it go down.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Cs

 

[Cs__sz__r]

I'm not well versed in how much other places may pay, which is also dependent on cost of living. I live in kind of rural-ish Alabama, I consider us lucky to have Charter if prices are horrid as you say.

 

[dragonbird]

Cs

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

dragonbird: I didn't even talk about rural areas. They are actually a mixed bag. Some have great connectivity, while others have none. Putting cables is actually a lot easier in rural areas. In the cities it's way more costly. (See the post above, I corrected it).

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

There was some recent example which demonstrated this issue well. As soon as Google announced their fiber optic 1 Gbps service coming to some area, local AT&T said they will start offering better service. When asked why didn't they do that before if they could, they said that no one wanted it. Yeah, right. No one wanted better service, but everyone wanted higher prices. So Google's experiment was a clear success - it demonstrated that competition improves the ISPs market.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

Well that's AT&T for you, may be biased, but I can't see why anyone here still has their services.

Dragonbird, how's your new internet connection treating you?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

It's not only AT&T, other ISPs aren't any better in this regard:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Says-Demands-Not-There-for-Google-Fiber-122337

 

[Cs__sz__r]

Lol, no demands for 1 gbps... I've heard of their controversies, but I was talking about AT&T personally. Never had Time Warner, in fact I don't think I've ever known anyone that's had it, even though they operate in AL.

I'll just stick with Charter til' death.