Summary: $200B Broadband Scandal (2005)(newnetworks.com)
newnetworks.com
Summary: $200B Broadband Scandal (2005)
http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
48 comments
I find it's generally a "grass is greener" thing - we envy other countries for infrastructure but ignore the serious problems in those places like high unemployment, etc.
But you're right; the US got overrun by nationalism post-9/11 which led to a feeling that because we were already the best, greatest, freest nation given to man by god -- and the rest of the world surpassed us in many ways.
But you're right; the US got overrun by nationalism post-9/11 which led to a feeling that because we were already the best, greatest, freest nation given to man by god -- and the rest of the world surpassed us in many ways.
"we were already the best, greatest, freest nation given to man by god"
The US is hardly the first nation to think that at the peak of its power and almost certainly won't be the last.
The US is hardly the first nation to think that at the peak of its power and almost certainly won't be the last.
To some extent, it might be a grass is greener. But the thing is, the grass here WAS often legitimately greener compared to many places.
It's just that the large infrastructure projects that can only be undertaken by government have gotten so paralyzed by special interests, that the stories just sound like anything you'd hear from developing nations with woefully corrupt governments. That billions of dollars were spent, there is literally NOTHING to show for it, AND nobody was punished either.
I say this living in an area (DC Metro) that now has gigabit fiber from the local telco. But I know our situation is rare.
It's just that the large infrastructure projects that can only be undertaken by government have gotten so paralyzed by special interests, that the stories just sound like anything you'd hear from developing nations with woefully corrupt governments. That billions of dollars were spent, there is literally NOTHING to show for it, AND nobody was punished either.
I say this living in an area (DC Metro) that now has gigabit fiber from the local telco. But I know our situation is rare.
DC is one of the only places that has competitive FTTH in the country - the same place all the regulators are saying there isn't a problem. Surely no coincidence?
I miss my FiOS - I don't miss the weather :-)
I miss my FiOS - I don't miss the weather :-)
Yeah I don't think it's a fluke that the DC area has decent broadband competition. That's where all the regulators live.
It's not a fluke, it's the result of sound municipal policy. D.C. is dysfunctional in many ways, but it's not anti-development like most U.S. cities. Right now, entire neighborhoods are being razed and replaced with gleaming 12-14 story mid-rise buildings. The city is also permissive with telecom deployment. Comcast, RCN, and Verizon have all been permitted to deploy in different parts of the city without being compelled to service the whole city at once.
It's not just D.C. though. The whole surrounding area is pretty lax about development. The Chesapeake Bay area in Maryland is pretty rural, but also has fiber internet because ISPs are permitted to build where it's profitable to build.
It's not just D.C. though. The whole surrounding area is pretty lax about development. The Chesapeake Bay area in Maryland is pretty rural, but also has fiber internet because ISPs are permitted to build where it's profitable to build.
The D.C. Suburbs also have some of the highest-income households in the country. Low-income households buy less home Internet by FAR (low income people use cell phones and mobile data). That absolutely factors in.
It's not just rich suburbs. Here is a completely random building in Anacostia: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8595932,-76.9871194,3a,75y,1.... If you punch in the address to various providers, apparently it can get fiber through Verizon or Comcast, or gigabit cable through Comcast or RCN.
We let fear destroy us. Since 2001, we have spent $4.79 trillion on war in the Middle East... averaging out to $319,000,000,000 ($319B) per year.
For perspective, Clinton's campaign national infrastructure bill proposed spending $240B over 10 years, and a national high-speed rail network might cost around $500B. Those are huge expenditures, but they are investments in the American public.
War in the Middle East? Our money just goes up in smoke...
[1] Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security: http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/201...
For perspective, Clinton's campaign national infrastructure bill proposed spending $240B over 10 years, and a national high-speed rail network might cost around $500B. Those are huge expenditures, but they are investments in the American public.
War in the Middle East? Our money just goes up in smoke...
[1] Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security: http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/201...
The U.S. is going through a greedy oligarch phase. The silent generation was the one that built all that infrastructure and had the proper tax incentives to make both public and private infrastructure projects happen. Massive ones.
And then the baby boomers came along. And they have just cash cowed that infrastructure, not doing a good job maintaining it, not advancing it, letting it rot, while they pocket the benefit, stuffing it into the stock, bond, and real estate markets, benefiting really no one but themselves. They are a hoarding generation. And they seem fairly OK with a re-emergence of aristocracy as a result: I've got mine, you go get your own. Everything is a product. Rich people get more. Cooperation is socialism. Etc.
So it'll be up to gen X and millenials to decide what comes next.
And then the baby boomers came along. And they have just cash cowed that infrastructure, not doing a good job maintaining it, not advancing it, letting it rot, while they pocket the benefit, stuffing it into the stock, bond, and real estate markets, benefiting really no one but themselves. They are a hoarding generation. And they seem fairly OK with a re-emergence of aristocracy as a result: I've got mine, you go get your own. Everything is a product. Rich people get more. Cooperation is socialism. Etc.
So it'll be up to gen X and millenials to decide what comes next.
> And then the baby boomers came along.
To be fair to Boomers and contrary to the popular current Boomers.v. Millenials (with Gen X occasionally acknowledged) narrative, the effects you describe began under the social, economic, and political dominance of the “Greatest” Generation, not the boomers.
Further, it's not really a generational thing, it's about shifting distribution of power among economic classes over time; which generation is ascendant at the time isn't the controlling factor, and generation v. generation narrative obstructs the kind of coalition building that could work to reverse the problem.
To be fair to Boomers and contrary to the popular current Boomers.v. Millenials (with Gen X occasionally acknowledged) narrative, the effects you describe began under the social, economic, and political dominance of the “Greatest” Generation, not the boomers.
Further, it's not really a generational thing, it's about shifting distribution of power among economic classes over time; which generation is ascendant at the time isn't the controlling factor, and generation v. generation narrative obstructs the kind of coalition building that could work to reverse the problem.
Well put. I can think of no better way of explaining our situation than this.
Actually I kind of forgot the baby boomers line. I got hung up on the "oligarch phase" which is totally apt.
I don't know if we can just blame baby boomers, unless somehow they were responsible for voting all the current politicians in.
I don't know if we can just blame baby boomers, unless somehow they were responsible for voting all the current politicians in.
You mean you can't do better than name calling?
[deleted]
I feel like our economy still hasn't fully recovered. Sure you've got an overall increase in market cap, but the common worker isn't nearly as well off as before the crash.
The scary part is when I read about the roaring 20s. It reminds me of many of my experiences in silicon valley.
I often wonder, if the market crashes again will we be in another great depression that leads us to ww3.
The scary part is when I read about the roaring 20s. It reminds me of many of my experiences in silicon valley.
I often wonder, if the market crashes again will we be in another great depression that leads us to ww3.
> The scary part is when I read about the roaring 20s. It reminds me of many of my experiences in silicon valley.
Could you elaborate a bit on that?
Could you elaborate a bit on that?
>I often wonder, if the market crashes again will we be in another great depression that leads us to ww3.
It's still unclear that we would need another one. Going by the WWII timeline, the invasion of Poland would be roughly in the next year.
It's still unclear that we would need another one. Going by the WWII timeline, the invasion of Poland would be roughly in the next year.
I thought US has one of the highest food safety standards in the world?
Also, broadband and high speed rail are infinitely easier when the landmass is over 15-40x smaller and population density 2-10x greater than the US.
Our medical care system sucks though - service is excellent, costs are not.
Also, broadband and high speed rail are infinitely easier when the landmass is over 15-40x smaller and population density 2-10x greater than the US.
Our medical care system sucks though - service is excellent, costs are not.
> service is excellent
Lower life expectancy suggests the service isn't that excellent.
Lower life expectancy suggests the service isn't that excellent.
I know nothing about the specifics, but the quality of produce at the supermarkets is light years better in the EU than in the USA, in my personal experience.
Which European countries are you thinking of?
My favorite thing to do when I visit a different country is tour the grocery store. I compare the price of milk, bread, eggs, cheese, and beef.
In Italy and London I have found that similar quality products are much more expensive usually. However the stores caring more high quality local foods, and less of the cheap processed foods that we American's love.
My favorite thing to do when I visit a different country is tour the grocery store. I compare the price of milk, bread, eggs, cheese, and beef.
In Italy and London I have found that similar quality products are much more expensive usually. However the stores caring more high quality local foods, and less of the cheap processed foods that we American's love.
Yeah we've made this density argument a thousand times. But it falls flat in a second, because broadband in US cities (which are very dense) still mostly sucks. No excuse for that. I can understand if our city broadband was amazing and rural internet was no good. But that's just not the case.
No, the US has MUCH worse food safety standards than the EU for example. I am tired of reading articles about all kinds of toxins and carcinogens that are byproducts of mass production, that are allowed by the FDA in "small quantities" but are completely banned in the EU. Same goes for food labeling.
Update: Regarding high speed rail and density, it should actually be the opposite. The hard part of building something like HSR is getting the correct permits and buying land, not just the construction. With the US being so spread out, there's fewer parties to negotiate land purchases from.
No, the US has MUCH worse food safety standards than the EU for example. I am tired of reading articles about all kinds of toxins and carcinogens that are byproducts of mass production, that are allowed by the FDA in "small quantities" but are completely banned in the EU. Same goes for food labeling.
Update: Regarding high speed rail and density, it should actually be the opposite. The hard part of building something like HSR is getting the correct permits and buying land, not just the construction. With the US being so spread out, there's fewer parties to negotiate land purchases from.
> But it falls flat in a second, because broadband in US cities (which are very dense) still mostly sucks. No excuse for that.
The U.S. is unusual in making telecom construction and licensing a largely municipal issue, which subjects it to local NIMBY-ism. Philadelphia, D.C., New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Austin, etc., have broadband that's quite competitive with Europe. They also tend to be places that are laissez faire in general about development in general. The Bay Area, in contrast, is anti-development about everything, apparently including broadband. There's a reason Google chose to build fiber in Atlanta, but not in its own back yard.
The U.S. is unusual in making telecom construction and licensing a largely municipal issue, which subjects it to local NIMBY-ism. Philadelphia, D.C., New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Austin, etc., have broadband that's quite competitive with Europe. They also tend to be places that are laissez faire in general about development in general. The Bay Area, in contrast, is anti-development about everything, apparently including broadband. There's a reason Google chose to build fiber in Atlanta, but not in its own back yard.
The USA could do better, but Europe / Asia are also very different beasts from the USA in terms of geography.
Yes, both are larger than the US.
This pisses me off so much. I live in a rural area and have to use a damn unlimited Sprint cell phone shared through Windows Internet Connection Sharing as my home's only source of internet. AT&T has DSL across the street but refuses to allow me to have DSL and calls to them pleading to extend service go nowhere, I may as well be talking to a chatbot. I think of this fraud the telco industry perpetrated a lot when I have to deal with the constant problems a setup like mine causes.
A lot of the industry's problems can actually be traced to the government's attempts to ensure service in rural areas. The government wanted rural areas to have telephone service, but didn't want to pay for it with tax dollars. So it gave various companies monopolies as a carrot in return for the obligation to serve rural areas (or rural parts of municipalities). Post-deregulation, it imposed a huge extra tax on the industry which it then diverted to phone service in rural areas. Of course there is no free lunch--the end result of all that intervention was entrenched incumbents with little incentive to upgrade their networks.
This would be believable except that lobbyists often step in at the state level to knock out community buildouts of self-financed infrastructure at much lower costs than what the big telcos claim.
It's important to break down barriers to community fiber deployment, but it's a footnote in the big picture. In most states, there is no restriction on such deployment, yet you still see very little of it.
Because all it takes is a very few public examples to discourage the activity at all. Just like businesses want stability to make capital investments, so do community projects. What happens if you get 90% of the way through, and state lobbyists make your project illegal? All the invested capital becomes stranded or lost - do you risk that in your state if there are examples of that outcome in other states?
The book is an advocacy piece designed to stoke outrage more than inform. Consider the Pennsylvania issue. Regarding the Pennsylvania issue: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2095....
What the book's account leaves out is that (1) the law required only 1.5 Mbps to qualify for alternative regulation, and (2) the State of Pennsylvania didn't pay anything for this failed promise. And at the end of the day, Pennsylvania has fiber to 40% of households (more than the Netherlands, less than Sweden). The book isn't lying, it's just not the full picture.
What the book's account leaves out is that (1) the law required only 1.5 Mbps to qualify for alternative regulation, and (2) the State of Pennsylvania didn't pay anything for this failed promise. And at the end of the day, Pennsylvania has fiber to 40% of households (more than the Netherlands, less than Sweden). The book isn't lying, it's just not the full picture.
Despite that clarification, there were fraudulent claims made and fraud performed. As a critical piece, it's both informative and outrageous in content. If there was any interest in reform, it would be damning. The FCC's modus is that minimizing the negative press about today's problems matters more than the lobbied outcomes. This will not even be a footnote on wikipedia in 2 decades...if there is still a wikipedia that has an FCC (tm) article.
[deleted]
>Pennsylvania has higher fiber deployment than Sweden
Has it? The best numbers I could find was ~60% for Sweden, and ~40% for PA.
http://broadbandnow.com/Pennsylvania https://www.pts.se/sv/Nyheter/Pressmeddelanden/2016/Snabb-br...
Has it? The best numbers I could find was ~60% for Sweden, and ~40% for PA.
http://broadbandnow.com/Pennsylvania https://www.pts.se/sv/Nyheter/Pressmeddelanden/2016/Snabb-br...
> The best numbers I could find was ~60% for Sweden
A year later (October 2016, rather than October 2015): 66.4%
https://www.pts.se/sv/Nyheter/Pressmeddelanden/2017/Sju-av-t...
A year later (October 2016, rather than October 2015): 66.4%
https://www.pts.se/sv/Nyheter/Pressmeddelanden/2017/Sju-av-t...
Looks like there was a big jump in Sweden in the last couple of years, it was under 40% in 2014: https://www.cnet.com/news/fast-fiber-optic-broadband-spreads.... I've corrected my post.
Still wrong.
"the Netherlands is ranked with Switzerland in having the most broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants,[1] has no bandwidth caps,[2] and has the most homes passed in Europe in terms of connection speeds of 50 Mbit/s and higher.[3]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_Netherlands
Yes, they use a lot of DSL, but you can have 20+Mbit DSL connections. The cap is actually ~120 megabit under the right conditions. Though you need a telecom willing to make a few investments which seem rare in the US.
"the Netherlands is ranked with Switzerland in having the most broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants,[1] has no bandwidth caps,[2] and has the most homes passed in Europe in terms of connection speeds of 50 Mbit/s and higher.[3]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_Netherlands
Yes, they use a lot of DSL, but you can have 20+Mbit DSL connections. The cap is actually ~120 megabit under the right conditions. Though you need a telecom willing to make a few investments which seem rare in the US.
Cause our motivations should be based upon comparison to other nations.
Not because access has existential value. But because sportsball metaphors!
Not because access has existential value. But because sportsball metaphors!
I know what you mean.
But...since it's notoriously hard to attract public attention with existential values, I'm all for sportsball metaphors. They get sh*t done. :)
Anyone know what happened next in PA after this order?
PA also has two of the major telecoms in their backyard (Comcast in Philadelphia, Verizon's HQ is closer to Philly than NYC) and even the rural areas are relatively densely populated. The executives want to play with the shiny, new things; so their neighborhoods get implemented first (I've been involved at gigabit rollouts at both companies -- this is actually how it works).
There are also a lot of very high net worth areas northwest of Philadelphia (which is all served by FiOS, as is most of the inner city). Median household income is the primary reason telecom deployment happens in one neighborhood vs. another; and the suburbs outside Philly have some of the highest-income zip codes in the country.
There are also a lot of very high net worth areas northwest of Philadelphia (which is all served by FiOS, as is most of the inner city). Median household income is the primary reason telecom deployment happens in one neighborhood vs. another; and the suburbs outside Philly have some of the highest-income zip codes in the country.
Have Frontier DSL here, the techs told me about the fiber installed just a hundred feet away, that Frontier had installed for this government program.
They still don't plan on doing anything with it for another 5+ years, and will be servicing business customers first before residential.
20 Mbps is cool too I guess.
They still don't plan on doing anything with it for another 5+ years, and will be servicing business customers first before residential.
20 Mbps is cool too I guess.
In 2012, Goldman Sachs estimated it would cost 140 billion to fiber up the entire country[1].
Let's round up to 250 billion for corporate/politician bribery greed/pork and double it for today at 500 billion. That is about $2500 per household for fiber internet nationwide, built to be expanded later, quite affordable. With our wars for the last 2 decades coming in at 6 trillion we could have bought that 10+ times.
[1] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Nationwide-Google-Fiber-B...
Let's round up to 250 billion for corporate/politician bribery greed/pork and double it for today at 500 billion. That is about $2500 per household for fiber internet nationwide, built to be expanded later, quite affordable. With our wars for the last 2 decades coming in at 6 trillion we could have bought that 10+ times.
[1] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Nationwide-Google-Fiber-B...
The full report appears to be available here: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/broadbandgrants/comments/61B...
The page mentioned that Verizon cut deployments in 13 states, and the deployments that were made were not doing equitably. What recourse is there for companies that made this commitment and still exist today? Could Verizon still be on the hook for providing these services, and if so, how can it be enforced?
Growing up in India, we used to read and see stories about the West (Europe and the US) and were just amazed at what can be done with infrastructure if the people and government had the will to do so.
Now, I've lived in the US for 23 years, and I look longingly elsewhere at Europe and Asia to see what can be done with infrastructure if the people and government had the will to do so. From broadband, to high speed rail, to public transportation, to food safety, to medical care.
The problem is, as a population, we still haven't come to terms that we're slipping behind badly. We just say "but, but, silicon valley!" or "but we innovate!" and move on.