Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

Good post. I think one of the many reasons that this is true is that many countries leapfrogged the US. This is, they skipped right to broadband.

Hungary for example, never developed a wired phone network. They skipped right to wireless.

I hope you’re not thinking that government needs to remedy this. (?)

The government’s experience in this area is spotty at best.

St. Louis Park being a particularly visible local example (when are they going to take those things down?).

If government regulates minimum speeds and maximum prices, they’ve just priced many areas out of broadband altogether, Smithers. Moreover, having been trained in the RF technologies now being used for broadband, I’m at least a little qualified to speak to WHY things cost more here vs. elsewhere.

In a nutshell, you need a certain power level and noise level to receive it. The U.S. has lower population density, more precipitation, and more trees than most of the other nations involved here. Hence, we need more transmitters per receiver than in Europe or Asia. (remember Australia’s people are concentrated on the coasts)

More government involvement here would lead to the St. Louis Park debacle times 10,000; that city used solar power (in an area with lots of trees, hence spotty power supply) only 20′ from standard electric, and placed the receivers/transmitters only about 6′ off the ground–ensuring that any obstruction at ground level would interfere with service. Let’s let the engineers and telecom companies handle this one, not legislatures.

I haven’t looked at this issue at all, so I don’t know much about it.

But my guess as an uninformed hack would be that broadband is an industry with declining average cost curves–a natural monopoly.

Right now it seems that Comcast has a pretty good stranglehold on the market–am I wrong on that? As a monopoly, it will limit availability and keep prices higher than they should and could be.

If that’s true, then the govt should either provide it itself or else regulate the heck out of it. We don’t have any private road systems for exactly the same reason.

I don’t have any experience with the SLP system so I won’t comment other than to inquire whether the criticisms over logistical issues aimed at the legislatures are apropriate. In Minneapolis, for example, if we have a problem with poor signal strength we call USI Wireless (the corporate partner of the city in their wireless endeavor) directly rather than anyone affiliated with the city. So I wonder if the placement and set-up concerns ought not be directed at the company with which SLP parternered (**assuming they persued wireless in a similar fashion**).

That aside, though I had been initially disappointed with the level of service we got from USI Wireless on Mpls’ networks, I did and continued to believe in the idea of wireless being available to more people without bounds of television cable and/or phone service contracts inextricably tacked on (looking at you, Comcast). When I first heard about the Mpls project, I was excited to have a realistic choice in wireless internet service; I rent, I have not used land-line phone service since maybe 2001 and I do not purchase cable TV service (though I wish I did this month…) so my options weren’t really all that expansive til this one became available.

I believe that city/county/state sponsored wireless initiatives are a good proposition, in part because they add another competitor to an otherwise paltry field of provider(s).

I believe that city/county/state sponsored wireless initiatives are a good proposition, in part because they add another competitor to an otherwise paltry field of provider(s).

It’s not a true competitor if it is subsidized by the government. It’s just more tax and spend competing with legitimate businesses that have real costs, employing real people with real families.

As for the SLP system, you couldn’t have had much in the way of experience with it. It was stillborn.

having been trained in the RF technologies now being used for broadband

a six sigma black belt, expert in statistics and econ 101, and now your telling me your trained in RF technologies!?

stop, your killing me with all your skillz.

T3 is trained in “junk” management.

Smithers, you have to have engineers handling it whether a legislature is involved or not. Free markets got free broadband to Starbucks; the city council got no broadband to St. Louis Park. Free markets gave us the Mustang; CAFE standards gave us the Pinto.

Besides, perhaps it’s important to consider why Americans aren’t signing up where it’s available. Maybe it’s that our more family-oriented culture isn’t terribly enthusiastic about paying $30-70/ month to bring some of the less savory elements of the Internet into their homes.

In other words, gracious host, your numbers mean squat at best until someone demonstrates that real harm is done when broadband access isn’t in every home.

T3, yes, engineers are often capable of understanding their specialty, statistical methods (companies “teach” these skills), and sometimes even comprehend basic economics.

Maybe you should give it a try. We’ll start with “those whose paychecks are immune from market forces tend to make poor business decisions.”

Does John McCain know what Broadband refers to?

how does Bike Bubba know all this stuff and still have all this time to comment ad infinitum to every post? gotta get back to work now.

Going back to the original…
For cost I’d be curious how much other countries subsidize the system vs. the U.S.

In some cases you’re looking at recently privatized national systems, so I’m guessing there’s still a good amound of tax payer dollars going into it. (Not that it’s a bad thing, just something to compare.)

As for SLP vs Minneapolis. I would want to see more examples. Sticking with those two strikes me more as an implementation issue (e.g. one group got it right, the other screwed up. Not exactly a good basis to judge whether or not local/state gov. can do the job.)

As for competition… don’t see why that matters. Not like I can easily pick a different power or gas provider now can I.

And the water in minneapolis is pretty good, last I checked, not privitized.

Now given the intertubes have been created, subsidized, and partially run by the goverment (national) I don’t see why privtization is a good thing (e.g. destruction of net neutrality.)

In some ways Minneapolis has created competition cause now I have another choice besides Comcast vs. U.S. West.

Everything being talked about here is valid - but I think someone else hit on the main point that crosses my mind.

What inherent societal need is there for universal cheap internet access? What is there to be gained by having it? (other than so Smithers can blog at the comfort of the 54th and Lyndale ‘Bucks using the same ‘provider’ he uses at home?)

Oh, and I’m getting a Douchephone 3G on Friday, just thought I’d interject that before Gilby does.

Wouldn’t it be a prerequisite that there be:

1. Universal cheap power
2. Universally available cheap wifi enabled devices (either laptops, pc’s, pda’s, etc)

Seems to be putting the chicken before the egg here. Certainly, broadband coverage could be better but I would say “show me who it’s hurting” before I could be convinced that it’s a problem. Food, water and shelter are basic needs, broadband isn’t.

a. kruse -
Though in principle I agree with you, cheap easy to use internet access is becoming an issue.

More and more job postings and applications are on line.

More and more governemtn docs are online (e.g. unemployment, licences tabs, etc.)

There is a push both in private and public sectors to put stuff on line because, in theory, it’s cheeper.

So not a basic need yet, but a useful tool for those in lower income brackets.

pcomeau - When the bulk of internet traffic gravitates towards legitimate uses such as applying for jobs, accessing documents, etc etc (list other normal uses ad nauseum) outnumbers the number of people (men) who access the internet for the purpose of downloading pr0n, I will agree with you.

jroosh:

It’s not a true competitor if it is subsidized by the government.

Is it? I’m asking cause I don’t know. If it is, what is the subsidy and where does it come from?

It’s just more tax and spend competing with legitimate businesses that have real costs, employing real people with real families.

This is an odd statement because you’re saying that government employees and their families aren’t real (but of course they are, silly! More importantly, it appeals to an emotional argument rather than a factual one — tell me why it’s better that the gov. not compete with business without appealing to my desire (as your audience) to assist fellow workers/Americans/humans (asking cause this seems to be your point).

Bubba:

Besides, perhaps it’s important to consider why Americans aren’t signing up where it’s available. Maybe it’s that our more family-oriented culture isn’t terribly enthusiastic about paying $30-70/ month to bring some of the less savory elements of the Internet into their homes.

I can’t decide which is worse, that this statement is headed grossly off-topic or that it’s inacurate and based in… what? I don’t know… wishful thinking on your part perhaps?

Then there’s this gem:

Free markets gave us the Mustang; CAFE standards gave us the Pinto.

What in the world do the Mustang and Pinto (both actually brought to us by Ford) have to do with this discussion??

I might point out that you, too, are using emotional arguments to prove your assertions. The Mustang is synonymous with biceps, loudness, scoring chicks and speed; the Pinto, on the other hand, is synonymous with none of those things, except maybe the loudness (but definitely not in the cool way). You are taking the easy way out trying to appeal to your audience’s feelings rather than reason; I pitty the fool that takes your statements to heart.

Who gives a crap about the competitiveness of the United States in the world market so long as everyone has food, water and shelter.

Considering a large portion of the world exists without adequate food, water, and shelter? I would say the United States’ standing in the ‘broadband race’ is a fairly irrelevant issue.

Am I reading your assertion correctly? That you believe your access to the internet is more important than someone else’s basic needs?

Considering a large portion of the world exists without adequate food, water, and shelter? I would say the United States’ standing in the ‘broadband race’ is a fairly irrelevant issue.

By this logic, kruse, we shouldn’t be in Iraq, we shouldn’t have a space program, we shouldn’t explore cures for deseases like cancer or MS or diabetes until all the worlds population’s basic needs are met. C’mon, dood. Be serious.

“Oh, and I’m getting a Douchephone 3G on Friday, just thought I’d interject that before Gilby does.”

You think that makes you any less of an iCult douche? Have fun at the mall stroking your little technologies…

Apperently speed and cost don’t do much for penetration. Just look at Japan. They didn’t even make the list and they are one of the cheapest and fastest. Maybe thats because the Japanese do everything on their cell phones.

C’mon, dood. Be serious.

I am serious… I think this is a fairly ridiculous thing to squawk around about. I guess I am not the crusader for any of those causes, so I am just as guilty as anyone else. Point remains.

I would say that some of the things you listed off could be considered to be justifiably higher priority than others (e.g. medical research into cures for terminal diseases vs. space exploration).

jroosh:

This is an odd statement because you’re saying that government employees and their families aren’t real (but of course they are, silly! More importantly, it appeals to an emotional argument rather than a factual one — tell me why it’s better that the gov. not compete with business without appealing to my desire (as your audience) to assist fellow workers/Americans/humans (asking cause this seems to be your point).

The subsidy comes from taxes. Taxes which are invariably raised to pay a provider to compete with another provider that doesn’t have the “luxury” of raising taxes even more if it turns out you really can’t provide the same broadband for half the price.

Which puts artificial pressure on the provider to compete against an unfair competitor.

As for the families comment, I wasn’t referring to the families of government workers not being real, rather that those employed by the private sector have jobs created by companies operating in what should be a free market, creating a viable business and having to live within the confines of real expenses and real revenues versus the government which can always (and usually always does) raise taxes instead of being accountable to a viable business model.

When a business model is proven to be flawed, the business goes away and someone else comes in with a better model. When the government fails, it never goes away, it just shifts the burden more and more to the taxpayer. We get the shaft.

As for the argument that there is usually only one provider of broadband, I would say give it time. There are other potential options on the way like Wi-Max as well as offerings from existing wireless providers that I believe will correct the market for broadband. The comparison of broadband to water isn’t valid in my mind because I am pretty sure that people can somehow survive without broadband.

If you think that government should provide broadband, what’s next? Shouldn’t the government just provide every need at a lower price than the private sector then?

Where do we draw the line?

Let’s just extrapolate for a moment.

Why doesn’t the government just issue each citizen what would normally be a $1200 bike? Nothing fancy, just a good bike; for half the price.

And why doesn’t the government just pay for all of our retirement and insurance planning? Nothing fancy. Everyone gets the same amount of everything.

Smithers and I would be out of a job but we’d all be happy and equal! Right?

Eventually, we would all be out of a job. And there will be no one to pay for anything.

This argument isn’t about broadband. Its about the people of government constantly looking for ways to expand their influence and power over our lives. Not for some overriding moral imperative, rather for their own sake.

I think this is a fairly ridiculous thing to squawk around about. I guess I am not the crusader for any of those causes, so I am just as guilty as anyone else. Point remains.

It really isn’t. And there is no “guilty” verdict that need be doled out. It is ludicrous to think that everyone ought to be preoccupied with providing the basics for everyone in the world all the time. We would still be chasing mamoths if that were the case. Advances come because we pursue our interests. It goes without saying that most folks think about the plight of the destitute; this is not in question. Hence, the point does not stand because it is out of place.

What’s so off topic, Smithers? Market penetration is, after all, the portion of possible customers who actually buy. Noting one big reason many don’t buy helps to explain what’s going on–along with the reasons from physics that demonstrate why broadband is going to cost more here than in Europe or Japan.

Along the same lines, I still don’t see what’s so important about broadband access for all, nor do I see how government involvement could actually be helpful. Certainly the St. Louis Park debacle suggests the opposite.

Yes, Americans are being left behind by the technology gap…but put the horse before the cart. I think broadband as a basic right should be the least of our concerns at this point. Employers and government are at a point of putting everything online–and often only online–because it’s easier and cheaper…for them. But assuming that everyone would have access simply because broadband is “cheap” risks further marginalizing people of low income, immigrant populations, people of color, and the elderly, who statistically do not necessarily have access to the basic computer technology nor the skills to use it.

jroosh:

The subsidy comes from taxes. Taxes which are invariably raised to pay a provider to compete with another provider that doesn’t have the “luxury” of raising taxes even more if it turns out you really can’t provide the same broadband for half the price.

I understand your argument and that this is where you were coming from. What I was asking was what specifically are the subsidies in these specific situations? I also asked about where the subsidies came from — specifically. Sorry to have been unclear. For example, I’m looking for: “USI wireless gets X dollars from the city for every household that signs up and this money comes from the Y fund/treasury/etc.”

If you think that government should provide broadband, what’s next? Shouldn’t the government just provide every need at a lower price than the private sector then?

At no point did I state or even imply that everything should be provided us by the government.

This argument isn’t about broadband. Its about the people of government constantly looking for ways to expand their influence and power over our lives. Not for some overriding moral imperative, rather for their own sake.

My argument was and is about broadband accessibility. As an aside, it isn’t fair to vilify our gov agencies and branches as control-mongers trying to lord over us any more than it is to do the same to private corporations as a whole. Besides, isn’t the goal of most businesses to increase their power, market share and influence within the marketplace? How would this be any different than your above statement leaving out the malicious intent? And do you think large corporations continue to exist and grow because of some sort of altruism or moral imperative, as you put it, or do you think it’s mostly for the sake of their own existence?

Bubba - please extrapolate (by way of evidence) upon your statement:

Noting one big reason many don’t buy helps to explain what’s going on

Otherwise I assume this is simply your biased opinion talking here and we’ll leave it at that.

Its about the people of government constantly looking for ways to expand their influence and power over our lives.

So the man’s keeping me down by providing affordable broad band?

shouldn’t we just invade denmark for their internet?

or, do we invade who ever denmark wants us to invade, so we can get in on some of denmarks internet action?

either way i think we have a moral obligation.

denmark has pentetrated the internet the furthest, according to smithers, that means we either hate them the most or we think they are the most bad-ass.

they get to decide. (they just email us).

p.s. how is venezula’s internet? we need a reason to go in there too.

Would it be possible to see a link to the source for the stats you’ve quoted, Smithers?

I understand your argument and that this is where you were coming from. What I was asking was what specifically are the subsidies in these specific situations? I also asked about where the subsidies came from — specifically. Sorry to have been unclear. For example, I’m looking for: “USI wireless gets X dollars from the city for every household that signs up and this money comes from the Y fund/treasury/etc.”

The price point for the internet was set. Then the vendor was selected for the outsourcing. If that price point ends up being wrong, they will just subsidize it with general revenues.

For one example, just look to public transportation systems here in the Twin Cities, which ironically, with higher usage recently are now in further financial trouble. Whereas, if they were somehow a private entity, it would be a boon for business.

At no point did I state or even imply that everything should be provided us by the government.

That part wasn’t directed at you.

My argument was and is about broadband accessibility. As an aside, it isn’t fair to vilify our gov agencies and branches as control-mongers trying to lord over us any more than it is to do the same to private corporations as a whole. Besides, isn’t the goal of most businesses to increase their power, market share and influence within the marketplace? How would this be any different than your above statement leaving out the malicious intent? And do you think large corporations continue to exist and grow because of some sort of altruism or moral imperative, as you put it, or do you think it’s mostly for the sake of their own existence?

The difference is, I get to choose who I buy a car or clothes or Internet from. I get to choose whose wireless service I subscribe too. I get to choose what channel I watch on TV (or what blog I read for that matter). I get to choose what bike I want to ride. I get to decide: Starbucks, Caribou or Sisters Sludge. I get to choose Bruegger’s or Einstein’s. Chevy, Ford, Chrysler or Toyota. They all compete for my business and they need to be effective in the marketplace or they go away.

Is the system perfect? No. Does it sometimes move more slowly or too quickly? Yes. But like the stock market, it tends to get better more often than worse.

There is only one national, state, and municipal government respectively. I don’t get to chose a new one unless (to Smithers’ point) I want to move to another. As such, I believe in limited government because it isn’t subject to the corrective forces of the marketplace.

It seems to me like there are 2 arguments here.

The first is about the state providing broadband service, which I am not sure I am comfortable with, and the second is about the state helping to create the infrastructure to provide broadband service which I do agree with.

Interestingly there is a piece at Minnpost on this very topic, which includes a link to the report on global broadband that was released:

“If you buy into the premise that we’re living in a time of the greatest shift in communication and connection in history driven by the Internet — and that the transport of digital bits is as important (if not more so) than the movement of physical goods over the past 100 years or so — it almost goes without saying that location is not only less important today, but in many ways, it’s irrelevant, unless you don’t have access to the Internet — and fast access at that.”

Checkbook, no statistical studies, but in the circles I’m in, there are consistent warnings (e.g. focus on the Family) about the dangers of unmonitored Internet use. So I infer, given the size of the evangelical population, that one “check” to the advance of the “latest and greatest” technology might be people’s reluctance to install a 10″ diameter sewer pipe into their home.

And that doesn’t mean that the end of our republic is nigh. It means people can transact their business without the big pipe.

So I infer, given the size of the evangelical population, that one “check” to the advance of the “latest and greatest” technology might be people’s reluctance to install a 10″ diameter sewer pipe into their home.

And that doesn’t mean that the end of our republic is nigh. It means people can transact their business without the big pipe.

What the fuck does that mean? I can’t even understand what’s being said here. Can somebody please help me?

Bike Bubba says:

…but in the circles I’m in, there are consistent warnings (e.g. focus on the Family)

All the background that is need for Bubba

Focus on the family, indeed. They gots the truth!

This thread went moronic soon after lunch today.

is 12:02 soon after lunch?? i’ll take the blame.

dingle…

I just want to thank (dis) for the comment at 3:42 today. That is all. Carry on.

“CAFE standards gave us the Pinto.”
Bullshit!!!! Ford gave us the Pinto, GM gave us the Vega, and Chrysler gave us the Gremlin……all meant to fail miserably, so that OIL and CARS could give you the SUV. Now it’s biting them in the ass. Good riddance.

…but in the circles I’m in

Do you remember that Paul Newman/Bruce Willis movie “Nobody’s Fool”? There was a line about Paul Newman and his ex-wife not traveling in the same circles. “She travels in more of a straight line.”

I love that movie.

OK, we’ll try this REAL slowly.

Market penetration is the % of possible buyers who actually buy. It depends on any number of factors, including whether or not people have any desire for the product. Market penetration for lutefisk, for example, is pretty low, and that’s a good thing.

Hence, low market penetration in itself doesn’t mean that there is a critical problem that legislatures need to try to solve. It means that people don’t want to pay the current price for the product.

Part of the current price is that it’s more difficult to transmit over greater distances we have here. It’s called “physics,” y’all. Part of the lower demand is the fact, as anyone who’s been to Europe can attest, that we’re a more prudish society than, say, France.

Again, NOT an issue for the legislature to solve, especially in light of the St. Louis Park disaster.

the St. Louis Park disaster.

Did this take place before or after the String Cheese Incident?

before i think — it was shortly after the legendary lollipop debacle