Why US Broadband Is Stuck in the Slow Lane

You might want to read the article I linked to, which goes into some depth on the subject. The short version is, because the municipal networks don't have a big installed base of infrastructure to amortize.

Indeed, it's dismaying to see such things from the private sector. I think what the government should do is to add a severe penalty in the contracts that makes the companies pay a certain sum to the government if they fail to meet the commitment.

@slfisher: If cost is a major reason why people in the rural areas are not able to afford broadband connections, how are the municipal networks able to operate with low costs that rural population can afford. Since they're operating on their own, I suspect their costs must be greater than what other big companies face that are operating across the nation.

some rural areas have better broadband than major cities, because they formed municipal networks before the big telecommunications providers noticed.

And really, municipal is the way to go. Let regions do it themselves, as they did with electricity and telephone. Idaho, as the example I'm most familiar with, has tried large grants to get its rural users hooked up; the result is that Qwest, now CenturyLink, took the money and simply duplicated efforts. Similarly, when the Idaho Legislature formed the Idaho Education Network to provide broadband for Idaho schools, and gave the contract to Qwest, Qwest went and dug new fiber networks even in areas that were already served by local companies (which were cut out of the contract). 

But the problem of limiting municipal networks on a legislative basis is very serious; it's gone from a city to a state and now to a federal level, and is being supported by groups such as ALEC. One could argue that ALEC doesn't want the U.S. population to have access to the information and organizing power that the Internet brings.

<the funds for something useful, like rolling out additional 4G/LTE capacity in major <markets?  You talk about how they've failed to update the PSTN, but isn't the switched <network old technology that's been replaced by IP switching (we're all using VOIP, <whether we knew it or not)? 

The PSTN is not about VOIP--- and there is in fact a part of the FCC called the technical advisory council that is claiming that the PSTN is 'POT's plain old telephone service and that IP services are replacing it.

We' filed a petition to close down this council as the majority of member happen to have a major financial relationship with AT&T or Verizon. -- but that the definition of the PSTN was made up by AT&T who, in 2009 claimed there were 2 networks -- the bright shiny broadband network and the PSTN -- which was voice and over the old copper wiring -- and "switched"

VOIP is a service and not the network, and switched is just 1 category of the services that are using the PSTN wiring as the "N' stands for 'networks, not services.

More importantly, the PSTN was never, ever just voice -- this distinction is being used so that the companies can shift publicly funded assets into private ownership -- as the PSTN was supposed to be upgraded to fiber and paid for by customers through rate increases and tax breaks --

Moreover the Definition of the PSTN was all wires, chattel and switches in the networks for all services -- including video, including data and including voice... and this definition was created by in New Jersey in 1992.

Which brings us to wireless -- Should customers who are paying extra for a fiber optic service be funding the wireless networks or is that collusion of the wireline and wireless divisions?

As we wrote elsewhere, we documented this cross-subsidization and various manipulations of the monies -- For example, AT&T stated that is was goosing it's wireless profits and at the same time helping the wireline services lower revenues and increase expenses -- to look less profitable so that it fits their public policy to 'close down the PSTN'

Substituting wireless -- which can not really substitute for say 'cable' or even high speed broadband ---- as the price caps and $10. a gig costs make it prohibitive --- is the plan for AT&T and Verizon -- and it will harm infrastructure building.

In fact, we found that even Verizon's construction' budgets for wireless tower fiberization is probably been paid for by the PSTN customers --

Bruce, I agree that the way the major telecomm vendors have been taking public funds and giggling all the way to the bank is a little shocking.  However, are you sure they're not using the funds for something useful, like rolling out additional 4G/LTE capacity in major markets?  You talk about how they've failed to update the PSTN, but isn't the switched network old technology that's been replaced by IP switching (we're all using VOIP, whether we knew it or not)?  You mentioned AT&T's U-Verse, which I was disappointed to discover was just DSL on steroids.  Yes, I'm still getting twelve times the bandwidth for the same price, but it's still just some copper with fancy quadrature.  Michael may be right -- fiber is still easier to find in your breakfast cereal than in most neighborhoods.  I tell a very funny story about coming to work one day, and about vibrating my fillings loose in a construction zone just down the street.  I looked over, realized they were rolling out optical fiber, and quietly cursed the idiot that had ordered the fiber that had caused the construction.  And then it hit me -- I'd signed that contract about a month earlier, so *I* was the idiot responsible for the construction.  Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

Unfortunately, I have alot more data as I've been tracking the failure of AT&T, Verizon and Centurylink to upgrade the PSTN since the 1992.

Since you asked -- Here's a free ebook we published in 2005 --

$340 billion broadband Scandal - Which documents many of the states.

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

More formal was the report we did with Columbia Universiity's CITI program that was presented to the FCC:

http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCCITIbroadband.htm

We have filed over 14 times with the FCC since the first Advanced network report came out in 1999 as it never examined the role customers played in funding broadband infrastructure -- nor the commtments made in almost every state -- and it still refuses to examine the current data we presented -- even though New Jersey is an active case.

I don't view this as democrat or republican --- etc, but as corporate controls over the entire landscape --party be damned.

I can say this as I watched politicians and regulators from both sides of the aisle allow massive harms to America via the failure to hold accountable these companies' infrastructure committments.

And with the current deal with Verizon and the cablcos and AT&T's announcement it has ended the expansion of U-Verse-- which goes over the old copper wiring - and abandoning half of America -- including abandoning DSL -- we are on a trendline of losing ground against countries that actually give a damn about speed and quality of service. 

I have to add that the other problem is pricing - without direction competition prices of phone service have gone up 50-100% per line item on the bill and there's no balance to this force as the controllers of the infrastucture and of 'access fees' control the costs of services -- wireline, wireless or even cable. Where is the outrage at the FCC of rate increases that directly harm the ability of 'low income families' to purchase services?

ty for the good info relly helps

Even libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson supports state and local spending on services he believes should not be provided on a federal level: Medicaire medical aid to the poor, for example. Surely municipal WiFi is also something states and local government can provide. 

That is a dismaying story.  Here's a case of infrastructure improvement where I'd like to see government more directly involved.  Leaving things to the private sector doesn't always work.