BBC asks: Why do Americans pay so much for broadband? - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70717000/gif/_70717869_countries_with_high_speed_broadband.gif[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24528383[/url] [quote]Home broadband in the US costs far more than elsewhere. At high speeds, it costs nearly three times as much as in the UK and France, and more than five times as much as in South Korea. Why? Men's haircuts, loaves of bread... it is surprising how much more expensive some things are in the US than the UK. Now home broadband can be added to that list. The price of basic broadband, TV and phone packages - or bundles as they are known - is much higher in American cities than elsewhere, suggests the New America Foundation think tank, which compared hundreds of available packages worldwide. Looking at some of the cheaper ones available in certain cities, at lower to mid download speeds, San Francisco ($99/£61), New York ($70) and Washington DC ($68) dwarf London ($38), Paris ($35) and Seoul ($15).[/quote]

Because the asshole companies that charge out the nose have a monopoly on the industry and there's fuck all we can do about it short of not paying for the services.

Because things here are generally more expensive is the short answer.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42674403]Because things here are generally more expensive is the short answer.[/QUOTE] America is stupidly cheap compared to Europe when it comes to most things.

Holy fuck, South-Korean internet confirmed for godlike.

Don't you all have data caps aswell? That shit gotta suck

[QUOTE=Protocol7;42674374]Because the asshole companies that charge out the nose have a monopoly on the industry and there's fuck all we can do about it short of not paying for the services.[/QUOTE] That and many areas are still using the old copper cables, which are more expensive to utilize than fiber-optic, but replacing those with FO cabling is incredibly expensive. We're just now getting FTTP internet installed here, but only on one side of town. I see signs saying that there's buried fiber optic cables on some roads. Unfortunately it's guaranteed to be owned by AT&T, since they're the only ISP here that runs any sort of fiber-optic service, the only other option that isn't satellite is Suddenlink and they charge out the ass for actually good speeds, but their website is shady and doesn't like to display individual prices on the internet packages, only bundle prices.

Maybe it's the distances the cables have to go and shit? America is a big place and I assume all that cable maintenance adds up.

UK with 60 Mbps, hahah that's a good one BBC. tbh this chart doesn't really mean much because the price-per-megabit can change so much, for example I'm probably paying for around 10-15 Mbps but I've never seen speeds higher than 5, whereas someone in a different area will get much better value for money, like in a 4G or fibre-optic zone. Even then speeds change throughout the day, but the money you're handing over doesn't, which is probably why Broadband companies absolutely rake it in even if they've got bad reviews also brb moving to south korea

[QUOTE=Jimmyshimmy;42674438]Don't you all have data caps aswell? That shit gotta suck[/QUOTE] Comcast has had a 250GB data limit on their internet services, but last I checked they weren't enforcing it. I haven't checked recently, though. With 4 users in the home - two of which rely heavily on streaming services (Pandora, Netflix, etc), as well as Steam downloads by yours truly, we got pretty damn close to the limit more than a few times a year.

[QUOTE=Cabbage;42674452]60 Mbps, hahah that's a good one BBC. tbh this chart doesn't really mean much because the price-per-megabit can change so much, for example I'm probably paying for around 10-15 Mbps but I've never seen speeds higher than 5, whereas someone in a different area will get much better value for money, for example in a 4G or fibre-optic zone. also brb moving to south korea[/QUOTE] You do get really high speeds if you're on Virgin or BT's fibre services.

[QUOTE=Coffee;42674416]America is stupidly cheap compared to Europe when it comes to most things.[/QUOTE] Not for services. For essentials, maybe. And you have to look at more than a shallow, "Our prices are lower." So are our wages.

[quote]Men's haircuts, loaves of bread... it is surprising how much more expensive some things are in the US than the UK. [/quote] How much are your mens haircuts in the US then? I pay £7.50 for a haircut.

[QUOTE=Jimmyshimmy;42674438]Don't you all have data caps aswell? That shit gotta suck[/QUOTE] both canada and america suffer from that. if you wanted to get an unlimited cap, you better be willing to dish out over $100/m for it on major ISPs, otherwise you're stuck with about 150GB/m for $70/m, with awful upload speeds and half-ass download speeds.

[QUOTE=Coffee;42674469]You do get really high speeds if you're on Virgin or BT's fibre services.[/QUOTE] That just raises the average and thus the price, my point was that the price never reflects the fluctuation and therefore this chart is [I]reeaaallly[/I] standardized. Also a friend of mine had fibre optic and puts up with a completely unresponsive DNS most of the time, soo.

[QUOTE=zombini;42674443]That and many areas are still using the old copper cables, which are more expensive to utilize than fiber-optic, but replacing those with FO cabling is incredibly expensive. We're just now getting FTTP internet installed here, but only on one side of town. I see signs saying that there's buried fiber optic cables on some roads. Unfortunately it's guaranteed to be owned by AT&T, since they're the only ISP here that runs any sort of fiber-optic service, the only other option that isn't satellite is Suddenlink and they charge out the ass for actually good speeds, but their website is shady and doesn't like to display individual prices on the internet packages, only bundle prices.[/QUOTE] You really don't want to go with satellite internet.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;42674473]How much are your mens haircuts in the US then? I pay £7.50 for a haircut.[/QUOTE] I think last time I got my hair cut it was... $12? Then again I just get a 2" buzz everywhere so... Also, I get a 30mbps line for $30 a month, come at me.

In Canada, or at least in Atlantic Canada not sure about the rest of the country, Bell internet has no Bandwidth Cap on any of their plans. We get 8MB/s for about 160 a month on FiberOP

[QUOTE=Terminutter;42674473]How much are your mens haircuts in the US then? I pay £7.50 for a haircut.[/QUOTE] I paid $19 for the one I got a few days ago so about £11.76

[QUOTE=Squarebob;42674491]You really don't want to go with satellite internet.[/QUOTE] This. Your latency will suck every ass ever with sat. You may get a decent downrate, but with latency in excess of 1 second, you can kiss [I]any[/I] hope of consistent online gaming goodbye.

[QUOTE=Cabbage;42674452]UK with 60 Mbps, hahah that's a good one BBC. tbh this chart doesn't really mean much because the price-per-megabit can change so much, for example I'm probably paying for around 10-15 Mbps but I've never seen speeds higher than 5, whereas someone in a different area will get much better value for money, like in a 4G or fibre-optic zone. Even then speeds change throughout the day, but the money you're handing over doesn't, which is probably why Broadband companies absolutely rake it in even if they've got bad reviews also brb moving to south korea[/QUOTE] Anyone who is still on broadband and lives more than 1 mile from the nearest exchange gets shafted due to factors like line attenuation, noise and other issues associated with metal wiring. UK net has improved massively in the last few years though, we don't have fiber into buildings since it would be too expensive to replace everything, but we have the next best thing: FTTC (Fiber to the cabinet), which is running from your local exchange to your street's cabinet, then copper to your house, so with that you only lose a few Mbits from your connection. Another good thing about our net is that all of the providers worth going with provide unlimited data on both their fiber and broadband connections. People keep ranting on about the UK having awful net, but I am just grateful we aren't in the same position as the US where it seems like a 100% lottery on where you live for getting good internet, and 90% of the time it will suck. The great thing is that BT may own all of the lines but they are forced to allow other companies to use them, which means there is no monopoly in most places and the chances are you will have at least 2 ISPs you can go with even in more remote locations. [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42674502]This. Your latency will suck every ass ever with sat. You may get a decent downrate, but with latency in excess of 1 second, you can kiss [I]any[/I] hope of consistent online gaming goodbye.[/QUOTE] More than that, satellite net latency is usually in the range of 500-1000ms, i.e literally unplayable. I have spent a few months without net before and tried to game on my phone tethering 3G, I get 2MB/s downloads but even on the mobile network its extremely laggy trying to play online. There is no physical way to improve it either, light itself takes about 100ms from Earth to a satellite in orbit, which means you are looking at a very minimum of a 250-300ms satellite roundtrip in the best possible scenario

The US is a MASSIVE place. I really want to know how they priced for the ENTIRE US. I'm sure there are large portions of the country that have to buy hyper-expensive satellite because they are simply too spread out to get anything else. Also, I've never had a data cap in Southern California. I also don't know a single person paying over $50/month for their internet service. I, personally, pay around $35/month for 24 Mbps down. [QUOTE]Because the asshole companies that charge out the nose have a monopoly on the industry and there's fuck all we can do about it short of not paying for the services.[/QUOTE] ISP monopolies are government enforced.

How can anywhere be more expensive than Australia, we pay out the ass for slow speeds and capped bandwidth

It's probably more expensive because of the ridiculous infrastructure required for Internet in the US. Things in the US are much more spread out, there's still places in the US where you can only get dial-up. And in like half the country all you can get is DSL internet

[QUOTE=sgman91;42674564]ISP monopolies are government enforced.[/QUOTE] The same government that implemented [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/41"]antitrust laws specific to things like interstate commerce[/URL]?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;42674605]The same government that implemented [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/41"]antitrust laws specific to things like interstate commerce[/URL]?[/QUOTE] Yup, they license areas to specific ISPs who then have sole access to it. This means that other companies can't compete even if they want to.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42674624]Yup, they license areas to specific ISPs who then have sole access to it. This means that other companies can't compete even if they want to.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/faqs-internet[/URL] [QUOTE]The FCC does not regulate the Internet or Internet Service Providers (ISPs). You may contact your state consumer protection office or if there is possible fraud involved, you may contact the [URL="http://www.ftc.gov/"]Federal Trade Commission[/URL].[/QUOTE]

Combination of bullshit pricing and terrible infrastructure. South Korea is what you get when you have the exact opposite, apparently.

This is relevant, by the way. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso[/media]

[QUOTE=STIGintheBRIG;42674670]Combination of bullshit pricing and terrible infrastructure. South Korea is what you get when you have the exact opposite, apparently.[/QUOTE] It also helps when South Korea is smaller then the state of Ohio. But yeah, the main reason is the terrible infrastructure because of how massive the United States actually is.