Why the big carriers won't build out their networks

[Renew Deal]

The big ISPs and wireless carriers keep promising to build out their networks, which we all want. But while they make those promises with one side of their mouths, they talk to Congress and the regulators in Washington, D.C., with the other, pushing for policies that discourage more investment in their networks.

Yeah, you've heard some of this before. But before you tune out, consider this: The less money the carriers and ISPs invest, the more congestion users at home and at work will experience. That's the risk we face.

You're already facing data caps and data throttling when you fire up your smartphone or tablet. On the wired broadband side, few people have more than a couple of choices of providers, and the backbone is controlled by a handful of companies with the potential to decide what type of content can move across their networks. Telecommunications policy can be snore-inducing, but it affects us all in what we do every day.

What prompts me to give this little lecture is a research paper by profs at the University of Florida and Notre Dame offering solid proof that when providers are allowed to favor one type of content over another -- the opposite of Net neutrality -- they have little incentive to invest.
<snip>

http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/why-the-big-carriers-wont-build-out-their-networks-179242

[Gregorian]

1. Rural users are hostages. Huges only send up so many satellites. And they oversell their bandwidth.

Ten years of experience here. I went from Directway to Hughes, and now Verizon. They all oversell their bandwidth.

Now I'm interested in moving even more rural, and as I look at not only the 3g but 4g coverage areas, I see that most of America is in a state of internet poverty. No surprise there, considering the greed that American corporations get away with.

Sad state of affairs. Shame on this country. It's like the same potential television had that wasn't lived up to. We could have been teaching everyone history, math, biology, art. But we got Green Acres and I Love Lucy.

I'm truly sick of it.

This is an area where either new technology, or spending the equivalent of four new Navy destroyers worth of money on expanding the internet infrastructure would make this a much better country.

It is a utility. People don't seem to realize that.

[Thav]

2. Why should they invest?

They're investing bare minimum to keep ahead, or pace with, competition.

I keep hearing commercials in my area for "the nation's largest 4G network!" That's great and all, can I please have 3G sometime in the next decade?

I've been on the same DSL speed for about 5 years. I ask my provider every 2 months to upgrade to a higher speed, but they don't. I don't have much of another service to choose from either. I can go on EDGE cell service, or to an incredibly oversold cable network. That's about it.

Why on earth would they upgrade in this area? We don't make enough noise to get heard, and they've already got all the copper in the ground. All the costs are paid, and it's pure profit here.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Renew Deal.

[Old and In the Way]

4. The infrastructure should be treated as a national utility.

Paid by our taxes, with measurable connections and bandwidth per capita objectives, set by Congress. The goal should be the world's best and fastest internet delivering as much bandwidth as we can possible consume. We did this with our national road system and we can do an internet infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we pay today. No one cares about the pipes....everyone cares about the content. Having multiple private corporations deciding what to build, where to build, using different standards is ridiculous. But no, we need to allow ourselves to get soaked by private corporations who will eventually decide what information we can and cannot access.