America Has worse internet speeds than Bulgaria

Be careful that network might be as glorious as the post office or a typical HUD apartment.

 

You know, competition is NOT always best, and the Post Office is an awesome, efficient organization that pays for itself. And Social Security is fully funded to pay all benefits through 2042 without any changes.

 

While I agree with your last statement, telecoms make money hand over fist. They don't need tax money gifted to them for expansion into rural areas. They could easily afford doing that on their own nowadays.

 

That's because the greedy corporate entities have sucked up all the bandwidth for themselves. They confiscated our "free" internet for themselves and we're left with the leftovers. Pretty soon they'll completely confiscate it for themselves and the public will just have to suck wind.

 

I didn't mention SS, but that is debateable. The inputs of future tax revenues and how many new applicants are assumed. It also can't account for an emergency, like say a huge conflict with Iran.

 

I am not sure if you missed what I said earlier, the majors arent taking these grants, it is small rural telecom businesses that only exist because of government grant money and often a wireline infrastrucure business they run in tandem. And no, carriers cannot afford to build in very remote areas with little population. Building in remote areas is infinitely more expensive. First, the terrain is usually a nightmare, which means you need more engineering work, more cell towers. You have to pay to ship equipment into rough areas which is very expensive. You have to pay to have engineers visit the site, design the site, in a remote area. And after you spent all this money covering this remote area, you only have maybe 5 to 50 thousand people who will use your service. It is not equitable, you could never get out of the red in many of these rural areas, and you would have to raise the prices on the rest of the country to make it work. If you choose to live out in such a remote area, you have to accept that you aren't going to get 4G speeds at the same time as the rest of the country. You will have to live with your 2G for a while. That is just the reality.

 

I realize that you don't know much about the whole affair, but what Leffe was talking about is a pretty big issue down here in Europe.

We are in the process of eliminating borders on the ground, but the providers were erecting them in the sky.

If I would be in the Northern part of Belgium, near the border -- and would call my friend who would be standing 100m down the street (in Belgium) -- I'd be paying x-amount/minute (e.g. €0,15). If my friend would be standing 150m down the street (in the Netherlands) I'd be paying y-amount/minute (e.g. €2). => Hello?

That's not a service, but a rip-off.

 

I'm sure they'll find a way to blame it on government. They always do.

 

Question for Americans:

Is it true, y'all don't have a povider that runs nationwide, e.g. for mobile use? Do you have the same provider for your mobile in e.g. Florida, Kentucky, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, etc. Or does your mobile switch from provider?

 

I'm saying that the major telecoms could afford to expand to these areas if they wanted to. They make enough money in urban areas that it wouldn't cost them much compared to the profits they make in big cities.

Time Warner Cable makes a ton of money in NC. They can easily afford to expand into rural areas if they want to. I understand why they don't, but it's not because it's that expensive. It is expensive for smaller providers when looking at their revenue, but I actually agree with you in that no subsidies should be given to businesses for the sake of creating infrastructure in rural areas.

It makes far more sense for a small municipality to erect its own public ISP instead, but that's no longer even allowed in about 30 states now, due to lobbyism by the major providers.

 

@ the leftist toadies lamenting how slow our internet in the US is, what with these socialist countries providing far better service, and at lower prices, to boot!

You know nothing.

It's all well and good that smaller countries can cover small ground using systems that were researched and refined elsewhere. They get to install tried and tested broadband systems utilizing a state-of-the-art network that doesn't have to be layered over a prior 3G (or POT line) network. They didn't have to pay for the R&D to provide such systems to the consumer. They don't have hundreds of miles of low-population ground to cover with said networks.

Many places that have ultra-high speed connectivity don't even have running water in the same places. Why? Because nothing has been spent there before. And how many places have incredible high demands on their networks, as does the US? H.264 compression due to surveillance systems, or on demand viewing?

You know nothing.

If you want socialism, move there. **** of our country. The US provided internet for the rest of the world, and you're busy babbling about how superior yours is. How focking arrogant and ignorant you are.

 

Lets not be ridiculous, it the difference between an international call and local call. It is too bad it is that expensive, but it is not an uncommon problem. Who knows what the reason for these specific high connection fees.

 

There are multiple providers that overlap across the country when it comes to cell service, although some areas are dominated by one provider in terms of the towers available. Verizon dominates a lot of NYC, for example.

 

Hey, we even pay for the majority of medical research too, since apparently, we didn't get the memo that, when all of your trading partners socialize and you don't, you pay the difference.

So yeah, we're suckers.

 

All of the 4 major carriers are nationwide. Every network has some areas they do not cover however, with roaming agreements from other carriers, most the entire nation is covered. Even small regional carriers like Metro PCS will have roaming agreements nationwide.

 

The reason is because they can. Prices reflect whatever the market bears, so it's really just whatever consumers put up with.

Americans put up with a lot when it comes to telecoms.

 

Maybe we should have just ONE provider of services huh? Maybe that will fix it. "Too big to fail" kinda thing.

 

I think a better idea would just be South Korea's model. Socialize the infrastructure, privatize the providers.

That way, any number of providers can enter the market.

 

Sorry, but you are talking out of your neck...

Example, Belgian company of "Telenet" -- created by the government -- and sold last week to an American group (LibertyGlobal), who probably is going to suck all the technology out of it for sure. The sale caused quite a frenzy down here...

European companies are on the fore-front when it comes down to tele-communication services.

Telenet is being sold for $2,5 billion (50% of shares) -- it was created by the Flemish government to boost competition, and the scheme worked: better service, lower prices.

 

Yes I know what your opinion is and I am telling you that I work in this industry and I am telling you that any major carrier can not afford to build in every remote area and make money. I have managed a network build in rural Texas, and I know the cost of building rural networks, it is substantial. Now most carriers have 2G coverage in remote areas. That is not any good for Smartphone but anyone can have a cheap 30 dollar cell phone plan and talk/text. It is not however reasonable to roll out 4G speeds into remote areas with the rest of the country. Like I mentioned before, these carriers spent tens of billions at government auction to acquire new spectrum and to build new infrastructure. That has made these carriers a lot more cash poor than you think. It would cost many billions more to roll out into rural areas and they dont have the capital and on top of that there isn't a decent return on investment, therefore it makes no logical sense.

Now what Verizon is doing is actually pretty neat. They started a rural 4G LTE program and they are letting small rural landline telephone companies lease their wireless spectrum and use their brand name and build out the network in their coverage areas. This allows Verizon not to have to put up the capital up front, but get those people the speeds they want and have the benefit of being with a nationwide carrier. Once the network is built, the rural phone company can offer Verizon's services in their area and split the revenues with Verizon for building the network. This is only happening in a couple dozen rural areas vs the thousands that are in the country, but it was a smart idea to get 4G speeds to some of these rural areas in a much faster manner.

 

Having to look outside the US for internet service indicates failure of the system we have here if you asked me. Maybe somebody should just bomb us into submission...like we do? But I digress..
I think the "too big to fail" concept is more in line with our current mentality.

 

...

In Belgium a lot of the previously state companies, e.g. Belgacom, Electrabel, etc... are "private companies with a public character".

The state gives them x-amount of money for doing this, and doing that. If they can't make it happen, they just get less money and get fined -- which isn't good for the company, and the rest of the shareholders. It works.

 

That doesn't mean we're suckers. It means we're leaders, and we pay a price for our own freedom.

Even if there are forces that suppress that even here.

 

What does this have to do with the topic?

OP was discussing Bulgaria. Yours is another off-topic point.

So you say. It has nothing to do with my post.

 

This guy gets it.

Please name a country the size of the US which provides superior service - and we can talk about how and why.

It will be a short conversation.