Why Isn't Good Cheap Internet Available Everywhere?

[harllee]

With more people working from home and schools going online fast internet is a necessity. At my house the only fast internet I can get is Spectrum and it costs $70 per month. There is a chunk of my county that has no fast internet available at all. People use to go to the public library for internet but it is closed.

Other countries have better cheaper internet. Why isn't there fast inexpensive internet available everywhere in the U.S.?

Will the StarLink satellites help?

 

[jimbee]

Because internet companies make more money with the status quo.

 

[RobbieB]

I pay $68/mo.

Nobody is going to be in any quick hurry to run fiber out to the hinterlands. Nobody that expects any kind of return on investment.

 

[Gumby]

I think that it would be a good thing for the government to help bring high-speed internet to rural America - perhaps a modern successor to the Rural Electrification Administration and rural electric co-ops that brought electricity to the farms and mountains of this country. It is just not economically viable for the current commercial providers to do it.

 

[UnrealizedPotential]

Because most things are run in this country by companies whose goal it is to make a profit. They can't do that if they give you a reasonable deal on maybe their biggest money maker, which is the internet. I think they could if they wanted to, but why would they want to? They are greedy with no incentive to help us. Other countries have things run by the government whose goal it is to provide a service to the people, or such countries who provide the internet are heavily regulated by the government to keep prices in check.

In addition to all that, a lot of countries can't afford to pay too much for the internet as wages are lower, so naturally prices are lower including the internet. It might seem cheaper to you and I to only pay $20 for the internet, but when you make only $500 a month, it isn't cheap, and a lot of countries have monthly average pay lower than $500.

I think it costs a lot of money to run the infrastructure to rural areas in America for the internet. They probably only concentrate on areas where there is higher demand for the internet. Again, it comes down to money.

 

[AreWeThereYet0]

I agree with everyone else. It is the same reason so many areas don't have trains or good mass transit. If you don't leave in a major metropolitan area your options will become more limited.

 

[REWahoo]

I think that it would be a good thing for the government to help bring high-speed internet to rural America - perhaps a modern successor to the Rural Electrification Administration and rural electric co-ops that brought electricity to the farms and mountains of this country. It is just not economically viable for the current commercial providers to do it.

^ This, absolutely.

Our local Rural Electrification Co-op, after several years of pleading from many of their 30,000 members, did exactly this - started stringing fiber internet service to their customers. Thankfully the Co-op management finally realized it was a matter of self-preservation.

A quote from the Co-op CEO:

It's not about making money. You're not doing this to make money. You're doing this to allow your communities to survive and to be here 20 years from now.

The program is in its third year and has over 6,000 members using the service. They expect an additional 1,600 or more by year end and have a goal of having the service available to more than 80% of the entire membership by the end of 2023.

We got hooked up a little over a year ago and after having slow and unreliable internet service for the first 20 years we lived out here, we couldn't be happier.

EDIT: The cost of the service is $40/mo for the basic 25 Mbps package, with no cap. Most people I know have the $60/mo 75 Mbps package.

 

[aja8888]

I think that it would be a good thing for the government to help bring high-speed internet to rural America - perhaps a modern successor to the Rural Electrification Administration and rural electric co-ops that brought electricity to the farms and mountains of this country. It is just not economically viable for the current commercial providers to do it.

I take this as a joke, right?

 

[REWahoo]

I take this as a joke, right?

No, the proposal actually works. See the post just prior to yours.

 

[Ronstar]

In many cases, providing internet is not as simple as running wires. We have high speed internet through Comcast. Friends 2 blocks away do not. They asked Comcast to connect them to high speed internet. They were told that it would cost more than $100k to provide them with internet. Apparently we are at the end of the line where something more robust needs to be done than just run a cable.

 

[zinger1457]

I take this as a joke, right?

Won't be a joke when schools try to open this fall, sounds like some grade schools and colleges are planning to start with online classes. What happens to those students that don't have the needed Internet access?

 

[aja8888]

No, the proposal actually works. See the post just prior to yours.

He mentioned a government run program, you said Co-op. Co-op are organizations that can get things done efficiently and timely. If the government that we have now was to task this, it may be decades before anything go done and the cost probably would be outrageous.

 

[harllee]

We are in our mountain cabin in the NC mountains right now, way up a mountain road and we have excellent cable internet here, cheaper than the internet at our main home in the middle of a town. I asked why the internet here is so good and I was told it was because of tourism. Many of these homes are rented to tourists and they could not be rented without good internet. Evidently years ago the local businesses, real estate agents, etc. got to together to get cable internet brought here.

 

[REWahoo]

He mentioned a government run program, you said Co-op. Co-op are organizations that can get things done efficiently and timely. If the government that we have now was to task this, it may be decades before anything go done and the cost probably would be outrageous.

These co-ops are the same organizations the govt created in the 30's to electrify rural America. I think if they were provided some govt funding they could "internetify" their service area as our co-op has done, hopefully significantly faster than the 10 or so years it took to get it done here.

 

[travelover]

Even DSL would be an improvement over what exists in many areas and phone lines are strung just about everywhere.

 

[cathy63]

Planet Money did a story on this not too long ago. You can read/listen to it here: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/865908114

To summarize, the town of Wilson NC successfully created its own high speed Internet service after Time Warner refused to provide it, even though the town offered to build and provide the infrastructure for them. Once Wilson succeeded in their project, NC passed a "Level Playing Field" law that prevented any other city from doing the same.

Other states, like UT and LA, have passed almost identical laws written by the same lobbyists. Basically any time a local government thinks about getting into the Internet business, the big guys come in and argue that this is unfair competition, even though they have no intention of ever entering the market in these areas. I don't see how government would be able to fund co-ops to provide better Internet without getting tied up in court for at least a decade.

I hope that Starlink will help, and I have signed up to get notified when it's available, even though it probably won't be in my area (too far south) for several years.

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

5G offers some possibilities, but it's mainly in the urban areas.

 

[Sojourner]

Other countries have better cheaper internet. Why isn't there fast inexpensive internet available everywhere in the U.S.?

Reminds me of another age-old question: "Other countries have better, cheaper healthcare. Why isn't there good, inexpensive healthcare available everywhere in the U.S.?"

Consider South Korea...

The South Korean healthcare system is run by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and is free to all citizens at the point of delivery. The system is funded by a compulsory National Health Insurance Scheme that covers 97% of the population.

The average South Korean can choose between three major private internet providers—SKT, KT and LG U+— and pay less than $30 a month for the fastest internet in the world. That’s $17 less than what the average American pays for a much slower internet hookup. But why? How is it possible that the citizens of the last developed democracy have a faster and more affordable internet than Americans? The simple answer to this question is that in the 1990s South Koreans decided that their country needed a fast and affordable internet provided by a vibrant private sector, and there was the political willingness, and a national plan, to achieve that goal.

 

[MuirWannabe]

Reminds me of another age-old question: "Other countries have better, cheaper healthcare. Why isn't there good, inexpensive healthcare available everywhere in the U.S.?"...

I guess cause our federal government hardly spends any money here in the US. They are too frugal.

 

[jollystomper]

I always find it interesting about the various programs and policies that are kicked around to improve opportunities for the poor and less fortunate, particularly children.

Once me and several friends, all of different ethnic, racial and political backgrounds, had a discussion about this. One of the things we all agreed on: these days, information, and access to information, is powerful. And a simple step that might go a long way to provide that "power" to everyone would be to make access to the internet free, for every household in the U.S.

We all acknowledged how to pay for the building and ongoing maintenance of this infrastructure would make for an interesting debate. For example, like many other things, free below a certain income level, with a sliding scale to a maximum income level. But maybe, in the "new normal" where "study at home" will become more important, it may be something to consider.

 

[Gumby]

He mentioned a government run program, you said Co-op. Co-op are organizations that can get things done efficiently and timely. If the government that we have now was to task this, it may be decades before anything go done and the cost probably would be outrageous.

The federal government didn't do the work. Rather, the REA made long term, low interest loans to member owned rural electric cooperatives and the co-ops did the work. This article gives a good overview - https://eh.net/encyclopedia/rural-electrification-administration/

The R.E.A. was essentially a government-financing agency providing subsidized loans to private companies, public agencies, or cooperatives for the construction of electrical supply infrastructure in rural regions. The loans were guaranteed by the federal government and had an attractive interest rate and a generous repayment schedule of twenty-five years. The interest rate initially matched the federal funds rate when the loan was executed, but after 1944 the rate was fixed at two percent (Joskow and Schmalensee, 1983, p. 17). R.E.A. loans furnished the incentive for rural electric cooperatives to form and connect to the existing electrical network at rates comparable to the national average. R.E.A. cooperatives quickly became one of the largest capital investment projects of the New Deal, and low-cost financing for construction of electrical supply infrastructure was the key provision of the program (Brown, 1980, p 41).

 

[Amethyst]

https://www.governing.com/news/head...fighting-states-over-municipal-broadband.html

U.S. municipalities have tried many times to set up their own cheap, fast broadband internet, where customer service is right there in town. Commercial ISPs, and sometimes even states, put roadblocks in their way. Money, money, money.

EDIT: I now see where cathy63 already posted a better article and explanation.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

With CableCos losing TV subs, they are raising Internet prices. Most are also providing higher speeds but the lowest tier price has increased for most to at least $50 unless a lot of competition. Hopefully as 5G spreads and when Starlink comes online, it will keep other ISP pricing (and data caps) in check. Starlink has a chance to have national rural coverage including extreme remote areas that have no/weak cell service.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

Planet Money did a story on this not too long ago. You can read/listen to it here: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/865908114

To summarize, the town of Wilson NC successfully created its own high speed Internet service after Time Warner refused to provide it, even though the town offered to build and provide the infrastructure for them. Once Wilson succeeded in their project, NC passed a "Level Playing Field" law that prevented any other city from doing the same.

Other states, like UT and LA, have passed almost identical laws written by the same lobbyists. Basically any time a local government thinks about getting into the Internet business, the big guys come in and argue that this is unfair competition, even though they have no intention of ever entering the market in these areas. I don't see how government would be able to fund co-ops to provide better Internet without getting tied up in court for at least a decade.

I hope that Starlink will help, and I have signed up to get notified when it's available, even though it probably won't be in my area (too far south) for several years.

Another model is the North Kansas City hybrid model. They built their own fiber network back in 2006 with casino money, free to residents and eventually upgraded to free Gigabit but they were terrible as an ISP operator and it almost failed. They chose a local ISP to operate the service while city still owns the fiber. The ISP agreed to maintain free Gigabit (after $300 activation fee) and take all profits from commercial service, sold at market rate. I think the city also pays the ISP a fairly small amount yearly to help maintain the fiber.

Another model is Huntsville. They built their own fiber and allows any ISP to setup their own equipment to operate (Google Fiber uses it). West Des Moines is another model where the city runs/maintains conduit for fiber but any ISP runs their own fiber/equipment (Google Fiber recently signed up).

 

[target2019]

With more people working from home and schools going online fast internet is a necessity. At my house the only fast internet I can get is Spectrum and it costs $70 per month. There is a chunk of my county that has no fast internet available at all. People use to go to the public library for internet but it is closed.

Other countries have better cheaper internet. Why isn't there fast inexpensive internet available everywhere in the U.S.?

Will the StarLink satellites help?

1. Why Isn't Good Cheap Internet Available Everywhere?
The answers are political. Here, in a SJ suburb of Phila. we were all to get FIOS as an option to Comcast cable and copper. But the politicians took their foot off the neck of Verizon. There followed a slowdown of fibre-buildout to challenge the Concast monopoly. Eventually the really wealthy developments did get FIOS, though. Such surprise.

2. I'm not sure what other countries pay, but it looks like the U.S. is not a leader in mobile or broadband speeds.
https://www.speedtest.net/global-index
We are doing ok with DOWNLOAD just under 90 Mbps and UPLOAD about 6.0 Mbps. Cost about $65 plus fees each month.

3. Starlink will probably be targeted at wealthier customers who purchase added packages. Just a guess.