Nov 3 2007
07:42 am
By: WhitesCreek

The pervasive aquiescence to Corporate monopolies is really messin' up this country and taking Roane County with it.

"In South Korea, for instance, the average apartment can get an Internet connection that's 15 times faster than a typical U.S. connection. In Paris, a "triple play" of TV, phone and broadband service costs less than half of what it does in the U.S."

Broadband Internet will supercede all other forms of communication in the next few years except where it is purposefully held back by monopolistic greed.

Read More

This is an interesting topic.

I've been told of my ignorance of internet speeds, although I used what are called high speed or broadband connections all the time. At my house, I haven't seen anything lower than 2.9Mbps at really busy times - like Friday nights, Saturdays, etc. It ranged from 3 - 6 or 7 Mbps on cable. I wonder how AT&T can tell me they're faster, which they recently tried to do, just because they guarantee 1.5Mbps... ah well.

But anyway... I've been looking at this issue. A quick travel to the Internet Traffic Report site (link...) will show that at the moment I type, the slowest overall place in the world is South America, followed by Asia, followed by Europe, then Australia, then North America, as the place with the best index of internet performance. The index number deals with response time in ms and packet loss in %.

I remember being in Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh City) a few years ago, and overall speed AND connection speed was not as good as when I used to use a 33K dial-up modem. This was in a hotel that provided it as a premium, pay as you go service. It was the same in an internet cafe down the street. It was a bit faster in Hong Kong.

This site (link...) has some interesting metrics on big providers involving latency, network availability, and packet loss.

I found a website talking about how great the internet was in Seoul, South Korea. Speed was 8Mbps. Faster than mine, but not by much. And if I want to pay for it, I can get it faster than that. For the websites I visit and the demands I make of the web, I can't justify it. Another issue in S Korea that we can't always relate directly to us in rural Ea TN is the density of population in the most wired parts of that country. Population density is a key element of economy of numbers in deciding to spend serious bucks on infrastructure.

In looking specifically at the vaunted wonder of the internet in S Korea, I found the following quotation that seems germane: "What would you say if I told you that there was a nation that was at the forefront of technology, an early adopter of ecommerce, leading the world in 3G mobile adoption, in wireless broadband, in wired broadband adoption, as well as in citizen-driven media. Sounds like an amazing place, right? Technology utopia?


This nation is also a unique monoculture where 99.9% of all the computer users are on Microsoft Windows. This nation is a place where Apple Macintosh users cannot bank online, make any purchases online, or interact with any of the nation's e-government sites online. In fact, Linux users, Mozilla Firefox users and Opera users are also banned from any of these types of transactions because all encrypted communications online in this nation must be done with Active X controls.

Where is this nation?

South Korea." See further on this at: (link...)

So, while we call for competition to improve things here, the paradox is that prohibition of competition is one of the things that has enables this utopia of bandwidth and internet technology to come into being in S Korea. Comparing the wonders of the internet in S Korea to what is happening in the US is an apples to oranges comparison.

Here is a site talking about their fees:
(scroll down a bit) TO give a perspective on cost, the S Korean won has averaged being slightly higher than 900 won/1 American dollar.


Bottom line:

It's more than the evil corporate world that makes the difference between places like S Korea and the US. It's more complex than that by a long shot.


Let's see, what can I use to

Let's see, what can I use to illustrate my claim of corporate aquiesence preventing the spread of broadband service...Hmmm? How about the fact that, from the office I just moved out of, I can see the cable on the power poles maybe 200 feet away but the cable company refuses to give me access because it isn't in their contract with the County.

We have a situation where Corporate entities have full time paid staff gaming our elected officials and nobody is looking out for us. Had America left everything to the "Free Market", which in fact simply doesn't exist, rural America would still not have electrical power.

Simply stated, I propose something like the Rural Electric Co-Operatives to bring high speed internet to everyone in America. Otherwise the lucrative markets will be served and the rest of us will be left in the dark.

I can't diasgree with your "gripe" about...

... them being unwilling to let you on the system.

Yet it still seems - to me at least - that it is an oversimplification to simply blame corporate greed because we're not like S Korea - or somewhere else - in having high speed internet. It's more complex than that, as the information I found illustrates. So Korea, for instance, pays for ther privileges of high speed connection in the limitations placed on them - limitations which are, I imagine, greater than the limitations Amurkans would want to bear.

But even if their internet speed is so wonderful, how are the technical measurements shown on such sites as I gave links to supporting the claim of their immense superiority?

How would one/we, etc go about setting up such internet connection cooperatives in the mode of the electrical coops you mention?


It's really not a question of what I understand about business.

I make neither the rules that govern nor the policies of the cable companies. It's not my logic. Cable companies set up their own policies based on what they perceive as how they can make their money. Obviously they make money by selling subscriptions. Are you trying to say there is a cable outside your office, you have asked for a drop so that you may subscribe, and they refuse? If so, on what grounds did they refuse?

Cable companies are a complex deal. On the one hand, the people who own and run a company have certain rights to make their own policies and decide generally how they will run their business and to whom they will market their goods. On the other hand, because of public utility and communications rules and regulations, they are not completely as free as they would be if they were in a different business. The complexity of their business is exactly why there are lawyers and whole huge law firms dealing exclusively in communications law.

Without knowing specifics of your problem, anonymous, I can hardly comment further, except to say that GENERALLY SPEAKING cable companies tend not to spend the money to run cable and signal amplifiers way out into areas that will not have enough subscribers to make them a profit on their investment in infrastructure. How they and the legal eagles handle the details other than that is not in my hands. But what I just stated is a general rule of practice based simply on the laws of supply and demand, and return on investment.


We had a similar situation

We had a similar situation at our office. Cable service was few hundred feet away, but they were very resistant to extending it to our office. They finally agreed to do it if we would sign a service agreement, I think it was 2 or 3 years.

And this was not in a rural area. It's in a densely built office park in Knoxville, close-in west side. It's not a new park either, it was built out in the 1980s.

So it does happen.

In this case, my office is

In this case, my office is on a side road. Even though the distance would be short, the cable company says they don't serve my road and that's that.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid / TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.