commentaries

Blame the providers. We have the technology, but they want the profits. No competition for high speed means no incentive for them to provide.

Not sure how the cable companies get around the anti-trust laws. There is no competition, the consumers pay whatever the cable company feels like charging at this point.

I agree that we need more competition. However, the slower speeds may actually spur innovation, because developers must figure out how to work with a smaller pipeline, which in turn can allow it to be used on more platforms. Would compression technology of digital and video files exist if storage had been infinite and cheap?

Sure seems like there is an opportunity for real high speed internet service in the US market. Kinda makes ya wonder why no one has stepped up to fill the niche.

Sorry, profits are the only priority in America. And only a handful (like 1% or something) of people enjoy the benefit of everyone's hard work.

"Unless we act, new ideas for using such networks will come from those countries - not the U.S."------------------Yeah...so?

You will pay for speed. It is tiered pricing now. 10 meg is 60/month. 50 meg is 100. Why does a home need 1 giga speed? To watch live video of "American idol"? And there is only 1 company that delivers cable to my house. Why on earth would offer anything that I may not buy? No profit for them.

There is a simple law that we could create that would open up competition like never before...just allow all cable/satellite/internet companies to use the established infrastructure (cables/satellites) for a reasonable price. Imagine if a new cable company could just pop-up without having to lay cables and use an existing cable line (put in place by a company like Comcast), for a nominal fee (so Comcast still makes money for creating the infrastructure). Competition would be fantastic if we only allowed some basic free use with existing infrastructure.

This interesting and probably accurate analysis of why U.S. internet access is so much slower than in other developed countries, yet much more expensive, is bewilderingly short of solutions or even recommendations. The headline says the U.S. "needs fair rules," but the article provides little hint as to what those rules might be, or how we might move forward to implement them. The fact is, as long as there is a revolving door for those who hold positions of power in the cable and telecommunications industries, and those who in theory regulate these monopolies, Americans will continue to pay more, for less. When Federal Communications Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker went to work for Comcast, just four months after she voted to approve the merger of Comcast and NBC, some Americans were shocked. They were the ones who hadn't been paying attention.

So Gandalf, if GM invents a new engine, they should share it with Ford because...you know...that would be better? Fact is the companies who have built that infrastructure spent billions to do it and send millions to maintain it. The companies that create the programming, like sports networks, pay lots of money to bring that programming to the air. And it should all be given away for free? Content is not free. The cable strung up on the poles is not free. As for the complaints that there's a monopoly going on, you need to read what a monopoly is. In Mpls I can get Comcast, I can get city WIFI,I can get Clearwire, I can get Centurylink, I can any number of dialup services. Plenty of choices.