SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixer9es wrote on November 22, 2022 at 9:57 PM

Reply to comment by wallet535 in Should the state regulate Internet service pricing similar to utilities? by wallet535

I don't believe people are paying wildly different rates. Most people are paying +/- $30/mo for comparable service.

Our internet is internationally competitive. This is especially true when you consider the fact that the US is so huge and lacks population density. Plowing fiber in rural areas is very expensive. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars just to reach a single house.

Internet costs are the least of a poor person's concerns. Regardless, there are already govt programs that assist with internet expenditures for poor people.

We will always need more internet speed. More speed enables new technologies. Imagine if we were still stuck with 56kb internet. It'd be almost useless, even if it was free.

wallet535 OP t1_ixex7rp wrote on November 22, 2022 at 10:40 PM

I understand your opinion but am not really convinced. As one data point, my sister didn’t know how to play the game with her cable company, and as soon as she did, her bill went from like $95 to $45 for basic Internet. Mine’s like $75 for the same service from the same carrier in the next town over. These arbitrary fluctuations are nuts for a basic necessity. You said you don’t think swings of $30 are a big deal, but yeah, they are. You can quibble about speed/cost of living in the many international comparisons of Internet costs that show the US at best is average, but I think it’d be challenging to make the case that we’re leaders. I agree rural connectivity is costly and a continuing problem. Maybe 5G will help? Not an expert there but I’m open to repeating what we did to electrify rural America, and in any case I am talking about Massachusetts, a pretty dense state. If you think Internet costs aren’t a big issue for low-income neighbors, I would invite you to reconsider, because I know from family experience they can be. Hell, folks can struggle to buy food, let alone pay Internet bills. Obviously Internet speed has marched on, to great benefit, and will continue to do so, but for the use case of household Internet, speed needs are nowhere near what’s on offer now. Even the slowest plans can handle multiple highest-resolution Netflix streams, etc. Right now there’s a lot of deceptive marketing falsely claiming households will notice speeds above, say, 100/250 Mbps, meaning that faster Internet is mostly about overcharging folks for speed they don’t need.

SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixfgmz5 wrote on November 23, 2022 at 1:11 AM

The price of internet has fallen on average over the last 25 years. Yes, that's right, internet service has averaged nearly -1% inflation per year for 25 years.

Additionally, there are programs for low income households that help get internet for free or cheap (eg Affordable Connectivity Program).

So again, I disagree. While ISPs certainly aren't perfect, I think there are much bigger issues.

wallet535 OP t1_ixfjcvj wrote on November 23, 2022 at 1:33 AM

I appreciate your willingness to be like the only one in this thread to state an opposing view. I’m actually kinda surprised no one’s raised stifling innovation as an objection. I don’t have your sources but it’s plausible that Internet costs have declined over the years. But that’s not really the core question, which instead is: Have they declined as fast as they should have? Yes, the subsidies are helpful, but no, I don’t think they’re a complete solution, and yes, of course there are bigger fish to fry (e.g., climate change). Thanks again.

SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixfo89c wrote on November 23, 2022 at 2:12 AM

> Have they declined as fast as they should have?

I always find this thought experiment interesting. It's fun thinking about the path dependencies of tech and gov't policy.

In hindsight, it's quite clear to me that given where we are today with the current state of internet technology, it would have been beneficial for maximal government intervention. We'd probably have broader coverage, lower prices, and the fast speeds we're starting to see today would've been rolled out more quickly if the government just built it all itself.

But this is in hindsight, and doesn't necessarily apply to the future. It very well may be the case for the intermediate future, too, but I would generally bet on the (sort of) free market over long time horizons when it comes to things that aren't quite broken. Housing and health care and energy (for f*cks sake, can we just utilize the super high energy density of uranium already!) = badly broken. Internet = 👌🤷 pretty decent.