Why Japan Is Eating America's Lunch On Broadband


I often say, to the point where regular readers are probably banging their heads against the keyboard - right now - that the US doesn't have a lot of complicated problems. We know how to fix most of them and people who keep saying, "well, that's complicated" are either stupid (unlikely); are benefitting from the status quo or are imagining the migraine of trying to fight entrenched interests.

Broadband access is exactly the same. The US is getting its lunch eaten. As SaveTheInternet points out, they get access that is often 30x faster than the US. As a result they are experiencing innovation - and enjoying applications, that Americans simply don't get. As this WPost story says:

The speed advantage allows the Japanese to watch broadcast-quality, full-screen television over the Internet, an experience that mocks the grainy, wallet-size images Americans endure.

Ultra-high-speed applications are being rolled out for low-cost, high-definition teleconferencing, for telemedicine — which allows urban doctors to diagnose diseases from a distance — and for advanced telecommuting to help Japan meet its goal of doubling the number of people who work from home by 2010.

Oh, and all that speed - costs less too.

Now, ten years ago Japan had slower internet than the US. So they looked to the US to see how to do it - and they saw that the US had open access laws (where in the old days, companies could buy access to the lines at wholesale rates - which is why there was an ISP on every corner in the 90's) and decided they were key.

So they opened up broadband access - mandated that phone and cable lines had to be available to whoever wanted access. As SaveTheInternet points out:

If this quaint idea of “competition” seems familiar, that’s because America invented “open access” policies in the first place. And open access worked for decades to bring lower prices and more choices in long-distance phone service and dial-up Internet access.

The Japanese first adopted open access because they were worried about falling behind us. But under pressure from our own phone and cable monopolists, the Bush administration abandoned open access – and the fundamental protections for Net Neutrality along with it.

Now they’re standing idly by as America drops further and further behind the rest of the world in every measure of broadband progress.

Now here's the thing. What we're talking about is the Republican administration reducing competition. In a competitive market this wouldn't have happened. When you're dealing with a natural monopoly (and phone and cable lines are natural monopolies because driving more than one each to each home doesn't make sense) you have to legislate the market in such a way as to make sure competition exists. The free market can't do its thing if there isn't a market - and in most of the US there isn't a market. You have at best two possible suppliers. Often one. And in many areas - if you want "high" speed - none.

The modern "conservative" fallacy is that free markets means lack of government regulation. That isn't even close to what it means - what it means is a market with many actors, relatively transparent information, and no one actor or group with pricing power, whether through collusion or monopoly.

The laws that made the US resistant to this sort of bullshit have either been taken away (open access) or have been weakend by the courts (for example the recent ruling that prices all being the same wasn't prima facie evidence of price fixing, which it has been for the last, oh, over 100 years.)

When you don't have competition, with few exceptions, you don't get progress or better products. And so the US has worse broadband. It has worse wireless. It has worse (and deliberately crippled) phones. It's falling behind in the very industry it invented. All because a few gatekeeper corporations don't want to have to compete and because the Bush administration and conservative justices believe in concentration of wealth rather than progress and competition.

The US will keep falling behind as long as this remains the case. Americans like to think that they are the most technically advanced nation in the world, but except in military affairs, and perhaps biotech, that's generally not the case. The best and most advanced cars aren't made in the US. The US's trains are a joke compared to ultra-fast trains in Japan, China and Europe. The US's consumer electronics are not as good with very few exceptions. And the US is falling behind on all types of telecommunications that don't involve spying on someone.

If the US doesn't make the next technological revolution, foreigners don't need to hang onto US dollars to be ready to buy up the future. And since the US needs foreigners to subsidize American overconsumption and the overvalued dollar, that's a bad place to be. If the future isn't in America, then buying America suddenly doesn't seem like such a good deal...


Ian Welsh August 29, 2007 - 4:17pm
( categories: Analysis | Technology )

Because the US that,s the way, an internet for corporations an the rich and an internet for Joe Public and contempt for Joe Public run's deep into the political class.
They keep telling you "where number one" and Joe beleives it, Joe is stagnating but doesn't kno it.

Jelco Cathlon August 29, 2007 - 5:32pm

is all for corporate gains.
Not for advancement of technology.
In NA we are falling behind the rest of the world in technology and its cost because the corporations are more interested in profits than customer satisfaction.

repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.

kimmy August 29, 2007 - 7:31pm

and we decided to switch from building to exploiting. I guess "we" didn't really decide to make the change, but we gently led away from a path with a future.

pihwht August 29, 2007 - 8:11pm

Why upgrade your computer system when all you can get is decade-old connection speeds? Much of the nation outside of major urban areas still has only dialup available. So folks don't buy new gear--there's no reason.

The carriers that are around can and do cherry-pick their markets. If we'd done things the Bush way all along, much of the country wouldn't have electrical service or indoor plumbing.

Why is it we don't hear much about the "information superhighway" any more? Could it be because that, for much of the country, the "superhighway" is a rutted dirt road?

Petronius August 29, 2007 - 9:53pm

on the upgrades. Wonder if the manufacturers could be convinced they need to lobby against the telecom monopoly.

The parallel with sewage and electrical systems is, imo, spot on. When the private sector tried to do it it failed to provide good service everywhere and indeed even "good" service for the rich was often pretty awful. It's only when the government got involved that good sewage systems and universal power (rural electrification, in the Depression nomenclature) occured.

Ian Welsh August 29, 2007 - 10:35pm

Telephone (Verizon wants to sell of phone service here) and electricity (expensive and not very reliable). No sewer, no water lines, no gas lines, no cable, no cell phone. Satellite TV is pretty good (but expensive), satellite internet is expensive, flaky and not very fast (and can't do VOIP).

If you build rurally, it costs around $7K or more per pole to bring in electricity. Hmmm. Invest a tad more and never have a power bill? Sounds good to me.

A real shame that the "compromise" on the old TV channel frequencies was so lame. We could have had a completely open, decentralized internet.

Gordon August 30, 2007 - 12:06pm

in Oregon by selling some of my land to Qwest to set up some sort of a terminal (the guys who work on it tell me that it has the capacity for something like 25,000 copper pairs). Although I'm being sold 1.5Mbps service (the fastest offered to me), I get 1.2Mbps peak, even though I'm only 400 wire feet from the aforementioned terminal.

My friends about 3 miles to the north of me get wireless internet and mobile for far less than I pay for POTS and DSL. The tower owned by the wireless provider is actually much closer to me (I can see it from my window over on the next ridge), but their antennas aren't turned in my direction.

And I get my water out of a hole in the ground and my sewer is a septic field. No gas either. OTOH, I've got all the firewood I can burn--and buried-line 400 amp service, thanks to the local rural electrical co-op.
-----------
The point is that REA brought power out to the farms and made it possible for rural folk to enjoy indoor plumbing, not to mention hay dryers, milking machines, vacuum cleaners, television and radio, thereby selling a whole pile of goods that otherwise would have been useless to the same people.

What is someone with dialup access on the net going to do with a 1TB hard drive or advanced graphics? Might as well stick with Windows 95 on a Pentium I or an old PowerMac 7200. Email and slow web browsing is as good as it's going to get at 56K (assuming you get anywhere near that speed).

Petronius August 30, 2007 - 1:09pm

FDR looked on rural electrification as a long term investment. These jokers want proven short term ROI. (I'm about 1/2 mile from a Verizon switching station serviced by fiber optic. No DSL here though, only in a couple of the larger towns in the county.)

Gordon August 30, 2007 - 6:33pm

We are facing what the railroads did. The car shows up and the Govt builds the interstates. We need the equivalent of the car and interstate to get around the telcoms.

Having a true broadband is so beneficial to software makers, hardware makers, and content makers, it’s hard to see how just one industrial component the telecoms, have hobbled the others so effectively. The software application folks are all too aware of the hobbles owned by the few.

Just one prime example is the software folks. The holy grail of software folks is the yearly maintenance fees, or upgrade fees to keep your software up to the current version and have access to technical help. For example, instead of purchasing the complete Adobe suite of applications with its yearly maintenance fees or upgrade fees you could lease the application to run over the broadband network just like the application was sitting on your work station.

There are arguments for the application to sit on the Lan or workstation within the organization, but each computer workstation has to have some sort of license to run that software. You will pay one way or the other for legal use. From a business and IT administrative stand point, having a software application system maintained, upgraded, and unlimited use by your organization may make sense to lease the application. The downfall now is the slow net works for this to be a reality. There are arguments pro and con, each outfit would have to do the math. Then there is the argument that once you own the software you have it to drive around until the technology outruns the application, takes a few years for that to happen.

Think Wordstar.

"There are two types of folk music:
quiet folk music and loud folk music.
I play both."

Dave Alvin

Peter C August 30, 2007 - 10:21am

The old AT&T was broken up to increase competition.
Now the old AT&T has become the new AT&T through acquisitions and buyouts.
The more things change the more they stay the same.

repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.

kimmy August 30, 2007 - 5:57pm

...is that the new AT&T is vastly less-regulated and has no mission to get service to everyone who needs it.

Petronius August 30, 2007 - 6:38pm

worst of both worlds.

Ian Welsh August 30, 2007 - 9:55pm

why couldn't neighbours in rural communities put something together like they do at RV campgrounds

If those internet companies can bring service into isolated areas, then wouldn't it be worth calling and see if they could service a collection of neighbours? RV Campgrounds are often distant from urban communities. What is the technology they use ... and couldn't it be adapted to rural communities to get high speed, wireless access?

I just skimmed over costs...but it doesn't seems to me that $2,500 is prohibitively expensive split among neighbours.

canuck September 5, 2007 - 12:00pm

...is the setting up of a wireless hub with maybe 1,000 ft radius. Hooking that hub to the internet is probably a whole 'nuther question.

There is a guy locally who sets up towers and then resells DSL from the town 8 miles away. But that's all line of sight stuff. The best hope for rural America was the recent auction of unused analog broadcast TV spectrum, since that's not line of sight. But the FCC compromise doesn't seem to be enough. But engineers love a challenge, so who knows.

Gordon September 6, 2007 - 1:47pm

satellite internet becomes affordable don't you think?

And I do think all computer-related stuff is dropping in price. I paid almost $2000 for my laptop that died just before we went on our sailing holiday. Repairing it wasn't an option because laptops become obsolete in 18 months. The manufacturer wanted $561 to repair it, but new high-quality laptops sell for less than $1000 (especially in the States) where competiton is keen that drives prices down. The really good news for me was my mother, the shop-a-holic, started a new collection by buying a Dell laptop one month ago. She decided a more expensive one was to her liking and I asked for the one previously purchased. Not only did she give that to me, but threw in the quality printer she'd purchased. "Eureka!" ... I really struck gold when my laptop died! :-)

I'm wondering who will get that castoff when Mom sees one that is prettier. To date, she has not used either of them, but she thinks she'd like to learn! Her gratification comes from impulse buying, not the using! My granddaughter and grandson need laptops for University, fall 2008. Will they have a selection of which ones they get? :-)

-----

Joking aside, satellite Internet opens doors previously denied to rural communities.

canuck September 9, 2007 - 3:57am

Comment viewing options

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