Why Your Phone, Cable & Internet Bills Cost So Much | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-phone-cable-internet-bills-cost-much-130914030.html)



The U.S. has fallen behind much of the Western world when it comes to phone, cable and Internet service. Americans actually pay much more for inferior service compared to their global counterparts.

In his new book, The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use 'Plain English' to Rob You Blind, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Cay Johnston highlights these astounding facts:

•Americans pay four times as much as the French for an Internet triple-play package—phone, cable TV and Internet—at an average of $160 per month versus $38 per month.
•The French get global free calling and worldwide live television. Their Internet is also 10 times faster at downloading information and 20 times faster uploading it.
•America has gone from #1 in Internet speed (when we invented it) to 29th in the world and falling.
•Bulgaria is among the countries with faster Internet service.
•Americans pay 38 times as much as the Japanese for Internet data.
Since the mid-1970's when Ma Bell was cited as holding a monopoly over phone service, Americans have been told more competition would lower their phone bill. But the promise of lower prices has actually led to higher prices, says Johnston.

In his book, he tells of a woman who in 1984 paid $9.51 for her local phone service. He writes:

"By 2003 her bill had swollen fourfold to $38.90. In the two decades since the breakup of the AT&T monopoly, even after adjusting for inflation, [her] telephone cost $2.30 for each dollar paid in 1984. And that was without any charges for long-distance calls."

Not only have prices increased, phone service providers now charge fees for everything, including options that used to be free, such as directory service. Bills have also become increasingly complicated. A poll of 1,000 people found that only three people actually knew how to read their statement. That means virtually no one understands their phone bill in its entirety.

Of cable service Johnston writes:

"Since 1995, average cable prices have been rising 2.6 times faster than the cost of living, reaching an average of almost $53 a month for basic, no frill service in 2009, FCC reports show....

According to SNL Kagan, a market research firm, the average cable bill in 2011 was $78, almost double the price of $40 in 2001 and significantly higher than the FCC figure.

How did this happen?

"The telecos got the rules changed while we weren't watching," says Johnston in the accompanying interview. Basically, the phone and cable companies lobbied Washington to change laws and regulations to favor their business over their customers.

And remember the so-called "Information Superhighway"?

Over the course of the last 20 years, nearly $500 billion has been collected by the telecom companies to (allegedly) bring America into the 21st century with an "Information Superhighway," says Johnston. That works out ot $3,000 per household to have access to high-speed Internet.

But America did not get what it was promised and much of the country will never get fiber optic lines, Johnston tells The Daily Ticker. And even in cities that do have the faster service, the service is not always accessible.

"This is terrible for commerce and our economic future," says Johnston, adding that our global competitors are investing in the proper infrastructure.

"The companies essentially have a business model that is antithetical to economic growth," he says. "Profits go up if they can provide slow Internet at super high prices."

The relationship between phone and cable providers has essentially become a cartel, says Johnston, who cites the relationship between Verizon and Comcast.


Verizon announced in 2008 that it would stop building out its FiOS (fiber-optic system) once it reaches about 16 million of America's 100 million households....

Instead, it has made deals with Comcast to sell its services using Comcast cables. Verizon said it anticipates similar deals with other cable providers to sell of their systems.

In terms of phone service, what America really got was a duopoly, says Johnston, noting that AT&T and Verizon control 60% of phone service in America.

lack of regulation and price controls in the US

The US is freaking huge in terms of land area and nobody seems to want to front the cash to build new infrastructure/lay down newer, faster lines, except maybe in highly populated areas.

Also, I'm pretty sure that sometime in the early 1990s, cable was deregulated, meaning they can literally charge whatever they want and the government won't step in to stop them. It's all about profit.

Furthermore, a lot of cable/internet companies are now either affiliated with or owned by big movie studios and/or the broadcast networks, and we all know how greedy they are. If you ask me, movie studios owning entire cable companies (or vice versa) shouldn't be allowed, but it's probably too late to change it now.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they're keeping internet slow on purpose in some twisted effort to stop piracy, despite the fact that that's a really dumb strategy.

I saw an article about this the other day and experienced it first hand when i was putting together our household bills. I sorted them in an excel spreadsheet by the highest amount and after our mortgage, car loan, and student loan payment our cell phone bill was the 4th highest monthly bill. The only exception was 1 electric bill this summer that was higher than anticipated.

Dont get me started on Cox, ive cancelled them and have the lowest unadvertised package on Dish now but that hasnt stopped my cox internet cable bill for 1 meg of speed doubling in price over the last 4 years. Was once 16.99 now 34.99. WTF. 1 meg....

I saw an article about this the other day and experienced it first hand when i was putting together our household bills. I sorted them in an excel spreadsheet by the highest amount and after our mortgage, car loan, and student loan payment our cell phone bill was the 4th highest monthly bill. The only exception was 1 electric bill this summer that was higher than anticipated.

Dont get me started on Cox, ive cancelled them and have the lowest unadvertised package on Dish now but that hasnt stopped my cox internet cable bill for 1 meg of speed doubling in price over the last 4 years. Was once 16.99 now 34.99. WTF. 1 meg....

Right now im getting 3 meg with AT&T for 14.99 a month. Their regular price is around 30 bucks a month for that speed so every 6 months or so I will call their retention dept and raise cane and threaten to go with Cox and they will give me 6 more months at the cheaper price.

Right now im getting 3 meg with AT&T for 14.99 a month. Their regular price is around 30 bucks a month for that speed so every 6 months or so I will call their retention dept and raise cane and threaten to go with Cox and they will give me 6 more months at the cheaper price.

I have each time they have raised it and they have given me discounts for a 6 month period of time. When the price went to 34.99 they dropped it to 26.99 for a 6 month period and went on and on about their generosity and what a good deal i was getting - i reminded them even with the discount there generosity RAISED my bill for the same EXACT service.

When we lived in edmond I was able to get ATT for internet but unfortunately where we live now cox is the only player. I've considered turning one of our phones into a mobile hotspot but even that typically would raise my bill by about the same amount.

Ive even thought about doing something like this but the data limits make me weary.

Wireless Internet Card | Broadband Modem | Cricket Wireless (http://www.mycricket.com/broadband/devices)

Data Plans | Wireless Internet Service | Cricket Wireless (http://www.mycricket.com/broadband/plans)

I have a feeling that most of our cost is eaten up trying to cover the distances created by low density sprawl. A single cell tower in France might serve the same amount of people as 10 towers here in the US.

What's even better about this -- in most states, the Telecomm industry has had laws passed to make it nearly impossible for local municipalities to start their own broadband internet service (and thus compete with them). So let's say a small-land-area city like Mustang, for example, wanted to roll out fiber to every home. The telecom PAC swoops in and gets a new law passed. The law would require that each and every piece of equipment used in a publicly-owned utility go out for a bid. Annually. The cost to bid, distribute, and possibly replace each piece of equipment, every year, would be far higher than the private utilities could offer. So the effort is quashed before it ever gets going.

This is a simple example, the real methods used are far more complex. But you can pretty much forget ever getting cheaper Internet service until these PACs and their armies of lawyers are brought to their knees.

I think people need to start looking at organizations like ALEC. Don't be deceived by the pretty wrapper, you will likely find a lot of things you won't like.....

the op has a lots of 1+2 =4 in it

Orleans, FR
population: 153,490
density: 14,470/sq mi

Norman, OK
population: 110,925
density: 541/sq mi.

Which do you think would be more expensive to provide services to?

Just a few questions for the author of the study...

When comparing the costs of the French package to the US package:
* What are the licensing/retransmission costs for the network(s) and other programming source(s) provided in the French package?
* What service tiers and/or bandwidth does the French Internet service provide?
* Are the compared services each offering comparable digital services on the video tier?
* What are the baseline/specifics behind the claim that the French "download 10 times faster and upload 20 times faster?"
* What percentage of the overall service expense is provided by direct government subsidy?
* Does *all* of France enjoy the superior pricing option, or are service tiers restricted to areas such as Paris?
* Is the phone service POTS, VOIP, or something else?
* Are there bandwidth caps in either direction?
* Does the provider supply the equipment, or is it purchased separately?

Not saying the author is wrong, but I want to make sure I'm studying an apples-to-apples comparison, not talking-point information published by someone trying to sell a book.

Supposedly, you can get free WiFi in the City of Ponca City. I think it's provided by the municipality. If WiFi were out there, why would you need to invest in laying fiber everywhere? Security? Bandwidth limits?

Supposedly, you can get free WiFi in the City of Ponca City. I think it's provided by the municipality. If WiFi were out there, why would you need to invest in laying fiber everywhere? Security? Bandwidth limits?

Nothing is free. Maybe they put an extra charge for it in Ponca City utility bills. I doubt Wi-Fi is as fast as fastest cable.

Supposedly, you can get free WiFi in the City of Ponca City. I think it's provided by the municipality. If WiFi were out there, why would you need to invest in laying fiber everywhere? Security? Bandwidth limits?

You still need lots of Wifi access points spread throughout the city and they need to be wired by fiber or cable. Its also a bandwith issue, the more users there are in a area the more access points you need.

Thought this image might be relevant to the discussion.

2679

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/399712_452169901493367_164747200_n.jpg

Thought this image might be relevant to the discussion.

2679

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/399712_452169901493367_164747200_n.jpg

Very cool. Clearly our problem is not population; it is the gross misallocation of resources.

Thought this image might be relevant to the discussion.

2679

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/399712_452169901493367_164747200_n.jpg

So I wonder what it would look like if it was the density of OKC? All of the United States and half of Europe, maybe?

So I wonder what it would look like if it was the density of OKC? All of the United States and half of Europe, maybe?

Pretty close...probably closer to 1/3 or 1/4 of Europe. Alaska is pretty damn big.

Our phone, cable and internet cost so much because . . .
We accept and embrace mediocrity.
(eg.: 2012 presidential candidates/congressional slates)
and we keep paying and voting paying and voting paying and voting . . .

It's what's known in SocioEnconoPolitico circles as the MNICBWS . . .
(MinnesotaNiceItCouldBeWorseSyndrome) and, in Atlanta as the same thing with an A.

Pretty close...probably closer to 1/3 or 1/4 of Europe. Alaska is pretty damn big.

It would take 11 Alaskas to hold the world's population if done at the density of OKC.

It would take 62% of Africa.

It would take 1.8 Europes (including all the UK, Nordic countries, and former Societ block countries).

It would take 2.4 Australias.

It would take 104 Oklahomas.

It would take 11,694 OKCs.

Now for the reason why we pay more for goods and services in the US. If OKC had the same density as Paris everyone in OKC would fit in a circle with a 1.75 mile radius around Devon Tower. A 6 mile street car line would serve the entire population and we could all get cell phone services from the same cell tower.

Orleans, FR
population: 153,490
density: 14,470/sq mi

Norman, OK
population: 110,925
density: 541/sq mi.

Which do you think would be more expensive to provide services to?

Not everything in telecom is density related. While larger, distributed networks do certainly have a cost and play a factor in the costs that we pay, they aren't the whole picture. You can only carry so much bandwidth on a given fiber loop. From what I've gleaned talking to installers and such, most of Cox's network here in the city is comprised of OC-48 loops which have about 2.5 Gbit/second. If one made the assumption that they do not oversell their bandwidth(HA!) that could handle approximately 84 households with 30 Mbit/s connections. Given that residential carriers oversubscribe, it probably handles more like 250-500 per loop.

While there's cost in burying and maintaining all that fiber, a lot of the cost is also in the switching equipment itself. If a given cable node that hooks into that fiber loop can handle at most 250 subscribers, you have to buy one of those nodes for every 250 subscribers regardless of other costs. While IANANE(I am not a network engineer) I would not be at all shocked if those nodes were anywhere from $80,000 to $120,000 per, if not more.

In a nutshell, I certainly believe that our sprawl plays a role in our telecom costs. It is not, however, the whole picture. Subscribers on a network plays a big role in scaling, too. We pay a lot more for a lot less than other countries, some of it is justified and some of it is just because we have ****ty telecom providers.

Could be worse, though. I hear horror stories from Canadians. Maybe Google's fiber venture up in KC will be successful and start some serious competition which has been lacking in our duopoly structure. I certainly am hopefully.

how long does that loop have to be in OKC (USA) to hit 250 households compared to how long the loop has to be to hit 250 households in Paris?

The density subject came up at our house last Halloween. My kids went trick-or-treating and I always remember having way more candy than they get, and getting it faster. Here is why. In our subdivision front doors are 65' apart on average. In the area I grew up front doors were 30' feet apart. I could cover the same number of houses in half the time my kids can today or hit 2X as many houses in the same amount of time. My trip probably fell in the middle, covering 25% more homes in 75% of the time. More candy, less effort.

JTF - I hope more people wake up and realize our ill advised development patterns of the past 50+ years affects far more than just road traffic. If people would simply think about the secondary, tertiary, etc effects of unabated sprawl, I think we could build some momentum toward correcting numerous issues we don't even think of as related to it - such as substandard telecom service.

But it is going to take a lot of people talking to our friends, family, neighbors, and government/business leaders and meeting with a lot of resistance at first.

I agree CaptDave - everyone should want more candy with less effort. Alas, to paraphrase Major Payne, there is plenty of resistance. We have a lot of people that make their living off of the inefficiency.

At the risk of a thread hijack...some people translate what has been referred to as "inefficiency" into "freedom." As in the freedom to live where we wish. That freedom doesn't always guarantee everyone gets high-speed Internet or 500-channel all-digital cable television on demand.

At the risk of a thread hijack...some people translate what has been referred to as "inefficiency" into "freedom." As in the freedom to live where we wish. That freedom doesn't always guarantee everyone gets high-speed Internet or 500-channel all-digital cable television on demand.

I understand that - but these same people do not want to bear the cost of that freedom. They should be responsible for their own infrastructure if they want to live miles away from other people, yet they demand the usually "evil" government provide them with water, sewer, trash collection, roads, police and fire services, etc.

If we permitted companies such as the telecom industry to maximize their service AND return on investment by focusing on areas with more population density, our level of service in specific areas would quickly rise to state of the art levels. Yet we demand they cover everyone over huge distances and that inevitably dilutes the level of service they can provide. Those that choose to live outside that service area should have to make do with whatever is available because it is their choice to reside outside the "better" area.

I understand that - but these same people do not want to bear the cost of that freedom. They should be responsible for their own infrastructure if they want to live miles away from other people, yet they demand the usually "evil" government provide them with water, sewer, trash collection, roads, police and fire services, etc.

If we permitted companies such as the telecom industry to maximize their service AND return on investment by focusing on areas with more population density, our level of service in specific areas would quickly rise to state of the art levels. Yet we demand they cover everyone over huge distances and that inevitably dilutes the level of service they can provide. Those that choose to live outside that service area should have to make do with whatever is available because it is their choice to reside outside the "better" area.

Let me provide the opposing point of view. I am one of those supposed drains on your quality of services, but certainly NOT by choice. When my family moved back here, we purposely chose a rural setting and (mistakenly) trusted our real estate agent to ensure that. Lo and behold, we are in OKC city limits and are dismayed by that. Do I have the option to avail myself of those superior services that you find so diluted because of me? No. I am limited to McLoud TelCo for land-line (don't use one anymore) and satellite television services. I wish for two things to happen here magically (but don't expect either to happen): 1) OKC to contract and put me back outside of city limits and 2) let any company that chooses to provide services to my land do so. I would happily pay a fair market rate for high-speed internet services at my residence and would understand if AT&T, Cox or any provider would charge more, but that is not an option. Both AT&T and Cox tell me they are not permitted to provide me ANY service. I wish the free market would rule in my favor on that one.

Hmmm - very interesting Dubya. I am the first to admit I am part of this issue also. For years I aspired to my own little bubble in suburbia and over the last few years have been seriously reconsidering that aspiration. I think you have seen some of my thoughts on the topic and those thoughts stem from my own awakening to the costs (and benefits) of that choice.

Honestly, I would like to see our cities revert to historical patterns of development and density. I think the advantages greatly outweigh any negatives. If that were to happen, I believe those that choose to live in the urban areas (including towns, not just large cities) would enjoy this higher level of service at a reasonable cost. Simultaneously, those that choose to live in an area such as you describe would be able to purchase comparable service to that available now, possibly at reduced cost or at least basically the same as present rates.

Unfortunately we have these rings of development around our urban areas that only serve to push the rural areas even farther away from the infrastructure required to provide that service. As we create more of these rings of cyclical development, we continually leave the middle rings to fall into disrepair - I think rather than exclusively developing greenfields, we should provide incentives for developers to revitalize these middle rings rather than extending infrastructure into even more unsustainable lengths.

Let me add this to what CaptDave said. Take the post office as an example. They are going broke trying to provide service 6 days a week to every address in America. How about if they provided 6 day service to every house within 3 miles of a post office, 4 days a week service (with a more expensive stamp) for homes 3 to 5 miles from the post office, and 1X a week service and a $2 first class stamp for homes 5 to 10 miles from the post office. Finally, no mail delivery for anyone more than 10 miles from the post office. If you want to live that far away you have to go to the post office yourself for your mail.

Do I have the option to avail myself of those superior services that you find so diluted because of me? No. I am limited to McLoud TelCo for land-line (don't use one anymore) and satellite television services.

It sounds like you live far enough way to actually pay some of the cost of living rural - part of that cost being that some services are not available at any price. Meanwhile, far flung rural subdivisions do have access to the very services you yourself are deprived of. Do you ever wonder how McLoud TelCo can afford to deliver phone service to your house but ATT can't? The answer, the state and federal governments pay them to do it and sticks the rest of us with the bill. If you truly had to pay the cost of providing phone service to you, you probably couldn't afford it.

Satellite TV is a different story since distance isn't an issue. Your DirecTV bill is probably the same as mine.

Too much good stuff to quote but here is a story about Verizon wanting to abandond rural customers - that they are required by law to provide service to at below actual cost.
http://stopthecap.com/2012/07/17/verizon-ceo-ponders-killing-off-rural-phonebroadband-service-rake-in-wireless-profits/

JTF / CaptDave: I believe y'all are right. For the record, I am happy to read all of your posts and generally agree with them. I only responded to forestall somebody breaking out the pitchforks and coming to redraw the city limits boundaries in my blood (hyperbole? yeah. overdramatic? yeah? kinda funny? I think so.).
I saw a news article somewhere (I can't remember where or how recent) that the city was actually having some debate over what services to provide to their "rural" areas. The author alluded to the recent expansion of the city limits being an attempt to actually CONTROL sprawl. I think they thought they could control it if OKC claimed and controlled the area. Of course the article also alluded to the ideas that the debate was happening because developers wanted to sprawl (is that a verb?) and the elected officials didn't really want to, but darn it, the developers sure were funding their (re-)election campaigns. What's an elected stooge to do? I don't know if that's the right way to control sprawl. I think the only way to control sprawl is to scale the services and the fees. You wanna live here? It'll cost you this much. You wanna live way out there? It'll cost you this much (more). I don't think we're on opposite sides of any of that. I think we all want OKC to be the best home for us all and that excellence has to come at a cost to those who are driving the prices up -- or not. I'd gladly be one of those who does not drive the prices up. Redraw the city limts (but with ink, not blood).

It sounds like you live far enough way to actually pay the cost of living rural - part of that cost being that some services are not available at any price. Meanwhile, far flung rural subdivisions do have access to the very services you yourself are deprived of. Do you ever wonder how McLoud TelCo can afford to deliver phone service to your house but ATT can't? The answer, the state and federal governments pay them to do it and sticks the rest of us with the bill. If you truly had to pay the cost of providing phone service to you, you probably couldn't afford it.

Satellite TV is a different story since distance isn't an issue. Your DirecTV bill is probably the same as mine.

Too much good stuff to quote but here is a story about Verizon wanting to abandond rural customers - that they are required by law to provide service to at below actual cost.
Verizon CEO Ponders Killing Off Rural Phone/Broadband Service & Rake In Wireless Profits | Stop the Cap! (http://stopthecap.com/2012/07/17/verizon-ceo-ponders-killing-off-rural-phonebroadband-service-rake-in-wireless-profits/)

To be sure, we're doing just fine without the landline and I can use satellite to get internet, too. Just haven't taken that step yet.

To be sure, we're doing just fine without the landline and I can use satellite to get internet, too. Just haven't taken that step yet.

My sister lives in rural OKC as well and she used DirectWay for several years. She said she didn't like it and recently switched to one of the little 5-users devices from Sprint. Even here in Jax, it is surprising how fast quality internet serivce drops off from the urban core. I live inside the beltway and we have 3 options for internet 1) Cable (over $100 per month), ATT DSL (too slow to watch Netflix), and Clear (I'm happy with but the wife hates). We have friends that live in remote subdivisions and all they can get are dial-up. They just assumed they live in a new subdivision so they should have access to multiple providers and fast service. It isn't until after they move that they realize they don't.

To be sure, we're doing just fine without the landline and I can use satellite to get internet, too. Just haven't taken that step yet.

Don't, it's worthless. If your cellular data speeds are good, look into a mifi/hotspot type setup. Otherwise, look into one of the local long range Wifi providers like @link. There's another one, but I can't remember their name.

Anyway, to un-derail. I totally understand your point JTF that sprawl can contribute to costs of telecom services. My point is merely that it is only part of the equation and things don't add up in the price we're paying for services rendered. A much bigger part of the problem is the monopolistic or duopolistic nature of their coverage. I just had lunch with a colleague of mine and we were discussing his bandwidth problems at a satellite office. What it boiled down to was that there was only one provider in that area and they had no incentive to provide better service. The free market can work, but only when it hasn't been rigged. Telecom is a rigged market.

I am sure telecoms look at how many customers there are to serve, the cost to serve them, how much those customers are willing to pay, and the elastity of the demand for their product. Providing internet service to 100 people living in the same building (Level) is much cheaper than providing that same service to 100 people spread across 1 sq mile (rural OKC). The problem is that the provider charges both groups the same price. This is the point Verizon was trying to make. They could drop the rural customers, lower the price for their urban customers, still make more money, and focus profits on improving the speed for their urban customers. So what is the problem with that plan? The government doesn't allow that. Keep in mind that this is the same government that made low density sprawl possible in the first place and subsidze it today with massive deficit spending.

1. It would be nearly impossible to cover much of the US with super-high speed broadband. Many are lucky to even be able to get 1.5Mbps DSL. In China, urban areas are modernized but rural areas are mostly still stick in the 19th century, no electricity and all. I say quality of life in America's rural areas is much better than many other countries, even if some conveniences such as super-high speed Internet are lacking.

2. Most Americans simply don't need 1Gbps connections so thats why there really isn't any incentive for it. If it was offered, it would be expensive to implement and likely much more expensive for the customer than 3Mbps DSL at $14.99. It simply wouldn't sell except for businesses and tech enthusiasts and possibly gamers.

1. It would be nearly impossible to cover much of the US with super-high speed broadband. Many are lucky to even be able to get 1.5Mbps DSL. In China, urban areas are modernized but rural areas are mostly still stick in the 19th century, no electricity and all. I say quality of life in America's rural areas is much better than many other countries, even if some conveniences such as super-high speed Internet are lacking.

2. Most Americans simply don't need 1Gbps connections so thats why there really isn't any incentive for it. If it was offered, it would be expensive to implement and likely much more expensive for the customer than 3Mbps DSL at $14.99. It simply wouldn't sell except for businesses and tech enthusiasts and possibly gamers.

Re China, that's not my experience. Internet connections seemed to be like electric plugs are here. I just looked it up and approximately 80% of rural China has broadband and according to this (http://www.zdnet.com/cn/china-to-step-up-broadband-development-7000004457/) they hope to improve that to 95% in 4 years. The U.S. continues to fall behind in so many areas.

Let me add this to what CaptDave said. Take the post office as an example. They are going broke trying to provide service 6 days a week to every address in America. How about if they provided 6 day service to every house within 3 miles of a post office, 4 days a week service (with a more expensive stamp) for homes 3 to 5 miles from the post office, and 1X a week service and a $2 first class stamp for homes 5 to 10 miles from the post office. Finally, no mail delivery for anyone more than 10 miles from the post office. If you want to live that far away you have to go to the post office yourself for your mail.

that would be fine .. if you designed it that way from the START .....

you can't change the rules in the middle of the game ...

USPS should go to 5 day delivery .... and/or be able to charge market rates for postage ..

2. Most Americans simply don't need 1Gbps connections so thats why there really isn't any incentive for it. If it was offered, it would be expensive to implement and likely much more expensive for the customer than 3Mbps DSL at $14.99. It simply wouldn't sell except for businesses and tech enthusiasts and possibly gamers.

While 1Gbps is overkill right now(For most, anyway), the inexorable march of tech will keep pushing the needed bandwidth. Remember when a fast cable modem was 512kbps? Also, streaming video is just going to keep growing and digital distribution is already a big thing. I imagine that the ultimate solution will be some sort of wireless as running that much fiber/cable can get expensive with the distances involved.

An old complaint I know, but how much could we save if we were allowed ala carte TV channel and phone features selection? Congress got bought off at our expense I"m sure. :mad:

Probably not as much as you think, ala carte pricing being cheaper is a fallacy. The only way that it would be possible is tired rates depending upon network and the channels most people would want to watch would command the highest rates. You could bet that you would end up paying the same or more for less, they would make sure of it.

Here is one reason the phone bill is what is. You can read the whole story if you want.

Carlos Slim, world (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/19792114/carlos-slim-worlds-richest-man-gets-richer-supplying-obamaphones-to-poor)



Griffin recently introduced a bill on Capitol Hill to end the Lifeline program, which cost $1.6 billion in 2011, up from $772 million in 2008. While not technically a tax, the program is funded by mandatory fees tacked on to consumers' phone bills, then disbursed through the Federal Communications Commission and states.



Read more: Carlos Slim, world (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/19792114/carlos-slim-worlds-richest-man-gets-richer-supplying-obamaphones-to-poor#ixzz291gRfPwC)

I think we all remember the Cleveland woman talking about her free phone. This is where that 'free' phone came from.