Wyndham Grand Weifang, China
big telecom companies are suppressing fast internet
by：EME LIGHTING
2020-03-31
The Internet is an empty concept.
The language we use to describe it helps this Ethereum: we say servers are in the \"cloud\", just as they don\'t have weight in heaven, and all of our internet access is wireless.
In fact, the Internet is no longer physical for most Americans: You are most likely reading this article through the miracle of wireless signals, whether wi-fi or cell.
However, even if the last kilometer of this article journey is done over wireless Ethernet, the rest of the path from my computer to the server to you is done via wire.
A lot of wires.
Even if we are increasingly dependent on the wireless Internet
When we fill our house with wi
Smart devices that support fi that can communicate with servers around the world
Demand for wires supporting the system has grown exponentially.
Optical fiber: The upcoming technological revolution --
Why the United States may miss it, \"we have been working on the business of these underground optical cables that make it possible for the fast internet for years.
It turns out that due to lack of competition and deregulation, the state of the Internet infrastructure in the United States is almost completely compromised by the oligopolistic telecom industry, and is hesitant to invest in their aging infrastructure.
\"This will never happen,\" Crawford told me . \".
\"We saw it with electricity.
We have seen internet access in the United States.
Crawford warned: \"This will pose a huge problem for the future, noting that politicians and the telecom industry are basically incompetent in preparing for us --
Interconnected future.
I spoke to Crawford over the phone about her new book and countless issues with the US internet infrastructure.
For clarity, the interview has been edited. Keith A.
Spencer: You use fiber to compare the situation.
The light line of electrified history.
Can you elaborate on the contrast of Susan Crawford: it was considered a luxury when electricity was still young, so, initially it was only for municipal buildings and street cars, gradually moving towards a very rich [people’s]houses.
There is a story in the book that tells the story of the richest House in San Francisco that finally got the lights.
Electricity will only enter rural areas with the help of FDR.
In the middle of the story, many locals
Thousands of cooperatives across the country
They put things in their hands, decided to get tired of the cartel, and decided to build their own power network.
We are in the age of the Internet: 800 communities and cooperatives across the country have or are building fiber optic networks.
They understand the phase transition represented by optical fiber and advanced wireless technology.
In the end, the campaign will shame the federal government in its actions.
It\'s interesting to see both gentlemen. Trump and Mr. [Newt]
\'We have to do this for our country to be competitive, \'Mr. Gingrich said.
They are right, but they may be right for the wrong reason.
They may think [they need]
Give a series of subsidies to existing status players.
This is not necessary, we know that this has led to a split of the market, incredibly high prices, and a lot of people are excluded. Now, having [internet]
It\'s as important as having clean water, electricity, or [a]sewage system —
Every American should and needs [it].
Basically, taking part in 21st century activities requires unlimited data connections . . . . . . [but]
We need more fiber.
It\'s strange that Keith, Newt Gingrich and the president are saying the same thing today.
There is a NEWSWEEK about [this week]Trump]
Talk about the needs of operators-
Neutral 5g nationwide and its importance.
To do this, you need to have fiber everywhere, and the fiber has to be open to many competitors.
It\'s interesting that Republicans like Newt Gingrich like fiber.
Tell me if this is accurate: Does Newt Gingrich think that the obstacle to the fast internet is that there is not enough competition in the market, not your criticism, left wing review, my understanding is, in the oligopolistic monopoly of telecom companies, power is too concentrated, and/or there is not enough municipal power . . . . . . This is something that should be viewed as a utility rather than as a private goodI [more regulated]Newt]
I may not know the fact that in order to have an advanced Internet, you have to have fiber all over the place, and I don\'t think he might know how oligopolistic the market is.
He just vaguely thinks we need more shared spectrum.
He is going to run up the chain into the airwaves, rather than analyzing all the basic things under it.
Say we need more 5g, never talk about fiber, like say we need more planes, who cares about the airport.
So he missed a few steps and his suggestion was that the private company would magically do it all on its own.
This will never happen.
We saw it with electricity.
We have seen internet access in the United States. Right.
Tell me more about how telecom companies can stop this shift from happening and what they are doing to keep our internet infrastructure in the US slower and worse than possible.
Decay began in 2004-
Perhaps out of light faith, perhaps out of innocence, perhaps out of calculation --then-
FCC Chairman Michael Powell
Now the head of the cable society.
Being persuaded that telecom companies will compete with cable companies, their cable modem services will compete with wireless communications companies, all of this competition will do better than any regulator in ensuring that every American has a cheap and fantastic Internet connection.
It turns out this is not true.
Since then, he has relaxed control over the whole industry.
So we get this very stagnant status quo in most urban areas --
Typically, local cable monopoly companies have a lock in the market that can charge any fee for any type of premium service they offer, leaving a lot of people . . . . . . .
Poor people, people of color in cities.
The rural situation is particularly grim.
On the radar screens of most politicians, this may not be an issue.
A few months ago, a Microsoft study said that about half to three Americans actually don\'t use even very slowly high
Internet access speed.
I believe many of them are because the price is too high. [
Editor\'s note: \"162,\" the New York Times wrote in its research report.
8 million of people do not use the Internet at broadband speeds. C. C.
Says broadband is not available 24 hours a day.
7 million Americans”]
This is the story.
This is a failure of leadership, imagination and technology.
The lack of regulation has made the situation worse, and the private market has not provided highspeed internet.
Why do so many people have only one choice in the US internet? Well, there is no supervision, and then this infrastructure is very expensive to build, so it makes sense to control the whole market so that you can monetize anything you build.
These companies have been merged and they can easily swap systems with each other by default or explicitly.
You only need background operations for a specific geographic area;
In terms of communication infrastructure and regulation, private participants usually integrate and divide the market in order to control the reasonable part for themselves and reduce their per capita incomeunit cost.
These companies are not evil.
We just let them go.
Today, we are a little in love with shareholders and profits --
Manufacturing is the only ideology we value, and it will all be solved through some magical panacea.
In terms of Internet access, this is amplified by the lack of good data on the price of Internet access and its availability at any specific location in the United States.
Without supervision
As a result, there is no competition at all-
This is what happens with a very expensive, effective natural monopoly like a communications infrastructure.
Ask a bigger ideological question, and I\'m curious about the trends in vertical integration of these telecoms companies.
Comcast, for example, owns NBC and Universal Pictures, so it makes content.
It then took part in distribution-it sold cable TV and the Internet.
Then, it also has wires underground, data through these wires.
What they are doing is building a castle and then setting up a moat around the castle --so it’s un-
There will be no start-up and competition.
So, if you\'re in Philadelphia and you want to start a competitor\'s cable system with Comcast, you may need to take part in local sports.
Comcast has all the local sports content, or it has programming that you can\'t access other than through them.
Or something you can\'t have, like Game of Thrones. So AT&T has [
Game of Thrones producer]
HBO and HBO are the main sources of new TV.
The purpose of this is to allow them to use this content as a sledgehammer.
It maintains any distribution competition in the Gulf.
Telecom startups can\'t afford to pay for the content that people have to have, except for their data connections.
Another thing that happens at the same time is that Comcast is a bit playing these two games . . . . . . So they bought Sky so they could develop exclusive content for the premium.
This is their goal.
At the same time, these days, they earn all their profits by increasing the price of data services.
They call it their connection. centric idea.
In terms of anyone else making money by sending content through Comcast\'s wires, Comcast can try to capture part of it by charging consumers for more data.
This makes senseYes.
Businessmen are always afraid, \"Oh my God ,[consumers]
Cutting off the wires means trouble for Comcast.
\"No, no, because what Comcast has to do is --
In its footprint, in the physical area where it has data connections --
Just charge more per user.
People get used to it slowly.
We cook frogs in the water.
The American public knows very little about the whole story.
I don\'t have a client, and I don\'t have a consulting relationship. My whole goal for these books is to make everyone understand what\'s going on.
Because Americans don\'t travel, you don\'t know what the third one is.
In communications, the United States is becoming a country of the world.
Susan Crawford\'s book fiber: The upcoming technological revolution-and why the United States missed it-is now published in the form of print and audiobooks from Yale University Press.
The language we use to describe it helps this Ethereum: we say servers are in the \"cloud\", just as they don\'t have weight in heaven, and all of our internet access is wireless.
In fact, the Internet is no longer physical for most Americans: You are most likely reading this article through the miracle of wireless signals, whether wi-fi or cell.
However, even if the last kilometer of this article journey is done over wireless Ethernet, the rest of the path from my computer to the server to you is done via wire.
A lot of wires.
Even if we are increasingly dependent on the wireless Internet
When we fill our house with wi
Smart devices that support fi that can communicate with servers around the world
Demand for wires supporting the system has grown exponentially.
Optical fiber: The upcoming technological revolution --
Why the United States may miss it, \"we have been working on the business of these underground optical cables that make it possible for the fast internet for years.
It turns out that due to lack of competition and deregulation, the state of the Internet infrastructure in the United States is almost completely compromised by the oligopolistic telecom industry, and is hesitant to invest in their aging infrastructure.
\"This will never happen,\" Crawford told me . \".
\"We saw it with electricity.
We have seen internet access in the United States.
Crawford warned: \"This will pose a huge problem for the future, noting that politicians and the telecom industry are basically incompetent in preparing for us --
Interconnected future.
I spoke to Crawford over the phone about her new book and countless issues with the US internet infrastructure.
For clarity, the interview has been edited. Keith A.
Spencer: You use fiber to compare the situation.
The light line of electrified history.
Can you elaborate on the contrast of Susan Crawford: it was considered a luxury when electricity was still young, so, initially it was only for municipal buildings and street cars, gradually moving towards a very rich [people’s]houses.
There is a story in the book that tells the story of the richest House in San Francisco that finally got the lights.
Electricity will only enter rural areas with the help of FDR.
In the middle of the story, many locals
Thousands of cooperatives across the country
They put things in their hands, decided to get tired of the cartel, and decided to build their own power network.
We are in the age of the Internet: 800 communities and cooperatives across the country have or are building fiber optic networks.
They understand the phase transition represented by optical fiber and advanced wireless technology.
In the end, the campaign will shame the federal government in its actions.
It\'s interesting to see both gentlemen. Trump and Mr. [Newt]
\'We have to do this for our country to be competitive, \'Mr. Gingrich said.
They are right, but they may be right for the wrong reason.
They may think [they need]
Give a series of subsidies to existing status players.
This is not necessary, we know that this has led to a split of the market, incredibly high prices, and a lot of people are excluded. Now, having [internet]
It\'s as important as having clean water, electricity, or [a]sewage system —
Every American should and needs [it].
Basically, taking part in 21st century activities requires unlimited data connections . . . . . . [but]
We need more fiber.
It\'s strange that Keith, Newt Gingrich and the president are saying the same thing today.
There is a NEWSWEEK about [this week]Trump]
Talk about the needs of operators-
Neutral 5g nationwide and its importance.
To do this, you need to have fiber everywhere, and the fiber has to be open to many competitors.
It\'s interesting that Republicans like Newt Gingrich like fiber.
Tell me if this is accurate: Does Newt Gingrich think that the obstacle to the fast internet is that there is not enough competition in the market, not your criticism, left wing review, my understanding is, in the oligopolistic monopoly of telecom companies, power is too concentrated, and/or there is not enough municipal power . . . . . . This is something that should be viewed as a utility rather than as a private goodI [more regulated]Newt]
I may not know the fact that in order to have an advanced Internet, you have to have fiber all over the place, and I don\'t think he might know how oligopolistic the market is.
He just vaguely thinks we need more shared spectrum.
He is going to run up the chain into the airwaves, rather than analyzing all the basic things under it.
Say we need more 5g, never talk about fiber, like say we need more planes, who cares about the airport.
So he missed a few steps and his suggestion was that the private company would magically do it all on its own.
This will never happen.
We saw it with electricity.
We have seen internet access in the United States. Right.
Tell me more about how telecom companies can stop this shift from happening and what they are doing to keep our internet infrastructure in the US slower and worse than possible.
Decay began in 2004-
Perhaps out of light faith, perhaps out of innocence, perhaps out of calculation --then-
FCC Chairman Michael Powell
Now the head of the cable society.
Being persuaded that telecom companies will compete with cable companies, their cable modem services will compete with wireless communications companies, all of this competition will do better than any regulator in ensuring that every American has a cheap and fantastic Internet connection.
It turns out this is not true.
Since then, he has relaxed control over the whole industry.
So we get this very stagnant status quo in most urban areas --
Typically, local cable monopoly companies have a lock in the market that can charge any fee for any type of premium service they offer, leaving a lot of people . . . . . . .
Poor people, people of color in cities.
The rural situation is particularly grim.
On the radar screens of most politicians, this may not be an issue.
A few months ago, a Microsoft study said that about half to three Americans actually don\'t use even very slowly high
Internet access speed.
I believe many of them are because the price is too high. [
Editor\'s note: \"162,\" the New York Times wrote in its research report.
8 million of people do not use the Internet at broadband speeds. C. C.
Says broadband is not available 24 hours a day.
7 million Americans”]
This is the story.
This is a failure of leadership, imagination and technology.
The lack of regulation has made the situation worse, and the private market has not provided highspeed internet.
Why do so many people have only one choice in the US internet? Well, there is no supervision, and then this infrastructure is very expensive to build, so it makes sense to control the whole market so that you can monetize anything you build.
These companies have been merged and they can easily swap systems with each other by default or explicitly.
You only need background operations for a specific geographic area;
In terms of communication infrastructure and regulation, private participants usually integrate and divide the market in order to control the reasonable part for themselves and reduce their per capita incomeunit cost.
These companies are not evil.
We just let them go.
Today, we are a little in love with shareholders and profits --
Manufacturing is the only ideology we value, and it will all be solved through some magical panacea.
In terms of Internet access, this is amplified by the lack of good data on the price of Internet access and its availability at any specific location in the United States.
Without supervision
As a result, there is no competition at all-
This is what happens with a very expensive, effective natural monopoly like a communications infrastructure.
Ask a bigger ideological question, and I\'m curious about the trends in vertical integration of these telecoms companies.
Comcast, for example, owns NBC and Universal Pictures, so it makes content.
It then took part in distribution-it sold cable TV and the Internet.
Then, it also has wires underground, data through these wires.
What they are doing is building a castle and then setting up a moat around the castle --so it’s un-
There will be no start-up and competition.
So, if you\'re in Philadelphia and you want to start a competitor\'s cable system with Comcast, you may need to take part in local sports.
Comcast has all the local sports content, or it has programming that you can\'t access other than through them.
Or something you can\'t have, like Game of Thrones. So AT&T has [
Game of Thrones producer]
HBO and HBO are the main sources of new TV.
The purpose of this is to allow them to use this content as a sledgehammer.
It maintains any distribution competition in the Gulf.
Telecom startups can\'t afford to pay for the content that people have to have, except for their data connections.
Another thing that happens at the same time is that Comcast is a bit playing these two games . . . . . . So they bought Sky so they could develop exclusive content for the premium.
This is their goal.
At the same time, these days, they earn all their profits by increasing the price of data services.
They call it their connection. centric idea.
In terms of anyone else making money by sending content through Comcast\'s wires, Comcast can try to capture part of it by charging consumers for more data.
This makes senseYes.
Businessmen are always afraid, \"Oh my God ,[consumers]
Cutting off the wires means trouble for Comcast.
\"No, no, because what Comcast has to do is --
In its footprint, in the physical area where it has data connections --
Just charge more per user.
People get used to it slowly.
We cook frogs in the water.
The American public knows very little about the whole story.
I don\'t have a client, and I don\'t have a consulting relationship. My whole goal for these books is to make everyone understand what\'s going on.
Because Americans don\'t travel, you don\'t know what the third one is.
In communications, the United States is becoming a country of the world.
Susan Crawford\'s book fiber: The upcoming technological revolution-and why the United States missed it-is now published in the form of print and audiobooks from Yale University Press.
Custom message
Related Products
