the real threat to telcos is loss of revenue from a high percentage of penatration of wi-fi, in addition, isp's stand to lose as well from the same threat. Free high speed wi-fi with mass penatration would create free internet telephone service, free media over decentralized p2p systems and cause many to drop their dsl/cablemodem service, and offer a real alternative to regular tv. Telco's offer crappy dsl connections in part to ensure their isdn subscribers and higher doesn't bail, while consumers get the shaft again by paying higher prices with a dualapoly(cable companies,telcos) running the high speed market, welcome to the free market system with the emergence of new technologies into the system. At some point people won't need a cell phone, a traditional land line phone, for pay high speed internet and many old companies will be forced to offer better service and lower prices. I welcome free to the user, wireless high speed internet.

I for one hate the monopoly I've found in the rural area I moved to. Local service is provided by a coop, also the only DSL provider (under a different corporate name).

When I live is Dallas TX SBC DSL 1.5 (as an early adopter) was in the neighborhood of $50 a month. If I live in town here within the Cable companies realm I can get similar speeds/pricing. Verizon does all the in town phone service but has yet to roll out DSL for those folks (one town over and not too much bigger SBC has the phone service and DSL available). I live 7 miles outside of town in the firm grip of this co-op I pay roughly $50 a month for 384 DSL. If I want the 1.5 down I am used to they want $199 a month. It's completely out of line.

The situation is the same (but improving) with cell service out here. The local co-op is so tight fisted they won't allow any bigger carries to toss up towers in their region, charge way more than everywhere else, and are about 2 stps behind in the technology.

This area is about 1.5 hours NE of Dallas so it's not like I'm off in a canyon 1000 miles away from anything, but the differences between pricing when there is and isn't competition is amazing.

In the article it mentions how most cities have issued one company a franchise for providing cable TV (for a percentage of revenues, usually 5%). This is partially true and partially incorrect.

Cable TV providers pay a maximum 5% royalty on gross revenues because Federal Law caps the maximum that a municipality can charge to 5%. The same law also outlaws exclusive contracts; a municipality has to allow competing cable-tv operators access to right-of-way as well on essentially the same terms as the incumbent. However, most companies that offer cable TV prefer exclusivity, knowing full well that competing in the same areas means they'd have to improve service and/or lower prices, neither practice do they wish to bother with unless forced to do so.

This became quite clear in Los Angeles, for example, some years ago, which did not have exclusivity agreements with cable companies. There are several cable companies franchised in LA and the franchise agreement allows operation anywhere in the city. However, if you were to check their coverage maps, you would find that in no single case did any of them provide service in any area where any of their competitors were operating. I'm not claiming any conspiracy; it's quite obvious that once any particular area was wired by one of the companies, nobody else would run cable into the same area (and thus have to compete against another cable company.)

It has only been the last few years as new providers, who have had to compete in an unrestricted market and thus aren't afraid of competition, has this practice changed (but not by much and not quickly) as new companies are willing to compete. But the believed high cost of connecting "the last mile" (actually it's the last 10 meters from the drop to the customer) that has made connectivity generally unavailable except from a single provider.

Thank you Mr. Turner

I finally get it! The US is not "by the people, for the people', it's by and for Corporations! How could I be so dense? This article showed me the difference, by the wi-fi example. The citizens in the countries in the article are served by the government IN THEIR INTEREST. Here, the citizens serve the corporate interests....How depressing

I really should leave the country..

Your lead is misleading:

$38 is the Baisc subsription price; if you want 100 TV channels plus 8 megs, plus flat rate IP phone for domestic land lines it cost close to �100 per month.

Everyone has heard of the spinoffs from NASA as a result of the 1960's space race. This is the space race of the 2000's. If America wishes to remain a player in the high-tech industry, she can't afford not to maintain a lead here. This is as important as the development of the interstate freeway network in the 1960's. It directly affects ALL commerce in the country. The politicians must understand we cannot afford to sleep on this and let the others do it for us. We must dare to think way out in the future: why not gigabit communications (fiber or wireless) into every home? This will foster applications we can scarcely imagine now. Developing the infrastructure, imagining how to accomplish this, will produce the sort of spinoffs which will keep the US in front of the technology industry. In the technology game, all that matters is who's in front. If we want to be a tech player in the future, WE MUST WIN THIS RACE. Al Gore knew this.

To D Sheldon (comment below),

This article is a great introduction to this topic. If you are an avid Salon reader, you'd know that they don't publish charts and graphs with articles.

If you want more details, you should go check out a report by the groups Free Press, Consumers Union, and Consumer Federation of America (by the same author as the Salon piece).

http://www.freepress.net/docs/broadband_report.pdf

This is the type of first-rate research you appear to need. But you should compare this Salon piece to others in the Mainstream media -- they rarely go in depth.

Oh, and the whole reason greater bandwidth is important, is the same reason the Internet is important -- social benefits via network effects, new technologies, and uses of these technologies.

Also, its about a democratic media -- if two companies control access to a very important form of media, that is bad for all.