Net neutrality lawsuits from ISPs arrive earlier than expected

[Shawn Knight]

Well, that didn’t take long. Less than two weeks after the FCC published the 400-page Open Internet Order that’s at the center of the net neutrality debate, ISPs are making good on promises to bring legal action against the commission.

The first couple of what’s likely to be plenty more lawsuits have been waged against the Federal Communications Commission. USTelecom, a collective that hosts AT&T and Verizon executives on its board of directors, filed suit in Washington while small ISP Alamo Broadband did the same in New Orleans.

In a statement obtained by The Washington Post, USTelecom President Walter McCormick said they do not believe the FCC’s move to utility-style regulation involving Title II authority is legally sustainable. As such, McCormick said his group is filing a petition to protect their procedural rights in challenging the recently adopted Open Internet Order.

Similarly, Alamo said the rules are overly burdensome and they feel as if they’re being unfairly treated. A as a result, they believe they possess the right to challenge it legally.

As the Post notes, everyone expected lawsuits against the FCC over net neutrality but few believed they would arrive so swiftly. Instead, many suspected action wouldn’t come raining down until the FCC’s rules were officially added to the Federal Register which hasn’t happened yet.

The FCC, meanwhile, called the suits premature and subject dismissal. 

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/60139-net-neutrality-lawsuits-isps-arrive-earlier-than-expected.html

 

[cmbjive]

Of course the lawsuits came swift. The rules that the FCC put forth casts a wide net as to what "net neutrality" means and it has broader implications, especially on smaller ISPs. I would expect them to sue, but the interesting tell will be which sides get more amicus briefs and from whom.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Net neutrality lawsuits from ISPs arrive earlier than expected.

As difficult as it is to leave bias out of the headlines, it should be noted that the lawsuits are NOT against Net Neutrality. They're against all the regulation that accompanies making the net a utility, which was what the FCC sold as the means to achieve net neutrality. Even Netflix has come out and said the regulation was not what they wanted.

 

[MonsterZero]

Net neutrality lawsuits from ISPs arrive earlier than expected.

As difficult as it is to leave bias out of the headlines, it should be noted that the lawsuits are NOT against Net Neutrality. They're against all the regulation that accompanies making the net a utility, which was what the FCC sold as the means to achieve net neutrality. Even Netflix has come out and said the regulation was not what they wanted.

It's pretty much needed, the IPS's have been stagnating for a while. There has been no build out to provide fiber service or 1Gbps connections. The US is far behind in comparison when it comes to internet speeds, no regulation means those companies can do whatever they like and get away with it.

 

[Evernessince]

Net neutrality lawsuits from ISPs arrive earlier than expected.

As difficult as it is to leave bias out of the headlines, it should be noted that the lawsuits are NOT against Net Neutrality. They're against all the regulation that accompanies making the net a utility, which was what the FCC sold as the means to achieve net neutrality. Even Netflix has come out and said the regulation was not what they wanted.

Yep. What I don't get is how do you sue the FCC and state they don't have the authority to regulate internet over title 2. The courts cannot afford to overturn the title 2 regulation of the internet as everything is converging into it. Voice, data, and phone. At this point, regulating the internet is just like regulating the phone companies for them.

 

[cmbjive]

Net neutrality lawsuits from ISPs arrive earlier than expected.

As difficult as it is to leave bias out of the headlines, it should be noted that the lawsuits are NOT against Net Neutrality. They're against all the regulation that accompanies making the net a utility, which was what the FCC sold as the means to achieve net neutrality. Even Netflix has come out and said the regulation was not what they wanted.

It's pretty much needed, the IPS's have been stagnating for a while. There has been no build out to provide fiber service or 1Gbps connections. The US is far behind in comparison when it comes to internet speeds, no regulation means those companies can do whatever they like and get away with it.

Been stagnating for awhile? Going from 13.3 kbps to 100 Mbps downloads in less than three decades is stagnating? Getting internet via phone, cable, satellite, wireless, and fiber optic is stagnating? And 1Gbps connections are great, but not many people are demanding them and the infrastructure to put such lines down are expensive. I don't know why people seem to think that regulation will somehow force companies to develop.

And US internet is just fine, thank you. Some areas are worse than others; the FCC will not change that.

 

[psp100travis]

Been stagnating for awhile? Going from 13.3 kbps to 100 Mbps downloads in less than three decades is stagnating? Getting internet via phone, cable, satellite, wireless, and fiber optic is stagnating? And 1Gbps connections are great, but not many people are demanding them and the infrastructure to put such lines down are expensive. I don't know why people seem to think that regulation will somehow force companies to develop.

And US internet is just fine, thank you. Some areas are worse than others; the FCC will not change that.

US Internet is $HIT! Why does it cost a $120 to get 50mbps from Time Warner Cable when when 1gbps is offered in certain places around the world for $70 and less? Don't even get me started on the $hit upload speeds around 2mbps.

 

[SirGCal]

Been stagnating for awhile? Going from 13.3 kbps to 100 Mbps downloads in less than three decades is stagnating? Getting internet via phone, cable, satellite, wireless, and fiber optic is stagnating? And 1Gbps connections are great, but not many people are demanding them and the infrastructure to put such lines down are expensive. I don't know why people seem to think that regulation will somehow force companies to develop.

And US internet is just fine, thank you. Some areas are worse than others; the FCC will not change that.

That is a very poor point of view. It has been stagnating. Many areas have no competition and thus they have no 'reason' to upgrade. And a lot of places would give a leg to get 100M... I didn't even get that until LAST year. Before then capped to 15M... And I had to get custom hardware to get 100M even though the modem was easily capable of over 300M, but they refuse to use it that way but that's another issue...

Not to mention I've dropped their services for TV, Phone, etc. and they are losing money like crazy. Plus with micro-blocking etc, over the air is just so much better. But we have no choices for other internet (and it really is horrid here... any load on the line, someone streaming something using a tiny bit of the connection, and pings go through the roof, for example. They refuse to acknowledge it...) And that's all TWC/Comcast (now?).

So ya, they do need someone to kick them in the backside to get things going better. We have some of the worst internet compared to the rest of the world and pay significantly more for it. It's embarrassing to me to be honest. Someone said it well (I still have this on my own list of good quotes):

Corporate America always tries to create monopolies (or oligopolies) so that competition is low, consumer choice is low, quality is low, and profits are high for greedy investors, greedy executives, and white collar criminals.

America cheers this on, screaming, 'Yahoo!! The Captains of Industry will save us if we just leave them alone and get government out of the way!!'

This is the foolishness that runs rampant in America today, and that's why we pay more for less.

 

[cmbjive]

US Internet is $HIT! Why does it cost a $120 to get 50mbps from Time Warner Cable when when 1gbps is offered in certain places around the world for $70 and less? Don't even get me started on the $hit upload speeds around 2mbps.

If it's $hit why do you have it? You don't live anywhere else in the world; you live in the United States. It's absolutely useless to bring up other markets that you'll never have access to.

 

[cmbjive]

That is a very poor point of view. It has been stagnating. Many areas have no competition and thus they have no 'reason' to upgrade. And a lot of places would give a leg to get 100M... I didn't even get that until LAST year. Before then capped to 15M... And I had to get custom hardware to get 100M even though the modem was easily capable of over 300M, but they refuse to use it that way but that's another issue...

Not to mention I've dropped their services for TV, Phone, etc. and they are losing money like crazy. Plus with micro-blocking etc, over the air is just so much better. But we have no choices for other internet (and it really is horrid here... any load on the line, someone streaming something using a tiny bit of the connection, and pings go through the roof, for example. They refuse to acknowledge it...) And that's all TWC/Comcast (now?).

So ya, they do need someone to kick them in the backside to get things going better. We have some of the worst internet compared to the rest of the world and pay significantly more for it. It's embarrassing to me to be honest. Someone said it well (I still have this on my own list of good quotes):

It isn't a poor point of view because it is actual fact. Even in places where there is no "competition" the speeds for broadband have all increased. And because YOU didn't get it last year (why are all arguments from net neuts centered around personal experience) doesn't mean that the speeds have not been made available to others. Where I live I can only get 12 Mbps from Centurylink even though a few miles away my in-laws can get 40 Mbps and in other areas some have access to 100 Mbps. Where I live I can get Cox Cable 100 Mbps, but they offer 1Gbps via fiber in some areas.

And again with comparisons to the rest of the world. Our internet is fine. You can stream music, stream movies between SD and 4K without so much as an interruption, and turn your entire home into a wi-fi network so that you can stream from multiple streaming devices. Internet in the United States is fine and is getting better, but for the net neuts I guess this isn't enough.

 

[SirGCal]

It isn't a poor point of view because it is actual fact. Even in places where there is no "competition" the speeds for broadband have all increased. And because YOU didn't get it last year (why are all arguments from net neuts centered around personal experience) doesn't mean that the speeds have not been made available to others. Where I live I can only get 12 Mbps from Centurylink even though a few miles away my in-laws can get 40 Mbps and in other areas some have access to 100 Mbps. Where I live I can get Cox Cable 100 Mbps, but they offer 1Gbps via fiber in some areas.

And again with comparisons to the rest of the world. Our internet is fine. You can stream music, stream movies between SD and 4K without so much as an interruption, and turn your entire home into a wi-fi network so that you can stream from multiple streaming devices. Internet in the United States is fine and is getting better, but for the net neuts I guess this isn't enough.

You didn't read my post as obviously, even with 100M connections from TWC, I can NOT stream to multiple devices, etc. It's ok, you've just proven you are one of the sheep that loves what he has and has no drive to make things better. The rest of us are arguing that we want the greedy US corporations to get off their buts and do what is right instead of what pads their pockets further. I pay $140/month for poor internet cause I have no other broadband choices... The US citizens pay significantly more for significantly less. And you seem just happy with that. The rest of us are not.

I mean holy cow when I travel to Japan, the internet in the hotel is insanely awesome compared to what we have. And all the way around the world, 12ms pings to my private server which is located physically in Texas which, from home (also in Texas) is more then 50ms... Our internet is NOT fine...

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

It's pretty much needed, the IPS's have been stagnating for a while. There has been no build out to provide fiber service or 1Gbps connections. The US is far behind in comparison when it comes to internet speeds, no regulation means those companies can do whatever they like and get away with it.

yes, there are problems with the industry, like the fact that most of us only have 1 major provider to choose from. When you have no choice to leave the companies can raise rates and provide worse service.

But this regulation will do nothing to solve this problem. Regulation means the govt will decide who gets to join the industry, and while that sounds good on paper, the govt is really just a bunch of congressmen and women who will have lobbyists from Comcast and Verizon in their ear (and pocket) telling them how bad it'll be if another player joins the market. And the paychecks from those lobbyists? They will come from new rates on your bill. You'll see them right under the new fees that are standard for an industry regulated by the govt.

I mean holy cow when I travel to Japan, the internet in the hotel is insanely awesome compared to what we have. And all the way around the world, 12ms pings to my private server which is located physically in Texas which, from home (also in Texas) is more then 50ms... Our internet is NOT fine...

This argument is so old and pointless. Japan is like 1/1000th the size of the US. So is Sweden and Korea and all the other places where the internet is so much better. When you can get 100 Mpbs in rural china or the Australian outback then this argument will hold some weight. You call it greed that Comcast isn't willing to lay expensive fiber for your city... the truth is that upgrading your city to fiber isn't anywhere near as profitable (or important) as getting basic broadband in a place that doesn't have it yet. And because the USA is so big, there are lot of places to get new customers before trying to upgrade the very few who would be willing to pay for anything faster.

if you want the govt in charge in stead of the 'greedy corporations' you can bet we'll all have exactly the same speed before anyone gets anything faster. It will all be equally slow.

 

[cmbjive]

You didn't read my post as obviously, even with 100M connections from TWC, I can NOT stream to multiple devices, etc. It's ok, you've just proven you are one of the sheep that loves what he has and has no drive to make things better. The rest of us are arguing that we want the greedy US corporations to get off their buts and do what is right instead of what pads their pockets further. I pay $140/month for poor internet cause I have no other broadband choices... The US citizens pay significantly more for significantly less. And you seem just happy with that. The rest of us are not.

I mean holy cow when I travel to Japan, the internet in the hotel is insanely awesome compared to what we have. And all the way around the world, 12ms pings to my private server which is located physically in Texas which, from home (also in Texas) is more then 50ms... Our internet is NOT fine...

Then you have a problem with TWC as I CAN stream from multiple devices on 12 Mbps. I read your post and as I mentioned above the problem with net neuts is that you take your personal problems, extrapolate that everyone has a problem because you have a problem, and then state that we need regulation EVEN THOUGH net neutrality would not even address your issue. Your problems are YOUR problems, and regulating the internet is not going to change the fact that your problems are YOUR problems.

And it's ironic that you bring up Japan as an example of "good" internet. For starters, the primary ISP in Japan is NTT DoCoMo; overall there are 11 ISPs in Japan and they operate in pretty much the same way as American ISPs - by territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_service_providers_of_Japan

Compare that to the United States, which has more than twenty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadband_providers_in_the_United_States

As for paying "significantly more for significantly less", I'm happy with what I am paying for.

 

[EEatGDL]

If it's $hit why do you have it? You don't live anywhere else in the world; you live in the United States. It's absolutely useless to bring up other markets that you'll never have access to.

Not even "third-world" markets such as Mexico, where we went from 56 kbps to 200 Mpbs in 2 decades (publicly and commercially available since 1996)? We can have symmetrical -yes, upload=download speeds- 200 Mbps for $95 USD a month. Not even because of nationalist American pride you compare to other markets?

 

[cmbjive]

Not even "third-world" markets such as Mexico, where we went from 56 kbps to 200 Mpbs in 2 decades (publicly and commercially available since 1996)? We can have symmetrical -yes, upload=download speeds- 200 Mbps for $95 USD a month. Not even because of nationalist American pride you compare to other markets?

And which country helped pave the way for yours to make such tremendous strides in internet technology?

Since I'm never moving to Mexico, I don't care about the rates that Mexicans are paying for internet. That aside, market penetration is higher in the United States and it is more stable than what is available in most other countries.

And upload speeds is not as important to most consumers as the download speeds. So having a higher upload speed isn't that much of an issue.

 

[BlueDrake]

Not even "third-world" markets such as Mexico, where we went from 56 kbps to 200 Mpbs in 2 decades (publicly and commercially available since 1996)? We can have symmetrical -yes, upload=download speeds- 200 Mbps for $95 USD a month. Not even because of nationalist American pride you compare to other markets?

And which country helped pave the way for yours to make such tremendous strides in internet technology?

Since I'm never moving to Mexico, I don't care about the rates that Mexicans are paying for internet. That aside, market penetration is higher in the United States and it is more stable than what is available in most other countries.

And upload speeds is not as important to most consumers as the download speeds. So having a higher upload speed isn't that much of an issue.

Someone sure has their head up somewhere. Do you actually do research or spout nonsense? I don't find it amusing here in Canada, paying $100 for almost no connection at all. Oh yay I have a huge download speed, but what happens if the upload gets choked?! The whole thing slows to a crawl, and yet we're supposed to be happy with almost no upload speeds.

Pay for 15/10 and get 15/1 but as you said yourself, totally logical because I totally didn't need that 9Mbps upload. I can totally get along just fine without it, while paying a high price and have 0 choice in ISPs. Pay a local ISP the same as the big ISP, because they were strong armed into those prices. Yes we totally all have a lot of choices, especially in a densely packed area and ISPs just flat out hold a monopoly on.

Seeing what happens in the US where they purposely bribe, to keep local municipalities from putting up their own connections. All so they have no competition from anyone, and if any large enough ISP is an issue they likely buy them out. Should we point out the fact that ISPs faked signatures on agreements, just so they could try and win the "Net Neutrality" argument?

 

[cmbjive]

Someone sure has their head up somewhere. Do you actually do research or spout nonsense? I don't find it amusing here in Canada, paying $100 for almost no connection at all. Oh yay I have a huge download speed, but what happens if the upload gets choked?! The whole thing slows to a crawl, and yet we're supposed to be happy with almost no upload speeds.

Pay for 15/10 and get 15/1 but as you said yourself, totally logical because I totally didn't need that 9Mbps upload. I can totally get along just fine without it, while paying a high price and have 0 choice in ISPs. Pay a local ISP the same as the big ISP, because they were strong armed into those prices. Yes we totally all have a lot of choices, especially in a densely packed area and ISPs just flat out hold a monopoly on.

Seeing what happens in the US where they purposely bribe, to keep local municipalities from putting up their own connections. All so they have no competition from anyone, and if any large enough ISP is an issue they likely buy them out. Should we point out the fact that ISPs faked signatures on agreements, just so they could try and win the "Net Neutrality" argument?

You're right, someone might have his/her head up somewhere. Maybe it's you. Looked in a mirror to verify?

The size of files that people upload are relatively small compared to the size of files they download. It makes perfect sense for ISPs to free up the pipe to address the service people use as opposed to wasting it on the service that people don't use. Which is more important to you: Downloading at high speeds or uploading at high speeds?

The rest of your post is just spouted nonsense. Why do net neuts always feel aggrieved?

 

[BlueDrake]

You're right, someone might have his/her head up somewhere. Maybe it's you. Looked in a mirror to verify?

The size of files that people upload are relatively small compared to the size of files they download. It makes perfect sense for ISPs to free up the pipe to address the service people use as opposed to wasting it on the service that people don't use. Which is more important to you: Downloading at high speeds or uploading at high speeds?

The rest of your post is just spouted nonsense. Why do net neuts always feel aggrieved?

How is it nonsense? You just dismiss anything, that ruins your perfect vision. Also I prefer a more logical approach, given the option of symmetrical at a lower rate? I'm sure it would be a nice solution, instead of just saying "No you only need a 2Mbps upload, and anything else you can upgrade your package". All that means is more money = more upload, when download is already at 150-200Mbps.

Everyone getting 1Gbps is the 'perfect' kind of world, and I don't expect that anytime soon but I expect some options instead of a fixed package deal. Why should we have to fork over more, just so we can get maybe 2 or 3Mbps up extra? I'd like at least a nice 5Mbps but no, I'm stuck with 1 because that's all they think is worthwhile. No offering to change rates, it's all cookie cutter packages with overinflated prices.

 

[EEatGDL]

And which country helped pave the way for yours to make such tremendous strides in internet technology?

Since I'm never moving to Mexico, I don't care about the rates that Mexicans are paying for internet. That aside, market penetration is higher in the United States and it is more stable than what is available in most other countries.

And upload speeds is not as important to most consumers as the download speeds. So having a higher upload speed isn't that much of an issue.

OK, I hope you're trolling for the sake of having replies, but I don't have time for this "discussion" going nowhere. Nevermind and keep up with your mentality. (y)

 

[cmbjive]

OK, I hope you're trolling for the sake of having replies, but I don't have time for this "discussion" going nowhere. Nevermind and keep up with your mentality. (y)

Trolling for discussion. Yes, someone who doesn't agree with the net neuts is "trolling for discussion". But you're right, this discussion will go nowhere because no one can tell you guys that you made a deal with the Devil in getting the FCC to regulate the internet even though there are no major issues regarding delivery and examples of "throttling" and blocking are virtually non-existent. My mentality is fine.

How is it nonsense? You just dismiss anything, that ruins your perfect vision. Also I prefer a more logical approach, given the option of symmetrical at a lower rate? I'm sure it would be a nice solution, instead of just saying "No you only need a 2Mbps upload, and anything else you can upgrade your package". All that means is more money = more upload, when download is already at 150-200Mbps.

Everyone getting 1Gbps is the 'perfect' kind of world, and I don't expect that anytime soon but I expect some options instead of a fixed package deal. Why should we have to fork over more, just so we can get maybe 2 or 3Mbps up extra? I'd like at least a nice 5Mbps but no, I'm stuck with 1 because that's all they think is worthwhile. No offering to change rates, it's all cookie cutter packages with overinflated prices.

No, I don't dismiss things that "ruin" my perfect vision. It's funny that people who are complaining about an imperfect system and needs it to be regulated to be more "perfect" is accusing me of having a perfect vision. If uploading is that important to you then yes, you should pay more for it. Maybe in a perfect world you would be charged separately for each stream and better combo packages with high upload speeds and lower download speeds would be available. Unfortunately we don't have that world. I don't sit in pricing meetings with ISPs to figure out why upload speeds are low and must only be increased with high download speeds, but I have a degree in Econ that gives me a general idea: Because Americans upload at a much lower rate than Americans that download, services and rates are geared towards the latter to meet demands. Maybe that'll change in the future; I doubt it, but there is always the possibility that uploading will become much more of a necessity than downloading.

 

[Puiu]

So many people trying to defend a broken system in the US.

The internet in the US is NOT fine. It's broken, slow (even at high bandwidth the latency is so bad that you can't do anything), expensive, very limited and because of regional monopolies nobody is investing in fixing it.
Not to mention state laws that prevent the creation of new networks that only benefit big ISPs. So stupid.

If something is broken beyond repair then it's time to replace it with something new and better.

And who says high upload speeds are not needed... all I can say is that they are retards who have no idea what a good internet connection is and the opportunities it brings.

 

[cmbjive]

So many people trying to defend a broken system in the US.

The internet in the US is NOT fine. It's broken, slow (even at high bandwidth the latency is so bad that you can't do anything), expensive, very limited and because of regional monopolies nobody is investing in fixing it.
Not to mention state laws that prevent the creation of new networks that only benefit big ISPs. So stupid.

If something is broken beyond repair then it's time to replace it with something new and better.

And who says high upload speeds are not needed... all I can say is that they are retards who have no idea what a good internet connection is and the opportunities it brings.

Oh, I love your passive aggressiveness. Again, I will reiterate: The internet in the United States is FINE. Do some people have problems? Yes, some people have problems. Can the internet be improved? Yes, it can be improved. However, the way you net neuts go about is as though the internet in the United States is no better than a dial-up connection. According to Net Index, the United States has an average speed of 33.9 Mbps/10.9 Mbps. According to the OECD, that is among over 300 MILLION broadband subscribers. No country on the face of the planet even approaches that kind of penetration. Smaller countries have better connections; then again smaller countries don't have nearly the land mass as the United States.

Those 300 MILLION broadband subscribers are able to do anything from surfing the net, to streaming high quality videos and music, to gaming online for hours on end, to setting home and office networks.

The notion that the U.S. broadband is broken because some people experience problems and innovations and upgrades to the network are slow and arduous is outright laughable. And even if it were true that our internet system is broken how in the hell is the FCC, who oversaw great innovation in landline and broadcast television (/sarc), going to make the ISPs invest more than it already is doing now?

Finally, I know a good internet connection because I have one. It's really ironic that the debate for net neutrality started out with treated data across the internet equally (after all, who's against that?). But most of the arguments I hear from net neuts nowadays boil down to this: My internet service provider sucks so we need more regulation.

 

[cliffordcooley]

The internet in the United States is FINE.

No it is not! It's barely adequate at best for most people. Fine, is by far an over statement.

 

[Puiu]

No it is not! It's barely adequate at best for most people. Fine, is by far an over statement.

Let him be. He likes having all of his videos load for ages, game servers to always lag and to take 100 hours to upload something small.
You have 100Mbps? How many HD videos can open simultaneously? Can you do it and also play something that is latency dependent? If you can then you are one of the few lucky cases.

The entire world agrees that US internet is really bad. I really don't know why he thinks it's good.

He also has no idea what the FCC is trying to accomplish with the new laws. Not every regulation is bad, but he fails to understand this simple fact and only talks about conspiracy theories that cannot be proven or are already disproved by just reading the laws.

In the end it just boils down to this: "I don't trust the government so I am opposed any kind of regulation."

Here is what the US needs:
1. to break the monopolies that are created by the current laws
2. to remove the state laws that restrict the rights of cities and towns to build their own broadband networks
3. to start improving the nationwide latency and connection problems by creating new networks that aren't ISP limited and that have good interconnections between different ISPs
4. to stop the current bad ISP practices: throttling, data caps, false advertising, hidden fees, hidden restrictions, artificially restricting speeds/latency (or any other kind of "blackmail") to get better deals from other companies, etc

FCC report: "At speeds of 4 Mbps or less, 75 percent of consumers have a choice between two or more fixed providers, and 15 percent can select among three or more ISPs. However, in the market for Internet service that can deliver 25 Mbps downstream—the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access—three out of four Americans do not have a choice between providers."

 

[agb81]

When you can get 100 Mpbs in rural china or the Australian outback then this argument will hold some weight. You call it greed that Comcast isn't willing to lay expensive fiber for your city... the truth is that upgrading your city to fiber isn't anywhere near as profitable (or important) as getting basic broadband in a place that doesn't have it yet. And because the USA is so big, there are lot of places to get new customers before trying to upgrade the very few who would be willing to pay for anything faster.

I think 200 BILLIONS in tax credits were more than enough money for TELCOS to be in better shape than what they are now.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html