U.S. Broadband Failings a Myth? Another slam on global penetration rankings Business 2.0's Om Malik believes (like Declan McCullagh before him) that those who profess the United States is falling behind in the global broadband race are propagating an "urban myth". While global rankings ( data says we're 10th in broadband penetration - behind Belgium) may be overplayed, the truth is nobody really knows where we stand; many studies lean on FCC data for support, data (and collection processes) that even the FCC admits are flawed. Ironically, though they're now removed, Declan's op-ed featured dozens of comments from rural American users who couldn't get broadband.
|
  yengec
join:2000-03-24
Boca Raton, FL
kudos:1 | No wonder Most of these countries have a population of a few million at best and landmass that is comparable to North Carolina, maybe Texas at the most.
Of course broadband penetration would be easier and broader in those regions that US is trailing.
US by itself occupies half of the North America continent and we have way more distance and population than most of these countries combined...
Cheers
Dan | |
|  |  qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | Re: No wonder said by yengec:Most of these countries have a population of a few million at best and landmass that is comparable to North Carolina, maybe Texas at the most. Of course broadband penetration would be easier and broader in those regions that US is trailing. US by itself occupies half of the North America continent and we have way more distance and population than most of these countries combined... Cheers Dan Yes, but to listen to all they crybabies that will post later, it's all a grand conspiracy why we're #10. 
--
Don't get me wrong, I love America, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But America often reminds of "Wackyland" in that old Porky Pig cartoon when he was looking for the Dodo. Wackyland's motto was "It can happen here." | |
| | |  Shack
join:2002-01-17
Bloomington, IN | Re: No wonder Excellent point, however why is it almost non existent in even our most densely populated areas to have the quality of broadband that these counties have? 10/10 mbit connections have been common in several small countries for several years, yet that is almost non existent in even our most densely populated areas. Makes you wonder. | |
| | |  Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN | Not a conspiracy, its just $$$. Why would any American telco/cableco upgrade the service they offer when they have a lock on local access? They can continue to milk money out of people for sub standard speeds. Maybe if I were a rich greedy cooperate guy I would be okay with robbing people too. Yeah thats right, I called it stealing. If the music/movie industry can make up new definitions, guess I can too.
I guess this is the part where the other crybabies come out and say something like "if you don't like your service pick another, or go back to dial up"
We all still pay for it because we don't have a choice. So they will keep raising the prices for the same services (kind of like oil) until someone steps in. Be it the government or a more reasonable alternative. | |
| | | | | | Re: No wonder What I don't understand is why these same companies spend @$$ loads of money on lobbyists to prevent municipalities from creating their own fiber networks while at the same time refusing to bring broadband to the same areas because they've deemed them as having absolutely no profit potential?
It's sort of like saying, "I'm not going to sell you oranges because I wouldn't make enough money, but I'm not going to allow you to buy oranges anywhere else." | |
|
| Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Canada: so tiny.
While geography may be a valid point in many cases, I think it's also because those governments took an active role in infrastructure investment, though I know that's not fashionable 'round these parts - in the land of free market lovers - to believe so..... | |
| | |  ameniteThe Soylent - It's PeoplePremium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No wonder Well, no and yes, in terms of population density, most of the population inhabits a rather small portion of the land. There's quite alot of open space up there.
»sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/plue/g···n.html&2
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese | |
| | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: No wonder Unlike the United States?  Shouldn't those city dwellers have fiber by now?
I'm not sure the geography dismissal is justified. I think government policy should be at least looked at as a reason. | |
| | | | | qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | Re: No wonder said by Karl Bode:Unlike the United States? Shouldn't those city dwellers have fiber by now? I'm not sure the geography dismissal is justified. I think government policy should be at least looked at as a reason. Maybe so Karl, but by "government policy" just which government are you speaking? Local, state or national?
I have a sneaking suspicion that many munis see broadband and cable as a money pot they can draw on at will. And that just might have a whole lot to do with the "lack" of BB penetration.
As I said before; "Politicians are like crack whores, there is no such thing as enough."
Also we are in a minority, we are avid users of BB and look at it as something important. Those that don't have a PC, or only use one for email, don't give a rat's ass for the US BB penetration.
--
Don't get me wrong, I love America, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But America often reminds of "Wackyland" in that old Porky Pig cartoon when he was looking for the Dodo. Wackyland's motto was "It can happen here." | |
| | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: No wonder quote:
Maybe so Karl, but by "government policy" just which government are you speaking? Local, state or national?
I was thinking largely federal, and not about the muni debate.
They simply don't hold companies accountable, aren't consistent, don't have a national policy in place to improve penetration that doesn't involve giving away the candy store to mega-corps, and their programs (look at E-Rate, USF) are packed with mismanagement and fraud. | |
|
| | | | ameniteThe Soylent - It's PeoplePremium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | said by Karl Bode:Unlike the United States? Shouldn't those city dwellers have fiber by now? I'm not sure the geography dismissal is justified. I think government policy should be at least looked at as a reason. It's just one factor to consider. I would rank policy above it.
edit --> Personally, I blame Mercator for that warped projection of his. | |
|
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | said by Karl Bode:... I think it's also because those governments took an active role in infrastructure investment. Yup, that's why. Mostly through incentives, or some type of government/private partnership.
Why there and not here? In some cases, like Korea, they felt they had to do it to avoid falling behind the U.S. Here, we tend to be too arrogant these days to think we'd ever fall behind anyone (guess it's a good thing we had the Soviets around in the 1950's, or we wouldn't have the Interstate Highway system).
Also, those governemts actually view broadband as "infrastructure". Only our local governments tend to think that way, and the telecom corporations have been pretty good at stopping them at the state level.
And in general, I think government here has become less inclined to do things to benefit the public good (as opposed to benefitting campaign contributors), then in most other democracies. | |
|
| yengec
join:2000-03-24
Boca Raton, FL
kudos:1 | Adding to my previous post.
CIA's world factbook about Belgium:
Population: 10,348,276 (July 2004 est.)
Area Comparative: About the size of Maryland
10 million people roughly makes 4,000,000 householdss (at a conservative rate of 2.5 people per home).
Which is easier? Network a whole continent (sort of) or penetrate an area as small as Maryland...
Bring service to roughly 260,000,000 or 10,000,000?
We should grade/compare ourselves with nations having same amount of landmass and same amount of population to get a more reliable consensus... | |
| | | | | Re: No wonder Just wondering, why would you use CIA's info. If they can't get intelligence right, why believe something as trivial as geography from them. | |
| | | | yengec
join:2000-03-24
Boca Raton, FL
kudos:1 | Re: No wonder CIA's website on world fact book was the first thing that came to my mind. It's free and it's organized efficiently. I could have probably looked at Encarta or something but I don't know if their services are fee based... | |
| | | | | | | Re: No wonder and use the same cia info | |
|
| | | BeeperPart Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH | said by one_bored_si:Just wondering, why would you use CIA's info. If they can't get intelligence right, why believe something as trivial as geography from them. Just wondering why would you not believe factual information from CIA, like population, area, and geographical information?
Can you tell the difference between information (What's the capital of Belgium) and intelligence (Where are those darned Belgian nukes?)?
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | We also have over 260X the resources as belgium. | |
| | | |  oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Re: No wonder said by Ahrenl:We also have over 260X the resources as belgium. Resources don't mean anything when population density is the real cause of the problem.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network www.theanimenetwork.com | |
| | | | | | | Re: No wonder Although population density helps and hurts. Low population density means DSL may be technically infeasible, and you have to run long lines. Really high population density means running the lines is going to be expensive (which is more expensive... running a line for a mile in a rural area... or across Manhattan...) | |
|
| | BeeperPart Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH | said by yengec:Bring service to roughly 260,000,000 or 10,000,000? The US has a few more people than 260,000,000.
Maybe 33 million more.
Need more fiber.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| | | | yengec
join:2000-03-24
Boca Raton, FL
kudos:1 | Re: No wonder Woow. You are way correct. 293,000,000 as of July 2004...
Probably over 300,000,000 before 2010... | |
|
| | | The US by itself covers way less then half the North American continent. Canada is second on the list for land mass, US is fifth or something, it isn;t much bigger then Australia.
Anyway the US is an insanly rich country there is no excuse for such poor broadband service. Yes belgium may be smaller then the US but its income reflects that in a HUGE way. There is NO reason for a country the size of the US with the monetery and technical resources to be lagging behind countries like korea or Japan.
In Canada we are well covered both urban and rural. Canada does have a fairly large rural community and for the most part they are covered. Small towns, 4000 persons small have access to DSL. We also pay A LOT less then you do for more speed. In fact Canada should be worse off because we have:
Less population but a bigger space. The us has a smaller but still big space but it has a lot more people.
Smaller economy... | |
| | | yengec
join:2000-03-24
Boca Raton, FL
kudos:1 | Re: No wonder Respectfully, I remember reading that 90% of Canada's population lived within a 100 mile vicinity of the US Border. I realize Canada has a very big (and equally beautiful) landmass, but I believe the used area is still comparable to a small country.
I believe there is a similar scenario for Australia as well. A few fairly large cities on the eastern, South eastern and northeastern shores, one city on the northern coast and another one on the southwest corner. Then, empty vast spaces... The whole country is the same size as the US, with a population comparable only to the state of New York...
I think big countries with small populations are the most disadvantaged ones in this case... Too broad of a distance to cover, yet too few people to make money out of... | |
| | | | | | Re: No wonder Yes the majority of the population is on the border with the US but it is not city centric like Australia is, or AS city centric.
There is a fair amount of rural and small towns. Between Toronto and montreal, about a 5 hour drive, you are never far from a small or medium sized town, it is very spread out. For the most part these towns are broadband enabled.
This presents a similiar problem liek the states, maybe worse because the relativly small numbers combined with the distances makes it less attractive to runs lines.
The main point I think is that yes the US will never see total coverage like korea etc. but with it's economy and market frankly broadband and the lack thereof should not be an issue. The US can afford to support the large distances and all those other issues.
However why would a for profit company spend the money to wire up a small town if it doesn't have to? Thats the biggest problem right now I tuink | |
| | | | | | | Re: No wonder said by MalakoPlus:This presents a similiar problem liek the states, maybe worse because the relativly small numbers combined with the distances makes it less attractive to runs lines.
For starters, I live in a small town in north-central Indiana, population 150, and I have both DSL and Cable Broadband.
The CO in my town covers a good 20 square miles, maybe more. Once you leave town, houses are a good 3 - 5 miles apart. Sometimes there is a cluster of 3 - 5, but in no way does that justify a remote DSLAM.
Aside from a remote DSLAM, there is no way to get DSL out to these people for a reasonable cost.
There is always cable, but when you are forced to run a cable trunk down a road for, say, 5 miles until you hit one house, the cost is just not justified.
While I commend Verizon for setting up my small town for DSL, I understand why it would not be cost effective to set-up DSL service for everyone that CO serves.
We need to still remember that our telecom companies are not in business for charity, they are also trying to make a profit. Forcing Verizon to install a remote DSLAM at the tune of $200,000+ for one house would never be paid off.
I know a lot of people here complain about roll-out to "rural" areas, but I feel that most here can not comprehend "rural" as being anything less than a populated suburb.
If you ever decide to take a drive through rural Indiana, take a spin on IN-4 or IN-104, then you will truly understand the limitations faced by the telcos.
said by MalakoPlus:The main point I think is that yes the US will never see total coverage like korea etc. but with it's economy and market frankly broadband and the lack thereof should not be an issue. The US can afford to support the large distances and all those other issues. Honestly, the US can not afford to support this type of infrastructure. The telcos would take a huge hit trying to roll out services to to houses that are so far apart, the cost of install would never be paid off.
If the telcos are subsidized by the government, then we are putting OUR tax dollars into that, and I am sure it would result in yet another tax on my phone bill.
Last time I checked, people still had problems finding work in this country, the last thing we need to do to the American people is to throw another tax onto their bill so that under-served areas can get DSL.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No wonder The US govermnet can afford to shell out BILLIONS a day for a war with Iraq yet they can't help sponser broadband development to rural areas? Give me a break, the money is there, hell with a tax incentive I am sure the companies will do it as well.
Whats wrong with something like WiFi or anything along those lines? Companies don't need to run wire there are cheaper better alternatives. I am not an expert but there are ways to do this but there is no incentive for them to do it so they plod a long and ignore the problem.
If you think 3-5 miles for rural is bad try taking a look at rural northern ontario. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No wonder said by MalakoPlus:The US govermnet can afford to shell out BILLIONS a day for a war with Iraq yet they can't help sponser broadband development to rural areas? Give me a break, the money is there, hell with a tax incentive I am sure the companies will do it as well. Whats wrong with something like WiFi or anything along those lines? Companies don't need to run wire there are cheaper better alternatives. I am not an expert but there are ways to do this but there is no incentive for them to do it so they plod a long and ignore the problem. If you think 3-5 miles for rural is bad try taking a look at rural northern ontario. Again...that war in Iraq is being paid for by the tax payers, that money is not free.
Tax breaks, government funding...call it what you want, it will still come out of our pockets.
To add to this, there is not even a guarantee that the people in rural areas will even buy the service. Rural Indiana, for example, is dealing with some tough employment issues.
I alone have to travel 155 miles round trip to commute to work because the money is just not in the rural area. ( »maps.yahoo.com/dd_result?ed=xTow···untry=us )
So, now we face the possible issue that the US population have to pay even more taxes on their phone bill to roll out a network that may not even be used.
I know in Canada you do not mind your high taxes, but in the US, I have seen enough of my money thrown at programs. I want to hang on to as much of it as I can.
What good is DSL if you can't make the house payment?
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
The main problems with this are: Most of the Canadian population lives within 150 miles of the US Border and Vast amounts of it's landmass are virtually uninhabitable arctic freezing wilderness where mostly only the Inuit live. The Only reason the small towns have access to DSL or satellite is because the Canadian government has soaked the taxpayers, like it allways does for everything, to do it. You'll forgive us, I'm sure if we dont adopt canadas british based parlementary way of doing things.
And, before you get on your high horse and say that I dont know what I'm talking about, I live on the canadian (Ontario) border and I have many friends in canada that I talk too who are more than happy to rant about their anger over the nannyish canadian government and their taxes. | |
| | | | | | Re: No wonder I am sure you know what you are talking about and yes taxes here are high. Yes the majority lives on the border. Again how does living on the border make it okay for us to have better broadband penetration? Again we have a lower population spread over a larger area and towns outside of major city centres have coverage....
I don't see how high taxes are a problem. Yes some people complain about it but they don't know what they have. We have free and great health care, my nana got both her knees replaced for free, all we payed for was a room upgrade.We have decent roads, we have great broadband coverage and we have a higher standard of living.
So whats the problem? | |
| | | | | | | Re: No wonder
What did I say? You have it because the canadian government soaked the taxpayers for it. And, your "free" health care is another example: If your health care is so good, why do you have fewer and fewer doctors? Why do you have to wait months for operations, such as non emergency heart bypass? Why do you have to wait weeks or more to just see a doctor? And, lets not get into what most english speaking canadians thing about Quebec and you governments pandering to them-at Government expense.
Come now, my friend. I'm sure that you believe that Canada is nirvana on earth and you are welcome to that opinion. However, sadly, there are many of your bretheren who dont hold that view and will be glad to explain themselves to you. And, you cant reasonably expect people in other countries to have the same view.
And, for that matter, how many people, do you think, in those small towns use that broadband? I point out that, just because it exists, that doesn't mean it is USED. What good is infrastructure that all the taxpayers paid for if it just sits there, is not used and needs to be maintained-again, at taxpayer expense? See, that seems to be the problem with the Liberal canadian government. They seem to think the citizens are a unlimited money trough for pie in the sky programs and graft-Like the current scandals you have going about patronage-This is one of the reasons that our government has swung back to conservatism. The liberals were in power for 4 decades and made a mess of things. | |
|
| |  bhhurdPremium
join:2003-02-13
Pennsburg, PA | Several posters have stated that the US has poor broadband service or quality. This is simply not true from my personal experince.
Case in point, I have 3 MBPS service at my home in California. The only other place where I have been with faster service is Korea (where I am right now). There DSL and cable modem services are fast. I was at my friend Tay's house Tuesday night and used his broadband. It was much faster than my service.
I will beback in Taiwan tomorrow night and the DSL at the apartment and at work is marginal compared with Korea or the US. It is frequently very slow, and often down.
How many of you have traveled around and used the broadband in other countries? | |
| | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: No wonder Well, you are in one of the nations densest megatropolisis's. Things begin to change radically once you move inland toward rural America.
And I'm not sure people are saying U.S. Broadband SUCKS, as much as they're concerned that a Duopoly - and associated lack of competition - is allowing providers to over-charge, and under-serve. | |
|
| | | More and more what everyone sees as a problem I see as an opportunity. IE serving broadband to unserved areas.
Wireless ie Trango/alverion
It is cheap it is easy and it works.
Do it before the Crybabies see what hit them.
Because I think that right now rural BB is where the money is for the indie.
Flushls
Side effects are generally mild and my include headache ,bleeding, anal leakage and death. If you experiance and erection lasting more than 4 hours please consult your shrink. | |
| | damoxPremium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA Reviews:
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| said by yengec:Most of these countries have a population of a few million at best and landmass that is comparable to North Carolina, maybe Texas at the most. Of course broadband penetration would be easier and broader in those regions that US is trailing. US by itself occupies half of the North America continent and we have way more distance and population than most of these countries combined... Cheers Dan I agree! I've been saying that all along. There are a couple of factors that make it more difficult for the US to run high speed internet to everyone's doorstep! The first is wide open spaces, a good portion of the US lives out away from big cities. The second is the cost of living. To lay a foot of cable in Korea, for instance, costs a lot less than laying a foot of cable in the US. So, obviously to lay a cable to areas of where population density is low, is cost prohibitive. That doesn't even take into account the possibility that we are doing better than current statistics would indicate.
I'm not saying things can't get better, but I think we have it fairly well.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
|
| | some comparisons are fair, some are unfair It's easier to wire Singapore than the U.S. But the U.S. had many "unfair" _advantages_. We built the thing in the first place, invented DSL technology in the eighties and decided not to deploy it (someone else have more info on that?), and gave billion in tax breaks for deployment to RBOCs that used them to buy other companies and mismanage them (Northpoint, etc.).
Fair comparisons are with similarly large countries like Australia and Canada.
Another point -- while Malik is excellent on technology and finance, he is not as good as other commentators (such as ex-FCC chief Kennard) on regulation, and is too forgiving of our current FCC for its broadband failures. | |
| | yengec
join:2000-03-24
Boca Raton, FL
kudos:1 | Let me give you an example Let me give you an example...
A couple weeks ago I went to Turkey. Their cell phone and POTS infrastructures are phenomenally advanced.
They've adopted GSM technology years before any provider in the US even knew what it was. Cell phones available for sale in that country we'll probably won't see them offered in the US for around 2 years.
They actually laughed at my Treo 650 when I was shown some (Japanese probably) brand there that weighed less than the 650, had a few extra functions, bigger brighter screen, better keyboard and essentially had the same concept as the 650.
From what I heard cell phone industry started in 1996 there, way later than the US. But by having less landmass and people to penetrate, I believe providers were able to deploy the best, faster and probably cheaper if not the same price... | |
| | | | Re: some comparisons are fair, some are unfair No wonder the FCC has removed the study from their website. It points to their complete failure in this area. All the tax breaks should have gone to new companies willing to take a risk and put down new neighborhood networks. We are screwed for the next 10yrs since everything is going back to the baby bells. If am not mistaken I think I have to take a landline if I want to get DSL in most places in the US. C'mon that really sounds like somebody making broadband their key focus doesn't it? The government is going to have to take a serious stand on a policy similar to the days of building highways and city roads or else we will find ourselves sinking lower on the access list. | |
|
| | Too busy for broadband We as a country are to busy to be worrying about deploying new technologies. We have other priorities such as destroying other countries and then rebuilding their infrastructure or taking care of other countries that can't take care of their self. | |
| Reviews:
·Charter
| Its lack of knowing what broadband is I believe people just don't know what broadband is, while it used to be ISDN type speeds in UK was "broadband" that was included it lots of reports. I don't know, i think with a 3meg connection on cable I would not consider a 1.5meg dsl like broadband if i had to switch :P
I think a better way to factor in the study is just include those that fully use a broadband connection and not just the "check email and surf web once a day for 20min" users. | |
| | | | Re: Its lack of knowing what broadband is
This is nice and all, but consider: Why is it, do you think that AOL has over 23 million customers? AOL is primarilly aimed at DIALUP users. If you have ever used AOL, which you likely have at some time or other, you know that the vast majority of AOL users are dumb as a box of rocks and know virtually nothing about their computers, let alone broadband. Many others are there because for what little web surfing they do, dilaup suits them fine. This pool of customers (combined probably about 60 million or so) is why you see agressive marketing by the likes of Net Zero and Netscape (owned by AOL-Imagine that).
Witness also the fact that there are many computers out there still using windows 95, let alone 98 SE and you may get some idea. It has allways been like this.
Just because YOU rush to upgrade to the bleeding edge, in hardware, OS and Broadband speed, doesn't mean everyone does. The reason there are so many "less fortunate" users out there is because most people dont NEED broadband for what they use their computer for, not to mention it's expense (Comcast at $42 a month, for example). Not everyone runs their own server or whatever like you do. Myself, I find my SBC 1.5 Mb DSL more than adequate for my needs.
The main flaw in this broadband argument that I see is that everyone seems to think that providers should roll it out, regardless of their return on investment, because they think everyone wants it, or, will use it, History (as well as marketing data, I'm sure) will show that this is simply not the case and never has been. The only reason we have the infrastructure we have today is because of competition for the available money. We will get the speeds as the money justifies. That's how it allways has been in the US, somehow I doubt they'll change now.
A pertinent question to ask, I'n sure is: In those countries that have these 10/10 connections, HOW MANY CUSTOMERS ACTUALLY USE THEM NEAR ANY REAL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR POTENTIAL OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESSES? I bet very few. | |
| | | ameniteThe Soylent - It's PeoplePremium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Its lack of knowing what broadband is said by Fatal Vector:
A pertinent question to ask, I'n sure is: In those countries that have these 10/10 connections, HOW MANY CUSTOMERS ACTUALLY USE THEM NEAR ANY REAL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR POTENTIAL OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESSES? I bet very few.
By this logic, we should all be on party lines for our POTS just because we don't use the phones 24 hours a day. When I had 10/1 from OOL I rarely used it to it's fullest, but it was nice to have when I wanted to do a 150MB download.
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese | |
| | | | | | Re: Its lack of knowing what broadband is
I must admit I fail to follow your logic. Perhaps it's because you conveniently ignore what was said in the rest of the post? I can do a 150 Mb download too (allthough, I'm sure you'll admit that the likelihood of doing this is rare)The only real difference, bottom line is that I dont mind waiting a bit while the download completes. This seems to be the thing that drives some people. They want instant gratification. Now, dont get me wrong: If that's you and you dont mind paying the freight to get it, that's fine.
Point is: Most people are NOT willing to pay the freight for service they will never use. It's been shown over and over in the marketplace. This speed thing is how they marketed computers for years-Untill the corporations got wise about spending millions to "upgrade" every 6 months-Now that consumers and corporations have caught on, you see the computer makers have to compete and have dropped thei prices drasticly. This recent offer by SBC for 1.5 Mb DSL for 19.95 with a 1 year commitment is just another example. You notice others are now following their lead and dropping prices. Soon Cable will to, because they have to compete and the fact is that DSL suits many peoples needs at a reasonable price. | |
| | | | | ameniteThe Soylent - It's PeoplePremium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Its lack of knowing what broadband is Your point about businesses upgrading their computers because something faster was available makes it sound as if everyone in the business world are braindead or brainwashed. If there is some edge to gain from new equipment, the market (i.e. businesses) will decide if it's worth investing in. Depreciable equipment is not the same thing as broadband data services.
It's just a matter of the standard evolving to the point where people can choose the level of service they want. It's beyond most people's imagination that the phone company would tell them they could only get a party line for POTS. One day it will seem equally silly be offered 768kbps or some similar speed.
I have also opted for a 1.5Mb DSL service over the 10/1Mb and 66% more expensive cable option. But only because these are the only two options open to me.
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese | |
|
| | Time Warner to charge me $26,000 to install cable As far as I'm concerned the US stenches for broadband
since us 30 or so homes cant get any broadband.
We still on dialup, in New York State in the USA.
Time Warner wants to charge me $26,000 to
install cable to my house.
Read all about it at
»[TWC] [TWC] wants wants to charge me $25,000 for RR | |
| | | | Re: Time Warner to charge me $26,000 to install cable You're getting ripped off.
TWC only wanted to charge me $12,000 to run my cable line across the street. (for the business I work at, not home)
And no, we didn't pay the 12K, we're going with DirectWay satellite. | |
|
| | Get on Irc you fools Then see how far behind the us is after you talk to people all over the world and find out what is normal for their country or area. | |
| | | | Re: Get on Irc you fools One thing I've learned, you can make statistics lie either way.
The only non-US broadband I've encountered is my brother-in-law's speedy 128Kbps ISDN line that he had to pay per-megabyte for in Germany.
It was about two years ago, not sure if things have changed.
I'll stick with my 5Mbps cable, although I heard in China they have 100MBps to the home, and looking to get Gigabit.. although I'd still rather live in the US. | |
| | | UJcDV
join:2002-04-29
Ypsilanti, MI | The Market Decides I think and would like to see the U.S. subsidize broadband telecommunications. We did it before with POTS, we did it with the highway system, and the railroad system.
All those other countries have subsidized their infrastructure, but the U.S. is free market. When the market decides to have gigabit to the home, we will get it. But lets face it folks, those on Broadbandreports.com are not the whole market. So if you want the gov to subsidize the broadband infrastructure, vote Democrat from local government all the way up to president. If you like free market, vote Republican.
And even then, the country as a whole has bigger fish to fry then high speed broadband penetration. Immigration, War, a National Health Care System debate, a Social Security debate and other issues will all take precedent over your high speed internet connection no matter who controls the FCC/House/Senate/White house.
Just my two cents
--
»www.dvinvasion.com | |
| | | | | | Re: The Market Decides I agree...and do we really want to see even MORE taxes on our phone bills...
All this money will have to come from somewhere...
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | Infrastructure In some countries, telephone and broadband are considered basic infrastructure, like roads, canals, jails, courthouses and schools. In those countries people tend to pay higher taxes, but the infrastructure gets built, often at taxpayer expense, with the actual users paying a fair share of the cost, and everybody wins. But then in those countries the idea is usually that you work to live, not live to work, and that a democracy means a government of the people, by the people and for the people, rather than a government of the big corporations, by the big corporations and for the big corporations. Hmmmm.... | |
| | UJcDV
join:2002-04-29
Ypsilanti, MI | Re: Infrastructure You my friend, would probably vote democratic then. And I agree with you, but not all here will. It all comes down to the ideology. What do you want your government to do and how to do it. Right now, we have the big free market mentality in office.
Free market is good, but we need to modernize our infrastructure (the electrical distribution grid is the priority well above and beyond broadband IMO) and to do that, we need more government involvement because the free market people (big business) is not gonna do it with out a profit. You have to admit though, a free market will make or break a product and it brings the price down. A socialist trend (like in those other countries) tends to be a big drain on the pocket book to fund all those programs. That's something here in the U.S. people hate...taxes. Regardless if it's good or not.
I believe there can be a balance to all this somehow. Just don't know how.
--
»www.dvinvasion.com | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
1 edit | A lot of you posters seem to be real left wingers. If broadband is so much better in these other countries, then by all means. move there.
Me, I'm quite satisfied with my 1.8 MB connection so I'm quite happy to stay and live in this free market country with a minimum of government interference and low taxes. | |
| | | | What does left or right wing have to do with it. Its basic economics. There is no immediate profit in doing what helps in the long run, and Wall Street punishes long term investments by companies who live and die by the effects of their quarterly reports on their stock price. So, when the private sector won't, someone else has to do it. The electrical grid and the interstate freeway network we take for granted and without which there would be no US economy were largely funded by taxpayers.
As for minimum of government interference? When the government is interfering with private matters and with your right to control your own body and soul, I don't call that minimum of government interference. But that's another debate, for another flag-waving patriotic day. | |
| | | | | Re: Infrastructure You are obviously a left winger yourself, and what's this nonsense about controlling our own bodies? I suppose that you are one of these baby killing pro abortionists too. | |
| | | |
2 edits | Re: Infrastructure You're so predictable, it's not even funny. As Himmler said, "repeat a lie often enough, it starts to sound like the truth". Worked for a while.
Anyway, my apologies to the rest of the readers of this thread. I momentarily forgot that when someone resorts to name-calling for lack of a better argument others should not feed the troll. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
 ·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
| In 2003 In 2003 Japan had ADSL Full Stream (approx 8Mbps/1 Mbps up) down with a majority of FTTC (fiber to the Curb) as the DSL route up to the premises, from there was Copper loop. And they still only Charge Between $10 and $15 dollars for this service today (originally $18, and they were LITERALLY handing out the modems FOR FREE in public places to get people to sign up!).
They also have mandated Prices of their old Copper Infrastructure of about $1.63 per month for unbundled copper loop per month & 3.7 cents per meter per month for unbundled Fiber
This is why the US sucks, as they wish to suck as much money as they can from existing patiences before they have to offer what they should have been for years!
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 k b
@direcpc.com | Don't believe the crock! The cable/dsl crooks are lazy scum.I live 1/8 of a block(yes,1/8!)from BOTH the cable and dsl junctions.NIETHER would let me have broadband.I EVEN OFFERED TO PAY FOR AND RUN THE LINE!They both said i wasn't worth the trouble of sending anyone to turn it on!All they care about is milking money from existing customers.They don't give a damn about increasing broadband anywhere.They will just keep milking their customers while the rest of us can rot.Go to hell cable/dsl! I promise that if bpl comes out it'll be "sure we can run you cable now!"And then i'll get the joy of telling them where they can stick it.I had to blow $1000 on a lousy sat netlink because of 1/8 of a block. | |
| | | | Re: Canada vs. US I don't really understand why the US is so far behind Canada. What really counts is rural vs urban population density (no reason most urban areas should not be wired). Canada and the US are about the same in terms of urbanization - about 80% live in cities in both cases. Yeah, most Canadian cities are within 100 miles of the US border, but that is still a huge area with a very low population density, probably lower than the US. For example I live in northern Ontario, a very large area with very widely scattered small cities (120,000 population in all cases). The small cities are 500 miles apart - all have high speed access, both cable & DSL.
As far as I know, there is virtually no government support for Internet access in Canada, except in rural/very isolated areas (in most cases to extend access to very small towns hundreds of miles distant from major urban areas).
The main reason why Canada has better high speed access is competition!! I remember reading a few years back that Canada has about 2X the cable coverage as compared to the US. I think that this has led to a much more competitive environment in Canada. In most towns & cities there is real competition between cable providers and telco to provide high speed access. It seems that this competition is lacking in a lot of US areas... | |
|
bbandbratBig Broadband Everywhere - Firstmile.UsPremium
join:2005-04-05
USA | Statistics I was always told that you know a statistician is lying because their lips are moving, and it's pretty much true in my humble opinion. You can skew statistics without much effort. I remember the final in advanced bio-stats was to take a set of stats and question 1.) prove they were statistically significant and question 2.) prove they were not statistically significant. I got an A.
That said there is still truth to be found behind basic numbers. You can not compare 35 million in the US to Belgium because the population of Belgium is only 10.2 million. For Belgium to have 35 million broadband connections they would over 3 connections for every man, woman and child in the US. Now while that may sound like it has some relationship in some manner to the way politicians and preachers calculate attendance figures for their events (we commonly refer to that as a preachers count in the midwest), that generally doesn't hold water outside of political or religious gatherings.
You can not compare DSL speeds of 256 kps (that's unguaranteed DSL at my home and why I do not have it) to 10 - 20 megabit, soon to be 50 to 100 megabit in Korea and Japan. It's nowhere close to the same and NO ONE other than a true FTTH (that's fiber all the way to the home, not the node or curb) has yet to come close to those speed in the US.
So it's true that the statistics are can be misleading, but don't try to make it sound like the US in anywhere in the lead. That too is incorrect. I've too many peers all over the US, in rural areas and suburban areas that still have dial up because neither DSL nor Cable modem is an option. Some of these areas include such wastelands as the LA Basin, 1/2 mile outside the City limit of Missoula MT (where the University of MT resides), St. Louis Metro area, Chicago Metroplex, Ok City, DC Suburbs on the Maryland side, and the St. Pete area.
If Broadband is not available in these areas, we can not be a leader. | |
|
| |
|
|
