Broadband Envy: Fixing American Broadband 847
Ant writes "Broadband Reports has a story on broadband services among countries including United States falling behind: 'Bombarded with tales of South Koreans and Swedes watching high-definition soap-operas via 100Mbps connections, the media has apparently developed a nasty case of broadband envy. This Reuters article suggests the US has "missed the high speed revolution", while last week Business Week dubbed America a "broadband backwater".'"
A concerted effort... (Score:5, Insightful)
We haven't, and we need to.
Re:A concerted effort... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your cable modem rate would be much higher or may never have come about were it not for the phone companies offering DSL (and vice versa). Both competitors in that situation were willing to absorb large capital costs in order to make sure the other guy didn't get a jump on them.
Right now, there is a lot of competition to find new ways to set up high-speed connections. The cable companies, the phone companies, the electricity companies, cell phone and other wireless provider companies -- all these guys are hard at work looking for new technical solutions. If suddenly everybody has a government subsidized, decent speed pipe going into the home, all that competition will slow down or end and we may miss out on even better technologies that might come down the pipe later.
Look how long the phone service monopoly kept us stuck on 1920s-era technology services. Then France leap-frogged us by setting up Minitel service, but their adoption of Minitel by a government monopoly kept them out of the early stages of BBS and internet growth.
Community != Government (Score:5, Insightful)
I say, find out where the incentives and motivations are, and harness that. In this case, the motivated people are the users themselves. I anticipate someone will argue that if people really wanted it, they would pay for it. My counterargument is that, right now, the market does not offer that option. The current North American experience demonstrates clearly that when there are a handful of players, and the ability to compete depends on a heavily regulated access to right of way, then the corporations will NOT cater to the desires of consumers, but rather strategically limit the options of users to maximize returns. In Canada, the two main broadband ISP's (Rogers and Bell), are either charging people extra for high bandwidth usage, or cutting off service to people who go above a secret, unstated, quota. The profit motive is not causing them to upgrade their service in any serious way. It's only causing them to squeeze the consumer harder.
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:4, Insightful)
But the articles clearly show that this has not been the case. Highspeed access has progressed in leaps and bounds in Asia and Europe precisely because the governments pushed aside businesses to mandate change.
I must say that the profit motive is the very reason that we pay so much and get glacial melt speeds. There is no profit margin in upping speeds. Only costs -- if you use MBA logic.
Once again, it is selective cost accounting. If the ONLY reason to do anything contructive is to make a short-term profit for a corporation, then innovation slows. If a nation doesn't subcribe to the profit-only model of innovation, they can factor in things like quality of life, or overall good for the greatest number, or creating LONG-term profits in exchange for America's short-term model.
I don't have to pound theoretical justifications into the ground here. I merely point to South Korea and NW European nations. They have mandated that the fiber be dropped, the last mile crossed. They ate the short term costs, pretty major ones, in exhange for the long term success, ie everyone is hooked up for a reasonable cost. They don't need to "innovate" to get it done. It's DONE. They did it. No more nonsense.
And I'm sitting at home nursing a 128 kb cable connection at peak hours for 55 dollars a month. And they are raising the rates again. And they've locked me into a 100 dollar a month TV/internet package. Tell me who's being "innovative" here, the engineers, or the MBA's draining us?
If the US highway system had been built using the same logic of those building the internet, we'd be paying thousands of dollars in tolls a year to move at 20 miles per hour around private roads surrounding the suburbs. And all of it justified by profit-only cost accounting and hands-off government policies. And the roads would be heavily policed to see if anyone is carrying VHS copies of movies or cassette tapes of CDs, 'cause we wouldn't want intelectual property thieves causing liability for the road companies.
PS: the bushies have negotiated a new addition to new interstate highway funding in the future, kids; they'll all be toll roads. Welcome to the future rebuilt -- they just may get their private roads after all.
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the reason we don't have safe transportation (as in electric busses, trains) stuff that doesn't cause lung failure - is that we pay the cost of using the road - whether we use ot or not.
Free at the point of use - is not free - its gawddammn expensive - because it is garenteed to be wasted.
If water was free in our homes - no one would even bother to turn off the tapp - "I like the sound the water makes - so I leave it on."
For most people, the cost of stopping to pay the toll is higher than the toll itself less the cost of the tolltaker.
- speedpasses solve that and should be made national.
I don't care if the risk is spread between a few rich people who speculate or a few rich people who pay taxes. In otherwords - private doesn't mean much - unless - private means the owner can advertise to drivers - that I abhorr.
AIK
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:3, Funny)
Water's free (ie: unmetered, paid through taxes) in my home and I don't leave the taps on. Do you know of any people who hyperventilate constantly because air is free?
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:3, Insightful)
You need think lessons my friend - I don't usually attack people for their stupidity - but you are coming really close to deserving it.
Do people use up too much air because its free.
Damn Straight they do.
Take the whole state of tennesee - burning tons of coal into the air - which convienently for them wafts over the mountains into N. Carolina where they have some of the nations worst air.
Not only is it "free" to hyperventilate
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but I know plenty of people who pump poisonous fumes out of their tailpipes because air is free. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that air not be free. I've seen Total Recall!
Besides, the grandparent post was obviously meant to be hyperbole, a "worst case" scenario meant to point out how things would be if we took our water as much for granted as we took our roads.
their way or the highway (Score:4, Funny)
You've just described the Chicago suburbs.
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to be a troll here, but why exactly is it the Governments responsiblity to get you the internet service you desire ? I moved from NYC, where I had tons of high speed choices, to the boonies. I waited three years to get off dialup. But, I made the choice to move, I didnt expect the Govt to spend millions to offer me fiber to my door so I can surf the 'Net.
Success or become a new Ottoman Empire? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is going to really profit from ultra-high speed internet connections? Businesses and people who deliver DRM content. Porn sites, big media companies, etc. On the bright side, the technical innovators such as porn site owners and companies like Vonage have the potential to reap millions before over-regulation occurs.
Guess who really pays for it? Suckers!
Saying that businesses do thin
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:4, Insightful)
Government sponsored roads were a government action that was initially seen as a way to keep the railroad and streetcar monopolies in check.
I would welcome toll highways -- it is ridiculous that trucking companies get to wear out roads with their huge trucks at our expense.
Re:Don't stop incentives for new tech! (Score:3, Insightful)
We DO move at 20mph (Score:5, Insightful)
The free interstate system has also helped make 18-wheelers more profitable to distribute goods across country than trains or boats. Do you really think that's a good thing?
I'm not saying I'm against the interstate system or that every road should be a toll road. I'm just pointing out that the interstate highway system may not be the best poster boy in favor of government intervention in the marketplace.
Profit vs Bureaucracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Government has some success at building, maintaining, and regulating infrastructure in a way that has been exceedingly profitable for corporations. Just take a look at the transportation system with freeways, highways, airports, etc., and look at the regulation of radio broadcast standards and frequencies.
Although I'm not one for having the government dinking around with everything, there are times when it makes se
Community Based Fiber (Score:4, Informative)
For those who may not remember, here's alink [pafiber.net] to a story on a community based fiber project in Palo Alto .
Re:A concerted effort... (Score:3, Informative)
I do know that one of them is Lock Haven, PA, which is only about 120 miles from my current location.
Re:A concerted effort... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1978 is calling..but 2004 answers the phone (Score:5, Informative)
china stockpiling
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,82
http://www.aseansec.org/16144.htm
peak oil
http://www.peakoil.net/
--I stay informed, thankew. Prices can be manipulated temporarily for business and political purposes, but there's nothing they can do about rapidly diminishing supply in conjunction with rapidly developing demand. They haven't even found a single mega field for a coupla years now (longer I think really), and several large oil concerns have had to re-assess severely downward what they previously claimed as recoverable reserves. Maybe you missed that little news fact, it's somewhat of what they call a "scandal" lately. It's in the news, not even hard to find. North sea-past peak. Mexico-past peak. Venezuela-past peak. Indonesia-past peak. Lower 48 USA-way past peak. North slope-past peak. Last good stash that is rapidly approaching peak is in the little area of iraq/iran/arabian peninsula. Some dribs and drabs here and there left to develop, west africa, some offshorte areas, etc, but that's it for the good and still easy to get at stuff. I was just reading last night some wells in sauid are pumping at 55% water now from the water they force in to extract it. They used to *gush* pure crude out of the ground, now they have to force it out.
Naw, maybe the dittoheads still believe that smoke and mirrors razzle dazzle that there's unlimited near free black gold energy, but pure geology proves it otherwise. People who actually do the research and don't fall for snakeoil salesmens spiels know what's up.
There are several reasons, this is just one... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several other problems. One is the current government deregulation, which has pretty much forced out all local competition except for cable providers and telcos. While deregulation is good in some respects, it's awful in others, because there weren't enough competitors to begin with, they've consolidated what is left, and there is currently a monopoly between a few major providers, with cable beginning to win out due to their generally better speeds. With no providers offering faster speeds at lower prices, the cable companies can sit on their 3Mb/s speeds while telcos try to keep up with their lame DSL speeds. In my area, the ONLY high speed internet provider offering higher than 1Mb speeds at relatively low prices is Time Warner. They are thus a monopoly, and there is no need for them to improve their service because there isn't anyone else.
If the telcos caught up, or other providers, this might change. But as there are no other providers due to consolidation, there is only the telcos. And thus far they aren't proving very competitive.
The other problem, which no one has pointed out, is the media consolidation and piracy issue. Time Warner not only provides broadband access, but produces content which would much more easily be pirated if they jacked their speeds up to 100Mb/s. Face it, they are the RIAA and the MPAA combined. Why would they want to allow a pipe where people could quickly download music and movies?
Not to mention, streaming TV or radio stations could broadcast which could challenge the production capabilities of the media giants. Get a domain like therealnews.tv and start streaming your own broadcast news show, or stream movies, who knows, it might start to impinge on their TV ratings. And as their business model is in the dark ages, they have to keep broadband in the dark ages. It's more political than you think.
The pipe could become available. There's all this dark fibre apparently all over the place which sits unused.
Break up the vertical integration, and I bet you'd see a real shift.
Just my two cents.
Re:A concerted effort... (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, so what's your excuse? If it's so easy and profitable, why didn't you raise some capital, start your own company, and beat them to it? Excuses, right?
Re:A concerted effort... (Score:5, Funny)
So let me be the second or third in decrying the deplorable state of broadband in this country! More porn! Faster porn! We are a shameful tech backwater! We might as well just be banging rocks together, settling for these crappy 3 megabit home internet connections. You know there is a direct correlation between the size of your pipe and the size of your penis, which means the Japanese and the Koreans have penises 33 times the size of ours! Even the women!
I call upon all of you to complain to your senators about the tiny nature of our pipes. It's flat out un-american. How can we hold up our heads in the world? No wonder we're having to invade other countries to prove our manhood.
Re:A concerted effort... (Score:3, Funny)
What porn sites are you going to?
Sicko.
Re:A concerted effort... (Score:3, Funny)
Argument through fallacy is always the recourse of the weak mind.
Don't you mean, "argument through phallasy?"
A less tired argument..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ours will need to be upgraded at some point - and it will - and the leapfrogging will continue. We're also probably not going to see an incremental 2x or 4x improvement to keep up with the Joneses, but a 10x leap - but it probably won't happen for a few years.
I wonder if their news services will publish "OMG! We aer teh technakal bak watar!11!" articles, or if they had done so several years ago when the US was pretty much the only place you could get affordable broadband for personal use?
So true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So true (Score:3, Informative)
Not true (Score:5, Informative)
I know some cities Internet connections are subsidised, but Bredbandsbolaget is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) ISP in sweden and are a privately-held company.
Re:So true (Score:4, Insightful)
The first step to cheaper broadband? FCC demonopolization of areas currently controlled by a single company (phone/cable). As it stands, I live in an area where I can only get Northland Cable. It sucks beyond beleif. They offer very slow connections at an outrageous price.
Two months ago I had DSL, but when I moved, it was outside the range. So I switched (I also went with vonage, but hey). I am now paying MORE for LESS (which in this case sucks).
Compare this to my mother. She lives 10 miles from the closest post office (give or take 2) in Boonesboro KY. It small enough that it doesn't even have its own zip code or fire dept. Bellsouth called her and offered DSL, starting this month. Go figure--she lives in the most rural area I can think of, and is getting DSL!!
Let me reiterate--if we want faster cheaper internet, gov't subsidy is one way to go. The better way is to open up the competition. This will also decrease the price of cable TV (note that satellite has already helped with this, but more competition is always good).
Nuff said.
Back Hoe (Score:3, Funny)
Then, after the meeting, where he says he'll call them back, your Dad gets one of his buddy's with a backhoe and some beer...
Hey, if it ain't broke, how are they ever going to fix it right?
Re:Companies don't want business (Score:3, Interesting)
[snip: phone and cable companies charging exorbitant setup and monthly fees] These companies don't want business.
Then take their business. Get a few T1s, some WiFi equipment, and some parabolic antennas. Then sell fixed wireless broadband to your neighborhood.
Re:So true (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweden for instance, has had some government subsidizing of broadband. Sweden has no government monopoly on broadband services.
(the old government-monopoly on telecom was deregulated 10 years ago)
This isn't anything unusual either. Governments often subsidize private industry in sectors which are considered strategically important for the country.
(Can you say "military-industrial complex?")
Re:So true (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you compare Sweden to Calif
The internet is a necessity these days (Score:5, Insightful)
People who reacts to article like that by saying that internet is a luxury are missing the fact that basic internet services like emails or simple websites are in practice often the cheapest way to communicate - you get far more information out of your phone line. And even poor farmers in third-world countries need to communicate, if only to the nearest city. Internet is more than just a greater provider of pr0n and pirated music...
Area to cover (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Area to cover (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Area to cover (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Area to cover (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Area to cover (Score:3, Interesting)
population, bugger all..
Broadband: non-existant.. the BEST is cable that is around 1.5mbit download and achieves around 15k/sec upload (its limited) you get around 12gb per month for around 80 bucks aussie (times by 0.7 for US dollars)... And that is only available in certain areas of sydney and other cities (not all areas) and totally forget about country areas...
ADSL is popular, but I wouldn't class it as proper broadband... its slow (256kbps is common, 1.5mbit
Re:Area to cover (Score:4, Informative)
Penetration: Similar to South Korea
Their solution: Public funding.
Re:Area to cover (Score:3, Insightful)
What's screwing the rest of us though, is that a good chu
Re:Area to cover (Score:4, Interesting)
United States: 399.1 billion
Sweeden: 4.5 billion
South Korea: 14.1 billion
Re:Area to cover (Score:3, Insightful)
So how much would $150 billion buy in the way of network infrastructure anyway?
High Speed Revolution (Score:5, Funny)
The High Speed Revolution will televised in the US ONLY.
In all other countries, it will be streamed in HD over 100Mbps connections.There are some complicated legal problems (Score:5, Interesting)
I am about as hardcore capitalist as one could get but I think in the case of wired communication you have a natural monopoly that should be owned by the government so that a level playing field for all can be developed and create an enviroment with much lower barriers to entry. Of course to do that the current owners of the telecom grid would get F'd in the A so it's not as simple as that.
Sigh...
Re:There are some complicated legal problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, but as Adam Smith said, the wealth of a country is proportional to the connectedness of the people in it (roads, trains, phones, etc.) so a government subsidy of broadband makes sense - it increases everyone's wealth and improves worker effeciency by leaps and bounds. The return from the combination of that and the multiplier effect should easily be enough to convince the government to invest in broadband connections for everyone. These things aren't just for entertainment and communication, they are extremely useful for work and education as well. I'm not suprised the US government has not subsidized the deployment, but they should.
My 4Mbit DSL isn't so bad (Score:3, Insightful)
2 words.... land mass (Score:3, Insightful)
For example... If you took all the wiring and fiber placed in Sweden to get the infrastructure they have and used it in the US you could probably only outfit New York and Chicago before running out of material.
We suffer from the fact that as a nation we are a LARGE area to cover. Cell providers have figured this out. In iceland they can easily cover the whole country with a modest number of towers. Here in Michigan we have to have the same number of towers to cover the lower peninsula. Getting fiber between major cities in Sweden you are talking 150-250 miles while in the US you are talking 400-900 miles for the same setup.
Tech scales well... but money doesn't and we are a large country to scale to. When we hear about China or Russia beating us on broadband availability then we seriously have to wonder what is going on.
Re:2 words.... land mass (Score:5, Informative)
So the cost per person of cabling out Sweden is probably more than the same exercise in the US. Frankly, this blows your argument out of the water.
Re:2 words.... land mass (Score:3, Insightful)
True...
But in Sweden 1 company can have a dream of covering the country in service and actually succeed in doing it. Even cell companies in the US have given up on that idea.
Re:2 words.... land mass (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the GP argument still stands, IMO. For a single fixed sum of money put into Sweden, they can equip their whole country and say "Hey, we beat you! Nyah!" For the same amount of money, the USA can equip only, say, Ohio. Capital doesn't grow on trees, so what are the odds that US companies can source 50 times the capital to bring everyone in the country up to Sweden's broadband? Compound that with competition among cable/satellite TV, cell phones, vi
Re:2 words.... land mass (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the most useful piece of inform
Meanwhile in Broadband Britain... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm mildly annoyed because a 72hr outage was caused by a cow (supercow powers) munching through some BT cable. Don't they bury these things?
Re:Meanwhile in Broadband Britain... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. The cow was given a proper funeral, with all appropriate honours. It was very mooving.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Meanwhile in Broadband Britain... (Score:4, Funny)
Damn Brits.
The size argument is crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Look at #2 on the actual report, sitting beside South Korea: Canada. Canada being both geographically larger and far less densely populated then the US, the size argument is blown up right there.
The US is just a lousy place to get broadband.
Re:The size argument is crap (Score:3, Interesting)
But most of canada is a wasteland [atlas.gc.ca].
The US is just a lousy place to get broadband.
Perhaps. But you still must recognize that there is some truth to the idea of geographical differences playing a part in this mess.
Re:The size argument is crap (Score:3, Informative)
We Failed It Somehow. (Score:3, Funny)
And here I am, watching high-definition popup advertisements via 32 Kbps aol dialup. Like a sucker.
Other countries do exist, you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Over here in Australia, we are almost all on 56k. I can count the number of people I know who have broadband on one hand.
In the USA, you recently got to 50% of households with broadband. Care to guess how many people in Australia have access to high-speed internet? One million as of June 2004. Out of more than 20 million. THAT'S FIVE PERCENT!!!
Just because some countries have faster internet, that doesn't mean you're falling behind.
I'd kill people to get a 512k ADSL line, but I'm just not able to. Be happy with what you already have.
Re:Other countries do exist, you know (Score:3, Funny)
Scientists discovered that all your flash animations and adverts spin the wrong way, and so halted progress on installation.
Regular cable and ADSL don't work without massive changes.
I was told thats why the crossover cable was invented.
[/tongueincheek]
Re:Other countries do exist, you know (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you should all stop complaining about how you don't all have ten megabit connections?
Over here in Australia, we are almost all on 56k. I can count the number of people I know who have broadband on one hand.
In the USA, you recently got to 50% of households with broadband. Care to guess how many people in Australia have access to high-speed internet? One million as of June 2004. Out of more than 20 million. THAT'S FIVE PERCENT!!!
Your statistics are somewhat muddled. The recent news [whirlpool.net.au] is that the num
DSL more popular than cable... (Score:3, Interesting)
Upload speeds? (Score:3, Interesting)
Many broadband providers are handing out multi-megabit connections but with 128k or sometimes 256k up. When I hear about matching upload speeds available in other countries it just drives me crazy that I'm paying Comcast 60 dollars a month for 3 down and 256k up.
Face it: broadband users tend to do a lot more than just "consume online web ads." They use all sorts of P2P, be it eMule, bittorrent, kazaa. They want to be able to send friends and family large photos and media clips via email or ftp without waiting all day.
On top of it, a lot of these foreign countries get their infrastructure subsidized by tax dollars, while here in the states the baby bells sit on DSL roll outs until they can get long distance sales rights or whatever they need that month. The cable people are just plain expensive. I think the US market still needs to grow up a bit, address customer concerns, and stop playing the favor system and start selling product.
Internet Speeds versus Edge Speeds (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't going to happen here (Score:5, Insightful)
Current trends indicate that the major driving force behind widespread adoption of high-speed access is connecting with one's friends, family, and social peers. Much of that communication involves what may euphamistically be categorized as "restricted" (from the point of view of copyrights,) material. Given the current lock that monopolies of various types have on US legislative processes, I don't really see that changing, or much scope for effective, economical use of emerging communication technologies. That's why I conclude that the US is now and will remain for the forseeable future, a technological backwater.
It's also why Al Queda et. al. are already obsolete -- the US may have enjoyed the shortest run as the dominating global imperialist on record. We've been fading toward irrelevance in world affairs for a generation; the fall of the Berlin Wall destroyed both protagonists, it just took a little longer for us than for our Soviet cold war opponents. Of course, by the time it becomes obvious it will also be old history, but that's something the winners get to write. I hope someone writes it in my lifetime; I'd enjoy reading about it in my old age.
Back to the point: the US won't get all these fun toys because to most of my fellow citizens, broadband internet access isn't obviously helpful to their lives. Many technology-oriented careers, not just IT, are fading from this landscape in a gradual but inexorable migration toward the east, and while college enrollments are up in general (that is, more kids are going to college,) enrollment in technical and scientific fields of study is falling. Interior design and English may be worthy fields of study but I'm not optimistic that a healthy economy can be based on them. And the education kids are getting these days is not particularly helpful.
Absolutely agree w/1st 2 ph's (Score:4, Insightful)
We are truely seeing what happens when big media get's in bed with the FCC. While I believe that we will see higher speeds (Speakeasy is offering 6mb/768mb connections in some areas as well as DSL w/out a phone line - which I have), they will be nothing compared to some otehr countries. And I'm the first to agree this is dampening innovation. The pipe is now becoming a necessity in some areas, but don't expect the current administration to see that any time soon.
Take this example. I'm actually developing a video conferencing app for a company. While some players like Apple, M$, and even Yahoo (altho, their offering isn't much to talk about) their own vconf apps (Apple's, obviously, being the best), they all have high bandwidth demands. Apple's Tiger nextegn Mpeg 4 codec promises to lower these requirements, but for all pratical purposes, that isn't the reality now.
So for me, working on a new technology with a limited budget, I'm screwed. Unless I wanna fork out big bucks for a hige pipe, my 'innovation' is kinda dead in the water. And even if I did have a big connection, our business clients might not either. All because of artifical costs that the big providers complain about.
Another issue. In San Francisco, as well as other cities, you have to go thru quite a few hoops - STILL - to get a connection up. The latest was with my Speakeasy Onelink service - which is basically a data-only circuit that doesn't require phone service from SBC. However, it still requires SBC to come out; as part of this requirement I waited all day only to find my line 'tagged' by SBC some time in the past few days. I then called the Speakeasy guys, who said that SBC isn't required to notify anyone during this step. Great. Now Speakeasy/Covad has to wait for SBC to notify them that they've finished. So far that hasn't happend. Gee. In other words, this whole process, after years of availibility, is still crap. Still inefficient. Still a joke.
While I use Speakeasy exclusively - as a developer - since they're one of the only independent providers left - this whole process is still crap. The Bell's still have no intention of letting go of any control of the copper that we, the government, basically game them in the 40's/50's/60's. So while all these corporate interests still hold the keys, we'll be given little slices while other countries in the world will be given the whole pie thusly, enabling their little guys to 'innovate' a hell of a lot faster than ours. Of course, our adminstration and biz climate here is pretty stacked against the little guy, so no new news there.
Argh, this whole thing pisses me off..
I'm only about 40 miles from the Governator... (Score:3, Informative)
I can SEE people that have had cable access for 20 years, but I can't get it. (literally, they're just one hill over). My sister gets 14.4k tops, and she's 1 mile away from her inlaws that get 48k. My phone line supports a flakey 26.4k max connection. The only thing that I get that says "DSL" is advertizing. Many people in the area and surrounding areas are in a state where the "bad line" just gets passed around from someone that complains to someone that doesn't. They're out of good lines. The problem?
NOONE WANTS TO SPEND MONEY.
Upgrading the infrastructure costs money, and in an area that isn't currently being changed from an open field to high density subdivision who cares? The profit just isn't there. Let the lines corrode. Whenever it rains, my connection gets worse. The cover to the splice box at the top of the pole outside our house fell off two months ago. Last I checked the terminals are still open to the weather. That's how much they care.
If we talked to the phone company could we convince them to do something? My dad tried when he was a systems tech FOR the phone company. Didn't work.
Cheap broadband comes with a $300,000+ setup fee. The cost of buying a two bedroom house near a central office or in an area with cable.
Who would've thought that California would be a third world country?
join the band (Score:5, Interesting)
"the media" !?!?!?!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Make no mistake, what "the media" wants out of the Internet is an on-demand distribution channel, and NOTHING more. A little trickle, upstream, and a firehose downstream. Anything else enables NASTY stuff like peer-to-peer and other "uncontrolled publication." Isn't the phrase "uncontrolled publication" what the ??AA problems are really all about?
Have Cake, Eat It (Score:3, Insightful)
So we spend the past 6 or 7 years creating laws that make running an ISP a legal and regulatory minefield, other laws that reduce the consumer value of having broadband, and create an environment in which incumbent telecoms are encouraged to kill competition and cook the books, then we scratch our heads and wonder why we don't have a better information infrastructure. Well, gee, I just can't figure it out.
Maybe we have a hard time... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're in danger of becoming a technology backwater, not because of slower broadband, but because we're not investing in technology infrastructure, technology and science eductation and we're shipping intellectual capital in the form of tech jobs overseas to save that precious shareholder value.
Unlikely we'll ever face up to being second in anything. For some reason we've developed a national concensous that our crap doesn't stink and if we're doing it, then that's the best thing to be doing. Even suggesting that we're not number one in damn all everything will likely get me mod'ed down because disagreement these days is tantamount to treason.
Most of us grew up with notion that the US was the greatest country on the planet. It's not going to go down easy or well that such a notion might not be true anymore, in any capactity. Whether it's something litlle like broadband, or something bigger like health care, education, privacy or quality of life.
Yes, USA is DEFINITELY 2nd rate in healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of manipulation still goes on here: most Americans are convinced America has the world's greatest medical case. Umm...no, it does not. Not for the average person.
And we do not have the world's greatest broadband. Here in Houston, the country's 5th largest city, you can get 1M down, 250K up for the grand sum of $32/month.
The reason why we have substandard broadband and substandard medical care is that our governmental structure was set up 200 years ago to reflect and maintain a SLAVE SOCIETY. They ran on slaves and indentured servants, and they built a Constitution to exploit the underclass. And they are still exploiting us.
There is no broadband problem (Score:3, Informative)
First, in the US broadband passed modems last month. [websiteoptimization.com] The trend is steady and that number should pass 80% within two years.
Second, because the US has free local calling, good line quality, and plenty of telco switch capacity, dialup works well in the US. In many countries, dialup involves per-minute costs, and you can't stay on all day. It the US, it's been flat-rate monthly for years. And dial-up is really cheap.
Third, more people in the US have Internet access than buy books or subscribe to newspapers. The literate fraction of the population is already on line. If you can't read, even AOL isn't useful.
What's the problem?
The US lags for some very good reasons! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we have a ridiculous regulatory structure that virtually guarantees the eventual extinction of DSL -- I know I, for one, won't shed a tear about this. The telephone companies of this nation have a decades-long legacy of sloth and profiteering; trying to starve and harass third-party DSL providers out of existence is just a continuation of their legacy. The sweet irony of it is: their aging copper is virtually useless in the face of newer broadband technologies, and while they were busy crushing their "partners," they missed the narrow window of opportunity for any profit whatsoever. Now, they are forced to sit on the sidelines and provide POTS to Grandma while licking their chops and gazing dolefully at the cash cows of the broadband revolution. </rant>
Yes, the use of the Internet in the US has been almost solely reserved for the technological and educational "haves" in this country, leaving the "have nots" by the wayside -- though this is changing.
The single biggest reason we lag behind other nations in broadband deployment, however, is sheer scale.
The United States has 93 TIMES (9300%) the surface area of South Korea, and 22 times the surface area of Sweden. As the third most populous nation on earth, we have almost 300,000,000 people living within our borders. Our national POTS telecomms infrastructure is the oldest and most complex on Earth.
Broadband penetration to US households in 2001 was around 7%. I am frankly amazed at the progress we've made in the past three years. The nation's major population centers -- the west and east coasts, and the Great Lakes region -- are entirely wired for both DSL and cable modem, and we're working on deploying those technologies (and more exciting, newer alternatives) to the less populous interior of our nation.
All things considered, I'd say we're doing a good job.
Quick lesson in logic (Score:3, Insightful)
As most will note, there's a big difference between wiring a compact South Korean urban sprawl, and draping fiber across the Rocky Mountains and into the rural communities of the plain states. A more just comparison would likely be Canada, but wait: they're not only offering faster speeds than American providers, but consumers pay less, and Canada rivals South Korea when it comes to broadband penetration.
A lot of simplistic thinkers will rationalize and compare South Korea to the US and make excuses. However, they will fail to notice someone like Canada who is doing nearly as well as Korea.
People take the same tack with gun violence in the US. We make excuses and comparisons with other countries, and then we miss the countries who provide better examples. For example, many countries in Europe have pretty strict gun control and very few gun related deaths, far fewer per capita than the US. We'd come up with excuses for that, but an even better logician would point out canada, who's laws aren't as strict, and who have a lot of guns as well. However they too have very few gun related deaths. Why? There's another reason, but that's not my point.
The point is that people will see one comparison and rationalize it. I've found for Pro-US were #1 chanters, I find making multiple comparisons often shuts them up.
And I am an american citizen, and I'm not satisfied with the state of broadband or guns or a whole lot of other shit in this country.
It comes down to this. (Score:3, Insightful)
It really comes down to attitude. In the US they want to sell you bandwidth but don't want you to use it. If you use it they will send out a tech to cap your line. In Korea they want to sell you bandwidth and if you use it, they will send out a salesman to sell you a bigger pipe.
Re:Size DOES matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Size DOES matter. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yawn. Same old story. (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, it's the Baby Bells and the FCC who make it hard for communities to roll their own broadband, not distance or regulations or profit.
Re:Yawn. Same old story. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but in Canada, 95% of the population is less than 5 degrees north of the 49th, and that population tend to clump near the cities. And given that there still are people who are on partyline phones (I think they've only recently got individual phones when a microwave link was established)...
In addition, Canada has a very high percentage of the population that subscribes to cable TV, so the infrastructure to actually do broadband is there. We may have similar geography to the US (larger country, actually), but when you have a population distribution as whacked as it is here (we love to hug the border), as well as infrastructure penetration, it makes broadband access easy. (In urban areas, there are only two types of TV - cable, and satellite. OTA is very rare. In the sticks, they tend to have satellite (C-Band or DSS), since pretty much the only OTA channels is CBC and a couple of others.
Re:Yawn. Same old story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, your argument falls apart when you consider that small towns in Canada, such as Fort McMurray in Alberta (and many towns even smaller than that) have had broadband for years now (since 1997, in Fort McMurray's case) while many major cities in the U.S. still don't have half-decent broadband penetration.
Re:Yawn. Same old story. (Score:4, Informative)
That's 5 degrees in one plane only. It's approximately 90 degrees in the other dimension. That is still a huge landmass to cover -- particularily when you consider there are major centres strung out through that area.
Canada is a big place. Quite a bit bigger than the US. The difference in population density may help wiring the major centres themselves, but makes it much more expensive to inter-connect those centres.
Canada has always been an innovator in the area of telecommunications. When you have a country that covers 90 degrees of the globe at the 49th parallel you have to be good at telecommunications.
Statements like this have always bugged me, because with only two exceptions, the reason why the highest population density is close to the border has nothing to do with the assumption most Americans make that Canada's population is this way because it wants to be close to the US.
We don't particularily "love to hug the border" -- it's more that the border is placed along areas where it makes sense for higher population density. If you were to look at a map of Canada showing population density, the highest density areas are along the corridor following the St. Lawrence Seaway/Great Lakes. This makes sense if you think of how the continent was originally colonized, and how important water was to travel and commerce. Historically large population centres grew in areas with maritime access.
It's also the area where the best land for growing crops is. You don't farm in the tundra, and the original settlers of Canada relied heavily upon farming (and fishing) for their food.
The two exceptions I mentioned above were:
As such, it's not so much that we love to hug the border because of the sake of the border. Indeed, these areas were heavily settled even before there was a border, and the border cuts through regions condusive to commerce and travel. If the border were 1000km further south, I'm willing to bet you'd see the same population density as already exists between our two countries.
Yaz.
Except it's NOT similar (Score:4, Interesting)
Shamelessly stolen reference link from someone else: Canada's Population Density [atlas.gc.ca] Reading the caption reveals that 60% of their population lives in a tiny fraction of their land -- "a thin belt of land representing 2.2% of the land between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City."
Re:Yawn. Same old story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Btw.. What you are describing is a monopoly (which is the case in usa) and not a free market. In a truly free market we would have prices that are no higher than the actual cost of providing the service, anything else is reflective of monopoly power.
So ironically we have a fundamentally socialist country here providing a more economically sensible alternative than the home of capitalism can..
Re:Yawn. Same old story. (Score:5, Informative)
His 10mbit cable modem is a little over 3x as fast as...
The article is a bit unclear here, so it's understandable that you think he has a cable modem. In fact bredbandsbolaget delivers 10mbit ethernet to apartment houses, connected to an optical fiber connection. This means that they deliver 10mbit in both directions, which is significantly different from what any high-speed DSL/cable modems are capable of delivering.
We are also comparing Sweeden to the United States... I don't need to rehash the fact that the US is quite a bit larger than Sweeden and the population dense areas are quite a distance apart.
Population density, Sweden: 20 citizens/square kilometer.
Population density, USA: 33 citizens/square kilometer. (CIA Factbook)
As for population dense areas in US being quite a distance apart, you are probably right.
Re:Yawn. Same old story. (Score:5, Insightful)
I moved to Georgia (112 psm) from New Jersey (1030 psm) and had exactly the same speed internet in both locations. The capability for better exists in both places, but they feel no need to provide it.
Our telecom regulations suck. We protect companies that provide inferior service.
But is it split-speed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But is it split-speed? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:2 words (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't trade better broadband... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you'd be QUITE HAPPY to have the means of communication DICTATED BY THE STATE eh comrade? Why, you COMMUNIST!
Nah, seriously, the reasons why the US has somewhat slower broadband probably relate to how much higher the actual demand for it is in SK and Sweden. You don't have to start raging against the monster of socialism every time the US isn't #1.
trolling, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorant redneck, but patriotic, eh?
You know, contrary to what Hollywood movies may tell you, there _is_ a world outside your borders, and it does _not_ all consist of naked tribesmen with stone spears, oppressed by some tribal warlord with a bigger stone spear.
Pick a geography book sometimes. Fascinating read. You may well find that other countries are just as democratic... if not more, considering that they don't have the "waah!! Terrorists everywhere!!" lame excuse to take away even more civil liberties.
"It's interesting how the author fails to mention that there are restrictions on websites that users can visit in the aforementioned country, but I digress. I guess that's a convenient oversight."
Sorry to dawn some reality on your self-righteous redneck rant, but: I don't think Sweden, Germany, UK, or any other EU countries have any more censorship than you already have in the USA too. Yes, the government does say stuff like "thou shalt not watch child porn", but guess what? So does yours.
We're not talking China. Noone will arrest you in Sweden for having a site about how much the government sucks.
So again: get that head out of your ass. Learn a bit about the world outside your borders. Or just learn anything, for that matter. Might actually do you some good.
"I don't want my broadband to be a beurocracy, and I can put up with a few hiccups here and there because down the road, we're going to catch up and feel at ease."
There's nothing especially bureaucratic about broadband anywhere in the EU.
"I'm very happy to be living in within a structure of a decentralized broadband access where each individual state dictates the best method of communication, rather than a country tell me that only DSL or CABLE is available."
Ah, the standard display of talking out of the ass. So you're that great and free because state governments decide for you? Well, gee. Funny how the rest of us thought that freedom had something to do with the government _not_ deciding stuff for you.
So basically, son, there are plenty of arguments about liberty or economics that might apply to this situation. But you don't even understand either. You don't understand that prized freedom you wave around as a flag, and you don't understand the economics either.
Your idea of more liberty is merely being a faithful doggie to a lower state government, instead of a centralized government. But a faithful doggie nevertheless. Well, gee. You would have had a great time during feudalism. You'd only have your baron bossing you around, while the higher levels (counts, dukes, the king, etc) don't even give a damn that you exist. Yep, great liberty there.
So lemme ammend what I was saying: learn some history too.
Re:Small scale vs. large scale. (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, a particular memory comes to mind. I was in Vienna, talking to a girl from Bosnia, and she asked, "St. Louis is close to Washington D.C., right?"
I sat and thought for a second, "It depends on what you mean by close, I guess." I had to explain to her that, in most places in the United States, it takes more than a few hours to get out of the country. You could be in the US, ride on a train in a strait line for a full day, and never leave the country. We found a map, and I showed her where NYC and D.C. are, and informed her, that's a four hour trip by train. She just didn't believe me. I then tried to explain Alaska. Don't ask. Most Americans don't understand how big and open Alaska is.
My point? Just that you're right. The scale of open land between the US and European countries is generally so large that people living there don't even understand how large it is. A lot of people in the US, unless they've travelled some, don't understand how big a country it is. What works for a small country isn't guaranteed to work for a huge one.
Re:Small scale vs. large scale. (Score:3, Informative)
A more just comparison would likely be Canada; but wait: they're not only offering faster speeds than their southern neighbors, but consumers pay less, and Canada is close to South Korea when it comes to broadband penetration.
Re:Small scale vs. large scale. (Score:3)
Re:In the Great White North ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:uuh.... (Score:3, Funny)