Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications United States The Internet

FCC: Broadband Usage Has Tripled Since 2001 154

Posted by timothy
from the jumpy-jumpy dept.
Brainsur writes "According to Newsfactor more and more Americans are migrating to high-speed Internet service, with the number of broadband subscribers tripling in recent years, according to a comprehensive report from the Federal Communications Commission. The U.S. is making progress in delivering broadband access underserved areas, the report states. The report also says that the number of users of broadband services (speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions) soared to 28 million in December 2003 from 9.6 million in 2001."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC: Broadband Usage Has Tripled Since 2001

Comments Filter:
  • not bad.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    I'm surprised too, that it's been that fast, but I really shouldn't be. Everyone and thier mothers now have Cox Cable for internet in my area..
    • Re:not bad.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by soluzar22 (219097) *
      I'm surprised it's been that slow. EVERYONE seems to have broadband now.
      • Re:not bad.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Toresica (788403)
        Only people who live in or near cities.

        It's not possible to get broadband in remote places - Nothern Ontario, for instance.
      • To lazy to find the link, but a week or so ago, we had an article showing broadband(*) was just now reaching 50/50 versus dialup. So, saying "everyone" has it already, thats well, uhhhmmmm, wrong. :)

        *: Don't know what the definiton of broadband was in that survey though.
    • Re:not bad.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrEldarion (114072)
      I'm surprised that it's not faster. Once people come to the realization that what they're paying for a second phone line plus their AOL/Earthlink subscription is more than it costs for broadband, they usually switch pretty quickly.

      I wonder why the broadband providers haven't been pushing that angle.
      • Because a lot of people refuse to get a second phone line, or use their cell phone as a primary when they're online. Therefore they aren't paying for an extra phone line. So if they can get cheap internet acess for $10-15/month, they will. Or if they're newbies, they'll pop in that AOL disk.

      • They have. Among those neighbors who had dial-up, the easiest sells were those who had a second line. It was the sell for my family to kill their second line. We're going to run out of those people sooner rather than later; but we're also hitting a critical mass that lets us offer low-cost broadband to everyone else (like $25 for a 400kbps DSL)
  • by flewp (458359) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:08PM (#10228234)
    Porn has increased three-fold...
  • In a few weeks, I'll be one of 'em. I'm really not surprised, the increase in gaming has made computing much "cooler".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:13PM (#10228257)
    "The U.S. is making progress in delivering broadband access underserved areas, the report states."

    I thought we already HAD broadband access underserved areas?

    Perhaps you meant, "The U.S. is making progress in delivering broadband access TO underserved areas, the report states."
  • 200 kbps uplink? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ca1v1n (135902) <snook@guanotr[ ]c.com ['oni' in gap]> on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:14PM (#10228260)
    A lot of people have 200+ kbps uplinks that are artificially capped in the realm of modem speeds by their ISPs. I wonder how many of these have been counted in this survey?
    • by lphuberdeau (774176)
      A while back, my ISP had 1 mbps down and 64kbps up, now it's around 3mbps down and 640kbps up. Since it's one of the largest ISP in Canada, that change sure is part of the statistics. I wonder how many other ISPs increased the upstream during this period.

      One of the questions I ask myself is how 1mbps can be considered as not broadband, even if the upstream is lower.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:14PM (#10228262)
    In other news... virus activity has tripled since 2001.
  • Both directions? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fooby (10436) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:16PM (#10228273)
    ...broadband services (speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions)...

    Hm, I get 1.5Mbps down, 128kbps up from Verizon DSL. Does this mean I don't have broadband?

    It sure would be nice to have a fatter uplink, even if it wasn't a symmetric connection. Of course even though this is slow compared to connections in some countries I'm not complaining too loudly. A few years ago a dual-bonded ISDN 128kbps connection seemed would have been a dream come true.

    • by ajiva (156759) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:45PM (#10228398)
      YES! I have 384k down, and 256k up! I have broadband and YOU don't! Neer neeer neee!
    • You know since you have 1.5 down your less than 15,000ft from the CO, you can call up and get a free upgrade to 384k up. Verizon also now offers 3.0/768k for $40 if you have the Freedom package and $44 if you don't. You have to be 11,000ft max for that though. Make sure to call billing though since only they do the upgrades.
      • I also forgot to mention that the 3.0/768k is only avaliable in Verizon "East" areas, or the ex-Bell Atlantic areas, Verizon "West" areas or ex-GTE areas can not get this yet. A good way to tell if your considered "East" or "West" is if you connect with PPPoE or DHCP respectivley. I believe when the service is offically announced West areas will also get it, something about merging billing databases is holding it up. If you are on a remote terminal you can not get the 3.0/768k regardless of your "East" or "
        • I also forgot to mention that the 3.0/768k is only avaliable in Verizon "East" areas, or the ex-Bell Atlantic areas, Verizon "West" areas or ex-GTE areas can not get this yet.

          FYI, I live in an ex-GTE area and we're part of Verizon "North". (At least, the phone bills get made out to "Verizon North".)
    • Re:Both directions? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Grym (725290) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @01:05PM (#10228488)

      Hm, I get 1.5Mbps down, 128kbps up from Verizon DSL. Does this mean I don't have broadband?

      No. You don't.

      Somewhere along the line, the word "broadband" got a legal definition. Because of all the Peer-to-Peer stuff, though, most ISPs prefer to severely limit the upstream. This is why nearly all companies advertise their internet connections as "high-speed" rather than broadband now.

      -Grym

    • I think Optimum Online is the best internet service available in my area. I get 8.5 mbps down and over 900 kbps up.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:17PM (#10228275)
    ...the RIAA and MPAA announced the number of people probably stealing their precious intellectual property has probably tripled since 2001, and that they'll be suing everyone just to make sure they don't miss any infringers.
    • "..the RIAA and MPAA announced the number of people probably stealing their precious intellectual property has probably tripled since 2001."

      In other news, the RIAA and the MPAA have posted record sales for the year, the increase is expected to... hey, I told you to put the United Way blurb between those.
  • I have become with complacent with this paltry 170kbps down and 15kbps. I need more! I want 125mbps and I want it to be symetrical!
  • by QuickSilver_999 (166186) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:18PM (#10228282)
    Computer people can eat up excess capacity faster than it can be created. How many people here said when they got their first 20Meg HD "I'll NEVER fill up THAT much space!" I know I did.

    All this really means is that in the near future web designers and multimedia providers will start to upgrade the amount of bandwidth needed, and the average person will still be screwed. We all saw it with the 2400 baud modem, the 14.4, the 28.8, and the 56K. We'll see it again with DSL and Cable. Until the day comes when web designers realize that too many geegaws ruin the experience, we'll continue to have this problem.

    • Until the day comes when web designers realize that too many geegaws ruin the experience, we'll continue to have this problem.

      The problem of broadband penetration tripling every three years? Hard disks having per Gig costs that go down 50% every year? Those problems?

      It's innovation. The more resources, the more possibilities. The more functionality.

      I don't want a 20MB hard drive and a 14.4 internet connection. I am glad a market was built for the bigger & better versions to become possible.
      • You miss understood. The problem is not the bigger and better hardware/bandwidth. The problem is that programmers and designers become more and more sloppy as things get bigger. One of the best word processors I ever used was Appleworks, which ran in 64K (128K if you wanted to do anything serious). And that 64K included the operating system!

        Now we have to have some from MicroSoft (which is rather an ironic name now that their programs have become so damn bloated. Maybe we should rename them MacroSoft) that
    • All this really means is that in the near future web designers and multimedia providers will start to upgrade the amount of bandwidth needed, and the average person will still be screwed.

      I disagree. Standard web stuff is expected to be pretty much "instant" with a "broadband" class connection, and its been that way for years, and if a standard website does not load fast, it would have to be of some pretty unique and desired content that cannot be found elsewhere for someone to wait for it.

      Now transferri
  • by Ianoo (711633) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:18PM (#10228283) Journal
    It doesn't surprise me. Broadband really does change the way you use the Internet, and indeed the computer. No-longer do you have to dial up (or dialing up is automatic and takes seconds), the Internet is just "there" whenever you want to access information.

    I have always used the Internet too much, but I definitely notice it has changed the way several of my friends and relations have used their computers.

    Just being able to search for something on Google whenever you want, without worrying about people potentially trying to phone you or your minutes running out or your phone line getting hung up is a major boon to trying to write a document or even just read the news.

    • Icredibly true.

      Ever since I have got broadband (2 years ago), I definitely noticed my habits have changed. I have used the Internet for just about every piece of information because it is almost always there. I mapquest things instead of using a paper map. Internet phone books are faster than paper. Also, having an IM client on all the time is so convenient because at a glance, you can for the most part tell where all your friends are (via away messages and whatnot.) It's incredible how much the broad
    • I agree. It's one of those things that you notice most when it isn't there. One morning not too long ago I woke up to find my Comcast connection down. It took them 4 hours to get it working again and it really made me feel how much my day revolves around being connected.
    • I've had "high-speed" access (DSL, 512kbps/128kbps, always-on) for about 2 weeks now, and I still occasionally get the feeling that I need to do certain things now/quickly. I have been trained by 5-6 years of dail-up to go thru a "check-list" once I'm connected, and now I still can't get over the idea that I can walk away from my /. browsing for a couple hours and come back to it later, after a nice nap, with no consequences. :)
  • I wasn't even able to get cable internet untill early 2001, no wonder it's trippled.

    It doesn't suprise me, cause i was one of the first people i knew to get Cable internet in my area, now everyone has it.
  • I remember wanting broadband since 1995. I think it just took the cable industry forever to get the stuff rolled out. www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA
  • I may sound naive, but for the benefit of all naive people like me, why are upload rates typically so much lower than download rates?
    • Re:Question... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phillymjs (234426) <slashdot.stango@org> on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:27PM (#10228322) Homepage Journal
      Because we are supposed to be consumers of content, not producers.

      Endusers running servers are verboten by the broadband services Joe Sixpack is most likely to use (like Comcast and Verizon), so Joe Sixpack is only given enough upstream bandwidth to send HTTP requests and whatnot.

      ~Philly
    • Re:Question... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by exi1ed0ne (647852)
      The size of an http request is very tiny compared to the webpage content you are requesting. The theory goes that you don't need to send a lot of data out, but you will get lots of data in. Also, it makes it frustrating to operate any services like mail or web. This way they can charge more for symetrical speeds.
      • The theory goes that you don't need to send a lot of data out, but you will get lots of data in. Also, it makes it frustrating to operate any services like mail or web.

        No, if you have an up/down ratio greater than about 8, your download speed will be limited by your capacity to send acks.

    • Re:Question... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Geiger581 (471105) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:29PM (#10228339)
      There is only so much bandwidth on a copper line. The split is made because most end consumers just downloaded content, with very little traffic needed to send HTTP requests, emails, or IMs. However, P2P makes the lopsidedness much more acute nowadays.
    • On cable it's because of how the system works. There is usually only one cable "channel" for upload but multiple channels for download. The upload channel has to be in the lower numbers due to signal loss. Like another post said, it also is an indirect throttle because TCP needs to ack received data.
  • I wonder how many cable/DSL services that eliminates. I have cable from a pretty big provider and their TOS states you can't host servers and blah blah... but the upstream is capped at a disappointing 128k, so I couldn't really run a server if I wanted to.
  • and why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tc3driver (669596) * on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:26PM (#10228318) Journal
    it is getting increasingly inexpensive, faster, and more reliable than dial up...

    ... the down side, more people means more traffic, the pipes can only get so big, before there is no room left for all, and then there is the IP address problems that will come of it, there is hardly enough to go around now...

    IPV6 that will help, but the costs of such a large protocol change will be daunting, to say the least... and what to do about those users that are still on win95/98...
    • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdotNO@SPAMhackish.org> on Sunday September 12, 2004 @02:57PM (#10229088)
      I first got broadband, in the form of a cablemodem, in 2000. It cost $40/month for 3 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. Now it costs $50/month for the same speed.
      • by Saeger (456549)
        And I first got broadband in the form of SDSL from Northpoint, in 1999. IIRC, it cost $180/mo for 784kbps/784kbps (and I got a northpoint friend give me a "free upgrade" to 1.5mbps/1.5mbps). When Northpoint went belly up about a year or so later, I switched to RoadRunner cable's 2mbps/256kbps for $40/mo. Another year later and Time warner increased the speed to 3mbps/384kbps at no extra cost to me.

        Overall, I'm getting more bang for my buck. Oh, and I download and upload multiple Gigs like a mofo, and not

  • Rest of the World (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cutterman (789191) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:26PM (#10228319)
    t's an interesting thing. There's a huge difference between broadband and POTS (or even ISDN). It just changes the whole connected experience. More and more internet content is predicated on users having broadband access and is not accessible to us 56K'ers. Giant apps., huge patches, streaming video and all the rest of it are just not a possibility for a vast number of internet users in much of the world (probably the majority). In my country broadband is available in some places but is prohibitively expensive for private individuals. Two days (and considerable expense) to download a new kernel versus 20 minutes or so. It is really creating a two tier system with a 56K underclass - sort of a Two Nations scenario.
  • or.. (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by phreakv6 (760152)
    in other words SPAM has tripled...
    and is there a problem with the comment count on the main page ??
  • by ARRRLovin (807926) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:29PM (#10228340)
    ..........availability. What is the amount of households that actually have access to broadband, that previously didn't in 2001? I know availability has been a real kink in most people's plans to get high speed internet access.
  • Unsurprising. (Score:2, Informative)

    by rincebrain (776480)
    As people become more accustomed to using computers, they become less patient.

    As people become less patient, they become less likely to want to wait for the loading of such bandwidth intensive sites as, oh, say, Slashdot.

    As people become less patient, they become more willing to pay for broadband, and be able to browse at speeds that will amaze them.

    Also, file sizes have increased, and so gamers are increasing their pipes to compensate. For those of us, myself included, who have not seen the World of War
  • Funky math (Score:4, Interesting)

    by toetagger1 (795806) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:29PM (#10228344)
    "The report also says that the number of users of broadband services (speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions) soared to 28 million in December 2003 from 9.6 million in 2001."

    Doing my own math here:

    • 12/2003 - 12/2001 = 24 months;
    • 12/2003 - 01/2001 = 36 months

    So is it:

    • 6,900,000 people / 24 months = 287,500 people/month
    • 6,900,000 people / 36 months = 191,667 people/month
  • DSL vs. Cable (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rozz (766975)
    In North America, Cable clearly dominates the broadband market ... Western Europe and the far East on the other had are overhelmingly betting on DSL.

    Is this another stupid "war" like the old GSM vs. CDMA?
    Or it's only a simple matter of who owns the connections - cable & media companies in US and Telcos elsewhere?

    • Re:DSL vs. Cable (Score:2, Informative)

      From my POV, it's who offers the best overall deal. I've had broadband in two metropolitan areas (Atlanta and Phoenix) and in both places Cable offered a faster connection (4 MB/s download vs 1.5 MB/s download for DSL) for approximately the same price.

      Advantage:cable

      Also having cable broadband allows one to completely free themselves of a landlines phone. Get a cell phone with unlimited local calling along with your cable internet and who needs a landline phone?
      • Re:DSL vs. Cable (Score:3, Insightful)

        by True Grit (739797) *

        Advantage:cable

        That depends on what you need, and how much money you're willing to spend for it. For cheapskates like me, who are still fine with land-line phones, and also not addicted to cable TV, the advantage goes to DSL.

        I chose 512kbps/128kbps DSL from a phone company (Sprint), even though its not true broadband and not the fastest available. My thinking was, since I already "had to have" local and long distance service, getting the whole package together effectively makes the DSL service ~30$ a m

    • Cable is easier to deploy (no CO distance limitations, most neighborhoods already have fiber for cable, etc.), it supports higher bandwidth than regular DSL (and the high-bandwidth DSL technologies like VDSL require massive network upgrades).

      Like CDMA, cable is technologically superior to DSL. DSL proponents claim that the DSL is better because the bandwidth isn't shared, but in reality, the bandwidth on a cable line is so high (45mbps for DOCSIS 2.0) that it doesn't really make a difference.

      In Europe, ho
  • Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)

    Broadband "fixes" the Internet for many people. It might shock some /.ers, but some people hate waiting for computers. In a world where your TV, dvd player, radio,ect. just instantly comes on and works, broadband allows the internet to do the same.

    Recently my girlfriend started surfing big for the first time in her life when she got cable broadband. I asked her why she didn't use the internet back during dial-up days and she said "Well, it took so long to get to web pages; I always thought the Internet was

  • just keeps on going, stretching into infinity.
    • Oh, I'm sorry. I guess one of you out there has no sense of humor. So, I'll explicate just a little bit.

      As someone who installs broadband devices for a living, let me tell you what this "explosion" in broadband numbers means. Every day more and more people are getting on the Interweb for the very first time. They aren't doing much more than fucking up signal-to-noise ratios, when they do manage to interact. For the most part, they just want in on ebay or poker room or porn.

      The Internet failed to be

      • you may also mod this as bitter

        Darnit, I just looked, and there is no "-1 Bitter" mod. :)

        I don't really know what your point is. Is every new invention judged by whether it turns out to be "a wonderful, great, uplifting experience for humanity"? And if it isn't its an abject failure? Kinda setting the bar a little high aren't you?

        Now, it's just another corporate shill

        The corps are here, but they don't have a monopoly on usage of the Internet (not yet at least). Personally I think the open, dece

        • This here is a blanket response to one AC and TrueGrit.

          Yes, the net is a medium for information, and maybe the corporate control is not total.

          But it is remarkably prevalent in the households that are swarming to broadband. After all, what was the last commercial you saw advertising a website that was free, didn't require registration, and would let you look up interesting things? You don't.

          Instead, these hundreds of people are signing on to their corporate billboards - being sold crap without the

          • But it is remarkably prevalent in the households that are swarming to broadband. After all, what was the last commercial you saw advertising a website that was free, didn't require registration, and would let you look up interesting things? You don't.

            Yea, but so what? That's always true in any "open system" where the commercial interests will concentrate on their profit concerns, but anyone who bothers to look around will find other uses for the system. Have the corporations killed off USENET? No, it m

  • Exceeding 200k? (Score:3, Informative)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @12:54PM (#10228437) Homepage Journal
    Hmm my out going is capped at 128k like everyone else on my system..

    That is, if i dont use it, once i do, my downstream is pretty much cut off at the knees..

  • by Laebshade (643478)
    Helps in increasing this. We're sort of a meta-ISP. We do cable modem infrastructure rollouts and provide phone technical support for small MSOs (multiple service providers, i.e. cable companies). Check us out at ibbsonline.com [ibbsonline.com]. And, wouldn't you know it, it was founded at the end of 2001.

    P.S. I hope our servers can handle a /.ing.
  • Verizon 2x speed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sometwo (53041) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @01:01PM (#10228467)
    Verizon is launching a DSL service that is twice as fast as its current DSL offering, with downloads of up to 3 Mbps. story here [newsfactor.com]

    Especially because of this, the broadband wars should become interesting.
    • Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CrystalFalcon (233559)
      The latest new DSL offering in Sweden was 26Mbps, and that came last summer.

      The most common upgrade these days in Sweden is 10Mbit full duplex to 100Mbit full duplex.

      When are you US guys going to realize you're being shafted? The phone companies have no interest in promoting broadband beyond the lowest rate the market will bearably tolerate; it threatens their existing cash cow.

    • Most everyone using RoadRunner is already enjoying 3Mbps service, we all got upgraded quite a while ago from ~2Mbps so that Time Warner could proclaim "twice as fast as DSL!"
    • Here in South Texas, Verizoned is a red-headed stepchild that needs his butt spanked so badly for neglecting the communities that it services. (And thats a negatory on misspelling their name.)
      IT was only that the US Navy stomped hard on Verzon's toes to get digital grade service for Naval Station Ingleside. At least 1/2 of the community there has at least some form of digital grade lines and SLCs in place. The rest have analog RTs and rotten copper pairings....
  • by baudilus (665036) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @01:02PM (#10228472)
    I think you can attribute this to more and more "package" deals that weren't available previously. For instance, here in the NY/NJ area, Optimum Online is offering a TV/Internet/telephone deal for $90 / month for a year (digital cable, internet, SIP phone) to users of any one or two of their services. That is a stellar deal in my book, considering that with optimum I am used to averaging 8.5 megabits down. I'm sure there are deals like this all over the place.

    Coupled with that, take a look at the number of modem-friendly web pages out there - I would think that this number declines proportionately with the increase in broadband use.
    • One trend to watch is the bundling of spam filters, anti-virus, firewall, parental controls, etc., into the standard or premium cable service, which, all for practical purposes, has a 100% Windows client base.
  • by DeltaHat (645840) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @01:14PM (#10228543) Homepage
    I don't know if I can trust this report. Netcraft has yet to confirm it.
  • ...mostly due to one the major drawbacks of the modern computing:
    Bloating in all of the ways possible, so the increase of the data size creates a need in increase of the amount of storage required for it, as well as the bandwidth for its transfer
  • I have often dreamed of a cable router that is capable of using two phone lines in with dsl service. Lets say 2 lines at 3.0 Mbps downstream doubled to 6.0 (!) and 312 upstream side. The cable modem would have to be smart enough to manage and combine the two lines as one line. But man, talk about nice and fast! I am sure its most likely not a complete solution, but its just a dream of mine. It would be cheaper than anything else i can think of for those of us who need bandwidth on a budget. And that most li
  • Wow. So my 1500/192 kbps ADSL line is not broadband? Who would've guessed.
  • How much has internet use increased in the last 3 years? I'm sure tripling the amount of broadband users is a big deal, and I'm part of those statistics, but how many are still without broadband (and still will be without in another 3 years)?
    Most who don't either:
    A) Can't (lack of availability) *** this is big
    B) Don't know the benefits
    C) Haven't used it before
    D) All of the above?
    I know a family that pays for multiple phone lines and TWO $20+/m ISPs...they could have DSL for both computers for $30-40/m from
  • Is 200kbps broadband nowdays? (Has 200kbps ever been broadband?)

    It might be better than modem, but.. 4 times faster, I don't know. It's, halfband, ASDL, but it's not broadband!
    I'd go as low as 512kbps!
  • Tomorrow on our News That's Obvious segment:

    Ivan makes us wet and blows hard

    Tobacco products may or may not cause cancer

    Slashdot readers have little use for obvious news

  • Xbox Live? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xombo (628858) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @02:15PM (#10228870)
    I wonder how many users signed up for broadband particularly for Xbox Live. I've got several customers at the store where I work (we sell games) that discuss Xbox Live and how they're considering signing up for broadband particularly for this purpose.
  • Speed & 200 kbps in the same sentence...
    200 kbps is so 1999........
  • by 3seas (184403) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @02:45PM (#10229011) Journal
    .... the rate is probably not what they claim, but less than that, especially since I recently saw a story on slashdot saying doubled....

    Broadband was/is subsidized by dialup subscribers.

    Dialup legal position is one of insuring better competition.... some FCC thing about telephone line equal opportunity..... anti-monopoly.

    But cable is not that way legally and can be and is used in a monopolistic manner. If I want a cable modem here there is only no choice but comcast.

    I'm sure the report is a marketing effort making things sound better than they are in order to attract the "jump on the (broad) band wagon"... keep up with the jones...

    It works against your consumer freedom of choice.
    • But cable is not that way legally and can be and is used in a monopolistic manner. If I want a cable modem here there is only no choice but comcast.

      But many people do have some choice. ADSL, Cable modem, Dialup, your neighbour's wireless network, no internet at all. The cable company does need to keep the prices reasonable or risk losing your business for internet connectivity.

      • The cable company does need to keep the prices reasonable


        Only for broadband, because as far as cable TV goes, they have a monopoly and can gouge their customers right up to the threshold where they start losing a lot of them due to sticker shock.

        So their "reasonable" broadband prices are ON TOP OF *unreasonable* cable TV prices.
  • ...there's no such thing as too much porn.

    Max
  • I just recently ordered a high-speed cable internet connection, to go along with my existing DSL connection. 6 months ago, I would have said doing something like this was "complete overkill" and "bordering on crazy" - but with recent price-drops on routers and service itself, it's not a bad option!

    I'm planning to use a load-balancing router that supports 2 simultaneous incoming connections. The "Hotbrick" unit I went with only costs $189 (with free shipping from a couple vendors such as Eagle Computer, i
  • "speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions"

    That's the definition of broadband there. By that standard, most of us aussies don't even have broadband, except for those "business broadband" customers who pay a lot more.

    All these thanks to our evil phone company telstra. Apparently they charge $70 to the ISP just to provide a "service" of catering a 1500kbps adsl connection. While charging a lower fee to 256k adsl lines.

    Yet, the irony is.. there is no cost differential for them whatever port speed they pr
    • There actually is a slight cost differential there for providing a faster port: ATM bandwidth between the MUX and the Telstra LAC, and again on the AGVC between the LAC and the ISP's LNS. Admittedly, the ISP winds up paying to subsidise some of this in per-megabit AGVC fees, but the MUX->LAC ATM cloud has a finite bandwidth, which needs to be kept below a certain level of contention.
  • ...if cable modems actually had decent upstream bandwidth?

    I cruise upstream at a blazing 16Kbps. Thank you, Mediacom. :P

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin

Working...