Broadband Bits 143
rtphokie writes "In an article covering bringing wireless and high speed internet connectivity several rural counties near Fredericksburg, VA, a county commissioner comments that transportation issues were once considered the top issue in economic development discussion, now it's the lack of high-speed Internet." Reader Darmok0685 writes "UGO has an interesting feature that explores the future of broadband, with in-depth sections that explore such technologies as Broadband Over Power Lines, WiMax, Fiber to the Home, Stratellite, and ADSL2/ADSL2+. It delves into the pros and cons, as well as giving backgrounds on each."
Re:It is better, but... (Score:1, Interesting)
Such as a public IP and being able to run servers.
Verizon will give you 192.168.15.34 and tell you to like it.
I think the japanese can do that because of the size and density of their country. Also the content they read/view day to day is close.
I doubt they can download a file from the USA at 19mb/s.
You can get fiber in Keller Texas already. (Score:2, Interesting)
Free Flat Screen HERE! [freeflatscreens.com]
does broadband change a town to a city? (Score:3, Interesting)
A highway does enable more commerce to and from an area. Are there studies that demonstrate that broadband access results in economic growth even in rural areas?
Re:Government intervention required (Score:1, Interesting)
You have to study telco history to see they have some typical configs. DS0, DS1, DS3, OC3, OC12, and up. this is what telco knows. This is the gear they buy and runs a lot of the USA.
They could have priced T1s (DS1) a lot cheaper back in the day and owned us all. They (verizon) could have offered SDSL long ago, and failed. The telcos are to blame.
So the laws changed and in come the CLECs. well we are growing and have some big plans. We start small by running our own fiber to the CO.
But soon you have whole towns/cities approaching you to do these deals because verizon wont.
that is the critical turning point. they will pay you to build it and maintain it.
Predictions for 2010 (Score:4, Interesting)
6 years from now, most people in urban areas will get 1+Mbps connectivity through their existing phone lines or through cable TV, much as they to today. The main difference will be a higher maximum bandwidth along with lower-costs for today's 0.5-5Mbps bandwidth.
I'm guessing 10-30% of the population will have access to and pay for "very high bandwidth" of > 30Mbps for internet with the balance for other services, probably through fiber-to-the-curb or fiber-to-the-street, shared by a few dozen subscribers at most. These customers will mostly be "converged" customers, with voice, data, television, and who knows what else riding on the fiber.
Amost all semi-rural areas and non-DSL-equipped urban areas that aren't well-connected today will have SOME option for 1+Mbps connectivity besides satellite. Whether this is airship, "wi-max," extended-distance DSL, or something else, I don't know.
There will always be areas that are "too expensive to reach" by land or even by 30-mile-range radio signals. These customers will likely be stuck with satellite or (gasp!) dialup unless something better or cheaper comes along.
How fast do you need to watch a DVD movie in real time? 9GB=72Gb, 2 hours=7200 seconds, that's about 10Mbps. Double that to be on the safe side.
Fredericksburg Rural Area (Score:4, Interesting)
Moral of the story is a lot of rural places CAN get broadband, but the recourses that can carry it aren't fessing up to honest answers about it.
Re:Government intervention required (Score:4, Interesting)
No, you can't.
Unless by "pretty much anywhere" you're including huge stretches of inhabited (albeit rural) land throughout the country, or unless you consider satellite Internet a legitimate form of broadband (which I don't think it is... I haven't talked to a single person who's bought into satellite Internet who doesn't regret it).
I built a 60 foot tower on my property to receive fixed wireless "broadband" (386 kbps) service and it's extremely flaky (sometimes it works fine, often it doesn't work at all, or I timeout a lot.... I think I need a 70 or 80 foot tower). I'm paying double, triple or quadruple what a lot of people are paying for DSL or cable.
Nothing is wrong with all of this, if you don't consider broadband an important aspect of the national communications infrastructure. If you do think that broadband availability in rural areas should be much better than it is, then the government certainly does have a role to play. Not necessarily running the whole show, but perhaps in mandating improved broadband coverage, paying for part of it and implementing better regulation or deregulation of the industry.
Re:Government intervention required (Score:3, Interesting)
Now put in a FTTH system, where people can get 10Mb fiber connections with a static IP for $15/month per residence or $40/month per business connection.
Businesses move in because land is cheap, and they can do business just as effectively as if they were in New York or Philadelphia. People move in because housing is cheap and they can telecommute to their jobs three days a week. The schools benefit from all kids and parents able to be online, allowing them to check progress through a school portal.
Sound far fetched? It's not. It happened in Lock Haven, PA.