Where Is The Broadband?

gouldtj writes "First Monday is running an article in its current issue entitled: The many paradoxes of broadband. It discusses some of the issues and ideas behind broadband, but seems to focus on: Where is it? There is also a really nice discussion on the telecom industry in general, along with the .com boom."

Comments

How many of us take it for granted?

[vacaboca]

The points are thought-provoking - specifically along the lines of how much we that have broadband connectivity take it for granted? It is so easy to assume that since I've had residential broadband access for about 10 years, it *must* be a normal thing for everyone else by now.

It's almost as if there's a virtual Third World of 'net access within our country - those oppressed by dial-up-only access. Is it in fact a governmental responsibility to bring it to everyone?

Re:How many of us take it for granted?

[squarooticus]

Is there a greater-good benefit,

I don't ever buy these arguments. If I want something, I'll pay for it voluntarily. Co-ops are a good example of a voluntary "greater-good" financing scheme.

or a direct benefit to the "haves" in the situation (us!), for everyone to have access?

Again, if I want something, I'll pay for it. I simply expect others to do the same. If there is truly any benefit (all of which can ultimately be expressed by monetary profit) to subsidizing broadband to the sticks, then some private company will step up to provide it. If not, then I don't want the money taken from my pocket at the point of a gun to pay for something that might theoretically provide me with some hypothetical benefit.

Re:How many of us take it for granted?

[OECD]

The thing that surprised me about broadband is that it is not just "more stuff faster"; it allows you to work in a completely different way. E.g., I used to make backups of all the share/freeware I downloaded. Now I toss them when I'm done, because it would take me longer to find it in my disc catalog than to find the newest version on the net.

The always-on connectivity is at least as important as the speed. In fact, if I had to choose between the two, I'd probably drop the speed first.

Re:How many of us take it for granted?

[Experiment 626]

It's almost as if there's a virtual Third World of 'net access within our country - those oppressed by dial-up-only access. Is it in fact a governmental responsibility to bring it to everyone?

What good would it do for the government to give everyone broadband if it doesn't also give them all computers and free electricity to run them?

While they're giving out the free stuff, there are lots of things more pertinent to raising one's standard of living than snappy Web surfing (well, maybe not to Slashdotters): a car, a house, a phone, cable TV, and so on. Is it in fact a governmental responsibility to bring these to everyone also?

Broadband has several uses... online gaming, warez, MP3's, Webcams, internet telephony, downloading large files, porn... which of these is such a fundamental human right that people face Third World style oppression without the government bringing it to them?

Re:How many of us take it for granted?

[SirSlud]

Actually, thats exactly the definition of capitalist government in its purest form: The only thing the government does in a 100% pure capitalist state is gaurd your private property. They need money to do that, both from internal and external forces. No market intervention, no social programs. All money goes to enforcement of property ownership and the required administrative functions to facilitate it.

So you're right, it is the primary job of the government in a capitalist state.

I believe in social programs, so I don't mind taxes above and beyond, but it is amusing to see capitalists from time to time, whine about taxes as if taxes were never a part of capitalism to begin with. Its really the opposite. You *need* taxes to allow a government to enforce ownership laws.

Not that I'm assuming the parent poster is capitalist - maybe he's completely socialist (not likely ;), or anarchist? Can he shed light on this?

Re:How many of us take it for granted?

[squarooticus]

Just because you want the ability to upload at high speed, or serve web pages from or host a mail server in your home, doesn't mean you are owed those luxuries by anyone, including me, a representative taxpayer.

If someone thinks there is profit potential in such a service, it will be offered, as it is in COVAD areas through Speakeasy.net. If not, then you are free to form a co-op with other like-minded people and provide your own enhanced service at cost.

Why do you feel you are owed broadband on your terms by others who don't benefit from your having that? I think you should pull your own weight, which means providing for your own service by negotiating for it (or the constituent components) from those willing to offer it. That should not include forcing me to pay for your enhanced service. I already pay enough for my own; I'd rather not pay for yours, as well.

Broadband

[J3M]

Isn't really needed by most people. Most people only use the net for email and some shopping. Paying $40 - $50 a month so your email gets sent a lot faster isn't very cost effective. Course us geeks like it, but we're the minority.

Re:Broadband

[Sleeper]

You are 100% correct. What actually is needed is content for which broadband internet access would be required. There is hope that online gaming might generate some need for broadband. I hear quite different stories about gaming industry. Some say that it's really tough, some say that it is actually booming at the moment. Quite possibly both are true. But I don't assume that gamers represent a significant fraction of all people that are acutally connected to Internet right now.

It is impossible to overlook however that all those predictions about limitless growth opportunities that were made in those golden years (end of 1990's) about growth of broadband were based on quite simple thing that people will want online entertainment. And we should "thank" two giant money grabbing monsters RIAA and MPAA for the fact that actually did not happen.

We have to ask them for example what happened to live feeds from various radiostations. In 2000 I listened at least three stations every day. Two of them do not exist anymore and the third put a lid on internet broadcasting and just continues to deliver it's programs the oldfashion way (radio waves). The bummer is it is just too far away from me. And of course we have to ask them where are our movies over internet.

But seriously folks! We have to do something about those guys. They are greedy and they are actually extremely dumb (even though they have smart lawyers)

Re:.com boom?

[Trigun]

"moob"

Broadband dude, where are you?

[Bendebecker]

Over here....

But seriously, they have it in my area, I don't get it. Why? $50 a month. That's for crappy service. Good service will cost you $80. Can't afford it. Make it $20 a month and it will become popular but right now? For most people it is simply too much.

Connected to my computer?

[cybermace5]

Honestly, the broadband sitution is not all that bad. You really can get broadband in nearly all semi-populated areas. Everyone whines that it's not everywhere, but this is a growing market...how long did it take before everyone had a telephone? And just recently, cell phone coverage (which is approaching ubiquitous at this point).

Hate to crush your fantasy, but it takes time to hook up wires, and it costs money to run them. It'll happen, and it's actually doing OK considering the massive land area we have to service in the U.S.

Where is it?

[mopslik]

Most folks I talk to are still turned off by the price. While $40/mo for broadband certainly doesn't bankrupt me, it may still not be as attractive as many of the "$15/mo 56K access" deals that compete with it.

Where's the content?

[Rinikusu]

I've had broadband for 4 years. I've paid, dutifully, each month, for broadband which I thought I needed. And last month, I killed my cable modem. Why?

Where's the content that requires it?

I got tired of downloading pr0n from newsgroups. I don't warez or play games. I don't download movies, music, or anything. Other than the occasional Linux distro download, there's really no reason for broadband. (and if you think about it, if I download 2 linux distros a year, I would save a hell of a lot of money just by buying the boxed set rather than forking out the $40/month I pay for cable) Where's the streaming movies? Where's the free music (not "pirated", but legitimate)? Where's the *value*? As far as I'm concerned, once I realized that copyright violation was still copyright violation and "wrong", I had nothing left that I would need broadband for. If I'm just hitting ebay, slashdot, and a few other news sites, then really, what's the point of broadband?

Definition of broadband

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

I got irritated at this article's pedantic definition of "broadband", and the mathematical justification for its saying that the post office already provides a broadband service. I mean, when people talk about broadband, they mean a relatively fast internet connection, and more specifically and informally the ability to download whatever stuff they want quickly. Web stuff without the wait. That should be obvious to anyone.

However, it does raise a good point: what do people want broadband for? So they can shop for stuff, read the news and download material without having to wait. Most of us that really want to can do the first two at work, and the third is not needed by everyone, and requires a certain level of technical adeptness that most people without a broadband don't have. So if they get it maybe they'll use it. And maybe they won't. Who knows? If broadband does become universal it's likely that the tech used will be different to the tech we know, ie not through the desktop PC.

What certainly is true is that the dot com boom was not a product of the failure to implement broadband quickly. It was a simple case of indiscriminate and desperate investment in a technology that couldn't generate cash quickly enough. www.petsmart.com anyone?

Favor cell phones? Broadband costs too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the deal with comparison of broadband to cellphones? Dial up competes with broadband and DSL , but nothing competes with cell phones. There is not a mobile alternative. People don't favor cellphones over broadband. The favor dial up, because it is cheaper. Most people are probably happy with dial up and don't see the need to pay more for something they don't think they need.

I thought the definition of broadband...

[Malc]

... was more to do with the frequencies used than the speed of it all. It seems this article is all about high speed internet, not broadband. Damn marketers.

I didn't think I'd like it as much as I do

[plagioclase]

For a long time, I swore I'd never get broadband at home. It's at least $30 more than a dial-up connection, and if I really need to download a huge file, I could generally do so at school or work. For checking email, or basic web surfing, the 50k speeds I was getting were fine, it took a minute for some websites to load, but it wasn't bad.

Then I moved to a place where I got free broadband with my rent (a rarity I'm sure) and have really grown accustomed to it. It's nice to be able to instantly check on a website whenever your computer is on. I always know right away when I have new email, and bittorrent is actually viable for me.

When I move, it will be a much harder decision than I would have guessed whether or not to get broadband in my new place. I just hope that the companies in the area have decent terms of service.

Re:I've got it

[HardCase]

I live in Nampa, ID. There's a hospital/recreation center two blocks west from me, business center four blocks south, expensive developments to the east, and a university (NNU) to the north by three blocks.

Well, I live in Meridian, Idaho, about 12 miles to the east. I've got DSL and I've had it for over six years. I've got friends in south Nampa (just a couple of miles west of you) who have cable (CableOne).

On the other hand, I also have friends in Boise who can't get DSL because their neighborhoods are underprovisioned (multiplexed lines) and couldn't get cable until a year or so ago because CableOne had not upgraded their infrastructure in that area from analog.

I wouldn't be convinced that CableOne doesn't think that they need more customers. I think that a more likely theory is that because of the extraordinary amount of new house construction going on in this valley that they are devoting their resources to connecting new (and expensive) developments to their digital system - from a purely economic point of view, it's cheaper and gives them a better return on their money. I'm not saying it's right (or that I'm right)...it's just a theory.

-h-

Re:I've got it

[Rocketboy]

I could have "broadband", if I were interested in satellite. Or ISDN. That's it, those are my options. Heck, I can't even get digital cable...

The telecom industry's claim that broadband is available to 80% of the US population is only true if you count satellite and ISDN, neither of which I count as really being "broadband". The owner of our company has ISDN at home and I approve the bills: 128K ISDN here costs $200 per month. Satellite pushes $100 per month. Quasi-broadband isn't worth that much to me.

Am I rural? I never thought so, but then again I could be wrong. I live in the suburbs of a small city of about 45,000, less than 200 meters from the closest phone company remote switch (which is optical fiber. Had a lovely conversation with the installer there last summer.) A couple of years ago the local phone co. (Verizon) announced with much fanfare that this town was to be a showcase of broadband in our state, one of the first three communities to be pervasively wired. Never happened and every time I ask they say, maybe in six months.

Comcast came by this summer and ran new backbone cable through everyone's back yards, but never came back to run the lines to the houses (a subdivision of about 100 homes.) Two months ago they sent people around with literature, trying to get people to sign up for digital cable and broadband. They swore up and down it was available that day. Just try to actually sign up, though: not available, maybe will be by the end of the year. Or maybe not.

Call me cranky but I'm not willing to move to a large city for the convenience of broadband internet connections. At this point I'm so disgusted over casually broken promises that I don't care if they ever wire the place. Screw 'em.

Rocketboy

Here's the real paradox of broadband

[tkrotchko]

...once you have it, that is...

They sell you a service based on T1-like speeds, but then complain if you actually use it as advertised.

Go figure.

You have RIAA and MPAA to thank

[GreenCrackBaby]

As many posters have pointed out, broadband hasn't spread because content just isn't there to entice most people. If someone asks you why they should fork out a considerable amount of money to get broadband over the dial-up that they currently have, there are four common answers: web pages load faster, porn, music downloading, and gaming.

For most, faster surfing doesn't warrant the extra expense. Most people aren't gamers. Is porn worth an extra $30/month (don't answer that).

Really, the thing that would have caused mass pick-up of broadband was if consumers had access to music and movies online. I know many people that had broadband during the Napster days but killed it shortly after Napster went away (not knowing any better about alternatives). But, thanks to the efforts of the RIAA and the MPAA, music and movie downloading hasn't been legitimized until very recently (iTunes) in a way that's consumer friendly.

Rather than embracing the internet and expanding their control, RIAA/MPAA member companies fought everything tooth and nail. Maybe as services such as iTunes increase their presence (think iTunes for movies) people will find a reason to turn to broadband again.

No question, I NEED broadband.

[YllabianBitPipe]

Here's my list:

I am on the net far too much for my own good. If I tied up the phone via modem, nobody would be able to reach me.

Work. Sending 50 - 100mb graphics files on a weekly basis pays for itself after the first couple uploads / downloads. That would take hours via modem, and a day if shipped even UPS. Also, updating web sites, uploading files, backing up entire websites, would take forever.

Music files. Sending mp3s is great for low quality. Try doing a mutitrack session with AIFF files to a collaborator ... yep, 100mb +. Broadband essential.

Always on connection: priceless. More and more stuff installed on my desktop is taking advantage of the always on broadband ... little weather checkers, time servers, mp3 album covers being pulled down on the fly, none of this stuff would be half as cool if one had to wait 30 seconds for the modem to dial up each time info was needed.

Games. Battle Net sucks on modem.

Software updates. Takes too long to download via modem.

I just don't have time for a modem.

broadband adoption

[YllabianBitPipe]

Most people I know have broadband but some don't. Here's some observations as to why and some suggestions as to what needs to happen for broadband to become more widely accepted:

Needs to have a clear value. Content is part of this. There simply isn't any broadband equivalent of "Sex in the City" for many people to think it's worth paying more than what they already pay for a modem. So either the price needs to come way down, where it's no big deal, or there has to be more compelling content. Yeah, I know, there's lots of music and video out there, but for the average joe user who is not into pirating there's too much of a learning curve to get into piracy compared to just switching on a TV. Also related to this are the people who don't use the internet much in any case. All they do is email and look at a few websites, maybe once or twice a week if that. These people have no use for broadband and need to get into something the web has to offer before they'd consider it.

Ease of set up. You buy a computer and they all have a modem bundled with and an AOL plan for software. There are a lot of people out there who simply won't consider broadband until it's bundled with the computer. I know you do not believe me, but there are people who's eyes glaze over with the thought of installing a cable / DSL modem. Don't even scare them with the network idea. Wireless would blow their minds and curdle their spinal fluid.

Availability. There are parts of the country that still don't get cellphone service. Fat chance getting any reasonable broadband dial up.

I can think of some possibly evil solutions to these problems. First off, if web designers could band together and be assholes, they could just design sites with broadband in mind. Eventually people with modems will get sick of the long download times and be forced to upgrade. I mean, hey, software developers do that all the time, right? When a program runs slow, people just have to upgrade their computers. Maybe this upgrade cycle needs to be forced on web bandwidth.

Next, compelling content: one of the most compelling I've seen recently is iChat AV. Open this up to AOL IM users, and let the jealousy factor kick in. How fast do you think some of these stick in the mud users would upgrade if they realize, they aren't being included in the videophone conferences with toddler cousin junior because their web connection is too slow?