Slashdot Mirror
FCC: Broadband Usage Has Tripled Since 2001
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."
Porn has increased three-fold...
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
"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."
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?
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
In other news... virus activity has tripled since 2001.
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.
...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.
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.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
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.
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...
42 69 6C 6C 20 47 61 74 65 73 20 69 73 20 61 20 77 68 6F 72 65 21
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.
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
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.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
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.
..........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.
-Randy
Doing my own math here:
So is it:
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
I don't know if I can trust this report. Netcraft has yet to confirm it.
Only people who live in or near cities.
It's not possible to get broadband in remote places - Nothern Ontario, for instance.
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.
.... 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.
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 $50/month for the same speed.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10