Slashdot Mirror
Broadband Bits
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."
"Of course we need broadband, but the technology moves so fast that we might end up with a system that nobody wants" Risavi said.
:
So lets not invest in it... heh.
Conclusions for every 'future broadband' tech from The Future of Broadband Article
The final word on Broadband Over Power Lines
BPL has been given a bad wrap by many news sources. At this stage, it is really impossible to tell whether the interference complaints are legit for the actual technology as a whole, or whether they are based purely on BPL networks that were not researched or planned well enough before deployment - some reports even suggest false claims have been made to try and derail the deployment of BPL by pro-radio enthusiasts. With most information about BPL being very dated, it is hard to say what we can expect. There is nothing we can do but sit back and hope this technology can become sturdy enough for widespread deployment, because the potential is almost unmatched.
The final word on WiMax
Wireless Broadband has already taken a huge step forward worldwide. Here in Australia, for example, Sydney is facing almost complete coverage in the near future from various companies adopting various technologies with DSL-like speeds and prices. However, none of the current systems seem economically viable for widespread coverage. Although true field tests have not yet confirmed the on-paper features, with backing from companies like Intel, it is hard to imagine WiMax not making a huge impact. Look out for its retail release sometime in 2005.
The final word on Fiber To the Home
Whilst FTTH is by far the most impressive and feature-filled technology on display here, the likeliness of it ever reaching a wide audience isn't very high, at least not in the near future. Many leading Telco's around the world have decided to merge into a pure IP network in the near future for data and voice, which will fuel the expansion of FTTH. However, FTTH is very much viewed as a technology for new estates and areas, not necessarily current establishments. For the lucky few who will be able to use FTTH in the near future, you can probably expect Telephone, Broadband, TV and other services delivered by a conventional high-speed connection directly to your doorstop. But for the worldwide broadband scene, I wouldn't get your hopes up. It will be a very long time before this makes any sort of widespread impact if any at all.
The final word on Stratellite
Probably the most "far out there" concept in this roundup, Stratellite is actually much closer to reality than what you may think. Sanswire insists it will extensively trial a real air ship in January 2005 after successfully demonstrating the technology in 2004. This is a promising technology that could combine the best of Satellite and wired Internet - fast with low latency and hugely widespread, at least in theory. Whilst it is still unclear how exactly a floating broadband hub could haul its data back down to earth wirelessly with acceptable bandwidth (keeping in mind its potential ability to serve millions of people at a time), rest assured this is a prime candidate for tomorrow's broadband world. Whether or not it will get the industry support required, however, is yet to be seen.
The final word on ADSL2
Is it too little too late for DSL? Only time will tell just how efficient ADSL2 will be at offering a better service to a wider range of customers. The impression given is that ADSL2 is really more of an add-on to the current ADSL, rather than a completely new revolution. Whilst it sounds li
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
"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."
And here, I thought good water, and sanitation was important? Shows what I know.
If most of the populace is still trying to suck their bandwidth through a dial-up straw.
I hope someone on high wakes up and realizes that a fast broadband infrastructure has the potential to reduce energy consumption more than any other technology out there.
"I just want fiber in my house for under $1000..."
Oh vegtables are much cheaper than that.
Free Flat Screen HERE!
I think one thing this article highlights is that government intervention is needed if we (the US) are serious about upgrading our broadband infrastructure.
The last thing any growing industry needs is the death knell of civil servants running the show.
I can't see what's wrong with the current situation. If you want broadband, you can get it pretty much wherever.
The article has an interesting comparison between transportation and wireless access as economic development issues. Are the two really that similar?
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?
I'm laughing at clouds.
I'll grant that using geostationary satellites results in high latency, but the problem is distance, not that radio waves are slower than the speed of light.
In fact, because of the dielectric in cables, signals are significantly slower (although only about 5% IIRC) in cable than in the atmosphere or free space.
eh, thats BS...supply will meet demand and a few hundred IT guys will eventually realize they should quit their nine to five and open up a wireless internet company that could supply thousands
I REALLY can't understand the logic of "we have a problem, lets call congress!!!"
~slashdot are my only freinds ):
6 years ago, cable internet was rare and DSL still wasn't available in many urban areas. The 56/53k modem standard was new.
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What needs to happen is that ISPs need to wake up and smell the roses, ala Speakeasy. Allow the user, who is paying for all this anyway, to have port 80 open, to run servers, to have static IPs and the rest.
At least offer this as a "power user" option through cable and DSL providers. That way, people can actually create websites that are not fed by those banner ad driven hosts.
And yes, I know how many people probably are not up to the challenge of setting up firewalls and routing tables and whatever else it takes to do all this stuff, hell, I'm not able to really do it either. But, it would be nice to have the option to do it. I can manage apache well enough.
As it is, most "broadband" users here in the states are crippled with restrictive TOS/AUPs and upload bandwidths of around 256k. Hello? That's broadband?
As I understand it, people pay for upload. If that's the case, then consumers should be highly pissed at what they are paying. But, I guess most consumers really are amazed that they can download entire albums in ninety minutes, assuming that they find someone sharing it out at that rate.
Hmm, well so much for this not very thought out rant. I hope you all can make sense of it.
sig not found
Its funny, I live in Fredericksburg Va and work for a computer shop that tried our damned hardest to offer excellent DSL service to a number of these rural areas. In many cases we found the technology is in the ground and users can in fact get DSL, but Verizon is not willing to "flip the switch" unless there is a huge demand in the particular area. We successfully offered DSL through Verizons lines on our bandwidth for over a year to these people without a problem. All of a sudden Verizon started undercutting us (ie selling to the USER cheaper than they would sell to us) in order to muscle us off their lines so they could take over the market in the area. On top of that any sort of tech support we would need from Verizon concerning their lines would get shrugged to the side and we would end up with understandably angry customers at us, although we had no way to solve the issues. We eventually pulled out of the market all together and went back to just repair/custom builds. The fucked up part is a lot of people that are still in smaller areas ended up getting their service disconnected when we pulled out and now Verizon is telling them that it is technically impossible to carry DSL to their homes even though they had it just a few weeks ago. I happen to be one of those customers, but luckily can get a cable modem...which by the way is half the price.
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.
adventure-today.com
Yes, and and how many square miles is Sweden compared to the United States. Population density is an issue when it comes to broadband deployment. Taiwan, Japan, and other very densely populated countries have a huge advantage over more sparsely populated nations like the U.S.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Media Fusion. Was a fraud, as most on Slashdot expected. Here is what happened to the founder, thank goodness.
Wants to tax the internet?
Tax online shopping?
Tax VoIP?
Denies access to frequency spectrum that could currently be used more efficiently for broadband internet?
If anything there is STILL too much goverment regulation.
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.
Verizon in certain markets has it available. 15/2Mbps costs $49.95 a month.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Having recently moved into a rural area from a densely populated area, I checked into all the options for getting any kind of broadband.
Wireless DSL was looking good until we found out that the location of the broadcasting tower and where we were had an electrical substation smack in the middle of line of site. No dice for that. Can't get through. WAAAAyyy too noisy.
So this past month, I took the plunge and purchased DIRECWAY satellite service. The cost is outragious (I had cable access before in the city), $1000 to get the dish/sat transponder/sat modem and to have Hughes flip the damn switch, another $350 to get the dish installed, and a measely $100 a month to have the service. For 2 years mind you, that's how long the required length of contract is. They never mention that part until you listen to the agreement recording to confirm your purchase.
The Fair Access Policy (such as it is) is even worse. I purchased the middle tier plan - 500meg download in 4 hours (sliding window). Now when I was on cable up in the city, online was my only entertainment, and I used it, quite heavily. The cable company never complained and the particular subnet I was on didn't have a lot of active nodes. But this FAP for the sat system is annoying the holy hell out of me. Heck, the available download speed from the service is 900mbps. That means I can blow the FAP in roughly 10 minutes (math mavens don't crucify me).
If you exceed the FAP, the download speed is clamped to 24kbps. It takes about 8 hours to reset. I've got a courtesy Hughes gonad squeezer making sure that I'm a good little boy.
So all in all, I payed nearly 2000$ for always on dialup service with higher latency. (*balloons* *confetti*)
I'm moving as soon as I can muster it.
The same government that:
Wants to tax the internet?
Hmm, tax what? service delivery? Is the internet that different from other services that it, in contrast to power, water, and other utilities, it should be tax free?
Tax online shopping?
So, why should purchasing something from Amazon be tax free but going to Borders is taxed?
Tax VoIP?
Are you going to want to contact 911 services using VoIP or will you keep your cell and landline for this? Yes? Then you will need to support it.
Denies access to frequency spectrum that could currently be used more efficiently for broadband internet?
I am without enough information to respond to this.
If anything there is STILL too much goverment regulation.
Look people, there ain't no free ride. If you want something, you gotta pay for it. The fact is that government exists because there are somethings better done collectively than by everyone individually or by commercial entities. is it always the most efficient? No. But at least the first three things you cite I think have at least semirational bases and you're comment makes it sound like you just don't want to put a crowbar in your wallet and pay for it. Tell ya' what, why don't we just provide you with all these services anyway and then we'll just put the tab on your kids. Oh wait, we're already doing that....
Look at rush hour traffic and consider why it's there. It consists of a bunch of people commuting to work because their presence is required elsewhere. The number one reason most of these people can't telecommute to work is because of insufficient bandwidth. They have or they can only get or afford a dial-up connection. It would hurt productivity to telecommute while using slow speed or unreliable connections. Resolve this problem and that excuse is taken away for the employee as well as the employer. I believe that eventually rich collaboration tools will mature and make the home the preferred work environment, more productive and flexible than the typical office.
Say only 10% of the U.S. population can be taken off the roads due to more widespread viability of broadband. This, by itself, would save enough barrels of oil to match the entire fuel consumption of a dozen small countries.
I look at this as something that could be done today, whereas many alternative energy solutions, or old-school infrastructure (like roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.) depend on much larger $$$ investments, require more expensive maintenance and take a longer time to begin to pay for themselves.
Consider how much fuel money fast broadband would already save one person in the first month alone, and once out in full force how many expensive (in the billions) road projects can even be postponed or avoided.
I was just responding to a factually incorrect statement. The notion that you can get broadband pretty much everywhere is just wrong.
But yeah, I would like to have a reasonable broadband option without having to move. I really don't pretend to know what the government should do to help make that a reality, I'm not an expert on these things... but not everything they can do necessarily involves money directly coming out of your pocket to pay for it.
The FCC and FTC are already meddle in the way broadband providers do business. Chances are, they could probably act a bit more effectively to encourage better broadband coverage.
Or tax incentives could be implemented... rewards for being the first to reach X number of residents with broadband, or perhaps drastically reduce (or eliminate, for a period of time) the taxes that would normally apply to servicing a customer with broadband if they build out the infrastructure to service customers within that area who don't currently have a viable broadband options. Again, I'm not an expert economist, so I don't know how viable this kind of idea is.
Or local governments could foot part of the bill, as a part of improving the infrastructure... that way the citizens (and many of the businesses) paying for it would actually be benefiting from it. This has already been done in some areas, and it's the topic of discussion in one of the articles. Personally I don't think it's a bad idea at all.
I'm not saying that the federal government should make it a #1 priority to wire everyone in the country with broadband (though it would probably be money more well spent than a lot of the stuff taxpayer dollars is used to pay for and subsidize). However, I do think the Internet is increasingly becoming a vital part of the national and international infrastucture, and having greater a greater portion of the population able to access the Internet in its "true form", unhampered by a terribly anemic narrowband pipe is a very good thing. Ultimately, the investment we might make in improving broadband availability can pay for itself.