Slashdot Mirror


BBC Reports 38% Jump In U.S. Broadband Use

Sammy at Palm Addict writes "The BBC tells how broadband internet usage has soared over in the U.S. 'More and more Americans are joining the internet's fast lane, according to official figures. The number of people and business connected to broadband jumped by 38% in a year, said the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).'"

185 comments

  1. Yay! by krymsin01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    More drones for the botnets out there. More DDOS attacks! More Spam! It's a Good Thing(tm).

    --
    stuff
    1. Re:Yay! by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      Faster p2p downloads! Yeah!

    2. Re:Yay! by adeydas · · Score: 1

      not to forget more porn and illegal downloads...

    3. Re:Yay! by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually this is not funny and i don't think it was intended to be funny, there are a lot of people without no proper education on the internet getting hooked on it these days. Im not thinking about the CS/IT level education they should be given, but some basic safety education which should be given to them...i would make it complimentary but let's stop chasing red herrings for a second, i would be very happy if they would at least offer it, offer basic safety education with a new internet subscription.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Yay! by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and if it works as well as the public education system it will do wonders!

      --
      stuff
  2. Might be true by Datasage · · Score: 0

    My parents after 8ish years of dialup finally decided to get DSL. To thier credit however, it hasnt been avialable in their area until maybe two years ago.

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
    1. Re:Might be true by grahamsz · · Score: 0

      A lot of this is price related.

      It's significantly cheaper for my parents to drop their second phone line and dialup service and switch to DSL. Equally though it hasn't been available until very recently.

  3. Quoth the BBC: by Neil+Blender · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "What's all this then?"

  4. Problem with Broadband by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is that in the USA (and the UK) it seems that broadband is kinda-fast. Maybe maxing out at a few megabit/s.

    Parts of the far east and scandinavia seem to have far faster connections already... yet in the west we are rolling out slow broadband services and haven't really got plans for higher speed ones.

    This will restrict the possibilities for video on demand and similar services. Of course it's likely that comcast et al might want that...

    1. Re:Problem with Broadband by Morlark · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's true that the broadband speeds aren't that great, but it's never really been a problem for me. I don't really download huge amounts of stuff (no warez and DVD rips for me), and I certainly don't need video on demand, so I'm perfectly happy with my 512kb connection.
      On the other hand, as you say, things in other countries are much better. I know of a guy in Scandinavia who was getting a 1Mbit connection supplied by the government. It turns out that the only thing limiting his connection to that speed was a single setting on his router. He now has a 10Mbit connection for the price of a 1Mbit connection, courtesy of the government.

      --
      Santa's suicide mission go!
    2. Re:Problem with Broadband by RileyLewis · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well are you volunteering to drive your station wagon across America to make sure everyone can have access to 25GB/s or whatever it is carrying tapes around? Because I hate dealing with old people who know nothing about the internet.

    3. Re:Problem with Broadband by ortcutt · · Score: 1

      I'm at 3mbps (in the US) and I can't see what I would do with more bandwidth that I can't do now. That might change in the future though.

    4. Re:Problem with Broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Umm... what about FIOS?

      That seems plenty fast to me...

    5. Re:Problem with Broadband by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it's probably not a 3Mb/3Mb connection either.

      When your connection gets faster it becomes practical to mount disks on remote systems. I'm forced to do this sort of thing for work and it's pretty slow even when i'm only editing source files.

      I also upload a number of large image files, and could always use this being faster.

      It seems like this is a case of the 640k problem.

    6. Re:Problem with Broadband by YggdrasilOS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The main problem with slow broadband--stateside and elsewhere--is the transmission medium. Rollout of broadband to new areas often entails laying down hundreds of km of fibre, as many areas have nothing but Cu wire prior to this. Add to this that the two most prevalent broadband solutions still use Cu for the "Last Mile", and you have huge bottlenecking problems. To their credit, Verizon is trying to fix the problem, but any infrastructure change on this scale is going to take aeons.

      Contrast this with S. Korea--the poster child for a wired society. Look back a measly few decades, and lo and behold, no telecom/cable infrastructure to speak of! By the time they started really getting serious about geting wired, fibre had become the Medium of Choice, so that's what they used.

      Everywhere. In everything.

      Consequently, they get blisteringly fast internet connections, and are often puzzled or pitying when their US friends complain about slow downloads or quadruple-digit ping values. The US can have this kind of speed, and it will, but the time required to replace an existing network (or notwork, as may be the case ^_^) is several orders of magnitude greater than the requirement for installing an infrastructure into a virgin environment.

      --
      "We dwell within a silent country, beyond the reach of time and death" -Nothing Sophotech, The Golden Transcendence
    7. Re:Problem with Broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you get it? American business/government milks every last cent out of it. That's why you are still paying a tax to pay for the Spanish American war.

    8. Re:Problem with Broadband by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Hmmm Japan has it, I know someone in Finland with it... yet when i call up comcast they don't even know what i'm talking about.

      Sounds like the US and UK strategy is to squeeze as much as possible from our antiquated telephone and cable networks, and we'll worry about laying fiber some time later....

    9. Re:Problem with Broadband by SnefruDahshur · · Score: 1

      I have lived n both Finland and the US. In Helsinki they have cable modem and DSL just like in th US. In fact my DSL(1.5MB from Speakeasy) in the US is 3X faster for about the same money. Do you have a link for faster connections in the Nordic region?

    10. Re:Problem with Broadband by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I don't know the company off the top of my head, but I have a friend in Tampere who's appartment building was recently upgraded from 100Mbit to 1Gbit. That's shared bandwidth, but it stil works out faster than my 3Mbit cable.

    11. Re:Problem with Broadband by vipw · · Score: 1

      Bostream in Sweden. See here, if you can read Swedish, well, you can probably make sense of it either way.

    12. Re:Problem with Broadband by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Sounds like the US and UK strategy is to squeeze as much as possible from our antiquated telephone and cable networks, and we'll worry about laying fiber some time later...."

      FIOS *is* Fiber to the Premises

      It's not a future promise, it's not "squeezing the telephone network". It's a new network based on fiber to your house, it's fast, and it's being deployed NOW. Verizon is investing 2.5 billion in deploying it through 2005.

      Besides, what's wrong with copper and coax? ADSL2 offers 25Mbit speeds when used on good loops, and each QAM cable channel (there are at least 125) offers 40MBps of bandwidth.

    13. Re:Problem with Broadband by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that video on demand and other similar services are already possible through the coax infrastructure laid through out the entire country. As a matter of fact I watch COD pretty much exclusively.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    14. Re:Problem with Broadband by singpolyma · · Score: 1

      Except that half the reason a lot of people switch to broadband is so they don't have to either hold a second phone line or not be able to receive/place calls while online. For someone like me who is online all day, that could be a problem. Sure, the speed is nice, but the freedom is nicer.

      --
      - Singpolyma
    15. Re:Problem with Broadband by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 1

      I think you missed what the grandparent was saying. He was saying that the US And the UK are not using FIOS and instead trying to squeeze the most use out of the current telephone and cable networks.

    16. Re:Problem with Broadband by alarch · · Score: 1

      I have paid for a cable broadband in central Europe (Czech republic). Initially, a year or two ago, it was 256kb/s, but they are making it faster and faster every few months - now it is 4Mb/s. I will probably change the service for a cheaper one, because I have no use for such a fast link.

      --
      Deliriant isti Americani.
    17. Re:Problem with Broadband by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      The problem with broadband is the lack of services provided. There should be a central computer that pings all the computers on a timely basis and determines what the problem is if one or more do not respond. Since broadband is always on it should be able to provide all the alarm services needed for a household. Fire, Burgarly, and medical are just starts. Lack of heat in the winter, refegeriator problems, gas leaks, water leaks should all be covered by broadband with the ability to respond. When all these are provided the computer will be more common the phones and the savings will be huge.

    18. Re:Problem with Broadband by Jugalator · · Score: 1
      Rollout of broadband to new areas often entails laying down hundreds of km of fibre, as many areas have nothing but Cu wire prior to this. Add to this that the two most prevalent broadband solutions still use Cu for the "Last Mile", and you have huge bottlenecking problems. To their credit, Verizon is trying to fix the problem [verizon.com], but any infrastructure change on this scale is going to take aeons.

      Would just like to say that we were in the same situation here in Sweden with an existing copper network infrastructure and little fiber for consumer use. And today, 56 kbps is really the "last horrible choice" (or for someone who's not interested much in Internet), 512 kbps via ADSL the "unfortunate man's choice" (living in the "wrong area", often a bit too long from a city) and 10 Mbps often the "citizen's choice".

      Consequently, they get blisteringly fast internet connections, and are often puzzled or pitying when their US friends complain about slow downloads or quadruple-digit ping values. The US can have this kind of speed, and it will, but the time required to replace an existing network (or notwork, as may be the case ^_^) is several orders of magnitude greater than the requirement for installing an infrastructure into a virgin environment.

      ... so it doesn't only have to do with an effort of building new fiber infrastructure in a virgin environment as far as I can see. In that case, our broadband ISP's would be puzzled right now of how to overcome this problem instead of having digged down the fiber already. As long as they see a potential customer base and tries really hard to do it, it should take a while, but not aeons. :-) Yeah, lots and lots of digging, much more than in Sweden due to the size, but larger telephone companies in USA should hopefully have much more resources as well... :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    19. Re:Problem with Broadband by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > When your connection gets faster it becomes practical to mount disks on remote systems.
      > I'm forced to do this sort of thing for work and it's pretty slow even when i'm only
      > editing source files.

      I don't know what kind of work environment you have, but I find it much faster to remote-X my Lucid Xemacs over an ssh connection that I do to mount the disks and edit them that way.

      The added bonus is that I don't have to compile on my slow home boxen to test my changes.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    20. Re:Problem with Broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You deal with lots of Koreans?

    21. Re:Problem with Broadband by westlake · · Score: 1
      Since broadband is always on it should be able to provide all the alarm services needed for a household. Fire, Burgarly, and medical are just starts.

      Broadband service can be light years removed from the reliability of POTS.
      Every component of the system would require extended back-up power. Several hours at minimum, I would think, which is asking a lot of an affordable, consumer-grade, UPS. "Smart Home" systems with trustworthy off-site monitoring and emergency response do not come cheap.

    22. Re:Problem with Broadband by YggdrasilOS · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, isn't the telecom industry in Sweden directly controlled by the government? Over in the US the telcos are privately owned, so any truly large-scale change in infrastructure must either be mandated by federal law--a process that takes literally decades to get going--or it must have blindingly obvious business benefits--which means only a few forward-thinking corps will implement, leaving the rest to play catch up over the next 20 years or so.

      Add to that the expense: Government owned institutions have no problem spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure improvements, as they've got a guaranteed source of funding. Private companies are usually gun-shy when that sort of thing is mentioned, though. They're content to wait until the old system is so thoroughly buggered up that an upgrade is necessary to maintain basic QoS.

      --
      "We dwell within a silent country, beyond the reach of time and death" -Nothing Sophotech, The Golden Transcendence
    23. Re:Problem with Broadband by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "He was saying that the US And the UK are not using FIOS and instead trying to squeeze the most use out of the current telephone and cable networks."

      It seems you missed my point altogether.

      FIOS is Verizon's (a major US telco) name for fiber-to-the-premises. They are paying $2.5 billion to pursue a rather agressive rollout schedule throughout 2005.

      Verizon can't 'not use FIOS' because FIOS is their brand for FTTP services.

    24. Re:Problem with Broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Contrast this with S. Korea--the poster child for a wired society. Look back a measly few decades, and lo and behold, no telecom/cable infrastructure to speak of!"

      Uh... look back a few measly decades; lo and behold, no South Korea to speak of!

      (South Korea was formed in 1948...)

    25. Re:Problem with Broadband by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Is it really necessary to write "Cu" instead of "copper", or do you just think it makes you look smart?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    26. Re:Problem with Broadband by YggdrasilOS · · Score: 1

      it saves keystrokes :P

      --
      "We dwell within a silent country, beyond the reach of time and death" -Nothing Sophotech, The Golden Transcendence
    27. Re:Problem with Broadband by Anti_zeitgeist · · Score: 1

      what about it?....i tried calling for info....i was on hold for 30 min just so they could tell me that they have no idea when it would be available to me.

      --
      If it wasn't for C, we would be stuck using BASI, PASAL and OBOL.
    28. Re:Problem with Broadband by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Yes but Verizon will probably only provide FIOS in areas where it will yeild short/medium term profits.

      It'll probably go into areas that already have some broadband services, instead of into areas with none.

  5. Teh Metrixs? by RileyLewis · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to a documentary I saw recently, in the not too distant future the entire world will be hooked up to some sort of large interconnected network of humans from birth, controlled by some robots or something. I think in parts II and III of the film series, the documentary maker goes more in depth about how a small bunch of people get all cranky and get everyone else cut off from the network. Probably overused their bandwidth or something.

    1. Re:Teh Metrixs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a small bunch of people get all cranky and get everyone else cut off from the network.

      Yeah, I remember that. In the first part some bald guy named Cipro gets pissed because some punk called Morpy cut his cable. Then some guy called agent smile or something gets eaten alive by another guy who jumped off a builing because he looked at agent smiles girlfrind in a red dress, who in turn stole cable.. or something. And then there were a couple of tinfoil squids that can fly - the squids are the one's that draw the cable connections everywhere and they are all energizerbunnies and then there's a bellybutton bug in there too.

  6. Magic Money Fairy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""The BBC tells how broadband internet usage has soared over in the U.S. 'More and more Americans are joining the internet's fast lane, according to official figures. The number of people and business connected to broadband jumped by 38% in a year, said the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).'""

    Now reconcile the above with "My jobs going overseas", and ask yourself. "Were's the money coming from?"

  7. Funny... by 1tsm3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that BBC is reporting about the US trend. Whatever happened to the American analysts and news companies?

    --
    -ItsME
    1. Re:Funny... by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They stopped analyzing and reporting the news.

      They're too busy talking about Scott Peterson or the eating problems of that one Olsen twin. You know, the important stuff.

    2. Re:Funny... by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whatever happened to the American analysts and news companies?

      outsourced to the uk apparently

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    3. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They went to India.

    4. Re:Funny... by Macsimus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, along those lines, ABC World News Tonight ran a story not too long ago about the plight of illegal immigrants crossing the border from Mexico into the United States. The story was produced by ... the BBC. Wha-huh?!? I know American news organizations have cut back their international news budgets, but ABC can't even report a story in its own back yard?

      I will say, though, that the BBC did a pretty good job. Still, it was a bit odd watching a British reporter interview an American border patrol officer.

    5. Re:Funny... by mwooldri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The way things are going, the BBC is becoming a major news force in the USA anyway. An awful lot of US public radio stations are carrying BBC World Service overnight (cheaper than NPR), you can get BBC World Service on XM and Sirius, and BBC World TV programming gets aired on local PBS stations. Sure there's BBC America but if the BBC got BBC World carried on more cable systems and on the satellite services then we'd see them referred to in the same vein as CNN, MSNBC, Fox...

      However, the BBC has advantages the US domestic networks don't, and that is an outsider's view. They aren't in the hands of politicians, and are non-commercial. Their interviewers are more straight and to the point, sometimes even confrontational (e.g. John Humphries, Jeremy Paxman...).

      If the BBC were ever given funds to develop a proper US news service, I'm sure it would be successful - politicans couldn't criticize it for being left wing or right wing, and if someone like John Humphries ever got to interview President Bush (or anyone in the Bush Administration) I'm sure that would be a very interesting interview indeed. Don Rumsfeld for breakfast and Rice for lunch?

      In any case, this is supposed to be about US uptake of broadband. My guesses as to why it's popular are a) you no longer have the World Wide Wait with dial up Internet (and Americans are impatient creatures ... but then so am I...) b) you can get that pirate music easier and c) in a lot of cases it's cheaper than AOL and that second phone line, so why not go broadband, dump AOL and get that speed increase.

      Mark.

    6. Re:Funny... by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      If the BBC were ever given funds to develop a proper US news service, I'm sure it would be successful - politicans couldn't criticize it for being left wing or right wing

      Are you kidding? Just when the war in the Iraq started, Fox News pretty much stamped BBC News as liberal propaganda not that far above Al Jazeera. And you get a pretty good feel for what the Bush administration feel about different people by listening to Fox News.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    7. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, what?

    8. Re:Funny... by johannesg · · Score: 4, Funny
      Well, it is still unofficial, but the UK will be applying for membership of the US in the near future. It is all part of a greater plan in which Canada becomes part of the EU.

      Currently there are still some practical considerations (how do we move Canada to join up with continental Europe?), but once the polar ice has melted there should be nothing to stop us from sawing Canada free and towing it to its new location.

      The benefits to everyone are obvious: the EU is currently extremely crowded, but it will get a lot of extra land through this deal. The Canadians finally get a neighbour that respects them. The UK is finally rid of that damn EU, and the US... Well, I guess not everyone wins but the UK is only a small country anyway, most of you won't notice any changes...

    9. Re:Funny... by gnovos · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to the American analysts and news companies?

      So how long you been living abroad then? Must have been gone for quite a while, huh?

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    10. Re:Funny... by Lurks · · Score: 1

      I hope for everyone's sake you're wrong. That Fox peice hit news worldwide as everyone pointed and laughed and said "My god, they can't really believe that, can they?"

    11. Re:Funny... by Lurks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's what I was thinking...

    12. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friends don't let friends drink and ./!

    13. Re:Funny... by Skater · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this news is really important. I would've died not knowing that broadband is up 38%. US media should've skipped the whole tsunami story in favor of this one. /sarcasm

      --RJ

    14. Re:Funny... by Amorpheus_MMS · · Score: 1

      The BBC has obviously been keeping an eye on spam levels.

    15. Re:Funny... by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people do watch and are influenced by Fox News. You would have to be a left coast liberal completely out of touch with reality to think that Fox is just a big joke.

      I'm not trying to take sides, but whether or not you think Fox is news or propaganda, it is quite naive to discount its influence.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    16. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more than one Olsen twins? Wow, now where is that remote.

  8. Hmm. Perhaps this isn't such a good thing... by Rupan · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm just imagining the l33t scr1pt k1dd13s on their parents' new DSL connection and shuddering.... or perhaps it is the slowdown that the surge in content demand will cause. Oh well... maybe it does have a good side... after all, the people will be seeding movie torrents too :)

    --
    Ads? What ads?
  9. Correllation with Lawsuits? by Hypharse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, this is a jump and it's surely not the ONLY reason, but I wonder how much the publicity from pirated movies/music has encouraged people to get broadband to try it? I knew many people that never even considered downloading movies online (or new of bit torrent) until the big MPAA pub over it. Now they are all pridefully exchanging the best torrent sites they have found for it.

    1. Re:Correllation with Lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that suprnova.org is offline, the following are the best torrent sites to visit. However, no single website has yet risen to the rank of Suprnova successor (as power law dictates).

      http://www.tvtorrents.tv
      http://www.orbdesign.n et/
      http://www.btefnet.net
      http://www.fulldls.co m
      http://www.tv-swarm.com
      http://www.bi-torrent. com
      http://isohunt.com
      http://torrentspy.com
      ht tp://thepiratebay.org
      http://torrentreactor.net
      http://filelist.org
      http://newtorrents.info
      http ://elitetorrents.org
      http://lokitorrent.com
      http ://www.lickmytaint.com/bt.html
      http://www.420join t.com/bt/
      http://www.torrentsearch.com
      http://ww w.bitconsole.com/
      #BT-GM on EFnet
      http://www.nswhub.com
      http://www.torrentsp y.com

    2. Re:Correllation with Lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      torrentsearch.com is the shiznit. It metasearches the top torrent sites automatically.

  10. Re:Utility of the Internet: Information, not Movie by RileyLewis · · Score: 1

    The Chinese are anti-social people and are prone to brutality. I think you are confusing them with the Germans, who are a reclusive, friendly people, rarely emerging from their home nation, and only then to spread love and goodwill.

  11. Imminent death of dial-up? by FireballX301 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This statistic bolsters many people's claims that dial-up is long and dead. Combine this with a rumor I heard that AOL is planning to phase out all dial-up service, and we have 100 percent broadband access foreseeable in the near future.

    But how about the rest of the world? Especially unindustrialized nations. They'll be using dial-up for years to come. If more software comes out directed at the industrialized broadband world, the narrowband world is pushed out, therefore increasing the gap between the First and Third World. If we can increase broadband access here, we should do so likewise in other countries.

    1. Re:Imminent death of dial-up? by m4d5k1llz · · Score: 1

      Yet some of these countries don't even have potable water. [bleeding heart]It is my opinion that we should concern ourselves with the quality of life in these unindustrialized nations before worrying about their connection speed.[/bleeding heart]

    2. Re:Imminent death of dial-up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dial-up won't necessarily be cheaper for them either; consider that all phone services are going towards VOIP. When that happens, why are they dialing up at all? They will end up using at least an xDSL type of connection locally, and as demand for fiberoptics continues to grow it will become cheaper to deploy.

      So they will get broadband too, assuming they get ANY connection at all. Water, power, housing and roads usually take the first priority.

    3. Re:Imminent death of dial-up? by yRabbit · · Score: 1

      100 percent broadband access... except here, we're still stuck with dialup. And I'm in the US. Yarrr..
      I foresee using dial-up for years to come in my future..

    4. Re:Imminent death of dial-up? by TwoPumpChump · · Score: 1

      But how about the rest of the world? Especially unindustrialized nations. They'll be using dial-up for years to come.

      Otherwise known as RURAL AMERICA. I shake my fists at my dial-up at least once a week. Just move you say? Try convincing the wife/kids. Besides, the other benefits of country living (less crime, aside from the occasional meth lab, and low traffic and virtually no people congestion) outweigh even broadband. But I'd still sell a testicle for a solid non-FAP'ped broadband access.

  12. Well.... by jamesgomez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With all of the price drops in high speed internet service, it was inevitable that more would use it. Personally, I know people who don't need to have high speed internet service since all they do is e-mail and casually use their computers. Eventually, more and more will divulge into the computer scene, then upgrading from dialup to broadband once a computer is common in all households and a neccessity to everyone. Myself, I wouldn't be able to live without a computer for a few days, but most people are still traditional. Why is this even news? It's inevitable, more people are going to use it regardless.

    1. Re:Well.... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Eventually evrey one will be using hi-speed internet. Right now most (+60%) of the U.S pop is connected to the 'Net' has email or a blog they are accustomed to. In the next 5 years TIVO like devices will be the most popular things since the microwave. People will be able to connect it to the internet using super high speed connections and recieve TV quality broadcasts from who ever wants to post it. Multi TB drives and bittorent like transfers will dominate and independenly produced on demand video will be the number one choice amongst joe six pack.

      Welcome to the new age hold on for the ride

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  13. This means several things by Kell_pt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This means several things. To start with, it makes perfect sense in conjunction with these news.

    It also means that the US, despite all their assumptions, are far behind the rest of the world in matters of broandband. France, for instance, you can get a T1 line for values near 50$/month, similar thing in Sweden. Even in Portugal, which is easily in the tail of Europe in terms of broadband, it's now quite hard finding someone still not connected via DSL or Cable. In Estonia, it's in their constitution that having access to the internet is a human right. In Tawain, 2mbps connection is nearly free, and as common as electricity (you'd be hard pressed to find a house w/o connection).

    My question for the conspiracy theorists, is this on purpose? We're all aware that an online population is much more likely to be better informed and free from the shackles of internal manipulation and mass media, by picking news from other sources. Is broadband adoption being purposefully slowed down? It's a humorous question of course, but it does bear to mind... why is a technological giant like the US so far behind in broadband, why are they rather investing in military networks instead of public ones? While at it, why is their power grid system so OLD and crumbling?

    --
    "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    1. Re:This means several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at a map lately? When last I looked, the US was a lot bigger than any European country. It takes time and money to distribute the internet across "miles and miles" of "miles and miles".

      We also don't have government-run telecom monopolies that would have the flexibility to overhaul networks without all the inherent beauracracy of a privately owned and operated system.

      Basically, all the things we value in the US (large amounts of private space, captitalistic opportunity, etc) get in the way of progress!

    2. Re:This means several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'm more curious about the services available. The US may be more behind compared to these other countries, but what are the terms provided by these ISPs? What speed? How about static IPs? Bandwidth control?

      I'm still mourning the loss of my 6mbps/786kbps no bandwidth allotment and 4 free static IPs from Speakeasy in the US. Now I'm paying a premium for a 1.5/256 connection with a "generous" 40GB/40GB bandwidth for peak and off-peak (midnight-7am).

    3. Re:This means several things by unitron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In most of those other (non-USA) places you mention, services and utilities tend to be government provided (and taxes are higher), whereas here you often have to deal with a commercial enterprise that only considers improving things for the customer (if it's going to cost said enterprise anything) when forced to by competition or government regulation.

      I live about 2000 feet from a phone company switching station that's only a decade or so old but only in the past few months has DSL become available (at about the same time that the local cable TV franchise started making noises about offering VOIP).

      My conspiracy theory is that everybody's switching to broadband because dialup on a Pentium II or better and 56K modem is worse than it was at 28K with a 486.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. Re:This means several things by Kell_pt · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It seems like my post was seen like a bit of a flamebait. Lots of people answered with their personal experiences, apparently missing the point that we're talking about broadband. Here's food for thought.

      Sorry if the original post went too far . :)

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    5. Re:This means several things by Kell_pt · · Score: 1

      I am currently in Portugal, which reportedly has the worst situation in terms of broadband offers in Europe. The best in the market offers 8MBPs/768Kbps with 60GB cap for international traffic and no limits for national traffic, for about 50. There is a similar offer at 4MBPs at 30 with 30GB cap. Extra (international) traffic is paid at about 1/1GB.

      Everybody I know has moved from dialup to DSL, although reportedly, there's lots of people w/o a connection at home.

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    6. Re:This means several things by Kell_pt · · Score: 1

      Seems like ./ doesn't like the euro symbol. Those figures above should be in Euros, respectively 50e and 30e. Bear in mind that the national average wage is around 750e, so it's not inexpensive.

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    7. Re:This means several things by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Fance, for instance, you can get a T1 line for values near 50$/month, similar thing in Sweden."

      You can get 1.5MBit/1MBit DSL from Qwest for around $35 a month, including ISP.

      They don't use T1s in Europe - it's a US standard, they use E1s.

      There's no conspiracy. The facts are clear: the US government hasn't paid to put in the broadband infastructure. It's been the individual companies - Qwest, Verizon, Comcast and others - who have paid for the equipment and labor.

      We don't have "super fast" access because no one gives a shit. 95% of Americans probably couldn't tell you what "bandwidth" was - nor would they care. The biggest problem facing broadband adoption is not infastructure or cost, it's the fact that people already have dial-up and they don't see any reason to change.

      We have low broadband adoption for the same reason that we drive POS Chevys and eat absolute shit as food - we don't bother to demand a better product.

    8. Re:This means several things by zeux · · Score: 1

      France, for instance, you can get a T1 line for values near 50$/month, similar thing in Sweden.

      Actually, in France you get 8 Mbps down and 800 Kbps up DSL for 14,90 Euros (20 bucks a month).

      Check it there.

    9. Re:This means several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T1s are a standard in and of itself, it's used all over Europe. The problem is how do you define the speed of a T1? 1mbit and over? Where does that end?
      Unsurprisingly, that's different throughout the world, but the 'T1' standard is used in Europe.

    10. Re:This means several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um... you cann't get a T-1 in France... it is called an E-1 there if I am not mistaken.

    11. Re:This means several things by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's comparable to how it is in Sweden too. Thing is, you can't really compare an asynchronous line in price to a synchronous 10Mbps line. Just look at the upload speed. ;-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  14. Pot, meet Kettle by glomph · · Score: 1

    And Americans would -never- start a war on trumped-up pretense. No way.

    1. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by RileyLewis · · Score: 1

      I'm not an American, you insensitive clod!
      But you do have a point. In 1812 the US invaded my country. Only now with the combined powers of Alex Trebeck and Michael J. Fox can we keep America at bay.

    2. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by glomph · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I think with a lot of unemployed street goon brawlers, er... I mean NHL players, there is some muscle behind your threat!

    3. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by Guy+Harris · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Only now with the combined powers of Alex Trebeck and Michael J. Fox can we keep America at bay.

      You forgot Pamela Anderson.

  15. BBC Reporting on America... by ZSpade · · Score: 0

    Why are they keeping such a close eye on us Yanks...

    Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that the US is still lagging far behind most other developed nations in terms of the internet.

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    1. Re:BBC Reporting on America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow you are stupid.

      the US is still lagging far behind most other developed nations in terms of the internet.

      so there are only 2 other countries in the world that are "developed" by your definition?

      cince the USA is number 3 in broadband connected??

      I suggest you go back to school, or learn to make up better lies.

  16. Might be true-V.92 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's significantly cheaper for my parents to drop their second phone line and dialup service and switch to DSL. "

    http://www.v92.com/about/

    "The second additional feature is a Modem-on-Hold(TM) (MOH) feature. This codifies a method for the central site modem to request the client modem to go on hold, or vice versa, and is a mechanism whereby call-waiting tones can be better survived by voice-band dial-up modems."

    Kind of reduces the need for a second phone line.

    1. Re:Might be true-V.92 by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Yeah but most of these features only work with POTS, and they had ISDN. After all when you've gotten used to 1sec dialup connection times it's hard to go back.

    2. Re:Might be true-V.92 by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with that is you need a specific service from the phone company that usually isn't available if DSL or cable modem isn't available. They don't even have caller ID where my parents live now. They're on satellite still and just got off of the 9600 baud dialup (thats as fast as the old phone lines would go). There is no call waiting or any other service that would make Modem-on-Hold work. The problem is that most people who live in an area where broadband is available forget that people still live in areas that don't have these luxuries. Unfortunately it leads to all kinds of people saying "what an idiot...you don't have broadband yet?" comments. I foresee many of these to come in this commentary below.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
  17. Meanwhile.... by linguae · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....there has been a large jump in computers being turned into spam zombies, servers hosting warez, pr0n and other things, and malware installations.

    This isn't flamebait, but I notice that a lot of the Joe Average-type of users don't know how to secure their machines. They are usually very ignorant about the Internet. The majority of them don't know what a firewall is, use a browser that resembles swiss cheese (cough*Internet Explorer*cough), and do other dangerous things such as going on any random site to download some spyware-infested game or opening attachments in Outlook.

    Combine this ignorance about computers in general with a broadband connection, and they're an attacker's delight. With a broadband connection, most users wouldn't know that somebody is silently doing weird things with their computer, since their Internet connection is so fast, they wouldn't really notice a reduction in speed. Besides, broadband connections are always-on connections, further adding to the user's complete obliviousness to what's going on.

    It's kind of sad, because all these users need is a firewall (preferably external), secure browser, and, most importantly, some education. However, the latter approach is really hard to accomplish, and in order for the users to find out about firewalls and secure browsers, they would need to be educated about them, anyways. Maybe we need a commercial that tells the public to install firewalls and install Firefox/Mozilla/Opera/insert-your-favorite-browser -here, and to be actively preventing malware and other nasties from being installed on the computer.

    1. Re:Meanwhile.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most geeks here would probably agree with you, but it's not going to happen in a hurry.

      Here in New Zealand we've got one major ISP called Xtra, which is a subsidiary of Telecom (the national telephone carrier) who essentially owns all of the DSL lines. Now as it happens, Xtra is partially owned by Microsoft. More (arbitrarily slow, and damn expensive!) DSL lines over here means more owned machines, but who's going to say the MS software running on most of them is dodgy and needs replaced? Not the ISP, that's for sure.

      We also have a handful of TV stations, which have connections/ownership through North American companies. Anyway, one of the news programmes had an "canned" US article about Phishing. Lots of scare-mongering but NO solutions were offered, despite rough descriptions of the exploits. All they had to say was don't use IE or Outlook Express, and install a firewall. I've noticed a lot of XBox and Xtra ads on the tele lately too...

      So yeh, the solutions are easy, but educating the masses isn't going to happen as long as commercial media bends over for the advertisers. Which means never, probably. You might get something on PBS channels, but Joe Punter probably isn't watching.

      As an example, imagine making people wear set-belts in cars when (old) GM had significant shares in the roading and safety organisations. And when hospitals and those who advised the legislators made good coin cleaning up the mess. And GM didn't get sued for selling a product that's inadequate for it's intended purpose - day to day usage by people with no specific knownledge of the product. /posted AC cos I've moderated...

    2. Re:Meanwhile.... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wow, everyone is quite the Cassandra today.

      Compared to just a couple years ago I would say things are A LOT more secure for a variety of reasons:

      Melissa.worm showed corporate america their security is terrible and now its rare for me to see a client running Exchange without Symatec or Trend Micro's realtime scanner.

      The wireless/router fad puts everyone behind NAT, thus behind a firewall. The internet is chock full of articles on "how to open ports" because so many technophobes are behind firewalls but want to use P2P or some other app that requires port forwarding.

      People are getting *less* ignorant. Its easy to sit upon your FreeBSD high horse and mock everyday users, its a lot harder to help them. And they have been helped. There's a technophile in every family. The number of articles in the media regarding spam, spyware, and viruses is non-trivial. The fact that I can say the word spyware to a stranger and not be asked what that is shows that the message is getting across.

      Microsoft is seriously getting into the act. SP2 is godsend for the technophobes out there. Firewall on by default, better IE control, etc. Hell, they even recommend Ad Aware on their own site. Their aquisition of Giant can only mean good things in the long run.

      That being said, the worst offenders in my experience are computer savvy teens who don't give a shit, not new users. They're savvy enough to get warez and also savvy enough to do that eventual re-install long after they;re so infected its hurting their download rates.

      I've been doing some support for college students (for those who live in the dorm) and they're a lot more careful because they have data on there they need and have to put up with University policies regarding proper use. These skills translate over to the workplace pretty easily.

      So yeah, its not perfect, but in my experience its getting better, not worse. Sorry, but the internet has yet to collapse because of new users. In fact, more users means more eventual power users and an eventual critical mass where everyone has someone to lean on when they need help with their PC.

    3. Re:Meanwhile.... by superphreak · · Score: 1

      what about the other countries (the ones that have this great percentage of the population running broadband)? why aren't they having problems? or are they? are they better educated, run a firewall, don't use ie, etc...? or are many (most, some, w/e) of these computers overseas attached to fast networks running as zombies? do the other countries have problems with 'ignorant computer users' or is it just America?

      --
      Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
    4. Re:Meanwhile.... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Compared to just a couple years ago I would say things are A LOT more secure....

      With all those dire warning articles in the mainstream press, people ARE taking heed of the warnings about Internet security and are installing protection programs as fast as possible. For example, you don't need to pay for that added security: install ZoneAlarm and AVG Antivirus for free to provide real-time protection, and run something like Ad-Aware SE and SpyBot (both are free) once a day to clean out tracking cookies and adware/spyware. Also, people ARE installing patches to various operating systems more diligently, especially since the horrors of the Blaster and Sasser infections.

    5. Re:Meanwhile.... by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      It's kind of sad, because all these users need is a firewall (preferably external), secure browser, and, most importantly, some education.

      IMHO, what these users need is for their "computer" to be a VMWare image running on a blade-server. In a datacenter run by competent administrators, who know what a 'firewall' is, and how to do things like 'virus scans' and 'automated backups'.

      What they should have at home is a high-speed graphics terminal, not capable of being 0wnzd or misconfigured, because it has no configuration other than power-on and power-off. This would require broadband (getting back to the original topic) at whatever rate you need to support a remote display.

      --
      >;k
  18. Re:Awww! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an example of the 38% of new broadband connections, perhaps? Great!

  19. Parent is a copy/paste troll check google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod him off the map.

  20. Obligatory Porn Post by WMD_88 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Really, people. It's all about the pr0n. 38% more people now have high-speed sex0r pouring into their houses.

    "Video-on-demand" my ass.

    1. Re:Obligatory Porn Post by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1

      What? You prefer JPEGs?

  21. Internet in France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny, when I was in France (97-99) French people would tell me about how they didn't need the Internet because they had Minitel. I had to use Minitel sometimes, and it sucked. By that time, most everyone I knew had dial-up Internet access. It just seems funny to hear about France being way ahead of America when it comes to the Internet...

  22. Isn't that a problem with private companies by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Naturally the various bells and cable cos love it when they can roll out broadband without any real capital investment.

    Most people, like my parents, never saw the need for broadband, but now that they have 512k connections can't understand how they coped without them.

    People won't want a faster connection until they've come to expect one, but presently that only includes those of us who've worked with networks in the acaedemic or corporate world.

    At work i'll cancel a download that's under about 600kbytes/s and try to find a mirror - yet i remember when 3kbyte/s was revolutionary.

    Still if company X says that a 1Mbit/s connection is blazingly fast broadband then 90% of people will eat it up and never disagree. So there's no incentive to do anything better - which is surely where the government should come in.

    They happily build 10 lane highways, surely a good comm network is a natural extension of that.

    1. Re:Isn't that a problem with private companies by flashgc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No. It's a function of the economy. Have you checked to see how many miles of plant it would take to 'remake' the infrastructure for this entire country? Last time I looked it cost $18,000/mile to build cable plant and that was WITHOUT fibre. Even the government doesn't have deep enough pockets for that job.

      A couple months ago I looked into upgrading my DSL to 1.5 meg. At that time it was three times the bandwidth for twice the money. Not a bad deal on the face of it but I wasn't ready to pony up $100/month for DSL. Last week we made the jump when they offered that upgrade for only an additional $15/month. Now we have the 1.5 meg for 2/3 the cost of what it was a few months ago.

      You see how that works? I buy more bandwidth when it becomes affordable TO ME. The government didn't have to get anywhere near the deal.

      --
      Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
    2. Re:Isn't that a problem with private companies by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be wonderful if the government could step in and give everybody broadband. Then the US's internet infrastructure would be run with the same care and efficiency as Amtrak.

      No thanks.

      I don't know about other countries, but here in France, the speed and availability of broadband has gone way, way up since France Telecom's monopoly was broken and private companies were allowed to start doing things. Even just a couple of years ago, $50/month for a 512kbit connection was about as good as you could get. Now private companies are offering 8Mbit connections for about $20/month.

      The problem isn't the government or the telecoms, the problem is that the United States is really damned big. If you look at the places that have really fast, cheap broadband, they're almost universally places that are very densely populated. Most of the US is not.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  23. Re:Utility of the Internet: Information, not Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading your link about torture committed by the Chinese against the tibettens seven years ago reminded me about an article about the torture of America's enemies :-(

  24. Re:Utility of the Internet: Information, not Movie by YggdrasilOS · · Score: 1

    Call me crazy, but I think people could find some other ways to utilize the extra speed (VoIP, distributed/remote computing, and centralized network storage spring to mind). True, the Internet as currently structured does fine without multi-mbps connections to each and every home. Over time, however, the uses to which we put this little (D)ARPA-assigned school project will doubtless change and multiply, mandating an increase in throughput to satisfy these ends.

    --
    "We dwell within a silent country, beyond the reach of time and death" -Nothing Sophotech, The Golden Transcendence
  25. Slow broadband is still better than dialup by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A large portion of the US still doesn't have access to broadband at all, and it's not only confined to extreme rural areas. Hell, I live 15 miles from Lansing, Michigan and I can't get anything faster than 26,000bps dialup. It's not like we're the only house for miles either, the cable company just refuses to string out the lines another 8/10ths of a mile because of the cost. That extra mile would cover atleast 90-100 homes, most who are fed up with DirecTV.

    Wasn't it just a few monthes ago when CmdrTaco posted an Ask Slashdot about him finally getting broadband? If I remember correctly, he lives only a few miles outside of Ann Arbor, MI, and he was inquiring about satilite and it's support of his Mac. Satilite is hardly an answer, it's extremely overpriced and slower than any other broadband solutions. I've looked at a few places and most places offer it for $45-$60/month with anywhere from $400-$600 in equipment and setup fees, and that's for only 400Kbps on the high end with a second of lag. Not to mention you have to sign a 2 year contract.

    --
    Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
    1. Re:Slow broadband is still better than dialup by MMMDI · · Score: 1

      I'm in the exact same boat as you... if I were to step out my front door, walk to the end of the street (two minute walk, tops) and look down the next street, I'd see the cutoff line for where most of the broadband service stops.

      As I was digging through some links to throw up on here, I noticed that Comcast is now available... seems to be a bit overpriced at $57.95 per month (plus setup fees, plus hardware, plus a one year contract), but at least it's something. However, all of the other services (even AOL) are still unavailable.

    2. Re:Slow broadband is still better than dialup by pappy97 · · Score: 1

      Is this perhaps a problem with Michigan? Maybe it's not easy for cable company (i.e. state and local laws?) to upgrade their lines to support broadband

      I now live in MO, and in the most rural areas, even DSL is available (Which is surprising).

  26. it would be even more if... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    ...big business lobbyists didn't stop cities like Philadelphia from providing free public wireless access citywide. G(&* D(&** profiteers!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  27. "Video-on-demand" my ass... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Yeah! That's EXACTLY what it amounts to - that or other's asses... :)

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  28. The thrill is gone. by tloh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Man, the slashdot Gods really knows how to take the thrill out of a man's accomplishments. Just yesterday, I was giddy with pride for having finally figured out how to get the modem-on-hold function working for my dial up. No I'm depressed and have lost all motivation to attempt the same thing with my Debian partition. Excuse me but I have to go sulk now.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  29. Are you Chinese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Are you Chinese? Then, you must be aware that the Chinese are practically extinct in meetings of Amnesty International on your local college campus.

    If such behavior is not anti-social and is not brutal, then I can not conceive of another explanation.

    I volunteered in the 1960s to fight in the Vietnam War. My leg was shot off, but I do remember fondly that my platoon managed to intercept a Chinese supply line funneling weapons to the North Vietnamese. My platoon ambushed about 50 Chinese thugs sending weapons into Vietnam. We killed all of them. Point blank. One guy tried to wave a white flag. I aimed my machine gun at his face. You can guess the rest of the story. All 50 were killed on that day.

    1. Re:Are you Chinese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha ha glad you lost your leg you 'tard.

      the people you killed probably didn't mind dying for their cause, but you went and got crippled just cos your government lied to you.

      serves you right, fool.

    2. Re:Are you Chinese? by tloh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Such rants have no place in a discussion of broadband ussage in the US.

      So you went to shoot people on another continent for the political ideology of your own government. Good for you...big deal. You accomplishments in killing niether fazes me nor elevates you, in fact it shames you.

      Now go learn something about being a decent human being. Otherwise, shut up and piss off.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    3. Re:Are you Chinese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time warp.

      More than 30 years have passed. What do you think of Germany and Japan?

    4. Re:Are you Chinese? by UziBeatle · · Score: 0



      For all you banging on these guys as being 'bigots' may I direct you to the latest world event ?

      While America is being blasted for being 'stingy' in responce to the earthquake driven disastor in South East Asia and elsewhere where is China? Hmm?
      Where is the great praise of the wonderful CHinese contribution in assistance and aide to the many MILLIONS in need? SUrely, with all the BILLIONS we Americans send to the needy CHinese via WalMart and other suppliers they could pitch in in a big way, eh? Hmm?

      I submit there is no news of such aide and assistance because there is NONE. Please, let us all know of the aide if it is there I'm sure we would all like to be corrected.

      I submit the alleged 'trolls' are not trolls at all but merely observers of truth. What some of you lack I'm afraid is a exposure to history. China is a brutal country. Has been and is. Will that change? One can only hope. In the meantime it is run by Communists and tyranny. One day, maybe, democracy can flourish there. In the meantime recognise China for what it is.

      IN the meantime I'm sure you will continue to blast American and Americans for being the ultimate evil in the world. One can only hope you open your eyes in time, before Red China or Militant Islam burys you in the dirt.

      --
      Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
  30. United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Informative

    What a crock of propaganda.

    The United States is 3rd in total internet penetration rate (68.8%), only behind Sweden(74.6%) and Hong Kong(72.5%).France, Portugal, and Estonia, aren't even in the top 25.

    Pathetic, and by your logic much less informed than USAians. Europeans should be ashamed.

    Oh sure. Maybe broadband is cheaper some places. Or more people have it in other places. Big deal. Many Americans seem happy with modems.

    1 Sweden 74.6 %
    6,722,576
    9,010,700
    Nielsen//NR Aug./04

    2 Hong Kong 72.5 %
    4,878,713
    6,727,900
    Nielsen//NR Aug./04

    3 United States 68.8 %
    201,661,159
    293,271,500
    Nielsen//NR Aug./04

    4 Iceland 66.6 %
    195,000
    292,800
    ITU - Dec./03

    5 Netherlands 66.5 %
    10,806,328
    16,254,900
    Nielsen//NR Aug./04

    6 Australia 65.9 %
    13,359,821
    20,275,700
    Nielsen//NR Aug./04

    7 Canada 64.2 %
    20,450,000
    31,846,900
    C.I.Almanac - Dec/03

    8 Switzerland 63.5 %
    4,432,190
    7,433,000
    Nielsen//NR Aug./04

    9 Denmark 62.5 %
    3,375,850
    5,397,600
    Nielsen//NR June/02

    10 Korea, (South) 62.4 %
    30,670,000
    49,131,700
    KRNIC - July/04

    1. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by Kell_pt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To start with, I'm having a hard time understanding how was that "propaganda". I think you're confusing "increase in penetration rate" (which is what the article is all about) with "total penetration rate".

      Moreover, you're confusing "broadband access" with "internet access". You're talking quantity, I'm talking quality. And just so you can see where I'm comming, those 75%ish where you're comparing the US and Sweden... in Sweden you'll be hard pressed to find a non-broadband access - you should give it some further thought.

      Read the report U.S. a Generation Behind in High-Speed Broadband instead of just reading BBC news.

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    2. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Informative
      Penetration does not equal broadband. The article is about broadband connections, not access.

      Not to mention in this study, internet access at the library counts even if you dont even own a home computer. Internet access at work counts even if you don't own a home computer. Etc.
      The ITU subscribes to the definition of an internet user as someone aged 2 years old and above, who went online in the past 30 days. The US Department of Commerce, in contrast, defines internet users as those 3 years or older who 'currently use' the internet. Other market researchers have there own definitions.

      We believe that a basic definition must be as general and as simple as possible. For analyzing and comparing Internet users on a global scale, IWS adopts as its benchmark a broad definition and defines an Internet User as anyone currently in capacity to use the Internet.
      If you read the article all the BBC is claiming is that there are 32 million NEW broadband connections in the US. Be it home or business.
    3. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod parent up. A lot of people don't seem to understand the difference between quantity and quality, anymore.

    4. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by Kell_pt · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I must admit I was a bit disappointed with receiving an "overrated". I was hoping the original post would come across as midly humorous. :)

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    5. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father reads news from dozens of sources over his lousy 33.6 dialup. Broadband is nice for mp3s, application downloads, distro ISOs, movie torrents, porn, and the like. But it really isn't that critical to keeping the citizenry informed.

      I'd also hesitate to say that getting your news online is necessarily better than traditional print media. Sure, online we are free from the shackles of mainstream media. But it also encourages people to get their "news" from more and more narrow minded sites, whose only purpose is to make their audience feel happy by telling them the world is exactly how they already think it is. Hell, look at some of the bizarrely slanted Slashdot article summaries.

    6. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you so much, I had started typing out a whole rant about how the posters reading comprehension was fuckin horrible, but you beat me to it, and in such a classy manner that the mods didn't mod you into flamebait oblivion. I sir, and many others who cannot control the swearing in their speech, thank you. For you gave this man a big Fuck You without having to actually resort to using that horrible sinful word.

    7. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a crock of propaganda.

      The United States is 3rd in total internet penetration rate (68.8%), only behind Sweden(74.6%) and Hong Kong(72.5%).France, Portugal, and Estonia, aren't even in the top 25.


      Those stats can't be taken seriously. I live in Finland, and of all the people I know I can only think about a handful who don't use the Internet. I'd say that's maybe one percent of all the people I know. Those people are all over 70.

      Pretty much everyone in Finland handles their banking transactions (paying bills etc) solely though the Internet. Physically going to the bank is _rare_. Many people have an Internet connection just for paying bills, but they do indeed use the Internet.

      (Sidenote: I've handled two cheques in my whole life, everthing here is handled electronically with inter-bank connections.)

      Now, If 99% of the people I know use the Internet, and the study says 50% of the people I know don't use the Internet I'm going to go with my gut. Sure, there's a hell of a large margin of error with a sample of a single person's expecience, but I find it impossible to believe the deviation could be 49% even if my own top-of-the-head approximations are way off.

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    8. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by dberti · · Score: 1

      20/mo and I consistently get 1200K download with sbc yahoo DSL. that's with unlimited phone at 30/mo.

      Forget fiber anyway. Wireless baby. They should never lay another pipe...

    9. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A major reason for the difference in broadband / non-broadband penetration in the US vs., say Sweden:

      Free local calls. Here in Sweden, they charge (rather high) local phone charges when you connect to the internet using a modem. I used to have huge phone bills before I got my hands on DSL. If phone access to the internet is flatrate already, a major reason to upgrade goes "poof".

    10. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone modded that Insightful? I know there's no (-1, Bad At Math And/Or Logic) option, but come on.

      Repeat after me: the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

    11. Re:United States 3rd in Internet penetration rate by DeVilla · · Score: 1
      Now, If 99% of the people I know use the Internet, and the study says 50% of the people I know don't use the Internet I'm going to go with my gut. Sure, there's a hell of a large margin of error with a sample of a single person's expecience, but I find it impossible to believe the deviation could be 49% even if my own top-of-the-head approximations are way off.

      I know what you mean. You hear all of these radical statistics that just don't reflect the world we live in. In fact, just last week, my wife and I were watching the news on the private jet when a report came on discussing the plight of the poor. They went on statics of how so many families can't even pull in $30,000 and have less than (get this) $1000 in savings. Now honestly! I have homes on at least 3 continents, and I have yet to meet a single person who is even close to that. Even my aid who is dictating this makes over $80,000. How these people make this stuff up is beyond me. Someone needs to mod the parent mod up.

  31. Re:parent is a troll by YggdrasilOS · · Score: 1, Troll

    What's so amazing about that? Carl Jung pointed out what we all subconsciously knew all along: People are a walking mass of contradictions (heavily paraphrased, I know, bear with me here). The ability to entertain two contradictatory thoughts at the same time is one of the main things that differentiates the human mind from a computer. I have a friend who gives forth eloquently and logically on any number of geopolitical/social topics, yet still harbors an irrational hatred for France (though I've managed to convince him to scale back his rantings to a mostly personal loathing for Jacques Chirac and his cronies).

    "Stand not amaz'd," for such is the human condition.

    --
    "We dwell within a silent country, beyond the reach of time and death" -Nothing Sophotech, The Golden Transcendence
  32. Re:Utility of the Internet: Information, not Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off you ignorant prick, and take your cunting retard website with you.

    you only post as AC because you know you're WRONG (whereas I post as AC so I can swear lots)

  33. Suprise Really? by schestowitz · · Score: 1

    The trend was known throughout the year as well, but was never served as a statistic. This finally positively affects the way I (and many others) design sites, in terms of bandwidth.

    --
    My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
    1. Re:Suprise Really? by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The ability to make your sites more content-rich is great, but the extra bandwidth could also mean a lot more sloppy coding from some people, and a lot of unnecessary crap from some people, too.

      Things expand to fill up the space they're given. If a site thinks you have more bandwidth, they'll tend to deliver more bits, even if you don't want those bits.

    2. Re:Suprise Really? by schestowitz · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. The author is from 'Palm Addict' so he probably knows that the unnecessary bits can (and should) be disabled. With a good browser, for example, you can control bandwidth better. I can't think of analogies for audio and video...

      --
      My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
  34. Re:What do you mean "over" in the US? by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's an article from BBC.

    BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation = Great Britain.

    From the article's perspective, it's talking about broadband usage over here in the US. But they are there. Get it? Good.

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  35. correction by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Informative

    That should be 9 million new connections this year, 32 million total.

  36. And still... by BicycloHexane · · Score: 0

    With 384kbit down and 256kbit up you can't have a decent quality video/audio chat with those damned webcam sluts!

  37. well, of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well _of course_ the US has one of the highest internet penetration rates. The net _started_ in the US, so for quite a while it was very uncommon to find someone on the net who wasn't from the US. There were a few, usually from the UK or Canada, but it was basically a US show for a number of decades.

    But now, Asia has more people on the net than the US does - not because a high % of their ppl are on the net, but because they have so many people.

  38. Why Do They Care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The BBC dosen't broadcast to North America anymore on shortwave and the BBC america channel on dish/direct TV/cable is crap, so when they want to say something about us have them turn their transmitters back on and tell us...... PLEASE!!!!

  39. My downloading shoes by Graymalkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now all we need in the US is services that are condusive to actually serving content instead of simply consuming it. I suppose the ridiculous asymmetry of broadband services in the US ought to be expected of a country raised by televisions.

    I've got a broadband connection. It's 3Mbps downstream and 256Kbps upstream. While it is decidedly quicker than a 56k dial-up connection in either direction it is definitely not designed let me serve content at reasonable speeds. Many ports are also blocked at the cable company's head end so I can't use standard service ports (80, 21, etc). I also have to pay an obscene amount of money if I want a static IP address that I can point a DNS entry to.

    Some people do have residential broadband that offers saner upstream bandwidth, no port blocking, and free static IPs. Unfortunately this is not the norm here. Most of us either have to pay for hosting or a "business" service package from our broadband provider. In either case we're paying a lot of money for services that ought to be provided for all broadband users.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  40. Price differences by zilarik_z · · Score: 1

    Back in the bad old days, you might be paying $60+ for a 512kbit/s cable modem service, plus equipment/set-up costs, while dialup ISPs usually hovered around the $15-20ish range for a month.

    Now, however, you can get broadband for much cheaper ($20/mo in some instances) while the quality of service has increased dramatically, while dialup's quality has held fast with only minor price drops. It only makes sense that people are shifting towards broadband; the only dialup I ever see used anymore by friends/acquaintances is NetZero and Juno because, well, you really can't beat free. :P

    1. Re:Price differences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing posts like this makes me wish I was back in an urban area. Where I'm at, there are only two broadband providers. Both charge around $70/month for 512K/128K. Well, my special introductory price ended last month so now I'm up to $80/month just to get 512K service. I'm seriously thinking of cutting off the Internet at my house and use the Internet at work for what I need to do.

  41. Re:Sounds like ... by glassjaw+rocks · · Score: 1

    That's funny. Not flamebait. I only wish I could select which messages to metamoderate.

    --
    -gjr
  42. Comcast offer - $24.99!!!!!!!! by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

    So will broadband use drop by 30% after 4 months?

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  43. US fears socialism by max+born · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the US is still behind compared to other nations, ranked 13th in the world by a UN telecoms body.

    Because the US government refuses to invest in infrastructure. Congress believes the road to Internet growth is best left up to private companies.

    I'm definately not for big government, but there are some things only goverment can do. The Internet is a bit like the federal highway system and entrusting its growth to the likes of Comcast and Verizon is a bad idea.

    1. Re:US fears socialism by Nemesis099 · · Score: 1

      Because the US government refuses to invest in infrastructure. Congress believes the road to Internet growth is best left up to private companies.

      I'm definately not for big government, but there are some things only goverment can do. The Internet is a bit like the federal highway system and entrusting its growth to the likes of Comcast and Verizon is a bad idea.


      Here is the thing the Government won't put in the infastructure themselves. But the Government won't let a company have a monopoly on the infastructure they put in so in other words what happens is they invest in something that they must let competators use.

      People complain about monopolies but I don't know of a single person who would invest millions of dollars on something and let other people reap all the profits. Until a company can have a monopoly (maybe for a limited time) it will never get done here.

  44. Prediction: HDTV, broadband, and four years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next American Presidential election will have more money spent on ads on HDTV over broadband than over non-HDTV broadcast TV.

  45. A few more stories you might have missed... by jdfox · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...since the corporate media refuse to report on them.

    The BBC however is hardly free of self-censorship, and its news is presented very much from the point of view of the cliques that run it.

    The best news IMHO is dominated neither by governments nor corporations, but there's not a lot of that around these days, at least not on television or in dailies.

    1. Re:A few more stories you might have missed... by freqres · · Score: 1

      You mean newsmax.com, right?

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    2. Re:A few more stories you might have missed... by jdfox · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't find any of the articles from the Project Censored list for 2004 or the new 2005 list on Newsmax.com.

      Or have I misunderstood you?

  46. In the FUTURE the TV watches YOU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STEP 1: Create Internet.
    STEP 2: Do little while porn, music, and movies are shared on the internet.
    STEP 3: Watch hundreds of millions of people pay to get broadband, funding billions of dollars of two-way communication to every influencial household in the world.
    STEP 4: Pass national security laws making talking about how security devices work ILLEGAL.
    STEP 5: Pass secret legislation putting devices in all broadband devices, HDTV devices, and microprocessors so that secret unnamed national security organizations can monitor on multiple wavelengths.
    STEP 6: "1984" a bit late.

    1. Re:In the FUTURE the TV watches YOU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STEP 7: ... STEP 8: Profit!

  47. Asia is different by putaro · · Score: 1

    I live in Tokyo and I've got 24Mbps downstream DSL right now. However, I'm within 500 meters of the central office. The greater Tokyo area also account for about 30% of Japan's population in an incredibly densely populated area which makes it much easier to roll out service here.

    Supposedly in the US, now that the Bells have reasserted themseles as monopoly players, speeds will start going up. I've seen many references to fiber to the home being on the horizon.

    1. Re:Asia is different by schouwl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I have a 40 mbps connection also here in Tokyo. You can get fiber from two providers and get 100 mbps both ways. Fiber will install for free and after that you pay 50 USD per month. I can't get 100mbps since my landlaw says no to get fiber into the house ;( Lars

  48. So Evidently.. by taxevader · · Score: 1

    because 33% of all traffic is BitTorrent stuff, 12% of the increase is from people wanting to download torrents?

    --
    -Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
    1. Re:So Evidently.. by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      BitTorrent(s) are the only way that many
      people can actually get large files D/Led
      without corruption. I actually have used
      this great technology on a dial-up connection
      just because of the ability to re-string
      packets into their correct order.

      As an abused VERIZON customer, I can tell you
      that I DO HAVE *DSL service available to my
      home, which I will NOT subscribe to. The
      problem is that VERIZON (and most "baby bells")
      have made the absolute minimal infrastructure
      improvements to the the end-user/residence.
      I have approximately 18,000 feet of mostly
      buried Cu POTS wiring from the CO (Central
      Office) to my home that is 30 + years old.
      The last attempt at DSL service here was a
      bust -- the distance involved required ADSL
      service rather than DSL and the sustained
      U/L-D/L rates were about 20% BETTER than
      dial-up, at ~250% of dial-up costs. Between
      the distance from the CO and the (mostly)
      buried wiring, any wired DSL service to my
      residence was a waste of time and money. Yet,
      I could subscribe to VERIZON Business Wireless
      DSL and get good bandwidth (at ~400% of the
      cost of their "home" DSL service). The telcos'
      primary competition, the cable companies, are
      generally held to higher standards for deploy-
      ment of services, and at the county level. If
      they do not meet the access goals set by the
      local government, they can and will be replaced
      by another cable company -- something the state
      regulators are unwilling to do with the telcos.

      IMHO, the worst thing to happen to the USA's
      telco infrastructure in the past 50 years has
      been the breakup of Ma Bell. Sometimes, a
      single government controlled monopoly is far
      better than a bunch of regional monopolies,
      especially when something as important as
      infrastructure is involved. The baby "bells"
      have been "skimming the cream" of profits from
      their monopolies, while ignoring the majority
      of users. This is the reason why many other
      countries have better broadband service to their
      taxpayers. The situation in the USA regarding
      the regional telco monopolies is not too unlike
      the problems that our deregulated airlines are
      suffering, and for similar reasons.

  49. wrong by denpo · · Score: 1

    Right now, you can get 9-5Mbit ADSL for 15/month in most of the big/medium city.

    --
    //TODO: put sig here
  50. Re:Utility of the Internet: Information, not Movie by Dagny+Taggert · · Score: 1

    Why was this modded Troll? Because of the comment about the Chinese? For fuck's sake, dude, read some history.

    --
    Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
  51. So that explains the slow down by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    At least in my area, performance has been slowly degrading over the last few months.. I was the first to have broadband, having to wait forever for it to be available, as most here dont even know what a computer is..

    The day after Christmas was dismal.. Felt like we were back on dialup most of the day..

    Stupid kids with their stupid games.. Bandwidth wasters.. Nothing more.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:So that explains the slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stupid kids with their stupid games.. Bandwidth wasters.. Nothing more.


      This is amusing. I use broadband for both work and play.. and guess what? My money is as good as yours. Deal with it.

      "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games."
      - Eugene Jarvis, creator of Defender and Robotron
    2. Re:So that explains the slow down by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Your money may be, but not your waste of a resource.

      Bandwidth wasting 'game play' should be banned. Simple as that.

      Opening the network to the public, and commercialism, was its downfall and the beginning of the end for the 'net'.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:So that explains the slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your money may be, but not your waste of a resource.


      I'm paying for the resource. Are you illiterate, obtuse, or overtly stupid? And how does using the internet for applications other than game playing exempt you from wasting resources?

      Are you an academic? (most likely on my taxpayer dime)

      Are you Dept of Defense? (definitely on my taxpayer dime)

      Are you private industry? (shouldn't be on the net since you're not there for the common good but on behalf of shareholders, build your own goddamn net)

      In short, you sound like a sad old man who has nothing else to bitch about and who cannot adapt. Can you say "mainframe programmer"? I knew you could.

      Once again, deal with it.. and guess what, things aren't going to change, loser.
    4. Re:So that explains the slow down by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      GAMES are a *waste* of resources. Plain and simple.

      WORK ( or research ) is not.

      Grow up. Get a job.

      Can you say "snot nosed kid"? No, I doubt you have enough education.

      Who I work for, and how its funded isn't open for public discssion, as none of you here have proper clearance.

      End of discussion.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:So that explains the slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually opened your mind, you would find that 'games' are a very valuable field of research. You would also find that 'work' is often wasteful and destructive to the world.

      Say I work as a telemarketer, or making weapons, or disposable plastic junk for WalMart. The more I work in that job, the worse the world is. It would be much safer to play games and not hurt anyone with my greed.

      Most people are too greedy to be able to handle the responsibility that comes with work and money. Better that they play mindless games on the internet, than to be unleashed in public.

      Only 10% of the workforce is actually needed - the rest are dead weight who are wasting resources. We need more people playing games instead of consuming fossil fuels driving to pointless 'work' every day.

  52. People vs. Homes by hhawk · · Score: 1

    The article is saying there are 32 Broadband connections in the US.. "more than 32 million broadband connections by the end of June 2004"

    Doing some fuzzy math, for a country of 300 million people, that means 10% of the country is connected.. BUT WAIT!!

    Connections are to HOMES, not to People, just like TV. There are roughly 95 million TV homes (maybe more these days). So 32 Homes with Broaband means roughly 1/3 of the country or about 100 million people (more than 1 person per home... + all those who "borrow" wireless service from their clueless neighbhors).

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
  53. Broadband is now price competitive. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    I think people are switching to broadband if they can get it because the price of the national ISP's for dialup are getting pretty expensive for what you get. EarthLink now costs US$22/month, and MSN and AOL are even more expensive for dial-up service.

    As such, people realize that Comcast Hi-Speed Internet broadband at US$42.95/month isn't so bad, especially when you can download complex web pages in a few seconds and enjoy more or less stutter-free streaming audio and video. Besides, most new computers come with 100Base-T Ethernet RJ-45 connectors, so setting up for broadband is relatively easy.

  54. Some DSL Prices in Finland for comparision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some DSL prices in finland to help you compare :

    256/256 ~20e/month
    512/512 24e/month
    768/768 30e/month
    1mb/768 36e/month
    2mb/768 42e/month
    8mb/1mb 50e/month
    12mb/1mb 63e/month (ADSL 2)

    Would be interesting to hear prices in other countries.

  55. Re:Utility of the Internet: Information, not Movie by Phisbut · · Score: 1
    At the tip of your fingers, you can access the best, most accurate information in the world. Consider Fox News, CNN

    If you really consider Fox News and CNN to be the best, most accurate information in the world, I truly pity you.

    --
    After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
    - The Tao of Programming
  56. mmm. korean virgins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    color me homer.

  57. don't blame me, i voted for kodos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i mean kerry. take the bad with the good, red-stater.

  58. No wonder by dekker · · Score: 1

    Huge jump in those with broadband Internet? No wonder I can't get any work done this holiday over my parents' cable modem. Stupid holiday downloaders.

  59. Jesus, no kidding. by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Because of course, this guy's acquaintances MUST be a representative sample of the Finnish population.

    Sean

  60. Isn't that a problem with [entitlement mentality?] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Still if company X says that a 1Mbit/s connection is blazingly fast broadband then 90% of people will eat it up and never disagree. So there's no incentive to do anything better - which is surely where the government should come in.

    They happily build 10 lane highways, surely a good comm network is a natural extension of that."

    American Taxpayer here. Why should we pay for your hobby? If you're using your line for work, then your boss pays for it. If you're using it basically to please yourself, then why should we pay for it? Yours is the entitlement mentality that's sinking the US. You want broadband? You pay for it. Your parents want broadband? They pay for it. If they feel that it isn't worth it? Then they don't buy it. That's the way capitalism works. The US doesn't need more people feeding from the government trough, who can't be bothered to work for the items that "discretionary" income buys everyone else. You want it cheaper? Then do it the way it's always been done. Before people depended so much on government.

  61. It's just a different business model by siriuskase · · Score: 1

    Maybe the BBC is sticking to an obsolete business model? Where is it written that foreign correspondents and news anchors must work for the same employer? Wire services have existed for decades. We don't read the Associated Press newspaper or watch the Associated Press newscast, so why should the wonderful web of BBC correspondents only appear on a TV network owned by their employer? They don't and the world has another interesting slant on the news, one that is different than that paid for by American advertisers (and confusing mix of taxpayers, sponsors, and members in the case of PBS).

    I think that currently the US news industry is suffering from a shortsighted tendency to save money by cutting out extensive networks of trusted overseas news sources. They reply too much on the press releases of people and organizations looking for free publicity. Although most bloggers would make lousy journalists, I expect that as the internet matures, the expensive network of company owned reporters will be replaced by independent reporters who are actually from the same culture that they report on.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  62. And even more broadband! by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

    "During his 2004 re-election campaign, President George W Bush pledge to ensure that affordable high-speed net access would be available to all Americans by 2007."

    The President hopes to have these new Internets online very, very soon. But first, certain rumors will have to be put down.

    --
    sig not found
  63. Re:Utility of the Internet: Information, not Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dude, where do you get *your* history from?

    News flash! the rest of America have realized Joseph McCarthy was a "bad" man.

    now be a good patriot and fuck off.