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).'"
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
"Video-on-demand" my ass.
They're too busy talking about Scott Peterson or the eating problems of that one Olsen twin. You know, the important stuff.
Albuquerque PC
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
"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.