U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind

EpochVII writes "FreePress recently released a report(PDF) detailing the woeful situation of U.S. broadband access. From the press release: 'By overstating broadband availability and portraying anti-competitive policies as good for consumers, the FCC is trying to erect a façade of success. But if the president's goal of universal, affordable high-speed Internet access by 2007 is to be achieved, policymakers in Washington must change course.'"

Comments

façade?

[zegebbers]

Ohh I see, I thought there was something on my monitor

Re:façade?

[takeya]

http://www.answers.com/facade&r=67

Yup, seems that's really how you spell it. The C must have a freedom accent on it.

Re:façade?

[cujo_1111]

That sir, is what is called a cunning C...

Re:façade?

[The Hobo]

It does have a French accent, in French that particular character is used when we want a soft c sound (ss as opposed to k)when the next letter is an 'a', 'o', or 'u' (by default, when the next letter is one of those, the sound is hard)

Without it, it would be said 'fakade' instead of 'fassade'
 
FYI, if the letter following the c is an 'i' or 'e', the default action is a soft c sound, so the 'tail' (officially called a cédille) would not be necessary

The Hobo, your friendly neighbourhood French-Canadian

Re:façade?

[takeya]

I know I speak french.

I also live about 60 miles from the Quebec border, but that's just coincedence. I started learning French at school in Connecticut.

Re:façade?

[hobbesx]

Question:

Do you (personally) pronouce it Keh-Bek, or Kwuh-bek? I grew up about an hour from the Canadian border in Washington state, where the best TV signals came from CBC and another station so close to the border it played mostly Canadian content.

I still get weird looks for my pronunciation of caramel and Quebec. Could be worse I guess, I've had to vouch for a friend's explanation of Mr. Dress-up's Tickle Trunk. (Now that was an interesting conversation.)

Re:façade?

[gallir]

No only French, catalan also have it (and potuguese...) where it is called "C tancada", in Spanish c-cedilla.

Re:façade?

[TheRaven64]

I think the shocking thing is that Slashcode managed to handle a non-ASCII character. Even more impressive would be if it handled proper unicode and didn't replace every trademark symbol I type with (tm). I'm sure it will manage this Real Soon Now(TM).

Re:façade?

[CastrTroy]

But there are no accents in real English words. There's only a accent on façade because it's not actually an English word. It's just a French word that a lot of English people use. It's like the word "resumé". Nobody ever spells it with the accent, even though they should, because otherwise it's just resume.

Re:façade?

[eric0213]

Shouldn't that be?

"FYI, if the letter following the c is an 'e' or 'i', the default action is a soft c sound, so the 'tail' (officially called a cédille) would not be necessary"

Wait for it... wait for it...

Re:façade?

[h4x0r-3l337]

It's like the word "resumé". Nobody ever spells it with the accent, even though they should, because otherwise it's just resume.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of words in English that are spelled identical, but pronounced differently based on context. Take "lead" (the metal) and "lead" (the verb) for example.

Re:façade?

[radarsat1]

Keh-Bek, or Kwuh-bek?

Had to think about this one for a second. I believe that when I'm speaking english it's really one or the other. Mostly the second. When I'm speaking french, always the first. But I'm fairly sure there are times when I'm speaking english and I say it the first way..

(I'm in Montreal btw, just for context.)

Re:façade?

[Drooling Iguana]

That would be pronounced "French Sanadian".

Re:façade?

[hobbesx]

Interesting!

Thanks for the reply :)

Re:façade?

[teutonic_leech]

Exactly - it's prounounced 'sedi' or something like that (not sure how to write phonetics). Doesn't anyone learn 2nd languages anymore?

Re:façade?

[CohibaVancouver]

Take "lead" (the metal) and "lead" (the verb) for example.

The one I heard the other day that I enjoyed was:

Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.

Re:façade?

[Lotharus]

I think it's actually résumé anyway; that is, acute accents on both Es.

Modern English, however, is definitly a wacky language. Why don't any of these words rhyme? Bough, trough, through, though, tough. That's, in order, "bow" (as in genuflect, not as in ___ and arrow), "troff", "threw", "thoe" (rhymes with toe), "tuff". And that's not even to mention the name Colclough, which around here is usually pronounced "Coke-ly."

The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Have the U.S. beat . . .

Where are our leaders? Oh, yeah...

Bought and paid for.

Re:The S. Koreans

[xlv]

Where are our leaders? Oh, yeah...

Vacationing yet again in Crawford?

Re:The S. Koreans

[Amiga Trombone]

Have the U.S. beat . . .

Um, yeah, take a look at the globe, and compare the size of South Korea to the size of the United States (as well as the rest of the countries that have "got us beat"). In terms of infrastructure, how much do you think it costs to lay fiber from one end of S. Korea or Japan, or Austria to the other, compared to the US? Those are relatively small and densly populated countries, compared to the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.

This report is comparing apples to oranges.

Re:The S. Koreans

[JanneM]

If that was the reason, you'd have the same excellent communication infrastructure at least in your major cities and associated suburbs and satellite communities.

Re:The S. Koreans

[LnxAddct]

I don't understand what all this broadband non-sense is about? I don't know a single person without cable or dsl, and this is throughout about 12 states. The only regions in the U.S. without broadband are places miles from cities (with some few exceptions). If people chose to live life away from cities and the latest technology, good for them, but we should have no desire to run wire to their houses just so we can say everyone has broadband. Everyone who wants it, has it and thats what matters. The United States is huge, way larger then the Koreas or Japan. (Now this will be followed by posts claiming that they or someone they know can't get it, but keep in mind you are the exception rather then the rule)
Regards,
Steve

Re:The S. Koreans

[Forbman]

As far as optical fiber goes, how much "dark" fiber is already in the ground in the US from the 90's?

So your argument was kind of a red herring.

The observation in the US is that Comcast, RoadRunner, Verizon/Qwest/SBC basically control broadband deployment in the US, not the FCC. These companies, when they're not trying to slit each other's throats (wrong kind of competition), are more than happy to keep padding congressional pockets and keep the FCC under control. Oh, and a few local and state buyoffs help too, to quell any minor uprisings by the untermenschen locals who have gotten tired of eating cake.

There are other "broadband" options besides cable or telco DSL, but they're in the minority. I'm using wireless broadband supplied by MacOnline (www.maconline.com), which is for me just ends up being what I wish I could get from cable or telco DSL: Broadband internet service with no buy-in to the network provider's lowest-common-denominator bundled bullshit and their bullshit TOS agreements.

768Kbps SDSL. Static IP. Works for me.

Now, my birth mother in Lance Creek, WY, well, they'd probably have to use satellite-based service. If you know where Lance Creek, WY, is, you'll understand why cable, telco DSL, 3G, et al., will NEVER reach a good third of the US physically (i.e., between the front range of the Rocky Mts and the Mississippi River, not withstanding major metropolitan areas like Denver or Kansas City.

Re:The S. Koreans

[JohnTheFisherman]

You're right....South Korea has the US beat in corporate ownership of the government hands down. Ever been there? Hyundai, KIA, Samsung, and L.G. pretty much run the whole country.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Hmm,

The U.S. has highly-dense population centers that are not as developed as S. Korea.

In terms of sheer wealth - the U.S. outstrips the vast majority of countries and there simply is no reason why the U.S. should ever take a back seat to technology - unless the moneyed interests demand otherwise.

The reason that the U.S. hasn't kept up with cell technology and broadband is that the last buck hasn't been wrung out of the populace.

Given the current oil price at $70.00/bbl - coupled with the ready availability of oil at that price - the U.S. ought to have people up in arms over the $2.60+ / gal. price of gasoline. The U.S. doesn't have gasoline riots and it won't have broadband riots despite overpriced monopoly limits on broadband development in the U.S.

Neither apples nor oranges....the U.S. can easily lead in any field - it chooses.

Re:The S. Koreans

[uberdave]

compared to the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.

Again this idiotic notion buried in the American psyche that they are first at everything. Canada has far more vast, unpopulated regions than the US could ever possibly hope to have.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Amiga Trombone]

As far as optical fiber goes, how much "dark" fiber is already in the ground in the US from the 90's?

So your argument was kind of a red herring.

*snip!*

Now, my birth mother in Lance Creek, WY, well, they'd probably have to use satellite-based service. If you know where Lance Creek, WY, is, you'll understand why cable, telco DSL, 3G, et al., will NEVER reach a good third of the US physically (i.e., between the front range of the Rocky Mts and the Mississippi River, not withstanding major metropolitan areas like Denver or Kansas City.

Apparently that "dark" fiber isn't doing your mother much good. Which is exactly my point. Your not going to find much fiber in North Dakota, dark or otherwise. Due to the low population density of large parts of the United States, there's no way you could cost effectively provide broadband service to significant portions of the US. Compare that to Japan, which has a population about half the size of the US, and the distance from one major city to the next isn't more than a 20 minute drive. If you drive across the US, you can go for days without getting anywhere near a major metropolitan area. You don't think that has an effect on how infrastructure is designed?

Re:The S. Koreans

[p2sam]

90% of the Canadian population live on the edge of the Canadian/US border. :) So we're actually pretty dense. And no, our broadband penetration rate in northern Canada, is nothing that high either :)

Re:The S. Koreans

[drgonzo59]

As you noted there are a couple of problems with this report.

[1]. The geographical size. They only look at the percentage of people who are connected. Well, if you put everyone from South Korea in hypothetical huge metropolitan region like LA then it is really not that expensive to connect them. Even easier just have a couple of thousand WiFi hotspots and "boom" every South Korean is reading Slashdot. Now spread everyone from South Korea in small towns across US then try to connect them, I bet it won't be as easy.

[2]. For South Korea, connecting its citizens is a government policy. So the government is behind it, here it is not. The Congress din't set any deadline to have everyone wired by such and such date with a broadband connection. That makes a difference too I bet.

[3]In US the broadband is still kind of pricy. Some people who just read email and surf the web (= "most people") don't really see paying $30/month more just so then can get the email in 1 second as opposed to 10 or to have Google load in 1 second as opposed to 5, for example.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Public schools included?

Not where I look in the U.S. Every state has major problems providing access to the Internet to schools.

I'm sitting in Anchorage, AK (on vacation) and in the largest city in the largest state there are dozens of schools without Internet access.

Yes, AK has a "negative" state incooome tax and no sales tax, but the price of these two policies is denying the next generation access to the Internet early in their education.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Anonymous Coward]

...United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.

Oh c'mon, can you really be so ignorant as to think that is true? You don't even have to look very far, just a little bit north, that country called Canada. The country American's have a tendancy to forget exists.

I've compared the broadband rates/pricing between Canada and the US, we have a much better deal. For $38USD/month one can get in Canada from Rogers 6.0Mb/sec over DOCSIS 2.0 (in practice meaning that you get atleast 95% of your theoretical bandwidth at all times). From BellSouth $43USD/month only gets your 3.0Mb/sec, $5/month more, for half the speed. That is comparatively a horrible deal.

The country with a more spread out population has cheaper, faster broadband! It also has higher broadband penetration rates, ~20% ahead! http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0506/.

The point of all this being, you can't blame the US broadband rates on your geography, it really is your political climate. As for the FCC, Republican governments generally favour business, so this isn't entirely surprising.

Re:The S. Koreans

[mi]

Where are our leaders?

Why are you expecting "your leaders" to provide you with Internet access? Is there anything wrong with you, that you must depend on the government?

Must they supply you with food and toilet paper too?

Re:The S. Koreans

[MtViewGuy]

Now, my birth mother in Lance Creek, WY, well, they'd probably have to use satellite-based service. If you know where Lance Creek, WY, is, you'll understand why cable, telco DSL, 3G, et al., will NEVER reach a good third of the US physically (i.e., between the front range of the Rocky Mts and the Mississippi River, not withstanding major metropolitan areas like Denver or Kansas City.

That's because the population density in the areas you mentioned can't justify the exorbitant expensive of implementing the Last Mile solution for getting xDSL or cable modem broadband access into your home or business. This is where 802.16/802.20 WiMAX technologies will become very useful, since out in rural areas you can put up WiMAX antenna arrays on top of hills, up the sides of mountains, on top of grain silos, etc. so you can cover a large swath of area with a single antenna array. This will allow for isolated mountain communities and small rural towns to finally get broadband Internet access.

Re:The S. Koreans

[bryce1012]

Not every state.

Here in South Dakota, every school - yes, every school - is tied into a state-run network, and every school has been wired internally so that every room, yes every room, has access to that network. Sure, it cost quite a bit to implement, but that was the Governor's pet project for years.

Re:The S. Koreans

[BackInIraq]

Now, my birth mother in Lance Creek, WY, well, they'd probably have to use satellite-based service. If you know where Lance Creek, WY, is, you'll understand why cable, telco DSL, 3G, et al., will NEVER reach a good third of the US physically (i.e., between the front range of the Rocky Mts and the Mississippi River, not withstanding major metropolitan areas like Denver or Kansas City.

It's getting better in the mountain west, actually. Wyoming is probably a bit worse, as there are less sizeable towns in the state, but pretty much any major town or minor city in Montana has at least one broadband option, if not multiple. We certainly aren't talking about major metros, either. From the larger towns of Missoula, Helena, or Bozeman to the smaller ones like Livingston or Miles City, it isn't that hard to get some form of broadband (sometimes actually at a reasonable price as well).

Granted, a majority of the physical space is still not covered, so you have a point...but most of the population is. The problem is still low adoption rates, which I think is a combination of generally higher prices in these areas combined with a general attitude that still prevails that broadband is unneccessary. But a majority of people without broadband in Montana are not without it for lack of access.

Re:The S. Koreans

[arminw]

......The U.S. doesn't have gasoline riots and it won't have broadband riots .....

Another reason that many people are not clamoring for broadband is the fact that the main internet application -- still e-mail-- doesn't really require extraordinarily high speed for most people. Even ordering an occasional book from Amazon or looking at stuff on e-bay works fairly well over a dial up. Even the best, fanciest broadband video streaming doesn't come close to a satellite TV broadcast and most people would not watch programs on their computers anyway. If we rent a DVD, it gets watched in the living room, not in the den where the computers are.

Outside of rural areas, most people can get faster that dial access if they have enough use thereof to justify its higher cost. Spending $400/year or more is not cost effective for the type of use many people have for the internet. Dial-up at half or less than the cost of broadband is good enough. Also, malware prone windows boxes are much less susceptiple on an intermittent dial connection that an always connected PC on a fast path to the wilds of the internet.

As for cell phones, the US has a very well developed landline phone infrastructure, much better than places like S. Korea and most other countries. When our daughters, who only have cell phones, call us, their calls are often dropped and they have to re-dial. This seldom if ever happens for those who call us on their POTS phones. Cell phones, even in a home environment are STILL much less reliable, although extremely convenient. Just because a technology appears to be the latest and greatest, it is not always the best suited for many people, especially if the extra cost cannot be justified.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

That personal attack is *exactly* what a knee-jerk anti-government response calls for.

Ignoring the history of the Internet to bloviate exposes one to a virtual "dope slap" - you have yours.

The S. Koreans have access to the Internet by virtue of the U.S. permitting them access.

If the U.S. wanted to shut down access - it could - to almost any nation.

Re:The S. Koreans

[warkda rrior]

the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation

I might be nitpicking, but unpopulated areas do not require broadband access.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

You are right!

Well done South Dakota!

I stand corrected.

Re:The S. Koreans

[HanzoSpam]

If that was the reason, you'd have the same excellent communication infrastructure at least in your major cities and associated suburbs and satellite communities.

We do.

Re:The S. Koreans

[antarctican]

Um, yeah, take a look at the globe, and compare the size of South Korea to the size of the United States (as well as the rest of the countries that have "got us beat"). In terms of infrastructure, how much do you think it costs to lay fiber from one end of S. Korea or Japan, or Austria to the other, compared to the US? Those are relatively small and densly populated countries, compared to the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.

Alright, point taken. Now look at Canada on the map, larger than the US. Yet we're beating America too in broadband availability, so your argument doesn't hold water. It's all about policies by government.

And on that point, the comment in the original article about the evils of "anti-competative policies" - there's nothing wrong with such policies, there are such things as natural monopolies. However what make these natural monopolies not become anti-comsumer is government actually taking up it's role and regulating such industries to the benefit of the public. Putting in place watchdogs and policies that ensure these industries don't take advantage of the consumer and give the product at the price the consumers deserve.

Those are the policies being enacted by all these countries which are "beating" the US in broadband. Using the power of economies of scale and highly regulating it.

If America wants to get broadband out to all consumers by 2007 you have to stop this silly deregulation stuff and simply mandate that these companies get it done.

Re:The S. Koreans

[jimmydevice]

It's apparent that ADSL access causes extreme stupidy for the OP. If I was OP, i'd worry about the blanket of radiation fron the local cell towers, commercial radio/tv and service radio.
Having performed RF radiation studies, I can assure that the wildlife are less threatened by rf radiation than those morons that insist in living in rat nest like dwellings in the big city.

Re:The S. Koreans

[CmdrPuto]

The Philippines is a contender. We have wireless broaband for about $10/month and Philippines' SMART Communications Signs the Largest Motorola Canopy(TM) Wireless Broadband Equipment Deal to Date.

Re:The S. Koreans

[HanzoSpam]

And, yes I expect the government to set standards for the distal-GI tract paper products.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

Well, at least you haven't demanded the government supply you with a tax-payer funded ass-wiper - yet.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Capitalist1]

He did say industrial nations. I don't know if Maple Syrup and moose porn count as "industries".

Re:The S. Koreans

[BMazurek]

Then why can my brother, who lives almost 8 hours north of the US border, 1.5 hours away from the nearest "city" (city of 5,000 people) in a farming/logging town of less than 1,000 people can get broadband access, and how all these centres in the US cannot? Hell, the largest city in our province is about 200,000 people, and that's about 3.5 hours away!

My mother, who lives on a farm several miles outside that town cannot currently get broadband, but it's supposed to be available soon.

You're right, the vast majority of the Canadian populace is concentrated along the US border, but that by no means implies that broadband isn't available in a very high percentage of the country. There are very remote areas that don't have good access (ie, the territories), but the country is pretty well covered considering the population density.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.

Again this idiotic notion buried in the American psyche that they are first at everything. Canada has far more vast, unpopulated regions than the US could ever possibly hope to have.

Brewing beer does not make you an industrial nation.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Mortlath]

I might be nitpicking, but unpopulated areas do not require broadband access.

I think the "vast, unpopulated areas" surround the sparsely populated areas.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

I'd agree with you that email is the main Internet app. However, as we move more and more to Internet-based laws and regulations (the paper copies are being phased out) we will all have to have access at higher bandwidth than dialup to register our vehicles, file our taxes, register for school (yes, even primary and secondary school) etc.

Streaming video is good enough today to demonstrate simple tasks (where to put the sticker on your license plate - how to fill out the tax form). POTS lines have limits - though I've lived through many "limits" from sub 300 Baud through 56kbit - and spent quite a bit on modems over the years.

I had an ISDN line for years - but true Broadband has made a great difference in my business life - I use the bandwith to file documents with government agencies. It couldn't be done any other way today...

As soon as the majority of personal business transactions and government-citizen transactions are moved to the Internet then a citizen's access to Broadband will define the digital divide.

Re:The S. Koreans

[AussieVamp2]

Considering Australia close to the size of the USA, but a hell of a lot less people, think your vast areas must be pretty heavily populated, comparatively.

Of course, broadband even worse here though.

Major telco limits ADSL to 1.5 megabit, just because they can.

Re:The S. Koreans

[HanzoSpam]

Alright, point taken. Now look at Canada on the map, larger than the US. Yet we're beating America too in broadband availability, so your argument doesn't hold water. It's all about policies by government.

What percentage of your population lives within 100 miles of the US boarder, as opposed to the Yukon Territories?

While you may have a point that you have a larger landmass and a smaller population, the fact is that population is concentrated in a fairly small region, not dispersed throughout the large land mass.

We have largely vast, empty spaces between Chicago and Los Angeles. What large population center do you have to connect to on the other side of the Yukon?

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

How does $10.00/mo compare to the average income in The Philippines?

Re:The S. Koreans

[rich_r]

Not anymore. You could shut down access to the north american intranet, but beyond that you'd be relying on the isps with lucrative peering arrangements.
In fact, the only thing we'd notice is the lack of spam...

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Social Justice- the liberal slugged suing and using the entire Judicial Branch to remedy the injustice. Think about how much the criminal fine will hurt and the stay within a jail cell (*where your TP is provided by the government*) followed by the civil action and a good judgment from an impartial jury followed by collection over a decade or so....

Government has its place and eliminating crime and providing the Courts for redress of private matters is a primary function thereof.

Re:The S. Koreans

[CmdrPuto]

it's still cheap. the rate is the same as cable tv.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

The mechanism would be "active denial" as we used in the assault on Iraq.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Crazy_MYKL]

Just like radio does? Oh wait...

Re:The S. Koreans

[Jugalator]

This report is comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, he should've picked another more sparsely populated country to compare with. It's not like there aren't any -- I live about 100 miles from any large city, and I'm happily browsing at 10 Mbps both at home and work, in both places via an optic fiber jack in the wall for a cost comparable to the cost of the food I purchase.

Re:The S. Koreans

[hobbesx]

If that was the reason, you'd have the same excellent communication infrastructure at least in your major cities and associated suburbs and satellite communities.

I think we do, to some extent. Remember that the money that would be spent to cover major areas so well has to be spread (at least in some small amount) to more rural areas. We still have to connect all these spaced out areas too.

Plus, even our larger cities are huge in comparison. I live in the Seattle area, and even well-populated suburbs don't show up for 20-30 miles outside of the city. Most true rural areas (like my hometown of about 5,000) are fifty miles away or more.

Comparing this to my recent trip to Ireland, my drive from Dublin to Ennistymon is a regular drive to work for many people in my area. (I do realize that I'm showing my lack of knowlege of life outside the States here, to some extent.)

Re:The S. Koreans

[hobbesx]

Again this idiotic notion buried in the American psyche that they are first at everything. Canada has far more vast, unpopulated regions than the US could ever possibly hope to have.

At least your vast unpopulated spaces aren't spotted with 500 people crammed around a Walmart (now with McDonalds!) every 150 miles...

Re:The S. Koreans

[klept]

No the government doesnt have to provide us with broadband internet. Just have the government enforce the existing laws. You know, like the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Bill of Rights, the fair trade laws, etc.. Just little technicalities that exist to protect everyone, including yourself.

Re:The S. Koreans

[hostyle]

What? People regularly drive ~128 miles to work? Are they crazy? Thats least 2 hours minimum. Each way.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Breakfast Pants]

You gave one example. The fact is that the vast majority of Canadian population is compacted along the border. The US is much more spread out. If Japan were to Annex the Pacific Ocean tomorrow it would be comparable to Canada:extremely high population densities in a small area combined with extremely low densities in a huge area. It's broadband penetration rate would remain the same and yet they could then make your same claim, "what is the US's problem, our population density is worse and yet we have better broadband coverage."

Re:The S. Koreans

[Breakfast Pants]

The US has a spread out population. Canada doesn't. While Canada might have a lower population density that is because almost all of the pop. is concentrated at the border and then there is a large predominately empty expanse above it all. The US in comparison is completely different; while it does have some major population centers it also has large percentages living in rural areas.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only 1.5 hrs when you average 85 miles per hour. :-)

Yes, shockingly there are a number of Americans who feel it provides quality of life to work in the high-cost city and drive absurd distances to the far far suburbs each day.

The really odd ones commute once a week between rural home and city home to work compressed work-week schedules. This may sound like having a weekend home, but I assure you it is a completely different thing.

Re:The S. Koreans

[sethstorm]

In the university that I work at we've seen a reduction in the number of students that come to us from India, simply because we can no longer offer the radically better education that we used to be able to.
That might actually might be a good thing for the US, as it will free slots for very deserving people of the States instead of educating for offshoring.

Re:The S. Koreans

[wfberg]

Why are you expecting "your leaders" to provide you with Internet access? Is there anything wrong with you, that you must depend on the government?

Yeah. Just lay down your own community owned fiber over publicly owned land and see how little you have to do with the government. Or use a wireless link, that way the FCC can't get to you?

Oh wait. That's what they do, isn't it?

Re:The S. Koreans

[codegen]

Those are relatively small and densly populated countries, compared to the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.

Compared to Canada, the US is a high density country and look where Canada is on the list.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Goth Biker Babe]

You're explaining the symtoms but not the cause. *Why* do you have huge cities. *Why* do people drive miles to work. I live in a city of a million in the UK. I live four miles from its centre right on the end of suburbia and there are green hills and villages beyond me. I have a choice of two cable companies and ADSL. I have 2Mb ADSL (because I wanted a fixed IP and unrestricted usage). I drive ten miles to work across the country side and it takes me half an hour from door to door. I can go for a walk along a nice canal at lunch time to get some air.

When I worked in LA for a short time it took the same time to drive to work. Most of that was on soul destroying freeways. I couldn't walk anywhere and I had crappy broadband and smog. The nearest countryside was many miles away. Why do you put yourselves through it?

Re:The S. Koreans

[Goth Biker Babe]

And the inability to brew beer doesn't make you one!

Re:The S. Koreans

[BMazurek]

I didn't dispute that the Canadian population is compacted along the US border. I simply said that broadband access is available, even in areas of Canada that are physically remote (when compared to the US) and, in the eyes of their business community at least, unworthy of provision of service. There were stories on Slashdot in the last 6 months talking about how small towns (50,000+ people) were having trouble getting broadband access in the town. Check it out.

The Pacific Ocean issue is a red herring, because the population of people living in the Pacific Ocean is currently low, lower than even that of Canada's Northern Territories (which I admitted don't have good service for the most part).

Re:The S. Koreans

[SillyNickName4me]

Hmm, lets see..

I live in the 4th biggest city in the Netherlands (which is approx the size of Austin, TX).

I have a choice between 1 cable ISP, an almost infinite number of dialup ISPs (with all kinds of different conditions and price ranges) and at least 6 large DSL providers that I know of (and most likely a few smaller ones that I do not know about, and not all of them use the same telco for the last mile either).

Currently the best offer I can get is approx $50 on a 24/1 mbit adsl2 conection.

As said, this is only the 4rth largest city in the country, and its not a major city by any standards. Go to one of the 2 biggest cities and things will be better.

Now.. for all I can tell, most people living in a major city in the USA have at best a choice between cable and dsl, and with a lot of luck they may be able to pick between 2 or 3 dsl providers...

I really think you have some way to go still..

Re:The S. Koreans

[arethuza]

And what about Russia? Possibly the world leader in "vast, unpopulated regions" and so industrialized that the US thought it was a strategic threat until a few years ago?

Re:The S. Koreans

[Bimo_Dude]

It makes no difference whether he's vacationing in Crawford or Washington. The end result is the same.

Re:The S. Koreans

[SillyNickName4me]

The really odd ones commute once a week between rural home and city home to work compressed work-week schedules. This may sound like having a weekend home, but I assure you it is a completely different thing.

You will find the same in a country like Germany (with the difference that many will go by train there since the train system actually works, is fast and is reliable)

Re:The S. Koreans

[Qzukk]

Just remember, radio is the same thing as microwave, only on a different frequency.

Re:The S. Koreans

[ifwm]

Perhaps YOU should do some reading on your own, then come back when you realize how silly this idea is.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Ironsides]

In terms of sheer wealth - the U.S. outstrips the vast majority of countries and there simply is no reason why the U.S. should ever take a back seat to technology - unless the moneyed interests demand otherwise.

Unless, of course, the US government decides to not heavily subsidise broadband rollout while other counries do decide to hevily subsidise it.

Given the current oil price at $70.00/bbl - coupled with the ready availability of oil at that price - the U.S. ought to have people up in arms over the $2.60+ / gal. price of gasoline. The U.S. doesn't have gasoline riots and it won't have broadband riots despite overpriced monopoly limits on broadband development in the U.S.

First off, I don't see the connection here. Second, current price of oil is currently at $63.25/bbl and has yet to ever reach $70/bbl.

Re:The S. Koreans

[coflow]

I live in a relatively small city (Charlotte, NC). I can choose between a wide array of dial up providers, cable, DSL (I believe two providers, but I may be wrong), and two satellite providers. I get consistent 4-6M performance with cable modem, and pay about $45 per month.

It may not be as fast as what you're getting, but I'd hardly say I'm living in third world conditions. Once WiMax gains the inevitable ubiquity that it will, I will have even better choices still. Many people in bigger cities than Charlotte are buying new homes with fiber to the house, BPL, or municipal wireless as additional options. Decent broadband has been slow in coming to be sure, but I don't think it's a source of national embarrassment as many people are intimating on /.

Re:The S. Koreans

[10Ghz]

Um, yeah, take a look at the globe, and compare the size of South Korea to the size of the United States (as well as the rest of the countries that have "got us beat").

What matter is the population-density, not the overall size of the country. More people living in the area, more people paying for broadband. Sure, USA might be a big place, but there are also lots of people paying for the infrastructure. And considering how wealthy Americans are, that shouldn't be an issue. Yes, Japan and Korea might be densely packed smallish countries. But other countries are less so.

The study puts Canada ahead of USA. Are you saying that Canada isn't "large country with more vast, unpopulated areas"? Finland and Sweden are both ahead of USA. And while those countries are smaller, their populations are a lot smaller as well. Both Sweden and Finland have lower population-density than USA does.

Re:The S. Koreans

[ThosLives]

You're just comparing nominal terms... how's that price compare to average annual salary (that is, percent of disposable income)? That's the only way to really determine how "expensive" something is in a given area - not by looking at nominal price.

Re:The S. Koreans

[YrWrstNtmr]

Why? Because we can. The space is there, and absent a strict (illegal?) government ban on using it, people will build on that space.

I've lived in Britain, and it's quite easy to see why the cities are built differently.

LA is not really representative of the US. I live near the edge of a 1.5 million metro area, and have a 15 minute drive to work, 20 minutes to the beach, 40 minutes to the next state. It's not all like LA.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Himring]

Canada has far more vast, unpopulated regions than the US could ever possibly hope to have.

Allow me to reference Southpark for a moment:
Kyle: How do we get to Ottawa?
Canadian: We're in Canada! There's only one road!
By the way, watch out for Scott, he's a dick!

Thank you

Re:The S. Koreans

[10Ghz]

Second, current price of oil is currently at $63.25/bbl and has yet to ever reach $70/bbl.

Yes it has. In fact, it has surpassed it clearly. If you compare prices over a long period of time, you should take inflation in to account, instead of blindly staring at the dollar-figure. If you take inflation in to account, you will notice that during the oil-crisis in the late 70's, the price of oil was $94.48/bbl in 2005 dollars: link

Re:The S. Koreans

[Taladar]

So is sunlight (and visible light in general)

Re:The S. Koreans

[Corporal Dan]

However, as we move more and more to Internet-based laws and regulations (the paper copies are being phased out) we will all have to have access at higher bandwidth than dialup to register our vehicles, file our taxes, register for school (yes, even primary and secondary school) etc.

All of those applications can easily be done over dialup lines. Why would you need broadband to fill in a web form?

Re:The S. Koreans

[CastrTroy]

Well then, the US should be much better off than countries like Canada, which have even less population density. Yet in Canada, even places like Northern Ontario have had broadband for 5 years, even though the population up there is so small. I think in Canada it has to do more with how widespread Cable is, which, because there's only 1 or 2 channels not on cable, has expanded to just about everywhere.

Re:The S. Koreans

[CastrTroy]

I took the train on vacation this year, in Canada. I never realized it before, but the train, even the not so high tech ones in Canada, are actually very fast. It's nice when the train is beside the highway, and you're passing all the cars on the major highway, while sitting in your much more comfortable seat, drinking coffee, and reading a magazine.

Re:The S. Koreans

[ifwm]

"In terms of sheer wealth - the U.S. outstrips the vast majority of countries and there simply is no reason why the U.S. should ever take a back seat to technology - unless the moneyed interests demand otherwise."

Or the current tech is good enough, or the cost of implementation is FAR too high to justify (replacing copper with fiber for example). There are lots of reasons that have nothing to do with conspiracies against the working man.

"The U.S. doesn't have gasoline riots and it won't have broadband riots"

The cost of gasoline isn't high enough to justify such outrageous behavior. It costs me 80 dollars in a moderately efficient vehicle every month. That's a pittance, so why riot.

As far as the cost of broadband, what does someone NEED it for? Why would anyone risk life and limb for the opportunity to download choppy video at a cheap price?

Broadband is a luxury, THAT'S why you'll never see broadband riots. That, and the fact that the entire idea is ridiculous.

Re:The S. Koreans

[MtViewGuy]

As for cell phones, the US has a very well developed landline phone infrastructure, much better than places like S. Korea and most other countries.

It is because the USA has the world's best landline telephone infrastructure that cellphones are more a convenience thing here than in other countries, where it's actually cheaper to put up cellphone towers to get everyone telephone access. Besides, that landline infrastructure is why you can usually get xDSL broadband in most major metropolitan areas.

Re:The S. Koreans

[CastrTroy]

Just because we're all compacted against the US border, doesn't really mean that we're more spread out. Remember, there are only 30 million of us, as opposed to 300 million Americans. Even many rurals areas in Canada have broadband, which there are a lot of.

Re:The S. Koreans

[QCompson]

Every school? All five of them? Wow, I am impressed.

Re:The S. Koreans

[CaptDeuce]

Why are you expecting "your leaders" to provide you with Internet access? Is there anything wrong with you, that you must depend on the government?

Whether there's anything wrong with me is strictly between myself and the voices in my head, thank you very much.

As for relying on the government ("of the people, by the people, for the people" ... hey, maybe that's where the voices in my head come from ...), yes, I do expect that. Our government -- local state and federal -- set policies that dictate how companies provide internet service to our homes.

The state I live in has a Public Service Commission that represents the interests of consumers with regards to utilities including telecommunications and cable. I don't have exact figures but out local phone company petitions the for rate increases three or seven times a year. They argue that each of them are necessary, yet, they somehow manage to remain profitable even though only one out of seven or nine actually get approved.

Everybody knows it's a game. But, who should we depend on if not the government to protect us from companies that will gleefully take the shirts off our backs if they thought we're willing (to extend the metaphor) procure an new shirt every month?

So let's say I abandon my commie pinko ways and join the rugged individualist Libertarians and do it without no stinkin' lousy guvmint ...

Ah! I'll use the free market! I'll take advantage of a competing services! I can use [drum roll] satellite! I'll be free of the stifling oppression of the govmint! OK, so it costs nearly twice as much and has a disastrous latency problems and a pitifully slow upload speed. Hmm, what else can I do?

Get rid of those interferin' guvmint agencies and wait for Private Industry to fight over each other to invest millions of dollars that they can recoup after only eight years ... if they charge triple the rate I pay now ... hmm.

I got it! I'll set up my own local wireless network! Sure! If Andy Hardy and Judy Garland can do it, so can I! All I need is a few hundred bucks and a land wire connection to the internet. OK, so I'll need to pay commercial rates ... but I can share the costs with my neighbors! So, all I need then is a hundred dollars or so from each, just to start out, but we'll pay less in the long run. Yeah!

Of course ... I'll have to do some trouble shooting. And make sure everybody pays their share for the service on a timely basis. Upgrade and replace equipment now and then -- everybody would be willing to pony up some extra cash when that happens. And it'll only cost me some of my spare time!

OK ... maybe I'll charge everyone a little bit extra each month to compensate me for my time -- it's only fair, right? Sure, I'll have no time to mow the lawn or go see a movie, but at least I'm being compensated; I'll still be making big bucks at my Real Job ... at least until it gets shipped overseas.

But, hey, I'll can still collect unemployment!

[I smack my forhead with heal of my hand]

Gee, I guess I really don't need no guvmint! I could have starting do this years ago! Yeah, this rugged individualism is great stuff! Thanks, Mr. Libertarianism!

Now all I gotta do is tackle those potholes in the road. Let's see ...

Re:The S. Koreans

[schon]

the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.

Umm, yeah, right.

Re:The S. Koreans

[archen]

Umm... Hyundai owns Kia

Unless you're referring to some other Kia. I have been to south korea though. About the most interesting thing I remember is going to an OB Bears baseball game. Didn't occure to me later that the "OB" was from the "OB" beer. We like to hide behind the fact that our sports teams are owned by not naming them the Pepsi Eagles for instance, but it's still there.

Re:The S. Koreans

[archen]

Isn't neccesarily as good as it sounds. I went to NDSU (not in SD but whatever) and each dorm had a T1. Sound good? Immagine the year 1999 with 250 punks in my dorm using napster over the single T1. Well they said it was a T1, I immagine it was a 100Mbit cable with T1 throttled bandwith to the outside. Either way I was glad to get home to my 33.6 Modem connection after the school year.

Re:The S. Koreans

[schon]

My wife is Filipino (we live in Canada); she spends way more than $10 each month calling her family. If her family in Manila can get broadband, then we could use that instead of the telephone.

Can you give some details on this broadband service? I went to the SMART website, and all they have listed there is a service that offers "up to" 112Kbps, at (approximately) $18 (988P) per month - technically it might be broadband (depending on how they deliver the signal) but it's not quite what I was expecting, and it's more than $10.

Can you provide a link to the service you mentioned?

Re:The S. Koreans

[radarsat1]

At least your vast unpopulated spaces aren't spotted with 500 people crammed around a Walmart (now with McDonalds!) every 150 miles...

It's getting there... slowly but surely my friend, slowly but surely.

Re:The S. Koreans

[An Onerous Coward]

Here is how things went down.

The United States had a much different reaction to World War II than Great Britain. While Britain was mourning its dead*, rebuilding its infrastructure, and thinking deep thoughts about What It All Means in a world where such wasteful death and destruction can occur, The U.S. patted itself on the back for saving the world, then went out on a three decade long economic kegger.

Our GI's went home, got married, copulated like rabbits (sometimes in that order), and started looking for big houses with huge front lawns and wide streets far away from the hustle and bustle and slight garbagy smell of the cities. Vast swaths of land were converted into suburban tract housing. Everyone bought a car so they could live and work and play exactly where they wanted.

As the rich kids moved out to the 'burbs, they took the money and jobs with them, leading to a vicious economic downturn that turned our most populous areas into barren ghettos. Major city centers still had all the problems they had before, but lost the tax base and education base needed to do anything about them. As things got worse, the idea of living in the city became less and less attractive to most people.

Meanwhile, the ugliness of the networking problem came to the forefront: the need to link everything to everything else in our suddenly sprawled-out landscape necessitated the building of ever bigger roads. Eisenhower started the Interstate Highway System, which is a wonderful thing if you want to drive from L.A. to New York without stopping to ask for directions, but it proverbially duct taped America to its automobiles.

Now we're in a situation that I don't think we'll be able to pull ourselves out of unless oil hits $300/barrel (which I expect to occur in June 2007, right in time for Labor Day). Given the area that needs to be covered, no city can convince its taxpayers of the necessity of a really effective mass transit system. It's just too expensive to field the sort of system that car-owners would consider a viable alternative to their own private vehicles. The only people who really use mass transit are those too poor to buy their own cars, and if you're too poor to buy a car, you're certainly too poor to buy a politician.

So instead we field crappy mass transit systems that can get the poor to their exploitative jobs and back, and call it good. In my home town of Salt Lake, buses run every half hour, and most routes shut down after 6PM. So from an arbitrarily chosen departure time, the bus commuter waits fifteen minutes per connection, and has no alternative but to come straight home after work. In order to make the mass transit system something that car owners would consider, I think buses would have to run every ten minutes on most routes, with full service running until 9PM (and buses every half hour until midnight or 1AM). Routes would have to be added, so people on the outskirts wouldn't have to walk seven blocks to the nearest bus stop.

To most people, it sounds like overkill, but overkill is barely enough if the goal is to make mass transit a convenient alternative to private vehicles. Hence, we're never going to wean ourselves from our automobiles. Looking at the hundreds of thousands of cars, hundreds of gas stations and repair shops, thousands of miles of pavement, scores of car dealerships, etc., it seems pretty clear to me that a good mass transit system would be far cheaper than the current solution. But we're too heavily invested in the current solution to give it up without a fight.

I believe that fight is coming soon.

* Yes, the U.S. had casualties. But they had about a fifth the per capita military casualties of Britain, and suffered no losses stateside after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The whole thing was just less traumatizing from our perspective. For the U.S., World War II was a successful military operation. For Great Britain, it was a near-fatal brush with nasty, pointy death. Hitler taught Europe a lot of hard-won lessons about the horrors of war. All he taught us Yanks was, "Being an economic superpower kicks ass!"

Somehow, I think this goes a long way towards explaining Iraq.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Daengbo]

You made a serious error comparing your town of a million to LA. The LA metro area was estimated by the 1990 census at over 16 million people. London, on the other hand, is estimated at a mere 11M.

If you think that London is not urbanized, read this: London's urbanised area is rarely recognised as being a metropolitan region. In fact, the area known officially as Greater London is commonly referred to as the metropolitan district, but this accounts for only 7m of the 11.8m people living in a continuous urban area (agglomeration) at the centre of which is London. 1

LA is atypical for a large city. In fact, London has over three times as many skyscrapers (1773) as LA (512), despite being about 70% of its size. This contibutes in a major way to the urban sprawl of LA. Seattle, the GP's city, is similarly, geograpically large.

Re:The S. Koreans

[quanticle]

RTFA. Even Canada, which has a population density quite similar to the US has faster internet connections for less.

Re:The S. Koreans

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You're right....South Korea has the US beat in corporate ownership of the government hands down. Ever been there? Hyundai, KIA, Samsung, and L.G. pretty much run the whole country.

That's just South Korean propaganda! The U.S. government is owned by thousands more corporations than S. Korea can ever hope to be.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Daengbo]

I'm an American living in S. Korea, an the situation here is closer to that of Japan than of the U.S. Samsung not only sells you your TV and cell phone, but runs your utilities, gas, and heating oil and fixes your car. They compete with LG (formerly GoldStar) on all these fronts. Just about every major business is owned by one of five conglomerates, competing against each other in a win/win style.

The US is far more diversified than that

Re:The S. Koreans

[Bake]

No. The USA does not have the world's best landline telephone infrastucture.

I'm currently in the New England area and I honestly could not believe how crappy the voice quality is in the landline phones that I have used here. I have made calls from Scandinavia to Kuwait with much better voice quality than any local call I have made while in the New England area.

Before you get all upset about how it must have been just crappy phones that I have had to use here in the US, then I must be one unlucky man, since the voice quality was almost the crappy same on each and every single phone that I have used.

On a personal note,
it would be nice if we could have ONE Slashdot discussion about broadband or cell phones without the following cropping up:

1. "The US has a much bigger landmass so it's impossible to offer high quality broadband everywhere"
      - Who said anything about offering it in every square inch? How about offering it in small cities instead of just the top 100?
2. "The US has a much bigger landmass than Europe/$Asian-country so it's impossible to offer good cellphone coverage everywhere"
      - Again, who said anything about every square inch? In smaller cities and along the frickin' highways would be a start.
3. "The US doesn't have to offer good cell coverage since it has such an excellent landline infrastructure unlike $poor-3rd-world-country where people keep stealing the copper lines for money"
      - In other words, "it's OK until we're worse than everybody else. Fine words to live by. :-)

That said, apart from IMO crappy telecoms, I really like the New England area. :-)

Re:The S. Koreans

[Guppy06]

"in a farming/logging town of less than 1,000 people can get broadband access, and how all these centres in the US cannot?"

Because it's easier to deal with your brother when he's an outlier instead of the norm. When the vast, vast majority of Canadians live close together, there is enough leftover resources to run that single trunk out to serve those outliers. It's cheaper to run a single trunk to a single community of 1000 people than, say, run ten trunks out in different directions to serve ten neighborhoods of 100 people.

Being able to point to the situation of 1 or even 10,000 specific, carefully chosen Canadians doesn't change the situation for the whole of the 3E7 north of the 49th. If you really want, I can point out a similar number of connected rural users in the US, but that doesn't change the fact that people in Canada cluster together far more tightly than people in the US.

Go here and check out how the distribution in Canada compares to the US. In the east, civilization all but ends at the St. Lawrence. In the west, the distribution is a little smoother (at least within a particular spur), but it's still easier to pick out Winnipeg and Calgary than, say, Minneapolis/St. Paul or even Houston. Heck, some of the Plains States look like a Cartesian grid.

Re:The S. Koreans

[saltydogdesign]

Here in South Dakota...

Unfortunately, the population of South Dakota is smaller than the population of Nashville, Tennessee.

Re:The S. Koreans

[vertinox]

Must they supply you with food and toilet paper too?

Actually, they do in the US. Have you have looked at the politics and the billions of dollars that go to subsidize farms, and then tax breaks for food and lumber industry?

It is quite huge.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

No, I'm sorry but I don't think that 80 meg .pdf's of current regulations are actually "available" through dialup.

What 80 meg reg? How about Truth in Lending (TIL) - a law and regulations that every U.S. citizen has as a means to limit 3rd party control over their financial destiny?http://www.ftc.gov/

Or, how about the 10K & 8Q filings with the SEC? Want to know who is in charge of your least favorite business - or, who has insider information? Try http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml/ and see if you can learn anything of significance over a 56k connection.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=13347493&sid=1 59343/

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

My friend, you have experienced "the tragedy of the commons" see, http://dieoff.org/page95.htm/

The core issue of bandwith and SPAM is the cost of damage done by a minority of hogs.

Re:The S. Koreans

[N3wsByt3]

"I do realize that I'm showing my lack of knowlege of life outside the States here, to some extent."

Yes, you do.

But, at least you do, which is an improvement to the typical USA joe sixpack.

Re:The S. Koreans

[electroniceric]

Very, very well put. You are spot on with your assessment of transit frequency - people would rather wait 50 minutes or more in their car in gridlock than 25 at a bus stop, and that's hard math to change unless you can get the bus wait down below 10 or 15 minutes.

One more thing you should put in that mix is that the second half of that postwar period saw the rise of a strongly anti-statist party and movement in the US that has absolutely refused to consider government planning, of which transit is a subset. Transit been thrown to the wayside, and sustainable land use has as well - sustainable not just in the environmental sense, but in the sense of building communities that can afford their infrastructure over the long run. For example, look what happens to bedroom communities as their populations and infrastructure age - they don't have the tax base (which requires density of both residents and businesses) to pay for school systems and fixing sewers. So not only are we lacking any decent mass transit, we are also lacking the networks of people, government agencies, and the popular understanding that would allow people to begin to build those systems. Fortunately there has been some revitalization

The same anti-government sentiment and absolute refusal to engage in any coordinated efforts to keep markets sane has hobbled competition in many of the US' important marketplaces, with communications being the obvious leader in backwardness, but the finance (housing bubble), energy (Enronesque deregulation), automotive (fuel efficiency standards that feed the industry's addiction to poorly built SUV's), and airline (pension fund sophistry and slow response to commoditization) industries are doing their respective best to stamp out functional, transparent marketplaces as well.

I agree with you that it'll take a fight to make people think seriously about saner building patterns, but I'm not optimistic about it getting resolved soon, and in the interim I see our standard of living getting hammered by it. One scholar of poverty recently pointed out that while a car is a status symbol in most poor countries, in the suburban and rural US it's a necessity even for lower-income people - you simply cannot hold down a job without a car, and that makes people very vulnerable to rising energy prices. Combine that with our severely weakened support for education and scientific research, and you see some serious potholes in the US' economic road.

Re:The S. Koreans

[kryonD]

No We Don't!

You find me a city, anywhere in the US, much less in a small burb like Ginowan, that you can get 50MBit ADSL w/VOIP phone service for between $30 and $40 a month.

Don't bother trying, because you can't. What you can do is write your respresentative a letter and complain about why America is just watching the rest of the world blow by us in technology.

Re:The S. Koreans

[badmammajamma]

The only difference is the collusion is more blatant in S. Korea. Next time you want to give me a lesson in monopolies and price fixing, show me what gas station I can go to (in the U.S.) that has a price different than the guy across the street. Strange how all the gas stations charge the same thing give or take a couple of cents, eh?

Re:The S. Koreans

[Doctor Faustus]

If Japan were to Annex the Pacific Ocean
They tried that once. It didn't work out.

Re:The S. Koreans

[arminw]

....but true Broadband has made a great difference in my business life......

Since you are in business, your time is measured much more directly in $$ and therefore the cost of a fast Internet connection will pay off very quickly. However, for the average citizen time is generally not so directly translated into money and dial-up is certainly adequate for filing taxes, filling forms, and buying stuff on line. Right now, the only compelling need for consumers to have a broadband connection is to download entertainment. The existing entertainment delivery systems are perfectly adequate and cost effective for a large segment of the general population. Going to a video or book store and physically handling the media will always have its attractions, just as eating a satisfying meal at fine restaurant beats a TV dinner.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

You may be able to file a 1040 EZ online, but anybody who itemizes (*anybody with a mortgage*) will be booted off of the IRS - perhaps 3rd party filers will allow slow connects...

As for the rest of the access issues - the trend is clearly directed at serving and providing content to high bandwidth users. As the products become more complex e.g. interactive forms with large ancillary data components - then the dial up users will be shut out.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Yunzil]

You're explaining the symtoms but not the cause. *Why* do you have huge cities. *Why* do people drive miles to work.

Because while people want to work in the city (or have to), or have it available for theater/nightlife/whatever, no one actually wants to live there because on the whole, they are dirty, smelly, grim, crime-ridden hellholes.

That's why.

Re:The S. Koreans

[hobbesx]

Why?

'Cause the place is huge, and there is a ton of people here.

What you say is true though, it is far (far, far) from an ideal situation. But when I weight the costs and benefits, it's better for me to put up with the terrible traffic.

However, I wouldn't put up with crappy broadband in a rural area. The situation (at least in this area) has improved a great deal very recently. I have 3Mbps cable for about US$40.00, and 4Mbps or 5Mbps is available, but the difference isn't worth the money to me.

Re:The S. Koreans

[monkeydo]

So, 5 years ago, what did someone do if they wanted to read that Truth in Lending document? Go to a library? Federal regulations on paper won't be phased out in any of our lifetimes.

Re:The S. Koreans

[hobbesx]

Heh :)

I'd leave for the UK and refine my culture and accent, but I'd really miss the place despite all the ignorant, self-righteous, intellectually-incestuous do-gooders. Besides, who'd stay behind to give all these morons a kick in the pants?

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Nope - the US has already dumped the majority of the paper copies. Lawlibraries are only open to the public where they are at state schools and due to budget constraints the paper copies of documents available on the web are being deaccessioned.

Sorry, but the divide is here and now and it has been here since the mid 1990's.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Chosen Reject]

I know I shouldn't reply but I can't help but thinking that if you think the US is a bully, how do you think China will fare as the world power?

Re:The S. Koreans

[hobbesx]

Yes, there truly are people that will drive this far, many of them every day. I wouldn't say this is regular though, they're obviously crazy. Some (as another reply points out) actually have an apartment or a room rented near the city, and then commute to their 'real' home during the weekend.

There's an island near where I live (Camano Island) where it can take 50 minutes of driving just to get off of the island- I know of one person in particular that would drive from the southern end of the island to Boeing's Everett plant (about 70-80 minutes of drive time), when he was transfered to another plant south of Seattle.
Part of the problem is growth. Without a restrictive amount of space to guide building and growth legislation, people sprawl because of high costs of living near the city. My $240,000 home would sell for over a million dollars in the city. Combine that with couples who are willing to over-burden themselves with a huge mortgage and prices for property near the city sky-rockets. People are driven out of the city by their desire to get away from 'city living' and the costs associated with it, but are still tied to the higher-paying jobs the area provides.

Re:The S. Koreans

[monkeydo]

Lawlibraries are only open to the public where they are at state schools and due to budget constraints the paper copies of documents available on the web are being deaccessioned.

That's simply not true. It may be in some cases, but certainly not all. SMU is a private school, and their Law Library is open to the public. I assure you, there are copies of the US Code there. But why would it have to be a law library? Most other public libraries have Internet access, where you could download the PDF.

Sorry, but the divide is here and now and it has been here since the mid 1990's.

Since the mid 1990's people without broadband haven't been able to get access to US gov't materials? That's a rediculous assertion without any support.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Chosen Reject]

Canada has far more vast, unpopulated regions than the US could ever possibly hope to have.

Yes, but the GP did qualify that with "industrial nation".

Seriously though, this reminds me of when I was joking with my young cousins (they were under 10) about how where I lived there was more of everything than where they lived (me in Phoenix, they in Tremonton, UT). We had more movie theaters, more stores, even more cows. They were getting upset that they didn't have more of anything and then I told them we even had more crime. And for some reason they got really upset by that point and started asking their parents if they could move to Phoenix.

Re:The S. Koreans

[lost_n_confused]

That makes it even more impressive. My daughter's graduating class in South Dakota will be 18 students. My nearest neighbor is 1.5 miles away. If it can be done in an area with such a low population density affordably it is insane to think that it can't be done in Nashville or other large city at an even more cost effective rate.

Re:The S. Koreans

[SillyNickName4me]

Indeed you do not need the high speed trains for that (tho they do help a lot)

Re:The S. Koreans

[arminw]

....I'm currently in the New England area....

Those phone lines you were using, perhaps in a rural area may be getting towards their century mark in age. We have pretty old wires here in the wilds of the Siskiyou mountains of Southern Oregon. Until the phone co. put in digitizing devices in numerous big green boxes in the area, there were still folks on party lines and noise was quite noticeable. Now with the new digital electronics, the same old wires have gotten a new lease on life and we have clean, good service just as we had before we moved here from the Bay Area.

Phones were rather ubiqutous in this country long before most German residents for example even dreamed of having a phone in their house. In the 50s, most Americans had flat rate local phone service in their homes, especially in cities and towns. At that time none of my relatives anywhere in Germany had phone service because it was so costly. Anyone who did have a phone, (mostly businesses) had to pay for every minute of every call, even across the street. We also have a cell phone now, but get no service whatsoever here at home. It is only useful while travelling. The I5 freeway is pretty well covered, even in the mountains, although there are some dead spots.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Quino]

You know, this argument always comes up, and I've just realized I don't buy it.

Look at the relative size of the two countries, and then look at the relative highway infrastructures.

Size is not an excuse, it's a matter of will (or lack thereof) on the part of the US, end of story. Either we want to invest in infrastructure or we sit around with thumbs up our butts making excuses "but we're just too big and rich!"

I suspect the real reason is what the summary hints at -- progress threatens profits for companies making money from the status quo, investment in the country be dammned! (I've become pretty cynical regarding the US government and who it really serves).

Re:The S. Koreans

[arminw]

.....but anybody who itemizes (*anybody with a mortgage*) will be booted off of the IRS......

You make it sound as if the average tax return, even a moderately complex one has 50 or 100 MB of data to transmit to the IRS. I'd wager that the text of even the most complicated returns is less than 2MB. The text of the entire Bible only occupies about 7MB on my HD. Why should someone pay $400+ for a broadband service just to file their taxes when they can do it for one or two postage stamps?

High bandwidth is very compelling though for someone who wants to download entertainment to their computersin order to fill up their ipod. Even so, existing entertainment delivery systems are still much better (satellite TV, DVD rental, library CDs) and significantly cheaper over all. Most people I know don't watch movies on their computers, but in their living room big screen TV. Listening to music while doing other computer tasks is a bit more common.

Re:The S. Koreans

[SillyNickName4me]

Wow, that was a fun and good read, thanks a lot.

There is one thing I want to comment on however because it is a common misconception )and not just in the USA)

The only people who really use mass transit are those too poor to buy their own cars, and if you're too poor to buy a car, you're certainly too poor to buy a politician.

Not having the money for buying a car is one of the 2 major reasons why people do not drive one. The other one is being incapable of driving a car for example due to a visual (or other) impairment. Such people have a choice between not going anywhere, always depending on others, or go live in one of the few places with good enough public transport and hope they never have to goto places without it. (and no, this situation is not that much better in Europe either)

Re:The S. Koreans

[clambake]

Why are you expecting "your leaders" to provide you with Internet access? Is there anything wrong with you, that you must depend on the government?

Yeah... why doesn't he go roll out some fiber from the telco to his house himself? Oh yeah, even if he DID, the telco wouldn't let him. Basically it will take an act of congress to make it happen.

Re:The S. Koreans

[WebCowboy]

Sure, it cost quite a bit to implement, but that was the Governor's pet project for years.

I can imagine how that went--such a promise makes for very "good optics" during election time. However, government track records being what they are, I imagine such a project involved a lot of kickbacks/palm greasing/etc. It was probably a good way to for the govenor to get his friends some business and maybe secure some future campaign donations.

I could be wrong though. The entire state of South Dakota has less than 2/3 the population of the city I live in so such a "state run" network is probably relatively small and as a rule the amount of corruption in a government venture is proportional to the size of said venture.

Perhaps the end result was good, but I think it was the wrong approach. Mega-projects in general have a greater chance of failure, and having state/province or federal governments steering such projects almost invites failure. "Governor's pet project" translates to "taxpayer rip-off" to me. Such projects should be the domain of school boards or individual schools, and delivery should be handled by private companies selected with a carefully monitored, fully transparent and public bidding process. Service providers to the schools should be subject to mandatory annual review and contracts should be time limited to a few years, at which time compatitive bids could be accepted.

Although I'm not American and as such US policy on broadband has limited affect on me, I sincerely hope the US govenrment does not head down some "mega-project" path. If anything they already have their paws into things too deep. If the government must be activist in any way it should be to remove barriers protecting monopolies--make sure broadband suppliers have equal access to the lines they need etc. It seems the US has talked about fostering competition real good, but has never really done anything meaningful to back it up--they are too afraid of hurting the monopoly companies and the political consequences that could arise. So my suggestion is for the US gov't to keep your hands out of doing everything yourself and spend time creating and enforcing sound policies to allow private companies and local governments to address the specific needs of their constituents and customers.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Goth Biker Babe]

I wasn't intending to compare. But using the rather crass example of a city generally being a circle and population density being the same LA should be four times the diameter of my home town. Which means 32 miles across. LA is far more than that.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Goth Biker Babe]

A ton of people?

There's about 300 million in the US. There's roughly 60 million in the UK, 40 million in France, 100 million in Germany, 60 million in Italy and that's just the top four GDP wise in Europe.

The place *is* huge but what I wanted to know was why is it wasted? Why do people travel miles to work?

Re:The S. Koreans

[PhilipDC78]

Actually, I see it right here in Gainesville, FL. There is one gas station called "Kangaroo", which is always 8-15 cents per gallon cheaper than the Chevron station mere blocks away.

Re:The S. Koreans

[ncc74656]

You are spot on with your assessment of transit frequency - people would rather wait 50 minutes or more in their car in gridlock than 25 at a bus stop, and that's hard math to change unless you can get the bus wait down below 10 or 15 minutes.

50 minutes in air-conditioned comfort vs. 25 minutes sucking in exhaust fumes and baking in 100+-degree heat isn't a hard decision to make, for most people.

(That assumes, of course, that you're stuck in some hellhole like LA. I live in Las Vegas. My 17-mile commute (roughly speaking, from the far northeast corner of town to a little bit south of the airport) takes about 30 minutes each way if I drive it, but would be closer to 90-120 minutes by bus.)

Re:The S. Koreans

[mi]

why doesn't he go roll out some fiber from the telco to his house himself?

In New York I can choose between an independent provider like Speakeasy, TimeWarner's Roadrunner, OptimumOnline, and Verizon's DSL -- at least. Verizon's is the cheapest and the crappiest at $30. That's a tightly-regulated big city.

In a rural environment, the choices aren't as abundant, but there is less regulation too. Where there is a need, there'd be a business addressing it... Practically, one can order a T1, install an antenna on the roof and sell access to all neighbors. If you order your connectivity through Speakeasy, for example, they will even help you billing your customers/neighbors for whatever ammount you want (in a big city or in a small village).

Private entrepreneurship, not government is how such things ought to be addressed.

Basically it will take an act of congress to make it happen.

An act of Congress? Like the one, which handed AT&T a monopoly on telephones -- creating the mess, we are still suffering from today?

Re:The S. Koreans

[mi]

That personal attack is *exactly* what a knee-jerk anti-government response calls for.

My post was not at all "anti-government". Yours was...

Re:The S. Koreans

[YrWrstNtmr]

The place *is* huge but what I wanted to know was why is it wasted?

You call it 'waste', I call is 'space'. Add to that, living farther out is less expensive, more private, and you already have the car so why not use it.

Why do people travel miles to work?

Again, LA is an anomaly in this. Most people in the US don't really travel that far. I know *I* wouldn't. 50 miles each way? Not a chance.

Re:The S. Koreans

[saltydogdesign]

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't impressive -- just that it's really too bad that it isn't being done in the major population centers.

Re:The S. Koreans

[evoltap]

Here's one of the posts from someone who knows someone.......

Anyway, my parents live in a small town of about 1500. No broadband. I don't think it's reasonable to say that if you want the "latest technology" you have to live in a city. The ISP's have been promising DSL to this community for at least 5 years. I even heard of one community that decided to construct their own wi-fi zone for their downtown.....and Ver1zon was suing them claiming it was their territory, even though they'd dragged their feet for 5 years!
I think this comes down to a lack of regulation from a criminal- syndicate-government. There are laws that make sure almost anybody can have a basic land line........we live in the times of free ranging monopolies.......just sign this two year contract! WTF!

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Go to SMU. Ask, "How many govdocs are available?" then ask, "How many are hard copy or fiche?" and then you will have a simple answer to a difficult issue.

The simple fact is that the U.S. Govt. has stopped printing many titles. They are issued as web-only docs. This started in 1993.
Hence my argument that the digital divide having started mid '90s.

BTW the U.S. Code isn't the issue. It is the new step that has been placed in the path of the people on the lowest rung.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

I'll take that wager.

I'm very happy that the text of ONE book only occupies 7 meg. Now, the tax code runs in excess of 200 volumes and the regs are three times that.

There are whole professions dedicated to the preparation, filing and prosecution of tax law claims.

Entertainment is bot the issue

Re:The S. Koreans

[monkeydo]

Nobody outside of academic institutions or the gov't had Internet access in 1993, let alone broadband. So your assertion that this development has anything to do with broadband is silly. Microfiche documents, .pdfs, and web docs are all available in libraries. The same libraries that anyone would have gone to in 1992 to find a paper copy.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Billly Gates]

Because the automotive industry has lobbied to destroy public transporation to force us to buy cars.

This then led to the suburbs and a car being required in order to survive. In order to save costs many folks now with cars were willing to drive far from work. This created the freeways and suburbia hell that you see in LA. Its not as bad in other American cities that have good transporation.

Its about corruption. Standard Oil and Ford is why I have to spend over half of my income on my car that I should not need if I am a college student and work part time. Its rediculious

Re:The S. Koreans

[Billly Gates]

Sadly in my pessimistic view Americans would have riots if the government did do anything because its ungodly socialism which would cost jobs.

I do not identify with my own country anymore really. Why is it that monopolies = good and economic growth while government intervention = bad and socialism?

Re:The S. Koreans

[MadAhab]

LA is not a city. It's an extremely large set of suburbs without a city to anchor them. There is, technically, a downtown, but no one ever goes there.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

The LIbrary of Congress started Thomas in 1989.
That's what the .loc. in http://thomas.loc.gov/ stands for. It was available through BITNET and DIALOG from 1989 forward.

The web-based Thomas went live in January of 1995. This was a partial fulfillment of an Executive Order signed by Wm. J. Clinton on a day that he didn't have any time with Monica. Well, at least on a day when he wasn't acting like the current head of state. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html/

From the beginning of the Internet there were ways to access the net other than as a government agency or academic institution. BITNET, DIALOG, BRS & BRS After Dark, LEXIS all had portals. Compuserve and The Source had portals to portals for a fee.

I've had constant Internet access for more than 20 years. So much for the "nobody..." before 1993.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

The LIbrary of Congress started Thomas in 1989.
That's what the .loc. in http://thomas.loc.gov/ stands for. It was available through BITNET and DIALOG from 1989 forward.

The web-based Thomas went live in January of 1995. This was a partial fulfillment of an Executive Order signed by Wm. J. Clinton on a day that he didn't have any time with Monica. Well, at least on a day when he wasn't acting like the current head of state. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html/

From the beginning of the Internet there were ways to access the net other than as a government agency or academic institution. BITNET, DIALOG, BRS & BRS After Dark, LEXIS all had portals. Compuserve and The Source had portals to portals for a fee.

I've had constant Internet access for more than 20 years.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Snover]

Somehow you managed to steal my exact thoughts, down to the number of schools. Maybe it's because there really are only 5 schools in South Dakota?

Re:The S. Koreans

[slazzy]

>> Another reason that many people are not clamoring for broadband is the fact that the main internet application -- still e-mail-- doesn't really require extraordinarily high speed for most people You haven't tried incredimail...

Re:The S. Koreans

[arminw]

....Now, the tax code runs in excess of 200 volumes and the regs are three times that.....

So who needs to have access to the entire tax code anyway. This whole article is about the large numbers of ordinary people who use the Internet. I doubt there is even one person who gets any kind of Internet service that thinks 'Oh Whoopee! Now I can file my tax return electronically! Anyone who uses the Internet professionally is definitely well served by a high speed connection. Anyone who hires a tax professional is not likely to need any kind of Internet connection at all to file the taxes, since the tax preparer is the one that does that as well. The whole point is that for many people there is no really compelling reason to pay $400+ annually for a high speed Internet service. Half of that or less for dial-up will do just fine for a very large fraction of the population.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Hmm,

Have you ever tried to defend yourself without access to the tax code?

Assuming that the law is written in a way that permits a lay person to act in his/her own behalf: access to the depreciation tables for computer (business) equipment alone requires high bandwidth.

Oh, and if you are interested in bill tracking - you need bandwidth.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Goth Biker Babe]

Add to that, living farther out is less expensive, more private, and you already have the car so why not use it.

- You're assuming you have a car.
- Because it burns fuel destroying the environment.
- You have to drive to bars and restaurants. (Which explains the high level of drink driving and the piss-water beer to reduce the problem)
- There's no sense of neighbourhood.

I live where I do because I need ground for my dog. I actually can walk and after, at most ten minutes, be at three different bus routes, the local train station, a supermarket, a couple of pubs, an Italian restaurant and some small shops and take out places. I actually feel I'm living too much in suburbia and the people here keep themselves more to themselves.

In the previous city I lived in there was a park opposite the house where the dog was walked, shops and a whole variety of restaurants just around the corner and you could walk in to the centre of the city in fifteen minutes. It was only a few minutes by bus. I knew many of my neighbours well and we would get together for events. For example, the dog walkers who all walked their dog at the same time had a Christmas party in the park where we brought mulled wine in flasks, mince pies and treats for the dogs. There was real community spirit.

I know there's a different psyche in the US. It explains the foreign policy, explains the isolationism, it explains why cities are spread out and the suburbs are like they are. But there must be a reason. Victorian NY, Boston, SF etc weren't like that. Cheap cars in the fifties?

Re:The S. Koreans

[rtb61]

Lets no confuse every one, you know that expensive stuff out on the street that carries electricity, well it is not really there, it is just a figment of your imagination becuase if it is to expesive to wire up country with fibre optic cable it is way way way to expensive to wire up a country with electrical power lines (and we all know how cheap power stations are, shit dime a dozen and electrical sub-stations well they are nothing at all and the cost of fuels to power the stations hell that is so cheap they pay people to take it away).

Existing phone companies have existing infrastructure which has listed in their books at lets say, somewhat optimistic valuations. To replace the existing infrastructure means sourcing additional funds for the fibre optic whilst devaluing what they have to less than nothing (it will cost money to remove).

Expect new digital communications companies to be the ones to push the jump to fibre optic, most likely players are the existing major content distributors with out digital distribution infrastructure. Mean while the existing telecomunications companies will be doing everything they can to delay/block the change, after all when it is all over, all the copper telecoms around the world with out government protection will likely go bust.

Re:The S. Koreans

[YrWrstNtmr]

NYC, Boston, Philly....all (comparatively) old cities. Built before cars. After WWII, cheap cars were the key. Freedom from the cities...spread your wings and escape out to the suburbs.
Recently, managed 'micro-communities' are springing up in the suburbs. Contain everything you mention, but its not quite the same. To my mind, they are soulless copies of the old-style neighborhoods. And you still need a car to go anywhere else.

Brits think 100 miles is a long trip.
Americans think 100 years is a long time.

Re:The S. Koreans

[arminw]

....Have you ever tried to defend yourself without access to the tax code?.....

You don't seem to get my point! All activities you mentioned are BUSINESS uses professional is likely to do. If the IRS audits me, I'll hire a tax lawyer or accountant. He will likely have high speed service. If you're running a business you NEED a high speed connection. For most consumers that is simply NOT the case. Once high speed service costs less or the same as dial-up, the average dial-up customer will switch eventually. Most people say: " If it ain't broken, don't fix it!" Dial up is not broken, just slower than some people need or want and those are willing to pay extra. The rest are happy with the use they are getting with a dialed connection.

Re:The S. Koreans

[electroniceric]

But driving for 120 minutes at $8/a gallon is not as comfortable, and looking more and more likely as a 10 year prediction. Whereas if you invest now in the transit system, in 4 years you cut the transit-based commute to 60-70 minutes, and it stays there, and costs cap at some $4.50 each way over the next decade, with cabs and rental cars supplementing the general system. Why do you suppose most people don't own cars in New York?

Re:The S. Koreans

[rich_r]

So, europe decides that they want to turn their own root servers on, and your answer would be a cruise missile?

Considered running for government?

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

And, what exactly does a professional have to do with it? If Joe teacher has a query from the IRS he ought to be able to try to work it out without bringing in professionals. This is at the very heart of the broadband access debate. Why pay professionals where a reasonable individual could handle the problem with access to the regulations.

This is not a business issue, it is an access to data / law / infromation issue.

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

DDOS is one of the methods....

If you don't think that the U.S. is ready to attack in cyberspace you are way out of touch.

Re:The S. Koreans

[arminw]

.... it is an access to data / law / infromation issue.....

Joe teacher would likey have high speed access at his school where he could download whatever data he needs. Any other Joe who doesn't have fast access through work can go where all Joes have gone before the internet came along --- namely his local library. Even in our small town of 3000, our local library has a fast internet connection.

Re:The S. Koreans

[rich_r]

The one place the US can't dominate is cyberspace. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it just 'aint happening.
Why? Corporations. You can't ddos if your net connections aren't peered with anyone. Guess who owns the connections in europe? not the US. US decides that a ddos is the way forwards, then the packets just get null-routed. Pax Corporation reigns, I can continue to browse porn and you get all worked up 'cause you the fundy god-botherers have banned everything vaugely stimulating and you can't get out of your intranet without expensive satellite connections...

Re:The S. Koreans

[Daengbo]

I began the post by referring to the LA metro area. The use of "city" should be obvious from that context. Otherwise, I would have said "LA proper."

Re:The S. Koreans

[grolaw]

Nope, Joe/Jane teacher doesn't have access while they are working at their government jobs...in fact, they would be stealing if they used their access for personal gain.

And, once again we return to the access to data issue - libraries have limits, too. Where information must be siphoned through one or two computers the demand will vastly outstrip supply.

The issue remains broad access to broadband.

Re:The S. Koreans

[Goth Biker Babe]

Brits think 100 miles is a long trip.

That is very true for the older generation but not for anyone else any more. One of the things I like about where I live is that my city is big enough to have everything I need but small enough that I don't feel lost in it. London I like to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. No problem. London's only three hours away by car. Less so by train.

Re:The S. Koreans

[jnaujok]

For the same reason that my original tiny (armpit of a) home town in Wisconsin has 7MB DSL, and me, living in the "4th most connected city in America" can only get 1.5MB.

In my home town, some ubergeek looked around and said, "Hmmm. 3,000 people in need of broadband. The phone company has said, 'screw you' to them, and I really want a DS-3 line."

So, he bought a used DSLAM, and started connecting locals to it for $40 a month. After his first 30 customers, he was paying off his DS-3 line. By his first 200 customers, he was up to an OC-12. Now he serves about 20% of the population of the city, and makes money like mad.

The phone company looked at it and said, "for 600 customers, it's not worth the effort of upgrading our CO, when we can just stick one more DSLAM in a big city and get 10 times that."

It's easier to roll out service to a small town then to a big city.

Re:The S. Koreans

[SaDan]

Because I saved over $300,000 on the house I purchased 1.5 hours away from work.

Because crime is lower where I live than in the city.

Because I like older houses and yards versus cramped apartment living in the city.

The space around me isn't wasted either. There's a lot of farmland between the area I live and where I work.

Also realize, the US has an excellent road system. The 80 miles I commute one way is about 70 miles of interstate highway.

Australian

[cujo_1111]

Australian Broadband is much worse...

I live 50 km from a major capital city and I cannot get broadband due to cost saving due to RIMs. It sucks royally.

Re:Australian

[dotgain]

Yeah, it's about the same here in New Zealand.

Our chicks are much hotter, though.

Re:Australian

[Hellasboy]

i live roughly 5km from a city that was supposed to be a broadband headquarters (Qwest and AT&T broadband before comcast bought them) and I couldn't get any broadband up until 3 years ago and when I could, it was 1.5 down .256 up for 49.99$ a month through a company who leased the line from covad. They were skeptical that I would even get that. Only recently it dropped to 39.99 a month (well, really 42$ a month because they add their dsl "tax")

Re:Australian

[cujo_1111]

Aren't they called 'ewes'?

Re:Australian

[Bad to the Ben]

Australia's broadband doesn't suck, Australia's telephone infrastructure sucks (thanks for nothing Tel$tra). If you're lucky enough to have a clean phone line, without a RIM, non-ADSL CMUX or Minimux, loading coil or pair gain, and your exchange has a non-Tel$tra DSLAM, you can get pretty good broadband speeds. I'm on a 12Mbit down / 1Mbit up plan with iiNet for $49.99 a month, but because of line quality I can only get about 3.5MBit down / 850Mbit up. Other providers like Internode have similar or better packages.

I really feel for you guys on RIMs and whatnot :( .

Re:Australian

[strider44]

it's hard to get broadband over 1.5Mb/s even in the city (it's expensive and is still quite low in ping and speed on world standards).

Re:Australian

[dotgain]

Nah they're too hard to catch.

Re:Australian

[Frogbert]

Yeah and I'm sure they look good in short skirts in the two weeks of summer they get to wear them.

Re:Australian

[d99-sbr]

Nah, lived in NZ for a year, can't say I was impressed.

But then again, I'm from Sweden.

Re:Australian

[pakenman]

I live 50 km from a major capital city ( Melbourne) and I am getting 1.5 mb/s - and before too long, I should be getting a DSLAM into the local exchange- doing well!!!

Re:Australian

[cujo_1111]

Don't forget the jandals...

Re:Australian

[dcam]

Our chicks are much hotter, though.

Sheep != Chick.

From the desk of the President

[peculiarmethod]

FW: WHITEHOUSE.GOV FROM TEXASPLAYSCHOOLRANCH.TX

Now listen here you com@#$@S=-ASDmies^h^h^h^h^h^hliberal media puppets, everything is just fine, on schedule, an@$#JJJ@#$J&_d we're even ahead of schedule on most points. Why even the white@#$((___house network, where I am communicating from now, is wired to mindblowing speeds. Have fa&@*(&(ith, America.

Yours,

G.

Re:From the desk of the President

[Pig Hogger]

G.

It thought it was W. ??!!??

Re:From the desk of the President

[peculiarmethod]

can't portray him TOO closely, or it's a federal crime. since everything else was accurate, I figured the signature should be off.

Re:From the desk of the President

[klep]

Next time, you could sign of with 'UU'

Re:From the desk of the President

[peculiarmethod]

wow, I bet you're a load of fun at parties.

I must do no such thing, as it was not a critique, but obviously a joke.. note the "funny" moderation, and not one of, say, "interesting," or "insightful."

so now, you give me a rational argument as to why I should give you a rational argument on a joke.

jeez. go to a protest with _your_ anger.. I'm gonna continue with jokes on the internet.

Bait and switch, but...

[theraptor05]

From the press release

Analysis of "low-priced" introductory offers by companies like SBC and Comcast reveal them to be little more than bait-and-switch gimmicks.

SBC tried that on me. Threatened to drop their service, and they gave me the lower price again in a heartbeat.

Let the free market handle this

[wheelbarrow]

Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007? I'm much more comfortable with an array of choice from private sources. That's much less likely to lead to bad things like censorship and limits on free expression.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[hoeschen]

I'm also waiting private libraries to replace those provided by the government. Those public libraries are for losers and eggheads.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[Dr.Hair]

It's the role of the government to ensure competition in a marketplace. Y'know, the free market.

Competition reduces prices by eliminating monopoly/oligopoly pricing structures.

The current FCC is ruling in favour of monopoly/oligopoly pricing structures, since big telecom companies want government to ensure appropriate return on investment. Y'know, the antithesis of the free market.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[croddy]

once you've got into a university library, you'll never go back to the public library again.

we're talking about the state here. everything it touches turns to stinky brown goo.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[wheelbarrow]

Can you give me an example of how the US government is moving to limit the freedom of expression of citizens in the USA? Even Cindy Sheehan is freely calling George W. Bush the biggest terrorist in the world.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[rnturn]

``I'm also waiting private libraries ...''

Oh, those'll be so much better. Conservatives can have their library, liberals theirs. It'll be just like the old classical music ad on TV: remember ``No unwanted passages!''? The private libraries won't have any books containing of those annoying ideas that aren't the same as yours. They'll be great. And so much smaller than today's libraries -- since none of those materials you don't agree with will be cluttering up the stacks -- that it'll be easier to find the books you like.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[crhylove]

This is fine in theory, but the current monopolistic practices of EVERY MAJOR PROVIDER mean that this will NEVER HAPPEN. Unless the government steps in and levels the playing field, which those major corporations are paying them handsomely NOT TO DO. So the consumer is screwed and there's no way out except an educated electorate that actually demands real elections and real government by real policy makers that don't take huge sums of money from AT&T, AOL, COX, VERIZON, SBC ETC.. Those candidates who don't take the money don't get on TV. So really until TV is either owned by the populace and municipalities or is replaces as the primary form of information for john q. public, we're all going to keep taking up the corporate tail pipe while drinking star bucks mochas and listening to whatever the RIAA is paying radio stations to play this week, even if coldplay's new album totally sucks compared to the last two.

The writing is on the wall. We are all slaves to the system already, and it won't quit without real change being made in our anti-competitive pro-corporate-monopoly system. I don't see it happening without blood at this point.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[imunfair]

Yeah, more of an array of choices coming from your local FCC soon... sike.

I realize that without government intervention in the first place the cables might have stayed property of on specific company per area - but then again they seem to be regulating it back in that direction anyway.

If all goes well you'll have a great selection - one cable provider, one DSL, one WIMAX... all more expensive than any current ones of course. Consider it a contribution to our capitalistic society - or the war on freedom (oops, i mean terror).

And before you ask what ISPs have to do with the war I'll ask you - what do the RIAA, MPAA, pirating music, movies, and cracking copy protection on video games have to do with the "war on terror"?

The answer is that "terrorism" is now anything that hurts the bottom line of the big companies that your senators think as the cornerstone of our capitalistic society. That's why they're spending your tax money to arrest people giving out video games free in Europe, and attempting to pressure China into cracking down on piracy with trade threats.

"Free market" consists of the government deciding how much it is reasonable for you to pay. (Works the other way too of course.. minimum wage) /rant

Yes I love freedom, but not someone deciding what is best for me then providing me with the choices they think are best for me.

Mod me down for it - and I might be preaching to the choir here - but I don't see how so many people can miss the direction our country is going. I hope some of the candidates in the next election state where they stand on privacy and government monitoring. (If not I guess I'll vote for the 'small government' people... they'd probably be leaning in the right direction)

Re:Let the free market handle this

[j1m 5n0w]

Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007?

The problem is that without government intervention, telco companies tend to become monopolies. I'm all for the private sector doing things its own way as long as they're held accountable to market forces, but when there's only one or two wires going into every house, and that wire is owned by the local telco monopoly, there's no competition and they can charge as much as they think people will be willing to pay.

When ISPs and telcos are no longer accountable to normal market forces, some form of government intervention becomes necessary to keep quality up and prices down. At least the government is accountable to voters. A monopoly is accountable to no one.

The argument for government intervention in the telecommunications industry is really the same as the argument for government owned roads (except that people have better defined needs and expectations for roads than for data networks - there's a legitimate concern that the government may decide that 56k Internet is "good enough for anyone").

What do you suppose would happen if a few corporations owned most of the United States highway system, and could charge tolls and disallow vehicles on their roads at their sole discretion?

It seems like forcing ILECs to share their lines with ISPs for reasonable rates is a reasonable compromise to ensure market forces without total government control. Unfortunately, the FCC seems to think that we'll magically get better broadband by removing all traces of competition and letting the ILECs do as they please.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[msuarezalvarez]

You state that as if it were factual truth that the role of the state is to avoid contact, &c. While it is clear from examples that misguided intervention will mess things up (although the word misguided does not really apply to most cases once you look at them in detail), examples also show that state intervention has been at the very base of essentially every economic success in the history of mankind. In some of the most visible cases, the intervention of the state in economic matters has occurred outside the official jurisdiction of the state intervening, but this is by no means the rule, and by no means makes the intervention less of an intervention.

The kind of statement you make is usually accompanied, in the most illustarted cases, by quotes from Smith and Mills and what not. But actually reading those authors will very fast provide the certitude that they'd be kicking the ass of the people using their names to justify such statements.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[Mr_Huber]

Perhaps because the free market has been futzing around for the better part of a decade without much real improvement. Sure, we have a variety of platforms and a variety of providers, but somehow, they just aren't competeing.

Amazing how they're all priced within a dollar or two of each other, isn't it?

The problem here is there isn't a profit motive for lowering prices. So long as all companies involved accept the current price, consumers are stuck paying it. And they've found a price to penetration level they are happy with and don't appear to be moving.

Meanwhile, countries like Japan and Korea, who made it a social priority to have cheap, ubiquitous broadband have lapped us.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[Vellmont]

Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007?

It isn't, and no one but you seem to be claiming that's the goal. I don't know where you got the word cheap, certainly not in the article summary or the article itself. The goal is universal affordable broadband. I see this goal much like rural electrification that started in the 1930s.

The nation as a whole has an interest in broadband internet access being available to everyone. This is no different than roads, power, and phone service. Why is that so hard to understand?

Re:Let the free market handle this

[The Master Control P]

Um, you've got to make your mind up -- in a free market, the government doesn't intervene at all. What you want is a mixed economy, where the government intervenes to correct market failures (in this case, monopolies).

Re:Let the free market handle this

[dal20402]

Yes, it's better here than it is in, oh, say, Zimbabwe.

But, by our traditional and very libertarian American standards, it's getting worse. The most dramatic example is the arbitrary placing of left-wing activists, including a nun, who have nothing to do with terrorism on no-fly lists. There is also good old Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act (the infamous "library clause"), which despite reports otherwise has been used. There have been the expected right-wing media attempts, aided by John Ashcroft, to equate dissent with terrorism. And, finally, there is the renewed effort by Bush's Justice Department to crack down on anything it deems pornographic using whatever means occur to it.

I would not be surprised if Cindy Sheehan is never able to get on an airplane again.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[The Master Control P]

Really? Then why did my econ book last semester define the free market as one theoretically driven exclusively by self-interest, while also pointing out that there is no such thing as a true free market because someone needs to enforce rules? Neither a pure free market nor a command economy (Capitalism & Communism respectively) works - we need both mixed together.

BTW, learn more about english grammar and punctuation.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[dal20402]

Okay, I don't usually respond to trolls, but tonight I'm bored.

1. Too many left-wing activists have been put on the no-fly lists for it to be accidental. I've seen reports of a baby or two, and never of a right-wing activist, but there have been at least 20 cases of left-wing activists on the no-fly lists.

2. I cited John Ashcroft because, in 2001 when he was Attorney General (did you forget?) he dramatically and famously equated dissent with terrorism. But the right-wing media that echoed his posture did not stop when he left office.

3. Sure I cited an obscenity case. The hallmark of both the Ashcroft and Gonzalez Justice Departments' approaches to porn has been to systematically attempt to expand the obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment until it covers Janet Jackson's nipple. "Obscenity" should refer only to that material (such as child and snuff porn) that constitutes evidence of a crime.

And, no, I don't want to take away your gun. /rolls eyes
I'm more libertarian than leftist reactionary.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[C0llegeSTUDent]

>> once you've got into a university library, you'll never go back to the public library again.

When finals came around during the Spring, the university library was crowded so I decided to try a public library to study. Bad move. Screaming children running around while mommy looks at romance novels and very little elbow room was my experience.
 
University libraries on the other hand are *full* of books that you would otherwise have to buy off Borders or Amazon. Only complaint about my university library is the occasional homeless guy sleeping in it.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[fupeg]

Your first statement

It's the role of the government to ensure competition in a marketplace.

Is what makes the second statement possible:

The current FCC is ruling in favour of monopoly/oligopoly pricing structures, since big telecom companies want government to ensure appropriate return on investment.

If the gov left markets alone, even those where a monopoly is present, then it would not have the power to enforce monopolies like you claim the FCC is doing. When you ask the government to "correct" a market, you are begging for corruption and government backed monopolies. A "natural" monopoly can be ended through market forces, but a government backed monopoly is much tougher to get rid of.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[Animats]

Many older US cities do have private libraries. The Mechanics Institute in San Francisco is a very pleasant little library. It's well kept, and the books, almost all on open shelves, are in excellent condition. The collection is broad, and the older material is heavily engineering-oriented. They have the engineering drawings for the Panama Canal, and bound volumes of most of the journals devoted to heavy engineering.

If you spend much time in SF near the Financial District, it's worth buying a membership. It's only $95 per year.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[Capitalist1]

Probably because your econ textbook was written by an academic with a very shallow understanding of philosophy.

What "rules" need to be enforced in a free market?

No theft, sure. No fraud, yeah. But that's it.

Enforcing competition? No, the government has no place defining what competition is, much less ensuring that it exists.

The real problem isn't that free markets "don't work". They do - in fact they're the only system that actually works. The real problem is the widely-held belief that ideas don't have anything to do with the real world, that the real world is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, etc. etc. People want to get away with things, and because they can't have those things and be consistent, they allow themselves the indulgence and blame reality when it doesn't conform.

And that's the short answer.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[wilsoniya]

Hi.

If what you're saying is true, please provide examples so that others may join your cause. Unsubstantiated rants only make your posts read like they were written by someone with a 8th grade angry-at-the-world attitude. Maybe you could build your own national infrastructure so that you could escape being a slave to the system like the rest of us.

But really, aren't we seeing decent price drops relatively frequently? You can get low-end DSL for around 20 Bucks where I'm from (midwestern US). I have TimeWarner Cable internet and get 8Mbps (downpipe) no sweat.

I think the real issue here is that the masses don't need a symmetric 100Mbps pipe and won't pay anything more than their cheap dialup ISP is charging for a service that will render them little benefit when all they do is check their email.

Big (read expansive) countries require big infrastructures which cost money, which is why me may pay more for superior services rendered for less in sweden or japan.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[bnf]

It's the role of the federal government to manage the public's "right of way", whether that's the airwaves or the powerlines or your telco. All those private sources are working within the public's right of way for delivery of their services. In managing that right of way I think it is a responsible act to foster it's utility for the common good. The fact that the federal governemnt manages it poorly (IMHO) does not mean that it isn't their role.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[The Master Control P]

Defining what competition is? I thought everyone agreed that is was multiple providers trying to sell you the same good or service - Am I wrong? If the government doesn't enforce competition in an industry, the nearly inevitable end result is a monopoly or oligopoly that locks out competition and provides bad service to customers. See America at the start of the 20th century, Microsoft, or (more relevant to this article) the TelCo monopolies for ample examples.

Since the free market is driven by greed and self-interest, one or a few people/companies who are better at being greedy and self-interested (Which is not necissarily a bad thing) will naturally rise to the top and keep themselves there by outcompeting everyone else. But once they're on top, they lock others out and with no further incentive to do things well, settle for between mediocre and downright bad. Competition is what keeps the quality of service up for everyone. Since it's something that everyone wants and that private companies loathe (their purpose is to get as much marketshare as possible, right?), we need the government to create/enforce it.

If the government doesn't impose competition, your friendly local broadband monopoly will rape you without lubrication for crummy DSL or cable service. If the government makes providers compete, Comcast, Speakeasy, Verizon, and SBC will be all be tripping over themselves trying to provide the services and features you want at the price you want.

Economics is about properly mixing and balancing opposing forces: Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism works. Too little or too much government regulation is bad. Prices naturally equalize to where the producer gets enough profit and the consumer gets a good enough deal. The job of the government, and one of the major choices of a society, is how to handle these mixes.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[crhylove]

You don't have to take my word for it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1843330,00.as p

Just read one of many articles about how our government is increasingly doing a disservice to the public in the name of corporate interest. Then compare our broadband prices with Sweden. Don't insult me with 8th grade shit because I didn't include a bibliography on a slashdot post, asshole.

rhY

Re:Let the free market handle this

[doomicon]

AWESOME!! Best comeback I've read in years!!! MOD IT UP! MOD IT UP!

Re:Let the free market handle this

[AnswerIs42]

Hmm, I'll be dead and burried and my kids will have grand kids before private companies get around to getting the "last mile" broadband to my location.

I am litterly, 3/4mile away from ANY kind of wired broadband. "Maybe" will have a wireless option.. depends on where they stick the tower.

I would rather have the government putting a little pressure on the big providers to expand the networks than wait for what will probably never come.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[indifferent children]

The real problem isn't that free markets "don't work". They do - in fact they're the only system that actually works.

That depends on what your definition of 'works' is. If you want to maximize the concentration of wealth in the fewest number of hands, then free markets are probably the best mechanism. If you want a well clothed, fed, housed and educated populace who have the time, energy, ability and right to participate in a democracy, then free markets kind of suck.

No theft, sure. No fraud, yeah. But that's it.

How about no child labor? How about preventing you from forcing your employees to work unpaid overtime and/or work in hazardous conditions just because you can guarantee that none of the employers in your town (who happen to be members of your country club) will hire them if they refuse.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[realinvalidname]

Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007? I'm much more comfortable with an array of choice from private sources. That's much less likely to lead to bad things like censorship and limits on free expression.

Exactly right. But there is no free market here. Cable and phone companies enjoy monopolies enforced by local and state governments respectively. The proper first step would be to eliminate those monopolies immediately and let anyone lay whatever wire they can charge for (and pay access rights to lay). Until we have real choice and real competition, there's no reason that the public shouldn't expect the government to demand better from their monopoly providers.

As it is, we have the worst of both worlds in the U.S.: the quality and responsiveness of a government-enforced monopoly, coupled with the interest in social goods you'd expect of private corporations.

--realinvalidname

Re:Let the free market handle this

[andphi]

And where do you live? I'm out in West Texas. With the exception of heavily populated counties like Taylor, Lubbock, Nolan and whatever county Midland is in, it's entirely normal for there to be one public library per county. One and only one guaranteed cluster of publicly accessible information for a few thousand people and about a thousand square miles. Maybe there are too many public libraries where you live, but around here, there are actually too few.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[10Ghz]

No theft, sure. No fraud, yeah. But that's it.

Enforcing competition? No, the government has no place defining what competition is, much less ensuring that it exists.

By same logic: Government has no place defining what is theft and what is fraud, much less ensuring that is does not exist.

But government DO define what those are, and they ARE working (at least in theory) to make sure it does not exist. Why do governments do that? Because it helps the society as a whole. Same thing goes with competition. Government SHOULD be making sure that there is healthy competition going on. Why? Because it benefits the society as a whole.

Why should governments be concerned about theft and fraud, but it should NOT concern itself when it comes to competition? And before you say that government should not interfere in business: aren't governments interferening with business right now, when they try to make sure that companies do not steal or defraud others?

Re:Let the free market handle this

[wheelbarrow]

You made the voluntary choice to live in a rural area where there is not a cost effective infrastructure for broadband. That is a lifestyle choice you made. Why should the rest of us be coereced by force to subsidize that lifestyle choice with government provided broadband? You want cheap broadband? Fine, move to town.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[87C751]

Unless the government steps in and levels the playing field...

You mean the way the FCC is leveling the DSL playing field by bulldozing small ISPs? You can believe that those major corporations are delighted to foot the bill for that kind of leveling.

The writing is on the wall. We are all slaves to the system already, and it won't quit without real change being made in our anti-competitive pro-corporate-monopoly system. I don't see it happening without blood at this point.

On this point, we agree completely.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[MasterOfCeremonies]

American propaganda (and that of some other western democracies) is far more advanced and subtle to need to overtly supress free speech. Through complete corporate control of the mainstream media, only a very narrow band of the entire spectrum of views are presented. Thid leaves the less varacious (ie. most people) without the MEANS to form an alternative opinion, and often with no idea that they are not getting the full story. If you are yourself an American citizen, then by posing this very question you are highlighting my point.

It is interesting that you mention Cindy Sheehan - indeed she can express her views, but that does not stop her valid and logical opinions being demonized by the media. As the mainstream media is now nothing more than a governmental moutpiece, this provides a direct example of how the US government is moving to limit free speech. There are of course countless other examples.
http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/?p=909

Re:Let the free market handle this

[vertinox]

I have TimeWarner Cable internet and get 8Mbps (downpipe) no sweat.

Lucky bastard.

I wish I could choose TimeWarner, but I #$#@#@# can't.

I have two choices: Comcast or Verizon (even if I go with another DSL provider I still need a Verizon telephone line. I have no choice.)

And do you know where I am? I'm in center city Philadelpha, PA one of the oldest and larger cities on the east coast.

Although, I think Speak Easy can offer a service now in which you don't have to have a phone line through your telco... That and I'm lucky enough that eventually the city of Philly will have their own broad band service through wireless.

And yes... The masses do need a 100Mbps pipe. How else are they going to TV on demand, VoIP, and various other things over their broad band pipe. Hell even Comcast and Verizon are accutley aware of this and Comcast is inkling to get into the VoIP and Verizon and looking to provide media delivering services some day. Cable coax and POTS will be a thing of the past if they can get fiber to the curb.

Re:Let the free market handle this

[Dr.Hair]

No, if the government doesn't intervene at all, you've got a laissez faire economy.

laissez faire = "let things alone, let them pass" != "free market" despite what some ideologues might state.

a laissez faire market ensures an unfree market, where businesses are free to establish impediments to entry to a market and impediments to the free flow of information within a market.

There are reasons that government regulators such as the FTC, FCC, and SEC came in to existance as a direct result of the failures of the laissez faire model of economics.

is this really news?

[eobanb]

Hasn't this been known a long time now? And by long time I mean around seven years??? The US has pretty infrastructure, yet we aren't doing anything with it, and broadband remains ridiculously overpriced compared to the likes of Sweden, where synchronous 100Mbit/sec connections can be had for just few dozen kroner a month.

The real challenge is rural areas. Unless something spectacularly revolutionary happens, like somone launching a bunch of solar-powered autonomous blimps with WiMax transceivers onboard, anyone outside city areas is going to be left behind. I blame our government's lack of involvement in progressing the telecom industry here, such as a series of bad decisions by the FCC, and letting Verizon and Friends® hold the sword instead.

Re:is this really news?

[Craig Ringer]

Synchronous? I'm not sure fibre/ethernet is, actually - and more to the point, I suspect the fact that it's symmetric is more important.

I'm in Australia, and I must say - you folks are lucky by comparison to us, though it *is* getting better here. We have an agency called the ACCC - Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - that's been slowly beating the incumbent telco into shape.

Re:is this really news?

[Synthageek]

What we really need for the government to do is open 100's of rural military bases (to defend us against the confederate army) and let DARPA contract building more infrastructure.

Re:is this really news?

[Forbman]

Well, this would run contrary to what the current BRAC (Base ReAlignment Commission) is doing, which includes shutting down/"realigning" a bunch of National Guard and Army Reserve facilities across the country.

Re:is this really news?

[Anonymous Coward]

100Mbit/s in Sweden can not be had "for just few dozen kroner a month".

For instance, bredbandsbolaget.se offers 100Mbit/s up/down with 300GB/month for 595 SEK/month (about 80USD/month). However, this is not available everywhere - most ISPs offer at most 24Mbit/s.

For most Swedish households, 1Mbit/s is probably the limit.

Re:is this really news?

[jiushao]

Mostly correct, except that 8 MBit/s is the limit for most Swedish households at this point (and 24 MBit/s is very commonly available at this point). There is an ongoing upgrade effort so it is all coming around.

The broadband availability in Sweden is not all that fantastic (the 8 MBit/s ADSL is most common), but the infrastructure is at this point great. 90% of the population are reached by the fiber backbones at this point, it is mostly the ISP that have not really gotten things rolled out beyond ADSL in non-urban areas. On the other hand lots of villages just set up a "company", rent backbone access and run ethernet between the houses. Thanks to good infrastructure this is in fact a very cheap approach if you get going.

Re:is this really news?

[KrackHouse]

"Beating the incumbent telco into shape."

Yeah, the combination violence and socialism have lead the world to record levels of employment. Impatience is the big problem here. Consumers aren't content with Moore's Law, they want their gigabit internet NOW and they'll kill free markets to get it.

If you really want the likes of G.Bush running your telco then go right ahead and interfere with businesses. It's not like they have free market competition (FIOS, DSL, Cable, Satellite, broadband over power lines, WiFi, dialup).

Mod me down, I think socialism is dumb.

Re:is this really news?

[Brandybuck]

The real challenge is rural areas.

Unlike Europe, which everyone insists we must be compared to, North America is an extremely rural place. If you're going to grade on the curve, don't compare The US to Europe, compare the US to Canada. Does everyone in the Yukon have high speed broadband? What did it take to wire every home in Saskatchewan with quality reliable broadband access? Is the provider the government, private ISP, or state monopolized corporation? Do you have a choice of provider in upper Manitoba, or do you have to settle with the lowest-common-denominator solution?

Please stop comparing us to Europe. The distances between some US homes and the nearest computer retail outlet are greater than the size of some European nations.

Re:is this really news?

[Moofie]

Socialism is dumb, but unregulated monopolies on utilities is far dumber.

Re:is this really news?

[Craig Ringer]

Where exactly does socialism come into this? I happen to disagree with you on that (moderation being OK IMO) but anyway... I don't think it's relevant.

Australia is a regulated capitalist economy. Like most of them. Where monopolies cause problems - such as the case of Telstra - or in other cases of market failure, action is taken to address the problem.

In this case, that means forcing Telstra Wholesale to offer access to exchanges and lines at the same prices as it provides them to its retail devision.

Telstra used to be a government department. It was essentially *gifted* the national infrastructure. Don't start me on that. The least it can be expected to do is provide equitable access to that infrastructure.

I strongly suggest you study some economics before saying that free markets are the full solution to the problem. You're looking specifically for "externalities" and "market failure". Note that Telstra is one such instance where the natural free market fails to achieve the capitalist economic goal - efficient distribution of resources - *and* the social goal - equitable distribution of resources.

I also happen to disagree that the alternate delivery approaches you suggest are reasonable alternatives. It is in the interest of consumers to have DSL and dial-up available from a competitive market - that Telstra, left un-checked, would strangle or prevent from by denying access to exchanges and lines. (If you suggest just building another national infrastructure I'll have to laugh at you).

Cable in Australia is not the same as in the US. It is not already laid everywhere. Moreover, guess what - Telstra owns the main Cable network. BPL isn't available here. I'm not convinced it should be. WiFi ISPs are available in some areas, but I'm unconvinced it's a viable alternative to DSL. Ditto CDMA/GSM/3G and other radio technologies. DSL and dial-up are controlled by Telstra by virtue of their control of the infrastructure.

Think about it this way: Telstra is somewhat like "ma bell". Which the US government took action to break the monopoly of, I might add, by rather drastically splitting the company. (I wish we'd do that to Telstra - but into wholesale and retail arms, to eliminate the internal conflict of interest over wholesale access and service).

Anyway, speaking of economics, I have some more study to do.

Re:is this really news?

[KrackHouse]

OK good points, when reading comments that assume "big corporations" are evil I get a little worked up. I agree that aggregations of power lead to corruption, be it in government or in industry but if a business happens to be more efficient due to it's size, economies of scale, etc, AND it has competition then I think it has every right to exist.

Re:is this really news?

[jwiegley]

The real challenge is rural areas.

Are you nuts?!? The real challenge is *true* competition. I live in the middle of San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. It's one of the most densly populated urban areas in the nation. Housing as far as the eye can see and lots of well established businesses. It's about as far from "rural" as you can get.

Yet I can't get cheap broadband. DSL doesn't work because my copper pairs are pure garbage and can't hold a signal. Cable costs $45/mo without a static ip. If I pay $80/mo then I can get a static but I also get only 1/5 (yes, that's right 20%) of the speed of the DHCP service.

"rural" is not an issue with broadband. However, the fact that the government paid to build the copper pair and cable infrastructure and then was stupid enough to "sell" the public infrastructure to private industries was the dumbest move anybody ever made.

Now the Bells (+verizon) and the cable companies are monopolies that have absolutely no incentive what so ever to provide a decent service at a decent price. There is no competition at all. Yeah, yeah Cox, Adelphia and Time Warner all sell the same product. But there is no competition because they all agreed not to compete. So you get a choice of one and even if you hate them you can't turn to anybody and say "hey, I hate Adelphia; I'd like to purchase my service from Cox". Just can't be done. Same thing with the Bells. The closest thing to competition was the introduction of DSL. But even there the phone companies were forced by regulation to lease central office space and access to copper pairs but nobody said anything about regulating the price. So the bells all said: "yea, we'll rent you our infrastructure" (but for so much of the DSL companies' profits that the bells *knew* the DSL companies wouldn't be able to turn a profit and would eventually go under. Then the bells could all go: "Hey, we noticed you're bankrupt and you have all that useless equipment in our telco closets; mind if we buy it from you for next to nothing?" And bam: now only the bells and verizon *really* sell DSL service. The other DSL providers are third party resellers now.

And now even that will get squeezed out with the new FCC ruling that states that the bells don't have to share their equipment with DSL providers. So bye, bye third party DSL.

If you think being "rural" is what is holding back this country's domination of national information infrastructures then you're insane. It's all bad politics and legislation being made by idiots who are completely ignorant of the technology they are regulating.

We did the interstate roads right. You can drive from one end of the nation to the other for free (Or close enough to it) and that infrastructure provides nearly all the in nation shipping bandwidth to enable our gross national product. The current need for cheap, nationwide broadband is analgous to the need for cheap, reliable nationawide transportation at the turn of last century. But none of the politicians realize this and so you will be getting your X-rays, programming and information processing being done overseas.

Personally, I welcome our new overseas overlords because they are obviously smarter than we are. (we being our politicians making the rules; and our non-politicians who elected them.)

Re:is this really news?

[typical]

Or Vatican City.

200 Kbps?

[_Sharp'r_]

The article takes issue with the FCC calling anything over 200 Kbps broadband.

Maybe I'm just alone in this, but I've always thought of pretty much anything faster than 56K dial-up as broadband.

Sure, 200 Kbps isn't super-fast, but it's certainly not dial-up.

Another issue they have is that a lot of "broadband" is upstream limited to as little as 128 Kbps and thus they don't think it should count.

While I decry providers who don't give people much upstream bandwidth, it's a bit much to claim something "isn't broadband" if it's say, 1.5 Meg down and 128 K up. For a lot of people (the less techy amongst us, not /. readers) that's a pretty typical usage ratio.

Re:200 Kbps?

[theraptor05]

Yeah, 200kbs not technically dial up, but at the same time you're not going to be able to do a lot of the things that you're "supposed" to be able to do. The whole idea behind this press release is that broadband is a "good thing" that all have a right to. It becomes a definitional issue concerning when my connection is fast enough to get the "good things" out of it. I tend to agree with them, in that 200kbs is not fast enough in general to do good streaming audio or video, and yet is just fast enough that the always on nature will get the less informed users hammered security wise. Now what I don't agree with is that broadband is inherently "good". I have many relatives who are perfectly content on their dial up connections, and don't feel that they are missing out on a thing. Who am I to argue with that?

Re:200 Kbps?

[theclam159]

I think that 200kbps is an OK definition of broadband.

It lets you stream music (128kbps).
You'll have broadband latency (except with satellite).
You'll be able to load webpages almost as fast as regular broadband (>1Mbps) and significantly faster than 56k.
You'll be able to download files more than 4x as fast as 56k (since 56k actually means about 4kbytes/s in my experience, which is 32kbps, 6-7 times slower than 200kbps).

Sure, you can't stream video well and you won't be able to download large files as fast as normal broadband. Still, it's very close to regular broadband speed for most activities, so I don't think that it's a mistake to call it broadband.

Re:200 Kbps?

[cbreaker]

I take issue with it, too. 200Kbit isn't fast enough to move us into the next level of connectivity, whatever it might be. It doesn't allow you to do much (if anything) more then a dial-up account does. It doesn't enable live video, or video conferencing. It doesn't allow you to access your data anywhere, because you're severely limited to small files.

While it's better then dial-up, it's not even close to what the internet is capable of. 100Mbit connections could enable all sorts of things we can't even imagine yet.

As far as usage ratio - there's a difference between normal usage and restricting that usage. While I download probably 50x or more then what I upload, I still can't upload fast when I *do* want to upload. Even if it's only 1 out of every 50 megabytes.

Some countries are gearing up for 50+ MBit connections right now. That's more then 10x faster then a good cablemodem service. We're going to be left in the dust.

Re:200 Kbps?

[baynham]

"Analog modems operating at speeds greater than 600 bit/s are technically broadband" says Wikipedia Although I would not call a 200kb/s connedction "broadband". The limitations of my 2mb/s line can already be seen when downloading and using my xbox online...The strain on our internet connection will grow over the next years as more of our household devices share our connection. Finland soon will have a connection fast enough to stream HDTV around the house, but we are going to be stuck on these relitavily low speeds for a while.

Re:200 Kbps?

[Volvogga]

I wonder how much longer your relatives will be happy though. I, myself, have only had a home internet connection for a little more than a year now (and yes, it is on a 56k), but I have been noticing a gradual shift in the internet. Web pages everywhere seem to be getting to be more expectent of broadband. Even a friend of mine (who initially brought this observation to conversations that we had during physics class) who runs a cable modem has noticed the added bulk of web pages.

I often find myself waiting more and more for web pages to load now due to increased adds, picture intesive web page interfaces, and flash (I see flash a LOT more often now). Whats worse it that adds are starting to be in flash and moving gif formats more often as well now. Some of them moving gifs take anywhere from 1.5 to 3 minutes to load all the way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sobbing into my keyboard or anything. The loading time is still far from unacceptabel. I just wonder how much longer it will be until it is.

Re:200 Kbps?

[macmastery]

Ought to be good enough for anybody.
- W. H. Gates

Re:200 Kbps?

[The Master Control P]

I'm not sure about this, but I don't believe it's possible to have much more than a 10:1 disparity between down/up stream speeds because otherwise you can't send TCP ACK packets fast enough to keep more data coming. Thus, you'll never see 1.5/128 because you'd never get the advertised downstream speed. Again, take this with a grain of salt - Can someone confirm?

Re:200 Kbps?

[asabjorn]

Real broadband is capable of transfering tv-shows, phone and computer data at the same time. To achieve that 10Mbits is required. In scandinavia this is now slowly getting the standard and video-on-demand has been released. As a marketing trick the broadband term was watered out, and to say the least 0.2 Mbits is far from being broad in any sence. My Comcast in California sucks in comparsion with a normal ADSL line in Norway. Honestly I do not think the american always-on internet connectivity market is nearly competetive enough.

Re:200 Kbps?

[Koushiro]

I don't think so, although it does sound like an eminently sensible idea.

Here in New Zealand, I'm on a 2Mbps/128kbps ADSL plan (Top of the line! Only a 10GB/month cap!), and my download speeds go all the way up to 11...

Re:200 Kbps?

[quarkscat]

WTF? I want some of what you've been smoking (not for myself, mind you, but for evidence when I rat you out to the DEA).

I do not live in a rural area. I live in a bedroom community 16 miles from the White House. The only broadband service provider "way out here" is Verizon. (The cable company has "broadband" that requires Windoze 98, an open ISA slot, and a phone line for the uplink.) I live 18,000 feet from Verizon's closest Central Office, and due to the crappy underground POTS wiring had to use an ADSL modem instead of DSL. The line quality, as well as the amount of multiplexed "traffic" provided me with little better than 85kbps DOWN and 65kbps UP -- all for $39.95 per month. What a really great deal ... NOT! Just recently, one of the dial-up ISPs (regional/national) began offering 3x accelerated dial-up speed (compressed cache proxy servers) for only $15 per month. What is the better deal, huh?

Verizon, our regional rape-and-pillage pigopolist, is now trying to "buy out" Cox Cable one county over -- apparently to eliminate the competition they cannot compete with. The few "islands" of DSL broadband in this county is due to new housing construction where the builder wired the homes for FTTP (Fiber To The Premesis) and made their own deal with Verizon (, a service which the HOAs gladly adopted).

The regional telcos did not build out most of their POTS infrastructure -- it is a remnant of the national AT&T monopoly that was bought and paid for long ago by taxpayers and "Ma Bell's" customers. The difference today is that it is not the Federal government (excepting the corporate whoring FCC) that determines rates versus service for the telco customers -- it is the individual states' corporation commissions, and they are a LOT cheaper for the telcos to buy off than the Feds ever were.

IMHO, the states, counties, and/or municipalities should sieze the existing POTS infrastructure under emminent domain and force the telcos to compete with newer service providers. The telcos have been having it all "their way" -- restricted competition, fixed profit margins, and minimal governmental oversight is still a monopoly (by my definition). If the counties were allowed to treat telephone service the way cable service is treated, the government controls the (cable) infrastructure and contracts to one competitor or another for their limited monopoly rights to provide service. In many areas, government takeover of the POTS infrastructure and using taxpayer funds to build out a modern FTTP infrastructure will come a lot closer to bringing inexpensive universal broadband internet to their citizens.

But only in an alternate universe, because (most of) the governments are corporate whores to the monopolists/pigopolists currently in charge of our telephone service -- both landline and cellular. I will leave my rants about fractious incompatible cellular service in the USA for another time.

Re:200 Kbps?

[owlstead]

That's not entirely true I think. I've had 512/64 and I could use the whole 512 (divided by 10 for KB/sec, my provider uses ATM) download. You could easily stall it for a bit by using up your upload though. That is, unless you used something like linux to make sure the ack packages go through first. Currently I've got 8/1 and that works fine as well. Another provider is advertising with 20 /1 MBit/sec ADSL for 40 euro's a month. So that's 20:1 (!). Most of it can be used for video streaming (live soccer) though, which is probably UDP and therefore does not need ack packages.

Re:200 Kbps?

[Mad Merlin]

TCP has an overhead of approximately 11%, so the 10:1 ratio seems about right. Also keep in mind that if you saturate the upstream on a typical cable connection, you'll really kill it in terms of response, whereas the same generally isn't true if you saturate your downstream.

Re:200 Kbps?

[TeknoHog]

I've always thought anything more than 20 kHz as broadband. After all, 'broadband' refers to 'bandwidth' which is something you measure in Hertz and its multiples. Not quite the same thing as data rate that you measure in bps...

Re:200 Kbps?

[srleffler]

It's all the same. If you modulate a carrier faster, the spectral bandwidth used by the signal gets wider.

Re:200 Kbps?

[peter_gzowski]

I think the article takes issue with the FCC being mandated to ensure that consumers can "originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics and video telecommunications," and then turning around and defining the service adequate to accomplish this as 200Kbps. It is incorrect and shows an obvious hesitation on the part of the FCC to live up to their mandate.

The quote is from the 1996 Telecom act, which laid out this standard as a reasonable expectation of what service across the entire US should be. Many other countries in the world have accomplished this, so it is not an unreasonable goal.

Re:200 Kbps?

[Yottabyte84]

the ratio is more like 20:1. I've tested this.

Re:comcast disease plauges everyone

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I never saw that with Comcast when I had it, must have been lucky? On the other hand, my QWest DSL sucks big time.

time to invest in broadband over power

[techarnate]

i'm an optimist. the market will grow to hit this goal. i think the only thing that can get that kind of market penetration (not government sponsored) would be over the only wire that goes to every damn home. broadband over power lines.

wow, wouldn't Google put themselves in a pretty little position if they were the company that could hit that goal, *and* could get the feds to throw in the cash to hit that 07 deadline?

heh heh. =)

Re:time to invest in broadband over power

[The Master Control P]

The problem is that power lines are not shielded, and so will throw off an enormous amount of RF interference if you run broadband over them. Radio amateurs are already raising hell over BPL before it's even been test deployed for this reason. And yes, radio is still important. It's often the only means of communication with disaster areas where everything else is powerless or destroyed.

Re:time to invest in broadband over power

[ArbiterOne]

BPL would actually cost more to implement, have a lower speed, royally screw up 1.7-80 MHz (AM radio, shortwave, amateur, police/fire/disaster communication networks, and the bottom of the FM broadcast band) and overall be little better than dialup. Besides, BPL is a Part 15 service- and with (effectively) huge antennas all over the neighborhood, you'd be interfered with on a massive scale. See: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/bpl-deployme nt.html

Re:time to invest in broadband over power

[martio]

umm... bpl requires repeaters like dsl, doesn't it? power companies might think about it (if they can get around the huge amount of rf noise generated) because they can use it to automatically read your meter, son. really, though, the remote farmer is just as likely to get bpl as he is dsl.

Re:Policymakers?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

And of course if not for the need to have a military infastructure, the highways would not be here.

Politics

[Telcontar]

By overstating broadband availability and portraying anti-competitive policies as good for consumers, the FCC is trying to erect a façade of success. But if the president's goal of universal, affordable high-speed Internet access by 2007 is to be achieved, policymakers in Washington must change course.

Translation: By strengthening this façade, the FCC will portray its achievement as a success and continue to follow its current strategy.

Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[Arkham79]

These countries were once behind the US in terms of broadband adoption, speed, availibility. That gap has almost disappeared - having worked in the industry for some time on both sides of the Atlantic, it is obvious that the US is falling behind. Take the price of a 6 MB DSL line with VOIP included in France - you can get the whole thing for $30 (~20 euro). In the US you are lucky to see $30 for the VOIP alone, and my total bill with a 4MB cable connection is over $70.
 
While they push on with triple-play products in Europe to include Video and bump speeds up to the 20MB range with ADSL 2+ Verizon are bumping people to 2MB.......
 
South Korea is a world leader in broadband penetration and they started from zero just s few years ago. They're government made it a vital policy to get broadband to everyone, and it worked. The US Government needs to wake up, something needs to be done - and quickly before the US becoes a comsumer digital backwater.....

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[Arkham79]

Agh! - no doubt the grammar Nazis will attack, let's see: Their instead of They're, an a instead of an s mid-sentence and probably some more - be gentle!

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[MINEMINE04]

I live in a town with a pop of about 20,000. My town is not that far away from major cities (half an hour by road). I have a fiber line that runs through my town. Yet my only options for broadand are Road Runner (for upwards of $55/mo) or Earthlink satilite (more $, less bandwith). If the gov't can get Verison to open up fiber lines, then I'm all for it! Perhapse then we can get some competition...

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[poopdeville]

If I go from 2 Mbps to 10 Mbps, what wonderful things happen?

Well, I would be downloading movies five times faster.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[cbreaker]

You can't use the land-mass vs population arguement in the US because you can't get very high speed internet even in the most populated cities. It's simply not offered, unless you go for an $8,000/mo T3.

What wonderful things will happen at 10Mbit? Who knows. Until more people are on it, we've yet to see what new technologies would utilize it. Plus, who said 10Mbit was ultra-fast? These other countries are putting in 100Mbit. Quite a difference there.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[inode_buddha]

Same here, regarding fiber and demographics/geographics. Verizon will be very happy to tap a T-1 for me, if I pay the last-mile and $1200 per month or thereabouts.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[RoRo_the_Troll]

France uses existing coper line for ADSL2+ (where adsl was already working before) and for 30euros/mon you have 10Mbps to 25Mbps depending on the distance to the dslam, VoIP and IPTV, a static IP and a reverse lookup with some provider (I'm using free.fr in France). Here in USA (yes I also live in USA .. the joy off having 2 places and being able to compare), I pay over $100 for 6Mbps downstream (768Kbps up) with 5 IP, no reverse lookup, no VoIP and no IPTV In both case I live a a city of a descent size where "high speed broadband" is available using regular coper line. So no need to add extra line to hardwire everybody ... so problem is really the non competition between provider in USA and the FCC doesn't relay help....

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[dal20402]

What is the detriment, in real, measurable terms, of not having as rapid broadband penetration as countries a fraction of our size? If I go from 2 Mbps to 10 Mbps, what wonderful things happen?

0mG f4$+ pR0n!!1

Seriously, there are quite a few economically meaningful applications that it's possible to imagine for connections that are capable of carrying real video signals full-duplex, which we do not have. Think of a conference call with high-resolution video of all participants, either for business or to allow loved ones to see each other. Or maybe movie production across the net, either by studios or independents. Live music across a continent. And I'm only scratching the tip of the iceberg. People would think of many more ways to use the connectivity just as they have with existing "broadband."

High-resolution video is currently the "last frontier" of computing power. It pushes CPUs, disks, and networks to their limits, and has many easy-to-imagine applications. When computers and networks are powerful enough to work with it easily, we will cross a techological bright line. And, to keep our economic position (which you have to admit brings us manifold benefits), we should try to get there first.

As other posters have noted, there are really two separate issues here: the difficulty of getting broadband to isolated locations, and the inferior broadband that we have even in the cities. It's vastly more important from an economic point of view to get actual two-way broadband to as many users as possible. Work with cheap WiMax to get rural areas connected, but get the bulk of the users in the cities and high-tech areas sped up ASAP. For me, real broadband would begin at 50Mbps both ways sustained transfer speed -- that is where real-time NTSC video begins to look easy.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[EiZei]

and having a fraction of the land area and higher population densities had nothing to do with it. Honestly, I don't get otherwise rational people even making the comparison.

European countries with LESS population density than the US (nordic countries for example, we even have much higher taxes) have cheap broadband too. That excuse has been debunked for a long time.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[Jugalator]

and having a fraction of the land area and higher population densities had nothing to do with it. Honestly, I don't get otherwise rational people even making the comparison.

OK, take the sparsely populated Sweden then, with 10 MBps up/down for $45/month.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[lucas teh geek]

South Korea is a world leader in broadband penetration and they started from zero just s few years ago. They're government made it a vital policy to get broadband to everyone, and it worked.

I live in Australia (it's that big one on the other side, very sparsly populated) and pay AU$50 (something like US$35 or so last time i checked) per month for 12Mbit/1Mbit ADSL2+... sorta voids your arguement, doesnt it

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[lucas teh geek]

bah, quoted the wrong bit... that'll teach me for not looking at what im doing

quote should have read: and having a fraction of the land area and higher population densities had nothing to do with it. Honestly, I don't get otherwise rational people even making the comparison.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[anpe]

You need to consider something before you make an ignorant statement like this.

You should eat your own dog food. The telecom market is not a monopoly in France since 1998. There are private companies, owning their own network, that actually make money selling a 6MB DSL line for 15€.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[mporcheron]

The USA has many more tax-paying citizens then most countries meaning the government will be raking it in and be able to spend a bit more on broadband.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[dfjghsk]

depends on where you are in Australia doesnt it? Do you live in Sydney or another big city? What about those out in Western Australia.. can they also get the same high speed connection.. or are they stuck with dialup/satellite?

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[Andy_R]

If I go from 2 Mbps to 10 Mbps, what wonderful things happen?

Well, if that's full duplex, I drop television entirely and watch only tv programmes grabbed from bittorrent, because they are advert-free (as opposed to just grabbing things I missed or haven't been shown over my side of the atlantic yet as I now do).

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[dajak]

You can't use the land-mass vs population arguement in the US because you can't get very high speed internet even in the most populated cities.

The population density argument assumes that the cost of wiring the same distance is the same everywhere, which is nonsense.

Wiring up a pre-19th century town with streets one car wide and narrow sidewalks is going to be orders of magnitude more disruptive economically than wiring up a modern town. It will disrupt traffic, public transport, and create parking problems as opening up one street can close off a whole neighbourhood. Either you work only at night and move your equipment out every day, or your pay reparation for economic damage.

IF you decide to make that investment, as many European utility companies did, you will make sure that you put enough electricity and data cables in the ground to last for decades. Here in Amsterdam we were forced to rewire everything anyway in the 90s because power consumption quadrupled in 5 years due to IT companies in the town centre.

I have been in the US several times, and I am sure even inner cities in the US have ample room to rewire everything without closing off streets to traffic. Even small streets are easily 4 cars wide.

There is no excuse for the US falling behind Europe: less economic disruption, lower costs for manual labour, higher average income of customers, theoretically more competition because it is a bigger uniform market for advertising and support etc.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[argStyopa]

South Korea:
area - 98,000 sq km (about the size of Indiana)
GDP $925 billion

USA:
area - 9,600,000 sq km
GDP $11750 billion

USA 100x the area
USA 10x the economy

Korea = better broadband infrastructure != surprise.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[Quiet_Desperation]

I like how I got modded troll for asking honest questions. Typical Slashdot. :( Though shalt not question progress for progress' sake.

You mention some good examples, but they still strike me as fluff, the icing on the cake of society so to speak. If those things came in 2010 instead of 2008, are we, as a society, really going to suffer greatly? I mean, some of the posters here are acting like we're going to turn into a thrid world nation if we don't get a gigabit fiber pipe out to Joe Baloney in Backwater, Alabama by next week.

Other posted talk about high def TeeVee and other "content delivery" uses. But that's entertainment. That's still, fundamentally, fluff. It's fluff many enjoy (myself included) but it does not fill me with angst that I don't have HDTV coming through my cable modem right here right now.

I dunno... maybe it's good just for creating some sort of tech jobs that cannot be oputsourced.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[aXis100]

The people in Western Australia (specifically Perth) get the best internet connections - the 12Mbit the previous poster referred to. Eastern states cities like Sydney or Melbourne are generally stuck with a max of 1.5Mbit.

The issue is more to do with the ISP's available and the monopilostic practices of telstra than any technological reason.

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[fupeg]

So you're saying that if I wanted to start selling DSL in France that I could do it without paying France Telecom?

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[anpe]

no you can't... You'll have to pay around 9€ to France Telecom to provide DSL+TV+VoIP. But that's fine, it is France Telecom's network.
I don't get your point, really

Re:Look at France, Germany, UK and South Korea

[MidnightBrewer]

The truth is, America is practically a closed market and therefore can pretty much dictate terms to its customers. It's the old monopoly effect; why compete when you can get someone to legislate that you don't have to?

On the "land area is total bunk" front, I would like to add that you also need to remember that the US is broken down into 50 different states, most of which are on par land-area-wise with your average European country. Technology roll-outs happen on a state-by-state basis, not a national basis. The fact is the tech companies simply don't feel like it, and they charge for the privilege to boot.

As an American living in Japan, I can tell you that there is an awful lot of geography tied up in a very tiny space that most people don't even think about. Japan is pretty much straight up-and-down. The fact that they are able to roll out anything like a national network is a tribute to their determination. And since their economy comes in third after the state of California (at roughly the same land area), it begs the question as to why California is lagging behind? Have they no pride?

As to why America needs broadband, it isn't just so that every Joe Sixpack in the sticks can have always-on broadband, but also to reduce the load on the rest of us. It's also a matter of the chicken and the egg: perhaps you don't think you need broadband because there are no services that really take advantage of it. However, until fast, cheap access is established, the services won't be developed.

Here's a good reason for you: VoIP. I call home at a rate of 1.3 cents per minute with my broadband telephone, and free if I use Skype or iChat, or call someone else with the same kind of broadband phone. I can video-chat as well, and it's awesome. The best part is, my normal phone bill is ridiculously cheap and never goes above the base rate. I pay less for VoIP over broadband than I did for a regular phone service plus dialup. Saving money is always a good reason to do something, I find.

addicted to pricing model

[kayen_telva]

ISPs are addicted to their tight fisted, stingy ass pricing models

why the hell would they let go of that control ? bastards

when a cheaper, higher speed wireless or BoPL service starts causing lost customers,
then maybe we will see real competition

the FCC works for who?

[wulfbyte]

In combination with the recent deregulation of DSL , the less than feasable idea to track wifi phones what is a person supposed to think?

Pirate wireless anyone?

Re:Finity

[xlv]

Remember the new talking points word for the day is "process" or at least it was yesterday to describe the Iraqui constitution... OK, I admmit, I just watched yesterdays' Daily Show on my DVR...

Home, Business, and Educational

[delirium of disorder]

Residential and commercial access appear to be slowly but steadily improving. Despite the progress that the US has made, the future looks somewhat mixed.

I'm worried about College and University connections. Usage limits and even outright censorship are the norm on High School networks. I'd like to change this, but for now, it's just a fact of life. University networks, on the other hand, have been the most unrestricted and fast ways of getting online since the birth of the Internet. My old High School class is starting college right now, and I've talked to a few friends about their school's network access. The bandwidth is usually good, but a lot of connections are filtered, firewalled, or otherwise limited. All of them so far have been behind an IP masquerading device. End-to-end connectivity has been a core principle of the Internet, supported, for example, by the Internet Architecture Board. NAT is a detriment to the Public Internet. Is your school even providing "Internet" service if hosts on the Internet cannot initiate TCP connections with you? Asemetric data rates and private IP addresses could make the Internet just another TV network, a medium where passive users consume content that only big rich corporations can provide. Hopefully the demand for p2p will keep upload rates up, and more users will become technically competent enough to host other services. Let's keep the Internet democratic and egalitarian!

Re:Home, Business, and Educational

[heypete]

I disagree about your analysis of the danger of NAT.

NAT in a corporate or home environment makes a lot of sense; why waste lots of perfectly good public IP addresses for internal networks? It also adds a layer of security between the LAN and the Great Screaming Hordes, which is quite helpful.

Most internet users today are consumers of information, not creators. Sure, they write emails, post to blogs, and chat on messaging services...and those purposes are generally not affected by NAT.

Many universities provide hosting services for students and faculty, thus removing the need for user-level servers hosted on individual computers, at least for academic purposes. Having some sort of security layer between students and the internet to protect them from inbound malicious traffic (university students are notoriously bad at maintaining security on their PCs, and frequently get zombied) makes a lot of sense these days. Obviously, no form of actual content-based filtering on user-initiated connections should be instituted -- academic freedom and all.

In many cases, NAT makes excellent sense for universities and other academic institutions. I certainly wouldn't mind using my computer on a university NAT'ed network, so long as there was no form of censorship.

The only possible conflict that I can see is with various client-level programs requiring open network ports, like networked computer games. I'm not fully up to date on plug-and-play type solutions, but I wonder if it would be possible to have client machines automatically and transparently request and be granted opened ports from a gateway?

In short: Using NAT in academic institutions could, so long as they are not used as excuses for censorship, be beneficial in terms of reduced costs (less IP space required, opens the availability of traffic-shaping to prevent a few BitTorrent users from saturating the entire pipe, etc.), easier administration, security, and other reasons. Most students would never notice NAT, and those that had some sort of reason for having a publicly-accessible IP for academic/compelling reasons could be granted such access.

I'm completely against censorship, and don't condone it in any form. Using NAT only for technical/security purposes makes sense to me on the present-day internet.

Re:Home, Business, and Educational

[Forbman]

I'm worried about College and University connections. Usage limits and even outright censorship are the norm on High School networks. I'd like to change this, but for now, it's just a fact of life.

Well, this is a political issue, is it not? It's definitely not a technical, infrastructure or economic issue. Gotta protect the kids!

NAT is a detriment to the Public Internet.
On one hand, yes, but it's no more a detriment really to the Internet than PBXs are to the POTS.
Both end up doing the same thing, really.

The Internet was never democratic. In its early days, only a few in the CS depts had accts on the "Internet" cmmputer. It slowly spread from there. At the Univ. of Washington (1987-89), we had 3 internetworking protocols: BITNET (IBM Mainframe-IBM Mainframe), DECNet, and ArpaNet (hard to count UUCP really, but I suppose one should). It was WAYYYY cool to have an account on the ArpaNet machine, not the least of which it had games on it. Having an acct on the 4381 was big because you could use BITNET Relay to IM other people on other IBM computers. You had to have some connections to get a RITA acct (the 11/750 that had the TCP/IP ArpaNet/Internet connection, and had the BSD source on it...), even if you worked for UW Academic Computing Services...

So it has NEVER been democratic, even at universities.

Re:Home, Business, and Educational

[ObligatoryUserName]

Your characterization of college networks is innacurate. At the small private college I went to it was access via Vax in 1995, dorm room static IP's in 1996-97 and DHCP and the beginning of managed traffic by '98-'99. So, there were 1-2 glory years of free for all access, but as more and more students started owning computers that became impractical.

My friends at larger institutions got Web access slightly earlier than we did (well you could run Netscape over the Vax connection, but it was very slow), but I think they skipped the static-IP phase.

Re:Home, Business, and Educational

[typical]

NAT is an instance of a public-good problem.

Everyone loses, as a whole, if the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet goes away. We get slow and ugly things like VPN tunnels over HTTP everywhere, the inability of some computers to talk, centralized control (which eliminated the free-for-all of invention that allowed the rapid advancement of the Internet).

However, for any individual, it may well be in their interest to move to NAT (cheaper, the illusion of security, a greater feeling of control over users).

Re:Finity

[MINEMINE04]

Just remember the policy: If at first success is not obtained, redifine success.

US will continue to fall behind.

[crhylove]

As long as corporations dictate our governmental policy to dis-benefit the populace, you can see this trend continuing for sure. I don't always agree with Dvorak (maybe 25%, or slightly more, but disagree with his details and examples), but he's DEAD ON on this one. Check out the new PC world article he wrote about Philly's municipal broadband shut down.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1843330,00.as p
Our entire government should have been up against the wall and shot about 20 years ago. The fact it hasn't happened yet proves the negative effects of current medicine on the human mind. rhY

Re:Finity

[Doc Ruby]

"Process", as in (Latin) "towards the end". Marching to armageddon.

I thought today's new talking point was that Hastert is Qaeda.

Re:Policymakers?

[jim_v2000]

It also doesn't say that the government should build an interstate highway system...or deliver the mail. Yet, here we are.

US Constitution

Article 1, Section 8

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...establish post offices and post roads;"

Research first, post later.

Mistake in ITU data (source for this report)

[ZombieEngineer]

It appears that they mis-spelt Australia as Austria (acording to World Bank Australia is rank 13 while Austria is 21).

The fact that Australia is only a couple of percentage points behind given that it has a far lower population density AND has a monopolostic telecomunications carrier should be a worry. Most of Australia does not have access to cable television (only in upper middle class suburbs or better), hence most Aussies only have ADSL if Telstra has bothered to make it available.

Da ZombieEngineer

Re:Mistake in ITU data (source for this report)

[martio]

Yea, but in a strange technological twist, my mum (who lives in the burbs of Melbourne) hasn't written a physical cheque for anything for years -- they have been WAY ahead of us in the consumer on-line and electronic banking area all along (only two real banks in the country, though...)

In Japan...

[Anonymous Coward]

50Mbps/3Mbps ADSL .... $35/month
100Mbps FTTH ... $55/month

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[theraptor05]

Compression of text is great, but it's really not the majority of data flowing over the net. Most of the data transfer lies movies, audio, binaries, and other such "real file" sources. Things like executables, distros, and data backups don't compress real well.
On the audio and movies, if you don't care about quality, sure, compress it to a small lump. I had that kind of experience at dialup, and is one of the reasons I made the jump to DSL.

I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Quiet_Desperation]

Falling behind what? Some arbitrary political goal? What does universal broadband access give us? What problems does it solve?

I'm not trolling. These are fair and honest questions. The Net is a great informational tool, but are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth? Is broadband *that* important for enough people that this should be considered a crisis?

Where's the next revolution here? Is there one? Content delivery? Whoopee. How's that improve my day to day life? How does that make the mundane drudgery of existence smoother.

Someone compared us to South Korea. If you can't see the problem with that comparison, I mean, geez... (hint: population density) But still, are the Koreans experiencing some sort of magical Vinge singularity?

Or is it just more fucking plastic gadgets?

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[lifeblender]

The goal of 'broadband by 2007' is an arbitrary political goal. It would give the US some benefits, though:

1. Increase access to information for rural children.

We have a lot of 'backwater' areas where the schools aren't so great. If broadband was available, and common, it would encourage parents in rural areas to give their children a second source of information. It's a little hard to imagine this being a big deal unless you've been a kid in the middle of nowhere. There aren't very many sources of information at all in small towns and farther out.

2. Encourage cities to provide information online.

This is very big. If broadband is "everywhere", then your little town may decide that it's worthwhile to post its town meeting schedule online. Think about how pervasive a change could be... if finding out about city council meeting involved loading a bookmarked page, a lot of people might do it. Just an example. Big cities already put some stuff online, but if it becomes standard to put everything online then people will be more informed and more involved.

3. A government stamp of approval signals that it's time for the old farts to try out this thing.

Not too big a deal, especially since the administration is very un-vocal about this. However, an official push for broadband means that all the news shows that present the world the way the administration sees it have to include this 'internet' thing in their normal talks. Not that the major news sites haven't had great online sites for quite a while. A story here and there about our progress or lack of it towards the official goal of broadband availability will nudge the computer-illiterate gently towards computer use and acceptance.

So, it'd be good if it happened, and it's good that it gets an official push.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Hellasboy]

I'm sure that nearly the same could have been said about telephones when they first came out and look at how important they are in todays infrastructure.

If you stick to the past and push against change then you are hindering progress. It doesn't matter if progress is evident right now, but the infrastructure will change to accomodate newer and better technologies for the better (well, better is arguable).

As far as the Korean example goes, Canada has a lower population density but higher broadband penetration. But as far as benefits, I'm sure they are working on technologies that they can charge more broadband backwards companies in the future. But then again, we can't see in the future and only speculate. I don't know if Alexander Graham Bell ever thought that the telephone would have made such an impact in day to day and business life.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[mpthompson]

Thank you. Finally a sane comment.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[BackInIraq]

I'm not trolling. These are fair and honest questions. The Net is a great informational tool, but are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth? Is broadband *that* important for enough people that this should be considered a crisis?

Are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth? I'll go with yes and no. Large numbers of people are, and larger numbers would be given a real taste of the alternative. Is it a crisis, though? I'm probably with you on this in saying no. But it is something we should probably be looking into.

Where's the next revolution here? Is there one? Content delivery? Whoopee. How's that improve my day to day life? How does that make the mundane drudgery of existence smoother.

Perhaps we differ, but on-demand content delivery (whether video, audio, or text) is something that would certainly make the mundane drudgery of existance easier for me to handle. I'll take choosing what I want to watch or listen to at any given point over having it dictated by our television and radio overlords. And I certainly don't think the average selection of shows available on television at any given time is helping society any.

Granted, we're talking about a pretty high level on the ol' heirarchy of needs here. But I'm fed, housed, and in decent health, so honestly entertainment is a concern to me. Higher broadband penetration would improve it drastically.

The major fear I have is that on-demand content delivery would lead to more crap like Fear Factor or American Idol, rather than a convenient way around it.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Jugalator]

The Net is a great informational tool, but are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth?

Meanwhile, I'm occasionally seeing happy people even in the poorest of countries. I'm seeing homeless people with no future not commiting suicide. What you're talking about is purely because many people don't have anything better to compare with.

Someone compared us to South Korea. If you can't see the problem with that comparison, I mean, geez... (hint: population density)

There are countries with far lower density still with very affordable 10 Mbps+ broadband, so that's no argument against it.

Or is it just more fucking plastic gadgets?

Probably, like radios and TV's.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[quarkscat]

You're a real natural at that role.

Real broadband internet access (in the 10 - 100 Mbps range) would permit many office workers/IT workers to work from home, instead of 1 - 4 hour commute each day. If you haven't seen where gasoline prices have gone recently, you must be living under a rock (or in you mother's basement.)

The current revolution of industrial growth, especially including IT, in China and India began with USA 401k pension plans investing in USA telcos with major fiber optic projects there. Those telcos went broke (Global Crossing, PSINet, WorldCom) but that infrastructure is still in place and being used. The USA's IT workforce has been screwed over twice -- once by their 401k pensions going bust, and once by the offshore outsourcing enabled by the new fiber networks their pensions helped build.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[owlstead]

Although I do think broadband has its usages, I tend to agree with you here. I would like to see the government (any government) do two things: set up a compatitive environment for telco's and cable providers as well as ISP's and application providers (note the separation), and provide internet based services themselves. I do think an "always-on" connection at a reasonable price is a must to push the market. But most of the interest should be focussed on pull. If people can do more with their current internet connection, then the rest will follow automatically.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[fallen1]

I'll play advocate to your advocate: What will universal broadband access give us? In due course (and with help from people like us - tech savvy, net smart, somewhat politically inclined, and - in general - more knowledgable about tech issues) universal broadband access can give us a WELL-INFORMED PUBLIC that is better able to make decisions and therefore elect BETTER leaders for the USA. Not only that, but a well-informed public is also less likely to be overwhelmed by bullshit like the "free Iraq" campaign the current regime, errrr, powers that be have foisted on the citizens of the United States.

How about the fact that universal broadband access can give those who desperately want an education and a way out of their current level of living a place to get it? Access to the almost sum total of human knowledge at their fingertips - my God, what could an intelligent, curious, free-thinking child do with the knowledge they can access over the internet? Universal broadband access could, conceivably, level the education field by filling in gaps in children's education left by what is currently called school in the United States. Sure, this will take some time, _parental_ involvement (beyond just paying the bills), and maybe outside help (the digital village as it were - I know I always seem to connect with like-minded people who, it seems, never fail to turn me on to new knowledge both in and outside my fields).

Universal broadband access will also give the citizens of the United States access to OTHER news sources than just the claptrap fed to them by Fox News and CNN and others. Places like the BBC and other international news organizations and just by having access to these other news sources it will help fulfill the first point I made - a well-informed public. Let me take a moment and freely admit that the level of apathy in the world and the US especially will make getting the public to that well-informed state a task, I also believe that - just as I stated above - with the help of those citizens who are tech savvy, know the web, and are more knowledgable reaching out to our friends, family, and others and sharing that knowledge (information wants to be free has multiple meanings my friends) then we can spread the memes we hold dear... knowledge is power, the power to be free, the power to make informed decisions based on multiple views of the "facts" and not one-sided opinions based on the media conglomerates in the US, and there are many more ideals/memes that /. as a whole holds dear along these lines. Too numerous to mention them all.

Here are a few quotes to illustrate a couple of my points:
---> If good government ultimately follows the will of the people, then good government requires a well-informed public. When the public is misled, seeds of bad government are sown. (David P. Rall speaking on the Envrironment and Public Health but I think it holds true _regardless_ of what the topic is.)
---> God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. (Thomas Jefferson - November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy)
---> Here is a link to an interesting article titled Is Media a Danger to Democracy? I haven't read the whole thing but what I did gives some insight into issues I've stated.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Quiet_Desperation]

But telephones were a *revolutionary* development. There had really been nothing like it before.

That's different than some mad drive to increase the rate at which we are boosting the pipelines in an existing infrastructure. Some people here seem to be calling for the investment of public funds to turn it into a vital utility. Is it *that* vital?

Canada also has a lower *population*, period. And it tends to cluster down at the bottom. ;-)

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Quiet_Desperation]

There's no need to get snippy. When someone says they are playing devil's advocate, there is an implication they don't necessarily fully disagree with the position they are challenging. I wuv broadband. It's just that some of the dire proclimations around here get a little silly.

Telecommuting is a very good example. Personally, I hope to see the eventual decentralization of society again, and get away from the whole idea of urban centers.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[beanyk]

I'll play advocate to your advocate: What will universal broadband access give us? In due course (and with help from people like us - tech savvy, net smart, somewhat politically inclined, and - in general - more knowledgable about tech issues) universal broadband access can give us a WELL-INFORMED PUBLIC that is better able to make decisions and therefore elect BETTER leaders for the USA. Not only that, but a well-informed public is also less likely to be overwhelmed by bullshit like the "free Iraq" campaign the current regime, errrr, powers that be have foisted on the citizens of the United States.

And what part of this isn't achievable with dial-up? Your argument is one for universal Internet access, not broadband access. Broadband may look necessary because the content providers (I really dislike that phrase) keep pushing bulkier, more Flash-encrusted, web pages at us, but all the public -- the educated public -- need is a way to get text (impartial or not), and perhaps a few images.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[fallen1]

And what part of this isn't achievable with dial-up?

Well, my thinking is speed. Even heavily laden text only pages take a WHILE to download on a 56k modem. Speed is key! We are a society of the "instant" - fast food, keyless entry for cars, 1 hour instant photomats, digital cameras (snap! ooh, look, pretty picture), and so on and so forth. No one wants to sit around twirling their thumbs while waiting on pages to download - and, let's face it, the majority of the web has graphics somewhere on the page even if it is a basically text site. So, to facilitate the well-informed public, FAST access to the information - or think of it as TIMELY access to the information - is crucial. It would take a radical shift in how webpage designers, err, design pages not to mention a _lot_ of work to redo current pages to make ubiquitous web access on a 56k connection work. Therefore, universal broadband is a major key for the well-informed public. Does that clarify my universal broadband stance?

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Brandybuck]

Or is it just more fucking plastic gadgets?

You're missing the whole point. It's "free fucking plastic gadgets from the government." All hail the Magnificent and Mighty State from which all good things come. Amen.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Brandybuck]

His argument also ignores the fact that opinions contrary to his own are also on the internet. Including "free Iraq" opinions. Some of the biggest bloggers out there are "free Iraq" types.

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Eslyjah]

Seriously. Why can't the socialists let us have ONE COUNTRY in the entire world where the government is not expected to solve everyone's silly problems? I wish the only thing one could get "for free" from the American government was a one-way ticket to somewhere else (maybe Sweden: I hear you can get 100Mbps internet access for a few dozen kroner/month).

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[Eslyjah]

Shhhhhh! Don't tell them that! I'm trying to get the socialists to move there!

Re:I'll play the devil's advocate then

[doombob]

What did phone lines and television give us access to? Yes content delivery, but not only that. More communication with the outside world was the goal. My mom can find out about her family in Greece at almost any time of the day. Broadband access could potentially lay down the groundwork for better communication. I don't know about you, but the more options available for talking with, as well as seeing and hearing from my fellow humans, the better.

Correction: Better source of stats.

[ZombieEngineer]

OK - So I was wrong but here is a better list that covers all of the OECD Countries

Re:Policymakers?

[Tony Hoyle]

It *still* doesn't say that the government should build an interstate highway or deliver the mail.

It says they *can* open post offices.. which half answers the second half. Nowhere does it say they *should*. (I'd also dispute that the government opening post offices is the same as them delivering the mail.. in fact I'd rather they didn't, as I wouldn't trust them not to be reading it).

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[abtain]

You can compress html pages.. Try reading about the apache module mod_deflate. Gzip works fine.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_deflate.h tml

If you viewed the source of google and their css files you will see that they even remove the whitespace and rename javascript variables to be shorter.

I would also argue that most bandwidth usage is not on text (html, css, xml or whatever). But most bandwidth is used for images, archives, video and audio. JPEG, GZ, DIVX, MP3 are all efficient.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[Pig Hogger]

- CSS simply adds to the problem by oversending code/data

What a bunch of crocky oxdung!

CSS will streamline webpages much more by sending formating instruction ONE TIME, and by allowing the resulting HTML to be far leaner (one tag replaces dozens of or s used for formatting).

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[postbigbang]

Hmmmm. Let's see. The Internet was designed for binaries.

Wrong.

It was designed for 7-bit data. ASCII.

Movies? Not designed for it. MP3's? Not designed for it. Security? Not designed for it.

It's nice to download distros, blobs of all kinds, etc. No argument there. But how much of that distro do you really use? Hardly any of it. You get it all because you think you need it. You can get easy downloads of Knoppix and tight Gentoos that aren't the same ISO burn blob represented by the fat ones.

I have a great TV for movies. A fine stereo and an iPod. Mucho gigs of iTunes hanging on my local media server.

When you drag these bowling balls through the garden hose of the Internet, it makes you dream. And jealous of those with fat pipes. The economics of the last mile sucks, and it always has, and it always will. My mother and my aunts have no need for the Internet in any way, let alone a fat pipe. They still use pen and paper mail. Once in a while, they'll come over and check their email, but they don't have to live, sucked into Internet time. They don't make a living from the 'Net. I do, and it suits me to buy a fat pipe. Others need it, too. Move where the pipes are, if you simply must have them. Otherwise don't be deluded by a perceived lack of quality of life because I still say that the control messaging infrastructure, and most of this page, is superfluous, uncompressed nonsense.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[FooAtWFU]

- This is all seven bit stuff, every single line of it, yet we use no basic compression on the Internet to send pages, because somehow, that would be evil.
It's called mod_gzip. Maybe you've heard of it.

- Dynamic HTML is fatter still, including the page you're reading
Slashdot? Dynamic HTML? Umm.... You really have no clue what dynamic HTML is, do you? Here's a tip: Dynamic HTML is not forms, or server-side-generated pages. It usually involves a little JavaScript and something called the Document Object Model.

- CSS simply adds to the problem by oversending code/data
So instead of loading style.css once per site, and keeping it in cache, and defining per-tag styles and, when that's not enough, using neat short little class="" attributes... we should instead use big ugly tags on everything? And tables and images for layout, I suppose?

- XML is another bucket of overkill; every page sends a new schema, and a bunch of unneeded, duplicate info
Umm, I'm not about to call XML a 'compact' file format (until you pipe it through gzip or something) but do you really have any idea how XML is typically used in Internet applications? I'm interested to know how you think the XML page sends a schema in a neat little HTTP attachment or something.

The idea of using more compression in more places isn't a terribly bad idea, you just don't seem to have a particularly good grasp on the reality. It's in decently widespread use already.

On the plus side:

[failure-man]

Fewer machines on faster connections -> fewer idiots clogging up the network with zombies.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[Quiet_Desperation]

Is fat code really a problem? I code by hand, but I've played with the big shiny editors. They generated big code, but when you looked at a typical page's stats, the graphics would outweigh the coding for most pages.

I always wondered if W3C or someone could release a set of "standard" CSS files, and people could code to that standard set which would be on the user's machine.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[Geof]

Sure, these data formats may be inefficient (although HTML and XML compress nicely, and good use of CSS can dramatically slim down pages). But efficiency costs. The solutions to your problems will therefore act as a barrier to access to those who can't afford it, among both content producers and software developers.

Take RSS and Atom. Anyone can install open source blogging software and produce a syndication feed. If we replace that with a more sophisticated protocol (which is often proposed) then folks with low-end web hosting won't be able to syndicate. Your friendly neighborhood open source developers might find the new spec too complex and simply not implement it in their (often PHP) apps; once they do get it working, the complex code is harder to maintain and improve.

Put another way: expensive broadband creates a digital divide in the audience. Fancy code creates a digital among producers. As with the impact of expensive production values on video games and movies, it would likely serve to squeeze out the creatives. It's the accessibility of the Web that keeps it from being just another mass medium.

You're right that some basic steps would help tremendously. I just read that less than 10% of feeds use gzip compression. The Apache guys put it in and no one else needs to know. But efficiency shouldn't rule. Optimization should come last, just as in programming.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[FooAtWFU]

Otherwise don't be deluded by a perceived lack of quality of life because I still say that the control messaging infrastructure, and most of this page, is superfluous, uncompressed nonsense.

s/page/comment/
I agree with the nonsense part, but I think Slashdot has mod_gzip running.

Rural Areas

[vivin]

I recently moved from Tempe, AZ to Downtown Chandler, AZ, because I graduated college and now work at Intel (which is in Chandler). For those who haven't been to Phoenix, downtown Chandler is in the boonies. The area has only been seeing intense development over the past year or so (some roads are still two-lane farm roads, and they're only starting to widen them). I had a 1.5M down, 896k up DSL line when I used to live by ASU in Tempe. I get my service from Qwest. Ever since I moved here, I've been having connection issues with my Cisco dropping train and then refusing the retrain. They say that line attenuation is too high. It got better over the months, but it still does it again. I only found out about the attenuation when I tried to bump my speed up to 3Mbps. Distance from the central office has a lot to do with it as well. Apparently, it may become better over the next year as we get more subscribers to the service from this area of chandler. But it still sucks though.

So I guess how far you are away (for DSL, anyway) seems to matter, as does how many people subscribe (which will give them incentive to put in more optical fiber or whatever). But if prices aren't attractive, how many are going to subscribe?

Re:Rural Areas

[Secrity]

It amazes me when people move from a metropolitan area to a rural area and then bitch about the rural area not having the same level of technology as the metropolitan area. IN MOST CASES, YOU CAN EXPECT TO NOT HAVE GREAT DSL SERVICE IN THE BOONIES. If you don't like it, MOVE BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM.

Re:Rural Areas

[vivin]

Obviously you have a sub-par comprehension of the English language. I reiterate:

I only found out about the attenuation when I tried to bump my speed up to 3Mbps. Distance from the central office has a lot to do with it as well. Apparently, it may become better over the next year as we get more subscribers to the service from this area of chandler. But it still sucks though.

So I guess how far you are away (for DSL, anyway) seems to matter, as does how many people subscribe (which will give them incentive to put in more optical fiber or whatever). But if prices aren't attractive, how many are going to subscribe?

I was trying to point out that we need more subscribers, but that we can't get any without attractive pricing - which is the problem with broadband in the US today. I wasn't trying to complain about the sucky DSL service - just that I KNOW it's sucky and that I hope it can get better. Furthermore, my description of Chandler as the boonies, is more sarcastic than anything else. Downtown Chandler is only 9 miles from Tempe, and 8 miles from the Intel campus, which is a more developed part of town.

Re:Rural Areas

[Secrity]

There was no scarcasm flag on your definition of the "boonies", much of what you described is consistant with a developing rural area, and from what I remember of Chandler in the 1980's, Chandler IS in the boonies. I have lived in several rural areas of the South West. I am very familiar with people moving in from metropolitan areas to the boonies because housing prices are lower and then do nothing but bitch because TV reception totally sucks, the telephone system (including DSL) is not what they are used to (and costs more), the wind blows all the time, and neither of the two local grocery stores carry the brand of bottled water that they are used to.

Re:Rural Areas

[angle_slam]

Chandler may have been the boonies in 1980s. It's not now. Check out the Google map of downtown Chandler.

Basically, the entire East Valley has become one giant suburb, with little distinction between Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert. Developments all over the place. Grocery stores and gas stations on nearly every corner. And, to address the original poster, Cox has cable modem service through most of Chandler. Downtown Chandler (which is defined as the intersection of Chandler and Arizona) is the intersection of two six lane roads, so I don't know what original poster meant by two lane roads.

Re:Rural Areas

[Secrity]

Ahhh, urban sprawl.

Cox broadband is great, we have it in our area and it beats the snot out of DSL. The installer told me that Cox doesn't support home networks as he plugged my router into the modem. When I opened up a laptop running FreeBSD to test the connection, he just told me that I probably didn't want the CDROM that they give to new users and instead gave me the URL of where to find generic Cox email and usenet client information.

We have had broadband cable for a couple of years and the only time that it ever died was when the entire area lost power after a tropical storm came through.

Re:Rural Areas

[vivin]

There was no scarcasm flag on your definition of the "boonies", much of what you described is consistant with a developing rural area, and from what I remember of Chandler in the 1980's, Chandler IS in the boonies.

Yes, there was sarcasm. I say "boonies", because compared to Tempe, parts of downtown Chandler DO feel like the boonies. Also, what you remember of Chandler is from about 20 years ago. Phoenix (including its suburbs) is one the fastest growing cities in the United States. Chandler has developed a whole lot since the 1980's. Downtown Chandler isn't a completely rural area - but compared to other parts of Phoenix, it sure feels like it, because it's on the edge of new development.

I am very familiar with people moving in from metropolitan areas to the boonies because housing prices are lower and then do nothing but bitch because TV reception totally sucks, the telephone system (including DSL) is not what they are used to

Like I mentioned before, you have obviously not understood my post. I made it clear that I was well aware that broadband services aren't all that great, and that I was waiting for more subscribers to sign up. The crux of my post was that I was wondering what would entice more people to sign up if the prices aren't that attractive - which is far different from what you *perceive* my point to be.

Re:Rural Areas

[vivin]

Pecos, Germane, McQueen, Fry (to name a few) are only being converting now. Actually, since last November. Before that, they were all two-lane roads. Arizona Avenue and Chandler Blvd are both 6-lane. But two blocks south from that intersection is Pecos and Arizona, where Pecos used to be a 2-lane road. They're still widening it.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[theraptor05]

Hmmmm. Let's see. The Internet was designed for binaries. Wrong. It was designed for 7-bit data. ASCII.

The Web was designed for ASCII. The Internet was designed for nothing more specific than individual, arbitrarily sized bits and bytes. That includes blobs of stuff.
If all you care about is ASCII, then there is no bandwidth issue. So why bother turning on HTML source compression? It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
As you previously stated, the problem lies in trying to shove huge chunks of data through a small pipe. However, those huge chunks are essentially uncompressible.
If these huge chunks are desirable (clearly to you they are not) then a bigger pipe is the only solution.
At the same time, don't get me wrong: I don't agree with the article. Where should this bigger pipe come from? IMHO, let the market provide it. Bandwidth does cost money, and subsidizing it can't change that. It's not a fundamental right to have high speed. It's a luxury.

I'll bite...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pres was working with information you are only now become aware of... Broadband was never *for your use*, like the highways and roads, it was for commerce (and military).

When gasoline hits $5.00/gallon and your heating bill goes through the roof, urban dweller or otherwise, your newspaper subscriptions, trips to the movie rental, delivery of paper by the postal service, movement of goods and services, trips to the parts store, or other movement will become extremely unbearable. Until we reinvent our country and work and transportation systems, once again, the US will need something, anything, to prop up the U.S. GDP. Bits on a wire, whatever product or service it is (say movie rentals, music, distance workers, whatever, can be taxable.
And, we have the Boomers to tax the hell out of until then - they are the ones with the money they want - the rest of us will suffocate.

Re:I'll bite...

[LionKimbro]

I don't believe it'll hit $5.00. The reason gas prices are so high is because there were a bunch of outages (fires, accidents, lockdown due to terrorist threats in Saudi Arabia, strikes in South America), and because OPEC underestimated oil demand for this year.

The summer season, too, works against you. Every summer, gas prices go up.

They will be back to normal soon, probably within a year.

Re:I'll bite...

[jafac]

They will be back to normal soon, probably within a year.

Don't forget to tip Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy on your way out of Oz Dorothy.

Re:I'll bite...

[LionKimbro]

Your side would like the finiteness of oil to be respected and appreciated. Your side would like long term consideration of transportation and housing to be thought about. Your side has constructed some good ideas about how life can go on, should the worse come to pass.

Very well then; I respect that, and am glad that someone is covering those bases, should those things come to pass.

Re:I'll bite...

[jafac]

Fair enough,

I don't believe it'll hit $5.00. The reason gas prices are so high is because there were a bunch of outages [bloomberg.com] (fires, accidents, lockdown due to terrorist threats in Saudi Arabia, strikes in South America), and because OPEC underestimated oil demand for this year.

You're understating the following issues:
No significant quantities of oil will be coming out of Iraq for a very long time.
Saudi Arabia was recently caught overestimating their reserves and capacity (which they normally keep secret).
Demand in "developing nations" is growing quickly - India, China, Pakistan, etc.
Weak dollar, due to overzealous borrowing, and trade deficit.
Lack of capacity expansion investment by most major oil companies.

The summer season, too, works against you. Every summer, gas prices go up.

Then why is this price-spike happening post 7/4? The Summer price-hump usually spins up around 6/1. Which it did. Then it goes up again 7/4, to nail the 3-day weekend-drivers. Then it usually goes up again just before Labor Day at the end of the summer. This year's spike is uncharacteristic of any use-habit-driven rises. This spike is driven by high demand, and concern that supply can not expand in response. There's no reason at all to believe that trend won't continue, until someone invents a Mister Fusion that I can mount on my car.

Re:I'll bite...

[LionKimbro]

Yeah, I don't have an answer for you; The things you just said are beyond my comprehension.

I'll take these things you are saying back on over to the people I know and trust, and see what they have to say in response.

Passages of perspective.

Re:I'll bite...

[jafac]

I'm just saying that I disagree with the idea that oil prices are going to "return to normal" - aside from the terminology "normal" - they're "normal" now. They're just 3 times what they were 2 years ago, and I think they're going to stay at the $60+ level, or likely go higher. I'm pessimistic enough that we'll see $100/bbl by this time next year, and that other factors are impacting supply to the degree that the traditional seasonal factors will no longer be significant drivers of petroleum.

Re:Policymakers?

[Guuge]

Yes, it's well within the powers of the federal government to create and administer such programs at the national level. This may not jive with your utopian ideals, but there you have it.

What I would like to see

[inode_buddha]

What I would like to see is more even coverage, even in rural areas; fewer local monopolies; and some effort at "last mile" solutions. IMHO the cable, DSL, and telcos and such are missing out by not using WiMax in rural areas.

If you've done any amount of coast-to-coast travel, then you know that coverage is spotty at best.

Going through all the comparisons again,

[The Master Control P]

I suppose I can expect the usual comparisions of US broadband access to other countries. Despite having lost count of how many times this has been gone over and beat to death, the same uninformed posts still show up either praising or bashing US broadband penetration/quality. If US access compares favorably, the other country's system is probably being intentionally mismanaged because the US does have a difficult job facing it: A vast network of POTS and old copper, ugly monopolies, and enormous rural areas to reach. If US access compares poorly, it's usually against a small and densely populated nation that has few areas with less with 150 people/sq mile. Either way, I think the USA is doing fairly well. On to the article:

The FCC overstates broadband penetration rates.

All retarded bureaucracies overstate their achievements - don't you read Dilbert?

The FCC defines "high-speed" as 200 kilobits per second

More BS to inflate the numbers -- see above. Personally, I don't view anything slower than 768/256 as broadband.

The United States remains 16th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. The United States also ranks 16th in terms of broadband growth rates, suggesting our world ranking won't improve any time soon. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan.

Seeing as Japan's land is all densely populated, it won't cost much to run fiber, copper, or WiFi to everyone. The US has a much more dispersed population to reach.

Despite FCC claims, digital divide persists and is growing wider. Broadband adoption is largely dependent on socio-economic status. In addition, broadband penetration in urban and suburban in areas is double that of rural areas.

People with little money to spare don't spend it on faster internet access, and companies are more willing to run broadband where it's economical. No duh - next?

The FCC ignores the lack of competition in the broadband market. Cable and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. Yet the FCC recently eliminated "open access" requirements for DSL companies to lease their lines, rules that fostered the only true competition in the broadband market.

Mmmm... don't even want to go there. As usual, Washington whores itself out to the biggest campaign donator. This will happen as long as money is considered a form of speech.

There is nothing anyone can do about having to cover a large expanse of rural areas. The only thing we can do is force corruption out of government and reign in the monopolies, allowing competition to benefit everyone. Until then, we will see broadband access intentionally mismanaged to benefit monopolies.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[dubbreak]

Exactly. Since I started using CSS my sites have become much smaller. One css file to cache for the pages, and a lot less html. A lot of the redundant data is pushed into your CSS file so you are not duplicating it in the html.

How much do they want it to cost?

[mi]

Verizon's DSL is $30 per month... Is that not affordable? The service is not great and better quality is available for little more money.

What is the problem?

Not a valid arguement

[cbreaker]

Until there's even high speed (20+Mbit) Internet available in the big cities *at all*, for less then $5,000 a month, you can't say we're limited by land mass.

Right now, it doesn't matter where you live in the US. You can't get it. So until you can get these speeds in the highly populated areas you can't use the last mile arguement.

Re:Not a valid arguement

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Right now, it doesn't matter where you live in the US. You can't get it. So until you can get these speeds in the highly populated areas you can't use the last mile arguement."

Bullshit.

http://www22.verizon.com/FiosForHome/channels/Fios /HighSpeedInternetForHome.asp

Re:Not a valid arguement

[cbreaker]

$199 is a little high for internet service. Their lower speed 15Mbit is more resonable in pricing but still not in the same category as 100Mbit access.

The biggest problem with FIOS is that it's not available. They keep making a big deal about it, and I get information packets in my mailbox about it, but not one address in my town, or any of the neighboring towns can get it. And I live in a very densly populated area between Providence and Boston.

While I'm sure some people can get FIOS somewhere in my state, the number is so insignificant. You can't even get it in almost all of NYC.

Re:Not a valid arguement

[Paul Slocum]

Cool! oh, not available in my area (near downtown Dallas)

Re:Not a valid arguement

[Hrodvitnir]

Bullshit.

http://www22.verizon.com/FiosForHome/channels/Fios /HighSpeedInternetForHome.asp

I believe the GP here stated 20+Mb as the unatainable broadband that is available overseas. This says "up to 15Mb" for a reasonable price. One step up from that and you're shelling out $200 a month. Looks like a pretty limited availablity as well, only a few select cities with super high pop/sq mi.

Re:Not a valid arguement

[codegen]

Visiting that page, I find it tops out at 15MBit. The parent post says 20+MBit. Your example fails.

Re:Not a valid arguement

[Politburo]

It's still in the early stages of rollout. It is available in North Jersey.

Broadband != High Bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

Though broadband is commonly misused as "high bandwidth", this is not what the term means.

For example, most LAN switches are 10BaseT/100BaseTX -- not broadband technologies at all. Hence the term "10BaseT": 10 Mbps, baseband, twisted-pair.

So the article would be correct in taking issue with the FCC calling anything over 200 Kbps broadband, as that's simply not true. ;)

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[kubrick]

Dynamic HTML is fatter still, including the page you're reading

I'm reading /. in 'Light Mode'. The source looks pretty stripped down to me...

At least you have broadband choices..

[lukev123]

.. about who supplies you with your broadband access. In South Africa we have a single telecoms provider, Telkom, who is the sole international bandwidth provider for the entire country, and (what a surprise) they're also an ISP.

It's a government enforced monopoly busy making money hand-over-fist on the backs of an emerging economy. http://www.mybroadband.co.za/ reports that the average adsl bill is 110% of the average salary in South Africa, meaning it's a service that's only available to a select few who can afford it. The sick part is that goverment is the majority shareholder, and so does not have the people's interests at heart when it comes to accessable (meaning cheap) telephony and broadband.

So, at least you have choices and wide deployment.

Re:At least you have broadband choices..

[Secrity]

In almost all areas of the US, there are at most two broadband providers; the local telco which may provide DSL service, and cable television. Not all areas have DSL available and not all areas have cable televisoin available. SOME areas are getting broadband wireless service and the wireline providers are pretty successful in maintaining their control over wireless broadband also.

I don't know about you...

[DaedalusHKX]

But our country is a LOT less efficient than any european nation I've been to. With a few exceptions, everything is within walking distance in europe (for example stores, libraries, etc).

Up here, if you decide to walk somewhere, you'll return just in time to be late for work the next day, unless you're in the city, then you'll probably get mugged or raped unless you look like you can take care of yourself...

The other downside is that the quality of gas, and the metering at stations here in the states is no longer properly regulated. I've gotten less than 1 gallon for the stated "price" of 1 gallon at quite a few gas stations.

So for the current price of $2.75/gallon (and I'm talking about EAST coast, not california here) you may not even be getting 1 entire gallon of gas for your $2.75 My car used to fill up on 14 gallons of gas (official ratings for the tank, and it has NO leaks) and the receipts I got from it back in 99 before bush and the oil crisis show this. Now, in the post bush world, the car's gas tank has been getting progressively bigger. I can pump nearly 16 gallons when it nears empty. Quite amazing feat on behalf of my car, to increase its storage capacity... someone must've replaced my gas tank in between my commutes to work with a larger one. (Or maybe we're all just getting cheated and don't know it.)

Couple that with the fact that the USA was designed by people who assumed that driving would always be practical and not too expensive... and you got your current situation, with Dubbyah and his crew wanting to probably reduce the human race to serfs again. Make moving around hard, and requiring black gold (oil) and you got your new feudal-christian system back in place. Served with a healthy dose of talking heads and 4 star general talking heads to help you feel better about giving it all up to "the man" (C).

I know I'm answering a troll, but gas/petrol is much the same as bandwidth... those who need it, often don't have alternatives, and must pay for shitty service and a shitty/neutered/braindamaged product... otherwise they're stuck in dialup hell.

I don't pirate files, but I do stream bittorent gentoo images off my server, relatively nonstop. I've had to throttle it so it won't cause too much interference with one of the IP phones in the house, which leaves us at about 12kbytes up out of the 37kbytes upstream max cap. I don't know WHERE you 128 kbytes guys are... but neither Cox nor Comcast in VA or MD offered it to me when I was there.

WHERE THE HELL are you ... "petrol", when I lived in europe referred to CRUDE oil, not gasoline.

Re:I don't know about you...

[lloannna]

The USA was "designed" by people who figured that anyone who didn't walk the distance from where he slept to where he did his daily labor was pretty rich. The town I live in is 18 miles from the nearest major city, and was founded in the early 19th century; going into Columbus was a major event (lasting at least two days, because it was too far to really want to go back right away) for most people living here at the time. How hard do you think it is to get 20,000 feet from the nearest Central Office in the US? How hard do you think it is to get that far away in Austria, the Netherlands, or South Korea? Yeah, exactly. The technology is getting better: ADSL2 supports slightly longer loop lengths, you don't get the same line noise problems with FiOS, etc. If broadband were already perfect and freely available, no one would be bothering to make new and better ways of connecting. Calm down, enjoy your already insanely fast connections (does anyone else remember 2400 baud?) and remember that in thirty years, your grandchildren are going to think this issue is at least as silly as you'd think an intense debate over why Ford only offerred cars in black in the early 20th century.

Re:I don't know about you...

[flubbergust]

I am sorry but I don't buy that the problem lies in that USA is so much larger. Frankly I think it's complete bullshit. The whole country is larger but individual states is not larger than most European countries. Sweden is about the same size as California (slightly larger) and there is 9 million people in Sweden. The biggest city, Stockholm, has about 1 million or so people (I think its a bit more). California has about 35 million people so there is a heck of a lot more people per square meter there than in Sweden.

Now, tell me. Why can the Swedes get 100MBit when you cant get that in California???? It is NOT because Sweden is more densely populated than California because that is bullshit.

Re:I don't know about you...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Funny, I've noticed the opposite- my tank is getting smaller it seems...not much- but my 10 gallon tank can be completely empty on reading the dial, and still only take 8 gallons at the pump. 1999 Ford Escort. Probably the last gasoline vehicle I ever buy- at these prices I'll be switching back to something with a real carborator that I can adjust to run on alcohol, or a diesel that I can adjust to run on pine oil.

Re:Policymakers?

[badmammajamma]

Cool. What section of the constitution covers the subsidization of giant corporations?

Goal

[jmv]

But if the president's goal of universal, affordable high-speed Internet access by 2007 is to be achieved, policymakers in Washington must change course.

Nah, just redefine "universal".

Already done - heard of Borders or Barnes?

[SuperKendall]

Actually, if you think about it Borders and Barnes & Nobel almost serve the same needs libraries do - you can go in and read books all you like in comfy chairs with a Starbucks. You just can't take them home... there are also quite a few more bookstores than libraries.

Not to mention that libraries are slowly turning into Blockbusters anyway. If it reaches a point where the majority of what a library does is rent videos, do you really want your taxes paying for that when they could go to something more meaningful?

Re:Already done - heard of Borders or Barnes?

[kfg]

Their out of print section sucks.

KFG

Let the free market handle this: Fantastic.

[twitter]

Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007?

It's not, but their policies mandating monopoly telco services are why things are so fucked up.

I'm much more comfortable with an array of choice from private sources.

Gee, that's the point of the article, if you bothered to read it. They are complaining about the federal government granting monopoly service to the surviving incumbents - giving a small number of companies ownership of the public networks you paid for instead of granting equal access to all comers.

That's much less likely to lead to bad things like censorship and limits on free expression.

Exactly. By limiting the number of providers, the Federal government is in a position to sit down on the internet the way they did broadcast TV. Welcome to the future, it looks exactly like corporate controlled broadcasts of yesterday.

I'd be happy if government, federal, state and local got out of the way of people who want to string wires between houses or offer service over the airwaves. Fat chance. GWB is so stupid he's worried about .xxx, without realizing that's the best way to censor porn and is a puppet of your new fascist overlords. The Democrats are fucking communists who want to own the network directly like China. There is a good example of how sucky two bad choices can be.

Canada rocks for broadband, but it's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who lives in Canada and frequently travels to the US, this data is no surprise. Broadband coverage in the US is awful, as compared to Canada, but also as compared to places that I have traveled to and would not have expected to
be better - Israel, UK, even major (and not so major) Chinese cities.

The authors are clearly biased however, and do not acknowledge the problem of low population density.
For example, here in Canada, even though the country is huge and the population small, cities are relatively younger and much more dense than US cities. Americans like to live in very large houses, in very distant suburbs, and terrible bandwidth is an unsurprising outcome.

In the city where I live, and where both DSL and cable have been available at every address for years, a 50' x 120' single house lot is considered huge, and more common are apartments, townhouses, and 35' x 80' lots.

I guess it just boils down to: If you must live far apart from your neighbours, then you must pay the price in gasoline, traffic time, poor bandwidth, etc. I can't imagine a magic wand that government could wave to make these costs go away.

FCC standards contradict.

[twitter]

The article takes issue with the FCC calling anything over 200 Kbps broadband.

That's because the FCC once called broadband something that would allow customers to stream high quality video both ways. That takes an order of magnitude more than that.

Re:comcast disease plauges everyone

[lasmith05]

I have comcast and I never have downtime at all.

Broadband in America

[Nonillion]

While not really considered "broadband" I am testing my "National Access" via my verizon cell phone service. On the average I get 16.3kB/sec, not too shabby, about 3X the speed of dial up. A friend of mine has EVDO service, while not the be all end all it's still better than nothing.

The biggest thing I hate with US phone and cable service providers is that they try to make you think they are doing you a favor by giving you sub-standard service. I won't be truly happy till I get 100M/bit full duplex access to the Internet via fiber, cable or some sort of UW-band data service.

Since I live in a real rural area (no cable Internet or ADSL) dial up or cell phones are my only choice. I know there is satellite but low latency is a must. So in the meantime I am posting this via my cell phone service...

Re:Broadband in America

[pforhan]

Low latency... for gaming? Does it work well? What kinds of pings can you get outside the phone's network?

Heavy pages...

[BackInIraq]

Not only are you seeing more flash, animated images, and other "heavy" items on web pages, but you are seeing sites move away from keeping seperate "light" versions of the same page. Many also don't take the time to make sure a page degrades well (remember back in the day when most pages would still load acceptably in a text-only browser?).

I recently had the singular joy of web browsing on a high-latency (1600ms average), high packet loss (usually about 60-70%), low bandwidth (128kbps or less) connection. Most web sites were downright unbrowsable unless you had a LOT of time on your hands. But some, such as those with text-only versions or which at least degraded well with images and such turned off, were still fine.

People dont understand the limits..

[TooncesTheCat]

I live in a small town in North Carolina. Around 45 minutes away from me is the capital of Raleigh, probably one of the most tech saavy / heavy places in the United States. They have xDSL / FTTC / Cable / Wireless solutions etc.

Being that I live in a small rural town ( like the rest of the state ) I am very limited on the whole broadband thing. We have cable in our county, but its a locally owned monopoly called Johnston County cable ran by a bunch of aging rednecks. None of their equipment can carry a cable signal nor do they care. Scratch cable as a solution

Satellite is out of the question. The lag is so immense that I can forget about online gaming. And the caps on downloading keep me very far away from even thinking about it.

Wireless is non existant.

The last solution is the local telephone monopoly.
Sprint.

I pay 59.99USD a month for 512k / 128 DSL from Sprint. Why so high? No competition. The reason? No other broadband solutions are available because I live in a rural town.

Nevermind the fact that Sprint has interleaving on my line, equating to 60ms to my first hop.

Dont expect one country to be exactly like the other. Apples and oranges people. Plus the whole thing of states and counties having laws which might affect how / when / you get broadband.

Re:People dont understand the limits..

[Odonian]

Consider yourself lucky - at least you have something.

I'm in a similar situation; I live an hour west of Boston in a town w/o cable as well, at lots of satellite-blocking hills and trees.

...and oh yeah, my house is 24,000 feet from the central office, so no DSL is possible in my neighborhood either. I'm lucky if I can connect above 28.8K on the phone lines w/ dialup.

It's a rural area but it's not like the middle of Alaska or something, there are major population centers nearby like Worcester and Springfield so you'd think there would be broadband of some sort.

I think a lot of people have also fallen thru the cracks of the DSL/cable net as well, even in relatively populated areas.

Broadband is not a neccessity, but it's surely put a dent in what services are available. I can't telecommute effectively because VNC wont work. No VoIP, no on-demand video, no Bit Torrent, even windows updates or downloading patches to things I buy takes days. I've actually considered moving because of this but it seems stupid to have to move from a town I otherwise love just for broadband!

Re:People dont understand the limits..

[jthuck]

If that price doesn't include your phone line, then you're still on the old pricing structure. A number of months ago they reduced pricing dramatically, but you have to call in to get it. 3.0M/512K is now in the 55-60 range; your plan is now the same cost at the 1.5 plan, which is under 40.

Good Luck
-jh

Re:Policymakers?

[fupeg]

Amen brother. Broadband should only be found in places where there are enough people with enough money and demand to make it wortwhile for suppliers to provide it. Nobody should "force" suppliers to provide broadband to rural areas or low income areas. That's not freedom, that's coercion. Similarly, I don't want to pay for broadband to be provided to rural and low income areas. I pay for it to be provided to my house. I don't want my money to be used to subsidize it for others. If other countries want to do these things, who cares? Not me. I don't want to be involved in a pissing for distance contest over broadband penetration, especially since it would be my tax dollars that would have to pay for it.

WHAT?

[khellendros1984]

No shit? We're falling behind?

Where have I heard this before...I'm guessing either this site, or one like it, about 2 years ago!

Bring Back the PUBLIC UTILITY

[Anonymous Coward]

Define your terms people! "Success" is indelibly linked to a judgment of goodness. If you want to argue that universal access is best, then bring back the PUBLIC in "public utility." That is why the monopoly was allowed in the first place! Who cares if we have faster access if all we get access to is crap!!

The majority of the PSTN was written off long ago as capital expense. It was bought and paid for through the tax policies designed to encourage investment, and the invenstment has long ago paid back the shareholders. Just look at the dividends and salaries that have been paid out. I'd argue that the general public paid for the R&D for current comm technologies through the same mechanism.

Perhaps it's time to require the "shareholders" give something back to the commons under the same rationale that allows land to be grabbed. We could "publicize" the PSTN lines and provide univeral phone and reasonable internet access via 256K DSL. This would allow univerdal educational use and basic fixed point voice service. No one would miss the copper.

The private companies could use their compensation to build out the fiber network and compete for the High on Speed, VOD entertainment/porno-freak customes while every household in the U.S. could have basic phone and DSL provided by at cost. At least that way the general public would get something in return for their "investment" in subsidizing whorporate amerika cha-cha-cha.

This article should be moderated "Troll"

[shanen]

... policymakers in Washington must change course.

Change course? Ha. That's rich. When has the current administration ever changed course? First they'd have to admit that they made a mistake. Something more substantive than saying "We didn't fire that guy soon enough."

What BushCo will actually do is redefine "universal" to be the people who have benefited from Dubya's economic policies. Remember how they keep telling you they are supposed to benefit everyone, right? By 2007, that group of "universal" beneficiaries will be limited to the people who are rich enough to have their own fiber optic cables run between their various houses. Presto, "universal" access!

Just because the truth is ugly, that doesn't make this post a troll--or lower the price of petrol (gasoline) for you moderators.

Re:comcast disease plauges everyone

[DynamiteNeon]

Actually, I have comcast in a pretty dense area and can't complain too much.

Of course, now that I say that it will probably go out on me soon. :p

Anyway, I think part of it may have been that about 2 years ago after a rain storm, my connection died for about 2 weeks. Ever since then though it's been running smoothly. I may have just gotten "lucky" and they replaced everything in my area.

Re:Policymakers?

[AussieVamp2]

Same argument applies though for someone that never leaves their small town, why should they pay for roads with their tax dollars?

Counterpoint

[SuperKendall]

And libraries new release section sucks. I sometimes have to wait a few months for a hot book.

Thank Carnegie for libraries, not the government

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also waiting private libraries to replace those provided by the government. Those public libraries are for losers and eggheads.

Andrew Carnegie founded over 1,689 public libraries in the US, and hundreds more in other English-speaking nations. Of course, funding from state, local, and federal government is essential for their continued operation. But many of these communities would not have been able to build a library without him.

This kind of philanthropy of the rich is often much more effective than a government bureaucracy would be. But on the other hand, I certainly don't expect the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to be funding broadband for the typical American.

Most Americans without broadband could easily afford it if they wanted to. When big bucks are spent to improve society -- whether from the government or from philanthropic tycoons -- they ought to be spent where the payoff is greater.

Public education, disease prevention and treatment, college scholarships, famine relief... this is where more money should be spent, and much of it should be spent in the third world countries where it is needed most, and where the payoff for the human race will be greatest.

Re:a joke?

[hobbesx]

Try this post.

not so true

[cg0def]

What the article fails to realiza is that in other countries people pay WAY too much for telephone hence they are hard pressed to opt for broadband access where you have a flat monthly fee. Plus broadband at arround 200kbps is hardly considered broadband by most people in America...

Re:Policymakers?

[zakezuke]

It says they *can* open post offices.. which half answers the second half. Nowhere does it say they *should*

Given they were given the power to open post offices, I think it is assumed that they should. If they shouldn't open up post offices and post roads then they wouldn't have been given the the power and authority to do so. Yes they should open post offices esp in the 18th century because if they didn't who else will? QED.

I wish I had mod points...

[Atario]

...and that it was possible to mod you up to +6. You hit the nail on the head, when everyone else here seems to be thinking along the "government gives people stuff"/"government keeps out of everything" axis.

You tell us

[Trinition]

Then why can my brother, who lives almost 8 hours north of the US border, 1.5 hours away from the nearest "city" (city of 5,000 people) in a farming/logging town of less than 1,000 people can get broadband access, and how all these centres in the US cannot? Hell, the largest city in our province is about 200,000 people, and that's about 3.5 hours away!

You tell us. Why can you brother, in such a seemingly remote, small market, get broadband? Is he using satellite where no local infrastructure is necessary? Is id subsidized by the government? Perhaps the local logging company does it as a way to appease the locals in exchange for destroying the trees?

Perhaps if we identify that, we can see if there's a reason that same tactic doesn't work in remote U.S. areas. Or, we midn find it does, but that its a rare case.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[wfberg]

- This is all seven bit stuff, every single line of it, yet we use no basic compression on the Internet to send pages, because somehow, that would be evil.

As the other poster pointed out; mod_gzip. As I will point out: 7-bit?? Are you mad? There are people out here who speak languages that have such subtleties as accented letters! Or even entirely different scripts, like Arabic. Use UTF-8 by default.

Most codecs produce lousy compression and very lossy, too

Then use H.264. Go on. You'll need to buy a new CPU, or a new graphics card. But it's small!

Need for broadband?

[interstellar_donkey]

This is one of those posts that's going to end up sounding like a troll, but that's not my intent.

When you get deep down to it, what's the purpose of really high speed Internet? The bulk of the features for the public in the Internet can be experienced with low-speed (dialup) Text for information, forum discussions for local issues, or simple things like access to online shopping are all pretty low bandwidth intensive services.

The types of things that actually require high bandwidth for the average citizen are either commercial (companies offering a large amount of content where high speed is needed, like movie previews and the like) or questionable (such as music and movie downloads).

In other words, it's difficult to make the case that broadband Internet is a necessary part of the nation's infrastructure, since every aspect of the Internet that's in the public interest can be handled quite well with dialup.

This is for the home user, of course. Corporate needs might be higher (like being able to send large spreadsheets over the Internet, or lossless video conferencing to meet the needs of business meetings). But for your average Joe sitting at home broadband is a luxury item, not a necessity. As such, it's difficult to justify large (publicly funded) outlays for improving high speed Internet for the masses.

Of course, it's a luxury I'm willing to pay for, because I'm impatient and like having information come to me that much faster. But I'd rather it is me who pays for it, not some poor working slob whose only experience with the Internet is helping his daughter download a text file from her school explaining her homework for the week, which he could accomplish just as easily with dialup.

This is, of course, an opinion. Don't take it any further then that.

Re:Need for broadband?

[arkhan_jg]

In other words, it's difficult to make the case that broadband Internet is a necessary part of the nation's infrastructure, since every aspect of the Internet that's in the public interest can be handled quite well with dialup.

It's a fair point, but I suspect you've not used dialup for a while.

Webpages are increasingly designed for broadband, with heaps of flash adverts, DHTML menus etc. They're painfully slow with dialup.

Windows and software patches, updated drivers etc are huge these days, ranging from 20MB to 250MB. Downloading these on dialup is not really practical any more.

Email attachments are the other big files. The amount of times I've seen documents or photos cripple a dialup download. Even spam can be very frustrating with slow connection speeds.

Dialup is fast becoming completely obsolete for the modern internet.

Re:Need for broadband?

[Chrontius]

It takes less time to get a handful of internet worms than it does to get Windoze patched.

Broadband is going to be a must if only to keep computers up to date. On my 5k pipe, keeping Windows up to date isn't a terrificly high priority. I put it off until I can download a portable installer on the university T-line.

MY question... Who gives a shit??

[goldspider]

Why is this a Big Deal (tm)?

Around these parts, this might be debatable, but broadband Internet is NOT a necessity. It is a luxury. People don't NEED it. Why the hell is this "news" every few months on Slashdot?? Why is boradband access considered as some kind of poverty measurement?

There's plenty of people here (in the U.S.) who can't afford to pay for necessities like rent, utilities, food, and medicine. Let's fix that before we take on the plight of people who are forced to download pr0n at 56K.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Why is it a big deal when libraries close down? How about when schools close, or get merged?

There is more on the internet than just porn you know...

The idea is that internet is a powerful learning tool and should be available to everyone. The availability of such tool will foster learning and advancement of society.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[goldspider]

Anybody who has a phone can get dialup access.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Where I'm from, basic phone service + dial up account is more expensive than broadband + voip.

The problem is that broadband (and cable) flat out isn't available our street and Time Warner expects us to foot the $23,000 bill to have it installed. Even if I did have 20k laying around, the minute I paid to have cable run up the street, they would turn around and sell service to my neighbors.

It's this sort of thing that I have the biggest problem with.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[goldspider]

Yes, that is a pain in the ass. However that isn't same as not having access to the Internet.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[drsquare]

I have dialup and I have access to this 'powerful learning tool', even though most information on the Internet is either wrong or biased.

But the truth is broadband is mainly used for piracy and porn. You can get to wikipedia's amateur articles with dial-up just fine.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[grolaw]

Because it serves as yet another bellwether - a marker in the measure of lost egalitarianism in an age of information technology...

Once electricity was viewed as a luxury. By the 1940s Rural Electrification programs became the way that the majority of the U.S. rural population was brought on-line the power grid. Today - a mere 60 years later for many communities - power and telephone are routinely viewed as bottom line necessities.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[saltydogdesign]

Well, hell, the *telephone* is a luxury, if you really want to get down to brass tacks. Would you rather we just ditch all this technology stuff and focus on subsistence?

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[goldspider]

I wasn't aware that access to telephone service was a problem here.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[saltydogdesign]

No, it's not a problem. Is it not a problem due to the diligent complaints of people who wanted to solve "basic issues" before we indulged in such "luxuries" as phone service? I think not.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[Severious]

"There's plenty of people here (in the U.S.) who can't afford to pay for necessities like rent, utilities, food, and medicine. Let's fix that before we take on the plight of people who are forced to download pr0n at 56K."

Thats right, lets make a list of our priorities important things first and fixed them one at a time. Never work on the next one on the list because there is something more important to do That way the whole can take as absolutely long as possible. Ever hear of diminishing returns?

If all our effort into one of the items on that list how many things are going to suffer because of it. Ideas like yours are so narrow minded. If everyone shared your view the whole world would be stagnant arguing over what was most important so we could do that instead of just doing something. There are plenty of causes out there, pick one, get off your ass and don't waste everyone's time arguing about what cause they chose to fight for because you think there is a more important one. At least they are doing something. There are lots of people out there lets work on lots of different ideas and maybe we can help each other out.

Mods are on crack calling you insightful.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[geniepiper]

In many places a car, which BTW I don't have, is a necessity.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[ImaLamer]

There's plenty of people here (in the U.S.) who can't afford to pay for necessities like rent, utilities, food, and medicine. Let's fix that before we take on the plight of people who are forced to download pr0n at 56K.

Yeah and in parts of India children are slaves and people starve all the damn time - however they have leveled the playing field and are taking America's political control away.

Once Rome was the leader of the world until they took their eye off the ball and the little guy knocked them down a peg. Then much later Victorian England was the leader and did great until German and American chemistry took the world by storm. England ignored this, America and Germany rose up, and the English blamed their countrymen like Oscar Wilde for the decline in the way people lived. We've been seeing pop culture under attack for years (as in Wilde's time) and the zealots come out and say "this" is the reason that America is in a decline.

It isn't. We've had our eye off the ball since the 1980's (some have argued since 1970's). So what if we had a big bubble of technology here in the last 10 years? China, India and S.Korea are picking up the ball and running with it.

I can't afford food or medicine myself (the computer and DSL isn't technically mine) and I suffer from a Mental Illness and have Basal Cell Carcinoma that I can't have treated. However I support stepping up our broadband efforts. If we started to give the best stuff to the people that can afford it, the innovation and demand can create jobs and get us as a country back into the running.

I'm a liberal and I'm starting to sound like a conservative here. I don't believe in "trickle-down" economics, but sometimes you have start somewhere. The fact that countries that were starving to death 20 years ago are now beating us at something we invented makes me sick inside.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[SewersOfRivendell]

The grandparent question is either/or: "food or broadband?" This is wrong. We can do both.

Just as nuking NASA isn't going to feed the homeless, providing incentives for faster broadband isn't going to shelter the homeless.

Helping the homeless/poor is a separate issue and debate, and it shouldn't be trivialized by serving as a foil for those who would attack "government waste".

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[udowish]

hey, you guys in the US, you do have phones right??

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[fafalone]

Well, maybe if they didn't have to spend all their time downloading porn, they could be out working to pay the neccessities.

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[ImaLamer]

My point exactly... broadband for food though. It sure is helping to feed those in India.

Education is the first thing that needs to be tackled - and broadband surely can help with that (it has in India). Maybe stopping the Iraq war would be a good idea too. But heck, who needs 3 million more teachers?

Re:MY question... Who gives a shit??

[goldspider]

Just so I'm sure I'm understanding you, are you saying that a country's access (as in physical access, not whether or not people can afford it) to broadband Internet is a good measure of that country's prosperity?

I'm moving...

[Murasaki Skies]

This puts the United States near the average for the OECD, and far behind countries such as the England and France, which have made rapid progress in broadband adoption.

I'm moving to the England.

Re:I'm moving...

[Pop69]

No, No, Move to the Scotland instead, we have whisky !!!!!

Re:I'm moving...

[zippthorne]

Isn't england just part of the UK? If we're going to compare sub-regions, how about we see how boswash or new england is doing compared to france and "the england"

Your stupid

[qadmon]

Your sig:
"The Internet is generally stupid"

My reply:
Your stupid!

My sig:
"A dial-up user."

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[Quantum Jim]

Are you thinking of the Core CSS Styles?

we used to say that too.

[doodlelogic]

the U.S. can easily lead in any field - it chooses

(in Britain)

So?

[ifwm]

Why should we try to give everyone broadband access when

1. They won't make any real use of it (most people fall into this category)

2. They're generally so lax about security that broadband would only make them more useful zombies.

3. Wired broadband is obsolete, and wi-max (or some version of wireless broadband) will solve the problem.

Re:So?

[TeknoHog]

4. 'Broadband' is the wrong term to use if you're talking about high capacity internet access. 'Bandwidth' does not mean 'data rate'.

Oh, Gee

[Winkhorst]

You mean they are substituting lies and distortion for facts? Gee, I never would have expected that from this administration... [/sarcasm]

The gap between urban and rural

[kilodelta]

That one is almost laughable. For example, we all subsidized telephone service in those areas. Granted, it started as party lines and then moved to private lines.

But we still subsidize much of rural America to this day. Yet they continue to get squat. I don't have to wonder where all the money is going.

While it would be all well and good for the FCC to really examine its own rules and procedures, a more fundamental shift has to happen. Sadly, it is a shift that might have to come at the point of a gun.

The biggest error ever made in the U.S. was giving a corporate entity a voice and essentially making it equivalent to a person. Until fairly recently, once you were incorporated you were pretty much shielded behind that corporate fiction. But what is being done now is simply lip service. For example, the recent energy bill is nothing but a gift to energy producers and transporters.

If you consider that Japanese got themselves a new government some 60 years ago, while ours sat and festered you can see what I'm getting at.

Sometimes wholesale regime change is a good thing. It keeps politicians honest.

Re:The gap between urban and rural

[dirtydog]

>> But we still subsidize much of rural America to this day. Yet they continue to get squat. I don't have to wonder where all the money is going.

It's going to . You sure do like to consume all that cheap, subsidized food, though, dontchya?

Here is an interesting program within the USDA for those interested in improving the divide:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/broadband

Re-define broadband

[mapryan]

The original subject suggested the President wasn't going to meet his stated goal of broadband availability. Might I suggest he follow the excellent idea of Tony Blair and his New Labour govt who made the same promise? Once you realise you haven't got a cat's chance in hell of delivering what you promised, re-define the word broadband to include ISDN.

Problem solved!

Mike

Part of the problem

[Sierpinski]

Being in the tech industry for a while, I've seen quite a few instances of the same reason why broadband might be lagging behind in the U.S. From my perspective (non-management) I've seen committee after committee of manager-type people arguing over how to handle this or that, never actually agreeing on anything. Most of this comes from a university setting, where the region to cover is rather spread out, with multiple units (colleges, etc) having to participate. Each person wants to do it their own way, and thinks that their way is best. The result is months and months of discussion/debate over which is better, and years later, we still do not have campus-wide wireless access to the students. What we do have is several buildings that are wireless (mostly because the people responsible for those buildings didn't feel like waiting for the debate to conclude, and just did it themselves) but several others that are not.

It doesn't help matters much in my opinion that this is a state (non-profit) institution, and money is sometimes limited.

It's about policy

[rben]

The problem has nothing to do with the size of the U.S. It has to do with policies that allow monopolies to persist. There is no real competition between carriers providing broadband access in most communities. I live in one of the few where there is some modest competition, the city's cable vs. Comcast. As a result, we pay 10% less than nearby communities that have not competition and out cable is up to 3x as fast.

In many communities, if there is a choice in broadband providers, it's between DSL and Cable. While DSL has made some great strides forward with regard to speed, I doubt those changes are available everywhere. Even with that situation, you'd only have 2 competitors. You need five or more to have real competition.

All this is just a symptom of the underlying problem. Our elected representatives no longer hesitate to sell their votes. They can always point to someone higher up the political ladder for justification. Hell, in a nation where the President openly lies to the country in order to start a war in the middle east, what's a vote selling?

If we want these situations to change, voters have to pay attention to what is going on and vote accordingly. Broadband access isn't about recreation or something cool for nerds, its about having a competitive business infrastructure so that our businesses have some kind of a chance against all their competitors.

It used to be that we could afford to see some jobs go overseas because we had the technological edge. We could outperform countries that had cheaper labor because of that technological edge. Now, instead of pushing hard to make sure those technologies are available to all American businesses, our leaders are protecting virtual monopolies to funnel money into the hands of their favorite giant corporations.

If this keeps up, we'll wind up in a situation where we are competing against countries that not only have cheaper labor, but also have much better technology to work with.

miles from cities

[ImWithBrilliant]

I don't know a single person without cable or dsl, and this is throughout about 12 states.

I live in a rapidly growing Virginia county outside Washington DC, 60+ miles or a 2 hr rush hour commute into DC, and neither cable nor DSL is gonna happen in my neighborhood.

Why broadband sucks in the US....

[Anita Coney]

A lot of people are perplexed at why broadband sucks in the US. They blame the government. They blame the size of our country. They blame the market. But look who's primarily behind broadband over here: Phone companies and cable companies.

Let's start with phone companies. Does it really benefit phone companies to have great and cheap bandwidth? Not when everyone switches over to VoIP killing their high profit long distance service. Not to mention that businesses pay for EVERY call they make. If broadband was great and cheap, the phone companies would disappear.

Let's move on to cable companies. Pretty soon you'll be able to watch movies via broadband. E.g., Netflix is about to offer movies. In a few years you'll probably be able to watch any movie and any TV you want with a simple clicks. Does this benefit cable companies? Nope. Because they make tons of money, nearly all their money, selling premium movie channels and content via pay-per-view. In other words, if broadband was great and cheap, they'd also be out of business.

Thus, the ONLY way we're going to get real broadband in the US is by wrestling control of it from the current status quo. That's why I'm really excited about broadband over power lines. The power companies have nothing to lose with broadband.

Re:Why broadband sucks in the US....

[Nonillion]

You certainly hit the nail on the head with this. Just think of all the taxes and access fees they would charge you for 100M/bit access. Not to mention that the RIAA/MPAA would want to slap a "piracy" tax to cover their losses since your Internet connection "could be used to pirate copyrighted material" at blazingly fast speed.

Re:Why broadband sucks in the US....

[Anita Coney]

God that was funny. I'm still fucking laughing!

Re:Why broadband sucks in the US....

[Anita Coney]

Sure, there is competition between cable and telco broadband. However, my point is that neither side really wants it to succeed.

It should be noted that the telcos have been given two favorable legal decisions. First, telcos do not have to share their DSL lines. Thus, the telcos can eliminate all third party DSL providers. Second, telcos can bundle phone services with their DSL services. Thus, there is no point getting VoIP with DSL because you'll be paying for phone service anyway!

And let's not forget the recently proposed Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act. This will help both telco and cable broadband providers. It allows ISPs to block ANY content they choose. To put it another way, Charter could block all access to Netflix. Or the DSL division of SBC could block all access to VoIP services. Both of those will be perfectly legal!

Like I said, that's why I hope broadband over power lines succeeds!

Re:Why broadband sucks in the US....

[Anita Coney]

Let me clarify something, the FCC has determined that telcos can force consumers to take phone plans with their DSL services. In other words, you'll try to get DSL, all third parties DSL ISPs will be gone, and you'll be forced to buy a long distant phone plan.

More empty promises from a Bush!

[millennial]

Bush Jr sez "Read my lips: Universal internet access!"

Bush Sr sez "Read my lips: No new taxes!"

Re:More empty promises from a Bush!

[Proud Neocon A True]

Ah yes, another whiny communist demoncrat is complaining about yet another luxury not being available to everyone. If you don't have broadband available in your location, move to another location that does. Also, it's not Bush Sr, it's George H W Bush, the current president Bush is George W Bush. So how can he be "JR" if they both have differences in their names.

    Then again, the ignorant demoncrats love bitch, whine, and cry about so called "right wing" conspiracies. The only thing that you demoncrats apparently do beyond that is commit treason. ;D

Re:More empty promises from a Bush!

[millennial]

Oh, STFU, you imperialist, god-complex, holier-than-thou, whitebread fascist Republicrap.

Re:More empty promises from a Bush!

[millennial]

p.s. copy and paste is passé. ;D

Re:More empty promises from a Bush!

[Proud Neocon A True]

Ah, just like any other demoncrat, if you can't debate, you troll. Internet Access is a luxury, not a necessity. Like I said before, the ILEC owns the copper & the fiber optic cables as well as the equipment & buildings, so they have every right to prevent any CLEC from using their property. Of course, demoncrats are nothing more than relabeled communists due to the fact that they believe "Private Property" shouldn't even exist.

As for 'Holier than thou', a fellow Republican has the perfect saying "You're know you're a liberal when "Separation of Church and State" is your mantra -- but you think legislating when and where Christians can worship and taxing churches are just fine and dandy."

Sounds to me like you communist demoncrats are the ones that are 'Holier than thou'.

Re:More empty promises from a Bush!

[millennial]

Unbe-fucking-lievable. Your tone was so ridiculous that I thought you were joking. Any sane, rational person would HAVE to be to say the things you said. That's why I made that post - it was a joke similar to your post.

Come to think of it...

[millennial]

What about the Amish? How can we have universal internet access with them around?
My solution: ship them to Canada.

Something I want to clarify

[beakburke]

Getting to the top, in and of itself, doesn't magically bestow monopoly powers upon you. This is only true in industries with a combination of relatively poor substitutes and falling average costs. Basically, monopolies only happen when having less competition results in lower costs. So monopolies that would form naturally have an upside, which is that they result in an overall lower cost solution than competition. The problem is that even though the average cost will be lower than under competition, the consumer gets little of the benefit. The monopoly captures the entire difference as profit unless regulated.

Also, monopoly power isn't an all or nothing proposition. A monopoly's power is really a function of two things, the ability to make economic profits (above normal, given the level of risk) and the ability to sustain these profits over time. The larger the profits and the longer the time period, the stronger the monopoly.

Given the differnt nature of each monopoly, the approach the government takes to each one should be a little bit different.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[Gopal.V]

Ok, to answer your ever allegation Macromedia and other code is way over fat

What is fat are images in Flash or whatever. Flash in itself is a very compact framework. I could build an hour long video in Flash in around an MB of storage.

Most HTML editors also produce fat code

Most of recent HTML you see is generated by a program, not an HTML editor.

Most codecs produce lousy compression and very lossy, too

What codecs ?. Divx ? .. It's more of a mathematical problem.

Dynamic HTML is fatter still, including the page you're reading

DHTML is less fat than others because it is designed to reduce round-trips around to the server.

CSS simply adds to the problem by oversending code/data

Why ?. Because you load the css file from the cache instead of downloading the huge HTML with all those color tags ?.

XML is another bucket of overkill; every page sends a new schema, and a bunch of unneeded, duplicate info

Almost all web access is cached, so what are you talking about ?. XML schema verification is very rarely done and mostly used as a documentation rather than downloaded for every hit to a file.

Poor local/user cache mgmt causes too many page reloads

People browsing dynamic content cause page reloads. Not cache management. HTTP 1.1 was very well designed with caches in mind.

RSS/Atom feeds send tons of duplicate new hits, and is a waste of good bandwidth

RSS can easily be cached with a reverse proxy, look at how my.yahoo.com does it. Atom is harder to cache thanks to the POST method.

This is all seven bit stuff, every single line of it, yet we use no basic compression on the Internet to send pages, because somehow, that would be evil. I say, use source compression with understandable decoders that have security built into them on the client, then compress the hell out of the entire Internet!

Content-Encoding: deflate, gzip

It's there in any decent browser out there. Use mod_deflate or mod_gzip on server side.

couldn't easily have our favorite pcap file filters find credit cards.

If People are so stupid, what can we do. That's why I use TLS on my mail servers and SSL on my webservers and SSH on to my work boxes.

The broadband we use to day are like the 1960 Pontiacs-- muscle cars designed to burn rubber, when all we wanted to do was to get from here to there quickly and nicely and safely.

One single answer - pr0n. It's a fast pr0n delivery mechanism and that's why it came up so fast. I think that's why Japan and Korea have come up so quickly with it - due to lack of availabilit y of the real stuff :)

Internet is not controlled by a single person. It has evolved into it's current form. For that to have happened, all developments that survived on the internet should have favoured the development of a better and faster internet. Basic evolution theory says that internet will not step back and de-evolve, even if it is to work better that way. The only sustainable change would have been faster pipes and I don't see the end of it (Mp3s in 1999, Divx in 2005 ... files only grow bigger).

Anti competitive policies

[ducttapekz]

anti-competitive policies as good for consumers

If we didn't have laws that break up the most successful communication companies into small, startup companies, we might have a better system in place.

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[postbigbang]

Yes gzip can compress. Count the number of pages that use this. Not enough. Sadly, quite few. Could more apps do this? Sure. But we don't. Could we compress non-English fonts? You bet. Just because there's an extra 'bit' used to do things causes little compression pain. Extend that to the tough or tokenized characters sets and you still buy lots of bandwidth back. But we add in useless Google ads boxes (ok, you make a few dimes and you sacrifice your page code and genuflect to Google or another add revenue source), little Flash doodads, and lots of nice arty things that usually have little to do with content. JPeg has compression capabilities, but with Pegasus' software you can do selective zoned compression and cut binaries from several megs down to several k with no loss of contextual content. This is important-- most of what you see in a single frame is noise and not content. When we get into MPEG codecs, you can get pretty lossy without pixelation, but again, it's not a zoned compression (zoned meaning that content like a face receives no compression while the pretty hillside in the background gets pounded by it, but your eyes focus on the human face where discernablity is needed). CPUs are cheap today. Operating systems are bloated. They now have everything including the kitchen sink in them-- no wonder they're not good at adding in tough stuff, like native/kernel-based decompression tricks. The graphics cards are getting very cool, but they're for GIS and gaming. In GIS, there's another possibility for delightful compression/decompression algos that can make high use of the relationship between CPU and graphics engine and memory movements. But the numbers say keep the gamers happy. Sigh. To answer your main question, yes I am mad, in both senses of the word. Source compression standards aren't being used, even the few we have.. And we need more.

The excuse still doesn't work

[jaakkeli]

The most spread out and least densely populated Western country is Finland. Now guess who's doing better in this broadband survey, Finland or the US? Of course, it *does* matter somewhat and you can see it in this (ie. Finland, which traditionally declares national emergency when it's not number 1 in IT and telecom charts, does not do very well on the list - but still, the embarassement of being behind in very high speed connections is getting a lot of discussion here), but the US is still behind, even when accounting for that effect. (It hurts Finland more than the US and we're still ahead!) Besides, RTFA! "...controlling for both income and population density, we find eight nations performing better than the United States. They are Korea, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Finland, Norway and Sweden."

Re:The excuse still doesn't work

[Bake]

Iceland population: 297,737, land area: 103,000 sq.km., Density: 2.88 persons/sq. km.

Re:The excuse still doesn't work

[jaakkeli]

Agh, I simply screwed up, I was only thinking of continental Western Europe and the US. Sorry. Still, Finland is *far* more *rural* than the US. Compared to Finland, the US has the advantage that *much* more of its population is either urban or suburban. I'm betting that broadband coverage in the rural US is *much* worse, because we simply couldn't be even that high on the list without decent rural coverage. I'll be leaving today to visit my parents for the weekend and they live in the middle of nowhere (ie. people a mile away are "neighbours" and such miraculous city things as "cable TV" are utterly unimaginable; we got an indoor toilet and paved streets in the late 1980s) and they could still get decent high-speed ADSL there (although they've opted for the cheaper speeds, currently 512kbit/s, IIRC).

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[Quiet_Desperation]

Yes, but with the sheets installed locally so they don't have to be downloaded.

Broadband

[MaWeiTao]

These articles talk about quantity not quality. I'd like to see other countries provide the level of quality in broadband we experience in the US.

I lived in Taiwan over two years. They have broadband use comparable to South Korea. I was paying $10 a month for the service, but compared to what I get in the US it was garbage. I initially had cable modem, one which required me to dial in anytime I wanted to log on. If I was even lucky enough to get through I was then hit with terrible performance. I was barely able to comfortably browse the web, let alone download anything. The service improved over time, but it was still substandard.

Then, when I moved, I got ADSL. It was a significant improvement, but performance still was far from ideal.

One problem is likely population density, but the main problem is that they just don't care. They constantly cut corners, getting the cheapest equipment they could find, they slap things together and do just enough to keep the servers running. Calling customer support was pointless because all they'd do is apologize and claim they couldn't do anything about it.

Compare that to the cable modem service I have now. Sure, I pay close to $50 a month, but I'm also getting performance comparable to a T3 connection. And, even if I went with one of the cheaper competitors I'm sure I'd still get great performance.

I'm not saying the US doesn't have it's problems, because it's got some serious ones. What companies are charging in the US is getting ridiculous, not only for broadband, but mobile phones and a ton of other services.

However, what I'd really like to see a survey that compares the quality of broadband connections around the world.

A rural broadband tale....

[dirtydog]

So I move out in the boonies on a big (gigantic to you city fellers) piece of land. My wife is a telecommuter, so we MUST have something better than dialup access. I find out we can get ISDN. O.k. - not the best option, but 128K is better that the 26K or so we could manage over our crap analog lines. Well, it turns out the switches are so OLD, they can handle only 64K ISDN - but I'm still charged the full ISDN price, and we lose connectivity ALL THE TIME.

So anyway, I've got some money to burn, and I figure I can get a T1 line run in and then get some neighbors to go in on a wireless co-op. I CAN'T EVEN GET BELLSOUTH to respond to my inquiries. So I request quotes from a bunch of T1 brokers/resellers. The absolute cheapest I've found is $1000 a month for full T1. It turns out we are 41 miles from the CO, and the cost is higher than usual because they would have to upgrade a lot of switching just to get a line to me. I could afford it, but it pisses me off to no end that mega-corps like BellSouth refuse to dip into their coffers to upgrade their rural equipment up to that used in cities for what, 20 to 30 years?

Rural broadband ideas? I'm fresh out.

And for the love of God and all that is Holy and pure in this world, please do not mention satelite.

Re:A rural broadband tale....

[WhiteWolf666]

Where's the nearest place you can get DSL/Cable? Is it within 40-60 miles?

Can you get business class DSL/Cable at that localtion? Like at least 6 Mbps down, 768 Kbps up?

How many neighbors do you have?

How flat is the land?

1. Get DSL installed within 40-50 miles.
2. Setup a series of LOS wireless repeaters, using off the shelf hardware, like linksys WRT54Gs in waterproof, powered boxes.
3. Resell (legally!) DSL service to your neighbors. With either a business class connection, or Speakeasy's connection share, this is permitted.
4. Profit (or at least enjoy your internet)

The biggest issue with wireless range is LOS, not distance. With cheap, weather proof cantennas (go to wirelessgarden.com), you can get 20 or so mile range.

The initial investment is higher, but the long term operation cost is extremely low, and the investment really isn't that high if you can find decent places to put up some towers for your equipment (perhaps neighbors? The biggest concern is electricity)

Browsing Ebay, I see a 110' AM radio tower for $50. This stuff you can find used, no problem, I think.

A couple (maybe 3-4) towers, electricity, and enough neighbors, and you've got the makings of your own ISP. Hell, if you've got the credit for it, plan it all out in advance, write a business plan, go to your local bank, and borrow the 5-10k you need to do the whole thing right.

what's with that press release?

[Creepy]

The full study (pdf file) is objective and does a nice job of quoting sources, but that press release reeks of yellow journalism - quoting inside sources (consumer union, CFA and freepress, which are essentially the same, as far as I can tell), giving a biased opinion, and sensationalizing the problem.

Still, I can understand a press release bulleting facts from the study, but quoting (exclusively) inside sources? Did the writer of that thing have even one high school journalism course?

Further Outrage

[gmuller]

What, broadband internet is about access to information, and therefore should be provided to the maximum number of people and not considered a luxury item? Last I checked streaming video isn't a necessity, the same info can be accessed via dial-up if you can't afford, or don't have access to broadband. Don't have broadband in you area? Well if it means that much to you, move, or wait for it to get there like we had to do 5 years ago. You'll get over it I assure you.

Furthermore, why hasn't this argument been brought with Cable TV? Cable TV is information and entertainment, same as the internet, yet it's still costs more for cable television than broadband internet. What gives?

gmuller

Re:Further Outrage

[gmuller]

Government control of a "backbone" infrastructure is frightening at best. I'll concede that Sprint control of a "backbone", or any other company for that matter, has it's own set of caveats. But thats beside the point.

It is unrealistic to think that the government could provide this infrastructure cheaply and effectively. Who will they contract to provide it? Sprint? Who will maintain it? Another government agency? private contractors? Hopefully you are seeing my point, I'd love to have more choices than I already do for broadband (I already have like six to pick from, not including satellite, which excludes itself), but I'm fairly sure that slapping down a whole new infrastructure, different than the one we already have, would cost more and in the end be provided by the same groups you seek to exclude. If we were starting from square one like Korea (Rep.) or Sweden, it would be considerable, but we're already too far along to backtrack now.

gmuller

Re:In Washington DC area

[cl0secall]

You must be inside the beltway. Outside the beltway in Virginia, there is dialup, and there is cable. DSL is a rarity because of the penetration of Fiber lines. Don't let that lead you to believe that there's fiber-based 'net access though.

As for limitations on service, most dialup providers these days limit to 300 hours or less per month. Cable providers have an arbitrary and invisible limit that should you exceed, they will clip off your access.

With all due respect, your statement that U.S. Providers do not have limits is either naive or an outright lie.

So close and yet so far.

[mspohr]

I live in a town that is about 10 miles from the main east-west fiber optic link. (Along Interstate 80 in California.) However, I can't get Internet access by DSL or cable. Finally some local enterprising individual set up a WiFi antenna which is about 6 miles away across the lake. Finally high speed Internet access!!

Point is that even when close to the backbone, our "free enterprise" monopolies of the phone company and cable company aren't doing the job.

Shut up and get back to making beer

[clink]

Fricking Canukistan

Re:Shut up and get back to making beer

[udowish]

I love it when jealous US idiots put their huge foot into their bankrupt mouths hahaah looser

TXCABLE

[paulevans]

The TXCABLE webpage promotes another absurd look on how competition will hurt consumers.

From one tightwad

[beforewisdom]

Well, speaking for myself, I am an IT professional who still uses dial-up.

I have not, and will not get a higher speed connection until I can do so for under $30 a month.

In regards to broadband outside of USA....

[MtViewGuy]

I think you have to consider the following factors:

1. Population density makes it far easier to justify the cost of running the Last Mile hardwired xDSL or cable modem connection to your home or business with a broadband connection. That's why you have a lot of broadband in South Korea, France, Germany, much of the UK, and Japan, mostly because the population density per square kilometer means there are enough potentials to justify the exorbitant expense installing those connections.

2. I think people are forgetting how all those broadband Last Mile connections are funded. I can almost say that the xDSL and/or cable modem setups in France, Germany, South Korea and Japan are heavily subsidized by government-owned and/or very recently privatized former government owned national PTT entities such as France Telecom, Deutsche Telecom, NTT, etc. Here in the USA, most of the Last Mile connections are funded by the Baby Bells and the cable companies, which have to justify the cost of setting up such connections to their shareholders. You wonder if the broadband setups in the countries I mentioned are paid for by steep taxes of various forms on the local population (VAT, motor fuel taxes, etc.).

Considered:

[Run4yourlives]

1. Explain Canada.

2. Again, explain Canada. Last Mile Delivery is done either through Cable TV providers (admittedly previously established) or through Baby bells such as you describe, like Telus, Bell, and Allstream.

Germany: No government subsidy

[anno1602]

Germany's Deutsche Telekom has been privatized long before the advent of DSL. Also, they receive no subsidies, and, as the still-monopoly-holder, are subject to a number of additional requirements, e.g. they have to supply everybody in Germany with a land line who asks for one, for the same price, no matter whether it makes economic sense or not. The competitors don't have to do that. What they got in exchange for these requirements is all the copper that the Bundespost (the state-owned predecessor of Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Post) had buried into Germany's soil. But the same was true of the Baby Bells.

The point here is that Deutsche Telekom does not get subsidies any more, broadband has to pay for the cost of installing the DSLAMs in the exchanges and running the data cables. It, generally, does.

That being said, your point of population density is a valid one. Again, Deutsche Telekom as an example: While they have to supply phone service even to rural areas, the same is not true of broadband. And, surprise: They don't.

Say it ain't so!

[inkswamp]

This can't be true. You mean turning over something like this to large corporations and reducing government influence so as to use the lure of profits to drive better technology and wider availability and therefore serve the public better doesn't really work???

Oh dear god, please say it ain't true! Please don't tell me that big corporations don't care deeply about me and my family. My dreams, my world view, my whole life has just come crashing down like a house of cards.

(Sobbing quietly, if not sarcastically, to myself.)

Re:Policymakers?

[IceAgeComing]

Cool. What section of the constitution covers the subsidization of giant corporations?

Check out the documentary "The Corporation" sometime; it's out on DVD. After the 14th Amendment passed, which banned slavery by granting the right for all citizens to own property, a Supreme Court decision determined that corporations were in fact "persons" and could therefore exist perpetually and own property. Before this, corporations could only exist through legislative acts (for the public good), they usually had a finite lifetime, and what happened to excess profits was spelled out in the legislation.

It's pretty twisted that an Amendment designed to ban slavery ends up being used to justify the perpetual accumulation of wealth by a non-physical entity.

Re:comcast disease plauges everyone

[whitefael]

I also have Comcast, but I experience an outage at least once a month and sometimes more. In fact I just had one two nights ago!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This Is Good

[sirbone]

High DSL and cable modem prices just give an extra incentive to investors to roll out power-line access (like www.current.net in Cincinnati) and other undiscovered alternative technologies. Prices that are forced artificially low drive out investment from potentially competing technolgies since it is harder to compete against thin margins. (Plus an investor would not want to to push much of his capital in a heavily regulated industry since the government could usurp it away on a whim.) Indeed, the current oil situation, if it persists, is perhaps the catalyst that will produce new feats of engineering for fuel efficient cars, more advanced hybrid engines, and alternative fuel sources. So unless you want the technology to stagnate, you should not be bothered by the current temporary high prices. They will only last until alternative (and superior) technologies are invented by a profit motive of sticking it to the DSL companies. Let's not destroy that motive.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:In Washington DC area

[cayenne8]

"With all due respect, your statement that U.S. Providers do not have limits is either naive or an outright lie."

Depends on the acct. I went with a Cox Cable business acct...about $70/mo...static IP, no block ports, no caps...and I can run any kind of server I want. I even have a low level SLA. I was trying to do something similar...actually, just tried to get a static IP with Bell DSL, but, after a month of jerking me around, they said they didn't have any to give out in my area. Cox was great...installed my stuff...ran a separate cable to my office dedicated for my broadband connection and it has worked ever since.

Re:Finity

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -2
    100% Offtopic

The topic is how the FCC is lying about broadband goals, in order to meet them. I point out that those "revised expectations" tactics are the general policy of the government. That's not "Offtopic": that's the topic, writ large - and just one level larger.

TrollMods might want to lie about how Bush's government lies to us about everything, but they can't even muster an argument. They just lie about the topic. Well, the facts are obviously biased against the Bush administration, and they're not going away.

Re:God, no wonder we broke away from you guys

[arevos]

Britain has far more people per square mile than the US. Even when you factor out all the deserts, mountains, and generally uninhabitable places, the UK still comes up as more crowded than the US.

What the GP was asking is why, when you have so much space, do you feel the need to cram everything into compact urban areas like New York or LA.

However, I personally don't believe the UK is any better, really. London's a pretty large city, and many, many people commute and live there.

Re:In Washington DC area

[SillyNickName4me]

Please note that U.S. provider do not have download limits

Neither do most overhere, tho many do offer cheaper accounts with a limit also.

Then, what you describe is quite nice, but from all I can tell, it is rather the exception and not the norm. What I described is the norm here throughout most of the country

Really?

[Valiss]

Here in South Dakota, every school - yes, every school - is tied into a state-run network

Really? Both schools?

Re:In Washington DC area

[SillyNickName4me]

Ask how many European DSL providers will let you download 100G in a month. I can already answer that...none.

The one I use (versatel) has no such limits, neither do xs4all, tiscali or other major providers overhere.

I regularely download such amounts a month, and that is no prob whatsoever (no hidden limits either)

You must be rather misinformed.

Just to be clear: 24mbit down, 1 up, NO LIMITS in time, bandwidth, data transfer or anything of that sort.

glad you "C" the difference

[WebCowboy]

Cuz it's be embarassing if you went around saying "fake aid" or "fah cod" or something.

I think ç is also an upcoming .NET language intended for use only in France and Quebec. It isn't as edgy (or "sharp"?) as another well known language--it is more laid back, probably because it got a little tail.

Re:In Washington DC area

[Lee Cremeans]

DSL is a rarity because of the penetration of Fiber lines.

Maybe in the newer communities like South Riding, but where I live (Manassas, not far from Old Town) fiber isn't even an option yet. That said, both cable and DSL can do 6.0/768 here, so it's not a big problem at the moment. (I have 6.0/768 through Speakeasy, and it works great.)

-lee

Between that...

[coolGuyZak]

Between the parent post and my thorough knowledge of Canadian pr0n stars... I think I may just be moving to Montreal. ;)

I think I'd fit in pretty well. I mean, I'm not an ignorant American. I take maple syrup on my Canadian Bacon... I love the moose... I wouldn't even mind joining the Mounties. I've seen Due South... Having super-cool Mounty powers would kick ass.

This is GOOD news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you are not American, anyways. Less competition... so go ahead and hamstring yourself all you Bush lovers. Cash in on your future! :-)

The rest of the world benefits when the US administration (or it's policies) do not actively improve the technology knowledge of the population.

* This is after all an administration that OPPOSES municipal broadband. Why should any region provide nonprofit broadband when everyone benefits from the jobs created by paying extra funds to monopoly providers?

* This is after all an administration that OPPOSED equal access by non-baby bells to the nationwide DSL network. Why should we have anything except 1 DSL provider per region? Anyone who wants to compete in DSL should string up their own lines, dammit!

We also benefit from the US 'hands off' approach to education, which has poor cities footing the education costs, and 'standardized tests' that will keep marginal students in the 7th grade for 3 years in a row (at least until they drop out and enter the low wage job market).

With the push for 'Creation Science' in schools now, the fanatics are guaranteeing a further slide in the US standing in the academic world. The shift for R&D has already happened.

The US is in a self induced decline, so sure their way is right even as they fall further behind in economic and academic might. If only India and China and Malaysia played fair, and ensured college is only for those who can afford to borrow...

The irony is, many of these 'capitalists' and 'free traders' are themselves foreign capitalists, pushing for policies and tax codes in the US that they would never DREAM of inflicting on their own beloved country.

America was right... capital should roam. All the short term profit takers are providing enough incentive for it to roam elsewhere...

I think the worse Americans make it for themselves, the more they'll reason like a Kansas firebrand preacher.

And I repeat:

[KrackHouse]

If you want access to the internet you can go with FIOS, DSL, Cable, Satellite, broadband over power lines, WiFi, dialup.

I'm interested to hear your definition of Monopoly.

Re:And I repeat:

[Moofie]

I can't get FIOS (Jesus, what planet are YOU on?), satellite is horrible latency, I don't have wifi uplink to the Internet, or broadband over power lines. DSL at my house is SDSL, 128k up and down, for crazy big money.

So, if I want "broadband", I get cable, and I'm lucky to have it. I live well within the borders of a good-sized city.

In many places in America, any particular carrier does in fact have a monopoly on broadband access.

Why do you even mention dial up? Are you confused about what discussion we're having here?

Re:And I repeat:

[KrackHouse]

My point is that in a real monopoly your cable company could raise rates until you simply decided to go without the internet. You have alternatives even if they aren't quite as fast.

Studies have shown that when the government takes over for businesses in an industry prices go up roughly 30%. Of course they'll call it "free internet!!" but your taxes go up $65/month instead of the cable company's fee of $50 and you then have a real monopoly which means there is no incentive for the telcos to roll out FIOS because they can't compete with free.

Re:And I repeat:

[Moofie]

"Let them eat cake!"

Uh huh. Free markets only work when there's competition, and with the FCC's recent decisions to maintain the monopoly status of cable plants, and to return DSL to the Baby Bell's monopoly, there's going to be not as much competition, which will drive prices up, and decrease service levels.

It's currently not possible to buy residential broadband service with non-horrible customer service. This situation will now get worse.

I'm not talking about having the government providing Internet service (again, I wonder who you think you're arguing with)...I'm talking about having the FCC give some thought to the consumer instead of their corporate masters from time to time.

MOD PARENT UP

[moultano]

Perfectly on target assessment I think.

Re:Policymakers?

[fupeg]

If there were enough of you that were willing to pay enough then somebody would supply it because they would make money supplying it to you. So if nobody is supplying it to you, then should we conclude A.) They're evil companies who would rather screw over rural America than make money or B.) There is not enough demand in rural America to make it profitable for them to sell there? Maybe you think Option A is correct, but if it is Option B, then don't ask for my tax dollars to fix the problem.

Re:Policymakers?

[fupeg]

If you don't think that the service you receive is worth what you are paying for it, then why are you paying it? If it's not worth it, then don't pay for it. Of course if it was the government that was providing this service and you were paying for it with your tax dollars, then you would have no choice.

However I would say that the inferior service you receive is worth the higher price because you are paying for it. It's just frustrating to you that better service might be available in a larger city at a lower price. Well that is one of the tradeoffs you make when you live somewhere rural. Here's a news flash for you, a small house in a city costs a lot more than a big house in a rural area. So should people living in small houses in cities demand that the government do something about this? After all they are paying more for an inferior product.

Re:Policymakers?

[fupeg]

Your idea of an "alternate reality" is truly naive. If I currently sell broadband, then what happens to me in your alternate reality?

• The government forces me out of business by selling the same product I am selling, but by giving people no choice about by charging them through their taxes.
• The government forces me out of business by forcing me to sell to places where I will lose money.
• The government forces me to sell to places where I will lose money, but they subsidize me so that I can stay in business. They do this by forcing all taxpayers to pay for my subsidies.

Maybe you're not bothered by the first two choices because you dehumanize anybody who is in business to make a profit. You have no problems using force against "fat cat corporations."
Maybe you're not bothered by the last choice. It's the government doing what's best for the people right? Maybe you think the government can make this decision, that all people should pay a tax to allow all people to have broadband access.
In either case, think about this consequence. Imagine two years later there is some new technology that allows for better, cheaper broadband access. In any of the three cases listed above, the government will have to support this new technology or otherwise it will not have a chance. In all the three cases above, there will be powerful vested interests in keeping the status quo.

In a free market, such a superior technology will surely win out. In a "progressive" market like you want, it might win out, but it might not. One can simply look at the history of telecom in the US and Europe and see many cases where such a technology either did not win out, or it took decades longer than it should have for it to win out because of government regulated markets.

I live in town...

[Radical Moderate]

..and I have TWO choices, cable or DSL, same as about everybody else, and they both cost about $50 a month. That's not choice, it's price gouging. Don't bring up satellite, unless you believe paying more for worse performance is a legitimate choice. Cringely has a pretty good column on this: www.pbs.org/cringely

Re:In Washington DC area

[cl0secall]

According to the Cox TOS that I was presented with, even with a business line, you were not given a static IP, nor were you permitted to run servers. This is in Fairfax County.

Re:In Washington DC area

[cl0secall]

I was told by a Covad reseller that in western fairfax county, there is very little room for DSL. Most of the newer buildouts that Verizon has been doing has been with fiber -- not the kind that they can run their much-hyped FIOS over, at least, not yet anyways -- which eliminates the ability to run DSL.

The local cable providers (Comcast and Cox) both explicitly state in their TOS for both residential AND business circuits that servers are prohibited and that no static IPs will be assigned.

Re:In Washington DC area

[cayenne8]

"According to the Cox TOS that I was presented with, even with a business line, you were not given a static IP, nor were you permitted to run servers. This is in Fairfax County."

Hmm...dunno if it has been awhile since you checked. You might call them back and ask now if interested. I told them I was setting up to do some web hosting, etc...run servers for email, etc...they said no problem. No quotas either.

Maybe the change is a more recent thing? I found the Cox business services here in NOLA was almost a totally separate entity from the consumer tv and broadband company...totally different rules. About the only limitation in my TOS, is not to do anything illegal...

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[wfberg]

Yes gzip can compress. Count the number of pages that use this. Not enough. Sadly, quite few. Could more apps do this? Sure. But we don't.

Sadly, netcraft doesn't keep stats on this. They should. Mod_gzip/mod__deflate and "http compression" aren't on by default in apache and IIS, which is a shame. Also, gzip support in the squid proxy is an add-on.

Could we compress non-English fonts? You bet. Just because there's an extra 'bit' used to do things causes little compression pain. Extend that to the tough or tokenized characters sets and you still buy lots of bandwidth back.

Unicode isn't (primarily) about fonts. Browsers aren't fetching .ttf files, are they. (Actually, UTF-8 is a kind of compression-code to begin with, seeing as how non-common codepoints require more bytes than common ones - though if your page is in Chinese another encoding will be more benificial, size-wise; still I'd say go with one of the UTFs). Please do not ever again suggest using 7-bit or 8-bit encodings exclusively, in order to save on size. That's like saying 2 digits will suffice to encode the year. If you're going to go and say things like that, please invent a timemachine and go back to 1975.

When we get into MPEG codecs, you can get pretty lossy without pixelation, but again, it's not a zoned compression (zoned meaning that content like a face receives no compression while the pretty hillside in the background gets pounded by it, but your eyes focus on the human face where discernablity is needed).

MPEG already compresses out-of-focus backgrounds better than in-focus-foregrounds, because out-of-focus images leave less information in the discrete cosine transform. Also, the foreground is more likely to change, which motion detection will pick up on, so static content won't get as many bits of the stream to update its content. Still, go ahead and use H.264 if you want. The bleeding edge GPUs from ATI have it built-in.

Re: bandwidth vs data rate

[TeknoHog]

It's all the same. If you modulate a carrier faster, the spectral bandwidth used by the signal gets wider.

This view is so wrong that I don't even know how to start explaining it, although it's superficially correct. You should probably look at Shannon's theorem for details.

Re:Canada rocks for broadband, but it's no surpris

[pipingguy]

For example, here in Canada, even though the country is huge and the population small, cities are relatively younger and much more dense than US cities.

Younger than US cities? Toronto maybe, but moving eastward, no.

Part of the broadband wars...

[sweet sounding]

They have been trying to open up the broadband market for years. Bills in congress have been flying back and forth and this type of press release is fodder for the lobby groups.

Notice that the penetration is 'per capita' Most other industrialized countries are not as large or as rural as the U.S. is. Farms in nebraska are not big broadband consumers I guess.

Its funny because most of the debate about competition in the broadband communtity is being fought by the telephone company against the cable company. The telephone companies set up front groups like 'people for more broadband access' :p and send out flyers like this to get people politician into opening up cable access to AT&T or Verizon.In fact Verizon is doing a test pilot of fiberoptic internet here in this area to compete with cable.

I think the big reason y the telephone companies are in such a tizzy is because of the limitations of DSL in heavly rural america (the length of the dsl line) which is y they are hot on getting into the cable bizz.

Anywho save the press releases for the lobbyists. :p

capiche?

[Bender Unit 22]

"You trying to say capiche?"
"Yes"
"Don't do it, it hurts my ears when you do it."

Re:trolling

[anticypher]

You are a troll, since you obviously don't know what you are typing about. But as I just returned from Sweden, I'll feed the troll in order to enlighten others about your pathetic rant.

The term is symetric, not synchronous. When brodbandsgolet.se offers 100 Mbps symetric, its delivered on fibre to the household. It is not a DSL or cable technology. It is expensive, and only available in bigger cities in Sweden.

10Gig interconnects are quite common in the data centres where the xDSL and cable and fibre headends terminate. A broadband provider may oversubscribe 10:1 or 15:1, but the traffic only starts to get congested in the evenings when you get all the home subscribers firing up their shiny powerful macintoshes and PCs. You really need to have a dozen or more PCs on your home 100Mbps line before you can really start to achieve those levels of constant traffic. There are problems with TCP windows, and round trip delay which keep a PC from using too much bandwidth. Pulling content from the US is always slow, but within the nordic counties and northern Europe, web browsing is fantastically fast. /. still takes 4 seconds to start loading, no matter what your bandwidth is.

the AC

Too bad the empirical evidence doesn't...

[mrmike37]

...substantiate your claim. The government is the source of monopoly. If a company is in an industry with economies of scale, then one company is more competitive (i.e. sells cheaper to the consumer) than a bunch of small companies could. Think about it, if a small company could enter (absent gov't restrictions which is the argument I'm making), the large firm would have to sell at a price cheaper than the small firms could offer at to restrict entry. I could go on for hours, but in summary: absent government assistance, there has NEVER been a documented event of a monopoly harming the consumer. They just plain CAN'T. Without a gun (the government) pointed to your head, you (the consumer) will do what's in your best interest to do. Even advertising isn't an unfair barrier to entry. You can always spend the money. The barrier is convincing the consumers of the quality (or whatever) of your product, which is a fair barrier by any standard. There has been hundreds of papers written on this subject (Stigler, McNulty, Hayek, Clark, Harberger, Armentano, Demsetz, McGee). Please think a few seconds longer before posting a fallacious theory. Also, there is no "clear" definition of competition. In case you question my credentials, I happen to be an Economics Grad Student.

Re:Not a valid argument

[cbreaker]

That's great for North Jersey folks, but the point holds - people say we don't have fast broadband because of land mass, yet even the most populated places have no access to it.

Not even DSL is available to a lot of the houses in my city - the Northeast is very heavily populated yet there's an absurd amount of people with no broadband options. Rhode Island is the second most densely populated state in the US (in back of Jersey) and all we have is limited DSL and cable modems. As much as I don't like Cox, if it weren't for them we'd be screwed. Then again, if it weren't for them keeping the competiton out, maybe we would have better options..

A lot of these other countries are subsidizing the cost of laying out the fiber and cables to help promote very high speed internet. They get tax breaks and other goodies. They're promoting competition. In the US, a small handful of companies run the show, and they make sure everyone else is kept out.

It's not land mass that's the issue, it's the companies running the services. While I do agree that it's very expensive to expand and upgrade communications equipment, our government could easily step in a foster some growth in this area if they want to keep the US competitive so all our jobs don't end up overseas.

ps. Verizon's FIOS service is supposedly available here, too, but I've not found one address in the state that has it availablle. I guess you have to live next door to the CO so they can run you a cable. I mean, if Verizon can't even upgrade a few old voice coils to open up DSL to thousands of potential subscribers, can I believe that they're going to run fiber?

Re:Radical Thought: tighter code/codecs reduce nee

[typical]

It's called mod_gzip. Maybe you've heard of it.

Looking other places than the Web, Usenet still lacks standard compressed connection support. This is sad.

Re:Policymakers?

[fupeg]

The fact of the matter is that the free market is a failure for any utility.

I like how you say this is a fact, but you fail to provide any supporting facts. The only thing close in your arguments is the mentioning of Enron and the partial de-regulation of electric utilities. You are correct that these de-regulations failed, but it is a matter of debate as to why. IMO, it failed because it was only a partial de-regulation. If you fix the price that a company must charge for a product, but allow it the price it must pay to produce this product, then of course it could wind up losing money or being unable to meet the demand for the product.

Internet is a utility today.

This is even more ridiculous. Maybe you wish that high-speed internet access was a necessity for life, but that is hardly the case. You cannot compare it to electricity, water, gas, or even telephone service (courtesy of 911.) Even if it was a necessity (which it is not) then you still must contend with dial-up access. There are people who do not need internet access. There are people who only need dial-up access. You would take away the choices of these people.

As an independent provider, I am literally being forced out of business, slowly, by changing government policy that erodes the regulations which forced the telcom monopolies to open up their networks.

Ahh so here's your real motivation. You want the government to assist your business, but you want to claim it is in the interest of the public. This is exactly why possibly well-meaning government regulations just become a way for one company to use the power of the government to help their business. The government does not have the right to help your company at the expense of another. That's what the original regulation did.

It's time to stop watching Fox News and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Nice how you try to stereotype. Here's a news flash for you. I've been a card-carrying Democrat since I turned 18. Why? Because I value freedom. That includes freedom to have a choice about internet access.

Notice how I encouraged government taxation and regulation? Damn, I must be a communist.

Actually your attitude is much in line with a Fascist. You don't want the government to become the sole provider of internet access. You want the government to force people to buy internet access from your company, possibly via their tax dollars. That's Fascism.

Or a rural US citizen who is underserved. Take your pick.

The "progressive" tax system of this country serves to redistribute wealth from urban areas to rural areas. So in fact you are most likely overserved by your tax dollars, i.e. you receive more benefit from them than what you pay. This also makes you more likely to favor more taxation since it helps you more than it hurts you.