Slashdot Mirror
US Lags World In Broadband Access
An anonymous reader writes "When It Comes To Broadband, U.S. Plays Follow The Leader says a story in IWeek. Their thesis is that, while broadband access in the United States rose from 60 million users in March 2005 to 84 million in March 2006, the US is well behind countries like England and China. Indeed, what you may not realize is that the U.S. ranks a surprisingly poor 12th in worldwide broadband access, a situation which could threaten its ability to maintain its technological lead. The federal government is no help: the FCC has almost no data on the rate of hi-speed adoption, or of what the speed and quality of those services are. Broadband is more expensive here than in other nations, as well, almost 10 times as expensive by some estimates. The cost and poor quality of service aren't from population density, aren't from lack of interest, and are not from lack of technical know-how. So, what is holding us back?
Really? I would have said most of the country was settled with horses in mind, but that's just me.
(I know what you're trying to say, but I don't know how much cheap gas has to do with our settlement patterns.)
threaten its ability to maintain its technological lead
What technological lead? The "U.S." doesn't have one. All we have is the honor of being home-port to a bunch of large multinational corporations, who seem to do most of the actual production, and they do most of their manufacturing and an increasing amount of their research overseas. We couldn't make half the stuff that "American" companies sell, and U.S. consumers take for granted; it's all made and increasingly designed overseas.
We're a market for goods and capital, and a source of lawyers, marketers, and middle-managers. And "intellectual property," which the rest of the world could quickly decide to do without, if it wanted to.
I think history is going to look back, and see the Internet as the last significant achievement of a dying empire.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Last-mile networks are expensive to maintain, but they are maintained, as are major backbones across the US; thats not where the problem lies.
A lot of people don't want broadband. Some don't even want Internet access at all.
Thanks to various regulations, theres little or no competition between broadband providers since their service areas are not allowed to overlap. If Cable-Company-X has the exclusive rights to a town, and they don't find it profitable to provide broadband there, then there is no cable broadband for that town.
Some people just can't afford it; either from high pricing or low income or both.
Mountainous areas are often left without options as it is extremely expensive to maintain networks in those areas and satellite is typically not an option.
I would be a lot more interested in seeing the percentage of people that don't-have-but-want-broadband, those that have-but-don't-want-broadband, and reliability-of-service statistics to see where the US ranks.
If you look at a map of the US you'll notice that a lot of towns in the mid west line up along lines of longitude.
The reason for this is that the great plains are on a similar grade from east to west. Many railroad lines ran straight east/west. Going from the lower elevation up the grade to the west the trains would run out of steam (literally) and need to be refueled at pretty much the same place no matter what latitude you were on. Consequently, the same approximate distance between towns in rural areas, especially in plain states.
That has nothing to do with population density. Sorry.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
Can you give an example of a more decentralized country that has better broadband access?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Ah, if you take the total population of the entire country and divide by the total area of the entire country, then yes, they have lower population densities than the US. However, that's a rather useless metric, as in all of those countries, the vast majority of population is concentrated in a much smaller area. Take Canada, for instance. Approximately 90% of their population is concentrated in a band roughly 100 miles north of the U.S. border. Plug the area that encompasses and see the difference.
You're the idiot who's not taking into account the basic geographic realities. Half the countries that are "ahead" of the US are *more* sparsely populated than the US. Broadband also sucks *everywhere* in the US, regardless of the local population density. So you're either a moron, or a liar. I've lived in a rural area where you might drive for two hours and not see another car, yet it's possible to get 100mbps internet connection for about $40/month. I'm currently living in a suburb of a major metropolitan area in the US and paying $50/month for 768kbps/128kbps ADSL. This is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Wow. That has got to me one of the most ignorant and biggoted things I have ever seen on Slashdot. And you got modden insightful.
Let's try thinking, shall we?
The internet lets people in highly remote areas:
That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but.. I mean... WOW. I know /. hates the red states and red states may have low population density (look at large parts of Montana or even Nevada) but get a clue. This isn't 1900 any more. It's not like the people living in 1800s era cities in the "mountain country" like there were that the TVA was designed to help.
We have civilization here in the middle of the US, despite what stereotypical New York characters in sitcoms think.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
You have good reason to be angry RS, and the lame broadband issue is just the tip of the iceberg. We're getting screwed on healthcare for the same reasons. Another huge one: the miltary industrial complex and their current campaign to burn trillions of our dollars while generating more war and terrorism around the world. You are correct as to the cause: too many politically clueless people led by right-wing robber-barons and their propaganda-spewing lackeys. I also wonder why things aren't worse than they are. I suspect it's due in part to inertia, and in part to the large number of people in this country who do have at least some clue about good government, economics, education, environment, social and foreign policy. The recent elections were a hopeful sign that we might be headed back in the right direction.
Building a better ribosome since 1997
I've moved around a bunch and I have found that the cable company you don't have is always better then the one you do have. I have time warner but would love comcast. I would love just to watch fox once in a while. http://www.timewarnercable.com/northwest/moscowkay u.html I agree, choice would be great. When I lived in Northern Virginia, choices were there, Cox Cable or Verizon FIOS, both offered, phone/cable/internet. Service was vastly improved with just two competing companies. I think if all areas had three companies competing, prices would be drastically lower and customer service would have to improve, since it would be so easy to jump ship.
Total population density does miss one important fact, US urban living arrangements tend to be far more decentralized (farther away from downtown) than nearly every other nation on earth regardless of population density. There was a good article I read about how the richest residents of Silicon Valley have the hardest time getting broadband due to them being located out in the "exurbs".
All of this comes down to money.
/29 static for $350 a month.
In St. Louis, broadband is availble and works well in the newer western burbs.
I live in South City.
Until last summer, I could get broadband from the cable company and SBC(ATT) and the varous clecs.
Then the storm hit last summer and destroyed much of the infrstructure in my area.
At that time I had a business connection from Charter 1M up / 5m down
The storm ripped all of the telco/electric/cable wires from the house. Three weeks later, the cable was still down.
I was told by Charter that they do not intend to rebuild this area thus they discontinued the circuit.
DSL was not an option, I have tried several times and it does not work.
The lines in my area predate WW2. I am 5580 feet out on path 1 and 9500 feet out on path 2.
Officially ATT will not install dsl in my area even though the CO is dsl capable.
So I ordered a T1 from Speakeasy.
Here is the fun... ATT at first refused to install it.
After it was finally installed, it was turned up without a class a inspection and failed miserably.
ATT refused to support it because they used hxdsl for the circuit and they are only required to provide best effort support on it.
They tnf the circuit. TNF = technically not feasable.
This means that the telco is off the hook from supporting the install.
ATT installed a second T1 and also TNF it.
So speakeasy installed a Third T1.
This one worked but the rj45 on the smartjack was bad.
ATT refused to fix it because they could not find any errors when they looped from the co.
I put a hard loop on my inside wiring and there was no errors from pattern testing.
An att tech came out and did find that the jack was bad but refused to fixit because ATT had already determined that this t1 was in TNF status.
I am now in the process of getting a third t1 ( traditional 4wire point to point t1) from XO installed.
Right now, ATT is placing the ticket in jeopordy status becasue there are too many pairs of copper going to a residence.
My only other option is a local wireless company who seems to not want customers.
If I lived in a rural area, I expect problems installing a T1.
In fact I have a friend who lives in Hopedale Illinois (BFE) and he has had a T1 running for about six months with no problems after the initial install.
Lamer alpha: Person C: Yeah, but where do Canadian's live? While Canada might be larger in terms of land area, what if you look at inhabited land area?
Lamer beta: Why speculate when three minute's Googling [slashdot.org] gets you an answer?
I've lived in Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Waterloo, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. Every one of those cities presently enjoys perfectly good broadband. The whole of Canada combined stretched across 5000km doesn't have the population to match the Boston, New York, Baltimore, Washington corridor which is just a short day trip by Canadian standards (I've done Montreal to Boston on bicycle). Do all those cities enjoy excellent and affordable broadband? Not from what I've read about the U.S. telco and cable industries. Perhaps the problem has less to do with population density, and more to do with the fact that America enjoys a huge margin over all other wealthy countries in the areas of litigation and incarceration. The premise in America seems to be that the affluent can afford it no matter what it costs, the impoverished have more pressing concerns, and there is no shortage of lawyers to ensure that never the twain shall meet.
Well, none. :)
29.90 for an ADSL2+ connection with unlimited traffic, "cable" TV and free phone is the norm now.
It's no match compared to Japanese offers, but it's a good deal for an E.U. country. And afaik, it's much better than what you can get in UK.
I guess Scandinavian countries (like Sweden, Finland...) are quite good too, with a pretty good network density even though those countries tend to be comparable to the US: few people compared to the country size, thus expensive coverage.
You aren't entirely correct. The westward expansion and breakup of "the square states" is due mostly to the homestead act. The land was divided based on that act. The railroad and farther west the stage coach way stations are where you find centers of population. Mining interests played a big part in the settlement as well.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Most of the nation was settled with the horse in mind. Think of all of the major historical big cities: San Fransisco, Chicago, Detroit, New York, etc. etc. Now look at a map of major railways. You'll see that most major cities were connected by rail before they connected by road.
The automobile contributed to sprawl around major urban centers, but it did not contribute to the way the country was initially populated.
As an aside, for anyone interested, here is an interesting wikipedia article regarding population growth around major population centers.
I got nothin'
Seriously, if the worst you've got to complain about is that you're 12th, with only four major companies supplying last-mile access, come here. We've got precisely two companies supplying the last mile, and in our largest city we have only one choice for residential connections.
Consider that NZ is at the top of the OECD for the percentage of the population that actually uses the 'net, so it's not like we're a bunch of technophobes. We're just catching it up the arse from a rapacious monopolist incumbent, which thankfully is about to be unbundled. So, sorry, but y'all should get a grip. You're in the top half, we're in the bottom quarter!
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
To see how this does work out in the US check out UTOPIA. A coalition of cities in Utah got together and made a plan for laying out fiber to every home and business. A few quick points about it:
I am mostly libertarian, but even I can see the current setup is completely broken. Broadband is no necessary to infrastructure that it would make sense now to have the government build it out like they did with the roads. It would be expensive, but at least it would be done, and that is what we need.
I hate to tell you but utilities and broadband companies here in the US do NOT currently operate in the free market. If they did the situation would be improved.
In fact the problem is that there is NO true competition available (it is a cartel/oligopoly situation) because of governmental regulations. Try starting your own cable or DSL company sometime; see how quickly the PUC shuts you down.
This is the result of intrusive government, excessive regulation, and big business buying legislation and regulation in favor of big business. I vote Libertarian.
Libertas in infinitum