Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Releases US Broadband Policy
Ars Technica is reporting that while most people wouldn't know we have a national broadband policy in place, the president claims that not only do we have a plan, it's working spectacularly well. "That's the main conclusion of the just-released 'Network Nation: Broadband in America 2007' [PDF] report from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). What's shocking about the report isn't what it covers [...], but what it leaves out: it doesn't contain a single extended discussion of the fact that the US has been slipping in a worldwide broadband rankings throughout the decade."
I am posting on dialup. There is no competition in the local "broadband" market, so the one provider charges too much. And the phone company cannot be arsed to extend their DSL coverage the 2-3 blocks necessary to reach my house. Nothing has changes since about 1999.
I guess we're all tired of ranting about Bush, but... I'm not shocked that his report left out his failures. Bush doesn't admit failures. (He's only admitted one regarding his work as a President, ever: Making some cowboy-style remark like "Bring it on." regarding terrorists.)
If you never have a policy it can't fail. Just stay the course to Victory.
Never let facts confuse the issue. Just follow Cheney and stay out of shotgun range.
- our economy is in a great state.
- Iraq has WMD.
- Iran almost has the bomb.
- the deficit was never balanced when I came in, and it is almost balanced now.
- America has plenty of oil, and gas. We have no need for nuculear or alternative power.
- Our broadband policy is working great!
So now, I am trying to decide if he is still copying reagan, if he belongs in the same place with brittney, or both?I'm not American and even I want to smash something at the thought of last decades broadband screw-over.
...$200 Billion...nothing delivered...no consequences...
Some might think 'what's done is done, it's in the past, it was done a decade ago'. Surely someone is keeping this issue alive because, even with all the time that has since past, there is still a huge public interest served by ripping that money back, by whatever means necessary, to send the message that:
"for all of our belief in contractual agreements, and for all of our corrupt, lazy and intimidated politicians and government; no-one so vastly fucks with our hard-earned dollars and future prosperity and gets away with it, regardless of whether it was committed a year ago, ten years ago, or whether the contract set performance penalties or not'
I want to see the looks on the executives and senators faces who, long thinking they had got away with it, all-of-a-sudden get the f**k charged out of them.
History has always shown that the most modern of nations have a culture of innovation, discovery and advancement. This is a self-fulfilling truth: the more effort you put into bettering yourself technologically, the better off technologically you'll be. And with better technology usually comes greater efficiency and greater productivity, and with greater productivity comes a higher standard of living.
The transformation of South Korea from a war-ravaged nation to a technological powerhouse where inividual homes and apartments have affordable fiber links better than many hosting companies in the US is one such example. They embraced development and technological progress, and so they have rocketed ahead in terms of living standards and quality of life.
Meanwhile, we have the US focusing so much energy on religious issues. So much time and potential is wasted arguing over the merits (or lack thereof) of "Intelligent Design" and creationism, for example. If a small fraction of that effort was put towards technological advancement, such as the installation of fiber to all American homes, America could be doing some very great things. But as the current trends are, this seems very unlikely.
My first trip to the USA was in 1998, and back then I saw adverts for DSL connections costing less than I was paying for dial-up here in the UK. On my last trip (last year), the adverts were for more than I pay for a faster connection. This kind of technology comes in cycles. The first to deploy the infrastructure gets the fastest connections for a few years. For the next few years, they get incremental advances based on what you can squeeze out of the existing infrastructure and then they hit a brick wall. The countries with the fastest connections are always the ones who deployed their infrastructure most recently.
Slipping behind is not something the US should be worried about, it's a natural artefact of this kind of technology deployment. They should be worried if they don't have any plans for leapfrogging ahead again (fibre, WiMAX, and so on).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
According to the report, affordable broadband is critical to the productivity of the economy.
Well guess what? I spend over $55 per month for my Internet service. And that includes $0.76 in taxes. Do I pay it? You bet. Hell, I'm an IT guy, so connectivity is important to me. But regular "non-IT" people? Is broadband worth $670 per year to them?
$670 is more than my telephone bill. It is even more than my monthly electric bill. That's right, I spend substantially more on Internet connectivity than on Telephone OR Electricity. Let me tell you, I'd give up broadband way before I gave up electricity or telephone.
So, all-mighty-report-writers, here's a clue: many American families aren't going to be able to pay that kind of price.
Where was he holding it, Gitmo?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Obama has an amazingly detailed plan of how to fix America's broadband situation which /.ers might find interesting (I didn't know about it until I was linked elsewhere). Clinton just says "blah blah tax incentives", and other candidates like Romney don't even discuss it, but Obama seems to really care about the issue (for example, discussing raising the minimum speed that can be called "broadband" from 200kbps which is indeed amazingly low). I think he's probably the only candidate who doesn't put the Internet on the back burner, and from the debates it seems like it's not just a bunch of interns writing this stuff up, he actually knows what he's talking about. It's a shame a lot of other candidates don't seem to care, because Internet access ties in very strongly with education issues and restoring America's technological and scientific place in the world.
This is pathetic. Everyone here decides to ignore the actual huge gains in progress, and focuses on some arbitrary ranking done by an international group.
What's shocking is that, surprise, the market works and actually builds value without creating an inefficient government program. Right now is probably the most exciting time there is in broadband, with 3g, Clearwire, Comcast, and DSL all competing for the same broadband market. Not to mention when Google decides to get in the game. We're likely to see some of the most amazing broadband infrastructure in the next 5 years, due to the current high demand (untapped market) that you guys are all bemoaning as a sign of our country's failure to take over.
The reason for this? Government has stayed the hell out of our way. Companies tend not to like to compete with the government, so when you guys eventually force Uncle Sam to be our monolithic broadband provider because you want to get a better ranking on the all important international index, then investment and private business dries up, and we end up having to call our congressman when our broadband goes down, and they are the only one provider available.
I've seen some rankings that put Australia ahead of the U.S. in terms of broadband conenctivity, purely because of advertised speeds. As an Australian, I find this highly amusing.
For example, you can readily get a 30mbit cable connection here. Telstra Bigpond's cheapest full-speed cable offering is $39.95 a month... And includes 200 megabytes of data. After which you pay 15 cents for each additional megabyte. (And they charge for uploads as well as downloads.)
Yes, you can get fast, reasonably-priced internet access here. And if you use it, you'll hit your monthly quota in one minute.
The smaller ISPs mostly don't engage in such blatant theft, but all of them have download limits, often quite small. Which would you prefer: 6mbit speed with no limit, or 24mbit and 5GB a month?
have missed something.
The current administration has been fixing numbers for 8 years. No child left behind was about numbers, not education. The death toll in Iraq was about numbers not the war. (Iraqi and mercenary deaths don't count) Just about everything this administration touched was about numbers to show the public. They were not planning on the housing crash catching them before they got out of office. There are miles and miles of dark fiber in the US that were paid for with tax dollars and higher service fees. Are they in use? If they are, it's not for joe bloggs ISP service.
In South Korea, the government mandated the tech revolution. In the US the government will not do so, leaving it to private companies who then leave out the little guys that are not profitable customers. This is the major difference. For some reason, after these guys pay off their government officials here in the US, they don't feel that bragging rights about how they provide the BEST service in the US bar none is necessary. Note, more bars != best service, and advertising should always be viewed with a healthy overdose of cynicism.
The current spin doctors know (at least 4 out of 5 of them) that it's the numbers, not actual service value that counts. Our government has shown them how this works. You can do anything, as long as you have a plausible story and numbers to show you are right. After all, the ONLY intelligence data that the rest of us knew about was that Saddam had WMD, and the NUMBER of concurring agencies and or countries was convincing... but I digress.
It's all about numbers. If you have money with large numbers on it, you can get the fiber to your house from any ISP. The problem is that there is no incentive for private businesses to provide superior service to your home if they can continue to rob your wallet every month for something that it a little better than dial up. Notice how the commercials try to convince you that their service is 'broadband', lightning fast, and other terms that intimate super fast speeds. They never talk about real data rates so again in this case it's about numbers. If they hide the numbers you are lead to believe it's all good. You will not see one US company compare their customers to the top three ranked countries in the world for Internet service. That would be using the numbers fairly and we in the US just won't stand for that kind of non-sense. It's just un-American.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Looking at the map of High Speed Providers by Zip Code, it would in fact appear that we as a nation are in pretty good shape. Problem is, the pictures people are using to educate our leaders reflect some fictional, non-existent universe. I live in Central Ohio. Looking at that map, it appears that I have PLENTY of choices for broadband coverage. It would also appear that there is no place in my state that isn't covered by at least 4-6 providers. I'd like some of whatever that map-maker was smoking, because it must be some good stuff. As an IT consultant, I can say assuredly that MOST places in the state have, at most, a single provider. Where I live, it's Insight (RoadRunner) or nothing. My parents have another, single, provider. Where I work, I have only one option. I have a client who lives about a 22 miles from me who has no broadband options at all.
I think the fallacy here is that they're probably counting technologies as "broadband" that shouldn't really be considered. ISDN is not broadband. Counting Satellite as broadband is a mistake, too. If you've ever used it, you know what I'm talking about. You can't count the cellular 144k as broadband, because in practice, it's not really faster than dial-up, and you can't count a $1000/month leased line as broadband, because most people aren't going to pay 30% of their income to cover their broadband connection.
We can't delude ourselves with fake numbers and expect to know what's really going on. We're holding on to our past glory not even realizing that we're becoming less and less relevant every day. Sure, we built a nuclear bomb and put a man on the moon, but do you know of anyone in today's workforce that was part of either of those projects? Our highway system, built in the 50's, is great, but there's a heavily travelled bridge down the street from me that's been out for 2 years. The World Trade Center got knocked down over 6 years ago, and there's still a giant smoldering hole in South Manhattan because we can't see past our greed and get our crap together. We have a president that thinks scientific advancement is sinful, and an aging, over-extended military that can't even defeat a bunch of disorganized rebels in two third-world countries.
I hope and pray that we soon get our stuff together. I don't think it's too late yet, but it's getting pretty close.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
I'm speechless.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Not many know of Bush's hidden technical talent. For example, he recently found errors in Fermilab's calculations. Don't underestimate the man.
"Mission accomplished."
blog
Seriously, I cannot recall ever ever ever having an administration in office that was so intellectually dishonest.
Every administration uses "spin." Every administration puts its best foot forward. Every administration releases reports that give high marks to its own efforts, and it takes a skeptical and knowledgeable commentator to point out the flaws or jiggered priorities.
When Reagan said that trees cause pollution, or that all the radioactive waste from a reactor would fit under an ordinary office desk, these were misleading, but they were striking, and they were literally true, and made what were at least legitimate debating points.
But this administration's statements don't contain any facts in them at all. These guys just say whatever they think sounds good off the top of their heads, and hope that it will magically become true because they're saying it.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I am not just being pedantic, this is the problem with soundbite politics. It doesn't leave room to properly qualify statements. Take bush senior "no more taxes" or something to that effect. If you read up on it, it is just possible that he spoke the truth, as far as I can judge from europe, he just raised existing one, not created any new ones. On the other hand everyone should have known he was lying because the sentence also means he was promising the complete eradication of ALL taxes. "No more slavery" doesn't mean "no increase in the number of slaves" but the abolition of slavery entirely.
Soundbite politics, a great evil that is slowly destroying democracy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This report seems to concentrate on what the major corporations like Comcast and Verizon wants to hear (and it's not good).
Searching "network neutrality" in the PDF file returns 1 result, in the title of a source that was used. So nowhere in the policy does it say ANYTHING about network neutrality.
Nothing about domestic warrantless wiretapping of the Internet either!
Classic Bush Administration. Releases a big official policy, but leaves out every last thing we want to hear, substituting what Comcast and Verizon wants to hear. At least Barack Obama actually cares to mention this stuff.
According to Bush, every American can now get affordable broadband.
Because Bush defines "broadband" as 200Kbps (yes, kilobits). And "everyone" means that even if only one person in a ZIPcode could buy 200Kbps broadband, that ZIPcode is checked off as if everyone in it could get it. And considering the $TRILLIONS Bush has burned in handouts to his cronies (especially the telcos, these days his favorites), the definition of "affordable" is left as an exercise to the reader.
Those relatively few readers whose broadband connection can access this page.
Meanwhile, Japan has already deployed 100Mbps to 85% of its households; their average is 93Mbps; expects ubiquitous access to 100Mbps by 2010. And maybe they're not even lying about it like Bush is.
What other competitive advantages over our foreign competition has the US completely squandered in the decade since we were sitting on top of the world, by spinning our wheels (or tank treads) while the rest of the world has been busy beating us at our own games?
--
make install -not war
is that he's accepted the resignation of Cheney with sadness... and he's outta here, too.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The issue is why other countries are already 2 to 3 cycles ahead.
It isn't like US moved first, then everyone deployed "what was next" to outdo the US. The US moved first, and most countries followed in its footsteps deploying the same technology. The problem is why other countries were able to continue to move forward to outdo the US, while US growth stopped. The "cycles" you talk about are faster abroad, and slower in the US, and that is the issue here, not the existence of cycles.
The ARRL posted a story about this NTIA report. They took a good look at the parts dealing with BPL (broadband over power lines). It is definitely worth reading.
(ARRL is the American Radio Relay League - kind of like a lobbying organization for amateur radio)
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/02/01/101/?nc=1
ARRL has been watching BPL very closely as many of the BPL operations have been polluting the radio spectrum. BPL so far has been a huge failure.
They note that NTIA doesn't seem to know how many BPL customers there are. They estimate there are 200,000. Their projections for future usage are laughable. From the ARRL story, here are the FCC numbers along with an interesting comment.
"The FCC's data showing fewer than 5000 BPL customers -- a number that dropped in the six-month period covered by the report -- are taken from forms that service providers are required to submit"
In other words, we require you to provide the data. But, we will conveniently forget that if the numbers aren't flattering. Add to that an outdated map of BPL operations in the states. Many no longer exist. The BPL interests must have a heck of a lobby.
We need a real broadband strategy. BPL has no place in it. Neither does this absolutely silly and useless NTIA report.
You must be new here... welcome. Just wanted to let you know, you missed an easy chance for a "funny" mod.
People talk as though George W. Bush is president. However, I've never heard one analytical remark he has made. I think it is impossible to be the leader of something when not mentally involved. In a childlike way, he called himself the "Decider", but it is said that he only decides from a list given to him in which the preferred decision is already given to him.
Bush is just a figurehead, a puppet to show the public. The media are full of "Bush" said this "Bush" said that, but he is only reading something someone else wrote for him to say.
Cheney and Rove and others have arranged that the powers of the U.S. government be sold to acquaintances, oil and weapons investors, and others who want corruption.
One contribution that seems to have been made by Karl Rove is not only testing that finds the weaknesses of voters and exploits them, but powerful, well-funded initiatives to prevent strong leaders of opposing parties from winning.
It is all corruption all the time. Part of that is endless war that is destroying the value of our money. Notice that prices are rising rapidly? That's because the value of the dollar is dropping. Oil and weapons investors don't care about the value of the dollar, they get paid whatever they ask.
It's Saturday. Most folks are with their families and friends. Then there's us, here on Saturday..... In short, there wasn't much competition for "First Post". Or Frist opst as it's usually spelled when rushed.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
So why to we have faster and cheaper connections?
* Smaller population (9 million). Although we are do not have a high population density (20/km compared to 31/km for the US), the problem does not scale in a linear fashion.
* Über-centralization. In the US you have states, counties etc, all that have some form of local identity, laws and business. Sweden only has the national level. There are no local ISPs.
* We've paid for it. While it might seem that we are paying less for faster connections, in fact we are not. We are and have been paying it through taxes. Sweden is a very socialist country. Although our ISPs are privately owned they are given enormous subsidies to make sure that every man, woman and reindeer gets a broadband connection no matter where they live. In essence, we in Stockholm are through taxes financing the building of broadbroadband connections up north where it is not economically feasible.
So all in all it's a combination of population, geography and politics.
The details probably look something like this:
- Grant telephone companies retroactive immunity.
- Allow wide-ranging, warrant-less surveillance of internet traffic.
- Profit!!!!
And PS - Stop terrorists!
Hopefully they'll make whatever drug Cheney is smoking that let's him say with a straight face they've never violated anyone's civil liberties widely available. That should smooth over any remaining restlessness in the sheep.
The ultimate irony would be if the next administration started using some of these tools. Funny the right wing never thinks about that until someone is investigating them. Then they're all about civil rights. Just like Bush was all about fiscal conservatism after the Democrats got control of Congress.
Hypocrites.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Strange as a national network policy you think it would day something about the government taping in to all traffic and monitoring it. That is a national policy and it does affect everyone. Also said taping might have something to do with network uptake by end users.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060515-6829.html
Will have it downloaded in 20 minutes or so, but I really don't have to get it to understand.
Who is the bigger liar? The politicians or my "Broadband and Entertainment company," Verizon?
Fact of the matter is, here in one of the fastest growing counties in the USA, we have no DSL, no cable, no wireless. Oh Verizon offers some every month, like "Fast Internet for Everyone!" Their offer is false and fraudulent. A pack of lies.
Sparkle: You offer fast internet for everyone?
VZW CS: Yes sir!
Sparkle: What sort of fast internet can I get?
VZW CS: Hmm let's see... Nope no FIOS. Wow no DSL. How about Dialup?
Sparkle: Dialup is not fast internet! Kindly enter my order for DSL, please.
VZW CS: Can't help you. Not available. Sorry.
I'm a pretty conservative guy, and at first blush, this sounds right: we, the people, should be the ones who ultimately decide how this all plays out by freely making our choices in an, open, competiitve market, and may the best man win.
But the reality is that we have only a partially open market, and limited competition. I think we need to acknowledge that there is some competiitve movment going on. I can get a FiOS connection from Verizon with far more capabilities at about the same price-point as my old dialup. But government intervention is needed to make the market truly open and competitive.
For example, the city I live in has been trying to get a municipal wireless network going for 3 years now. The city took a public/private route, and put out an RFP. So far, nothing. The bid appears to be stalled. In the meantime, the telcos got some additional laws passed at the state level making it even harder to build it out. In other words, the project is dead.
I can get fiber to the home, but unlike the copper wiring I now have, the fiber connection woule be owned by the ISP. Once that baby goes in, good luck ever getting any other ISP to my home. It's a lock in.
The government is needed to look out for the public's interest. We need them to mandate *some* standards so our interests are protected. The biggest standard we need enforced now is just plain openness.
Obama is the only candidate with an *actual* broadband plan.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
He supports net neutrality; content filtering conducted by parents, not the state; reforming the universal service fund to help subsidize broadband, and a whole lot more.
That's why Wu supports him, and why I do too.
room.
The problem with broadband in the U.S. is AT&T.
That's _all_. AT&T(the new SBC) controls something like 60% of the US telco market. AT&T has no interested in next-gen broadband. Ergo, at least 60% of the US will be stuck in broadband hell.
Look at other providers. Most cable companies provide unlimited downloads (up to something ridiculous, like 200-600 gb per month). Comcast is 8-16 Mbps. RCN is 10-20 Mbps. Even the smaller providers are 6-15 Mbps. And every one of these companies is serious about deploying DOCSIS 3.0, bringing node population way down, and boosting speeds to the 50-100 Mbps range in the next year or so.
Look at Verizon. It's on an ambitious "wire our entire footprint with fiber" plan, at vast expense (hundreds of billions). Currently advertising 15/5 Mbps service, it is well known that they are designing the system to easily support 200+ Mbps connection (and provide enough bandwidth for the forseeable future).
Look at Sprint/Verizon Wireless/T-Mobile. T-Mobile is on track to launch a nationwide HSDPA 3G network by the end of the year. Sprint/Verizon have rolled out EVDO RevA nationwide, and are currently planning Revs B and C. Sprint is also on track with a massive WiMax deployment nationwide.
Look at the FCC. We're radically reorganizing the airwaves to free up huge blocks of spectrum for large investments into 2-way highspeed digital transmission. We're preparing for a complete transition of all broadcast from standard def analog to HD digital, and the subsequent free up of airwaves.
And of course, these developments proceed fastest in markets with competition. Verizon is pushing FiOS to 25 Mbps in Comcast markets, where Comcast has moved its cable to 16+ Mbps. Optimum Online is at 30 Mbps in competitive markets.
Competition works. The markets push these large behemoths to invest in new technologies, and they are rolling out this stuff as fast as can be expected. Towers are being refitted, huge quantities of equipment are being purchased, and the various ISPs are tearing up the streets installing new copper and fiber.
All of that, except in AT&T territory. Which is, of course, most of the country. Compared to all of this, AT&T's plan is a hybrid fiber-copper network (that all the cable companies and Verizon rolled out years ago), blanketing markets with advertising claiming that you don't need more than 6 Mbps down, and 768k up; and, of course, using its monopoly profits to underprice its broadband (we can only sell you 3-6 Mbps, but you can get it for $14.99 a month!).
Figure out a way to fix AT&T, and the rest of the industry will drag us into the future, and you'll see that our regulatory framework makes sense. Ignore AT&T, and no amount of incentive will fix things, because those robberbarrons running the company will figure out a way to pocket the money and continue to not invest in anything.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
No, just not advancing as fast as other, smaller countries.
Unless you are operating under the mistaken impression that the telcos and cable companies are tearing out wires and fiber.
He must've read idiot's guide to the broadband last week.
Not to worry. As soon as the administration realizes that it cannot effectively spy on us without better broadband network capabilities that will change. In fact, there are probably massive improvements being quietly made to that infrastructure right now. All the new links just happen to terminate at NSA offices.
Nice summary, thanks for the link in my reply.
I haven't lived in an AT&T only area... I had no idea they were that pathetic.
When you guys simply measure how fast the bandwidth the average American has versus x, y, and z company. You look stupid.
:P
Comparing Canada where 90% of the population resides on the border. Or the numerous small European nations. Comparing a nation like the U.S which has a large amount of populated territory compared to the density.
So I am tired of hearing how far we are falling behind. Because few of the countries we fall behind have a population as spread out as the U.S. nor as much of a area to cover.
Republicans have terrible long term memory. Bush did not heed his father's caution about invading Iraq. Likewise, in forging this do-nothing policy, he forgot about another Republican- Dwight D. Eisenhower. One of Eisenhower's greatest achievements was a Interstate Highway System. The highway system was completely funded by the US government and had tremendous impact the economy that lasts till this day. Goods and workers trek across that system everyday creating the life we have the today. The things we take for granted today would not exist without those roads. A national broadband network can have similar impact for the 21st century. Instead of cybertrekking across small roads like we do todays, we can move across superhighways.
The US economy and society would benefit from this system great. Huge broadband pipes makes sending any form of data across that network practical. Advertising, entertainment, and commerce would get more opportunities. For those who don't like DRM, broadband could cut out those media companies behind the RIAA and MPAA that sit between the consumer and the artist. Scientist and student can have access to huge libraries all from their computers. Our economy grows on ides and such network would allow those ideas move efficiently.
With a recession oncoming, private businesses aren't likely to build such a system anytime soon. Banks are still licking their wounds from the housing fiasco. I can imagine that they will be too shell shock to give loans for a broadband network. The US government is the biggest spender in the world and it doesn't matter if it wastes money on a technology that would be obsolete. I believe that governmental investment is the only way to get a broadband system off the ground.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Focusing only on broadband when your currency is collapsing and the reputation of the country you love is being destroyed doesn't make much sense. I was only giving my opinion of the bigger picture, the underlying conditions that caused the problem with the U.S. government concerning broadband communications.
I generally assume that if Bush says something, it's a lie. This seems to be true even when he gets no advantage out of lying. (Perhaps he feels the need to constantly practice?)
I'll admit that this approach doesn't give me a perfect batting record, but it's pretty good. He seems to have a real aversion to the truth. (Of course, you can't just assume that the opposite of what he says is the truth. He's not THAT unskilled a liar.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's also a lot easier to deliver fiber when you have 50 million people in an area slightly smaller than Virginia. Not to detract from your point, but perhaps you should choose a country that faced similar hurdles to the US.
The correct title of the report should have been "Netborked Nation: One Brand in America 2007".
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You're doing one heck a job ISPs.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Why was President Bush holding it prisoner in the first place? This is more fallout from 9/11 and the War on Scapegoats, isn't it?
"it doesn't contain a single extended discussion of the fact that the US has been slipping in a worldwide broadband rankings throughout the decade."
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Broadband has progressed tremendously in most of Europe those past 5 years or so, thanks to gov't involvement but NOT in the form of sponsoring the infrastructure.
What the gov'ts have done, pushed by the European Commission, is to enforce competition, and force former monopolies to share the last mile. This is why I pay 29 a month for 28Mbps ADSL2+, with unlimited int'l VoIP and a free (but admittedly kinda crappy) HD PVR, and why most of the population have access to decent broadband. FTTH is being rolled out; should get it within a year.
That is easy to say when some small country like South Korea can wire themselves up with Fiber far cheaper. Same for other small countries. Not to mention, that since developing countries started with Fiber, they only have those investment costs to recoup. The US pioneered practically every single communications technology, and was the first to implement it.
South Korea - 98K Sq KM.
Japan - 370K Sq KM.
Sweden - 410K Sq KM
UK 241K Sq KM
USA - 9.1 MILLION SQ KILOMETERS. Thats an average of 32 times the size. Texas ALONE is 678K Sq KM.
Now you can talk about population densities, but that does not change the fact that the fiber optic cables STILL have to traverse those distances between the major cities. So it COSTS more to lay down fiber lines in the state of Texas, then it does for ALL of Sweden AND the UK combined. I know I might be a little simplistic, and the truth is a little more complex than that, but size does matter in the end.
Now I am sure that more can be done by US companies to invest, and smarter policies could be established, and AT&T is the DEVIL, etc., etc., etc. We still have the problem that we have to put down a heck of of lot more fiber to make it happen.
The other thing to consider is that US cities can be far enough apart from each other with those distances not being highly populated, that the actual cost of running those "big pipes" between cities is greater. If you have 300 miles of pipe between 2 cities capable of delivering enough bandwidth to satisfy demands, you may not have anybody else "paying for it". By that I mean, they have to charge the costs of the pipe to customers in both cities, and there are not customers in between those cities paying for it.
Las Vegas is quite a distance from Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Reno. The distance between Las Vegas/Los Angeles is also very close to the distance between London and Paris. So we have to lay down "big pipes" between Las Vegas and Los Angeles capable of delivering all that traffic between them. It is akin to undersea cables. Those cables cost a lot of money to deploy, and when eventually obsolete, just as much money to upgrade.
So if your country is small and dense, you can get away with a lot of smaller fiber optic cables criss crossing the country, some bigger pipes to help link them all, and with a little routing provide a network. The US has to lay down these huge pipes to interconnect our cities, each of which can be a good fraction of just one those countries.
Maybe people in these other countries are lucky that to go from one end of their country to the other is a lot easier and cheaper than routing traffic from Los Angeles to New York. So every time I hear some people bragging about how their country is better then the US and that we are behind I have to laugh a little. That's like the difference between climbing Mt. Everest and going to the Moon. They may have climbed Mt. Everest once or maybe even twice in terms of creating their infrastructures, but the US has to do a couple of round trips to the moon comparatively.
Don't get me wrong, I am not tooting my patriotic horn that the US is all that, and I DO have PLENTY of bandwidth envy for those bastards in South Korea and Japan, but I am a realist and what we have in the US is impressive considering the size and scope of the project.
Governments can build dark fiber networks to the home, but let competing service providers plug into those networks. The fiber itself should last for decades and you have to work with governments for right-of-way and other construction issues anyhow. Having one dark fiber network eliminates wasteful duplication. The electronics that plug into those networks evolve rapidly though, so leaving everything else to private industry makes sense. With the fiber in place even a local ISP can get up and running quickly. Here in Ann Arbor the city has all the traffic lights connected with fiber optics and they put in extra conduit while they were at it. That's a good chunk of the work right there.
There's no need for federal involvement though. States and even city governments can do this. Utah has UTOPIA. I'd just assume keep the feds out of the picture.
If you live in Verizon territory where FiOS is available or will be... lucky you. We poor souls in AT&T land need a little help.
A month or so ago, just for yuks, I checked with Verizon again. They told me that we can't get DSL, because we're too far away. Speakeasy's DLS goes over a line leased from Verizon, of course, since Verizon is the local monopoly. Verizon can't (or more likely won't) supply DSL on their line, but at the moment they're required by law to lease it to other companies. It turns out that two of those companies (Covad and speakeasy) are collaborating to do with Verizon's line what Verizon can't be "arsed" to do.
I wonder if the people at Verizon are ignorant. They're obviously missing out on having you as a customer.
OTOH, Verizon is actively pushing their FIOS in our neighborhood.
In Minneapolis we have both Sprint and Verizon are laying FIOS though it's not widespread yet. Sprint is also rolling out WiMax. What I'd like to see is somebody to lay fiber all over the city then allow anyone to offer services using it. In northeastern Utah a group of communities are doing this and creating a Broadband Utopia. I just wonder how their paying for it, I'd rather not have tax payers left to pay the bills, if you use it pay but those who don't shouldn't have to.
FalconShould there be a Law?
America has plenty of oil, and gas. We have no need for nuculear or alternative power.
Except Bush is pushing for more nuclear power plants to be built, with subsidies.
FalconShould there be a Law?
AT&T is out there trying to legislatively and financially rebuild their monopoly.
However it was one of the baby bells, Bell South, that bought AT&T. Not that it matters much anymore. At least for phone service as many people are switching to using just a cellphone. I now pay less for my cellphone service than I paid for my landline phone. And long distance is included.
FalconShould there be a Law?
On average, the communications infrastructure has to cover a larger area for a given number of people.
Yea, LA only has 3.8 million people in 470 sq miles. At 8000 people per sq mile that's too low a population density. NOT!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
5GB/month is ~2000 bytes/second, just a little over 1000x oversell. No big deal.
You've just signed away your right to ever be taken seriously.
Keeping in mind I'm just referring to the part of your post I included in the subject line and above, I'm still waiting to see those piles of WMDs and any evidence Saddam had anything to do with either 911 or al quada. It may not of been Bush himself but someone in his admin picked and chose intel that supported the notion there were WMDs in Iraq while ignoring everything else and did the same as regards al quada. Bush once gave a Trumanism in one of his speeches but the fact is is the buck never even sees his desk or the Oval Office.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Interesting that you point to AT&T as the problem, because just recently AT&T was my only solution - and not by way of being the only provider for broadband. I just bought a townhouse, which is on a lot with a large condo block. My options for broadband are Comcast, AT&T, and satellite. There are local attempts at a wireless network with Sonic, but overall the three I mentioned are the only providers because of the last-mile; which in my case is from the street, thru the lot, into my house, and then into my office. In the end, even satellite isn't a friendly option because of the homeowners association fit about installing satellite.
Comcast I do not want, and their high-speed broadband (as opposed to a low speed broadband) service is insane expensive even with the special three-for-one offers (internet, TV, and phone). For less than the cost of their regular broadband (3mb) I can get "elite" AT&T service (6mb). Add to that the fact that the cable wiring in the townhouse isn't clear enough for digital television in the bedroom, let alone cable internet. It's all about the wires in the wall, and in my town the cable gods have yet to lay fiber like in the neighboring town - they won't even address the building wiring.
AT&T, on the other hand, had initially said I couldn't even get the basic DSL when I first started looking at buying the property. By the time I moved in, it was no problem. I was worried about DSL level service over copper wire, but so far it's performed wonderfully but up and down speeds (and the television has had problems with signal two or three times, btw). AT&T also has announced plans to rewire at the street level in my town to compete with Comcast in television service, not just internet. To boot, when I contact AT&T about anything I find that the rep handles my call per my knowledge level, too - no sticking to a script that tries to fit me into a (payment) plan called networking for dummies.
I know it's all anecdotal, and I hear you about the monopoly problem with AT&T (or any corporation); however I think that other posters here hit the problem closer to the point. There's a two-fold problem with the infrastructure - the lines in the street and the lines in people's houses. For the first I blame all the telcos in how they dropped the ball after receiving the hike, and why don't we have a massively robust, subsidized, street-level network that any company can use to compete in the telecommunications market! For the second, I think it's a problem that won't be handled without a lot of debate about who bears the brunt of rewiring costs.
The elephant in the room isn't alone.
Amazing. Found a video about her ignorance.
More amazing ignorance: The Gift That Keeps On Giving: Dana Perino Reveals The Awesome Benefits Of Global Warming.
Was hiring her a decision Cheney allowed George W. Bush to make?
I have this NOW with AT&T. Why hold up T-Mobiles USA operation when it has 3G networks everywhere in the world except here? I'm not especially happy with AT&T's shitty broadband, but my mobile phone gets a megabit out and about.