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."

Comments

Dialup

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Dialup

[Brian Gordon]

..meanwhile the old beige box in the back of a grimy bar in south korea has a fiber optic modem with a direct line to the isp

Re:Dialup

[Fastolfe]

It's my understanding (as a former big telco employee that had nothing to do with DSL) that the big carriers like that draw a somewhat arbitrary line, beyond which they simply don't want to support DSL. Customers beyond that line will, on average, cost more to support, because they're going to have more frequent connection/speed problems due to their distance. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they don't want to do it. But that was just my perception.

Not shocking

[DoofusOfDeath]

What's shocking about the report isn't what it covers [...], but what it leaves out

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.)

hhhmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok,

1. our economy is in a great state.
2. Iraq has WMD.
3. Iran almost has the bomb.
4. the deficit was never balanced when I came in, and it is almost balanced now.
5. America has plenty of oil, and gas. We have no need for nuculear or alternative power.
6. 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?

Modern nations need a culture of innovation.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

First mover disadvantage

[TheRaven64]

Deploying high technology infrastructure is problematic because it changes to rapidly. It takes at least a decade to get the current technology deployed and then it's obsolete. Part of the reason that the US is slipping in terms of broadband is that much of the infrastructure is controlled by unregulated monopolies, but a lot of it is due to the fact that the US moved first.

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).

Re:First mover disadvantage

[0racle]

You did forget one tiny piece of information:

Canada: 80% of the population lives within 300 miles of the US boarder.

There is a whole hell of a lot of Canada that has no one living there so no broadband has to be run there. US broadband is in very poor shape, but so is Canadas. The point you're arguing is like arguing who gets last and who gets next to last in a race. Both runners still lost.

Next stop: Nanny State

[Anamanaman]

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.

two words

[MisterSquid]

"Mission accomplished."

Well all of them are "correct"

[SmallFurryCreature]

1. our economy is in a great state. He could have been sarcastic, oh wait, he is american.
2. Iraq has WMD.English time, Iraq has A WMD. One weapon. They probably did. The kurds did not gas themselves.
3. Iran almost has the bomb. and we are almost capable of travelling to mars. ALMOST is a nice word.
4. the deficit was never balanced when I came in, and it is almost balanced now. Well the first is most likely true, balance would mean equel spending and income, most likely their was a deficit or surplus of some kind. The second bit, well there is that word ALMOST again.
5. America has plenty of oil, and gas. We have no need for nuculear or alternative power.Plenty for what? For the next year? Probably. Since the US seems to be pretty well suplied with electricity, there is no need to look at other sources, not in the timespan politicians worry about anyway.
6. Our broadband policy is working great! Might be true, if the average slashdotters policy is to never have sex with a girl, then their policy works GREAT! Say that the broadband policy is to make the telecoms and such super rich without having to invest and avoiding making it even easier to infringe on copyrights, then US policy is working.

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.

Re:Well all of them are "correct"

[Azghoul]

Considering the amount of money Verizon is spending deploying FiOS, please to define how the "telecoms and such" are getting "super rich without having to invest".

Thanks.

Bush's US Now 100% Broadband

[Doc Ruby]

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?

Corruption: GWB is just a figurehead, I think.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

US Broadband Policy?

[HangingChad]

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.

Everybody CONTINUES to ignore the elephant in the

[WhiteWolf666]

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.

Re:On the topic of politics in broadband..

[WhiteWolf666]

Is Verizon deploying FiOS with expectations of profits in 2 quarters?

Did Sprint begin its WiMax investments in 2006 with expectations of profits in 2 quarters?

Did T-Mobile purchase vast quantities of Spectrum for a deployment of 3G in 2009 (back in 2005)?

Are the Cable companies making investments into DOCSIS 3.0 for 2009-2010 deployments?

Time and time again, people ignore that companies whose names are not AT&T are investing in the future of broadband. You want someone to blame for the poor state of communication infrastructure in this country?

Blame AT&T. They were the monopoly that started it all, and SBC went ahead and rebuilt it (using many of the same executives) like Frankstein's Monster.