I'm already in the 35% tax bracket. I don't feel like moving into the 45% tax bracket just so President Whoever can spend a few trillion laying fiber to Wyoming. The government needs to stop spending so damn much money.
You act as if they are mutually exclusive, but they are not.
The average speed & availability are closely related. If I have 20 megabit/s broadband, but you're still stuck at 0.056 megabit/s dialup, then that will drag down the average speed for the whole U.S.
If population does not matter, why does Rhode Island have a 10 megabit/s connection (as do most of the Northeast states) while Montana and the Dakotas are only 2 megabit/s?
The answer is obvious. Population density DOES matter. The European Union has a similar pattern with highly-populated states having fast speeds (12), while rural states like Greece barely get 2.
And before the TVA there were private companies serving the area.
There was absolutely no need to create the TVA, because electricity was already being supplied. Oh and I'm sorry to hear you have no choice in internet. I have Comcast, Verizon, Netscape, Dish, and DirecTV. Lots of options. I chose the cheapest at just $15 a month (Verizon) with the $7 provider (Netscape) for when I travel across the country. That's how it should be - power to the people to make their own choices.
I have electric choice. It works great because I was able to hook-up to a company that only uses Hydro, Wind, and Solar power instead of my previous company that used 90% coal power.
And back to internet: There's no reason why we can't run multiple wires underground. I have choice there to: Comcast, Verizon, or Netscape. The advancement of technology is slowly but surely killing-off the old "natural" monopolies.
Massachusetts is actually the fifth fastest region in the world, just behind Sweden, Korea, Japan, and Rhode Island.
That was probably a poor example. Instead choose a state like Montana... why does Montana have an average speed of only 2 megabit/s? Simply put, because this state is ~400 miles wide with only a few people, and it's too expensive to run miles of wire just to serve a single rancher living in the middle of nowhere.
Population density DOES matter. It's cheaper to run a mile of wire that can serve 100 residents, than to run a mile of wire that serves 0.01 residents. That's self-evident. The denser the population, the more cost-effective it becomes to upgrade the speed. That's why the fastest regions in the U.S. are also those states with the highest populations (the Northeast and Great Lakes regions).
NYC is not pathetic. NYC's average speed is around 14 megabit/s which is faster than the national average of every country on this planet except Japan and South Korea. NYC is ABOVE average.
I still maintain the U.S. is doing just fine. Our average is equal to that of the European Union. We Americans are no worse off than our European neighbors.
Spoken like a person who has never driven across the United States. There are regions where you can drive for miles and never see anything except a couple random cows grazing. Comparing this 2500-mile wide federation versus a small country no bigger than Delaware makes ZERO sense. It's like comparing a pumpkin versus a pea... totally illogical.
I prefer to compare one federation versus another, where the sizes are comparable. Like the US versus the EU versus Canada versus Australia, because only then can you draw conclusions of like v. like.
California is in the top 10, with an average speed of 6.8 megabit/s. That's comparable to the average speed in Germany, and faster than your colleagues in France, England, or Italy.
I'm glad you brought that up, because when you compare the coastal region of the U.S., they are actually quite speedy:
- Delaware - 10 megabit/s - Washington - 8.9 - Rhode Island - 8.4 - New Jersey - 8.1 - Massachusetts - 8.0
As comparison to the EU states you will note that the highly-populated U.S. states are as fast or faster: - Sweden - 10.6 - Romania - 9.5 - Bulgaria - 8.5 - Netherlands - 8.2 - Germany - 7.0
I didn't ignore the saying. I made the point that the statistics Obama is quoting are invalid, because they compare a continent-wide nation against little tiny countries that are no bigger than a subset of the U.S. (i.e. a state). If you're going to make comparisons, you don't compare apples to grapes. You compares apples to apples:
That's why I chose to do continent-wide federations v. continent-wide federations. Like to like. And in that comparison the EU, Russian Federation, and U.S. are essentially tied, and significantly more-advanced the Canada, Australia, or China.
If that ever happens then I'll probably stop buying games, movies, et cetera.
The way I can afford these things is by buying them, playing them, and then passing them on to someone else. Overall I end-up spending 0 dollars, although in some cases of a rare item, I will make a small profit. If the time comes when I can't resell my products because they are electronic instead of physical, I'll no longer be able to afford the initial purchases.
I think the government interference with electricity/phones was a mistake. Phones were already ubiquitous with even the most remote cattle rancher being served (the companies often used the barbed wire to form a connection). Electricity had already reached 95% of the population by the 1930s. There was no need for that corporate welfare. (I detest corporate welfare.)
Politicians often create a problem that either (a) doesn't exist or (b) used to exist but has already been solved via the free market. Obama saying the U.S. is falling behind is a manufactured problem that does not exist. We're already essentially tied with the EU and Russia.... we're NOT falling behind.
Don't pay your bill when you move out of your house. Don't leave a forwarding address so the Telco can't find you. That's how you "get back" at them for their theft of your dollars.
I really wish people would READ THE 1996 COMMUNCATIONS ACT. Most of the money was earmarked to upgrade phone lines from analog to digital, and increase speeds from ~19k to ~56k. The end.
Now if you think that sounds like a stupid way to spend money, blame the politicians in Congress, not the telcos.
Most people use their computers like they were televisions - and they resemble the classic couch potato as well. I'm sorry but I don't see the need to spend trillions in taxpayer dollars just to encourage more sloth in front of a flickering screen (TV, computer, or otherwise).
See my previous post about colleges making using of BRAINS rather than technology to teach kids.
I agree. My college just finished renovating its science building, and instead of a bunch of shiny machines, I was surprised at how *little* technology they actually use. They still use blackboards, still require students take notes on paper, and still do the math the "old fashioned" way of using your brain.
We need more of that type of teaching at the middle school and high school level, not a bunch of pretty gadgets.
The reason Korea has such rapid broadband is because it's like one giant city. You too could have Korean-like broadband if you moved to a major city (or tech center) like Seattle, L.A., New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. Even here in suburban PA I have access to 100 megabit/s broadband via comcast.
Also the United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, but a continent-spanning nation that takes 3 days to drive across (~2500 miles), and therefore it makes sense to compare like-to-like:
(1) Russian Federation - 6.9 megabit/s (2) European Union - 6.2 (3) United States - 6.1 (4) Canada - 4.4 (5) Australia - 4.4 (6) China - 2.1... .
The U.S. is only slightly behind its Russian/European neighbors, and significantly ahead of its Canadian, Australian, and Chinese neighbors. That is not a bad position to be.
You know that saying about lies, damn lies, and statistics? This is an example of lying with statistics. The United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, but a continent-spanning nation that takes 3 days to drive across, and therefore it makes sense to compare like-to-like:
(1) Russian Federation - 6.9 megabit/s (2) European Union - 6.2 (3) United States - 6.1 (4) Canada & Australia - 4.4 (tie) (5) China - 2.1... .
The U.S. is only slightly behind its Russian/European neighbors, and significantly ahead of its Canadian, Australian, and Chinese neighbors. That is not a bad position to be. By the way I got these stats from speedtest.net which is based upon actual measurement of the users, and therefore not distorted.
>>> policemen... have the unalienable right to life you know, which is just as important as your right to liberty.
To be specific, police are government agents. If we follow your reasoning, then the killing of British soldiers (also government agents) during the years 1775-1783 were not justified by the American Founders, because those government agents' right to life was more important than the U.S. fight for liberty.
Are you sure this is the position you wish to hold?
Also as I stated elsewhere: The police know the Supreme law of the land requires a search warrant. If they want to ignore the law, and enter a private home without warrant, then that makes them criminals too. Worse, it's a crime against the people's Constitution, a "treasonous and high crime" according to the law.
>>> You are advocating the murder of largely innocent people
Cops are not innocent. They know very well the U.S. Constitution forbids them from entering a private home without a warrant, therefore they are breaking the Supreme law and they are criminals.
There are all rather pricey for internet, but better than your current 26k analog connection. Where do you live? (just curious). Another idea is to use a Dialup provider which squeezes images and flash to increase effective throughput to ~200k.
Any idea why your phone line was never upgraded to digital? At the very least you should get 28 kbit/s using a V.90 or V.92 digital modem..... typical rates are around 45k. I'm sorry to hear you were left out. Maybe you should call you Congresscritters and complain.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if it's going to increase my taxrate.
I'm already in the 35% tax bracket. I don't feel like moving into the 45% tax bracket just so President Whoever can spend a few trillion laying fiber to Wyoming. The government needs to stop spending so damn much money.
You act as if they are mutually exclusive, but they are not.
The average speed & availability are closely related. If I have 20 megabit/s broadband, but you're still stuck at 0.056 megabit/s dialup, then that will drag down the average speed for the whole U.S.
If population does not matter, why does Rhode Island have a 10 megabit/s connection (as do most of the Northeast states) while Montana and the Dakotas are only 2 megabit/s?
The answer is obvious. Population density DOES matter. The European Union has a similar pattern with highly-populated states having fast speeds (12), while rural states like Greece barely get 2.
And before the TVA there were private companies serving the area.
There was absolutely no need to create the TVA, because electricity was already being supplied. Oh and I'm sorry to hear you have no choice in internet. I have Comcast, Verizon, Netscape, Dish, and DirecTV. Lots of options. I chose the cheapest at just $15 a month (Verizon) with the $7 provider (Netscape) for when I travel across the country. That's how it should be - power to the people to make their own choices.
I have electric choice. It works great because I was able to hook-up to a company that only uses Hydro, Wind, and Solar power instead of my previous company that used 90% coal power.
And back to internet: There's no reason why we can't run multiple wires underground. I have choice there to: Comcast, Verizon, or Netscape. The advancement of technology is slowly but surely killing-off the old "natural" monopolies.
Massachusetts is actually the fifth fastest region in the world, just behind Sweden, Korea, Japan, and Rhode Island.
That was probably a poor example. Instead choose a state like Montana... why does Montana have an average speed of only 2 megabit/s? Simply put, because this state is ~400 miles wide with only a few people, and it's too expensive to run miles of wire just to serve a single rancher living in the middle of nowhere.
Population density DOES matter. It's cheaper to run a mile of wire that can serve 100 residents, than to run a mile of wire that serves 0.01 residents. That's self-evident. The denser the population, the more cost-effective it becomes to upgrade the speed. That's why the fastest regions in the U.S. are also those states with the highest populations (the Northeast and Great Lakes regions).
NYC is not pathetic. NYC's average speed is around 14 megabit/s which is faster than the national average of every country on this planet except Japan and South Korea. NYC is ABOVE average.
I still maintain the U.S. is doing just fine. Our average is equal to that of the European Union. We Americans are no worse off than our European neighbors.
Spoken like a person who has never driven across the United States. There are regions where you can drive for miles and never see anything except a couple random cows grazing. Comparing this 2500-mile wide federation versus a small country no bigger than Delaware makes ZERO sense. It's like comparing a pumpkin versus a pea... totally illogical.
I prefer to compare one federation versus another, where the sizes are comparable. Like the US versus the EU versus Canada versus Australia, because only then can you draw conclusions of like v. like.
1 datapoint doesn't alter the big picture.
California is in the top 10, with an average speed of 6.8 megabit/s. That's comparable to the average speed in Germany, and faster than your colleagues in France, England, or Italy.
I'm glad you brought that up, because when you compare the coastal region of the U.S., they are actually quite speedy:
- Delaware - 10 megabit/s
- Washington - 8.9
- Rhode Island - 8.4
- New Jersey - 8.1
- Massachusetts - 8.0
As comparison to the EU states you will note that the highly-populated U.S. states are as fast or faster:
- Sweden - 10.6
- Romania - 9.5
- Bulgaria - 8.5
- Netherlands - 8.2
- Germany - 7.0
I didn't ignore the saying. I made the point that the statistics Obama is quoting are invalid, because they compare a continent-wide nation against little tiny countries that are no bigger than a subset of the U.S. (i.e. a state). If you're going to make comparisons, you don't compare apples to grapes. You compares apples to apples:
That's why I chose to do continent-wide federations v. continent-wide federations. Like to like. And in that comparison the EU, Russian Federation, and U.S. are essentially tied, and significantly more-advanced the Canada, Australia, or China.
If that ever happens then I'll probably stop buying games, movies, et cetera.
The way I can afford these things is by buying them, playing them, and then passing them on to someone else. Overall I end-up spending 0 dollars, although in some cases of a rare item, I will make a small profit. If the time comes when I can't resell my products because they are electronic instead of physical, I'll no longer be able to afford the initial purchases.
Biology 101.
I think the government interference with electricity/phones was a mistake. Phones were already ubiquitous with even the most remote cattle rancher being served (the companies often used the barbed wire to form a connection). Electricity had already reached 95% of the population by the 1930s. There was no need for that corporate welfare. (I detest corporate welfare.)
Politicians often create a problem that either (a) doesn't exist or (b) used to exist but has already been solved via the free market. Obama saying the U.S. is falling behind is a manufactured problem that does not exist. We're already essentially tied with the EU and Russia.... we're NOT falling behind.
Don't pay your bill when you move out of your house.
Don't leave a forwarding address so the Telco can't find you.
That's how you "get back" at them for their theft of your dollars.
I really wish people would READ THE 1996 COMMUNCATIONS ACT. Most of the money was earmarked to upgrade phone lines from analog to digital, and increase speeds from ~19k to ~56k. The end.
Now if you think that sounds like a stupid way to spend money, blame the politicians in Congress, not the telcos.
I learned typing on a $50 typewriter. You don't need a $3000 PC.
No not really.
Most people use their computers like they were televisions - and they resemble the classic couch potato as well. I'm sorry but I don't see the need to spend trillions in taxpayer dollars just to encourage more sloth in front of a flickering screen (TV, computer, or otherwise).
See my previous post about colleges making using of BRAINS rather than technology to teach kids.
I agree. My college just finished renovating its science building, and instead of a bunch of shiny machines, I was surprised at how *little* technology they actually use. They still use blackboards, still require students take notes on paper, and still do the math the "old fashioned" way of using your brain.
We need more of that type of teaching at the middle school and high school level, not a bunch of pretty gadgets.
The reason Korea has such rapid broadband is because it's like one giant city. You too could have Korean-like broadband if you moved to a major city (or tech center) like Seattle, L.A., New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. Even here in suburban PA I have access to 100 megabit/s broadband via comcast.
Also the United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, but a continent-spanning nation that takes 3 days to drive across (~2500 miles), and therefore it makes sense to compare like-to-like:
(1) Russian Federation - 6.9 megabit/s ...
(2) European Union - 6.2
(3) United States - 6.1
(4) Canada - 4.4
(5) Australia - 4.4
(6) China - 2.1
.
The U.S. is only slightly behind its Russian/European neighbors, and significantly ahead of its Canadian, Australian, and Chinese neighbors. That is not a bad position to be.
Well said. Also thinks are not as bad as claimed.
"the US ranks 15th in broadband adoption.""
You know that saying about lies, damn lies, and statistics? This is an example of lying with statistics. The United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, but a continent-spanning nation that takes 3 days to drive across, and therefore it makes sense to compare like-to-like:
(1) Russian Federation - 6.9 megabit/s ...
(2) European Union - 6.2
(3) United States - 6.1
(4) Canada & Australia - 4.4 (tie)
(5) China - 2.1
.
The U.S. is only slightly behind its Russian/European neighbors, and significantly ahead of its Canadian, Australian, and Chinese neighbors. That is not a bad position to be. By the way I got these stats from speedtest.net which is based upon actual measurement of the users, and therefore not distorted.
>>> policemen... have the unalienable right to life you know, which is just as important as your right to liberty.
To be specific, police are government agents. If we follow your reasoning, then the killing of British soldiers (also government agents) during the years 1775-1783 were not justified by the American Founders, because those government agents' right to life was more important than the U.S. fight for liberty.
Are you sure this is the position you wish to hold?
Also as I stated elsewhere: The police know the Supreme law of the land requires a search warrant. If they want to ignore the law, and enter a private home without warrant, then that makes them criminals too. Worse, it's a crime against the people's Constitution, a "treasonous and high crime" according to the law.
>>> You are advocating the murder of largely innocent people
Cops are not innocent. They know very well the U.S. Constitution forbids them from entering a private home without a warrant, therefore they are breaking the Supreme law and they are criminals.
Dish Satellite?
DirecTV Satellite?
Cellphone/wireless internet?
There are all rather pricey for internet, but better than your current 26k analog connection. Where do you live? (just curious). Another idea is to use a Dialup provider which squeezes images and flash to increase effective throughput to ~200k.
Wow that's sad.
Any idea why your phone line was never upgraded to digital? At the very least you should get 28 kbit/s using a V.90 or V.92 digital modem..... typical rates are around 45k. I'm sorry to hear you were left out. Maybe you should call you Congresscritters and complain.