U.S. Lagging in Broadband Adoption, Speed: FCC Report

I say damn. Now they need to run cables off the highway that pass me to my house. Our AFC clients would like to use the net.....
 
Who needs faster internet when we the evil corporations and government can just implement data caps if need be. Saves money and charging customers overages makes money. Win-Win motherSuckers!!!:D (My evil greedy elite voice)
 
J32P said:
Who needs faster internet when we the evil corporations and government can just implement data caps if need be.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! that's why im still on a 256kbps unlimited connection.. yeah they want me to upgrade to 2Mbps, but no ways man..
 
The problem lies on both ends of the spectrum, derived mainly from the stupidity of lawmakers and geographical nature of the US.

Improving service generally means laying down lines. In a highly populated urban environment that's not so easy. And what lines and means of service there are are already owned by corporations and/or government and heavily limited and not open to competition (Cell phone towers are much the same. If another telecom company wishes to start up they have to pay verizon to use their towers and thus the "competition" winds up being a more expensive alternative). There's a legitimate reason for the limitations though: it's a pain in the ass to construct such infrastructure and it disrupts the citizens that live in those respective neighborhoods.

In scandinavia they addressed this issue in the 90's and early 2000's. They laid down fiberoptic lines throughout their nation(s) and in turn now have some of the best bandwidth available. Eastern europe followed suit quickly thereafter. Lest we even mention how efficient japan and south korea are in this respect. The issue in the US is that people get pissy when huge public projects like this disrupt their quality of life. Noise, pollution, and just the mere eye sore are enough for most people to say no to something like that. Add in the fact that the US is massive in size and sprawled out in population in comparison to these other nations and you've got yourself an absolute nightmare.
 
pelo said:
The problem lies on both ends of the spectrum, derived mainly from the stupidity of lawmakers and geographical nature of the US.

Improving service generally means laying down lines. In a highly populated urban environment that's not so easy. And what lines and means of service there are are already owned by corporations and/or government and heavily limited and not open to competition (Cell phone towers are much the same. If another telecom company wishes to start up they have to pay verizon to use their towers and thus the "competition" winds up being a more expensive alternative). There's a legitimate reason for the limitations though: it's a pain in the ass to construct such infrastructure and it disrupts the citizens that live in those respective neighborhoods.

In scandinavia they addressed this issue in the 90's and early 2000's. They laid down fiberoptic lines throughout their nation(s) and in turn now have some of the best bandwidth available. Eastern europe followed suit quickly thereafter. Lest we even mention how efficient japan and south korea are in this respect. The issue in the US is that people get pissy when huge public projects like this disrupt their quality of life. Noise, pollution, and just the mere eye sore are enough for most people to say no to something like that. Add in the fact that the US is massive in size and sprawled out in population in comparison to these other nations and you've got yourself an absolute nightmare.
Click to expand...

Yes. The US needs an Eisenhower Marshal Plan. If private enterprise won't do it, get the US Army Corps of Engineers. I know I know they take care of US resources, well I consider broadband a necessary resource.
 
A lot of the issue is geography but averages and statistics mean little. Higher speed connections are available in I'd assume every major metropolitan area. Especially NYC, I can't imagine there are many areas that don't have access to 20-30+ mbit connections now.. just how many people of your non nerdy/rich friends have 30mbit connections? Most of my friends who aren't into the stuff we are usually go with the bottom or second from bottom tiers at like 5-10mbit, simply because they can't justify the cost.

A 5-10mbit connection can be as cheap as 20/30 in some areas. My 25/25 is 69$, I had 30/5 for 59.. I can get 100/50 I think for 199 which is soon going to be 150/50. I was told that I'd be getting upgraded to 50/25 soon for free in the next few months as they're upping their rates for my area.

Cost is a huge factor if you look at the average population, for many people it is prohibitively expensive.

Don't tell me 50/50 is more than twice the price of 25/25, when a majority of that cost goes to infrastructure and government regulatory fees etc. They aren't paying for all that twice...

If I recall correctly, faster connections are far cheaper in places like hong kong, which is why I'd imagine their average speeds are faster.. it's not prohibitively expensive.

Many more people would have higher tiers if it was a reasonable amount.

Hell if the 100/50 was 100$ I'd pay an extra 30 for it most likely, even though it wouldn't make to awful much difference.. One can only download linux distros off of usenet for so long before they come out with new ones :)
 
With the company I work for its a two edge sword.Not only are they conservative in how they deploy the service,but are restricted in how they get in ,your town USA.Small government bodys play the "what can u do for me" game and the folks in the city and town suffers.So there are time when monies are moved elsewhere,but the projects don't stop.We are running services in rural areas now,with a 100% take rate
 
I live in NYC and that figure is certainly inflated. Fiber optic hasn't been laid down in vast portions of the city. The started with the outer boroughs and long island and the more populated areas of NYC got them last or are still on the wait list. I live about 6 miles from midtown manhattan and still don't have access to FiOS. I can tell you i'm not in the minority either.
 
ro3dog said:
With the company I work for its a two edge sword.Not only are they conservative in how they deploy the service,but are restricted in how they get in ,your town USA.Small government bodys play the "what can u do for me" game and the folks in the city and town suffers.So there are time when monies are moved elsewhere,but the projects don't stop.We are running services in rural areas now,with a 100% take rate
Click to expand...

I can attest to that. Even at state level governments this happens, and a lot of companies will walk because of this.
 
GotNoRice said:
In many areas now there are speeds available up to 100Mbps. The people who want or need these connections can generally get them.

How many people choose the slowest option simply because it's the cheapest and they feel that is all they need? How much bandwidth do you need to browse facebook and check your online banking?

The questions I want to know are:

How many people in the US want broadband but are currently unable to get broadband?

How many people who currently have broadband want faster speeds, but are currently limited by existing technology?

Also, If an 80+ year old elderly individual doesn't believe they need internet, then fine, but should that count toward the average?

If someone is making due with their minimal 3Mbps DSL package and is too cheap to upgrade, despite other options being available, should that count toward the average?

I think a lot of the "average broadband speed" in many Asian countries is skewed due to the prevalence of Ethernet to the Home Installations. This, not because it's faster but simply because it's cheaper. It doesn't get much cheaper and more basic than simply running CAT-5 to everyone's home, and generally they can get away with doing that.

But in the end, most sites worth visiting are still in the United States. What good is a super-fast connection when your entire country limited by the bandwidth of an undersea cable?
Click to expand...


I agree with almost all of this, but keep two things in mind:

GotNoRice said:
1.) If someone is making due with their minimal 3Mbps DSL package and is too cheap to upgrade, despite other options being available, should that count toward the average?
Click to expand...

Agreed, but what if they are too cheap to upgrade because this upgrade is much too expensive, and in other nations the upgrade is either cheap, or the base package?

GotNoRice said:
2.) Also, If an 80+ year old elderly individual doesn't believe they need internet, then fine, but should that count toward the average?
Click to expand...

Other countries don't have old Luddite curmudgeons? One would have to assume that these people exist everywhere, and that as such they bring down everyones average in a similar way.

GotNoRice said:
3.) But in the end, most sites worth visiting are still in the United States. What good is a super-fast connection when your entire country limited by the bandwidth of an undersea cable?
Click to expand...

Most major U.S. websites have local server farms in most countries in order to speed up delivery. Also - believe it or not - there are many local webpages in other countries that people use and enjoy, AND, if you look at the internet statistics only about 16.6% of internet traffic is web traffic...
 
I think another issue when you try to compare what one country has versus what the US has is that you cant simply single out one aspect and then ignore the other realities.

Take comparing internet access in say the UK or S. Korea vs the US. Beyond the obvious size differences that others have commented on, there are huge differences in how the US works vs those two. Yeah, there are better choices for internet, but is it all roses in those countries? Whats the trade off for faster internet at a cheaper price?

The US isnt going to work like other countries, so you cant just boil it down to doing what other countries are doing for the one issue. Its alot more complex than that.

Im not keen on handing the keys over the government to make this right. I simply have little trust that they can make wise decisions at a nation wide level. They have too much to do as it is, giving them the responsibility of offering these services is simply not an option in my book.

However, that doesnt mean government has no role to play here. I think they need to look hard at thier own regulations for items that do more harm to potential competitors in the internet provider market than good. They also need to crack down on local monopolies that form between some companies and government itself. And at the local level, I can accept the fact that some people will want government to provide an alternative, so thats fine with me as long as its not my community.

Ultimately though, simply letting local governments start offering service isnt going to lead to a more competitive market. So if your goal is to slowly phase out the market completely (ie make it a utility that is built, maintained, and offered through a government program), than youd get there. However, if you really dont want to have to offer the service through the government, then more must be done to repair the competitive environment.
 
GotNoRice said:
But in the end, most sites worth visiting are still in the United States.
Click to expand...

Is that because you only speak english and maybe, maybe one other language. Could explain your comment. Plenty of good sites outside of US.
 
Weenis said:
Don't tell me 50/50 is more than twice the price of 25/25, when a majority of that cost goes to infrastructure and government regulatory fees etc. They aren't paying for all that twice...
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's like DSL, they don't run new phone lines, it's POTS equipment that's being used. They do what? Swap out one card at the CO? Or hell maybe it's as simply as typing on a computer "USER X : DL Cap 6Mbps"

Its all capitalism, and I can dig it... however having lived in an area that tends to charge more for everything because they can get away with it, not because it cost more (we make gas here, we have main backbones running by us, we have food grown in this fucking state nearby), I tend to get a bit jaded when I'm paying $35 for 3Mbps/512Kbps service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top