US Lagging In High-Speed Internet Service

Mackintire said:
ISP's need to offer both choices of speed and data.


Comcast needs to offer 25Mbps with 250, 500, and unlimited caps. $10 per 50GB is not unreasonable if they send you an e-mail notifying you that 95% of your data usable for the month has been reached.

A better idea is to throttle bandwidth hogs for the remainder of the billing period. And even better idea is to give the customer a choice....be throttled or pay for overages.

Throttled would lower 25Mbps to 3Mbps or something like that for the remainder of the billing period.[/QUOTE

The whole "bandwidth hog" and other people downloading "x" amount of data affecting YOUR bandwidth is a joke.

The problem isn't some average joe downloading too much, it's ISP's overselling nodes and not building up their infrastructure.
Click to expand...
 
I'm pretty sure I'm going to kill myself if Optimum ever imposes any kind of bandwidth cap.
 
Stiler said:
The whole "bandwidth hog" and other people downloading "x" amount of data affecting YOUR bandwidth is a joke.

The problem isn't some average joe downloading too much, it's ISP's overselling nodes and not building up their infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about it affecting my bandwidth. ISPs are in it to make a profit. I just think the lack of competition and hidden caps and inflexibility on how much data you consume is crap.

If you leave the water running you are responsible for how much water you use. Speed is nothing more than (water pressure)

ISPs should care more about your consumption than speed. Comcasts 250GB a month limit or we'll disconnect you...is a pretty crappy policy.

I'd pay more for more speed
I'd pay more for more data

Personally given the choice...I'd rather have 500GB at 15Mbps for $49.99 than 250GB at 50Mbps.
 
LastQuestion said:
In the US, 0.3% would be about $500,000,000. If we all suddenly had access to Google Fiber that would more than double bandwidth. At the time of that study we were also dealing with a global recession. There has been a lot of growth in online services since 2010.
Click to expand...

You're off by two zeroes. It's 50 billion, not 500 million.
 
Stiler said:
This is what happens when you allow monopolies.

No reason to provide faster speeds, cheaper prices, etc because the consumer has no choice in the matter.

Also they have allowed them to (over the years) help create laws that actually work AGAINST the government being able to offer such services , the same as say electricity/water, etc.

The few place that have gotten this (such as Chattanooga, TN) had to fight in courts to do so, and now they offer 1gb (yes A GIGABIT, not MB) for 70 bucks a month.

I pay 70 bucks for just 50mb.
Click to expand...

Eh, its usually governments that cause these problems through regulation and "Cable franchises" aka monopolies. Sometimes those franchise monopolies make sense, (just as a local gov creating their own internet service) to entice a company to spend the cash to build the lines to a town. The problem becomes how long the local government stays bought off (and how much a town gets through franchise fees).

The problem is worse in my opinion with electricity and water (though I'm less of opponent on water issues for urban areas). Ever wonder why there haven't been big new developments in power generation tech? Why bother when state/feds have given a few companies (or itself) a monopoly aka "public utility commissions".
 
FighterAce124 said:
0.3% is 47,040,000,000 (15.68T 2012) - I don't think you people realize how massive the US GDP is, and how massive of a number .3% of that is, so there you go. .3% is MORE than worth the cost of upgrading infrastructure - 47B/year is worth doing something for.

To say otherwise is foolish - the investments would be paid back in GDP increases within 5-10 years, very likely MUCH sooner.
Click to expand...

No, I fully understand the math and the scale. I think you aren't understanding it though. That is .3% of our total GDP, the gains would be spread out. There are 50 states and a huge land mass that needs to be overhauled. The cost to do that is astronomical, far greater than the 47B you would get. To put it in perspective it cost Verizon 25B just for the initial few rollouts of FIOS they did. And that was on a limited scale. The gains they are talking about are not taking into account the amount you would have to spend to get those gains. Plus, that money would not be put back into the economy. It is not a real economy booster, its just a filler number people use to try to make their program look good. They know the general public and many politicians don't truly understand the cost of infrastructure. It takes a decade to recoop and make money off a major infrastructure overhaul, especially when you are trying to replace what you currently have.

Also that is not even touching on having to get agreements, permits, right of ways, etc through all the local governments. Then you need to get cooperation from numerous corporations to agree on and install the infrastructure. Time, materials, labor, ching ching ching goes the cash register. One thing it will boost though is labor for cable workers and construction workers which would be good.

Would it be a good thing overall? Yes. Would it be easy? Absolutely not. Would it boost the economy? Not for a long while. It would boost some job sectors for the construction, but the overall cost would completely outweigh that small gain. Then the increased bandwidth would not even necessarily go to American companies, as I have also mentioned, since the Internet is universal now.
 
Being no real broadband options are available, we are having to hotspot att's 4g service via cell phones for a family of 5 at over $320 a month.. Comcast is down the road, and att has no desire to upgrade the remote terminal with a vrad or even the older dslams.. Pretty much we are fucked here even though we are not a rural area really.. That being said i've seen dslams in areas (and like the stalker I am, I confirmed broadband availability) in areas with literally only a couple house's within realistic range.. Yet my community keeps getting ignored.... "Oh, you can get high speed satellite!!" To that comment, i say "go F@#k Yourself!!""

Sorry, just been the story of my freakin life in my area..
 
Huan said:
Being no real broadband options are available, we are having to hotspot att's 4g service via cell phones for a family of 5 at over $320 a month.. Comcast is down the road, and att has no desire to upgrade the remote terminal with a vrad or even the older dslams.. Pretty much we are fucked here even though we are not a rural area really.. That being said i've seen dslams in areas (and like the stalker I am, I confirmed broadband availability) in areas with literally only a couple house's within realistic range.. Yet my community keeps getting ignored.... "Oh, you can get high speed satellite!!" To that comment, i say "go F@#k Yourself!!""

Sorry, just been the story of my freakin life in my area..
Click to expand...

No Satellite in your area?
 
My friend in sweden pays roughly $49 a month for 1000Mbps connection. A freaking gigabit connection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top