digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at arstechnica.com

Broadband: Other Countries Do it Better, But How?

arstechnica.com — The US continues to fall on global broadband rankings, even as countries that are more rural and less wealthy surge ahead. Here's how they do it (hint: it does not involve wholesale deregulation).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • madwaxer, on 05/12/2008, -37/+11BS, its all about the ability of a certain ability to snoop on web traffic; the faster it get ther harder it is for the current technology to keep up.
    • CrazedLeper, on 05/12/2008, -7/+17True, also greed. Americans have no sense of camaraderie. Everyone is in it for self and immediate profit all the time. Creating a good national network of computers requires a national network of good people. We have corporations instead of that.
    • djbon2112, on 05/12/2008, -1/+15I disagree with the Canada one. Our ISPs are worse than the US. They're all slow, expensive, and throttle. Oh, and we can't get fiber except at exorbitant cost, almost anywhere.
      • djbon2112, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The wording of my last sentence isn't clear: I say we can't get fiber anywhere, except at exorbitant costs ($100/ft to lay the cable).
      • purplehaze420, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Dude I live in Canada - and you couldn't be further from the truth. Take a look at www.dslreports.com, and you will find that ISP's around the GTA are frequently in the #1 spot, including mine (Cogeco). If you use protocol encryption and utorrent, then you have no worries.
        • jsauter, on 05/12/2008, -2/+0Must be nice in the center of the universe.
  • zombird, on 05/12/2008, -17/+266Other countries don't spend their money disassembling a third world country every decade or so.
    • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -73/+26They also don't spend it on providing disaster relief and other forms of governmental welfare to every ***** hole on the planet.
      • wendelgee2, on 05/12/2008, -9/+47Actually, they do.
        • MWeather, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4And at a much higher percentage of GDP than we do.
      • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -7/+561) Yes, many of them do
        and
        2) Go away.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -40/+161) Not at a fraction of the amounts that my tax dollars are wasted on.
          and
          2) ***** off.
          • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -4/+19Well then, move to one of those countries who don't provide relief to "every ***** hole on the planet" if you are so furious that your tax dollars are spent to help people less fortunate then you.
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -33/+6I don't like socialism. That's why people like me fight people like you.
          • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10You don't know anything about me, so don't make a generalization. I am against socialism as well. I don't see any problem with aiding people in need though.
          • slaizer, on 05/12/2008, -2/+28"I don't like socialism"

            It's not socialism, it's having a conscience, you selfish, ignorant asshat.
          • jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -16/+6What's wrong with donating to charity to help those less fortunate than you? Why must the government spend our money to help people who don't even live in America? I donated to charity after Katrina, the Tsunami, and after a local fire that destroyed a large apartment complex. And I'm not exactly rich.
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -20/+6How's you conscience? Is there someone within driving distance living on the street without food?
            How many people can you feed at the cost of your computer and internet connection?
            Don't even think of lecturing me you hypocrite.
          • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -3/+13I understand that people don't like their tax money going to something they don't agree with, but I really don't see why foreign aid is an issue to people. The way I see it, if you cut out the whole morally it's a good thing to do thing, you are basically just laying the groundwork to create a foreign ally. Why is that an issue? That sounds like tax money well spent to me.
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -7/+2You're not creating an ally, you're buying one. And not very effectively. Once the money stops flowing will they still be there when you need them?
            (The correct answer is a resounding "NO")
          • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry. Why do you think most countries become allies? Generally it is because they are getting something from each other. Like protection, goods, services, money...
          • MWeather, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1"You don't know anything about me, so don't make a generalization. I am against socialism as well. I don't see any problem with aiding people in need though."

            You can't be against socialism, and for forcing people to help those in need. They're one in the same.
        • Lurick, on 05/12/2008, -3/+21Actually, EACH ONE of the countries listed in this article not only provide disaster relief and governmented-implemented welfare programs, but ... well, they do so at a far higher percentage of their per capita than we do. What you did there, my friend, is just said something that you felt was "probably" true, without bothering to know whether or not it was "actually" true. This is the very essence of *****, at its most pure.
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -7/+1There it is. The "per capita" misnomer. It's a weak argument designed to make the richest people feel guilty even though they gave the most actual money.
            How much is paid per blue eyed albinos? It's just as good of an argument as "per capita".
      • Aensland, on 05/12/2008, -4/+36The amount you spend on "disaster relief" is a fraction compared to the amount you waste on those wars.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -34/+12Fine, let's not spend money on either. I'm sure it will only be a few years before your living under sharia law. Hope your daughter didn't like her clitoris.
          • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -4/+18Here, I think you dropped you tin foil hat...
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -21/+4What were you looking for down there? Your balls?
          • chrillen, on 05/12/2008, -2/+9Niggawhat? Someone's paranoid.
          • 47f0, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Yer sorta missing the point. Foreign and disaster aid is actually good for us. Not a tent, not a bottle of water, not a bag of rice goes out that isn't conspicuously stamped "USA". It's pretty cheap advertising at the price, and one of the reasons the USA has supporters even where you might not expect.
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3You would think that. If you hadn't been to Africa and seen the bags of rice stamped USA being traded for weapons.
            I have. Try it sometime.
          • r00ts, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4INTERNET TOUGH GUY ALERT!!
        • evildemonic, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1incorrect
      • JKAL, on 05/12/2008, -1/+14relief money? phffff , what is mostly sent as relief is out date medicine, powdered milk (to places where the water is mostly unsafe to drink), basically dump corporations' unwated (i.e. garbage) goods, and then claim the monetary value of that good's "good shelf life" , tell me that once again relief? phfff i say again.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -19/+5You've just described almost the entire UN oil for "food" program in Iraq. Except you forgot the bribery of high officials.
      • drakethegreat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Yes the federally mandated program to provide disaster relief to ***** holes. What was the bill number for that program again? I feel you may qualify so I'm just trying to help out...
    • KhanneaNL, on 05/12/2008, -8/+30It's time to aggressively denounce the neostalinist ideology of US leaders and force them to move back to humane capitalism, decent checks and balances, less morbid disparities between incomes, protection of normal people from corporate predators and real free market mechanisms as opposed to corporate welfare. The US needs a smaller, non-fascist, non-totalitarian, non-social darwinist government. If the US gets its house in order and reigns in the out of control drunk with power corporate sector things will be A LOT better.

      Let's start by throwing some corrupt executives and war criminals in prison.
    • jamesLankford, on 05/12/2008, -6/+6why are you assholes digging this up?
      it has nothing to do with the article and nothing to do with the problem or solution !
      • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/12/2008, -8/+4Only james makes sense. Other countries that have better broadband are smaller than California. We are a large nation and spread out, its hard to run wires 3000 miles.
  • OKeric, on 05/12/2008, -32/+16We're already trillions of dollars in debt, why not add a few billion more so that we can have fast internet? I think it'd be worth it.
    • JKAL, on 05/12/2008, -1/+13here's an idea spend money on building the country's infrastructure(ie. progress) instead of destroying another's (i.e. war), money spent on 6months of war would be a handy start.
    • secrity, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7How many days of the cost of the Iraqi war will equal the cost of fixing US broadband?
      • MxM111, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6about one year of Iraq war would put optical cable into each home in US
        • zombies187, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Well then...can't we finish killing them next year?
    • MaxPayne3476, on 05/12/2008, -8/+1learn about public debt. Most of it is internal and matters very little.
  • dinsy, on 05/12/2008, -16/+71The US government would only ***** it up. That's all they're capable of. We're not going to get anywhere until we get rid of the bastards.
    • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -20/+37And yet so many want the US government to run their health care.
      • BlueSkyfish, on 05/12/2008, -11/+32It's either them or the insurance companies who do everything they can to rip you off.

        Lesser of two evils, I guess.
        • dncarlson, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14The Government enables the insurance companies to act the way they do. Remove the cancer, and the organ has a chance of surviving at least, whereas no matter what you do, a malignant tumor is still going to kill you.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -18/+10An insurance company will bend to the will of bad publicity. The government doesn't.
          Not only that, but you will see the creation of many unnecessary positions to employ the unemployable relatives of government officials and other politically connected people. Private companies look at the bottom dollar and generally resist such waste.
        • dagnome1984, on 05/12/2008, -10/+6At least with an insurance company you have choice. When it comes to government you don't.
        • sk11, on 05/12/2008, -4/+14All developed countries, except the US, have private AND public healthcare. So there is a choice. It's actually a lot easier to claim from the government than from an insurer. Governments don't make you sign 50+ page forms full of legal small print before you can get any treatment. They don't even charge you, since it's paid through taxes. If there's a treatment the government don't offer, then you can just go private.
          • ikkefc3, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1As long as you not live in the Netherlands.
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -9/+3"They don't even charge you, since it's paid through taxes"

            This statement right here shows the ignorance of most socialists and it bears repeating:

            "They don't even charge you, since it's paid through taxes"

            Where do the taxes come from? They aren't pulled out of thin air. They come from what's left of the hard working people that pay those taxes. And as the governments need (fraud,waste and abuse) increases, the taxes will increase.

          • sk11, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Why do you think I mentioned the taxes? It was to make clear that it isn't free. I'm really not the ignorant one here, as I'm very familiar with both systems (private alone and private+public).

            Is health any less important than education, transport, libraries, national parks, etc.? If not for taxes, how would teachers, police officers, fire fighters, soldiers, etc. get paid? Should they ask for donations/check for insurance stamps before each lesson/arrest/fire fight/battle? Why even bother with having governments?

            You must be completely particularly angry about the Iraq war?

            Walmart Mercenary Insurance Co.: Dear Americans, we regret to inform you that military retaliation against Chinese conquest of the imperialist NATO territories is not covered under any of our military insurance policies. Any enquires should be directed to our new HQ based in Shanghai, China. Thank you and have a nice day.
            American 1: I know it looks bad, but I'm sure the power of bad publicity will set things right.
        • zombies187, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6An insurance company will bend to the will of bad publicity. The government doesn't.
          Uhhh... The insurance industry is one of the most hated industries in the history of industries, and rightfully so. They are also plainly among the richest. They are great at making a profit. No insurance company ever cured a disease they couldn't get rich curing. I know that some people want nothing to do with any other American, but I am a spiritual person. Call me all the names you want to. I will vote for a collective health plan.
          • Tenoq, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Bollocks. The government is far more likely to 'care' about it's constituents than a company, whose sole purpose is to make more money for shareholders.
      • brianjlowry, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Additionally, it doesn't mean the elimination of private healthcare; but rather, an addition to our current system.

        Private healthcare would be the place to go for surgeries, etc... but if i dislocate my shoulder again, i'd prefer to be covered by the government if it requires a trip to the hospital. I can NEVER get it covered under an individual policy, and quite frankly, I don't want to be a corporate guy my entire life just in case my shoulder pops out. It is ridiculous.
      • EarlOfLade, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8No, you have spent too much time listening to FOX noise. We want the health car be paid for by the government, not to have the government run it. You need to look to how it works in countries with UHC and not just believe everything you are told.
    • wendelgee2, on 05/12/2008, -20/+17The Republicans would only ***** it up, that's all they're capable of. We're not going to get anywhere until we get rid of the bastards.
      • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -11/+11You know, Democrats have controlled Congress for the better part of a year and a half now. Tell me again what they've accomplished? War in Iraq over? Nope. Ending the "culture of corruption"? Nope (See William Jefferson). 5 day work week? Only NOW they've gotten that done. Tell me again how Democrats have done so much better?
        • jahurt, on 05/12/2008, -5/+17Sometimes it amazes me how little Americans know about the US Constitution.

          A one vote majority isn't going to get much done against a determined minority.

          http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -17/+2Excuses are so much easier than results.
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -10/+3Couldn't have said it better myself keymanjim2.

            Ok, I'll bite though Jahurt. Do tell me, why did Nancy Pelosi PROMOTE William Jefferson to the Homeland Security committee where one would have access to classified information, if he was accused of corruption and bribery? Wouldn't that make for a disaster of great proportions?

            Wouldn't that tempt him to get as much classified information as possible and try some new corrupt angle?

            What the ***** kind of thinking is that?

            http://www.rightwinglunatic.com
      • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -11/+7And the democrats are so much better. How's that impeachment thing working out for you?
      • bbqsalad, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6republicans and democrats are equally horrible. The only difference is the repubs like to have gay sex in bathrooms.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Where do the democrats have their gay sex?
          The true difference is that when a republican that gets caught they get thrown out of office. A democrat will get reelected with full support of their party.
          • jahurt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You mean Republicans like Mark Foley, David Vitter and Larry Craig? I must have missed them getting thrown out of office.

            On the other hand, Eliot Spitzer resigned immediately.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -6/+18And yet people like you trust this US government with a military that has nukes, loses $2 Trillion and fails to protect our air space and the Pentagon goes "Oops. Now trust us."

      You either have a business running an infrastructure that gives it a monopoly or you have a government controlled monopoly -- which one allows you and me any say in the matter? Hint; somehow other countries that are Democratic Socialists, are able to get fast and inexpensive internet access.

      Maybe the problem in America, isn't government, it's a bunch of crooks who decry Big Government who never are held to account because they got people voting based upon gods/guns/gays? You think there might be a connection?
      • robbiemuffin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I think maybe you are saying that the problem is power. Anywhere there is a private gathering of power, in money or grass-roots organization, they have undue influence.

        I agree with what you said, except the bit about our airspace. I don't expect that the US should exterminate all threats, only to limit them.
      • reddikilowatt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Technically, the nukes are under civilian control, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a civilian agency. The triggers are set up such that they have to arm them before the army can use them.
    • devophl, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10But without new Federal laws, broadband in the US will still be 3Mbit/sec at $50/month in 10 years. Other countries where the government has gotten involved has shown that it can eliminate duplication of effort and provide competition at the local scale. In the US, huge duplication of effort has made upgrades in bandwidth have come with huge costs. This means backbone bandwidth lags other developed countries. Also, local providers have monopoly status. Without competition, there is no reason to increase access or lower rates. Plus, the government has yet to see broadband internet as a necessity. Its treated as a luxury item that needs no government regulation.

      With AT&T reassembling itself with only Qwest and Verizon left to merge in and primary competition like Sprint in deep financial trouble, its likely we will have a national telecom monopoly in this country within 5 years. This will just make it more difficult to get inexpensive, unencumbered and accessible broadband in this country in the future. Without Federal involvement, our broadband standing in the world will get far worse before it gets better.
      • dagnome1984, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3This is what people get when they don't get involved with their local government. People bitch about the broadband choices yet never went to the city meeting where the city granted cable company x with exclusive access to customers.
    • MadKennyP, on 05/12/2008, -2/+13RIght. That Interstate Highway System really is a huge failure.
      /sarcasm.
      • dagnome1984, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4It is. It helped grow this ubran sprawl we see everywhere. What do you think made it economical to travel 60 miles to and from work?
        • MadKennyP, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2That's amusing.
          • keymanjim2, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3It's also the truth. Now go clean the blood from your ears.
      • zombies187, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Also the government can't even deliver the mail! At least that's what i tell my landlord. The past due notices arrive on time every time. No seriously...I have seen anarchy up close and I didn't see anything remotely resembling an ideal society.
    • dagnome1984, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Urban sprawl*
    • jjmckay, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4That's right! The current broadband and communications industry is NOT A FREE MARKET SYSTEM! It is highly regulated and government-backed monopolies are the current status quo! The presumption laid out right from the first sentence of this story article is flat out *****!
    • oldgal, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Do you honestly think the U.S. would have become a superpower without the communications, electrification and interstate highways system? Infrastructure enables everything else.
  • whitezombie420, on 05/12/2008, -9/+67we dont have faster connections because our infrastructure is old. all these other countries have much much newer equipment installed than we do, in order for us to speed things up we have to renovate our entire infrastructure to update, this would cost much more money than the telcos are willing to spend.
    • freezerburn666, on 05/12/2008, -0/+20in thought verizon put in an ass load of fibre lines?
      • serif69, on 05/12/2008, -13/+1No, they put in an ass load of fiber lines. We don't use the -re ending after a consonant south of the 49th.
      • UnstableMind, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3In the metro areas where the population is extremely dense.
    • Gryffydd, on 05/12/2008, -15/+21Our infrastructure is old, partly because we kind of started this Internet thing...but also because the cost to upgrade the infrastructure over the whole United States is a far, far larger task than upgrading it in say...Sweden.
      • uziko, on 05/12/2008, -6/+14that has absolutely nothing to do with it, the amount of people willing to pay for it also goes up in america on a even scale

        it's because our infrastructure is old it has nothing to do with the size of it
        • JointVenture, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3Wrong, go look at a map or take a trip in a plane and you will understand.

          Even scale? did you just make that ***** up? Explain?

          Talking out of your ass.
        • jamesLankford, on 05/12/2008, -7/+2"it has nothing to do with the size of it"
          that may be what you tell your girlfriend, but its not what she tells me
      • tschau, on 05/12/2008, -3/+15You obviously didn't read the article.

        Yes, it was cheaper than Sweden, but we have far, far more money than Sweden. And around 50 times as many people. We can afford this.
        • SPECOPS, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4WTF - we have FAR FAR more cubic miles of land too - it's not apples to apples, no matter how much you'd like to spin it.
          • Antwan718, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Why the hell would cubic miles of land matter over any thing that requires square area???
          • mijelh, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Even if you meant area, USA still haves a greater population density than Sweden :32 USA - 20 Sweden (Pop per km²) so this is no excuse
        • LonesomeFighter, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1wrong. I don't think the American government has "far more money". I think we are negative.

          size does matter. Like Japan, close together, mostly cities on an island. USA is large, some areas are cities, some are farm land. Cost per person is effective in a city, but not for the middle of no where farm land where there is like 4 people for every couple miles.
          • mijelh, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1But Sweden has lower population density than the USA (20 against 31 people per square kilometer), less money per capita (37k against 49k dollars) and absolutely hughe difference in gross product (455K against 13,843K)
      • TypeEE, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2If you are right, there should be localize network that has higher speed and cheaper. This is not the case, the whole bandwidth problem is caused by monopolized market.
        • SPECOPS, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Yes, I agree 100% "monopolized market" - why sell higher speeds when 95% of your customers are "just as happy paying $50 for lower speeds, and no where else to get higher speeds". They see it as "well we have quite a huge list of customers, we must be doing something right" - without qualifying that statement with they have no where else to get any HSI.
      • thecatcantalk, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6You guys are forgetting that in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Greenland, all phone and power cables must be buried to prevent their being swiftly destroyed by the weather (ice storms and blizzards). In the rest of Europe, all phone and power lines are buried because Europeans think that above-ground lines are hideously ugly and the taxpayers are willing to pay extra not to have to look at cables everywhere.

        The point being that buried cables cost a hell of a lot more to lay in, maintain and repair. Here in the U.S., practically all that stuff is aboveground, which means it costs us FAR less...and yeah, we have WAY more taxpayers footing the bill, so there's no excuse for our networks being ten years behind the rest of the civilized world.
    • computershack, on 05/12/2008, -4/+17Well BT, a private company, are managing to do that across the UK fine. Live in a 3 house hamlet 5 miles away from the nearest town? No problem sir - 2Mbit for you. It's nearly at the point in the UK that if you can get electricity, you can get broadband.
    • Rotzooi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+38Not exactly. Europe has, still, old copper phone lines going everywhere. Connected to the same old equipment that we do. They're just quicker to upgrade. It's the competitive market for ISPs that has really opened up broadband availability. In Belgium, it's still piss-poor, because of the monopolies in the different regions (it may be relatively fast, 20Mbit going everywhere, but with silly limits, like 20GB a month). Where there is good competition, internet is cheap, fast and available even in rural areas.

      When I lived in Holland, my entire apartment building (normal residential, in a suburb, 120 odd apartments) had *standard* 24/24Mbit lines included in the rent. For a bit extra (20 bucks or so) you could make it 50/50, and for 70 dollars 100/100Mbit.
      • uziko, on 05/12/2008, -19/+3because america is a ***** compared to scandanavia and your country

        be glad you didn't have things from africa picking your cotton....be VERY glad
      • curtisag, on 05/12/2008, -11/+5Don't you think it has something to do with the fact our country is so much larger than Europe, and our population density is much less? That means it requires more wiring and is more expensive to link the entire country.
        • barnett25, on 05/12/2008, -0/+10Did you read the article?
        • EarlOfLade, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Europe does not look like New York but more like rural Idaho.

          You did not read the article and you have obviously never been to any European country. Take a damn geography class sometime.

          And if what you claim is correct, you can probably tell me where in NY City I can find 100/100Mbit connections for $20/month? Is there a more densely populated area outside Asia?
        • joshuabowers, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1To provide some statistics to bolster EarlOfLade's point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States ...
          The two largest cities, by population, in the US are New York CIty and Los Angeles, the former having twice the population of the latter, with both cities having about the same total area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States ...
      • veloscaper, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6I need to move to Holland.
      • KMartSheriff, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3"When I lived in Holland, my entire apartment building (normal residential, in a suburb, 120 odd apartments) had *standard* 24/24Mbit lines included in the rent. For a bit extra (20 bucks or so) you could make it 50/50, and for 70 dollars 100/100Mbit."

        *weeps*
    • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+43Actually Zombie, you may not know it, but the telecos were offered $200 billion in tax breaks to upgrade the country from copper to fiber back in the 90's I believe. They took those tax breaks and now only Verizon is doing something about it. THAT'S where you should point your anger.
      • jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -6/+1AT&T....
      • L0t3k, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6They rolled out fiber in the chicagoland area. AT&T is giving Comcast a black eye with their whole U-Verse service, which is WAY better and cheaper than Comcast. The unfortunate part is that it's not available just anywhere. You have to be in one of the areas where they've had fiber down. The aggravating part is that they did that YEARS ago, but only now are rolling out their decent service on it.
        A few buddies of mine just pulled the trigger on UVerse. They get their TV, Internet and Phone with them, pay roughly half as much as with Comcast, have all the features of multi-tuner boxes (it's all digital) and their in-home wiring is all done over cat5, which we all have anyway.
        • robbiemuffin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6its not fast. comcast in this area is between 5 and 15mbit. u verse tops at 10mbit (at least here).

          I'm not a fan boi for any of these guys! verizon in my area is standard at 15mbit. none of them offer third-world nation connection speeds for less than $100 per month
          • KMartSheriff, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1As long as it's not Comcast, who cares.
      • devophl, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I have Verizon's fiber service here in Philadelphia. Its cheaper than Comcast but after my promotion ends in a month, the costs will be about the same. I think Verizon will still be about 10% cheaper but I had to take Verizon's long distance with the package. I had practically free LD with my cell phone provider before so I may end up paying more for the total package.

        But I agree that Verizon's TV and Internet are a solid step up from Comcast (clearer picture and about 30% better bandwidth) and they have more available capacity whereas Comcast is pretty much done. I suspect if Verizon did things right, Comcast will lose a ton of market share in the next 3 years maybe all but driving Comcast out of my area.

        Then Verizon will likely drive prices up with no competition.... Oh well... enjoy it while it lasts!
    • Jimmerz, on 05/12/2008, -2/+14You sort of prove the point of the article. There are some things the collective power of government can do that the private sector cannot. Rural electrification would not have happened without the government, it needed to be done, but there was no profit motive. Problem is all the idiots that parrot the line 'government can only make things worse'. This may be true in many instances, but to make it one's mantra is retarded.
    • elucubra, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I live about 30 miles from downtown Madrid in a small town. We have all copper lines, no cable or fiber, and pay around 40€ for unlimited 10 Mb DSL plus unlimited national voice, use, with options for TV over DSL , with offerings from at least four providers. Telephone service in the town is at least 70 years old. What's the U.S. excuse?
  • n8f8, on 05/12/2008, -36/+21Infrastructure. When your country is smaller than a county it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade.
    • dustindame, on 05/12/2008, -7/+8What is wrong with is comment, he is exactly right. When you have a country very small it would be much cheaper and easier to rewire it.
      • kingmanic, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4You also have less people to pay for it and large capital costs are that much larger. things like main switching stations and uplinks have finite costs. So there is no excuse. Lower per capita GDP means there is less money per person per area etc... And Canada does more with less while being bigger, emptier, and poorer. All of the rationalization are post hoc excuses to cover up the blatant robbery US telecoms have committed in the last few decades.
    • Murdats, on 05/12/2008, -2/+11when your country has more workers and income it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade.
    • samdu, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Korea is one of the top countries when it comes to broadband. Korea is TINY compared to the US. It takes a significant amount of money, man power, and logistics to upgrade anything having to do with infrastructure in the US. It takes a small fraction of each of those to do so in a country like Korea. The single biggest obstacle to faster broadband in the US is land mass.
      • 47f0, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Way to totally not read the article - or understand "per capita". Or realize that a mile of rural fiber involves the same effort here, or in Korea, or in Norway. I'll try to simplify it for you. Take out your Korea stamp, and start at the tip of Florida and keep stamping until you fill in the whole map. Now multiply by the number of stamps is took to fill in. Apply numbers. Countries that are more rural per capita have done this. Countries that have a lower GDP per capita have done this - and based on your misunderstanding of this article, countries with a higher GPA have done this.
        • SPECOPS, on 05/12/2008, -7/+0Just because the article said it, doesn't make it 100% true - just another view. Just because a country with a lower GDP or more rural, doesn't mean squat. I mean, if I ran my own country, and decided that broadband was more important than social services, I'd have great broadband, and I'd be a very low GDP country too - compared to most. WTF does that prove? Yes, I guess if the U.S. didn't spend the money on the War (or any war really) they'd have enough money to "upgrade" - I think this isn't apples-to-apples as simple as the article likes you to believe.
        • JointVenture, on 05/12/2008, -6/+2You dumb *****, it has as much to do with population density as it does size.
        • kingmanic, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2JointVenture: You are the dumb *****. They did mention Canada is which is bigger, poorer, equally dense int he dense areas while much sparser in the sparse areas. They noted your argument has been debunked yet you still defend the telecoms which rip you off!
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3Buried for facts! ***** those! America sucks balls at everything.
      • joshuabowers, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Admitting we have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery. (And if platitudes will not win your heart, at least America is the best at sucking balls!?)
    • EarlOfLade, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4When you country stretches from Miami to Boston and has a total of 4.6 million people, what then?
      Oh, it's called Norway btw.
  • McHoffa, on 05/12/2008, -15/+4Its a shame that bush is such a bad president, because it makes his (very) few good points seem really insignificant... talking about broadband for everyone, hydrogen power for cars... maybe a couple more but thats pretty much it...
    • wendelgee2, on 05/12/2008, -1/+12How are those his good points? He's done jack and ***** on those issues.
    • secrity, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, it is not a fuel. Hydrogen replaces batteries, it does not produce energy. Hydrogen fuel cells sound intriguging, but they may never become practical for powering cars.
  • Chatchkie, on 05/12/2008, -0/+15I pay $80 a month for 16 mbps.

    Wouldn't it be worth it to develop a new infrastructure here?

    You would think that many businesses would be much more efficient is the internet was 10x faster.
    • Radan, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Here in Sweden I pay around $54 per month for 24 Mbit/s down and 2.5 up.

      Though, I don't see how corporations would do any better with that much faster connection speed if they don't host their own servers or download bittorrents for some reason.
      • 47f0, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9Depends on the company. A logging company, probably not so much benefit. But anything that involves research, or visualization, or who wants more telepresence employees is going to benefit hugely. In many cases, it's faster to sneakernet medical MRI images across town than over the Internet. It's faster and cheaper to toss an employee on a cheap commuter flight than rely on a telepresense connection that's slow or unreliable. Having decent broadband flips those business realities.
        • Neoanarchist, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7It also allows for greater collaboration and various other benefits in the coming age of cloud computing. Despite the fact that cloud computing is catching on slowly, I (as does Google) believe it's going to grow. The end result of cloud computing would be absolutely ridiculously cheap "terminals" where we would have access to all our software, data, games and whatever else on virtualized PCs stored in a cloud. Whereupon a high throughput with regards to broadband technologies is not desired but REQUIRED.

          Of course someone is going mention the fact that centralized data is dangerous, and I realized that, but that is neither here nor there.
    • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3How does faster internet make a business operate better. They are not piping full stream HD video nor are they running p2p. Most of the bandwidth used at my office is for not work related items. Otherwise we do not need a faster connection.
      • KMartSheriff, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Exclaimed The Red Monkey, who apparently knows nothing about business.
    • madmax85, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I pay $30 for 100/100Mbit fiber.
    • estvir, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2I pay $69.95 for 1.5MBit (And 256KBPS upload) and 25GB bandwidth limit a month.

      Go Australia! :(
  • samdu, on 05/12/2008, -26/+3A R E A.
  • ZenMojo, on 05/12/2008, -3/+36Damn Socialists and their cheap 20Mbps DSL...where's my rake so I can shake it at them angrily...?

    Seriously, though, someone's asking why the US government can't get better DSL even though they've put it in the hands of telecommunications companies and wondering why they aren't making it easier for new competitors to enter the market?
    • manstein01, on 05/12/2008, -15/+8Because the US is much larger than these countries, and has a population that is spread out over a far greater area.

      If you want to compare the US to other countries, compare it to Canada or Australia. Trying to compare the US to countries like South Korea is a joke.
      • acc355, on 05/12/2008, -1/+10Well, Finland and Sweden with roughly half the population density have you beat by a large margin.
      • slaizer, on 05/12/2008, -0/+15I wouldn't be so sure about that, fella.

        Finland: Population density - 40/sq mi(161st)
        United States: Population density - 80/sq mi(144th)

        So, your country's population density is double of mine, and still I'm writing this post from a 100/100Mbit line, which costs me about 30€ a month.
        • rhyss, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1It's all about the number of square miles you need to cover guys.

          US - 3.79 million square miles
          Finland - 1.31 square miles

          Sorry, I couldn't find stats on how much of that area is habitable.
        • dagnome1984, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The area of Finland is 338,000 square miles.
        • SPECOPS, on 05/12/2008, -2/+0Finland is 131,000 Sq miles and the U.S. is 3,537,438 Sq miles - 300 Million people in the U.S. and 5.3 Million people in Finland. Simple math for most of us I guess.
      • 47f0, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5What part of rural fiber miles per capita do you not comprehend? Yes we need more miles of rural fiber than most countries - but we also have way more people. Did nobody here pass sixth-grade math? Let me try it in small words. We have more land. We also have more people. It's the ratio of land/miles of fiber per person that makes the job harder, and we have a better, i.e. easier job than several of these other countries.
      • skidooer, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Okay, I'm in Canada. Let's compare. I have 5Mbps DSL to my farm. What do the rural (worst case scenario on both sides of the border) American customers have available?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -4/+16Haven't the highly paid industry lobbyists explained all this to you already?
      The US is too sparsely populated to do this inexpensively. Except in cities, where there are too many people to do this economically.
      /snark
    • KhanneaNL, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2It's time to aggressively denounce the neostalinist ideology of US leaders and force them to move back to humane capitalism, decent checks and balances, less morbid disparities between incomes, protection of normal people from corporate predators and real free market mechanisms as opposed to corporate welfare. The US needs a smaller, non-fascist, non-totalitarian, non-social darwinist government. If the US gets its house in order and reigns in the out of control drunk with power corporate sector things will be A LOT better.



      Let's start by throwing some corrupt executives and war criminals in prison.
    • Yage2006, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Make that damn socialist and there cheap 100mb dsl hehehe :)
      20mbps pfff

  • notcarsondaly, on 05/12/2008, -6/+15FCC

    Game Over.
    • lanceb72, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6No doubt about it. It is our regulatory system that holds us back. When was the last time we allowed wholesale competition in this arena and/or when was the last time the FCC looked to do something other than protect the telcos/cable companies? If we had competition in the communications field instead of forcing everyone to use last century's infrastructure we might have faster, cheaper connectivity in this country.
    • jjmckay, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Yeah!! The current broadband and communications industry is NOT A FREE MARKET SYSTEM as the article states.! It is highly regulated and government-backed monopolies are the current status quo! The presumption laid out right from the first sentence of this article is flat out *****!
  • tsupersonic, on 05/12/2008, -42/+8US is a big country...This is why.

    /end discussion
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -1/+16LOL.
      I guess you PWND everyone with that!
      That's why with 13 million people in New York, it's still 1/10th the speed of Tokyo -- when we aren't too sparsely populated -- we are too densely populated!

      Remember that quote; "You can fool some of the people all of the time -- and those are the ones you need to concentrate on." -- George W. Bush.
    • KhanneaNL, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3So, break it up.
      • EarlOfLade, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1It already has been... It's called "states"
  • Pinkertinkle, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Wow top of the rankings, no wonder Japan is the Asian porn capital of the world.
    • arjie, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6The number of Asians there helps. Only a bit, but it helps.
      • Pinkertinkle, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2There's a lot more Asians in China, and plenty in Korea and Vietnam and such. They got nothing on Japan in the porn competition.
    • DifferentAngle, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I think you got the relationship backwards there. The Japanese government needs the internet for porn - the US government just solicits sex in the bathrooms.
  • drmangrum, on 05/12/2008, -18/+7The bulk of the US infrastructure is based on 100 year old technology. To uproot that technology costs a lot of money and time. It's simply not cost effective to upgrade. There, end of mystery.
    • Ellipsys, on 05/12/2008, -2/+12But see, in other countries sometimes the government says things like "You know what, lets do something that's good for us as a society that may not be immediately profitable". We used to do this here, back when we landed on the moon.
      • drmangrum, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2The telecommunications infrastructure isn't the governments business. That's commerces arena. If you want better technology, talk to AT&T, Time Warner, Comcrap, and all the other telecomms.
        • joshuabowers, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4What!? Congress has the explicit authority to regulate interstate commerce! For at least the past decade, that Internet thing has become just as important a line of commerce as any public road controlled by the government.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11Yeah, and we've paid AT&T how many thousands of times for that Taxpayer funded infrastructure?
      And you know this because,... I have fiber everywhere in my city and copper ONLY on the last 300 feet to my house. I don't even think our telephone poles are 10 years old.
      • drmangrum, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2That's a separate issue. Personally, I think they should throw all senior management, both government and AT&T, in jail for fraud and embezzlement.
  • Rufunki, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14Because the US takes the same attitude towards IT Infrastructure as they do with everything else computer related, only spend as much has one needs to, never go over that, even though it runs the entire company. Lets instead take fishing trips.
  • Aerandir, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10With the greedy mindset of all the Telcos and Govt involvement, is not impossible, but very, very difficult for this to happen.
    Another barrier is the actual infrastructure, a very old one to build on.
    A solution: INVEST in Wireless Technologies!! If it's too difficult to deploy more fiber, then why not invest in a new Wireless Technologies?? This could save Millions and also, encourage new technologies such as Wireless energy.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Do you know how difficult it would be for AT&T to clone all of your transmissions for BushCo if they didn't throttle your bandwidth?
      I mean, get serious. Have some consideration for the domestic spying. Though, I'm sure Al Qaeda uses carrier pigeons, someone who has seen a pigeon before uses a computer.
  • cdigioia, on 05/12/2008, -1/+24I pay ~$37/month for at least 70mb down/15mb up in South Korea.

    I'm not sure my exact speed since @ the time I couldn't read the contract, and I have yet to find a S. Korea-based speed test I can navigate.

    Based on downloads I know my speeds peak at least as high as the above figures.
    When I can find a torrent that's well enough seeded (and after tweaking Vista), it's fun to occasionally download a movie in < 4 minutes...
    • andretii, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3< 4 "MINUTES" ? no ty i'll wait
    • TypeEE, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I paid $25 for a super high speed of 1.5mb up/256kbps down, plus an almost undetachable lan line of another $20.
      • ultrafez, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Your upload is faster than your download...?
        • guyincognitoo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4It's the torrent special.
          • ultrafez, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I had a torrent once where I had a ratio of 59.0 and I had only got 15% of the torrent... :(
            I gave up on it in the end. Damn lack of seeders.
      • Yage2006, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You call that super fast. lolz
  • Chatchkie, on 05/12/2008, -1/+55The related stories link is quite interesting http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080511-broa ...

    It claims that it would cost the US $100 billion to to fiber every home, with a third of that being paid by the government.

    116 days of the Iraq war would cover that investment.
    • slothlovechunk, on 05/12/2008, -0/+16Or we could have foregone that stimulus package and had the government invest in real infrastructure that could pay for itself over subsequent years, but that would have been too smart.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -2/+19116 days in this war could have covered almost ANY damn investment we could think of. Healthcare for everyone -- free college. National energy infrastructure or a train system that works to reduce the number of cars on the road. You name it.

      No, apparently, we don't have money to "waste" on making things better, because we will get a story about Buses, wasting gas. Any "social" program, has to be absolutely perfect and walk on water, to steal one dollar from a military bomb. Somehow, nobody says "waste" when a laser-guided bomb blows up a house that cost 1/10th the price of that bomb. Not to mention, that whoever it hit is "automatically" guilty -- I'm just talking dollars and cents.
      • funkyloki, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5And not only did we waste that money, we borrowed it too. Kinda double compounds how terribly wrong this is.
      • spkthed, on 05/12/2008, -6/+4The Iraq War has cost 500 billion so far. Social programs are 2.5 trillion a *year*. Social programs that are horribly horribly broken. Do you *really* think that giving broken systems 500 billion more is a good idea?
    • chicagog19, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2That is why i can't wait till Jan. 20, 2009
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1What happens then? Unless everyone in congress is kicked out while stripping their public sector pensions and lifetime benefits, and subsequently replaced on that day, there is no significance to that date.
    • spkthed, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5Or *A* day of the broken and worthless Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security programs.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2or a hundred or two days of SSI, I'd give up my deduction for it!
    • 47f0, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Worse yet, the telcos have ALREADY been paid - but not delivered. This goes back years. These pricks have gotten the money to upgrade, and have sat on that money.
  • slothlovechunk, on 05/12/2008, -3/+31The US may be a big country, but it's also the richest country in the world, and we have, what, 300 million people?

    Lets upgrade some internets bitches and quit making excuses. If you notice, Canada is on top of their broadband and they are huge with barely 30 million people?

    This is something the government has to do because no company is going to give a ***** about the whole country.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8As long as they can come up with ANY excuse, it will be good enough for the media and 26% of the population.
    • manstein01, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12You are freaking delusional to state that "Canada is on top of their broadband". My Canadian friends, and these are people outside Toronto and Montreal, would kill for American-grade internet access.
      • skidooer, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6I think we have it fairly good in Canada. I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere and we have 5Mbps DSL for $40/month. It looks like I could get a 7Mbps connection in Toronto for $43/month but I don't think the additional 2Mbps is enough to kill for.
      • Kicker01, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The services I got on Vancouver Island compared to Marysville in Washington are nearly identical in service and price. Both Comcast and Shaw have power boost as well. Not to mention the same kind of turtle adds.
      • cyberwarriorx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah, exactly. Especially now with the duopoly of Bell and Rogers pushing ahead with their ~60 GB hard cap. Roger's Ultra-lite package is especially laughable: 500/256 kbps with a 2 GB cap for $25/month. What a steal!
    • MaxPayne3476, on 05/12/2008, -2/+11Canada isn't a huge nation by any means. It's a population of about 33 million most located south near the US border. Try getting broadband way up north in Canada and tell me how that goes.
    • NanoStuff, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3*****, I thought Toronto was in Canada. I guess this explains why nobody here knows who the prime minister is. This is news to me and my ***** throttled DSL. I'm moving to this Canada you speak of once I figure out where it is.
  • sodade, on 05/12/2008, -0/+10Get bandwidth/QoS to the last mile and TelePresence in the home of every white collar worker. Commuting to a job is ***** backwards for a large % of the white collar world.
    • mustafya, on 05/12/2008, -0/+890% of my job can be done without interacting with anyone else. We are currently considering telecommuting 2 or 3 days a week. The proponents in our department are the 20 somethings. All the older people (management) believe you should always be at the office.
      • ell0bo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3My department is outsourcing all of our hardware, and I was really annoyed by this for a little. Until I realized the only reason we come into the office is to make sure if a server goes down we're here to bring it back up. In about a year I'll be able to work from home, and with how gas is going, that'll itself be a benefit to be compared against.
  • Phylodome, on 05/12/2008, -3/+18One word, inertia. With our current infrastructure, the investment just doesn't make sense when we're at a threshold moment for information technology where a single innovation could change the entire game. America invested in its infrastructure heavily throughout the 50s and 60s, helping us to entrench our position as a singular superpower, but also entrenching a particular paradigm of infrastructure. Countries investing in massive broadband efforts with early 21st century technology will look foolish in 10 or 15 years, and will be stuck with their infrastructure, as we are now stuck here in America. But the beauty of a free market is that when the time comes, we can adapt more quickly. Most importantly, the slant against a free-market in this piece is ridiculous. First of all, WE DONT HAVE A FREE MARKET AND NEVER HAVE. Second of all, the communications industry is one of the best examples of companies taking advantage of corrupt federal bureaucracy in order to entrench economic behavior that a real free market would kill off quite quickly. Also, consider the fact that the type of "social democracy" practiced in small countries around the world, when scaled up and implemented in a country as large and diverse as the US, usually ends in tyranny, wasted money, and ruined economies. Lastly, spending 1 trillion dollars to protect a sandlot when we could have used the same money to do a number of things, namely infrastructure development or, say, increasing the rate of solar research by some 1000% odd percent, makes zero sense and is one of the larger blunders in American history.
    • KUKBAHLAM, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Absolutely true. Telcoms are self-admittedly, inbred companies, all stemming from the fact that Ma Bell broke into pieces, but everyone stayed in the industry and continued to operate as they had before. Some of these folks went to work for the FCC and assist breaking the law. Industry wide meetings are characterized by everyone sitting around and discussing plans for the coming months. In instances where such talk is illegal, the FCC representative stops the discussion and participants scramble to take notes. These notes are then compiled and refined for the second "unofficial" meeting. This meeting takes place on the golf coarse (I suck at golf but was told that no one would be keeping score.) The important illegal topics are worked through. This is only one example of how the law was circumvented. As head of IT for an international long distance carrier during the boom years, I was educated to always send one copy of any backups to the attorneys to give us the privileged information argument. When the industry went bust, a plan was implemented to keep the industry executives from losing money. One company quit paying its bills. After 3 months, a lot of capitol accrued and this was used to buy companies that were executive owned. After consolidation, this company declared bankruptcy and screwed investors. One year later I received a phone call asking me if I had retained any backups. The lawsuits were flying. It was very clear that the answer they wanted concerning records was: "NO." After supplying the answer they wanted, I went on with my life. Six months later I received a check for $5k. The enclosed note thanked me for my recent consulting work. I am certain I am not the only person with such an experience. As a side note, I was told many times: "You think thats bad, you should see what the wireless companies do!"
    • norcalscan, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1So you're saying I should hold off on buying the iPhone until a better and blacker iPhone arrives?
  • KaivenTor, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Another part of the problem: Who does the US government turn to for help in terms of cabling and internet? ComCast.
    You connect the dots. ;)
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Perhaps because they don't embrace the "illusion" of a compettive marketplace, and the government regulates the industry to make it affordable and fast.

    We have so much dark fiber and throttled bandwidth in this country, it is ridiculous. BellSouth, has fiber all down the street, but they still keep copper wires from that to the 300 feet to my house. Why is that, do you figure?
    • Phylodome, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5"illusion"? I'd say it's much more real than the socialist "paradise" that Mr. Marx would have you sacrifice your economic liberties for.
      Free market + Real world human behavior= efficiency + innovation + long-run adaptivity
      Socialism + Real world human behavior= starvation + poverty + inefficiency + stagnation

      Also, you can't use countries with completely homogenous populations, insanely strict immigration laws, and populations of less than 50 million as any type of socialist example that could be feasible for the US.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Yeah, I notice how Sweden, Iceland, Holland and other socialist countries are starving.

        Thanks for mentioning Karl Marx who has nothing to do with the point I made.

        And, since we are a Democracy -- we are supposed to be voting on the people making the regulations, and it has worked in the past when our government wasn't so corrupt.

        Your idea bout the free market achieving innovation and efficiency only happens when it is a competitive market. That's why I stated that we have the "illusion" of a competitive market. Is there more than one pipe that brings water to your home? No. That is in most cases a municipal water supply and it is usually cheap. If you have 5 corporations giving you Natural Gas, like we do in Georgia -- they charge you out the nose for it and act like there is competition. In two years after Natural Gas was a state-run organization, its price went up 4-fold.

        The ultimate aim of a corporation is to remove the competition -- they are most profitable if they can maintain a monopoly and get the help of government to guarantee their profits. In the Real World, you can't ignore Government or Business to just "let things happen"
  • vzerbee, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4It's getting harder and harder for many of us to understand issues like this. Hidden agendas, 'other' agendas, kickbacks, this deal, that deal.. too much of the time hiding the real issues and preventing better solutions. What ever happened to the best interest of the people? The people here, in our own country.
    • KMartSheriff, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I'd bet it died a long, long time ago.
  • thewump, on 05/12/2008, -7/+5Ah, but where do these other countries rank on senseless wars and idiotic lending? Ahah! US STILL NUMBER 1!!!
  • smaskat, on 05/12/2008, -7/+18NO!
    We need all the money we can to fight wars!!
    Who needs broadband... or education.. or social security... we need bigger MISSILES!!
    ...
    /sarcasm
    • EarlOfLade, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4A good American only need three things, his bible, his gun and his righteousness...

      • Antwan718, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Can I have a Sword instead of the gun?
  • staeiou, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9To all of you people saying that it is because of size/geography: that explains the rural areas and even possibly the suburbs, but what cities, especially hubs like NYC and LA? Why aren't broadband prices comparable to other nations there?
    • Phylodome, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9Because large telecoms use our government to shield themselves from the market, not the other way around.
    • manstein01, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8Not sure in LA, but in NYC there is so much government regulations and paperwork involved in running a single cable in an urban dwelling, that it makes applying for a mortgage look like a walk in the park.
    • Enochrewt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Much like manstein01 said, the cities face their own problems, not least of which is the logistics of running the cable (streets being closed, dug up, old buildings, etc) I would bet that running 10 miles of cable to a rural Kansas home is just as expensive in a city where the cable has to go a block or two, thanks to permitting and inconvenience to others.
  • Mier, on 05/12/2008, -12/+6I do not want my tax dollars spent on stringing fiber. That is something the telcos need to do and when they realize a market that wants it they will bring it. Capitalism works if you let it and that means getting the god damn cities out of the way and let the market work.
    • 47f0, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Too late. Your capitalist buddies were already funded by a combination of your tax dollars, and by fees that you have paid for years to upgrade the infrastructure - unfortunately, as unregulated capitalists will do, they pocketed the money and shafted you. And that's how the market really works.
  • CLShortFuse, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I pay $55 a month ($20 discount for bundling phone) and I get 30mbit down / 5mbit up with 5 Static IPs and no throttling and port 80 and port 25 access over cable with Optimum Online. They even give me with free Wi-Fi in the NYC area.
    It's still FTTP (Fiber to the Premises) but not FTTH (Fiber to the Home) like FIOS. It's deployed by HFC (Hybrid Fibre Coxial).
    They're charging me $55 for it and they're still generating a profit. It's ridiculous how other cable carriers are milking their customers with crap connections.
    • stix213, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2For some reason I doubt you actually get 30mbit down for $55, since their website says "Up to 5x faster than the phone company" with a link referencing their speed of 15mbit as their top end. But maybe their site is just old. I'd think they would want to change that to 10x faster if your claim is true.
      • CLShortFuse, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Straight from my statement online (typos and all):

        Optimum Online
        04/22-05/21 Dbl Play Discount $20.00 cr
        05/01-05/31 Static IP $10.00
        (Static IP requies Boost)
        05/01-05/31 Optimum Online $49.95
        05/01-05/31 Boost $14.95
        Total Optimum Online $54.90

        And yeah, if I take out the 5 static IPs, it comes down to $44.90. Optimum Boost is $15+ 2x speed (30mbit/5mbit). They're doing trials for, I think, 50mbit now, and I'll probably upgrade to that when it becomes available. I wouldn't be suprised if it was just an additional $10-$20 to what I have now.
  • anenokoji, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7A lot of you guys are saying that smaller countries are easier. They aren't, they pose other problems. You have to look at density. Lets compare Germany. Imagine one third of the country living in Montana. Thats about the population / landmass that Germany is. That is a lot of people in a small area. Density is a problem, just like distance.

    Don't forget there was also some telecom bill passed in 1996 saying in 10 years that the infrastructure would be upgraded and homes would have fiber(I think), tax payers even shelled out a ***** load of money, but we never got it.
    • Phylodome, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7density is a plus for IT efficiency. I don't see how you figure it's harder to wire 100 houses in a 10 mile radius than 10 houses in a 100 mile radius. Why would density be a negative?
  • areba, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2True, while here in Kenya (Very third world) things are nowhere near US, it looks like its just gonna be a matter of time. There just arent many fixed line users, so broadband over dsl is not thaat popular, but the rate with which HSDPA is rolling out and promises of 4M at Ksh 3000 a month (1 USD = 70Ksh) tells me were catching up real fast.
  • jerrolds, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6I didnt know Canada was near the top - theres only 2 real choices where i live - and pay about $40/mo for 600KBit/s down and 100KBit/s up with my current provider, I believe its their 10mbit service. The only time i can max this is using 10 connections to usenet..
    • manstein01, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2It is not. The article gave Canada as an example, while providing zilch for actual evidence that Canadian internet access is any better, or fast.
    • xtremesniper, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Well with Rogers (I hear the hisses now) they provide up to 18mbps service (not cheap at 100 bucks a month). Personally I go with the Express service which is either 7 or 8mbps (I can't remember, they keep upgrading it) and I cap out at 900KB/s in the most ideal situations. I used to cap out my connection on anything, but recently it's been tougher to get up that high for some reason. And I'm pretty sure the Express service is about 45 bucks a month.
  • jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -6/+7AT&T and Verizon are currently investing heavily in fiber optic infrastructure. If the federal government said that they'd be doing this they wouldn't be spending their own money. Our government's broadband policy is to let the market do it, and Verizon and AT&T's fiber optic investments are just beginning to pay off.

    Buried as inaccurate.
  • clokwise, on 05/12/2008, -0/+13FWIW, I live in Thailand, and I have fibre to the door. My max speed? 768/256. Serious. Not only does that suck, but this country regularly blocks YouTube and many other random sites, caps ports higher than 1024, and throttles bittorrent and all int'l traffic. I get all that for $100 a month! Yes I have options, I can get ADSL from the national telco at 512/128. There is a private telecom option, however they don't serve my area.

    So don't believe the hype, it's not all wonderful out here in Asia.
    • Phylodome, on 05/12/2008, -9/+4Finally, the reality emerges from the dark heart of socialist inefficiency.
    • digjam, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Well Thailand , Burma may be exceptions due to the Govt control, but contries like Japan are way ahead in Asia!
  • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I went from 42kbps a year ago to 1mbps now. I am quite happy but it could be faster. It wont help page loading much if you go any faster but it would help big downloads which I do a lot.
    • digjam, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2BIG Downloads on 1Mbps...dude you are so in a third world country...Oh wait a min...they are faster than USA...DAMN!
      • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1No No I meant a FASTER than 1mb connection would speed up downloads...Sure 1mbps is faster at downloading than dial up.
  • secrity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Why is it that cable companies and Verizon have found it financially possible to run fiber to the pedestal, or even to the home, yet other phone companies whine about the cost?
    • Phylodome, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Economies of scale, I'd presume...
    • jabelar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Actually, telcos usually do such things out of necessity. It may only be barely financially possible for Verizon, or it may lose money in the end, but they feel compelled (competitively I guess) to up the ante on their rivals. The only way for it to really be viable is through government incentives, which actually the telcos already received as a tax break for fibre build out.
    • stix213, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Cable companies probably use the fiber for television transmission in addition to Internet connectivity, thus maximizing their investment. Verizon probably can because they are a huge company and can afford to.
    • reddikilowatt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Labor costs figure prominently into Verizon's move to FTTH. The cost of upkeep on the copper network was getting out of control, and they were paying techs "fiber" wages for maintaining it. They have been pushing fiber deeper into their network since the early 1990s, so it just made sense to get everyone on board.

      Comcast uses coaxial cable, which has a much higher bandwidth available, on the order of 850MHz. Copper pairs top out at about 12MHz.
  • Doubledown, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7You are all looking at it way to deeply..... its not about the size of the country or the cost it would be to upgrade. Its simply the TelCo's competition. If there is hardly any competition, then the TelCo's can offer you whatever speed and for whatever price. They know we are going to pay their prices so get use to it. So here is the solution....

    Increase the competition. I would rather pay a smaller company more money for better service than pay for Verizon DSL/Fios
    • funkyloki, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Good luck with that. Unfortunately, monopolies are what this country is all about. Chalk it up to greed. When many of the tech start-ups in the US get gobbled up by bigger fish (which I believe is the intention much of the time), there is no competition.
    • reddikilowatt, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1It costs about $200/ft to bury cable in the street by the time it's all said and done (a drop to your house is much cheaper because it only has to be down 2 feet or so, while cable down the road has to be 48 inches or more). If you call up your local VC for a meeting about getting a business started, he'll laugh you out of the room.

      And that doesn't even start go cover the costs of getting a right of way for a railroad (best routes for long-haul intercity runs, since the DOTs are usually don't want to run glass along the highways), redundant routing (so that high school dropout running the backhoe doesn't take out the whole city), pole rental fees (about $20/pole in some places - count how many are in your neighborhood), NOC monitoring, call centers, marketing (not everyone knows why they need 100Mbps data), pedophile/DMCA notification, accounting/billing, and on going maintenance..
  • yabos, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8They had me until this part:
    "Canada. Finally, Canada adopted a broadband plan in 2001 and it treats broadband as a core infrastructure element. It has about the same rural/urban mix as the US but a smaller economy per capita, and it is near the top of the OECD rankings."

    Total crap. Bell and Rogers run it in eastern Canada and Shaw and Telus out west. They do whatever the hell they want including thottling stuff they don't like such as all torrents right now. And they force their throttling on the 3rd party ISPs that lease access the the local loop. Yes the CRTC mandated that Bell has to give access to the local loop to others but Bell still screws with the traffic going over it.
    • DryMaltExtract, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1^-- This. We're in the same boat as the US.
    • jabelar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Shaw's actually decent, but yeah in general Canada's scenario is not (much) better than US.
    • cyberwarriorx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Don't forget the new hard cap system they're both coming out with which is wholly inadequate.
  • rowlodge, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3pretty sure one of these fiber optic companies tried to replace everything they had and the company went bankrupt, just weren't enough customers, don't know why, too expensive to start it up i guess.
    • reddikilowatt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Hard to get wall street to look at a 20 year payback these days, and Internet access is "incremental" revenue for an incumbent. That is starting to change, but for now, being an ISP is secondary for telephone and cable companies. It requires an infrastructure upgrade, but an upgrade to existing plant is always going to be cheaper in the long run, especially in the cable TV world.

      Now, if the satellite guys can figure out how to eliminate the big delays, they'll be in the best place of all. They really don't have infrastructure to speak of.
  • digjam, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Kill ATT and Verizon and you will have faster speeds in the coming years!
  • bbliss17, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4I wish we have 100+Mbps speeds. That would just be incredible for torrents.

    $12 billion a month on a war. We could of had this upgrade years ago if we went over there flexed some muscle and then pulled out.
    • WhiteRaven, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Sure, we can do this is you A) don't care about actually achieving anything in the Middle East and B) ignore the constitution. The federal government does not have the authority to build or fund or mandate the building of a public internet.
  • funkyloki, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9What noone seems to mention here is that We the People paid the telcos (through subsidies) to build the broadband networks. These companies spent very little of that money on actual broadband infrastructure. And then they want to charge us an arm AND a leg to receive that same broadband we paid for. In the words of Ace Ventura, "How do you like that?"
    All I can say is regulation. If you leave this in the hands of private-industry, whose purpose is not to aid broadband advocacy, but to maximize profits, this is what you get.
    • WhiteRaven, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Learn a lesson from this... DON'T GET THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED!!! Why the hell was anything subsidiesed? What subsidy program has EVER improved a situation?

      You can say regulation because the regulation you are promoting won't be promoted on you. There is nothing more despicable than someone who expects their own rights to be defended while seeking to strip others of theirs.
      • funkyloki, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I agree with you: subsidies don't solve anything. However, we have learned that allowing these telcos to act without regulation has resulted in more monopolies, less competition and higher prices. I'm not saying regulate them to death, but the free-market has not worked in this case.
        • WhiteRaven, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1In what way has it not worked? You want more for less... so what? Just because you are happy doesn't mean there's a problem here. The fact that you have expectations that aren't being met is not justification for stripping others of their rights.

          You're not suggesting we regulate them to death? Well thank you oh so much, master. We should all be grateful that the tyrant has decided not to actually kill us, just control us.

          Why do you presume you have *any* say over the actions of another? As long as no one is being attacked, there is no justification of *any* regulation.
  • KhanneaNL, on 05/12/2008, -5/+11America capitalist? Phah, from a European persepective your country looks STALINIST.
    • dagnome1984, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3We ditched our free market system for a fascistic socialistic hybrid.
    • WhiteRaven, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Would you like to explain what you are talking about, KhanneaNL? I suspect that you are badly misusing terms. Or at least, using them differently than the way most people understand them.
  • kylere, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Because it is easier (more profitable) to charge us all 73 bucks a month for crappy speed and 250gigs caps like Comcast does to me, then to offer decent access at a decent price.
    • bbliss17, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Comcast has a cap? I heard about this but I didnt know they actually applied it!! That sucks man!!
    • WhiteRaven, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1What I don't understand is why you think you are *owed* a "decent price". You aren't the only one that has rights. If you want to use the power of government to coerce other people into doing what you want, you are a tyrant.
  • thanakar, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4Get over yourselves, it may suck but its not the Government's job to run a 100Mps fiber optic line to your house. If you don't like your service bug the TelCon.
  • CCmachined, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3when I installed Linux, i found out why I shouldnt torrent GBs upon GBs upon GBs of stolen software and content.
    you lot should too and stop bitching. Microsoft is monopoly too, and far moreso than the 'net providers in the modern world. seriously, what else do you _NEED_ that bandwidth for?
  • joeanon, on 05/12/2008, -9/+6The government MIGHT screw it up, but private industry ALREADY had their chance, so something WILL be done, market forces simply demand a solution will arise and they apply even to the government.

    However, I don't think we are comparable to any of those places you compared us to.

    For a network of this scale to be fast it must also be complete. What all those other nations have that we don't is a small area and low population. OF COURSE Japan has it easier, look at their population density.

    It's not about per capita, it's about the physics of running all that fiber and getting the project done in a timely manner so by the time it's hooked up the rest of the world doesn't have quantum internet or such.

    For instance, the fact that people think we can divide 100 billion between the states, the feds and private industry and that is going to be an efficient business model to oversee...

    Get real, the LAST thing you want to do is spread out management of a national project like this.

    The US didn't appropriate funds so carelessly when building up for WW2.

    NO, we accomplished production 'miracles' that in many cases still have yet to be met. The German also producing amazing technology exceptionally cheap.

    I think the key there is awareness that this is a matter that people MUST cooperate with for the good of their nation. Secondly STRONG central management is key to engineer a fast rollout, which is what you want with any type of computer technology.

    In our current situation.. I don't see that fiber is all that important. It's not as if we won't just use up the bandwidth and then require more and more and more fiber lines to be installed.

    Fiber to every door, in the US is probably not a realistic idea.

    I think the real direction of internet is wireless ISP, but not wifi rather cellular.

    The one network you can't get away from is cellular because we all need cell phones these days. That means while the other markets claw each others eyes out, the cell market will just thrive. Plus we already can see that a mobile computer platform is ideal.

    SO, in the end you'll REQUIRE mobile internet and the only provider than can realistically provide it is the cell companies. Since you have little choice but to go cellular for phones and eventually you'll have little choice but to go cellular for mobile internet (which most of us have in our phones already). That put the cell companies in a position where they are by default your ISP. You'll be paying for something like 3 mbps internet to your phone anyway, why not just use that for your home. Why pay 50+ a month for a bunch of bandwidth that most people won't use.

    In the long run upgrading cell towers with new equipment is WAY cheaper than any other means of providing internet and MOST importantly it's mobile and it scales up.

    Every couple year the cell network, by it's own basic design upgrades itself. The fiber lines don't do that. We might make better equipment, but the lines have capacity limitations which we'll meet and need to install more.

    It's likely the cost of installing new lines will only go up up and up.

    The solution is more cell towers and more focus on basically long distance wifi.

    Haven't you ever though... man if my cordless phone can get data half a mile, why can't I AT LEAST get a slow internet connection from that far. OR more like it, why can my cellular signal go 10 miles and still get broadband speeds when my wifi can barely make it through a patch of trees.

    Wifi, as a standard, sucks ass. But the idea of tower based wireless internet is great and I see it replacing all the existing markets at least for the end user. I don't think data centers will be using it anytime soon, but in reality wireless can most likely be made the MOST reliable since there is just no wire to break or go bad.

    On the other hand, the US needs a major electric infrastructure upgrade.

    For a nation in debt and losing money.. It makes sense to go wholesale and basically run one large project to install multiple new wired infrastructures. While you're install and upgrading the power lines... may as well run fiber. Certainly don't NOT run fiber while you have the hole dug for fear of socialization.

    Oh NO ... if I do more than two things at once... I'm a communist.

    On yet another hand, we can probably move to an infrastructure where people generate a lot of their power at home and simply offset electric grid load and push for wireless data coverage over the whole US.

    What's really more productive a fiber connection (most likely for p2p and streaming video) or an internet connceted population with seamless mobility.

    All those times you've sat around... wishing you had an embeded PC sewed into your jacked or for that matter in your brain... well that down time can be spent learning, reading, working and staying connected in general.

    Mobility has vastly more selling points than simply high speed. However, the products to use a mobile internet really aren't here yet.. but WHY would they be when US cellular is still rather feeble.

    Come G4 we should see speeds over 5 mpbs in many places. You may also note places like IBM have created much more robust wireless technologies than even what the g4 network will use. So G5 may be the turning point where people realize they don't need terrestrial internet as much as they need mobile internet. AND they don't need a bill from YET another communication service rather they would like to consolodate and use one service that does everything.

    For instance check out France's latest test hitting 16.4 terrabits per second. over wireless.

    In the long run labor cost too much to keep running wire and it's probably overall less reliable than simply adding a few more towers and going wireless.

    The real deal is that we the people could simple become a mesh network of free access points with cellular level range instead of wifi it could work if enough people got behind it.
    However, it would be complicated and likely underperforming to some degree because of overhead and lack of tall antenna towers.

    But it would also mean that as renewable energy comes into play and homes generate their own power, the US could have a communication network that cannot be taken down in disasters or war. Home power should be considered a national security plus, as should home communication. I think done right the seucirty issues are minor and in fact you could be granted near anonyomous status PLUS we'd have to kill those primative log retention rules. I mean,, if I open my AP am I required by law to keep logs so terrorists don't use it or whatever lame ass excuse they can come up with to take away your privacy.

    I think it could work, make a wISP kit that hooks to your xbox or such, so costs are low, people love gaming. The Xbox could offer a full PC experience it certainly has enough power to be a router/gaming/internet device.

    Like in the old days when people installed TV antennas. That's all it would really take... that and millions of users. You'd want to make it the wISP kit work with Mac and PC and Linux also to increase the user base. You'd need to provide a gateway to the real internet and you'd probably need some management to bridge dead zones.

    I think it would be a move in the right direction to get American's working together and helping themselves like this. The old.. show a man how to fish analogy. There is no REAL reason that we should be paying for a wireless communication network. If you have a house, you have a broadcast center. The technology is cheap. Most cities would fair very well since you can more or less drive around and stop at any given point and pick up open AP's in most cities.

    Cell towers and telephone poles should become open infrastructurte. You let the consumer pay the device cost and they will also upgrade every couple years...all on their own.
    All it would take is G4 like technology from home or longer range wifi however you want to look at it

    So, whether it's a home brew effort or run by businesses. I can see how wireless internet isn't poised to own the end user market. You can't get away from cell phones, you won't be able to get away from mobile internet either. Not once small cheap devices are everywhere.
    As it stands, laptops are overkill and iphones are just far too expensive, underpowered, too consolidated and too small.

    We should move away from the idea of attaching a tiny display as some primative way to view the internet. Rather like a bluetooth ear piece we can have eye pieces and let the phone be the reception devicve. Either embed a decent mobile OS into all cell phones OR carry around a second device which is yoru PC. Chances are keeping the PC seperate is the best move since cell phones outdate pretty fast and have a tendacny of getting lost or stolen.

    With the innovation of new lithium ion batteries with 10 times the power you're a walking PC and you could even become a repeater carrying internet and boosting to other around you.
    Well, minus the danger of electromagnetic radidation everywhere.. I think it's a good plan.
    Fiber to every house would be nice, but I think the longer we wait the less it will pay off vs wireless. Also wireless data technology is overall going pretty slow, BUT the profit from cell phones keeps it going strong. With an injection of internet and perhaps government money we could push for G5 to happen sooner and meet our needs better.

    G4 should see major rollouts by the end of the year. I currently have no other internet options than G3 EVDO revision A over Sprint. So, I've pondered all this extensively. My neighborhood for instance could easily be served, but for some reason people and businesses never cooperate in a way that benefits the consumer.

    That is, we have a real wISP nearby offering overall slack speeds, but probably more stable than being on the edge of EVDO coverage. SO... why can't companies do things like.. install an AP that funcations as a repeater also to form coverage in our wooded neighboor hood. Their tower isn't effective because of the tree coverage past a certain density in the neighborhood. BUT.. obviously I could get internet from a neighbor IF we just had a smarter plan. I can't hit the tower, but I can easily hit the neighbors house who has the service.

    If I was rolling out wISP I would really consider trying to get these customers who have NO other internet means. I had to install EVDO up on an antenna poll just to get this... AND GOOD LUCK finding techs who know ANYTHING about EVDO internet. There are hardly even any good forums on the stuff.

    So, why don't users function as repeaters ? Especially when your renting equipment there should be no reason and wifi stuff is dirt cheap anyway it's not like EVDO repeaters and routers which cost 150-600 bucks.

    Businesses have SO much concern with liability they don't want to mess with ANYTHING but a quick, clean profit margin. I had to beg the guys just to get a site survey done, they just google map me and say they don't support that side of the road. I was truly jealous when their website said they offered 12 mbps with like 3 mbps up. Come to find out, that's what they offer at their good sites. Here they may only offer 1 mbps 256 kbps. Pretty sucky, but probably more stable than being on the edge of EVDO with trees around you trying to hit a tower a couple miles away. Even the upgrade to G4 may not bring me the reception I need. I guess that's truly the main advantage of satellite, since your house is in essense a clearing even if you have a heavily wooded lot you likely can hit a satellite. Cell towers propigate parallel to the ground rather than down from space, so trees really eat the signals up. BUT as I said, I could EASILY get a wifi to several neighbors houses.

    BUT with the world today, domestic spying, an NSA guy even lives down the road from me and the laws are insane. So, people likely fear the liabilty of sharing things, just as they've grown more individual and isolationist over the decades of TV and other one way communication mediums. In year past .. neighbors shared things. They knew each other. Now days people live right by each other for years and have barely any knowledge or relationship with them.

    That's probably partly why we've become easier to control by wealth and media manipulation. We are not united even as neighbors, but clealry we should be, we do shared the local risk and liabilities of the area. We would need each others help in tough times.
    We've just not had tough times for so long we've lost the feeling that we need anyone but ourselves. EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION we should be teching kids to be more social, socialism is not an option, it's a major requirement. Who hasn't seen that the people who talk well tend to do better than people who are smarter than them, but have no social skils. You can't even get a job without social skills in todays world. The days of being a quite guy who can't articulate have been replaced by politically correct idiots looking for
    a positive workplace attitude and all that BS termonology that mean NOTHING but don't dare be yourself at work. Gee I wonder why so many people hate their jobs and wind up giong from dead end job to dead end job. Maybe because even with a degree you're still playing this game of BS to get a job now filled with credit checks, background checks, multiple interviews, drug checks, social network checks. American businsses
  • siktath, on 05/12/2008, -5/+1Wonderful! I think we should starve for broadband.
  • sboub1, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1us should nuke countries that have a better infrastructure so they become f