What is Digg?113 Comments
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Note this:
"The FCC’s low standard for “high-speed” connections (200 kbps) is barely fast enough for users to receive low-quality streaming video."
The FCC calls that high-speed? Pathetic. These people are five years out of touch. There's a bunch of Ted Stevenses working over there. How are they supposed to regulate anything if they don't know what they're doing?
And:
"The FCC counts a ZIP code as covered by broadband service if it contains just onebroadband subscriber, inflating estimates of broadband availability and competition."
Do you get the feeling FCC regulators aren't just incompetent, but they're being paid off by telecom lobbies? Like that would be a surprise.
You see America, you sat around and did nothing, while these monopolist corporate crooks enslaved you and seized power within the government. Now you can't get rid of them, and ***they make the laws***! - Cytranic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33The tube joke has well outlived its welcome...
- crexor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30the article neglects to include price/speed statistics in comparison to other countries, ie. japans under $20 rate for 100megabit speeds, in comparison to the U.S.' $50 rate for sub 10megabit speeds, in most cases, also the most recent korean announcement of near gigabit speeds to the home. It also neglects to mention the reason for the discrepency, that in many cases the U.S. is stunted in broadband expansion because of corporations refusing to work togethor for the customer, but rather drive for increased profits, and much of the U.S.' Bandwidth is tied up in litigation over who owns it , who has access to it, and who gets to sell it.
- brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23As I said in a post below. The "USA is large" argument doesn't hold because improved service is not available in major metropolitan areas. In my own admittedly anecdotal experience my service has actually degraded over the last decade while the price for high speed access has steadily increased.
The US is also one of the most populous countries in the world too (far more than Japan or Korea). A larger market presents the opportunity for higher profits. However, there is often only one ISP in each area and so they can continue to offer the same old service and keep increasing prices because there isn't any competition to drive the implementation of new services and/or lower prices. - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28*laughs* The US, soon to be a thirdworld nation.
- akiyba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I most certainly do not like my dial up connection. I just happen to live on (what seems like) the only street in my entire town that doesn't have broadband access.
- slois50, on 10/12/2007, -0/+145Mb is not faster than 1.4MB.
- brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Rural areas? I live in Boston, MA and my internet connection (provided by Comcast) is unreliable and slower than connections I had a decade ago despite around 50 dollars a month.
- brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The "USA is larger" argument would only work if people in major metropolitan areas had access to cheap high speed access. Currently those of us living in major cities still only have relatively slow and expensive high speed options.
Also, keep in mind that Japan has a significantly lower population than the US. While their population density might be greater there is still a much larger market overall in the US. Larger market can mean higher profits.
US companies are content to keep selling the same network they've been using since the nineties (I remember having even better speeds in the nineties) because in most areas there is only one choice for high speed access and thus no competition driving improvements in service or lower prices. - VioletArrows, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It's not about liking dial-up. Some people have the choice of paying 50-100 a month for pathetic speeds (I have bright house, it's a rip off), or nothing at all. I know people who live in rural areas where it's just not possible to get that kind of hookup.
- mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@armbar "so people live closer..."
Actually, in Japan they say so close that they just shout to each other instead of using VoiP. - Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@motang
I don't think it is that. I think broadband companies charge WAY too much for their services. When I lived in Japan, for less that $20.00 per month, I had an unlimited 10Mb connection. In the U.S., for less than half that bandwidth, I'm paying around $60.00 per month.
It is greed, greed, and more greed on the provider's part that is stifling America's broadband usage, not people having love affairs with their modems. - b403, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8My internet in Tokyo is 1.4MB down and 1.2MB up and I pay about $60USD/mo. My internet in new york with top-notch verizion is about 0.3MB/down and 0.1MB/up and I pay about $70USD/mo. (MB=megabyte, real world easily sustained bittorrent etc traffic)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@brufleth:
"The US is also one of the most populous countries in the world too (far more than Japan or Korea)."
From the CIA factbook:
South Korea: Size: 98,480 sq km, slightly larger than Indiana
Population: 48,846,823
People per square km: 496
Japan: Size: 374,744 sq km, slightly smaller than California and includes islands
Population: 27,463,611
People per square km: 73
United States: Size: 9,631,420 sq km, includes Hawaii and Alaska + DC
Population: 298,444,215
People per square km: 30
Ok now can anyone tell me which country is the most populous? If you're talking about population *density*, it's obvious that the order is South Korea, then Japan, then the US. Total numbers, well, it's obvious as well. However we're focusing on density here.
To summarize, out of the 3, the US is the *least* populous. - RodeoRobot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Part of the problem is because the U.S. is the 3rd largest country in the world. It takes a lot of money and a lot of manpower to lay broadband towers, wires, cables, pipes, and what have you across the vast stretches of midwestern America.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@mapkinase: so is that VoAP (voice over air particles)?
Thanks, I'll be here all week. - motang, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Man I guess people like their dial up connection.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Try 10 years out of touch. 200k wasn't fast even in 2001.
- FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@armbar
If you would read the full report linked to in the article, you would see that this is a complete myth perpetrated by the telco's and politicians who wish to look effective. In fact population density has absolutely NO correlation with braodband penetration. Of the 11 nations studied that had higher broadband penetration than the US, 5 actually had lower population densities. In fact, the nation with the highest broadband penetration rates was Iceland, one of the least dense nations on the planet. - squirrelza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hah, I wish I had the broadband available in America. In South Africa, your cheapest option is a 384kbps line (although it was 192kbps about a month back), whilst the fastest speed you can get is 1Mbps (As of September, they are upgraded to 4Mbps for testing). The costs for a 384kps are $15 for telephone rental, $35 for ADSL rental, $85 for a THREE GIG CAP, so that's around $135 for a 384kbps line with a 3gb cap. Uncapped 512kbps you are looking at about $360 or so.
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You see, Japan has net neutrality laws, and look where that got them!
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If country size were an excuse, Canada wouldn't be higher than USA.
- Textbook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, 3kb/s, you sure about that?
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Always having an excuse for your country's inability to compete with smaller nations with fewer resources" for the win.
- Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5At least we beat Luxemburg (#17)...
- gcauthon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@geekee
People like myself stuck with dialup for as long as possible because of the prices these local monopolies are charging. In areas where there is no competition, prices can get well above $50 a month.
You say you don't want your tax dollars to pay for broadband, but do you realize your tax dollars are paying for politicians that allow these monopolies to exist? If you're as concerned about tax expenditures as you are claiming to be then you should have already known this.
Allowing open competition is free. Forcing a monopoly onto the market as a political favor for the big telecom companies is what can get expensive. Consider Everest, for example. They tried to offer an alternative to customers in the midwest. They were beat down in the courtroom by Time Warner and eventually gave up. This is where your precious tax dollars are going now. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't spend 20 hours a day on the internet, but if I would be if I was still waiting for dial-up downloads.
It's not like broadband is just for nerdy people; my parents won't ever go back to dialup. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> in many cases the U.S. is stunted in broadband expansion
> because of corporations refusing to work togethor for the
> customer, but rather drive for increased profits,
Exactly. This is why those conservative arguments about the private sector being able to get things done faster because of competition sounds reasonable but rarely works in reality. Trying to bury your competition in other ways besides competing is cheaper and faster. The fact is that there are times and situations where progress via pooling our collective resources (you know, the dreaded TAX word?) just makes more sense than leaving it to corporations. And in my short 37 years on this planet, I've seen enough examples in real life to know that's just a fact, no matter how fervently right-wingers bash the government and its taxation or denounce that point of view as "socialism." - maxstr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm thinking there are too many regulations. The FCC stunts their growth because they are all to scared to put out new technology.
- NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I dunno - Verizon's FIOS is expanding pretty fast when they're given the chance to do so. And they're driving the cost of laying fiber down as well. And it's fairly cheap - im getting 20/5 for $45 USD.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@lakawak:
Congrats, two 'you dumb *****' replies to one article. Here's your complementary New Troll costume. Feel free to wear it, or not. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's slow because AT&T needs to take time to record everything for the FBI.
I'm Canadian, and companies are offering 1.2 megabyte/second (actual throughput) connections. Rogers still only offers 600kb/s downloading. Sorry not a mbit techie. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I feel jealous that everyone in the article had connections fast enough to be measured in Megabits, even the slower ones. Out where I live, it's still only measured in Kilobits, in both directions.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4With all the problems we have, I would definitely say that the low penetration of broadband Internet connections in the US is "sad." How can people function without having broadband? It's inconceivable.
- Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Korea plans to roll out Gigabit while the US is struggling to get people to adopt 1.5 Megabit.
Why? Because the broadband company has price-locked at $40/month for a service that is 6 years old. Seriously, Roadrunner sucks. I'm living in very VERY rural Japan right now and I get 10 Megabit for less than Roadrunner in the states. - GhostToon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I see it like this, history repeats it self. At the beginning of the 20th century our country was not run by the people it was run by the railroad monopolies and the oil monopolies. What happened? Teddy Roosevelt was elected president and reform began.
Its happening again only the railroads have been replaced with the telcos. I think with in the next two decades reform will begin again and broadband will be cheaper and easier to get and the telcos wont be able to lobby there way back into congress for a few decades. So is the vicious cycle of lobbyists.
The people get angry at an industry and the politicians start to lose votes so they shun the industry instead of taking there money until the people forget as they always do. Then it starts all over. This applies to any industry with lobbyists not just the telecommunication industry. - molecool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm glad you're quoting MB - Internet service providers are always eager to quote MBit/sec because it sounds like a lot more - LOL. After all, it's all about perception.
Seriously, this is not exactly brain surgery. Maybe the U.S. can for once eat some humble pie and look at the countries where things have worked out favorably for the consumer, like Japan, Sweden, etc. Oh wait - the U.S. administration is not in the 'business' of protecting its consumers and citizens - it's too busy selling out to big corporations. Never mind... - brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@BlackCow
I've had issues with dropped connections that are almost certainly due to Comcast splitting the lines to too many apartments. I've had workers come out three times with three different reasons given for why things weren't working. The problem has never been fixed and our TV and internet service has continued to degrade. This for a package that totals about 125 dollars a month. I'd switch to RCN but they aren't in my area yet.
I've lived in Cincinnati and down on the Cape. The speeds provided by Comcast in Boston are, at best, standard. Max of 40kbs up and I think 300kbs down if I remember correctly. - porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Two words:
marketing
politics
Those two words pretty much sum up the reason why the U.S. is so far behind. The same goes for cellular phone services. - socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My prices have got to be the worst, here in southern Illinois:
My only Options at home:
56k dialup (with line quality so horrible that 26.4kbs is the best connection you can hope for) goes for $19.99 through the phone company (cheapest, concidering call costs)
Local WIFI provider 1MB/750K $50/month (plus around $250 for equipment, non refundable)
DirectTV 1MB/750K $50/month (plus around $300 for equipment, non refundable. Equipment is only free for tv channels not internet)
sucks... - Chipsandsnacks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Internet access is becoming crucial for improving equality in access to information. People who don't have access are at a great disadvantage.
- NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Verizon's switching from Copper lines to Fiberoptics - so they dont have to keep repairing them & loaning them out to people, as fiber's exempt from the telecom regulations on copper wiring.
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've got lots of family in Denmark. They have a much lower population density than we have in the USA, yet penetration for broadband is much higher, costs are lower, and speeds higher.
In DK, they generally bury cables and have roadside access boxes. ISPs typically provide little service beyond the connection itself, they hire competent technicians and technical support, and have lower costs because of a higher standard of education and technical skill. Regulations are also minimal, yet there's still oversight. Energy costs are typically much lower as well (more than 20% of their energy comes from wind power alone, and most businesses are highly invested in energy conservation), and fewer resources are spent on legal and marketing resources to deploy the services. Further, there's a general tendency to deploy technologies with a foreseeable upgrade path.
In the US, broadband is often supplied by sanctioned monopolies that are heavily regulated. Much of the infrastructure is accessible and prone to damage from weather / idiots. We frequently buy into technologies without planning out an upgrade path and back-pedal or deprecate technologies at higher costs. We settle for lower skilled technicians and support because we can pay the less, though we pay for it with fewer services. Providers invest considerable money developing "value-adds", for-cost services, and content to their services rather than simply providing service. Further, terms-of-service from US broadband ISPs typically restrict users to being consumers -- actively prohibiting creative use of the network resources, remoting, etc. They even degrade service and block ports in an effort to push users to buy additional services.
It has nothing to do with the size of the companies. Broadband in the US is the way it is because of poor management, lack of competition, low expectations from the consumer, regulatory interference, lack of vision, and a general screw-the-consumer attitude that pervades big business in the USA. - SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3At least most US ISP's do not have transfer limits and the ones that do you would have to download gigabytes before getting capped. Where as you see in countries like Australia you can get similiar speeds but what good is it if you have a 256k adsl connection when you are limited to 400mb a month.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My friend is from Saudi, he lives here now, and is very very wealthy. He just got back from spending a few months there, and said that the days were great because he was working with his dad, but as soon as work was over... nothing to do. No movies. No alcohol. And especially no women. He said for entertainment you could maybe... go for a walk.
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2100 Mbps in Japan for $35. 10Mbps for $70 at Comcast.
Nice of us Americans to pay for the invention of the net, pay for the development of personal computing, pay for the wires, and then GET THE SHAFT.
You say you want a revolution? - msafi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If u call the state of American broadband sad, you should come to my country, Saudi Arabia, and see how ***** miserable things can really be! about $50 a month for 128Kbps DSL with very limited availability and months of waiting before installation....And half of the internet, including YouTube.com, is blocked.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Since when is broadband (or internet access) a human right?
In 20 years are we going to have a "We Are The World" sort of song put out by musicians to raise money for dial-upped Americans? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2One advantage that Korea and Japan have over the US is that they both have state-run telecoms that are basically providing subsidized broadband. Canada might also be a simliar setup.
See, in other countries, they actually get something from their tax dollars. :) - pseudo.hero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Or you're like where I live, in a town where one cable company has a monopoly on internet connection and charges ridiculous rates only in the end to give you a quarter of the speed that you are paying for and have the internet down for half the time. But it's either that or dial up.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is