| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| U.S. Broadband Access Lags |
| By Howard Fosdick on 2012-07-27 02:57:32 |
| A free, new report from the New America Foundation compares cost, speed, and availabilty of internet connectivity in 22 cities around the world. The report concludes that U.S. consumers face comparatively high, rising connectivity costs, even while the majority have very limited choices -- often only one or two providers. The report argues that U.S. broadband policies need to change, otherwise consumer choice will continue to deteriorate. |
|
| RE[2]: Stuck with cablevision monopoly here |
| By tomcat on 2012-07-29 03:04:32 |
|
> Satellite is the broadband access of last resort. Downstream isn't too bad on satellite (not great, but not bad). Upstream is pathetic. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: Who cares about the fastest residential speeds? |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-07-29 03:28:16 |
|
> > Embellishing? You obviously don't have a teenage child He made a good point. Your teenage child isn't using bandwidth 24-hours a day, right? I mean, he or she attends school, plays in sports, participates in clubs, hangs out with friends, etc? Further, beyond that, it's not necessary to have 100M-bit access in order to do most common network tasks. That was his point. It doesn't matter if his teenager uses the internet 24 hours a day. What matters is having enough bandwidth to accommodate your demand as needed. As I said in a previous post, each individual is best suited to determine what their own needs are. It's common sense that some people have far greater demand while others have far lower. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[3]: Who cares about the fastest residential speeds? |
| By Alfman on 2012-07-29 04:43:00 |
|
tomcat, "Agree. There are plenty of modern routers that allow you to explicitly throttle the bandwidth of specific IP addresses. Use static IP assignments. Nobody should be allowed to monopolize the entire pipe." Not to contradict anything you said, but throttling bandwidth of non-critical tasks is usually the opposite of what is wanted, which is guaranteeing bandwidth of critical ones. It's actually very difficult to guarantee bandwidth for "critical" tasks like VIOP and netflix while simultaneously maximising bandwidth utilisation among non-critical tasks due to varying conditions in the network. OT: what gets me is that ISPs add port restrictions and charge even more for premium accounts to unlock them. One of my providers blocks incoming SSH (in fact all ports below 1024), this is very annoying to say the least! Edited 2012-07-29 04:43 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[3]: Stuck with cablevision monopoly here |
| By Alfman on 2012-07-29 05:07:02 |
|
tomcat, Hello again! "Downstream isn't too bad on satellite (not great, but not bad). Upstream is pathetic." I use SSH alot, I would find the additional latency intolerable. http://www.satelliteinternet.com "Latency refers to the amount of time it takes a packet of data to travel across a network. With satellite service, that data must travel up to the satellite and back (about 45,000 miles). This round trip adds about a half-second delay to the total time your computer takes to communicate with a Website or host server." This next quote concerns me alot as well, since it sounds like they use deep packet inspection to differentiate service between encrypted and decrypted content. "Why does the service slow down when used in conjunction with a VPN? HughesNet uses sophisticated acceleration techniques to enable high-speed performance over satellite. These acceleration techniques require access to data packet header information, which is blocked when IPSec-based VPNs are used. These VPNs encrypt the data and create a secure tunnel through the HughesNet network. The encrypted data cannot be processed by HughesNet's acceleration techniques, therefore resulting in slower performance." Also, regarding speeds: $40 plan: 650-750kbps down, 70-80kbps up $80 plan: 800-900kbps down, 100-125kbps $110 plan: 1500kbps down, 300kbps up |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Lazy bums! |
| By TinMan on 2012-07-29 05:39:23 |
|
I have worked in the skilled trades for my whole life but have a degree in system security administration and as such I am quite aware of the true needs of people as far as the internet goes. I understand that most people don't even know how to use a traditional card catalog at the library these days, but anybody with even the slightest motivation can educate themselves enough on some sort of profession and perhaps make enough money to purchase broadband like the rest of us and then get that cushy office job. It's not necesseraly easy, but anybody with some ambition can do it. |
| - Score: 1 |
| Two words describe the "why" |
| By deathshadow on 2012-07-29 07:13:44 |
|
Population Density -- look at the place that has dirt cheap gigabit: Hong Kong. Population Density? ~42,500 per square mile... Coos County NH where 33.6 dialup is a good day? 19 per square mile. I get a laugh out of the people who seem to think broadband can magically appear everywhere or that people everywhere are just "entitled" to what is for all intents and purposes a LUXURY. If you don't think it is a luxury, they you need to take a SERIOUS look at your priorities. From a business standpoint, the cost of running broadband into a lot of areas -- like northern NH, western ME, most of the states in the northern Rockies couldn't be recouped for decades... and no business in the middle of a recession is going to be looking for something that puts them in the red for that long. You run fiber into a city you can divide it up with short runs -- you're not going to blow a quarter of a million dollars to run 100 miles of copper just to pick up 100 customers... much less the million it would cost for optical. In a lot of ways the rhetoric being thrown about, and talk about changing policies reeks of the same type of stupidity as congress shoving HDTV and digital broadcast down our throats -- when people can barely afford what they already have, and the government is centuries in debt, forcing people to buy new stuff they actually don't need when what they have works, or WORSE subsidizing it with federal money that doesn't even exist is just asking to further contribute to the tanking economy... But what can one expect in a credit based society -- pay more later for something you can't afford now. Kissinger was right, we've gone from a nation of savers to a nation of debters... There's this noodle-doodle idea right now that getting people to spend money they don't even have on things they don't need will actually help the economy - when what needs to be done is outlaw credit, loans, and to be frank, toss insurance on that heap as well. This **** costs money, and right now, we should be worrying about the stuff that really matters -- like the 15.8 trillion dollar debt... in other words, over 50K per citizen. Edited 2012-07-29 07:15 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Two words describe the "why" |
| By tanzam75 on 2012-07-29 15:45:31 |
|
The article doesn't complain that Coos County, NH lacks broadband. It's comparing American cities to other cities around the world. Now, it is true that the article conflates two very different factors. First, why is DSL so slow in the US? The table shows that most European cities are served not by fiber, but by VDSL2 at around 18 Mbps. In contrast, many American cities are being served by ADSL2, topping out at 6 Mbps. These appear to be automobile-dominated cities, where VDSL2 runs into distance problems. This is not a problem with market structure, but with American city planning. Second -- and this is the one that really applies here -- why are the prices so high? This comes from lack of open access on coax. The USA has a more extensive coax network than other countries. 60% of US households subscribe to cable television over coax, compared to 30% in Europe. (Satellite dominates in Europe, whereas it is the challenger in the US.) ADSL is not speed-competitive with coax. Yet the telephone network is subject to open access, while coax is not. Obviously, this is not going to produce any real competition! In a duopoly situation without easy entry, prices will be high. Finally, a word on affordability. The FCC is currently giving subsidies of about $800 per home for broadband in undeserved areas -- i.e., the most expensive areas. Surely, a subsidy of $800 per home would suffice to improve DSL speeds in urban and suburban areas as well. Well, there are only 114 million households in the US. Do the math. Compare to the annual military budget of the United States. You have a picture of General George Patton as your avatar. That must be why you cry poverty while spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined ... Edited 2012-07-29 15:46 UTC |
| - Score: 5 |
| To make things worse |
| By jefro on 2012-07-29 16:26:55 |
|
Almost no one needs internet. The people who do work from home do need to make some arraignment. Exactly what does an auto mechanic, gardener, florist, roofer, bank employee need with internet. If I were a bank owner I wouldn't allow any outside access to controlled systems. Millions of workers can do without it. It is a luxury for goofing off and playing games. For almost a decade I used 2400 baud modem since I lived so far out and didn't want to pay satellite. I got by on text based bulletin boards and later text based web pages. You can get buy without the images and ads. The worst part is stupid people buy $500K homes on $23K/year income. California housing crisis cost not only the rest of the US but entire countries that bought into junk bonds are wiped out. Maybe we need to get our ideas straight first. You buy a home only on what you can afford, you buy a car or use a bus only on what you can afford. Maybe if people were more responsible we could pay for extra things. Nope. People on welfare and food assistance lines talking on the cell phone. Seems to me food is more important. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: To make things worse |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-07-29 17:29:30 |
|
> Almost no one needs internet. The people who do work from home do need to make some arraignment. Exactly what does an auto mechanic, gardener, florist, roofer, bank employee need with internet. If I were a bank owner I wouldn't allow any outside access to controlled systems. Millions of workers can do without it. It is a luxury for goofing off and playing games. Basically all you're saying is that you're completely out-of-touch with reality. You really should have done your homework as I suggested. You may be a blue collar grunt that doesn't see past the dirt under your fingernails but it's not exactly a secret either that today's world is greatly dependent on the internet far beyond goofing off and entertainment. If you refuse to actually research the subject and choose to remain naive to that fact, so be it. Just know that you couldn't be more wrong. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: Who cares about the fastest residential speeds? |
| By tomcat on 2012-07-30 18:33:14 |
|
> It doesn't matter if his teenager uses the internet 24 hours a day. What matters is having enough bandwidth to accommodate your demand as needed. As I said in a previous post, each individual is best suited to determine what their own needs are. It's common sense that some people have far greater demand while others have far lower. We live in a society in which people expect instant gratification, immediate responses. I'm just saying that technology is not always the answer to these kinds of expectations; perhaps having more realistic expectations is. This post will be modded down by small minds. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |