1. Americans are generally more concerned with driving a nice car than how fast they can download videos.
2. The old system of non-competitive regional monopolies pretty much deters competitive upgrades.
3. Take #2 and apply to #1 and see why upgrading infrastructure isn't usually on the priority list.
2. The old system of non-competitive regional monopolies pretty much deters competitive upgrades.
3. Take #2 and apply to #1 and see why upgrading infrastructure isn't usually on the priority list.
I moved from the sticks into a small town. A local company offers fiber here it's like $35 for 10 up/down. Pretty nice after being on dialup for ages.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
"Poorly conceived laws could hinder technology innovation.
So let's take a look at a few of the bad laws that have been proposed, and in some cases passed, in 2007.
One potentially killer law that has passed the U.S. House of Representatives is the SPY Act (also known as the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act). On first read the SPY Act sounds like a good thing, as it looks like it will take a very hard line against Internet spyware. But like lots of bad bills, the SPY Act is so broad that it brings in lots of other legitimate areas of Internet marketing. And even worse, the law actually prevents states and individuals from taking action against spyware vendors and even legitimizes some forms of corporate spyware.
As several pundits have pointed out, if the SPY Act had been around during the Sony rootkit fiasco, not only would Sony have been protected, it would have actually been illegal to remove their rootkit. While the SPY Act has passed the House, it is still in doubt in the Senate.
Of course, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on bad tech laws. This year Germany actually passed something called the Hacker Tool Law that makes it illegal to own, use, create or distribute a "hacker tool." But the law is so vague on this point that it looks as if most standard security and network analysis tools fit under the definition of hacker tool. This has already led several leading security researchers to move out of Germany.
And just recently the Canadian government was planning to pass a copyright control bill that would have made the U.S. DMCA (which is generally considered the law that has had the biggest negative effect on technology to date) look tame in its restrictions on technology. In this case, it looks like an outcry from Canadian citizens has led to this bill being pulled back but given the clout of the entertainment industry, copyright bills never go away.
As proof, one need only look at a new bill introduced in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Called the PRO IP Act (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property) this bill on the surface appears to be about strengthening piracy fighting against large international media pirates. But the bill is worded so that it also increases the penalties against regular people. And it also includes asset seizure without finding of guilt meaning that home computers or even corporate IT resources could be seized even with just a claim of copyright piracy (think the Business Software Alliance's tactics are rough now, just wait if this law passes).
So as usual, we in the technology community must stay vigilant and active to help protect innovation from misguided legislators."
http://blogs.eweek.com/rapoza/...nnovation_in_2007.html
So let's take a look at a few of the bad laws that have been proposed, and in some cases passed, in 2007.
One potentially killer law that has passed the U.S. House of Representatives is the SPY Act (also known as the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act). On first read the SPY Act sounds like a good thing, as it looks like it will take a very hard line against Internet spyware. But like lots of bad bills, the SPY Act is so broad that it brings in lots of other legitimate areas of Internet marketing. And even worse, the law actually prevents states and individuals from taking action against spyware vendors and even legitimizes some forms of corporate spyware.
As several pundits have pointed out, if the SPY Act had been around during the Sony rootkit fiasco, not only would Sony have been protected, it would have actually been illegal to remove their rootkit. While the SPY Act has passed the House, it is still in doubt in the Senate.
Of course, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on bad tech laws. This year Germany actually passed something called the Hacker Tool Law that makes it illegal to own, use, create or distribute a "hacker tool." But the law is so vague on this point that it looks as if most standard security and network analysis tools fit under the definition of hacker tool. This has already led several leading security researchers to move out of Germany.
And just recently the Canadian government was planning to pass a copyright control bill that would have made the U.S. DMCA (which is generally considered the law that has had the biggest negative effect on technology to date) look tame in its restrictions on technology. In this case, it looks like an outcry from Canadian citizens has led to this bill being pulled back but given the clout of the entertainment industry, copyright bills never go away.
As proof, one need only look at a new bill introduced in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Called the PRO IP Act (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property) this bill on the surface appears to be about strengthening piracy fighting against large international media pirates. But the bill is worded so that it also increases the penalties against regular people. And it also includes asset seizure without finding of guilt meaning that home computers or even corporate IT resources could be seized even with just a claim of copyright piracy (think the Business Software Alliance's tactics are rough now, just wait if this law passes).
So as usual, we in the technology community must stay vigilant and active to help protect innovation from misguided legislators."
http://blogs.eweek.com/rapoza/...nnovation_in_2007.html
Simple.
For the VAST majority of highspeed internet users the bandwidth has so far exceeded the need. Note the average broadband subscriber is NOT the average ATOT user. I commonly get 12-15mbs from Cox and it is great and I don't mind paying the premium. Granted, I would much prefer 200mps but for the time being 9-15mps (depending on the time) handles my needs quite well.
I don't know much about the industry but I will say that the average person will be using a ton more bandwidth in the next 5 years. I am curious if the US industry will be able to lay out new hardware/upgrade existing quick enough to keep up the pace.
For the VAST majority of highspeed internet users the bandwidth has so far exceeded the need. Note the average broadband subscriber is NOT the average ATOT user. I commonly get 12-15mbs from Cox and it is great and I don't mind paying the premium. Granted, I would much prefer 200mps but for the time being 9-15mps (depending on the time) handles my needs quite well.
I don't know much about the industry but I will say that the average person will be using a ton more bandwidth in the next 5 years. I am curious if the US industry will be able to lay out new hardware/upgrade existing quick enough to keep up the pace.
ConstipatedVigilante
Diamond Member
- Feb 22, 2006
- 7,670
- 1
- 0
This being the USA, you're welcome to go out and get several billion dollars in venture capital, and start your very own cable company. Offer 500mbps for $9.95 a month and get rich, or not.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 64,299
- 12,633
- 136
QFT. This is the correct answer. Yes, the technology is there, but the average American isn't willing to pay the cost to have super-speed available to them.
I have AT$T DSL Pro with 3 mbs max speed, and while it's not super fast, it sure beats dial-up or the "entry-level" DSL I used to have...and for $19.99/mo, it's priced right.
ArmchairAthlete
Diamond Member
- Dec 3, 2002
- 3,763
- 0
- 0
I'd take reliable access over higher speeds.
Haven't been able to get a solid connection ever since I moved off campus. DSL is better than cable, but still not where it could be.
Haven't been able to get a solid connection ever since I moved off campus. DSL is better than cable, but still not where it could be.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
QFT
I suffered with an old Charter cable 5mb down system for the last many years. It was a good service for the the first 5yrs or so then the reliability went to hell, outages became more and more frequent.
Then ATT's new uverse fiber/copper hybrid came to our neighborhood and offered lower prices so I gave them a try and am very happy with the rock solid service so far, the top speed they currently offer is 6mb down but at some point they are supposed to run fiber the last 200ft to the house and offer full fiber service compatible to FIOS.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
I downgraded my U-verse from 6/1mbps to 3/1mbps and I don't notice any difference. What would you people use all that bandwidth for? Not torrents, because upstream is more important for that.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
They have made great strides in satelite internet but more work is needed, I really beleive this is the answer to rural access.
Currently the best available speed is 1.5 down, for $80/mo at Wildblue or $100/mo at Hughesnet. Although expensive for the speed it's really the only option to dialup in most rural areas. And 1.5 ain't much but it beats the hell out of dialup. Higher speed rural business plans are avialble by chaining uplinks but the cost gets crazy expensive compared to the bandwidth. I see great room for improvement in this industry
broadband problem? Talk about cellular network infrastructure problems. when you live in SAN JOSE, and can't get service from any of the largest cell providers (verizon) when you go up a 'hill' in a neighborhood that is <10 min from downtown, then you know there is something terribly wrong.
When I was in China there was cell phone coverage in the most rural, undeveloped mountain passes.
When I was in China there was cell phone coverage in the most rural, undeveloped mountain passes.
Japan probably has fiber in every home yet it is a very mountainous region - infrastructure implementation should be costlier than the US. Even my grandmother who lives far out in the sticks has fiber internet access (300mbps+) for less than $50 USD. I don't think geography has much to do with it and I'm sure demand is quite high - there's always a need for higher bandwidth.
I think the reason is quite easily observed: the Japanese culture wants high quality goods and services - regardless of price - while Americans in general are far more reluctant to spend and can settle for less - yet are notorious for complaining (you crazy people). The service provider culture is different too. Japanese companies generally operate on lower margins due to stiff competition - but not that low that it would affect quality since low quality won't sell - while American backbone providers tend to maintain existing infrastructure (again reluctant to spend and expand) and largely inflate baseline prices prohibiting new market ventures and wide integration.
In the end, it's a culture thing, not a geography thing.
I think the reason is quite easily observed: the Japanese culture wants high quality goods and services - regardless of price - while Americans in general are far more reluctant to spend and can settle for less - yet are notorious for complaining (you crazy people). The service provider culture is different too. Japanese companies generally operate on lower margins due to stiff competition - but not that low that it would affect quality since low quality won't sell - while American backbone providers tend to maintain existing infrastructure (again reluctant to spend and expand) and largely inflate baseline prices prohibiting new market ventures and wide integration.
In the end, it's a culture thing, not a geography thing.
ArmchairAthlete
Diamond Member
- Dec 3, 2002
- 3,763
- 0
- 0
They still aren't going to fix the propagation delay issue with satellite. 36 thousand kilometers is a lot of distance. You're looking at ~300ms with that so many games are going to be unplayable with that kind of delay, I'm sure it's annoying for general use and maybe it impacts other services like VOIP.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Too bad Verizon doesn't allow us to say "hey, I'll give you $1000 to hook me up with FIOS." I'd jump on that in a heartbeat. I have satellite and am always paranoid that my kids will watch too many youtube videos and bring my "speed" down to a crawl.
in *some* areas wISPs are an option. I worked for one that was offering 1.5 down for something like $69/month
granted, its not cheap (neither are the startup costs, at $149 for the install) but it *is* better than satellite. thing is, some people live so far out in the middle of nowhere that even wireless providers won't be bothered to service them.
fire400
Diamond Member
- Nov 21, 2005
- 5,204
- 21
- 81
"poor people" ..that's stereotypical. Manhattan has poor people? Generalization. Business owners live in the Hat.
Minneapolis, poor people? So it seams. Lake Calhoun area is inner city, million dollar homes-neighborhoods stretch across the areas of the lake.
People who make money can afford Internet.
You're a student, you're talking T3 lines. So you graduate, can move in with your friends and get a premium cable plan? That's not poor, it's managing money.
I understand there are people who make more money than others and some who don't make as much money. But high bandwidth isn't for everyone? It's really not.
My brother has a Sprint wireless USB connector for Internet, nationwide. It's fast. Maybe nothing like cable Internet, but it's still considered high speed access.
Now, poor people? That's going way too far. Personally, as a scholar, I'd say it's not very bright to call people in a city poor. Living conditions and culture, never the same in any city. Poor, maybe, everyone, no. Broke, maybe, everyone, no.
Lithium381
Lifer
- May 12, 2001
- 12,452
- 2
- 0
yeah.....faster porn downloads aren't exactly on the top of my priority list right now in terms of fixing america...
seriously do many residential users really need more than 10-15mbps right now? What technology needs this much bandwidth that the average customer is interested in? What customer would be interested in paying a higher price for faster service than this?
I personally think the broadband in the US is great. I remember getting 385k DSL for a discounted price of $55/mo back in 2001 when I was going to college. I now get 1.5mbps service for half that price, and I live in the middle of nowhere.
I personally think the broadband in the US is great. I remember getting 385k DSL for a discounted price of $55/mo back in 2001 when I was going to college. I now get 1.5mbps service for half that price, and I live in the middle of nowhere.
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,914
- 2,154
- 126
In the US, there is an "artificial" broadband limit. I work in the broadband provisioning field, and can tell you networks like ATT and Verizon make a ton of money off of high speed connections because they cost nearly the same this as lower speed connections. For instance, a 1.5 DSL connection costs ATT around $8 or so/month to maintain, while a 6.0 connetion costs them maybe $8.50 or so. On the other hand, they're charging $20 for 1.5 and $35 for 6.0. However, since DSL is distance based, 6.0 is only available to people 8000ft or less from a telco central office.
ADSL2+ is undergoing trials in some areas, and will give up to a 20.0 connection, but the catch is you have to be under 6000ft from a telco central office.
Cable has to balance their content bandwith with their internet bandwith. They're being strained by HD content as it is, so they'd just love to make your speeds lower instead of higher.
It's a screwed up situation for sure.
ADSL2+ is undergoing trials in some areas, and will give up to a 20.0 connection, but the catch is you have to be under 6000ft from a telco central office.
Cable has to balance their content bandwith with their internet bandwith. They're being strained by HD content as it is, so they'd just love to make your speeds lower instead of higher.
It's a screwed up situation for sure.
A lack of competition in my area. There are 2 providers here that can provide anything more than 1 mbps (the 3rd is the apt building's ISP, which is wireless, and capped at 1 down). One is DSL and the other is cable. The DSL provider won't provide service to my apt complex as we're too far away from the telco. That leaves cable...
I managed to get 8 down/512 up for ~15/month for one year as part of a package deal. I could get 15/1 but that runs about 70/month. After the usual 3-4 week install and several visits from techs replacing splitters, wires, modems, etc, they finally admitted to overselling our area. My download speed around 8 was 512kish.
I consider myself very lucky that the cable company, Mediacom, did upgrade the line and now the speed remains pretty consistent. However, I still don't know what I would've done had they not upgraded. It was either go the wISP route and get 1/1 service or go back to dial up. And this is the north end of a college town with plenty of new housing developments very close. Even so, I was on the verge of going back to dial up. I had no recourse against Mediacom as I simply had no other real option. I think that's the real problem. I consider my location to be urban yet I only have one real option for high speed internet. As long as this is the case, I don't see a revolutionary change is high speed internet service any time soon. And I think this is the case in many different areas. I know the house I lived in during high school could only get Cox cable internet. Luckily, that service was always fast.
I managed to get 8 down/512 up for ~15/month for one year as part of a package deal. I could get 15/1 but that runs about 70/month. After the usual 3-4 week install and several visits from techs replacing splitters, wires, modems, etc, they finally admitted to overselling our area. My download speed around 8 was 512kish.
I consider myself very lucky that the cable company, Mediacom, did upgrade the line and now the speed remains pretty consistent. However, I still don't know what I would've done had they not upgraded. It was either go the wISP route and get 1/1 service or go back to dial up. And this is the north end of a college town with plenty of new housing developments very close. Even so, I was on the verge of going back to dial up. I had no recourse against Mediacom as I simply had no other real option. I think that's the real problem. I consider my location to be urban yet I only have one real option for high speed internet. As long as this is the case, I don't see a revolutionary change is high speed internet service any time soon. And I think this is the case in many different areas. I know the house I lived in during high school could only get Cox cable internet. Luckily, that service was always fast.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 15K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter