How are we going to fix America's broadband problems?

[Nitemare]

it's not going to be fixed because most high speed providers have a monopoly and have no desire to offer more

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Greenman
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.

Uh, actually you CAN'T in the US.
Seems we have given a monoply to our cable companies. So you can't take a few billion dollars and start your own high speed internet company.
Which, of course, is the reason the US lags in speed compared to other countries.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.

The reason DSL can only go 18,000 feet from the CO isn't because of signal strength, it's because of load coils on the lines.

Load coils can hinder the signal (these are round coil devices used to boost voice signals), but 18000 ft is the point where the resistance in the copper in theory cancels out the signal. 15000ft or so it the max for 1.5 service, but you have to have great lines to carry it at that distance. Bridge taps (essentially cut connections) can also add the the resistance in the line, but you can place an order with the telco to remove those if they become a problem.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
it's not going to be fixed because most high speed providers have a monopoly and have no desire to offer more

Or because a majority of people paying the bills couldn't even tell you what speed they have right now and what that works out to be in a try megabyte per minute rate.

All most people need is a low latency, high reliabily connection. 6mb is more than a typical broadband subscriber will ever need in current web affairs. Broadband is a numbers game and nothing more.

 

[PimpJuice]

I wonder how many of you people whining about not having enough speed are just wanting it to pirate illegal software. I'd say the majority.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: PimpJuice
I wonder how many of you people whining about not having enough speed are just wanting it to pirate illegal software. I'd say the majority.

Yep...there's two classes actually- businesses (legit need), and people running torrents 24/7. We don't have any bandwidth caps, but we've been tracking a guy for the last month that has downloaded 34 GIGS of stuff on port 6881. From the hash files we can see he's into really strange porn.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
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.

I am still curious about my previous question.

How hard/expensive/long will it take them to improve the current infrastructure?

Currently, most of us have more bandwidth then we need (unless your running torrents or someone in the minority that has a legit use) but in the next few years we will see things like streaming HD content, TV over the net, etc. becoming much more mainstream. I just wonder if they will be able to keep up?

 

[Carlis]

There are many legit uses for a fast line. Downloading open source software, buying films and music and watching TV. But of course there are even more illegit uses... Also, a lot of services that need fast internet do probably not evolve because of current speeds. What do you pay for internet services in the US? Over here (Sthlm) its like 60 usd/month for a 24-100 megabit line.

 

[Homerboy]

up up up with ignorance!

On a related note, you aren't entitled to anything either.

 

[rezinn]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
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.

Is this any different then cell phone service? I've been saying cell phone providers are screwing people for years. How does it cost them any more to provide you with 2000 minutes versus 200?

 

[Kadarin]

I don't do anything currently that would justify anything faster than the 3Mbps/768k I currently have. However, it would be nice to have the infrastructure upgraded to open new opportunities.

 

[conehead433]

Where I'm at my ISP staying connected to the 'net is more of a problem.

 

[trOver]

My current school is 38Mbps down and up, split across about 1000 people. It comes down to about 10-15 Mbps per individual, but on the weekends it really gets up there.

After looking at all this, I realized how crappy my dsl is at home

768kbps ftl!

 

[13Gigatons]

Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.

Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.

Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.

The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly only competition.

It is this competition that is improving access and speeds. Which is the way it is supposed to be instead of big gubment paying for it all.

America INVENTED telecommunications and The Internet. Our infrastructure is just older.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: rezinn

Originally posted by: Fritzo
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.

Is this any different then cell phone service? I've been saying cell phone providers are screwing people for years. How does it cost them any more to provide you with 2000 minutes versus 200?

Becasue, in short you are paying for processor time. Do you think your call is routed via magic?

No there are various endpoints and systems within a cell providers network, let alone the interconnection to other providers or internet conncetions for data. You pay more, becasue you use more of the resources regularly for your call connections.

Equipment doesn't come free.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.

Best post in this thread so far. 100% TRUE. "Making things better", i.e. customer service has pretty much been dead in America for a long time now.

Another note: I don't know the exact price, but I highly doubt it costs Verizon $1K to run a piece of fiber to a house. When you buy fiber by the 1000ft roll, the price goes down drastically. Now, to make the intial run into a neighborhood probably isn't cheap. But to run some fiber from a switch/patch panel a few blocks away? That's more time than money.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Just FYI, when I was in Korea normal residential internet had real world speeds of 15-20 MB/s. This is comparable to real world USB 2.0 speeds. My host downloaded a 700MB movie in literally less than a minute.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.

Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.

The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly only competition.

It is this competition that is improving access and speeds. Which is the way it is supposed to be instead of big gubment paying for it all.

America INVENTED telecommunications and The Internet. Our infrastructure is just older.

:thumbsup:

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.

Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.

The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly only competition.

It is this competition that is improving access and speeds. Which is the way it is supposed to be instead of big gubment paying for it all.

America INVENTED telecommunications and The Internet. Our infrastructure is just older.

Yeah right and if someone offered REAL competition to AT&T they would run to the government and have them shutdown. The politicians are bought and sold and do the Corporations bidding!

Your really naive if you think we have REAL competition in Telcom.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Everything in America basically sucks because CORPORATIONS are greedy and the government is CORRUPT.

Anytime monopolies exist they should be broken up because they hurt the overall progress.

The majority of people with broadband have a choice. There is no monopoly only competition.

It is this competition that is improving access and speeds. Which is the way it is supposed to be instead of big gubment paying for it all.

America INVENTED telecommunications and The Internet. Our infrastructure is just older.

Yeah right and if someone offered REAL competition to AT&T they would run to the government and have them shutdown. The politicians are bought and sold and do the Corporations bidding!

Your really naive if you think we have REAL competition in Telcom.

*Snicker*, I've been working in it for quite a long time. It is about as cut throat competitive as they come. Prices have continually gone down at a pretty drastic rate.

The battle between cable and telecom is just more proof of this.

 

[alkemyst]

American has too much bandwidth still reserved for TV/Radio.

 

[Modelworks]

Make broadband a utility and then all the tax payers can pay to have it run everywhere, and the big corporations can collect the profits.

what ? Its already like that ?
hmmm.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.

Best post in this thread so far. 100% TRUE. "Making things better", i.e. customer service has pretty much been dead in America for a long time now.

Another note: I don't know the exact price, but I highly doubt it costs Verizon $1K to run a piece of fiber to a house. When you buy fiber by the 1000ft roll, the price goes down drastically. Now, to make the intial run into a neighborhood probably isn't cheap. But to run some fiber from a switch/patch panel a few blocks away? That's more time than money.

and how many feet are in ONE mile? 5280. and lets say you have to cover the state of PA.. about 300x150miles, IIRC.. that's a lot of fvckin fiber.

it's all well and good until you look at how much you *actually* have to lay down. 1000 feet might not be much, but 1,000,000 feet is a LOT more expensive, regardless of discounts.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: senseamp
I live in Silicon Valley, the supposed tech hub of the world, I am about a mile from Apple's campus, and the fastest DSL I can get is 768 kbps, and even that with CRC errors. Otherwise it would be 384 kbps.
It's quite pathetic that AT&T is still using the old too far from central office line, as if they cannot put a repeater station somewhere closer. It's like they don't care if they compete or not. Don't be surprised if other countries lead us on broadband centric technologies, simply because we have too many entrenched monopolies controlling the pipes.

Best post in this thread so far. 100% TRUE. "Making things better", i.e. customer service has pretty much been dead in America for a long time now.

Another note: I don't know the exact price, but I highly doubt it costs Verizon $1K to run a piece of fiber to a house. When you buy fiber by the 1000ft roll, the price goes down drastically. Now, to make the intial run into a neighborhood probably isn't cheap. But to run some fiber from a switch/patch panel a few blocks away? That's more time than money.

and how many feet are in ONE mile? 5280. and lets say you have to cover the state of PA.. about 300x150miles, IIRC.. that's a lot of fvckin fiber.

it's all well and good until you look at how much you *actually* have to lay down. 1000 feet might not be much, but 1,000,000 feet is a LOT more expensive, regardless of discounts.

Also - the labor is the biggest piece of the pie, not the cost of the fiber. Fiber is cheap. Not to mention the gear to light it up.

Even gopher proof fiber is relatively cheap.