Where Is The Broadband? 477
gouldtj writes "First Monday is running an article in its current issue entitled: The many paradoxes of broadband. It discusses some of the issues and ideas behind broadband, but seems to focus on: Where is it? There is also a really nice discussion on the telecom industry in general, along with the .com boom."
.com boom? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:.com boom? (Score:2, Redundant)
why, "moob" of course...
Re:.com boom? (Score:3, Funny)
I thought it was explosions that made a "boom"; what sound does an implosion make?
*moob!*
I don't know about you.... (Score:4, Funny)
posted from 28.8 dialup (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:posted from 28.8 dialup (Score:3, Interesting)
When I graduated ~3 years ago and moved from BFE, Louisiana to a few miles North of Dallas (Plano), I was so inexperienced with broadband, I just assumed that my $1300/month 2-bedroom apartment would have a fat pipe coming through the wall. Turns out that no, no Cable/DSL for me. Even worse, the phones lines were so noisy, I could only dial-in at about 19.2 kbps. Even worse, 3 months after I had moved
Re:posted from 28.8 dialup (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare this to the US where if you live in a small town you are pretty screwed. Hell, even in a big town like I live in (Provo, UT) if it weren't for cable modems I'd be screwed. Lots of places have no oth
Re: posted from 28.8 dialup (Score:4, Interesting)
well, canada is significantly ahead of the states in broadband penetration in general. source for that statement is here [computeruser.com]. other source here [216.239.37.104]. there are two reasons for this:
- there's government programs. look at the canadian gov'ts "broadband for rural and northern areas" program: it's here [broadband.gc.ca]. even saskatchewan, which has a reputation for being behind the curve has a program to get broadband across the province in three years. it's here [gov.sk.ca]. so, reason one: government money.
- there's competition! in canada if you can get cable tv and phone service you probably have two choices for broadband. the tv and phone companies want to expand into rural areas to get the first-to-market jump on the other guy. so, reason two: competition.
so, gov't cash and competition means that the country with one of the lowest population densities in the world has one of the highest broadband penetration rates.Re: posted from 28.8 dialup (Score:3, Funny)
You: "I only keep my ADSL line because that ISP provides a static IP, but with a measy 2.5Mbit bandwidth and 768Kbit upload. My real pipe is a 10BaseT socket, connected to a switch in the basement, and fiber optics from there."
Me: I will dance on your grave after I kill you.
Re:Posted from 14.4 dialup (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Charter Communications bought up Falcon about two years ago, and as of three weeks ago, we now have broadband! This in a little rural mountain hick community of 10,000 people. Verizon, meanwhile, says that they're testing various DSLAMs in a test market in New Jersey, and might bring us broadband in 2-
Re:I don't know about you.... (Score:2, Funny)
you lucky bastard... my 300 baud double-wide 8-bit ISA hayes just doesnt download the pr0n fast enough...
Re:I don't know about you.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't know about you.... (Score:2, Funny)
dial-up is broadband (Score:3)
I've got it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've got it (Score:2)
Re:I've got it (Score:2)
Whenever I visit my parents, I drive most of the way through the state using state highways. Many places are still laying fiber in the ground, and many more have yet to.
Before The New Deal, most rural ares didn't have electricity. It took the TVA and other orginizations years, but by the end about 98% of rural farms had power. I see braodband being much the same, except you don't have nea
Re:I've got it (Score:5, Insightful)
The telecom industry's claim that broadband is available to 80% of the US population is only true if you count satellite and ISDN, neither of which I count as really being "broadband". The owner of our company has ISDN at home and I approve the bills: 128K ISDN here costs $200 per month. Satellite pushes $100 per month. Quasi-broadband isn't worth that much to me.
Am I rural? I never thought so, but then again I could be wrong. I live in the suburbs of a small city of about 45,000, less than 200 meters from the closest phone company remote switch (which is optical fiber. Had a lovely conversation with the installer there last summer.) A couple of years ago the local phone co. (Verizon) announced with much fanfare that this town was to be a showcase of broadband in our state, one of the first three communities to be pervasively wired. Never happened and every time I ask they say, maybe in six months.
Comcast came by this summer and ran new backbone cable through everyone's back yards, but never came back to run the lines to the houses (a subdivision of about 100 homes.) Two months ago they sent people around with literature, trying to get people to sign up for digital cable and broadband. They swore up and down it was available that day. Just try to actually sign up, though: not available, maybe will be by the end of the year. Or maybe not.
Call me cranky but I'm not willing to move to a large city for the convenience of broadband internet connections. At this point I'm so disgusted over casually broken promises that I don't care if they ever wire the place. Screw 'em.
Rocketboy
Re:I've got it (Score:3, Funny)
Even if you could, would you want to pay $70+ per month just to get Groundhog Day on six different Showtime channels at the same time?
Re:I've got it (Score:3, Funny)
Should the government pay for everyone to have broadband?
NO.
Should the government send jack-booted thugs around to the telecom monoplies, and skin these fuckers alive as an ex
Re:I've got it (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I live in Meridian, Idaho, about 12 miles to the east. I've got DSL and I've had it for over six years. I've got friends in south Nampa (just a couple of miles west of you) who have cable (CableOne).
On the other hand, I also have friends in Boise who can't get DSL because their neighborhoods are underprovisioned (multiplexed lines) and couldn't get cable until a year or so ago because CableOne had not upgraded their infrastructure in that area from analog.
I wouldn't be convinced that CableOne doesn't think that they need more customers. I think that a more likely theory is that because of the extraordinary amount of new house construction going on in this valley that they are devoting their resources to connecting new (and expensive) developments to their digital system - from a purely economic point of view, it's cheaper and gives them a better return on their money. I'm not saying it's right (or that I'm right)...it's just a theory.
-h-
How many of us take it for granted? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost as if there's a virtual Third World of 'net access within our country - those oppressed by dial-up-only access. Is it in fact a governmental responsibility to bring it to everyone?
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:2)
By which you really mean, "Is it in fact the responsibility of those living at high expense in heavily-populated areas to finance internet access for those who choose to live in less-populated areas at lower cost?" Right?
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't ever buy these arguments. If I want something, I'll pay for it voluntarily. Co-ops are a good example of a voluntary "greater-good" financing scheme.
or a direct benefit to the "haves" in the situation (us!), for everyone to have access?
Again, if I want something, I'll pay for it. I simply expect others to do the same. If there is truly any benefit (all of which can ultimately be expressed by monetary profit) to subsidizing broadband to the sticks, then some private company will step up to provide it. If not, then I don't want the money taken from my pocket at the point of a gun to pay for something that might theoretically provide me with some hypothetical benefit.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:3)
As a customer of broadband (stuck with cable), there is little differentiation and certainly no economic freedom to chose the service I need. Take one monopoly, add greed an
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone thinks there is profit potential in such a service, it will be offered, as it is in COVAD areas through Speakeasy.net. If not, then you are free to form a co-op with other like-minded people and provide your own enhanced service at cost.
Why do you feel you are owed broadband on your terms by others who don't benefit from your having that? I think you should pull your own weight, which means providing for your own service by negotiating for it (or the constituent components) from those willing to offer it. That should not include forcing me to pay for your enhanced service. I already pay enough for my own; I'd rather not pay for yours, as well.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:3, Funny)
are
not
a
poet.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:5, Interesting)
NO!I don't want it. I have no use for it. It poses no greater good, so I don't want my tax money going to pay for people to download porn and MP3's. No fucking way.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:2)
I want my money back, too.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're right, it is the primary job of the government in a capitalist state.
I believe in social programs, so I don't mind taxes above and beyond, but it is amusing to see capitalists from time to time, whine about taxes as if taxes were never a part of capitalism to begin with. Its really the opposite. You *need* taxes to allow a government to enforce ownership laws.
Not that I'm assuming the parent poster is capitalist - maybe he's completely socialist (not likely
Do I sense some hypocrisy? (Score:2, Funny)
--
Geek Girls Naked! [ccbill.com]
Heh.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that surprised me about broadband is that it is not just "more stuff faster"; it allows you to work in a completely different way. E.g., I used to make backups of all the share/freeware I downloaded. Now I toss them when I'm done, because it would take me longer to find it in my disc catalog than to find the newest version on the net.
The always-on connectivity is at least as important as the speed. In fact, if I had to choose between the two, I'd probably drop the speed first.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely! I have "broadband" in Russia.
Re:How many of us take it for granted? (Score:4, Insightful)
What good would it do for the government to give everyone broadband if it doesn't also give them all computers and free electricity to run them?
While they're giving out the free stuff, there are lots of things more pertinent to raising one's standard of living than snappy Web surfing (well, maybe not to Slashdotters): a car, a house, a phone, cable TV, and so on. Is it in fact a governmental responsibility to bring these to everyone also?
Broadband has several uses... online gaming, warez, MP3's, Webcams, internet telephony, downloading large files, porn... which of these is such a fundamental human right that people face Third World style oppression without the government bringing it to them?
Broadband (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Broadband (Score:2)
Re:Broadband (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah.. my father-in-law called me the other day and was like, "I can get connected and pull up my start page but I can't get to any of my porn".
So I strolled over there to download and install the blaster patch only to find that he needed Win2k SP2 or greater. That's only 8 hours and 10 minutes over dial-up.
When you say, "minority", I hope that you are referring to anyone with Windows.
Re:Broadband (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Broadband (Score:4, Insightful)
You are 100% correct. What actually is needed is content for which broadband internet access would be required. There is hope that online gaming might generate some need for broadband. I hear quite different stories about gaming industry. Some say that it's really tough, some say that it is actually booming at the moment. Quite possibly both are true. But I don't assume that gamers represent a significant fraction of all people that are acutally connected to Internet right now.
It is impossible to overlook however that all those predictions about limitless growth opportunities that were made in those golden years (end of 1990's) about growth of broadband were based on quite simple thing that people will want online entertainment. And we should "thank" two giant money grabbing monsters RIAA and MPAA for the fact that actually did not happen.
We have to ask them for example what happened to live feeds from various radiostations. In 2000 I listened at least three stations every day. Two of them do not exist anymore and the third put a lid on internet broadcasting and just continues to deliver it's programs the oldfashion way (radio waves). The bummer is it is just too far away from me. And of course we have to ask them where are our movies over internet.
But seriously folks! We have to do something about those guys. They are greedy and they are actually extremely dumb (even though they have smart lawyers)
Re:Most people? (Score:3, Interesting)
Broadband dude, where are you? (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, they have it in my area, I don't get it. Why? $50 a month. That's for crappy service. Good service will cost you $80. Can't afford it. Make it $20 a month and it will become popular but right now? For most people it is simply too much.
Re:Broadband dude, where are you? (Score:2)
Re:Broadband dude, where are you? (Score:2)
I have this fear that if I switch to broadband, I'll be paying $50+ per month so some tech-support bozo can tell me that every problem is my fault because "we only support Windows".
Re:Broadband dude, where are you? (Score:2)
Re:Broadband dude, where are you? (Score:5, Informative)
Considering that a 2nd phone line costs about $25/month, there's no reason NOT to subscribe. It costs a bit more than half of what dial-up cost me, It's about 25 times as fast, I can buy a $40 router and network it, and it's always on. What's not to love?
Oddly enough, Verizon contacted me trying to sell it. I'm not sure why the phone rep was trying to sell me something which would be LESS profitable for them. such irony!
Connected to my computer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to crush your fantasy, but it takes time to hook up wires, and it costs money to run them. It'll happen, and it's actually doing OK considering the massive land area we have to service in the U.S.
Re:Connected to my computer? (Score:2)
Re:Connected to my computer? (Score:2)
You sure can. Your options just to be able to BUY broadband (note: these are prerequisites) are to buy a largely useless land line from a telephone company or buy shitty cable TV service from the local cable cable. Thanks, but no thanks.
Re:Connected to my computer? (Score:2)
Re:Connected to my computer? (Score:2)
Re:Connected to my computer? (Score:2)
How's the latency on that wireless? I'd consider doing that if I lived closer to work, and if they had an OC-3....
Calling "bullshit"! (Score:3, Interesting)
"Not really that bad"? That "last mile" connectivity isn't at all just chicken coops and cardboard boxes.
Asymmetry (Score:5, Interesting)
BGP peering contracts dictate some asymmetry (Score:5, Informative)
I remember reading about how all of the ISPs figure out how they bill each other whenever they "peer" (i.e., connect) to another network. Lots of these contracts are apparently very complicated, but the primary metric that stuck with me was this: most companies pay for the number of packets injected into (not received from) a peer network .
Now obviously, not ALL contracts are the same, but there are some important ramifications from this concept. There are two ends of the "spectrum" of ISP's, those that are net information sources (inject more packets than they receive), and those that are net information sinks (receive more than they inject) at any peering point. End-user ISP's are therefore usually better off when their users are primarily downloading information. When home users' computers start serving more packets, the end-user ISP is forced to pay more to its provider because it has injected more packets into the adjacent network(s) at the peering point. Hosting company ISPs (hosting web servers, for instance) pay significantly more because they are net information sources, and inject far more packets into the network than they receive.
Granted, this is a vast oversimplification of what is a very complex topic that not many people are familiar with, but in my opinion, it explains why it has traditionally always been cheaper to obtain download bandwidth than upload bandwidth: peering points generally "charge" based on packets sent. Anyone who knows differently can correct me... I'm still looking for the paper on BGP peering that I read that brought this all to my attention.
Found the paper (Score:4, Informative)
A decent paper discussing the theory behind ISP to ISP peering is linked through Citeseer here [nec.com]. To download a copy of the paper, you click on the appropriate cached format in the top right corner of the page.
Where is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll have to be more specific (Score:5, Funny)
- Four Non-Blondes
- The Go-Go's
- The Supremes
- The Donnas
- Creed
?Re:You'll have to be more specific (Score:2)
Off Topic, but I want to Bitch. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently not.
Instead I get these jackasses [keysurf.net] who charge me 1.20 pounds/min (about $2) to use a modem connection. If I try to connect AOL (which I also hate but at least it's a flat rate) keysurf charges me 0.25 pounds a min to connect to AOL because they are a competing service. Shouldn't that be illegal? Shouldn't I have a choice in who provides my Internet and phone access? Do any Brits know if I can do something about this? I mean really, is Internet access a rare commodity in the UK?
Re:Off Topic, but I want to Bitch. (Score:2)
I came across www.metronet.co.uk recently, they offer it at 10/month (+ VAT), but there is a 200MB cap - if you exceed that you pay 0.25p/MB until you reach a max charg
Re:Off Topic, but I want to Bitch. (Score:2)
I am in another country right now and I'm paying 80 $ for 128k cable 2 GB.
Prior to this, I had 512k DSL & 768k cable for 18$ & 24$ respectively in the US. For 2 years.
You don't miss something unless you lose it.
Re:Off Topic, but I want to Bitch. (Score:2)
hint. shift + 3 =
Not on my US style Dvorak keyboard it isn't.
Where's the content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the content that requires it?
I got tired of downloading pr0n from newsgroups. I don't warez or play games. I don't download movies, music, or anything. Other than the occasional Linux distro download, there's really no reason for broadband. (and if you think about it, if I download 2 linux distros a year, I would save a hell of a lot of money just by buying the boxed set rather than forking out the $40/month I pay for cable) Where's the streaming movies? Where's the free music (not "pirated", but legitimate)? Where's the *value*? As far as I'm concerned, once I realized that copyright violation was still copyright violation and "wrong", I had nothing left that I would need broadband for. If I'm just hitting ebay, slashdot, and a few other news sites, then really, what's the point of broadband?
Re:Where's the content? (Score:2)
Oh, and most of it is illegal. Because the MPAA/RIAA can't figure out how to maintain their monopoly on distribution in a digital world.
Oh well, it was a nice experiment. At least we know its possible, the technology has arrived, too bad nobody with money and power wants to share it.
Re:Where's the content? (Score:3, Informative)
AtomFilms [atomfilms.com]
IFilm [ifilm.com]
Where's the free music (not "pirated", but legitimate)?
MP3.com [mp3.com]
iRATE [sourceforge.net]
FreeMusic [free-music.com]
EMusic [emusic.com] (okay, not free, but flat-rate and dirt cheap)
Where's the *value*?
That's up to you to decide, of course. But there's plenty of legitimate big content out there.
Re:Where's the content? (Score:2)
They are in MP3 and OGG Vorbis format, take your pick. I like the sound of the .OGG files better and it's also a free codec, but the MP3s aren't half bad.
Remember: if you want to share these songs on whatever P2P proggie you use, you are more than welcome. Share and enjoy.
Re:Where's the content? (Score:2)
I'm lucky, because I listen to that silly hippy music where the bands [dead.net] allow people to download [gdlive.com] concerts [archive.org] thanks to ppl like this [etree.org]. Also, the quality of audience (microphones on stands) recordings are amazing with good mics and a preamp.
Back on topic. However, I have a $15/month dialup connection because, as others have already pointed out, the broadband connections are asymetrical. I refuse to pay more for any connection unless I get full upload
Re:Where's the content? (Score:2)
I do some updating of servers and I recently had a massive project involving shifting some huge amounts of data between two boxes, but that is done now. Right now, if I were actually paying for my connection myself (instead of getting reimbursed), I would dump it for a dial-up connection. I'm in agreement -- when you're just doing email and basic surfing, you d
Sloppy web design (Score:2)
I don't have broadband at home because I'm a grad student and I have it free at work (ie, right now). However, when I do get on the old modem at home,it's excruciatingly and increasingly slow (and I have a solid 40+ kbps from the university "ISP"). Why? Because web pages these days are more and more bloated. It seems that the only people who still know how to design a web page are Google.
I don't
Re:Where's the content? (Score:2)
Re:Where's the content? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm actually paying for a 'business' package (which is like $60/month, basically twice the 'residential' one) for a 2.5Mbps/640Ks DSL line because the quality of service is WAY higher (4 years on it, went down twice for a few hours: when they upgraded my local switch they moved me to a 'residential' port by mistake and it was down like every 2nd day + way worse latencies (routing was different) packet loss and so on)
There are tons of 'legal' reasons why I'd never willingly give up broadband:
- telecommuting: try an X session (heck, or even a remote desktop session, which is 10 times better) over a 28.8k line and you'll see... to decently run X (even lbx) you need at least 64-256kbit and less than 75ms latency, for remote desktop you need more bandwidth but it's very useable even over a 200ms link (why oh why can't X work as well as rdesktop?).
- games (these days if you have a ping higher than 50-60 you might as well not play)
- game demos/patches/maps... it gets really old really fast spending an hour or two d/loading a fan-made map only to find out that it sucks.
- movie trailers, game movies,
- email: this weekend I received a 10meg email from a friend with their vacation pictures, and I didn't have to wait AN HOUR for it to download.
- USENET. just skimming 20-30 high-volume newsgroups (not binary crap, I'm talking about comp. rec.
having broadband access is probably my #2 priority when deciding on a place to live in (#1 being location, location, location obviously).
Definition of broadband (Score:3, Insightful)
However, it does raise a good point: what do people want broadband for? So they can shop for stuff, read the news and download material without having to wait. Most of us that really want to can do the first two at work, and the third is not needed by everyone, and requires a certain level of technical adeptness that most people without a broadband don't have. So if they get it maybe they'll use it. And maybe they won't. Who knows? If broadband does become universal it's likely that the tech used will be different to the tech we know, ie not through the desktop PC.
What certainly is true is that the dot com boom was not a product of the failure to implement broadband quickly. It was a simple case of indiscriminate and desperate investment in a technology that couldn't generate cash quickly enough. www.petsmart.com anyone?
I thought the definition of broadband... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Definition of broadband (Score:2)
Over here (Holland), both subscribers and providers are starting to discover that most people do not actually need broadband. For most stuff like surfing, gaming, and downloading the occasional mp3, lower transfer rates suffice. What people do want is the convenience of a flat rate, always-on connection. For that, several providers are now offeri
Nice article... (Score:2)
Anyway, nice conglomeration of "stuff" about broadband. The post office being broadband is bunk. My postman does not show up at my door once/second. Whereas my broadband can deliver at least 200kb/s at any given second.
I don't see this guys point. Broadband is a simple demand/supply problem. Very well understood problem. What broadband needs is better applications if it wants to be taken up. RIAA is the single biggest enemy of broadban
Favor cell phones? Broadband costs too much. (Score:2, Insightful)
What? Assinine (Score:2)
There is one exception, a friend of mine who's moving to a very very rural area, I don't even think he can get cable TV. You don't see "Where is the cable TV?" articles.
My parents have broadband, I have broadband both at home and work, my grandfather has broadband, all of my friends (around 20 or so) except the above forementioned one has broadband, all my coworkers have broadband.
Where is all the broadband in
Re:What? Assinine (Score:2)
Jackass.
Time for a /. poll (Score:5, Funny)
1. At home, cooking dinner
1. Working
2. Not working
3. Reloading Slashdot
4. I don't know a broad, you insensitive clod!
5. Making out with CowBoyNeal
ooh...broadBand....
never mind.
Is broadband really a *good* thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Make music free
2) Encourage people to use wireless phone more
3) Encourage more competition in the "first mile" internet access market, utilizing wireless technologies across an increased spectrum (gov. intervention needed).
Now my question is this: I have read tons of articles (including this one) explaining why broadband should grow, but I have also read quite a few opinions to the contrary. There are facts that suggest that in some
Paradoxes indeed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the (my) Washington Post editorial letter [washingtonpost.com] regarding the situation.
where is broadband (Score:5, Informative)
It's in Canada. Canada far outpaces the US for broadband connectivity for home users, but I'm not sure why. Currently about 64% of Canadians with internet access have a broadband connection, around double the figure in the US. Welcome to Canada, the new home of the free.
broadband stats [websiteoptimization.com]
Re:where is broadband (Score:2)
Canada is almost certainly less dense population-wise, isn't it?
Re:where is broadband (Score:2)
Also interesting to note... (Score:3, Interesting)
By comparison, the Canadian government defines 'broadband' as (paraphrasing) 'an internet connection capable of sustaining real-time two-way streaming multimedia'.
I found that quite interesting when I found it out. Broadband in Canada isn't what broadband in the US is, and I can't really figure out why, but I have some ideas.
First of all, Shaw Cable, one of the largest broadband provider
Why would you need broadband? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my little list. Btw, I have broadband.
-Porn.
-Occasional MP3 downloads
-Driver downloads, software updates, etc
-remote GUI sessions (both as host and server)
(also, with X11 and also Windows Remote Desktop)
-serving files/website from home.
-browsing faster
-Instant Messenger (24/7 useful - not so much the speed. I use IM more than my phone by far)
No question, I NEED broadband. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's my list:
I am on the net far too much for my own good. If I tied up the phone via modem, nobody would be able to reach me.
Work. Sending 50 - 100mb graphics files on a weekly basis pays for itself after the first couple uploads / downloads. That would take hours via modem, and a day if shipped even UPS. Also, updating web sites, uploading files, backing up entire websites, would take forever.
Music files. Sending mp3s is great for low quality. Try doing a mutitrack session with AIFF files to a co
20$ metered dsl (Score:2)
I didn't think I'd like it as much as I do (Score:2, Insightful)
Then I moved to a place where I got free broadband with my rent (a rarity I'm sure) and have really grown accustomed to it. It's nice to be able to instantly check on
I live in Northern Ireland (Score:5, Interesting)
I also worked for a local council (who shall remain nameless) who had a run in with British Telecom (BT) in trying out broadband in the area for a six month trial. First BT wanted the council to share the costs equally. That was fine.
Then BT wanted only businesses to register and use it for the six months. Then they wanted over 300 businesses to sign up for it before they install. Thing is there are not even 10 businesses in the area who would find broadband useful enough to operate.
The kick in the teeth is that the council made the signup for both public and businesses. There are over 200 interested non-business homes wanting broadband. Yet BT ignores them. Probably because they can charge businesses ten times as much for the same lines.
End result? No broadband, BT sitting on their asses waiting for 290 non-existant businesses to sign up, and hundreds of the public cursing them. Fuck you BT.
PS. a department within the council uses BT satellite broadband. It cost something like 1000 to install and 90 a month to keep. One day we connected the computers there over the standard phonelines to the web server 2 miles away at the main council site. We found out it was many times faster than the damn satellite!!! Double fuck you BT.
PPS. BT spent 30 million on an ad campaign for broadband last year. How many exchanges could they have upgraded for that amount of money?
Here's the real paradox of broadband (Score:3, Insightful)
They sell you a service based on T1-like speeds, but then complain if you actually use it as advertised.
Go figure.
You have RIAA and MPAA to thank (Score:3, Insightful)
For most, faster surfing doesn't warrant the extra expense. Most people aren't gamers. Is porn worth an extra $30/month (don't answer that).
Really, the thing that would have caused mass pick-up of broadband was if consumers had access to music and movies online. I know many people that had broadband during the Napster days but killed it shortly after Napster went away (not knowing any better about alternatives). But, thanks to the efforts of the RIAA and the MPAA, music and movie downloading hasn't been legitimized until very recently (iTunes) in a way that's consumer friendly.
Rather than embracing the internet and expanding their control, RIAA/MPAA member companies fought everything tooth and nail. Maybe as services such as iTunes increase their presence (think iTunes for movies) people will find a reason to turn to broadband again.
Broadband (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Broadband (Score:3, Interesting)
The equipment is getting cheaper, but the issue is spectrum. There's only so much data you can pump through the air at the moment - smarter equipment (eg Karlnet) or higher speed gear cost more money. Mesh networks are no better since all of those nodes have to share airtime/noise due to their omni antennas.
Give it a few years though, and things will certainly be looking better.
A bit ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
For most Europeans the question is: Should I change from a pay-per-minute phone line to a fixed price broadband connection? The answer is yes from a large percentage, since the cost will be the same and the service is better.
Of course, that incentive isn't there for Americans, since they don't pay anything for their Internet access in the first place. It is a bit ironic that free local calls, the very thing that made the Internet take off early in the US, is preventing broadband from spreading.
Getting out of the rut is difficult, since you obviously can't charge your customers for local calls when your competitors offer it for free. Guess we'll have to wait until broadband cost drops.
Rural, try Boston (Score:3, Interesting)
Just goes to show that even in urban areas if there's scary old infrastructure you might still be out of luck. Any experience with this in NYC?
Keep in mind that this is the neighborhood where every five years a transformer within a 3 block radius explodes. Very exciting.
broadband adoption (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people I know have broadband but some don't. Here's some observations as to why and some suggestions as to what needs to happen for broadband to become more widely accepted:
Needs to have a clear value. Content is part of this. There simply isn't any broadband equivalent of "Sex in the City" for many people to think it's worth paying more than what they already pay for a modem. So either the price needs to come way down, where it's no big deal, or there has to be more compelling content. Yeah, I know, there's lots of music and video out there, but for the average joe user who is not into pirating there's too much of a learning curve to get into piracy compared to just switching on a TV. Also related to this are the people who don't use the internet much in any case. All they do is email and look at a few websites, maybe once or twice a week if that. These people have no use for broadband and need to get into something the web has to offer before they'd consider it.
Ease of set up. You buy a computer and they all have a modem bundled with and an AOL plan for software. There are a lot of people out there who simply won't consider broadband until it's bundled with the computer. I know you do not believe me, but there are people who's eyes glaze over with the thought of installing a cable / DSL modem. Don't even scare them with the network idea. Wireless would blow their minds and curdle their spinal fluid.
Availability. There are parts of the country that still don't get cellphone service. Fat chance getting any reasonable broadband dial up.
I can think of some possibly evil solutions to these problems. First off, if web designers could band together and be assholes, they could just design sites with broadband in mind. Eventually people with modems will get sick of the long download times and be forced to upgrade. I mean, hey, software developers do that all the time, right? When a program runs slow, people just have to upgrade their computers. Maybe this upgrade cycle needs to be forced on web bandwidth.
Next, compelling content: one of the most compelling I've seen recently is iChat AV. Open this up to AOL IM users, and let the jealousy factor kick in. How fast do you think some of these stick in the mud users would upgrade if they realize, they aren't being included in the videophone conferences with toddler cousin junior because their web connection is too slow?
Why all the modem problems? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that a lot of slashdotters, when talking about dialup, complain about the connection quality.
Currently, with a run-of-the-mill local ISP, I tend to stay online for days at a time without a problem. With my previous ISP, I also had connections that lasted for days.
Now, I realize that 2 ISPs aren't a comprehensive data set, but I had a rather illuminating experience about a year ago.
After about a year without using my old ISA 56k modem, I found that it no longer worked. Since I wanted to switch everything over from a windows server to a linux server anyways, I ordered a new USR PCI Hardware modem online for a reasonable price (about $50 with S&H)
Being internet deprived, and wanting a backup anyways, I went over to a local computer store and bought the cheapest winmodem I could find - a no-name brand based on an intel chipset.
With the no-name winmodem, my connection quality was horrible - random disconnects, frequent `I seem to be sending but not receiving' connection problems, etc.
When my USR hardware modem arrived, I stuck it into an old pentium, set up NAT, and noticed that my connection greatly improved.
What I was blaming on my ISP seems to have been the fault of a cheap, crappy modem.
The point of the essay - wireless (Score:3, Interesting)