ITU Aims At 20Mbps Broadband For All By 2020 154
Mark.JUK writes "Dr Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), has proposed to 'dream big' by setting a new broadband access target for the world. In short, Touré would like to see the United Nations (UN) update its global digital development targets to include a commitment that would require countries around the world to ensure that everybody can access broadband internet speeds of 20Mbps from just $20 by 2020. Easier said than done, especially in poorer countries."
Poorer countries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the opposition policy on national broadband access and get back to us. That's likely what we will get come the September election.
Re: (Score:2)
The Opposition policy is to extend FTTN which will put in place a good speed at each exchange. While I prefer the Labour policy of FTTH, even with a FTTN, my exchange will greatly improve in speed. Currently, at dawn, I can download a file at around 1.5 megabytes a second - however in the afternoon between five and ten, that speed is slashed to around 100 kilobytes at most. That simply means that the exchange is getting smashed and the throughput there is suffering. Again, I would prefer FTTH, but FTTN will
Re: (Score:3)
I, too, would prefer FTTH simply because if they only take fibre to the existing exchanges, or even to new sub-exchanges/street boxes, then I will still have the same 40+ year old copper that can only support 4.5Mbps when it's dry, and routinely drops out in the wet. (It has been wet a lot lately)
I, like most Australians live in an Internet privileged urban setting. My childhood home town of 250 (only 40 km off Highway 1, 3 hours from Brisbane) has just passed the hurdles to get NBN fixed wireless at "u
Re: (Score:1)
Until a year ago, I was fortunate in being able to subscribe to ADSL2+ services in WA and subsequently SA, but here in TAS I am lucky to get a wireless connection (of sorts) to a
Re: (Score:2)
DOCSIS 2.x modems can do 25 Mbps over existing coax. I have one, with a 20/7 Mbps plan, and routinely get between 2 and 2.5 MBps (aka ~20 Mbps) at all times during the day. I haven't switched to a DOCSIS 3.x plan as they all have lower upload speeds in our area (25/0.5 Mbps to 50/2.5 Mbps; it's only expensive 100/17 Mbps plans tha
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, you've got no idea what you're talking about.
The exchange already has fibre, lots of it. That's what all exchanges have run on since you were in nappies. Fibre on the backbone side and copper on the customer side. FTTN means fiber from the exchange to somewhere closer to the home, e.g. into a cabinet in your neighbourhood. Then you run ADSL2+ a short distance from there to each neighbourhood home and get 24Mbps given that the ADSL2+ run is now quite short.
The reason you are getting slow speeds is
Re: (Score:2)
We already have FTTN for most of the places around here, and most places even have 12,000/800 or so on ADSL2+, so the coalitions vision of the NBN is just what we essentially have but they get to forfil their promised delivery of "12Mbps" to most locations ( for the record, I'm in a rural zone on ADSL2+ on Dodo[Telstra backhaul] ), it's just a case of waiting a couple of years to push the price down a bit more ($69/mth here) and get more people migrated off ADSL over to ADSL2+.
The rediculous thing is that t
Re: (Score:3)
It's all in the wording as you note: the Coalitions policy is "upto 12mbps". The Labor policy is a minimum of 12mbps.
And that's to say nothing of upload speeds, which are far more important these days and have been historically neglected: my girlfriend can get 8mbps on her ADSL2, but 162 kbps upstream speed (about 1/5th of what it should be). Which makes using VOIP/Skype etc. on her connection nearly impossible.
That's of course when it's working at all: the copper in her walls or too her building seems to b
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I was trying to change the Annex type my connection is on to trade some of my down speed for a lot more up ( drop to about 10,000 down but 1,800 up ), but thus far I've been told that Telstra backhaul won't let me switch ( subsequently I can't get Dodo to switch ).
Sorry to hear about the copper situation in your GF's location. If the coalition gets in (which likely they will) I'll see you in 12 years again perhaps when we finally get FTTH on the cards again :(
Re: (Score:2)
The Coalition policy appears to be keeping the same crusty old ADSL over copper and maybe adding some FttN in major metro areas.
Re: (Score:3)
Please read the opposition policy on national broadband access and get back to us. That's likely what we will get come the September election.
Here it is. [liberal.org.au]
But it's junk. The Lib/Nat coalition are talking about improving the copper system, maybe going from ADSL2+ to VDSL, so from 20Mbps to 40Mbps.
The Lib/Nat coalition are idiots sometimes. Tony Abbott refused to believe NBNCo when they changed their maximum available data rate from 100Mbps to 1Gbps. But even that is nothing. 100Gbps optical Ethernet is commercially available, and researchers have managed 26 terabits per second with a single laser, and 100 terabits per second with multiple lasers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not when politics comes into the equation. The conservative opposition have been quite successful in spreading FUD in the minds of the electorate that every major policy initiative is part of a radical socialist agenda designed to bankrupt the country.
Deployment of a 'better service' will be scrapped in 6 months time with a change of government.
Re:Poorer countries (Score:5, Interesting)
Odd you say that, as Telstra (our local telco) has an obligation to provide a "phone" to everyone in Australia, even if it requires them installing a satellite dish or PTSN compatible 3G modem in the house at a total loss to the company.
I worked with them and have personally spend 2-3 days trying to troubleshoot a single customers line problem, it wasn't until we pulled up maps we noticed the 3G modem we were using was 42km from the nearest mobile tower and the issue was weather. The tech who installed the node had modified a Yagi and pointed it a the mobile tower on a nice sunny day, and, defying everything thought possible by the hardware manufacturers, managed to get a stable connection and the longest distance most people had ever seen.
Step outside the CBD and major cities in Australia then say Telstra doesn't provide a quality service, when they are the ONLY provider there... I used to be a Telstra hater until I worked for them in rural areas for a short time, the tech's who get out in the bush and provide communications for people are an amazingly talented group of people who will drive a 4x4 in the outback for 12 hours a day, just to fix someone's phone connection.
I regret moving to vodafone that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
group of people who will drive a 4x4 in the outback for 12 hours a day, just to fix someone's phone connection.
This sounds like a great way to retire after I'm done with my current career!
Re: (Score:1)
This sounds like a great way to retire after I'm done with my current career!
Better make sure your skills are up to scratch. The guys who made it up to my property in TAS had been working with this kind of stuff for 20+ years. For all my earlier posts in this thread might have come across as whining about Telstra, I was and am. There is no other choice of provider here. But there are at least some of their guys with feet (and 4WD tyres) on the ground who have seriously good skills, and do their best to make an inadequate system work, and I salute them.
Re:Poorer countries (Score:5, Informative)
Look fuckers. I don't care where you live, or what the UN wants. If I can get away with charging $99.00 a month for 5Mbps I'm going to do it. I don't care where you live, what you do, or why you need it. The only thing I care about is how to get you to part with as much cash as possible and give it to me. BTW, way back when, when we first rolled out cable and you all thought it was worth it in order to watch TV without advertising? Priceless! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! See you suckers on the way to the bank!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Poorer countries (Score:4, Interesting)
See also: Canada.
Pretty sure our telecoms oligarchy (Rogers, Bell, Shaw, Telus, Videotron; generally "pick two" depending on where you live) spends more money convincing the CRTC they provide excellent service at a great price than they do on network upgrades and maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't lump the West Coast telecoms companies with the East Coast telecoms companies.
Shaw is doing some amazing things out West, and has been stringing fibre pretty much everywhere it can. 20/7 Mbps links are under $80 with many deals for less. And they have plans all the way up to 250 Mbs down.
And, since Shaw has been doing all these upgrades the past 2-3 years, Telus has been forced to start stringing their own fibre around everywhere. While their ADSL is still limited to around 15/1 Mbps, their
Re: (Score:2)
I get 150Mbps for ~$100 from Rogers which works out cheaper per bandwidth than 20 for $20. That said past a certain point it doesn't matter, once you can stream 1080p torrents (yeah I know not raw but compressed) in real time your needs go away quite quickly. It then becomes a matter of how many simultaneous downloads do you really need. I'd pay $100 for 20Mbps with no cap though.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Kim.com was going to personally pay for super-fast kiwi broadband, as long as the NZ government indemnified him against any mega-related charges?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the heart of Houston, one of the biggest cities in the world.
My only high speed option is a local reseller monopoly that charges $90/mth for around 5mbps real world speed. Seems they make exclusivity deals with local Apt Complexes, and change names every few years due to the bad rep they keep getting from their piss poor service.
Re: (Score:2)
A bandwidth cap what is this 1998 ? I thought every western country had fiber coverage even france is mostly fiber.
Well, I guess that Northern Indiana is... well... more northern then it's western.
Re:Poorer countries (Score:5, Funny)
20 Mbps for $20? Easier said than done in the United States of Monopolies.
How dare you say that, you unamerican, unpatriotic slime ball! You're just feeding into communist propaganda! Capitalism works because capitalism works, dammit. The only monopolies are the ones created by the government, blame them, not the capitalists who are the makers, not the takers. (pukes up on floor) The reason we don't have cheap broadband is because there's no demand! (pukes some more) Supply and demand mean that if enough people wanted it, someone would get up and do it, and it would be priced competitively. (dies of laughter)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Way too try-hard to be funny to anyone who isn't mumbling about their torrent speeds to their mother while she picks sticky socks up off the floor.
Your mom is doing a terrible job if the socks get to the point of being sticky - I'd sack her this instant!
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism works, and within free market settings where there is actual competition it works to increase everybody's wealth by providing choices.
In absence of free market (as is the case with the United States of Monopolies, as you said), then capitalism is reduced to only a few capital holders that are working closely with the government. The government prints the money, 'insures' deposits and provides other forms of moral hazard. In USA at this point only the largest companies are still in business, the
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could have summed this up a lot better by just calling it what it is: fascism.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, the rule of the troll [slashdot.org]. You think you win because your comment is toxic, it contains various logical fallacies and other elements of personal attack.
Well, I don't disagree, it's a powerful way to 'argue'.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the reason we don't have cheaper broadband is because there are government mandated monopolies on both wired and wireless infrastructure. No amount of sarcasm on your part is going to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod the parent up. There is no capitalism in American broadband, and its still mostly not that far behind other western countries. There are places with really shitty service/options, there are places with outstanding service/options, and there are places where this target 20mbps for $20 is nearly a reality already (I'm in south eastern connecticut and my ~$40 mid-tier service was bumped to 20mbps several months ago, and no caps or throttling.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a matter of economic need I think. Would people like $20 internet? Sure. But they get enough value that it is worth more than that to them. For a starters it pretty much replaces the need for long distance phone calls. Then if you are open to being a pirate also replaces spending on movies, music and TV. Add to that that it is extremely hard if not impossible to search for jobs, do interviews etc without a web connected computer and it becomes a necessary service one peg down from the hydro bill. Sur
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think the ITU approved that DPI standard [slashdot.org]? It's not like those prices would be due to proper market pricing and not massive subsidization of user data.
Of course that assumes they didn't actually want their invoice price to be $20/month, so they could raie retail internet prices and do even more deep pocket introspection of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously, they will redefine what 'Mbps' stands for...job done.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys beat me to it. I recently moved across town. Before I moved, I had the choice of two internet providers - $30 for 30 meg or $40 for 6 meg with transfer cap. Hmmm, guess which one I chose.
However, I then moved 30 miles across town. I am in MORE populas and RICHER area than I was before, and I have two choices, $45 a month for 15 meg with a transfer cap, or $45 a month for 20 meg with no transfer cap. Hmmm, which do I choose.
Now, I guess you could always argue that there is also HuguesNet (prices sta
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. The day CenturyLink offers me speeds over 8Mbps for less than $90/month is the day Comcast drops prices for 20Mbps access below $50 (with Cable - it costs more if you don't bundle). If you think wireless is better, think again - they charge $10 per megabyte generally, and the ones that don't have really shitty service where I am. It is lose-lose-lose to the monopolies here.
Meh. Easy. I can do that tomorrow. (Score:2)
I'll give you 20MB/s for 20$ right now.
(with a 10MB cap and 5$ per MB overage)
That is pretty much the model these days anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Easier said than done anywhere, at the last broadband meter here in Norway the mean was 15.6 Mbps, the median 8.6 Mbps and the cheapest rate on the national survay $30 for 1/0.2 Mbps. "Everyone" will be way, way below the median so it'd need to get a helluva lot faster and cheaper real quick. I think 20 Mbps median in 2020 for $60 might be realistic here in Norway, but 20-20 in 2020 is in "and we'll all drive a Ferrari" fairy tale land.
Re: (Score:1)
here in Belgium I pay 70€ (100$+/-) for 100Mbps, and bw cap is at 1Tb a month but we are kind of a socialist country and even unemployed I can pay that (my salary for being unemployed here is 1100€)
Re: (Score:2)
here in Belgium I pay 70€ (100$+/-) for 100Mbps, and bw cap is at 1Tb a month but we are kind of a socialist country and even unemployed I can pay that (my salary for being unemployed here is 1100€)
I probably wouldn't work either if I was getting $1571 a month for doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
here in Belgium I pay 70€ (100$+/-) for 100Mbps, and bw cap is at 1Tb a month but we are kind of a socialist country and even unemployed I can pay that (my salary for being unemployed here is 1100€)
I think in that situation I would quite literally wank myself to death.
Re: (Score:2)
It is likely true for several large population poor countries, Brazil, India, China, and Nigeria for example. But the thing is the countries where the really power people are often have low computer ownership. People are accessing the internet using phones I'm not sure if they'll pay $20 for a 20Mbps hookup when they can get a cell phone plan for ~$6 a month and $50 for the phone and that is the device they'll be using anyways.
AHAHAHAhahaha (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
And I want to stop world hunger and end all wars. We can even feed everyone on this planet and their goal is 20Mbps? I love the Internet and all, but considering the fact that many people still die of hunger and disease, isn't this goal a little lofty?
But think of all the food they will be able to order online.
Re: (Score:2)
High-speed internet would give incentive to businesses (particularly small ones) to setup shop. This will help the local economy, which in turn will help feed the planet, save babies etc... etc... The space program is also a monumental waste of money if you discard how far society has advanced in almost every conceivable way as a result of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Middle of the US: $50/month for 5meg cable, $60/month for 3meg DSL (clightly better coverage so they can force the people just past city limits to pay extra), or $20/month for 56k dialup (hasn't changed price or capabilities in over 15 years).
I wish I could say this small town atmosphere trades technological opportunity for safety, I really do. But we've had two incidents of crazies shooting at the cops and 3 murders within spitting distance of my house so far this year...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not being even remotely accurate.
Most corporations would like to enslave shareholders too.
Re: (Score:3)
I hear they're run by lizard men and are responsible for 9/11 too!
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
wireless power is the solution.
Re:Metal theft is problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I recall reading that telcos in Africa hired guards to protect the cell towers (and their fuel) from getting ripped off.
When this didn't stop the problems, they created a program where the guards could sell minutes as a side business,
which gave them an incentive to keep the service up so they could keep making money.
Cheap access is key, not bandwidth (Score:5, Informative)
> Reason being copper theft. It's big deal.
Well. Here in India, Internet and cable TV use wires hanging between buildings, and have done so for decades. Theft is not really a problem.
The cheapest wireless internet we have is 256 kbps at $5 a month. That's quite adequate for everything but video. $10 for 1 mbps wired.
The important thing is for everyone to with the most basic literacy to be able to afford unmetered Internet *access*. Higher bandwidth is much less important. Upper tiers just get used for entertainment and are not critical.
I feel that making basic Internet access at limited bandwidth (256 kbps is fine, 1mbps is better if we are to target online education), available as free as radio waves or water, is a better goal than 20 for 20 by 20.
Mobile phones are already very cheap here. Incoming calls are free. Outgoing call balance can be recharged with cards as low as 50 cents. So a poor family living in a hut with a leaky roof can still afford phones for each of its members for essential use. Internet should be as affordable as that and it will surely get there here without any ITU directives.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
> Reason being copper theft. It's big deal.
Well. Here in India, Internet and cable TV use wires hanging between buildings, and have done so for decades. Theft is not really a problem.
Oh, but it is. And not just of the copper, but also of the switches and repeaters and pretty much everything that's not nailed down - and some of the stuff that is nailed down.
The cheapest wireless internet we have is 256 kbps at $5 a month. That's quite adequate for everything but video. $10 for 1 mbps wired.
The important thing is for everyone to with the most basic literacy to be able to afford unmetered Internet *access*. Higher bandwidth is much less important. Upper tiers just get used for entertainment and are not critical.
While understandable if all you do is check your emails and slashdot, yeah, fine, 1mbit/s or even 256kbit/s might be fine... and there are definitely a lot of people who agree with you. But there are uses for high-speed Internet other than entertainment!
Additionally, the case for unmetered (I presume you mean unlimited as in "can max
20 Mpps (Score:1)
20 mega-ponies-per-second.
About as realistic.
Seriously, this is a laudable "target" as long as everyone agrees that we are playing "horseshoe and hand grenades" rules, where close counts. If anyone thinks "we must do this, period, and if even one person on the planet can't get 20 Mbps for $20 by the end of 2020 then we've failed" and expects to "succeed," they are delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering most DSL providers in the US think that anything above 128K is "Broadband" we've already gotten there then. Got a load coil on your land line? Tough shit. We're giving you the broadband we promised.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering most DSL providers in the US think that anything above 128K is "Broadband" we've already gotten there then.
The FCC, to "protect" the people, defined broadband for us. at 128k...
Already at 5Mbps for $50... (Score:1)
Like telephone service spreading to the developing world, this won't happen with wires.
I've got a 5Mbps wireless broadband connection right now, and that's WiMAX, old tech. Verizon's LTE does close to 10 Mbps. [pcmag.com].
My connection costs me $50/month; if we imagine opening things up to real competition, $20/mo doesn't seem unreasonable.
If we had the political will to make 20Mbps broadband as accessible as voice communication is today, yes, we could do it in under a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Political will is trumped (or, rather, bought) but corporate profits. There will be no $20 high speed internet for the masses. 20Mb service is limited to those in isolated, affluent areas, and bundled with "telephone" and "cable TV" services for $100+/mo, or $100+/mo unbundled (what a bargain!). Want that without caps? Double it.
Most places are either too sparse (or too mountainous) to be worth putting up a tower, or already locked into a monopoly provider agreement with the wired providers. And corporat
Rural Ohio: fuhgeddaboudit. (Score:2)
We get 360 Kbps on a good day with Frontier DSL, the only choice aside from satellite. Frontier bought Verizon's rural operations a few years ago and they refuse to upgrade. You can pay more (~$60-70/mo.) for a "high-speed" tier, but people report that your speed actually drops. Frontier is scum, the poster child for crap internet service.
The magic word "from" (Score:2)
ensure that everybody can access broadband internet speeds of 20Mbps from just $20 by 2020.
I'm surprised they didn't make it "up to 20Mbps from just $20," in which case, mission accomplished!
and a pony (Score:2)
Don't forget the pony!
Define "everybody" (Score:3)
Please define everybody.
Does this include folks in third-world countries? Does this include all regions of India, Africa, and China (as a few examples)? There are may regions without access to, for example, safe, clean, potable water - is high-speed access to Amazon really a priority in those locations?
Re: (Score:2)
It's all bullshit anyway. We're not even going to have 20Mbps "everywhere" (I'm not even counting the people living in the hills or whatever) in the USA by 2020. We don't even have 2 Mbps everywhere now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are may regions without access to, for example, safe, clean, potable water - is high-speed access to Amazon really a priority in those locations?
Yes, access to the world's largest river would be nice if you are short on potable water...
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (Score:2)
I somehow don't think they really care that we should have better internet connection. But how do you want to sell movies (sorry, rent them) via internet if you can't stream them in good quality? How do you want to keep tabs on everyone if their connection is clogged and they might be interested in reducing the traffic they don't benefit from?
I'm not really sure I'm looking forward to these great times.
Here's the standard I want by 2020: (Score:3)
15 mbps for DSL lines, 30 mbps for cable TV lines, and 60 mbps for optical fiber lines. And that's the minimum. For cellular wireless, it should be 15 mbps for HSDPA+ 3G and 40 mbps for 3GPP LTE minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as telecoms continue selling "up to" services with no minimum, you can get this now, everywhere in North America! Victory!
And don't forget the ridiculously low usage limits.
Foolish (Score:2)
$20 now, or then? (Score:2)
$20 in today's value, or in 7 years of inflation?
I can already get 20M for $20. It just comes with a 5GB data cap...well I used to at my old address, now I'm further from the exchange and only get about 12Mbps. In two years I'll have access to 100Mbps, like most of the rest of my back-water country.
Use "worked-hours equivalent" -not- Dollars... (Score:2)
Although it was good to see at least mild-mention of the Poor,
it'd be better to have service cost expressed -equitable- units,
that recognized the vast differences in amount of human-time
it takes - across the world - to earn $20.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how do you explain politicians?
Re: (Score:2)
That's about what I pay for 6mbps, doesn't sound farfetched to have a little more than three times that speed for the same price in 7 years, seven years ago I had 2 Mbps for a similar price.
You can already get over 20Mbps for under $20 in the UK... the kicker is the "everyone" bit - people out in the sticks can't get 20Mbps cheaply, nor do I really expect them to be able to be 2020... nor am I entirely sure that 20Mbps access for everyone is something that we should be subsidising - you don't need 20Mbps to do the essentials (tax returns, getting the news, etc); the only thing you need that kind of bandwidth for is entertainment, and there are plenty of other non-internet methods of getting e
Re: (Score:2)
the only thing you need that kind of bandwidth for is entertainment
That is simply not true. One of the reasons that areas like Cornwall and Somerset are getting grants to improve broadband speed is precisely to attract businesses who can work almost anywhere provided they have the bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
That is simply not true. One of the reasons that areas like Cornwall and Somerset are getting grants to improve broadband speed is precisely to attract businesses who can work almost anywhere provided they have the bandwidth.
And so businesses can pay for it, just the same as they would pay for an office if they were expecting employees to use that instead of working from home...
(For the record, I too work from home and I don't find 8Mbps too slow at all... I could occasionally do with a faster upstream, but the downstream is fine)
Re: (Score:2)
There's enough food on the planet to feed everyone, every day.
The problem is not one of science, but of politics. How do you get some tiny African state, or Middle-Eastern country, with a hatred of the country offering help because of past wars etc. to let you wander across their country with thousands of people, vehicles, planes and cargo, fixing all their starvation and asking for "nothing" in return? You don't. They are (rightly) very suspicious if you try.
The logistics issues (getting the food there)
Re: (Score:2)
Because 1080p is not enough! you need 3D 8k video streaming!