dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-03-19 16:26:51: ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré has proposed a new plan that would aim to have the entire world wired with 20 Mbps, $20 connections by 2020. ..



FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

ITU working up to Internet Tax again

How we get to 20/20 by 2020 isn't clear

Another opportunity for ITU to push for their Internet Tax again.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 recommendation

The United States..

..will never see it.. Ever. If ISP's can charge $40/mo for a 768k connection, getting these speeds for that price will never happen.


PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast

20-20-20 More meaningless drivel

Makes me wonder how some folks get wealthy/important while doing absolutely nothing of any discernable value?

This isn't a plan...this is not even a rational goal or ideal...just jingoistic drivel. I can come up with better stuff than that while reading the morning paper and eating fruit loops!

At least Prez Clinton showed me a "National Health Care Card"...didn't get one of them either...

Hey! How did that 40 acres and a mule thing work out???

(I take that as "not so much?")
--
Deeds, not words

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

How ambitious...

This goal is pathetic, by 2020 20mbits would be like having 128kbps right now.
"playing it safe" indeed...

By 2020 a truly "down to earth" prediction would be to expect 10gig speeds. And i'm being conservative.


Zenit

join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL

This goal

Could had been possible in the USA if the Bell System still existed - they had the manufacturing (Western Electric), engineering (Bell Labs), and the resources (Labor and Money) to pull something like this off within its service area.

Will 20mbit seem lame in 2020? Chances are the answer is yes.
But it would sure as hell be a better pick than 768kbit/sec DSL.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to Simba7

Re: The United States..

said by Simba7:

..will never see it.. Ever. If ISP's can charge $40/mo for a 768k connection, getting these speeds for that price will never happen.

Nonsense.

With the exception of those who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, there will continue to be competitive pressures forcing continual improvement in wired price:performance.

Those who live in underserved locations will benefit as well, as more wireless options become available.


Probitas

@teksavvy.com

speeds aren't the issue

The issue is, how the heck are workers in developing countries who aren't paid enough to even afford the stuff they make and sell back in North America supposed to be able to afford luxuries like internet service???

What good is the access if you can't afford it anyway? OR worse, you make them pay taxes to get it, AND charge for using it as well, for a great double dip. Sounds more like rape to me. How do these retards get those great paying jobs?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to Zenit

Re: This goal

said by Zenit:

Could had been possible in the USA if the Bell System still existed - they had the manufacturing (Western Electric), engineering (Bell Labs), and the resources (Labor and Money) to pull something like this off within its service area.

Will 20mbit seem lame in 2020? Chances are the answer is yes.
But it would sure as hell be a better pick than 768kbit/sec DSL.

Bell certainly could have deployed such a national broadband network, but as a regulated monopoly with guaranteed rates of return, it wouldn't be $20/month. Not even close.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to Zenit
It's not a technology issue. We have the technology, it's just a matter of deploying it. HFC or fiber would do 20/20, heck, either would do 100/20, and fiber will do 1gbps symmetrical.

$20 is not realistic for the US though, you just can't build a network and expect to get paid back for it at that price. Maybe 1mbps for $20 and 100mbps for $60 is more realistic... Sort of a freemium model in a way, since the 100mbps customers would be subsidizing the 1mbps customers...

We need some sort of do-it-or-lose-it for the incumbent telcos who refuse to do the necessary upgrades.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to Simba7

Re: The United States..

It's embarrassing how stagnant the market in the US is. This needs fixed.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to Kamus

Re: How ambitious...

I'm with ya, but the market is too stagnant to even hit 20mbps at the rate it is going.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to elray

Re: The United States..

Competition is very one sided right now. Verizon quotes me 3mbit DSL at my location, Comcast can offer their fastest DOCSIS3 speeds and this town has no LTE.

Which is strange considering we are a Philadelphia suburb, and there is no lack of money at all in this town, I would think LTE would be running full power and FIOS everywhere. Comcast effectively rules the Delaware Valley.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


NotHereNow

@verizon.net

In hindsight...

I thought by 2020 we were supposed to have brain implants which would jack us into everything... for free--tinfoil hat not required.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Kamus

Re: How ambitious...

and that 20mbit will not mean much if it has low caps and high overages.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101

I am hoping by 2020 I can

beam up to the enterprise and beam down to any vacation spot I want.


AnonMe

@comcastbusiness.net
reply to elray

Re: The United States..

ISP's in the US will NEVER bring rates down to $20/month. NEVER EVER. They will never need to go that cheap in order to compete against the few providers, so they won't. They might bump the bandwidth tiers up, but they will NEVER bring the price down to $20/month.

Their is some minor competition in the wireless market, but is can much better be summed up by calling it price fixing.


Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
I got 20/1 service from TWC last year. my coop get's a $10 right of way discount on all TWC service in our building. i also got a $10 discount during the first year of service. that's $40-(10+10) per month and i bought my own DOCSIS2 modem for $25 avoiding the monthly lease fee. my building's CableTV wiring plant is 25 years old and since we don't have roof antennas or satalite dishes, it's safe to assume well over 50% of my building has TWC ISP and Cable TV service.

trust me, TWC could sell me $20/mo 20/1 forever and their shareholders will still make a fortune

kmcmurtrie

join:2006-04-18
Sunnyvale, CA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to elray
Welcome to the telephone and cable duopoly. My guess is that 99.9% of Silicon Valley residents couldn't get 20/20 Mbps on less than a $1500/month budget. And I mean real 20/20 Mbps, not a theoretical non-guaranteed momentary burst rate.


toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Portland, OR

1 recommendation

reply to elray
said by elray:

said by Simba7:

..will never see it.. Ever. If ISP's can charge $40/mo for a 768k connection, getting these speeds for that price will never happen.

Nonsense.

With the exception of those who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, there will continue to be competitive pressures forcing continual improvement in wired price:performance.

Those who live in underserved locations will benefit as well, as more wireless options become available.

I'm assuming that you live in a huge city and choices.
Out in the West you can live in a city 20k people and have no choices.

If you think wireless cellphone and satellite are choices, then you are mistaken.
It is like saying just build your own power station if you want cheaper power.

We live in the same country, I pay federal taxes that go to your schools for your children, etc.


DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Martinsburg, WV
reply to David

Re: I am hoping by 2020 I can

I'll have wireless in my flying car by then, too.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to AnonMe

Re: The United States..

said by AnonMe :

ISP's in the US will NEVER bring rates down to $20/month. NEVER EVER. They will never need to go that cheap in order to compete against the few providers, so they won't. They might bump the bandwidth tiers up, but they will NEVER bring the price down to $20/month.

Their is some minor competition in the wireless market, but is can much better be summed up by calling it price fixing.

Over the past five years, we had two years at $9/month.

The last two friends I installed, in November/December 2012, are paying $20/month, on an annual rate plan.

Wireless is a mix of competition, price-fixing and wholesale, but the end result will be the same: much lower rates for low-density markets.


Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
reply to elray
said by elray:

said by Simba7:

..will never see it.. Ever. If ISP's can charge $40/mo for a 768k connection, getting these speeds for that price will never happen.

Nonsense.

There isn't comp in the lower end the ISP's simply say this is the minim price we will take and don't care how slow you'll be happy with. Let's say the bottom tier of an ISP is 5 megs down for $40. They simply won't give anyone a 1 meg down line for less than $40, like a restaurant there is a minim you need to spend for them to want you as a customer.

With the exception of those who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, there will continue to be competitive pressures forcing continual improvement in wired price:performance.

Those who live in underserved locations will benefit as well, as more wireless options become available.



txpatriot

@texas.gov
reply to elray

Re: This goal

said by elray:

Bell certainly could have deployed such a national broadband network, but as a regulated monopoly with guaranteed rates of return, it wouldn't be $20/month. Not even close.

Not sure if you knew this, but regulated companies have gone bankrupt under rate of return regulation. There is no such thing as a "guaranteed" rate of return. See El Paso Electric.

dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB
reply to ArrayList

Re: The United States..

Unless you can replace every major player in the entire ISP industry, and government, all within a month. I doubt that.

Nonetheless, things never goes as plans as other factors, like international communities, would intervene with their own set of greed and corruption.

dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB
reply to BiggA

Re: This goal

Nope, firstly, 1Mbps is the pure minimum and either way, I don't see people willing to get that unless it's 1/1 for $10 a month.

In Canada, the pure minimal level a single person can handle with internet speeds is 5/1, seeing how 5Mbps is average speeds for streaming technologies.

For that 5/1, incumbent ISPs would charge $25~40/month.
Second Party ISP like Teksavvy, would have it for $20~30/month.

Of course, there is also the issue with caps or unlimited.
With caps the price will remain standard. With unlimited, you see the base price more than doubled!

dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB
reply to NotHereNow

Re: In hindsight...

I thought by year 2000 we were suppose to have flying cars?

Technology isn't really "increasing" as fast as it should, because as things gets more convenient, people get more lazy, and corporates and government sectors, more greedy and corrupt.

Gee I wonder how long until Nations starts collapsing like Rome.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to dra6o0n

Re: This goal

Ok, maybe they get 3/1 for $20 or something. My point is to have something affordable that's still functional for basic internet usage without undermining the real plans.

Yeah, caps needs to be eliminated. Even HFC doesn't need them, and Comcast is proving that with their upgraded plans and no caps (currently). Of course, there has never been an even plausible explanation for caps on DSL, as it's not a shared line.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to toby

Re: The United States..

said by toby:

I'm assuming that you live in a huge city and choices.

You'd be wrong. Our city is but 8 square miles, with a population under 100K, and at present, we have only one choice.
said by toby:

Out in the West you can live in a city 20k people and have no choices.

If you think wireless cellphone and satellite are choices, then you are mistaken.
It is like saying just build your own power station if you want cheaper power.

We live in the same country, I pay federal taxes that go to your schools for your children, etc.

We do live in the same country. The federal government has no business using our tax money to fund schools, anywhere. Schools are a local concern. Frankly, we shouldn't be paying any tax for them at all, given the record of the public school monopoly.

You choose to live in a 20K town. If you want broadband, it may come at a bit of a premium versus more dense settings.

We choose to live in a 100K city. We pay a huge premium for our choice, versus moving to a 20K town.

We don't ask you to subsidize our rent, transportation, insurance, utilities, or any other higher costs that reflect our location; please don't expect us to underwrite yours.