shapiro44
join:2004-03-01
Highland, NY | 100 MB broadband for all
should be everyones right |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | Sigh...
Again, penetration isn't who can get it...it's who DECIDES to buy it. No different that the lame America sucks at cellular article of a week back showing we have less cell phones, but ignoring that it's not because coverage is lacking or people can't get it...it's that they don't need it, especially with our POTS being very cheap and reliable compared to other nations.
You want to move us up the list...take away all the newspapers, news channels, talk radio and the other alternate sources of entertainment and information.
If all we had was 4 channels of state run television and way fewer newspapers, the internet would be more popular and more people would bother signing up for faster access to it (since these statistics ignore who is on using dial up). But since people have so many other sources for entertainment and news, people simply don't give a crap about "faster" internet.
And that isn't to say 100% of the people in the US can get it...only that "penetration" statistics are completely pointless.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
Kfedka
Premium
join:2005-05-06
Spokane, WA | I cant remember the last time I read a newspaper or watched the news, I get all my info online.:D |
|
Jim_in_VA
join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Millenicom
| reply to shapiro44
Re: 100 MB broadband for all
The problem is there are MILLIONS of people who choose to live in rural areas that have NO broadband options other than satellite. Until the Telcos and Cable companys wire these folks the USA will continue to fall on BB concentration. There are more people moving OUT of cities than moving IN. WAKE UP telco's!!! |
|
yathinkhere
@verizon.net | Hmm,
Yes, GOUGE THE CONSUMER!
Erect toll-roads, squabble about marketshare, claim your competition does illegal/unethical things,etc, etc, etc.
A fine example for the rest of the world! |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden | reply to Jim_in_VA
Re: 100 MB broadband for all
Are you willing to spend $100, maybe $200/month for broadband? The broadband companies aren't going to waste THOUSANDS of dollars bringing a broadband connection to 2 people out in rural Iowa.
-Tzale |
|
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| reply to oliphant
Re: Sigh...
said by oliphant  :Again, penetration isn't who can get it...it's who DECIDES to buy it. True. There are certainly many areas of the US where there is no wired broadband, but in most areas with any significant population, there is usually at least one wired option available...and there's almost always satellite and maybe a WISP or too if all else fails.
America sucks at cellular article of a week back showing we have less cell phones As you mention, there are fewer cell phone users in the US largely because of cheap, ubiquitous POTS (and now VoIP  ) service. That said, the US market has matured to the point where nearly everyone who actually *wants* a phone has one, and carriers seem to be grasping at straws, now targeting those who are still least likely to have them --- meaning tweens and younger kids, the elderly, and certain ethnic markets.
The US wireless phone market does suck when it comes to *phones*, but that's largely because of some carriers (T-Mobile, Verizon) being somewhat conservative on the handset side, and most importantly, Americans' peculiar flavor of technophobia -- which needless to say, also plays into our relatively weak showing when it comes to broadband.
You want to move us up the list...take away all the newspapers, news channels, talk radio and the other alternate sources of entertainment and information. I don't think having so many sources of information is the main culprit, although having a glut of TV programming like the US does probably doesn't help, and I don't think cost is either. I think technophobia, puritanical attitudes (such as the odd idea that the Internet is nothing more than a big red-light district), and the low cost of dialup -- fueled by that cheap POTS -- are the main reasons why more Americans don't have broadband.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden | reply to yathinkhere
Re: Hmm,
Same way the rest of the capitalist world works. The only difference is they pay much higher taxes, have much higher population density (since when is all of Canada or the Russian Federation wired???).
-Tzale |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Tzale
Re: 100 MB broadband for all
Hmm.. I sort of live in the boonies. Yet I have cable TV? How could that be?
Ahh, right, it wasn't their choice. As part of the agreement to make money off the 'high profit' part of town, the cable company was REQUIRED to run cables to everyone.
That's why we used to be a 'democracy', not a 'fascist state'. Even though I'm NOT in the 'high profit' area, myself, and most of the rest of the voters, determined that it was in OUR best interest if everyone was served. Ergo, if you want to sell cable tv, or internet, or anything in our town, you have to do it for EVERYONE in our town. That is democracy in action.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
BloodRoses
Gods lend wings to tainted hearts
Premium
join:2003-03-17
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Tzale
and I'm not willing to pay extra on my bill so some arse that decides to live in some craphole in the middle of nowhere can get broadband, either. A wise New Yorker once said "Dial-up is fast enough for their fast paced lifestyle". If you don't like it, move.
--
Cheers,
Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.com |
|
ss4vegito7
join:2004-07-24
Cranbury, NJ
| said by BloodRoses :and I'm not willing to pay extra on my bill so some arse that decides to live in some craphole in the middle of nowhere can get broadband, either. A wise New Yorker once said "Dial-up is fast enough for their fast paced lifestyle". If you don't like it, move. What if you can't afford to move but would like decent internet? And don't say if you can't afford to move that you can't afford broadband because that isn't true.
--
»www.rockinthebury.com
andhttp://www.cranburypcrepair.com |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to G_Poobah
The difference now is that monopoly companies can afford to choose not to serve the community at all if those are the conditions. I think the cable companies were a lot smaller back then, right? And cable TV wasn't as tantalizing as broadband is now... more difficult for collective bargaining. Technically this is fine, its not the company's fault if people don't stand up for themselves... unless laws are passed via lobbying preventing it, then that's dirty. |
|
wev567
join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA | National Broadband Plan?
We will have that two weeks after we have a coherent health care plan and a rational sustainable energy policy. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Well, looks like Massachusetts, home of those Liberals Kerry and Kennedy are way in front of the REDneck states. They have statewide guaranteed health care for all. And remember, they get free heating oil from those commies in Venezuela too. So, next on their list is Universal broadband. Hmm.. I guess living there is a pretty good deal, especially for the smart people, who go to HARVARD and MIT and whatnot.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Gov't plans take too long to implement
He suggests forming a broadband equivalent of the 1987 Advanced Television Advisory Committee (ATC), which was established to solidify HDTV broadcast standards. Sure, it only took 15 yrs before HDTV started to become available. So if the Gov't forms a BB committee right now, we can see some results about the year 2020.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
older dog
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Norwich, NY
| reply to BloodRoses
Re: 100 MB broadband for all
We all subsidize somebody with something.
Water comes to mind. We in the country subsidize your cheap water.
How by land restrictions around water sheds. Hurts resale of land, tax base, and prevents the area from ever growing to where the area would be viable for broadband deployment on its own.
After all you could just move to a area where water is easier to provide.
The list is endless on both sides. |
|
Soden_dop
join:2006-03-19
Graham, WA | people just seem not needing it
truly, it just seems that people in the US dont really have that want/need to be part of the broadband community, yeah things like myspace and WOW will pull people in to the broadband world but still people seem content living with out it. |
|
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA | Look up in the sky!
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a government committee to the rescue!  |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Gov't plans take too long to implement
said by TKJunkMail :He suggests forming a broadband equivalent of the 1987 Advanced Television Advisory Committee (ATC), which was established to solidify HDTV broadcast standards. Sure, it only took 15 yrs before HDTV started to become available. So if the Gov't forms a BB committee right now, we can see some results about the year 2020. And 2020 may be sooner than if we leave it to the Bells and CableCos. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to older dog
Re: 100 MB broadband for all
said by older dog :We all subsidize somebody with something. Water comes to mind. We in the country subsidize your cheap water. How by land restrictions around water sheds. Hurts resale of land, tax base, and prevents the area from ever growing to where the area would be viable for broadband deployment on its own. After all you could just move to a area where water is easier to provide. The list is endless on both sides. Not to mention all the "scenic restrictions" that serve no purpose, other than to give some suburban dweeb a pretty view when they go on their Sunday drive in the country. You don't hear rural folks demanding that strip malls all be dismantled, just so that they don't have to look at them at those times when they venture into the 'burbs. Why should rural people be forced to restrict what they do with their own property, just to satisfy the aesthetic sensibilities of some city slicker? |
|
