Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
4 edits | reply to maartena
Re: US wouldn't have the most
"First off, CANADA is beating us in broadband penetrations, and last time I checked its actually bigger then the United States, and people are living a lot more spread out."
The canadian government has mandated broadband penetration to the entire occupied areas of the country, including rural and BF towna and is helping pay for it. Canada is about the same goegraphical size as the US, but it's population is mainly clustered in the southern part along the US border. A large portion in the north is uninhabited or inacessable because of mountains, glaciers, etc.
1.5 Mb DSL suits me fine, just as it does most other people. The number of people that actually NEED faster connections, for whatever reason, is small compared to the whole consumer base.
The US isn't europe. As you might remember we fought a long war to throw off the european yoke and go our own way. Just ask canadians what they think of their national health care system. Or, the British. Americans dont want to ride on buses with plastic seats and young punks. The only ones that ride public transport in this country are those that have no other choice and schoolkids.
Never mind that riding the bus anywhere is a royal pain in the ass, assuming, of course, that you have access in the first place and can afford $2 each way and a extra .25 for a transfer, or, can afford to waste up to an hour waiting for each one...
We can afford the money in Iraq. It is in our long term interests to spend it. In any case, the government sure as hell wouldn't spend it on deploying broadband to the countryside.
Besides which, Canada was not one of the "BF" little countries I was referring to in my original comment, even though, on a population comparison basis, it is about 10% of what we are. |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
 ·Embarq
 ·linode
| reply to dave
said by dave  :said by XknightHawkX :US wouldn't have the most subscribers if the definition of broadbrand wasn't so slow. 'Broadband' doesn't denote any speed at all. It is a signalling method that constrasts with 'baseband'. That is a technical definition, but as we know the meaning of terms change with the times. I really hate when people feel the need to toss out a technical definition when they know damn well it's being used correctly, according to trends in language.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio | If you use it incorrectly, then it leads to the bickering that has already occurred in this topic: is or is not 'X' bits/sec deserving of the name 'broadband'?. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| reply to Fatal Vector
quote:
We can afford the money in Iraq. It is in our long term interests to spend it. In any case, the government sure as hell wouldn't spend it on deploying broadband to the countryside.
Says you! Have ya looked at the polls lately? Seems like that position is in the minority. Even the shitspigot Fox News polls show a majority of Americans don't agree with that ascertation. State of denial indeed.
So when the government spent money on rural electricity, that was a bad thing? I'm forgetting something here-oh right, the government who taxes us is supposed to be (gasp) making life better here and not in Baghdad. That's their friggin' problem.
Now, you can spout off all day about how the terrahists and the evil Muslims of the world are hell bent on killing us-and I'd say "No shit! What a news flash!" |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :said by PDXPLT : We have near 100% electricity availability, but there's no gov't subsidy to make it happen. I guess the REA is just a figment of FDR's imagination. Providing loans and other tax incentives to electric co-ops doesn't constitute the "socialist gov't handout" widely complained about here.
By the way, to get electric service to a place more than a couple hundred feet from an existing power line, you pay through the ass. Most people are not willing to pay the construction cost to extend fiber to their house in order to get 100 megabit/second Internet.
But at least you have the choice with elctricity. And many would pay that for broadband. From what Verizon employees have told me, the only thing stopping me from having DSL service is Verizon's willingness to install a DSL line card in the (otherwise DSL-capable) Remote Terminal at the end of the block. If I had the option, I'd pay for the line card myself. |
|
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
| reply to Fatal Vector
Even though many Canadians live in the more southern parts (close to the American border), Canadians in the more northern parts have access to high speed service as well.
Pick some northern cities in BC and let's test...
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to PDXPLT
"but there's no gov't subsidy to make it happen"
Who said anything about socialist government handouts? You said there was no government subsidy, and I pointed out how utterly incorrect your statement is.
There is more to DSL in a remote terminal than one line card. Anyone else you know served from that RT?
You could easily order a dedicated circuit and pay for it yourself. That's what happens when you have to pay to run electric service two miles down a country lane to get to your new Country Palace. You have no choice of how much you will pay or who will provide the service. In fact, it is less of a choice than you have for high speed Internet.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | reply to satellite68
Actually, having to use terms like:"shitspigot Fox News " doesn't say much for your thinking ability, my friend. It just shows your inability to rationally consider other points of view. IF, of course, in your zeal, you even bother to try.
Polls can be manipulated to get whatever results the poller wants. Nor does that alter the fact the if you stop and actually think about what I say, you find that it makes just as much sense as any other
State of denial, indeed... |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| Oh yes, you've met me and can determine that from one post. (rolls eyes)
Please.
Surely even the most zealot Fox News viewer (unless lobotomy is part of the viewing experience) can see that their brand of "news" is as much about entertainment as The Daily Show is. |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit |
My point was that thinking people do not have to use such descriptions to get their point across. They just make you sound like a extremist.
Actually, ALL the "news" channels are more about sensationalism, violence and entertainment. It's what sells to the lowest common denominator and makes their parent corporations money.
News today is nothing more than another TV show. That's why so many in our country, especially the young couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone the latest propaganda. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | Too bad, I happen to think "shitspigot" fits nicely. And you could insert that word to describe plenty of other things.
Oh, and BTW, I think just nicely, thank you very much. So I'm not sure who is insulting who at this point. |
|
bohn
join:2006-05-30
Scarborough, ON
| reply to maartena
First off, CANADA is beating us in broadband penetrations... The internet in Canada has become a luxury item only for the well to do. You need at least a 6 figure income to afford it after Canadian taxes. Sadly the average wage is only about one third of that. It looks like the internet in Canada will go the way of the dinosaur or the do-do bird. Either you have dial-up from America or or don't have internet will be the catch phrase for the future of Canadian internet. I feel sorry for all the school kids but alas we were put in that position. |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| reply to satellite68
Just an observation, my friend. How you take it is your affair. However it is also true that a noob shouldn't spout untill he knows where he treads. There are some here who aren't as nice as ol' Fatal is.
In any case, using such terms as "shitspigot" here wont get you much in credibility. Well thought and reasoned posts will. |
|
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
| reply to maartena
said by maartena :said by Fatal Vector :YAWN. Another monts old statistics rant comparing us to all the little BF countries that dont compare to a gnat on our ass in size. First off, CANADA is beating us in broadband penetrations, and last time I checked its actually bigger then the United States, and people are living a lot more spread out. Second, it still does not explain that even in very dense populated areas, like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc... the average DSL connection is still 1.5 Mbps down, 384 Kbps up. Its mostly a political and financial issue. Its not that the U.S. cannot do it, but it just doesn't want to fund it. There are government subsidies for broadband in most European countries and in Canada which really help in pushing broadband. Those countries also happen to have..... oooh, trivial things like national health insurance and affordable (sometimes even free) public transport. The United States rather spends 1 billion dollars a week on a war that we can't seem to win, and doesn't want to spend the money on getting broadband out to the less populated areas. The big telco's aren't spending the money because they won't be making a whole lot, and it will take many more years to pay off the initial investment made. Bottom line: U.S. doesn't subsidize broadband, and therefore it doesn't get done. I agree with everythhing that you said except for one thing. The government is subsidizing broadband. AT&T and Verizon are collecting that subsidization and you can see it itemized on your phone, cable and internet invoice. If you have ever ordered a T1 line from a telco and been quoted $500 per month and when you get the invoice there's literally $300 in taxes, fees, surcharges, munis etc so your bill is actually $800! That is subsidization. The really disgusting part is that the telcos recieved the bulk of the money to upgrade the infastructure prior to 2004. They took that money and put it into lobbyists and therebye eliminating their accountability. Hence the reason we have substantially more $ than any other country in the world yet we're in 15th in the world when it comes to broadband penetration.
After CEO ED Whitacre AT&T got the funds and the contract to build out the fiber network across the country, two years later he was boasting that DSL was good enough and noone would ever need 20 Mbps.
If you were AT&T and you already received the funds to build the network, you already had a network in place and there was no competition, would you spend billions replacing your network or would you attack vertical markets? What's your motivation to build out this fiber network? And again the consumer is the loser. |
|
