| 52.6% of US households have broadband Approx 60,000,000 households have broadband out of 114,000,000 households.
»www.cyperus.com/cgi-bin/stories.···11:37+AM
»www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/···ase.html
That is 52.6% have broadband. Not too bad!
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
| Not too bad at all. I fear that some providers use this type of data to justify their excuse for cost cutting methods though. Thats never good for the consumer!
--
Where have the adults gone? |
|
|
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Agree.
Nitpicking about FCC definition of Broadband aside that is a pretty impressive accomplishment. Cable and DSL broadband did not become commercially available until around the time justin  started this site in 1999. Eight-ish years later half the homes in the country have some form of Broadband and many also have networks once the province of the IT gods.
Not too shabby
/tom |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by tschmidt:Agree. Nitpicking about FCC definition of Broadband aside that is a pretty impressive accomplishment. Cable and DSL broadband did not become commercially available until around the time justin started this site in 1999. Eight-ish years later half the homes in the country have some form of Broadband and many also have networks once the province of the IT gods. Not too shabby /tom If you're defining broadband as 200 Kbps like the FCC it's pretty sad. And that 53% isn't going to grow by much in the next 8 years if ISPs don't get off their asses and bring broadband to the rural areas.
Satellite should be dominating rural broadband but until they up speeds, remove caps( or at least increase them significantly ) and lower prices most rural people will begrudgingly use dial-up or not have internet at all. |
|
| You raise a valid point. But our broadband policy, or lack of, is sad. This is a far cry from the 40mbps speeds then Pres Clinton envisioned 10 years ago. But due to the dynamic nature of telco/cableco businesses and their take-overs, mergers, and consolidations, it's the beast that we're stuck with.
As far as satellite pricing dropping, good luck!
--
Where have the adults gone? |
|
 rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | reply to BF69
said by tschmidt:
Not too shabby
No, its PATHETIC. Absolutely PATHETIC. This is 2007, the 21st century.
Regardless of where you live in the United States, inventor and creator of the internet and much of the technology that makes it work and gets it from the ISP to the sub, you should be able to get online get DSL, or crable broadband. Preferably both.
It should be a widely deployed as electric. Even in the remotest areas of this country look around theres one or two wires running electric out to some house in the middle of nowhere, and probably has phone too. They should get DSL and I don't mean some crappy 768 or 384K service. The minimum level for broadband should be a 3MBs down/1Mbs up, with the desired min. being something along the lines of 10/1.
This country should have 100% homes passed for broadband, regardless of the number of subs. It should be available to every one who wants it.
And yes, I am 100% for getting the government involved if the telcos and crapblecos won't co-operate, which at this point they've shown they are not. You had your chance to be unregulated and/or de-regulated. Now its to spank the kids and bring them back in line.
Build out schedules, and FINES. And I mean REAL fines, we'll start at $1.0MILLION dollars per sub per day not served by the agreed upon schedule. NO EXTENSIONS regardles of acts of war, nature, or any other of the normal BS excuses. You better find a way to wire up your area. Oh, and the fines will be collected in CERTIFIED FUNDS ie: Cash, Bearer Bonds, Cashiers check or other equivalent DAILY at close of business. So if you missed 13 house you get the bank to cut a check for $13 million. Cut that to 6 houses by the next day, cut a check $6 million. And I am 100% serious. I will gladly enforce this with a passion and zero tolerance in ares like SE OH (Jackson, Vinton counties) for example, WV, ME and others.
This country is absolutely pathetic with its broadband availability.
said by BF69:
If you're defining broadband as 200 Kbps like the FCC it's pretty sad. And that 53% isn't going to grow by much in the next 8 years if ISPs don't get off their asses and bring broadband to the rural areas.
Satellite should be dominating rural broadband but until they up speeds, remove caps( or at least increase them significantly ) and lower prices most rural people will begrudgingly use dial-up or not have internet at all.
DING! DING! Hold your cards we have a winner!
The telcos and crapble cos should be wiring up every crevice of this country. With the potential re-regulation of the crapbleco's the new Part 76 should MANDATE 100% coverage of the entire area. Yes, that means if Farmer Brown lives 15 miles off the nearest point of the network, guess what your laying 15 miles of fiber to get to him.
Plain and simple the telcos blew it. Rather than invest in their networks to keep up to date, they chose to deploy the same old 30-40 year old technology to add capacity. In a few areas they have reworked their network with needed tech for DSL, but for the most part, they have just ignored areas. crapble at least did upgrade their networks from coax to HFC, and they SHOULD be looking at the next step FTTP especially if your in an area where VZ is the ILEC and has started deployment of Fios. But crapble still doesn't server the same footprint that most of the ILEC's already pass with their copper network.
This country should be setting the example for internet access in 100% of the country that others look to copy in their country.
Some states like KY and OH are starting to wise up with plans, but its not enough.
--
Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex. |
|
| I'm sure you can't live without a fast connection but believe it or not many many people simply use the internet for e-mail and little else. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Corehhi:I'm sure you can't live without a fast connection but believe it or not many many people simply use the internet for e-mail and little else. And peole that spend hundrds on a computer plus the cost of internet just for e-mail are dumb. You can use a cell phone for e-mail A LOT cheaper than that. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| reply to rec9140
ROTFL... yeah, I can imagine a bunch of startups that are eager to get into the broadband business under your plan. For the existing companies, the best business decision would be to burn the COs to the ground and leave the rubble behind.
The world needs more zealots like you -- it's an endless source of entertainment for the rest of us.
Speaking of which, is Ralph Nader running in 08? |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by jester121:ROTFL... yeah, I can imagine a bunch of startups that are eager to get into the broadband business under your plan. For the existing companies, the best business decision would be to burn the COs to the ground and leave the rubble behind. The world needs more zealots like you -- it's an endless source of entertainment for the rest of us. Speaking of which, is Ralph Nader running in 08? What is YOUR solution to get broadband to rural areas? I'm sure it wasn't cheap getting phone service to electricy to peole in the boonies back in the day. Certainly wasn't a profitable ventue at the time. It got done anyways. |
|
 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
 ·Charter
| reply to rec9140
I'd have to agree. If it weren't for the government I wouldn't be surprised if rural areas would still, to this day, have no POTS. It would probably also would've meant they need diesel or propane generators for electricity or use candlelight.
Satellite? Give me a break. I've heard of a company that offers a 2.0Mbps/512k package without a cap, but it costs $5k/mo.
The problem with these companies is that they answer primarily to stockholders who want maximum ROI. So, they try not to deploy in areas with lower ROI (read: rural areas with fewer people).
The only solution I see is for people to create coops, run an OC3 or OC12, and run a WISP to distribute the costs. |
|
bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL | Another alternative, of course, is government intervention. While I don't necessarily like the idea of that, government is necessary for certain things, and this is one of them. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by benc:Another alternative, of course, is government intervention. While I don't necessarily like the idea of that, government is necessary for certain things, and this is one of them. Yes the ISPs will whine about how government intervention is bad and how the "free market" should take care of things. Of course if the government gave them a big fat tax break for deploying to rural areas then that form of government intervention is perfectly ok. Situational ethics, don't you love it? |
|
rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | reply to jester121
said by jester121:
ROTFL... yeah, I can imagine a bunch of startups that are eager to get into the broadband business under your plan. For the existing companies, the best business decision would be to burn the COs to the ground and leave the rubble behind.
I am not really after new startups....I am looking to force the upgrades a forward thinking company would have done, if thier pure greed desire had not taken over. No, I have no problem with corporations make a profit, but their is still a way to make a profit and be a good corporate citizen. This has been lost on a huge number of business persons.
The ILEC's pretty much have a network in place to the areas that need it. They CHOSE to NOT PROGRESSIVELY UPGRADE as technology became available to offer DSL to 100% of their coverage areas. They were too concerned with stock dividends at the expense of the consumer. Now the ILEC's have to play a HUGE catch up game to even get in the game. VZ has chosen to "go deep" and deploy FTTP. Good move, but their past is very checkered ie: Bell of PA Fiber shenangins in PA for a start, that cost $$$ billons and no one got a thing out of it, except of course stock slease boys.
While FTTP is the future, an incremental step of upgrading the existing ILEC network to offer DSL to 100% of passed homes would be a good start. Then you can upgrade to FTTP.
ROI? Sure there is. No, its not going to be instant, but when your the only game in town to get broadband then you will get 100% of the customers. I pass plenty of homes every day, no broadband, because the ILEC chose not to upgrade their network, just patch it with the same ancient tech. These same homes could be paying $$$ monthly to you for a minimal investment. Thats money being left on the table.
said by jester121:
The world needs more zealots like you -- it's an endless source of entertainment for the rest of us.
If am a zealot, so be it. I know some zealots from 1776 too. I am in good company.
So heres the deal, I challenge YOU to GIVE UP broadband and go back to V.90/92 dial up with the variances from 24 to 53K if your really lucky.
Then spout off how good a situation we are in with broadband deployment in this country. I bet your going to find the experience unbearable. Take a look at some of the sites you visit on a regular basis, how many are designed for V.90/92 users any more? Not many, unless its purely text driven, which is not many any more.
Even on 1x cell in an emergency to get even a simple driver is quite the hassle, and unbearable.
said by jester121:
Speaking of which, is Ralph Nader running in 08?
Don't know, don't care. This is a broadband site.
When corporations fail to act in the publics interest its time for them to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.
Internet is a UTILITY in 2007, PERIOD. Accept it or accept that YOUR PART of the PROBLEM, and GET OUT OF THE WAY!
--
Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex. |
|
smokarz
join:2006-07-24
West Hartford, CT | reply to BF69
HERE IS THE SOLUTION.
Let all cable cos and telcos compete in the same market, after all, they now offer the same set of services. I could never understand the reasoning behind a telco or cable company having absolute right to a particular market without any competition. We need to remove this regulation.
Imagine you can only buy Chevy cars in market A, and in market B be you can only buy Toyotas. Or what about your cell phone services? If you're in area X you can only sign with Sprint, and in area Y, your only option is T-Mobile. What the hell????
We need to allow all providers to fairly compete in the same market for similar products/sevices. This will force providers to price their products appropriately, to be creative/inventive to bring new and better products to their customers, and force them to reach out to customers that are not yet covered (rurals).
|
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:That is 52.6% have broadband. Not too bad! The President promised that, by the end of this year, it would be 100%.
I'm still waiting for mine. Only about 6 weeks left! |
|
