| 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream? And there ya go....
It's sad really... Defining broadband in 1991 terms.
We're going to throw $7.2 billion at 768/200? |
|
| Better than dial up. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Uncle Paul
In areas where it is dial-up or sat, 768/200 with be VERY welcomed. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Uncle Paul
said by Uncle Paul:And there ya go.... It's sad really... Defining broadband in 1991 terms. We're going to throw $7.2 billion at 768/200? So how much money will AT&T and Verizon get for their already existing 3G "broadband"? |
|
| reply to me1212
said by me1212:In areas where it is dial-up or sat, 768/200 with be VERY welcomed. Exactly. After reading about the issues in the satellite broadband forums, I'm positive that this will be very much welcomed. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to patcat88
I hope none, a 5GB cap is useless. |
|
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:said by Uncle Paul:And there ya go.... It's sad really... Defining broadband in 1991 terms. We're going to throw $7.2 billion at 768/200? So how much money will AT&T and Verizon get for their already existing 3G "broadband"? Start sending those letters and let the lawmakers know why they don't deserve one red cent of that money. |
|
| reply to Uncle Paul
I would take 768 over 56K any day of the week. Right now my only options are dial-up, satellite, or EVDO (which has a 5gb a month data cap). I have to wonder just how long it will take for people to start seeing this bills impact, and how many rural and sub-rural areas will still be left without broadband once this is all over. I just hope that there is legislation that prevents the Telcos from taking the $7.2 billion and throwing it into already established markets. |
|
|
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | "I just hope that there is legislation that prevents the Telcos from taking the $7.2 billion and throwing it into already established markets."
Me too. I would not bet on it though. I think they will spend more on areas that have high speed already and pocket more, combined, than they will spend on rural areas. They have made it fairly clear that they do not find these areas profitable enough, why would that change now?
"I have to wonder just how long it will take for people to start seeing this bills impact, and how many rural and sub-rural areas will still be left without broadband once this is all over."
Me too. |
|
| reply to fishacura
That's not my point. If we're going to throw $7.62 BILLION at something, it should offer something better than 768/200.
How does the US plan on having a good broadband plan if they start off by defining broadband using such a dated measuring stick.
As Patcat88 points out below... you're just going to see ATT put up cell towers and rake in money for a 3G deployment. |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by Uncle Paul:That's not my point. If we're going to throw $7.62 BILLION at something, it should offer something better than 768/200. How does the US plan on having a good broadband plan if they start off by defining broadband using such a dated measuring stick. As Patcat88 points out below... you're just going to see ATT put up cell towers and rake in money for a 3G deployment. I agree, more is better, but it's better than nothing. At least now I can finally get a chip in on this game. I only need a million to cover my entire county in broadband, so I guess I better ask for 100 million just in case 
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Uncle Paul
If I could get a reliable 768/200 for $40 per month wireless or $30 per month wired wherever I was, I'd be happy with that.
In all seriousness, there are lots of providers whose basic packages don't meet that criteria...
TWC - 768/128
AT&T - 768/128
Verizon - 768/128
HughesNet - 1024/128
CenturyTel - 512/128
Qwest - 256/256
WildBlue - 512/128
The list goes on. Granted, I'd rather the limits be set at 1.5/512 but 768/200 100% of the time is a good start if the internet is reliable. |
|
2 edits | reply to Uncle Paul
The problem is really that the choice at hand is how much can you do for $7.62BB. Say they went for the new technology for this same price tag...they wouldn't be able to reach nearly as many people. Better to have more people up on something good than fewer people up on something better. Of course, you could argue which one is the "better" solution but you're talking about the Dems. They're going to want to get penetration (ha ha in my best Bevis laugh) to as many homes as possible and this is the best solution for that.
The other issue here is that this speed is probably fine for 90% of people. Keep in mind the people on these boards, myself included, are not the average users.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Uncle Paul
said by Uncle Paul:That's not my point. If we're going to throw $7.62 BILLION at something, it should offer something better than 768/200. How does the US plan on having a good broadband plan if they start off by defining broadband using such a dated measuring stick. As Patcat88 points out below... you're just going to see ATT put up cell towers and rake in money for a 3G deployment. This is just the first part of the stimulus plan. This is not the official broadband policy. The article addresses this. |
|
approval from:
Core0000 
| reply to tdouglas22
said by tdouglas22:said by me1212:In areas where it is dial-up or sat, 768/200 with be VERY welcomed. Exactly. After reading about the issues in the satellite broadband forums, I'm positive that this will be very much welcomed. When all the country has known is a 2-cylinder putt-putt Yugo, a Ford Pinto is very much welcome.
That still doesn't excuse the fact its a waaay overpriced Pinto. And a used one at that. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Uncle Paul
said by Uncle Paul:That's not my point. If we're going to throw $7.62 BILLION at something, it should offer something better than 768/200. That's the great thing about over Government--- it's the best money can buy.
In the United States we pay the most and get the least back for our dollar everytime, as most of it goes in profits to companies and little return to the public for THEIR money.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by KrK:said by Uncle Paul:That's not my point. If we're going to throw $7.62 BILLION at something, it should offer something better than 768/200. That's the great thing about over Government--- it's the best money can buy. $7.62 billion is nothing folks. Verizon's rollout is running upwards of $28 billion to cover a select few densely populated state with a 65% or so coverage goal. This is rural American we're talking about with vast areas where the population density is as low as 1 person per square mile.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2···sity.gif |
|
| reply to iansltx
How much you wanna bet we'll see instant rollout of new 200 Mbps upstream by all of those providers |
|
 BelinrahsI have an ego the size of a small planetPremium
join:2007-09-07
Nashville, MI
 ·FreedomNet Wirel..
·Millenicom
1 edit | reply to Uncle Paul
said by Uncle Paul:And there ya go.... It's sad really... Defining broadband in 1991 terms. We're going to throw $7.2 billion at 768/200? Keep in mind that's a bare minimum to be considered broadband for this stimulus. Obviously they'll offer higher tiers if any good customers are to be satisfied. I get something reasonable with Sprint (even though it's still not too good, like 1150/20. yeah, 20.) I wouldn't switch out for 768/200 even if it was hard-wired (i mean NOT wireless) and a very constant rate of speed. And I even get a crappy signal with Sprint. Let's hope Sprint gets a chunk of that, maybe they'll improve our crap tower out here in the sticks, add a few T1's, increase range...something to think about. I LOVE thinking about the possibility of competition out here!! |
|
| reply to Michael C
My mental typo-filter must've been off; I tried to figure out what could possibly be done to get instant rollout of 200 Mbps upstream  |
|
