dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1094
share rss forum feed


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

Small Number

Assuming the current US population is a little over 307 million, that means about 4.5% to 7.8% of people cannot get broadband.

That's impressive. The way you read it in some comments here you'd think there were a billion people here who cannot get broadband.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

I strongly suspect that those numbers (the number who can't get broadband) are vastly understated.

Now, how many people can't get broadband 4mbps and up? Then the numbers would REALLY jump.

How many people can get real broadband (wired) vs a "Wireless" broadband system that has severe caps?

The World may never know.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:

Assuming the current US population is a little over 307 million, that means about 4.5% to 7.8% of people cannot get broadband.

That's impressive. The way you read it in some comments here you'd think there were a billion people here who cannot get broadband.
7.8% is 1 out of every 13 people. That sucks for supposedly the most advanced nation on earth. What if 1 out of 13 lack electricity? or 1 out of 13 didn't have indoor plumbing. Would you be saying how "impressive" it is that 92.2% of American can use the toilet indoors?

Also look at the other numbers 50% of those that have broadband can't play internet video. So in other words 54% of Americans can't play internet video. That's good? It's 2010 for christ's sake.

Also considering how the FCC lowballed numbers before I still say this new number is lowballing. Hell HALF my county can't get any broadband. It may be rural but it isn't in the middle of Alaska or Montana.

john262

join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
No, they can't play a high definition video stream. Most Internet video is not high definition and it takes a lot less bandwidth for that.

ShellMMG

join:2009-04-16
Grass Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

reply to KrK
According to those parameters, I don't have broadband.

I have VZW and a grandfathered Alltel contract (no cap) or I'd REALLY be screwed. Satellite is NOT broadband. I'm not *that* far out in the sticks; I just don't live in a big, dense subdivision. Our cul-de-sac has a total of 12 houses spread out on 2+ acre lots tucked into a big state park.

I really wish they'd used the census to get a true, mostly accurate map of where broadband is available.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to 88615298
How long did it take to electrify our country? How long did it take a heavily regulated monopoly to build out a nationwide PSTN? How long have ISPs realistically been deploying residential broadband infrastructure? I believe some perspective is needed for your argument.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
reply to 88615298
Most advanced nation?

Sources please.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda


kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

I strongly suspect that those numbers (the number who can't get broadband) are vastly understated.

Now, how many people can't get broadband 4mbps and up? Then the numbers would REALLY jump.
Are we really at the point where "able to receive a HD video stream" is put at the same level of importance as access to electricity, or running water?


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

I strongly suspect that those numbers (the number who can't get broadband) are vastly understated.

Now, how many people can't get broadband 4mbps and up? Then the numbers would REALLY jump.

How many people can get real broadband (wired) vs a "Wireless" broadband system that has severe caps?

The World may never know.
Well, I guess I CAN get broadband, IF I want to pay more for Charter Cable vs. Verizon/Frontier DSL.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/


woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT

1 recommendation

reply to kontos
said by kontos:

Are we really at the point where "able to receive a HD video stream" is put at the same level of importance as access to electricity, or running water?
No, but we're long past the point where it is as important as a phone line. Or maybe rolling those out everywhere was a mistake, too?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

How long did it take to electrify our country? How long did it take a heavily regulated monopoly to build out a nationwide PSTN? How long have ISPs realistically been deploying residential broadband infrastructure? I believe some perspective is needed for your argument.
In both cases the government and the people made it a PRIORITY to do these things. Even people in "unprofitable" areas where provided with access to both these things. If left up to big business we'd still have areas where electricity and PSTN would not be there. Trust me we are better off as a nation today because 60 years ago we spent money on giving a bunch of Farmer Brown's electricity even though it was "unprofitable" for the electric companies to do so.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
That wasn't my point. My point was that even if we the people make it a priority, and we regulate/subsidize entities to deploy infrastructure that it still takes time (even longer since it isn't a priority and we aren't forcing deployments).


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

7.8% is 1 out of every 13 people. That sucks for supposedly the most advanced nation on earth. What if 1 out of 13 lack electricity? or 1 out of 13 didn't have indoor plumbing. Would you be saying how "impressive" it is that 92.2% of American can use the toilet indoors?
I remember reading somewhere here that 30% or so of people in the US simply were not interested in broadband service for whatever reason. I am not going to suggest that all of those people are in the same category as the 7.8% of people who cannot get broadband, but the fact that so many people in the US simply do not care for broadband means that getting the entire country wired up simply isn't that big a priority.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 recommendation

reply to woodward
said by woodward:

said by kontos:

Are we really at the point where "able to receive a HD video stream" is put at the same level of importance as access to electricity, or running water?
No, but we're long past the point where it is as important as a phone line. Or maybe rolling those out everywhere was a mistake, too?
Besides, having electrical power is not important either. You can always burn wood to use a steam engine to generate your own.

Such "luxuries". We really should not expect those in the US. If Congo can get by without them so can we.


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:

I remember reading somewhere here that 30% or so of people in the US simply were not interested in broadband service for whatever reason.
Joe Barton puts it at less than 5%.
From »www.cio.com/article/593573/Repub···yId=3137
quote:
May, 2010 - Only about 5 percent of U.S. households don't have access to broadband, and many of those households are in rural areas, Barton said during a hearing of the committee's communications and Internet subcommittee.

"My guess is they live in rural areas because they want to," Barton said. "It's at least possible that they don't want all the encumbrances and accoutrements of the modern Internet Age. So even if we forced it on them, they probably wouldn't take it."

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by 88615298:

7.8% is 1 out of every 13 people. That sucks for supposedly the most advanced nation on earth. What if 1 out of 13 lack electricity? or 1 out of 13 didn't have indoor plumbing. Would you be saying how "impressive" it is that 92.2% of American can use the toilet indoors?
I remember reading somewhere here that 30% or so of people in the US simply were not interested in broadband service for whatever reason. I am not going to suggest that all of those people are in the same category as the 7.8% of people who cannot get broadband, but the fact that so many people in the US simply do not care for broadband means that getting the entire country wired up simply isn't that big a priority.
Do you realize how many people were uninterested in electricity before the Rural Electrification Act was passed?


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by sonicmerlin:

Do you realize how many people were uninterested in electricity before the Rural Electrification Act was passed?
That's the wrong argument. There are many people who can get broadband already but choose not to do so.

Maybe as time goes on this will change, but if the FCC numbers are to be believed, or are even in the ballpark, then the problem isn't as bad as we're being led to think.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.