America's Broadband Failings: Volume 3,271 'Playing follow the leader.....' Thursday Feb 15 2007 16:19 EDT Information Week's Richard Hoffman offers up a four page analysis of broadband penetration in America. Hoffman digs through the usual smattering of global rankings, deconstructing most of the arguments used to justify America's poor showing (geography, wealth, etc.). He, like many authors before him, concludes the United States is playing "follow the leader" for all the well discussed reasons: FCC junk stat collection, no comprehensive national plan and a dysfunctional "hands off" policy -- cooperatively resulting in limited competition. |
|
UghI think that because there hasn't been a national uprising, there isn't anything being down about poor broadband penetration. Our federal leaders, pretty much just are like whatever when it comes to broadband because of these inflated statistics, taking on a 'good enough approach'. But thats just my 2 cents. | |
| | cr521 join:2006-08-31 Whitewater, MO |
cr521
Member
2007-Feb-15 5:46 pm
Re: UghI agree and think you are probably correct. I have finally written my reps and Senators indication that we will be left behind. I'm speaking from rural Missouri. We seem to only be able to create war. We should rise up, bitch, scream, holler, rant, rant n rave, and stomp our feet. And turn of TV. CR | |
| | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to tbaker397
said by tbaker397:I think that because there hasn't been a national uprising, there isn't anything being down about poor broadband penetration. I KNOW! How DARE they not get every nook and cranny in the U.S. wired up in about 8 years time. How DARE small towns of 8,000 people not have broadband like Two Rivers, Wisconsin and , well, almost every rural area in Iowa.. How DARE these evil corporations not wire up America at a loss. Really... a "national uprising?" silly.. just like every radio talk show host and tv news commentator who insist that people should be outraged at every single issue they bring up. I didn't know that broadband was a socialist issue. And, I bring up Iowa for a reason. They are a good example of one state where rural telecom works. People can live in small areas and get service because of how they chose to set up their state. Why should the feds get involved in with broadband? Why should my money in MN (where rural broadband is very well penetrated) pay up for a lazy state like Illinois who doesn't want to do anything about it? Now THAT is where I would bring up a national uprising. | |
| | | |
Re: UghYou make a very good point I concede, maybe if people in their states would make more demands to their local telco's for a muni broadband option, penetration might be better. | |
|
|
StuckOnSat
Anon
2007-Feb-15 3:40 pm
Does the US government even *want* us to be connected?Frankly, I think the U.S. government would rather have the sheeple NOT connected to the Internet. Too much information, too many alternative points of view. Much better to feed us spoon-fed "reality TV" and "Fox News" pap through cable and the airwaves. | |
| | caco Premium Member join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK
1 recommendation |
caco
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 4:05 pm
Re: Does the US government even *want* us to be connected?said by StuckOnSat :
Frankly, I think the U.S. government would rather have the sheeple NOT connected to the Internet. Too much information, too many alternative points of view. Much better to feed us spoon-fed "reality TV" and "Fox News" pap through cable and the airwaves. Your tv only picks up FOX news and reality tv? I didn't know they sold televisions that only let you watch those channels. | |
| | | |
StuckOnSat
Anon
2007-Feb-15 4:19 pm
Re: Does the US government even *want* us to be connected?LOL! Frankly, I have no idea what my TV picks up any more, because I haven't watched any TV in years, other than the unavoidable crap playing on TVs in public areas like pizza parlors (usually tuned to Faux "on your knees and worship the Deciderer!" News). | |
|
|
Let's see the debatedevolve to "communists" vs "capitalists". Should be entertaining. | |
| | BoogeymanDrive it like you stole it Premium Member join:2002-12-17 Wasilla, AK |
Re: Let's see the debateHahahaha, I was thinking the same thing. The post right above yours seems to have started down this line. | |
|
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 4:04 pm
hmmmmm.... | |
| | |
comcast_customer
Anon
2007-Feb-15 4:13 pm
Re: hmmmmm.......which is going to be finally milked to a drought in about a year and a half to at most 2 years, if Google, YouTube, Bittorrent, etc. have a say in the milking process. | |
|
intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.Some kids in the US starve every day.....and we continue to bitch about (the obvious) lack of broadband penetration?
If you want broadband, move out of the sticks and into the city and stop bitching. | |
| | DrModemTrust Your Doctor Premium Member join:2006-10-19 USA |
DrModem
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 4:26 pm
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.with these absoulutly INSANE real esate prices, that is not really possible for alot of people, who might not want to go hundreds of thousnds of dollars into debt just to get DSL or cable. | |
| | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000
1 recommendation |
to inteller
said by inteller:Some kids in the US starve every day.....and we continue to bitch about (the obvious) lack of broadband penetration? If you want broadband, move out of the sticks and into the city and stop bitching. you can use that "argument" for ANYTHING. additionally, there's a point in time where the move outta the country to git yer broadbaand comment is done. see history of telephones for example. | |
| | | DrModemTrust Your Doctor Premium Member join:2006-10-19 USA |
DrModem
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 4:33 pm
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.actually out here in northern VA, it seems the oppsite trend... they give run DSL to the middle of nowhere and leave the cities on Satellite and dialup LOL | |
| | | | Michieru2zzz zzz zzz Premium Member join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL |
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.LOL, now that's funny | |
|
| Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to inteller
said by inteller:Some kids in the US starve every day.....and we continue to bitch about (the obvious) lack of broadband penetration? If you want broadband, move out of the sticks and into the city and stop bitching. You gonna pay for moving expenses? Help with those in the rural area look for jobs? When will we stop using rural areas as an excuse not to provide broadband? Oh, when it becomes convenient? As far as your comment about children starving. Yes, it happens. It's terrible, but should we focus on all of that? My grandmother is ill, so I shouldn't get broadband because I should think about her first? Shit happens. But we have to know how to manage it and continue on. I'm sorry there are kids starving in the U.S., and I do my best to give money to charity, but that shouldn't hinder the ability of me to get broadband. Inteller, I take it you have a roof over your head. Maybe you should take some kids who are starving everyday in.. or quit bitching about it. | |
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 4:51 pm
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.said by Robert: You gonna pay for moving expenses? Excellent point. Are you going to pay for my drug sex alcohol jobless broadband problem? The argument is irrelevant. The fact is, the nice thing about our society is that if you want something bad enough, you work hard enough and/or pay enough money, you can have it. | |
| | | | Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 4:57 pm
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.said by openbox9:said by Robert: You gonna pay for moving expenses? Excellent point. Are you going to pay for my drug sex alcohol jobless broadband problem? The argument is irrelevant. The fact is, the nice thing about our society is that if you want something bad enough, you work hard enough and/or pay enough money, you can have it. Society actually pays for the items you striked out. | |
| | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 5:05 pm
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.How so. I'll give you the jobless one with welfare, but if I want to smoke pot, have sex with hookers, or consume a fifth of bourbon, society doesn't give that to me. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.Society pays for every social problem.
Now what you define as a social problem could be argued, but any of those things above in excess would become a social problem regardless.
Gambling is a good example. Doing it is fine, it isn't even condemned in the Scripture but doing it in excess that causes one's family to live on the street, live off the government, file for bankruptcy, then it becomes a social problem. | |
| | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 7:15 pm
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.Ok, if you take it to the extreme in a macro perspective...but that's not really what my first post was about. My point is, if you (not society) aren't willing to pay for my habits or pleasures, why should I (not society) pay for you to move and hence enable you to obtain broadband? | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
fiberguy2
Premium Member
2007-Feb-16 12:41 am
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.I agree with you OB9 -
If people want the conveniences of the big city, they should live there like the rest of us. I'm sure MANY people would love to have the country as a lifestyle.. truth is not everyone can live in the country.. and those that do understand they give up a lot by doing so.
Must be so nice to be the elite (for those that don't get this) - and yes, people who live in the country enjoy things that we in the city don't get.. like cleaner air, less traffic, less people and crowds. In turn, they give up things, like conveniences, cheaper prices, accesses to services not usually found in the country.
Next they these country folks are going to want are high tech state of the art hospitals and 100 gate airports for better access to flights and cheaper rates so they don't have to travel 40 miles into the big city.
OB, you're right on. | |
|
| |
Dowhadiddy to inteller
Anon
2007-Feb-15 4:45 pm
to inteller
We'll move out of the sticks right after you adopt and feed 20 starvin kids... | |
| | CMoore2004 Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Jonesville, MI 1 edit |
to inteller
Maybe you should get rid of your Cingular Wireless and start helping out these starving children.
Then, when all of us farmers move to the city, we'll have a hell of a lot more starving people when prices for anything from milk to flour go way up.
Are you capable of thought? | |
| | PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR |
to inteller
said by inteller:If you want broadband, move out of the sticks and into the city and stop bitching. That's your opinion. But so what. Congress set an official U.S. policy that broadband shall be deployed to every American, no matter where they live, on an affordable basis and in a timely manner. Or so it says in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The issue is that, in the minds of many, including myself, the FCC is ignoring this provision law, and covering it up with things like "if one household in a zip code is served, then everyone in the zip code is served" nonsense. | |
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 7:17 pm
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.said by PDXPLT:Congress set an official U.S. policy that broadband shall be deployed to every American, no matter where they live, on an affordable basis and in a timely manner. You've always got access to satellite ISPs in the sticks | |
| | | | intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.yeah, you want broadband, here's your satellite, now quit yer bitchin. | |
|
| |
Micah to inteller
Anon
2007-Feb-15 11:26 pm
to inteller
said by inteller:Some kids in the US starve every day.....and we continue to bitch about (the obvious) lack of broadband penetration? If you want broadband, move out of the sticks and into the city and stop bitching. Everyone seems to think that if you cannot get a broadband connection your in the sticks.. As in the only house for at least a mile or more.. This is a city person who probably hasn't never left his block in his entire lifes view.. Which is probably why no broadband expansions has taken off.. Worthless people with lame ass sayings such as this usually get into FCC office space and dont' know crap | |
| | | intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK 1 edit |
Re: a what point does this lamenting become ridiculous.I grew up in the sticks and I know exactly what it is like to grow up without cable, city water, trash service, broadband. But I didn't bitch about it, instead I pulled myself up and moved to the city so I could get those amenities. Now I don't get the amenities I had in the sticks, like clean air, peace and quiet, and being able to piss off my front porch, but you dont see me bitching about that now either. | |
|
1 recommendation |
John T
Anon
2007-Feb-15 4:26 pm
Terrible articleHe really abuses statistics about as bad as the FCC's broadband definition. That argument falters, however, when one considers that five of the 11 nations that lead the U.S. in per capita broadband penetration, including Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Canada, have significantly lower population densities than the U.S. Bzzt. Abuse of statistics here. Population density measures the total population divided by the entire area of the country. However, that says little about what proportion of the country lives in the urban centers. A country evenly spread out over a large area looks a lot different than a country where nearly everyone lives in an urban center and a bunch of nearly empty tundra and desert, even if the two have the same population density. The population of Canada is about 32.8 million-- about three-quarters of which lives within 100 miles of the US border. 5.3 million live in the Toronto metro area, 3.6 in Montreal, 2.2 in Vancouver, about a million each in Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary, and another 700,000 in Quebec City, Winnipeg, and Hamilton. Similar stories are true about the Nordic countries listed. By contrast, the United States has a far more spread out population, even with a higher population density. There are states like North Carolina, the tenth largest with 8.8 million people, which have a far greater percentage of people living spread out. It's crazy to argue as though the presence of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon really make the effective population density of Canada lower. Even Wyoming has ten to fifteen times the population of each of those territories, which total only about 100,000 people, yet make up 1.4 million square miles of Canada's 3.5 million square miles total. Canada can completely lack broadband in those territories and not affect their penetration rates per capita at all. Looking at the more representative measurement of the percentage of those who have access to broadband connectivity, the United States isn't even in the top 10 countries, various studies indicate. True enough, though neither are Japan, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, or Australia by those same figures. » www.oecd.org/document/16 ··· ,00.htmlThe top 10 are all the Northern European countries with fairly small populations, together with Canada and the real outlier, South Korea. | |
| | PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR 1 edit |
PDXPLT
Member
2007-Feb-15 7:05 pm
Re: Terrible articlesaid by John T :
The population of Canada is about 32.8 million-- about three-quarters of which lives within 100 miles of the US border. 5.3 million live in the Toronto metro area, 3.6 in Montreal, 2.2 in Vancouver, about a million each in Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary, and another 700,000 in Quebec City, Winnipeg, and Hamilton. Similar stories are true about the Nordic countries listed. I don't buy it at all. The strip within 100 miles of the US border may be "dense" by Canadian standards, but that's only because the area north of there is just about devoid of population. The northern area of Canada is unlike anything in the U.S., save for Alaska. The "dense" area adjacent to the U.S. looks like more like the typical U.S. state (Drive from Lethbridge to Kamloops, and tell me how "dense" it looks). If you're saying our broadband deployment should be equivalent to what it is in Canada for areas of equivalent density, I agree. That means just about everyone in the Lower 48 would have broadband, while progress would still need to be made in Alaska. | |
|
dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
dynodb
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 4:32 pm
YawnAnother poorly reasoned analysis. His "deconstruction" of the population density argument? quote: five of the 11 nations that lead the U.S. in per capita broadband penetration, including Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Canada, have significantly lower population densities than the U.S.
ROFLMAO. All countries in which the vast majority of the population lives in a relatively small geographic portion of it, as opposed to the US that has population centers spread throughout the entire country. Of course he brings up the 100M service in urban, ultra-densely populated, geographically tiny South Korea and Japan. These countries might be used as an example why there should be 100M in Manhattan, but certainly not in Montana. I'd like widespread broadband with high speeds and low prices too, but it's invalid to compare the US to countries with vastly different population and geography characteristics in addition to greater toleration of taxpayer subsidized projects. | |
| | •••••••• | Toguro join:2003-10-23 Rockford, IL 2 edits |
Toguro
Member
2007-Feb-15 5:27 pm
Yeah but we're #1 with a bullet in accidental gun deathsThe gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
* U.S.A. 14.24 * Brazil 12.95 * Mexico 12.69 * Estonia 12.26 * Argentina 8.93 * Northern Ireland 6.63 * Finland 6.46 * Switzerland 5.31 * France 5.15 * Canada 4.31 * Norway 3.82 * Austria 3.70 * Portugal 3.20 * Israel 2.91 * Belgium 2.90 * Australia 2.65 * Slovenia 2.60 * Italy 2.44 * New Zealand 2.38 * Denmark 2.09 * Sweden 1.92 * Kuwait 1.84 * Greece 1.29 * Germany 1.24 * Hungary 1.11 * Ireland 0.97 * Spain 0.78 * Netherlands 0.70 * Scotland 0.54 * England and Wales 0.41 * Taiwan 0.37 * Singapore 0.21 * Mauritius 0.19 * Hong Kong 0.14 * South Korea 0.12 * Japan 0.05 | |
| | Toguro 2 edits |
Toguro
Member
2007-Feb-15 5:30 pm
Re: Yeah but we're #1 with a bullet in accidental gun deathsAnd we're number 1 in energy consumption . The United States of America is the world's largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It also ranks eleventh worldwide in reserves of oil, sixth in natural gas, and first in coal. WOOHOO | |
| | | justbitsDSL is dead. Long live DSL! Premium Member join:2003-01-08 Chicago, IL 1 edit |
justbits
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 5:55 pm
Re: Yeah but where #1 with a bullet in accidental gun deathsAnd where we're #1 too. | |
|
POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA |
POB
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 6:06 pm
Dear World: Please Show the U.S. How to InnovateBroadband in the U.S. is anything but penetrating. In fact, it clearly needs a viagara-like enhancement. Our own FCC continues to be in denial and with telco shills like Kevie Martin at the helm, the U.S. will continue to fall behind third world countries in broadband. With every passing month, the United States falls further behind the global leaders in broadband Internet access thanks to a combination of market and policy failures. Our markets lack the competition to bring lower prices, higher speeds, and universal access. Our policies lack the imagination and potency to create real change. Meanwhile, Americans pay more money for less service than a dozen other nations. A third of U.S households are still stuck with dial-up, and another third lack Internet access of any kind. Our broadband problem is becoming a crisis.
Yet major telecommunications legislation now moving through Congress lacks a comprehensive vision for how to bring multiple competitive broadband providers to each market offering truly high-capacity connections at affordable prices. Cable and telephone companies hold a cozy duopoly over broadband services with a 98 percent share of the residential market. Not only have we failed to craft policies to bring competitive pressure, we are poised to strip away the nondiscrimination rules that keep network owners from engaging in anti-competitive activity in the Internet content market. Scrapping so-called Network Neutrality rules will not bring us better broadband. But it will guarantee noncompetitive broadband markets for a generation.
To make matters worse, the Federal Communications Commission seems content to ignore the broadband problem and pretend we are moving forward. While the FCC is crowing about an uptick in 1 megabit per second (Mbps) DSL connections, Japanese consumers are paying the same price for 100 Mbps. How long can we afford to be 100 times slower than the rest of the world?
In April, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin published an op-ed in the Financial Times claiming that the United States is closing in on President George W. Bushs goal of providing broadband access to every US household. But Martin failed to mention that President Bushs stated goal was universal and affordable broadband access by 2007. The United States is nowhere near reaching this target, and the biannual reports generated by the FCC twice a year to monitor progress in the broadband market obfuscate more than they enlighten.
This report by Free Press, Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America comes one year after our rst report on the state of the U.S. high-speed Internet market. Broadband Reality Check II updates our previous publication and details new empirical research in this area. Among its key ndings:
The United States is falling behind the rest of the world in broadband penetration.
. The United States remains 16th in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunications Union, and places 21st in the U.N. rankings of digital opportunity. . Fourteen other OECD nations saw higher overall net growth in broadband adoption than the United States from 2001 to 2005. . The United States has the fourth-highest level of students who have never used a computer among OECD nations exceeded only by Turkey, Slovakia and Mexico. . Population density is not a signicant determinant of broadband penetration. The most important factors explaining the digital divide among nations are household income and poverty.
Source: Broadband Reality Check II September 2006More from Isen on FCC fudging the broadband numbers found here. | |
| | ••• | RayW Premium Member join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT |
RayW
Premium Member
2007-Feb-15 8:06 pm
Get rid of laws that prohibit local build outsI could be sitting here on Utopia with a much faster line than Qwest gives us, if it was not for Qwest buying a law that crippled Utopia.
I know that certain people posting here do not want munis to build out, but instead for us to make corporations richer. But America got big so fast (historically) because people did things, and did not wait for someone else to do it (or pass a law saying they could not do it). Oh well, the law is in place, so I have to put up with corporate America for another year until Utopia can afford to build out to me under the current system. | |
| | •••• | |
John T
Anon
2007-Feb-15 10:12 pm
The history of unmetered local calling makes a differenceThe US got a big lead in Internet access originally because the US (and Canada) was one of the few places with unmetered (flat monthly fee) local calling, leading to much more rapid adoption of dialup. Europe did not see widespread unmetered local calling until after 2000. The expense of modem connections in many countries led to more rapid adoption of DSL and other lines.
However, many people in this country seem to be slow to switch from dialup, for whatever reason. I don't understand those people at all, but there are plenty of people who can get broadband who yet don't. They've had dialup forever and don't seem to see the need to upgrade. Now, once you try broadband you can't imagine going back.
Over the last year or two, several of the telephone companies had a lot of success getting people to switch thanks to cheap 768k DSL offers-- the kind that I think barely qualifies as broadband at all. Yet even that seemed to dry up towards the end of 2006, with still so many people on dialup. The US actually is still at the top in terms of "people with Internet access at home"-- just with SO many people still using modems.
And I still see commercials for "free" dialup services on TV. In an area that has 5MBit/s and 15MBit/s cable modem and Verizon's FIOS. Why? | |
|
| |
|
|