South Korea Wants To Stay Broadband King While the U.S. calls pandering to mega-ISPs an actual policy... In 1997, South Korea decided they wanted to be a broadband powerhouse. The country doled out $24 billion on a national backbone and set clear goals for their national broadband penetration. The South Korean government subsidized rural deployment and facilities-based competition, and actually held incumbent operators accountable for poor rural access. Now that the average South Korean has a 45Mbps connection, the government is conducting a massive analysis of the quality of consumer broadband. Once they've determined how well providers are performing, the government intends to establish safeguards holding ISPs accountable for poor service: The quality evaluation plan for broadband comprises two categories--technology and user satisfaction. The evaluation index for technology will measure both upload and download speeds, delay time and loss factor, while the evaluation index for user satisfaction appraises the connecting rate of termination call, with plus points going to providers serving users with written contracts at each stage, from subscription to termination. Obviously, South Korea's small size and population density helps in enabling broadband connectivity, but there are still some lessons that can be taken from their broadband policies. Here in the States even getting the FCC to provide accurate broadband penetration data has been like pulling teeth, and the best we get are a scattered few lawmakers insisting that having some broadband plan might be a good idea. Incumbent lobbyists, fearful (and rightly so) that progressive pro-consumer policies could hurt their bottom lines, have lobbied this nation's government into apathy and inaction.
|
 swhx7Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia | And why can't we have this here? Oh, maybe it's because our politicians are locked into doing whatever will make a short term profit for their corporate sponsors, instead of attending to national interest? | |
|  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: And why can't we have this here? Basically ... corporate interests (stock price) != national interest. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA kudos:18 | Size and density - ok... ... then WTF is up with New York? S.F.? L.A.? Atlanta? Insert major U.S. Metro here____________?
There is no excuse for not having major U.S. Metro areas lit up with SERIOUS connections.
Rural... well, that's a different story. -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|  |  | | Re: Size and density - ok... It's not a different story. The closest thing we have to a national broadband policy is vague promises to serve everyone everywhere. Companies are jeered for cherry picking the easy roll-outs, and now your criticizing them for not cherry picking. All this really proves is how much we need to make a decision and make a true nationwide broadband policy. | |
|  |  |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA kudos:18 | Re: Size and density - ok... No cherry-picking - Metro, infrastructure, light it up!
Rural, nothing but power(if that) coming into your house in the middle of nowhere... DUH! Whether it is National or privately owned - there is no reason for... NY to not be one of the fastest areas on the planet!
Silicon Valley? HELLO!  Los Aggeles? Boston? Cleveland? Seattle?
Think about it!  -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Size and density - ok... I will admit I'm completely dumb in this area, and wouldn't even know where to start researching it, but are you implying that there is an existing fiber LMS already in place in those areas? Or are we talking about some other form of carrier I just blind to? | |
|  |  |  |  |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA kudos:18 | Re: Size and density - ok... Miles and miles of dark fiber are all over the place. Most major Metro areas do have serious backbones "nearby" if not going directly through the area.
Whomever, ???.net ISP, could be offering wild ass speeds to everyone in these population dense areas - But no!
Care to guess why? It's there, not really hard to do... Can you say Greed boys and girls? National? *OUR* National pay-off monkeys? Were screwed!
*IF* someone were to get off the stick, 45/45 would(should) be the norm in these big ass cities/metro areas. Verizon is at least trying, even though it is STILL a pathetic offering, speed wise. And even Verizon is hiking prices now.
The other high speed enabled countries are laughing their asses off at us(United States). The only Mega Power on the planet, and yet we are one of the slowest in something as *cough* trivial as internet?
What is the fastest speeds in your part of the country? Here in Hercules,CA - Comcast. 8000/768! OOOooo!!! San Francisco? Comcast! Some lucky people in Emeryville and Santa Clara, CA - they can get upto gigabit symmetrical - VERY limited service area though.
What you got? SBC? Verizon? Charter? Comcast?
YAWN! Welcome to Slowsville, U.S.A!  -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA | Re: Size and density - ok... Umm, because the last mile is the expensive part? Unless you have a magic farie wand (I don't doubt it.. ) that turns copper into fiber, then it's not even close to "not really hard to do". | |
|
 |  |  |  SlickEnWPremium join:2003-01-21 Seattle, WA | I agree with you on Seattle, however as i look out into the rainy cityscape, there's only so much skyscraper and the rest is just shoddy housing with insanely high parking rates. Most people probably wouldn't want (to pay) for wicked huge pipes to the tune of 45mbps.
In these cities , those who want a fat pipe (corporations pimping their own data centers) will pay for it , everyone else gets what the telco's and cable companies give us.
I do know that Seattle is slated for FIOS brought to us by the lovely Verizon (\sarcasm). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  FiLPremium join:2005-08-16 Silver Spring, MD | Re: Size and density - ok... Can't agree with you anymore; only way is to copy an paste everything you just typed! lol...
Im pretty friggin' sure the b.b. penetration would go a long way in helping local metro fire/rescue/po.lice in communications. One helluva reason for gettin' it started in large cities...
Your right, NY should be ATLEAST Top 5 fastest b.b.'s cities in the world. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | Subsidized by developers of greenfields housing. They only run to new home developments already wired for fiber in every room. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA kudos:18 | Re: Size and density - ok... Yes! But seeing as they can pull it off and still turn a profit, what gives with _________ ISP?
Actually, it's ethernet in every room, but yeah. -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| Re: Size and density - ok... Heck, I don't know what I would do with a 20Mbps/20Mbps connection. I mostly game, so better latency would help, but not more speed. 8Mbps is good enough for downloads of most things, but I could definitely use at least 2Mbps up for uploading pictures. FiOS 5Mbps/2Mbps would suit my needs just fine. 10Mbps/2Mbps would be even better as when I do download the occasional Linux distro or game demo, it would decrease my download time dramatically. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | said by dadkins:Yes! But seeing as they can pull it off and still turn a profit, what gives with _________ ISP? Actually, it's ethernet in every room, but yeah. The thing is that we dont know if they are turning a profit. The company is fairly new and not public, so for all we know they are losing money hand over fist. The other thing is that (as previously mentioned) they only provide service in new subdivisions that contract exclusively with them as far as I can tell. Those speeds do look appealing however! -- я люблю Денди! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  CheesePremium join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL kudos:1 | said by dadkins:Someone is going to complain and rant, but screw it.... If this SMALL fiber ISP(Paxio) can hit their customers with insane speeds for relatively low prices, there is NO reason other ISPs cannot - other than greed! ... and it DOES exist!  20/20 would be VERY doable for me... how about y'all?  I'm paying $52.95 for Comcast @ 8000/768. I believe that's for pre-built communities only. Unless you buy a house within one of those communities, you can't purchase from them. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA kudos:18 1 edit | Re: Size and density - ok... Yes. I know this. But they ARE doing what some say cannot be done. I have Comcast fiber going right in front of my house... and?
Most of you all have fiber within sight, and do you have anyone offering you a damn thing?
Wanna guess why?
Anyone want to take a shot at Sure West in Roseville? YEARS of 10/10 and 20/20. The speed is there! Has been for quite a long time too.
No excuses... most of us are being boned! 
"But they have caps!" Yeah, and they also have upload that I would kill for! -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
 |  |  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | said by dadkins:No cherry-picking - Metro, infrastructure, light it up! Rural, nothing but power(if that) coming into your house in the middle of nowhere... DUH! Whether it is National or privately owned - there is no reason for... NY to not be one of the fastest areas on the planet! Silicon Valley? HELLO!  Los Aggeles? Boston? Cleveland? Seattle? Think about it! Phoenix  -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Because there's still a couple hundred million "anchors" they have to account for.
You can't divorce the buiness in the city from the business in the country. | |
|  |  SSidlovOther Things On My MindPremium join:2000-03-03 Pompton Lakes, NJ Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by dadkins:There is no excuse for not having major U.S. Metro areas lit up with SERIOUS connections. Rural... well, that's a different story. FWIW, Cablevision spent $1 Billion to rewire with mostly fiber the So. Connecticut to Northern NJ Metro Area, which includes NYC except for Manhattan which they do not have a franchise for. This area is roughly defined as Metro NY according to the US Census, and CV covers roughly 80% of it. They have 36K miles of fiber/cable, 2,700 of actual fiber.
For business users they offer 100% fiber in 8 bandwidth options 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 150 and 300 and up to 1,000 Mbpsat prices up to $4500/mo.
You can purchase for a price OOL Ultra which will give you 50/50 mps. Last I heard it was a couple hundred a month but not fully deployed.
Normal income people will have the 15/2 or the 30/5 mps services which can be had for as low as $49/65 before discounting or bundling. Based on income, this is a comparable cost to what So. Koreans pay.
The network shows signs that the 30/5 will soon be 35/5.
Now if it took CV which is much more cost conscious than the US Govt (CV doesn't buy $100 hammers) spent a billion to wire what it wired, what do you think the fed will have to spend to wire a single metro area? -- »www.Warpstock.org | |
|  |  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | Re: Size and density - ok... said by SSidlov:said by dadkins:There is no excuse for not having major U.S. Metro areas lit up with SERIOUS connections. Rural... well, that's a different story. You can purchase for a price OOL Ultra which will give you 50/50 mps. Last I heard it was a couple hundred a month but not fully deployed. I thought Cablevision scrapped that 50mbps service using narad technology. -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
 |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | said by dadkins:... then WTF is up with New York? S.F.? L.A.? Atlanta? Insert major U.S. Metro here____________? There is no excuse for not having major U.S. Metro areas lit up with SERIOUS connections. Rural... well, that's a different story. I live in a city with over a million people. Wheres my fibre??? oh yeah i live in qwestland. nevermind!  -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|

thumbs down from: Romney2012 
| Put It To Better use ..... LIke spending hundreds of BILLIONS waging WAR on third world countries! | |
|  |  | | Re: Put It To Better use Man, is there nothing that people can not blame Bush for?
Sad. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Put It To Better use I hate to feed the trolls, but I haven't posted in a dog's age, so...
My vote and political ideology in '04 stood on fiscal (and I can't stress that enough) conservatism. Granted, you don't always get what ya wish for. I'm no idealist, at any rate.
Would the spent resources have fed corporate subsidies for every BBR member's Xanadu of a consumer-level fiber utopia? Would a wide FiOS rollout take months instead of years, and would UVerse become more than DSL-revision A? Nobody knows.
The braying and neighing of barnyard animals follows. | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium join:2001-06-25 Sacramento, CA kudos:1 | Korea Broadband.. quote: Incumbent lobbyists, fearful (and rightly so) that progressive pro-consumer policies could hurt their bottom lines, have lobbied this nation's government into apathy and inaction.
Incumbent lobbyists, fearful (and rightly so) that progressive pro-consumer policies could hurt their bottom lines, have lobbied bought and paid this nation's government into apathy and inaction.
there, I fixed it. -- Webmaster - Steve - - - - - - - - - - - - »ppnhosting.com »www.1-gb.net »pokemonpalace.net | |
|  SabreDi relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari join:2005-05-17 | State-level solutions? Considering what's indicated here (correctly), about South Korea's smaller size making it easier to do this, perhaps individual states could look at what Korea is doing and implement it?
For all the reasons BBR has discussed to death, it's either impossible or impractical to address this on a national level. But we have a federal system, already broken down into smaller, more manageable chunks called states. Maybe we should be looking at this sort of planning by individual state governments, since at least in theory they'd have a better handle on their own backyards and less degree of variance in density and population and such. Maybe Annapolis, Sacramento, and Albany can more easily address what gets overly bogged down in Washington.
This is just a random brainstorm that came up right now and I haven't thought it very far in depth. Feel free to destroy it mercilessly if you have good reasons why it wouldn't work. Just a thought that's probably worth pursuing, if nothing else. -- With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! | |
|  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | short term thinking (money) over long term (even more money) the state of broadband in the u.s. is a complete embarrassment. lobbyists and incumbents will continue to strangle the u.s. market as long as we continue to let them do so. | |
|  ztmikeMark for moderationPremium join:2001-08-02 Michigan City, IN 2 edits | Bush We all can thank George W Bush for spending our money and even *not* our money on the war in Iraq that is going NO-WHERE.
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_···ygis0NUE
$190 billion
At the beginning of the year Bush said he only needed $141 billion now he needs $50 billion more. I bet by the time next year rolls around they will need another 50 to 75 billion in emergency spending funds.
This is only for a few months, not even a year, add that to the regular defense budget, insurance and healthcare to injured and wounded, and the families of murdered soldiers, and his bill by the end of next year will be over two trillion dollars.
He will be back for more after the first of the year, he planned his theft well, keep his corruption out of the official budget of the US, ask for more, using the troops as his puppy dog eyes, and spend away.
Forgot to add, on top of that, his $20 Billion military spending to Eqypt, $20 Billion to Saudi Arabia, his $30 Billion to Isreal, and another $10s of billions to the other RICH Gulf States, and his wasteful spending goes up close to an extra $100 Billion in military spending.
»costofwar.com/index.html ---see the current war cost. Makes you sick to your stomach, doesn't it? | |
|  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: Bush said by ztmike:We all can thank George W Bush for spending our money and even *not* our money on the war in Iraq that is going NO-WHERE. Since when has spending power been transferred from the legislative branch to the executive branch?
Surely if the Congress believed the war is a waste, it would have cut the funding. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  |  | | I especially makes you sick when you consider the government doesn't have 190 billion dollars to spend on anything -- especially a war. 
I guess we'll just borrow some more, eh? -- "I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." | |
|  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | remember how much they said the ENTIRE war would cost? something like $100 million then it would pay for itself with oil revenue.
oh the memories... | |
|  |  |  FiLPremium join:2005-08-16 Silver Spring, MD | Re: Bush I remember that clearly, and some stats put it at 10-20 billion; quick entry and exit. Kill the tuuurrists and bingo, were home free......my ass!
Our tax dollars definitely could be spent in much more Patriotic ways, such as improving health care and our communications systems, which was the primary reason we got the fuck hit on 9/11...bahhhh... | |
|
 |  ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save join:2005-10-17 | I want those speeds so much dark fiber waiting to be lit. | |
|  kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime join:2001-08-27 Palmdale, CA Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
·AT&T U-Verse
| what I don't understand I live about 1.5 blocks or so from the university of California, riverside. This is a facility which has an OC192 connection to the internet from what I've been told. I live close enough to this campus, that if I had some external wireless antennas, and a decent setup, I could probably have a solid connection to UCR's wireless network, at symmetrical speeds. With this in mind, why is it that the consumer around here can't get service directly from UCR, since I can't imagine they're using they're entire 10Gbit/sec symmetrical internet link? Sure anyone can get symmetrical speeds if they want to pay through the roof for it, but why at the very least aren't providers willing to increase upstream speeds? 10Mbps down is nice, but there are times when I want to send a large amount of data off site and the fact that the best offering a consumer gets is 1mbps upload while getting 10 times that on downstream for example, makes no sense, especially when I for example live just a block from a connection that I know to be rock solid with insane network connectivity? Why should it cost $400 for 1.5 symmetrical? It makes no sense to me. | |
|  |  | | Re: what I don't understand No, you can't. Like most if not all universities like mine at UMich, you need a username and password to logon to even the wireless network.
And even then, the connection is limited to 1Mb or 180K/s up/down since it is obviously a limited bandwidth router up to 54Mb which has to be shared by several users at any given time.
The only time you'll get access to a 100/100 connection on a campus if even that, is in your dorm room or a computer lab. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: what I don't understand You're 100% correct about the wireless. I work on UCR's campus. My facility uses both the wired/wireless networks. The wired boxes can usually test around 5Mbps/4Mbps - sometimes faster or slower depending on what others on the LAN are doing - while the wireless, IF very close (within 2 feet) to the router, can achieve 1-2Mbps/512Kbps. I can confirm wireless is capped. The connection speed out to the internet for both wired and wireless isn't all that fast for various reasons (the campus restricts speed, the site being visited doesn't have much bandwidth, ... etc etc).
From what I can tell, everything (hard wired) at my facility is connected to a switch in our storage area, which is connected via fiber to wherever on campus the data center is. So, we do have fiber but we don't get blazingly fast speeds and it's not like everybody in the facility is using p2p or other bandwidth-intensive applications.
If you're on campus, the only way to get the insane speeds so many people assume universities have is to download off other .edu lines. For example, over at CSUSB I've been able download the CD version of CentOS in under 10 minutes. Each disk transfered at around 3.2MB/s, and I had 3 simultaneous connections to the same server. At the same time, there were 15 other students in the same lab also downloading CentOS - each person getting at least 1.5MB/s for EACH transfer (do to the fact we were downloading off .edu servers in different geographical locations).
The only reason I was able to download CentOS so quickly was because my department had previously consulted with the university's data center, who removed bandwidth caps and quotas (yes, we do have quotas and the admins watch closely) for our particular lab during a specific time fame. This extra step was taken so that the students weren't stuck in the lab for hours waiting for everything to finish.
My main point being universities do have the infrastructure, due to Internet2, to support the belief that they have tons of bandwidth but because they are responsible for so many computer-related resources (wireless, websites, VPN, SSH, e-mail, online web apps [registration, class schedule, book store], and online storage to name a few) to be available 24/7 and in a timely fashion... (and other issues, such as copyright put to the side for now)... there is no way any decent university will allow students to continually connect at astronomical speeds; even if they're in dorms. | |
|  |  |  |  2 edits | Re: what I don't understand I am a student at FIU »www.fiu.edu and from what I been reading, we have a lot of freedom regarding internet access when compared to other universities as well as a fat pipe. For example, we do NOT have any quotas so we can pretty much download all we want. Besides that, we do have a really fast connection:

This test was done in the Computer Science Labs. When I use the wireless with my laptop I usually test around 20/5 which is really good in my opinion. However, nothing beats having a 100/100 pipe in the labs but BitTorrent is still blocked etc. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: what I don't understand I'm betting your campus has a lot more bandwidth than, say, CSUSB. I did a quick search on google, and FIU's enrollment is over twice that of CSUSB's (~32,000 versus ~15,500). It'd make sense a campus the size of FIU would have a larger, more robust infrastructure to allow for faster speeds to accommodate that amount of students.
Also, each institution has different ideas on what is acceptable internet use. Having 100/100 or 20/5 is great, but these huge pipes aren't noticeably faster for everyday use (browsing the internet, checking e-mail, visiting youtube, listening to music, etc) - the only time pure bandwidth comes into play is when you download those Linux ISOs or some other gigantic download. MAYBE these fast connections will come into play in the coming years, when/if HD video and lossless audio become more prevalent online. Bit torrent and other p2p is strictly prohibited on most campuses, as you mentioned in your post, but people get around the firewalls. However, these people do get caught because the rise in bandwidth consumption is unmistakable.
Anyway, I didn't mean to keep going on an on about all of this. More onto the actual topic at hand - if fiber was available in my area, I'd gladly pay the extra costs for more bandwidth (versus the 6Mbps/512Kbps I get now) but I know it won't happen because AT&T has been promising us DSL for the past 5 years and hasn't delivered yet. For now I'm stuck paying $40/month for 6Mbps/512Kbps because it's the only thing available.
The lack of competition in many areas is negatively affecting competition - hence no need to continually build better & faster networks.
Verizon decided to spend billions to upgrade their network, but will other ISPs follow suit? Verizon has just started building into a few communities shared by Comcast, so will Comcast start raising speeds? AT&T has started implementing U-Verse with promises of faster speeds in the near future - will these speeds be comparable to other countries? Nope. OOL took a big step in raising speeds a couple years ago when FiOS first began roll-out, only due to COMPETITION. And how about the FCC.. where do they come into this?
I'd rather go out and enjoy life than sit around and hope that these ISPs will start offering at least 10/10 to the majority of the U.S. population. That feat alone seems to be a couple years away still.
Don't get me wrong, I love living in the U.S. but we've never been leaders in technology. | |
|
 danzaPremium join:2002-08-23 | Sorry.. but most of the American citizens just don't care enough to make it an important issue, and the government just can't be bothered to do anything to change it.
Big telcos have lobbyist working for their interesting, and their interest sure is not to give everyone a good broadband. Consumers on the other hand, doesn't really have anyone (or enough money) lobbying for them. We even have astroturfing etc. to confuse the politicians even more.
So yeah, the government is serving someone's interesting, just not the consumers. | |
|
 | |
|
|