Broadband Boom

Make it available, and people will buy it. Proof is in the sales numbers. So why is it taking so long to deploy?

said by Camelot One:

---

Make it available, and people will buy it. Proof is in the sales numbers. So why is it taking so long to deploy?

---

Do you really think that 7 years (2000-2007) is a "long time" for a technology to be deployed and accepted by 25% of the country??

It took over 85 years for radio to get that far. It took cell phones over 20 years to get that far. TV's weren't at that mark for roughly 25 years. I would say that 7 years is quite fast deployment.

Boogie

7 years may not be a long time, but nowadays it seems like a lifetime in terms of technology. I don't have the exact figures, but I believe that DVD players reached high market penetration within 4 or 5 years. It's really the poor regulation by the FCC and lack of competition that's holding back broadband availability and adoption.

Yah, its the lack of expensive hardware, construction, and morons not knowing WTF has to be done to implement high speed internet in an area.

If you dont know it, dont ASSume...

double post
[text was edited by author 2003-08-06 12:38:31]

If I'm wrong, then so be it. Instead of attacking me, show me the figures and prove that telco monopolistic policies aren't a major contribution.

What, still no figures? I guess you're just biased and you like attacking people who don't see things the same way as you do (you're probably brainwashed by the company you work for). As much as I'd like to believe that it's all about economics and logistics, I just can't think that corruption and greed don't have a hand in this.

You can't compare DVD players and broadband. DVD players are not reliant on millions of miles of wire that needs to be replaced. DVD players are a device like a CD player or TV that can be bought and put in at any home. It doesn't matter if you are using basic analog cable or have no cable. I think you get the message.

7 years is NOT a long time in the world of technology. I remember back 7 years ago when the first lucky people were getting broadband to the home. There were people scoffing at the idea saying it would never work. In 7 years, they have covered most of the major cities and are still expanding outward.

Poor regulation by the FCC and no competition is stiffling broadband? Hardly! It costs a lot of money to wire an area for broadband. You think that any company wants to wire a farming community for broadband? To spend tens of thousands of dollars to get just a few customers? The speed of broadband availability has to do with two major factors: money (both spent and projected earnings), and time involved. Which is why you see broadband expanding in the cities and well populated areas. Places where people can afford it. Out in the sticks, you won't see that kind of penetration due to the time and money spent puting it in AND the projection they may get just a couple subscribers.

You want to know what really sucks? The fact that by the time they expand out to cover the sticks, there will be better technology out there that will blow the socks off broadband we have today. Fiber to the home? Wireless? What technology will prevail and be the successor to current broadband? Who knows.

You're right, I shouldn't have used DVD players for comparison. At least that industry has gotten the hardware and discs standardized. DSL was a mess to begin with. Universal standards for DSLAM and CPE hardware should have been hashed out before rollouts occurred.

The telcos are directly to blame for part of the reason broadband uptake hasn't been even faster and more widespread.

Actually, they are to blame in two ways:

- slowing, if not outright obstructing, the rollout of DSL by competitors (this is where the FCC can step up and share some blame)

- refusing to upgrade their own systems to reach more people

I almost hate to say this, but cable deserves credit for spending the bucks to upgrade their systems so they could offer broadband. Hell, if it wasn't for cable, I would still be waiting for broadband.

said by boogie74:

---

said by Camelot One:

---

Make it available, and people will buy it. Proof is in the sales numbers. So why is it taking so long to deploy?

---

Do you really think that 7 years (2000-2007) is a "long time" for a technology to be deployed and accepted by 25% of the country??

It took over 85 years for radio to get that far. It took cell phones over 20 years to get that far. TV's weren't at that mark for roughly 25 years. I would say that 7 years is quite fast deployment.
Boogie

---

I might agree with you except that I believe that there's a difference in the perception of "need". Radio, and to a lesser extent, cell phones were not initially perceived as being necessary, and in fact were perceived as being a rich person's toy. I suspect that broadband is perceived as being more necessary. Or maybe I just hang out here too much...

quote:

---

I might agree with you except that I believe that there's a difference in the perception of "need". Radio, and to a lesser extent, cell phones were not initially perceived as being necessary, and in fact were perceived as being a rich person's toy. I suspect that broadband is perceived as being more necessary. Or maybe I just hang out here too much...

---

I would say that you're just hanging out here too much. By far and large, there is a HUGE segment of the population that not only sees broadband, but COMPUTERS IN GENERAL as a "rich person's toy."

I don't see people going out to buy Lear Jets either- and THEY'VE been around for decades. Is it because Lear doesn't want to deploy 10 seat corporate jets at a reasonable price for all to enjoy? I say, no- it's because making a cheaper product that won't sell to the masses just isn't profitable.

Boogie

said by boogie74:

---

By far and large, there is a HUGE segment of the population that not only sees broadband, but COMPUTERS IN GENERAL as a "rich person's toy."

---

I disagree. This was true just a few years ago, but "by and large" the current thinking is that computers are here to stay, and a required tool for most people.

Now the notion that we need to upgrade all broadband from 1.5Mbps to 3Mbps...that is another story. Most people just don't care, as long as they don't have to wait for webpages to load. (I said most, and as surprising as it may sound, BBR does not make up most of the population.)

quote:

---

I disagree. This was true just a few years ago, but "by and large" the current thinking is that computers are here to stay, and a required tool for most people

---

Let me rephrase things... About 65% of the population has a home computer of one sort or another- and the rest know someone who does. However, a good size chunk (even 5% is a considerably large segment) of the population either cannot afford a computer or even better yet does not want one at all.

A decent chunk of those with computers can't figure out how to get the cup holder open- much less realize the benefits of broadband. Many with 384 Kbps service consider it "lightning fast" while most on BBR consider anything less than 10 Mbps up and down with 25 static IP's to be "wannabe broadband"

Boogie

said by Camelot One:

---

So why is it taking so long to deploy?

---

I'm thinking the telcos don't want the masses to have broadband since VOIP will kill their cash-cow POTS and long distance business. Fortunately, the cable companies are expanding rapidly, even in areas ignored by SBC. Go Comcast!

Yah, thats it...

I mean it couldnt be the massive ammount of construction, network planning/implementation, infrastructure, or manpower.

Nah, its because the telecos dont want competition of the VoIP... er... o_O.

coo-coo

Just download three albums worth of mp3s in a month and it has paid for itself.

Hell...get one of those $30 DSL deals and you can do in 2 albums worth and still have money left over for a combo #4 at McDonald's.

Not only the downloads, but the SHEER SPEED of web surfing makes it a deal! No more waiting for a page to load! Of course, downloading mp3s and other files is probably the #1 reason for the growth.....still not having to wait on a webpage makes it worthwhile. I just hope that BPL (Broadband over power lines) gets the kinks worked out so that everyone can have braodband! Now the people who have ham radios are all up in the air about it! Because they say it will interfere with their radio signal! I just hope a compromise can be reached to suit everybody! I know that ham radio operators do save lives from time to time when disasters hit, but I also believe that shutting out millions of people from a potential scource of broadband is not the way to go either! So I can see both sides! But if this gives broadband to millions of people that already have elecrticity in their homes, surely a solution CAN be found for the war between the ham radio operators and the people who want broadband!

said by Angrychair:

---

Just download three albums worth of mp3s in a month and it has paid for itself.

---

Not that you cant download 3 albums a month on dialup! true it might take a month but thats besides the point

If the RIAA gets there way and stops file trading those numbers will not be reached by 2007. When mom and dad find out that they can go to jail for there son downloading mp3z, I don't think its going to grow as fast as it has been. Most people get cable/dsl for the high speed downloads of there mp3z. With out that, for most users, 1.5M down isn't that appealing.

I do not think that most people buy broadband to download MP3s. I think you are completely wrong on that.

I think most people buy broadband for the always on connection. The second reason people buy broadband is because it is faster than dial-up.

You're right.

The number one reason I got broadband is the always on. Second is speed.

However, I think if downloading Mp3s becomes impossible, quite a few people will get rid of their cable/dsl.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-06 10:45:53]

In reality, MP3s/divx downloads ARE the #1 reason for people to get broadband, the second is gamers.

When you say "I get it for the speed", that means anything and everything, faster pages, faster ping times, faster file downloading, faster porn.. er... faster sex... er... um... yah

You may be shocked by the # of people getting it for file trading.

said by bigbeartech:

---

In reality, MP3s/divx downloads ARE the #1 reason for people to get broadband, the second is gamers.

---

I find gamers well down on the list of reasons.

Faster telecommuting or canceling a second phone line to save a buck come to mind.

Keyboard 5684 told us

'I do not think that most people buy broadband to download MP3s. I think you are completely wrong on that."

I totally agree with you however it is now a site rule that the RIAA MUST be mentioned in every thread.

Hob

Nah, even the greenest n00b understands speed when browsing sites. In my personal experience I've found that the least experienced computer users also tend to be the most impatient. DSL and cable make the most rudimentary web browsing SO much faster, for only $20-30 per month more than a dialup account. All without tying up a phone line. People drop hundreds of dollars on new PCs because they want them fast, it's only logical to spend a little bit of money per month to get a fast connection, since that's mostly what people do with computers these days.

Sure they'll gripe and moan about the price, but I see a staggering number of people keep their expensive AOL dialup accounts and log into it over broadband. Half the time they don't even know or bother to change to the BYOA plan. They see AOL as yet another luxury they don't want to part with.

You really don't need MP3 to appreciate broadband.

I have had broadband for 4 years and it had nothing to do with file sharing. The always on connection and speed of surfing is what got me and my wife. Before the net was a chore, now it's a very viable part of our life. we use it all the time for just about any kind of info we need.
Mr. Natural

said by Mr Natural:

---

I have had broadband for 4 years and it had nothing to do with file sharing. The always on connection and speed of surfing is what got me and my wife. Before the net was a chore, now it's a very viable part of our life. we use it all the time for just about any kind of info we need.
Mr. Natural

---

We need more customers like you!

hehe

I switched to broadband for the convenience of not hogging up the phoneline while surfing the net. Now, it makes downloading software upgrades so easy. Hundreds of MBs for a file is nothing much to dl now with cable.

Broadband has a few advantages, such as : downloading files, surfing the web fast, LOW PINGS on online games, always on and doesn't take up phone line.
Of course it's godly for downloading mp3's and videos but there's still many other reasons to keep ot.

While the report does emphasize pricing, it doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that most of the cable broadband boomers are on introductory pricing.

Will these folks be willing to continue their subscription when prices jump from ~$20-30/mo to ~$45-60/mo?

I don't like the RIAA, don't agree with there tactics, and don't like the way they have pushed through ill-conceived legislation.

On the other hand I am becoming more and more adverse to file trading/music swapping, and all the other things that started this in the first place.

I will never buy another CD but then I don't download any either.

And when was the last time someone made a prediction about future technology and actually guessed right. In 2007 we might not even have DSL or it could go belly up or Cable could go belly up or there could be 2 or more different choices for broadband and DSL might not be so popular. Or broadband could become a standard like the telephone or a car by that time. There are so many variables that nobody can take into account to even make a prediction that is worth listening to. So I say whatever.

I dunno, everyone has their own reasons for wanting broadband. It'll either be online gaming, the ability to see more porn in less time, mp3 downloading, faster browsing, or streaming radio. For me personally, it's mainly the last two. I really love Radio@Netscape Plus.

Anyone else hear about the development of data transmission over power lines? Apparently, it's already been achieved at the test level and the FCC has approved an inquiry to formally study its potential. Sounds wild.