Tenken writes "Salon has an article about the state of broadband in America. After seeing what many other countries have accomplished with their broadband markets, namely Japan, Korea, and (gasp) even Canada, the current state of affairs in the U.S. is looking pretty dismal. I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of paying $45 a month just for cable internet." From the article: "Across the globe, it's the same story. In France, DSL service that is 10 times faster than the typical United States connection; 100 TV channels and unlimited telephone service cost only $38 per month. In South Korea, super-fast connections are common for less than $30 per month. Places as diverse as Finland, Canada and Hong Kong all have much faster Internet connections at a lower cost than what is available here. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. has slipped from fourth to 16th in the world in broadband use per capita. While other countries are taking advantage of the technological, business and education opportunities of the broadband era, America remains lost in transition."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='networking,biz,politics';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; The Problems with Broadband in America Log in/Create an Account | Top | 671 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 671 comments 0: 663 comments 1: 521 comments 2: 320 comments 3: 89 comments 4: 42 comments 5: 26 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Insightful) by Knight Thrasher (766792) * on Tuesday October 18, @04:22PM (#13820355) If you suddenly had a better alternative to paying $45 a month for your cable or DSL internet, you'd take the alternative. Instantly. I know I would, without second thought. There's just nowhere downhill to go, without going back to dialup.That means the existing monopoly corporation providing broadband to you would suddenly have to invest major capital into revamping their business to approach a competitive edge with this new alternative that everyone smart like you and I would switch to immediately. This would cut into profits. Businessmen like their profits, so they look for an alternative, hmmm, how not to have to revamp their networks, think think think...So the company instead pays out campaign donations the right people in senate and congress, hires some lobbyists to naysay revamping impractical and backwards laws, say if they do change the laws the terrorists will get us over the intrawebs on their haxxor boxenz and copyrighted material will be given away on the street corners. And the people of the country that invented and played a major part in developing the internet into what it is today, lose out to nations with 1/100th of the population and GNP.God Bless America. What would Liberty be like without a caring, guiding corporate hand to slow things down to maximize their own profits? I rarely rant on like things about this, but let's face it; American broadband users are sheer cash cows to their ISP's. [ Reply to ThisYou forgot about PIRATES ;-) by Work Account (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:25PMRe:You forgot about PIRATES ;-) by dgatwood (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:34PMRe:You forgot about PIRATES ;-) by picklepuss (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:37PMYou Don't Download at All? by sigloiv (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:59PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Here the problem arises. by jeriqo (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:31PMRe:Here the problem arises. by muszek (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:50PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Pantero Blanco (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:55PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:31PMRe:Here the problem arises. by bofkentucky (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:14PM Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:4, Informative) by Richard Steiner (1585) <rsteiner@visi.com> on Tuesday October 18, @05:21PM (#13821086) (http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner | Last Journal: Wednesday April 16, @09:53AM) US Law used to give them that right. That law was changed recently. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Here the problem arises. by fafaforza (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:38PMRe:Here the problem arises. by ghostfacehallik (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:48PMOh, burn! The socialists do it FOR LESS! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:25PMRe:Oh, burn! The socialists do it FOR LESS! by monkeydo (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @07:35PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Strider-BG (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @06:38PM Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:4, Informative) by ezeri (513659) on Tuesday October 18, @08:30PM (#13822864) Why should Verizon be forced to sublease below market value the lines they invested money into, digging up streets and putting up poles. First problem, Verizon (well all the bells together before they were broken up) did not pay for all the digging to put those lines in, that cost was heavily subsidized by taxpayer money. The other problem with this argument is that the cost of putting all this copper in place was payed off a long long time ago, and it's dirt cheap to maintain.Then further there is a very serious problem with this one part of itsublease below market value It's just not true. Quest for example sells basic phone service for 12.50, they then sell the raw copper loop for $15. And that loop will only be able to serve DSL and thus make it profitable and worth while for the CLEC if they are within range of the CO. Most are not, and since the FCC just took away all access to the ILEC metro fiber assets (because they deemed them unesesarry) only phone service can be offered to customer out of range of the the CO, so the CLEC's and ISP's were forced to resell the ILEC's DSL at tariffed prices (this also means they can have that customer for phone service). With DSL, Quest sells 1.5M/768k DSL for $19.95 for a year and then $39.95 after that, the "below market value" price for just the loop (no email, bandwidth, tech support, etc.) that a competetive ISP must pay is $19.95 (a big discount from $19.95 as you can tell) for a year and then $33 after that. Oh, and then they have to pay for the ATM trasit of customer bandwidth at $250 per Mbit, plus port fees. That and the FCC just took these off of the tarif rates, next year, Qwest and all the other ILECS will be able to set the prices to whatever they want, and customers will be completely screwed because they will have very little choice. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Here the problem arises. by Loualbano2 (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @11:56PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Insightful) by NMerriam (15122) <(NMerriam) (at) (artboy.org)> on Tuesday October 18, @05:40PM (#13821309) (http://www.artboy.org/) What gave you the right to use the copper verizon bought fair and square on the open market?You mean the copper that was subsidized by taxpayer dollars? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Here the problem arises. by bofkentucky (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:25PMRe:Here the problem arises. by machineghost (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:00AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Here the problem arises. by ebh (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:57PMRe:Here the problem arises. by bofkentucky (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:50PMRe:Here the problem arises. by jtwJGuevara (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:33PM Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, @04:41PM (#13820627) As I understood it, the initial cost of laying down this infrastructure is massive to the organizations who do it They received massive federal tax credits and grants to lay down this infrastructure. We, the taxpayers, are the ones who paid for it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Here the problem arises. by shitdrummer (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:18PM Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:4, Informative) by LordKazan (558383) on Tuesday October 18, @04:45PM (#13820668) (http://alliance.sf.net/ | Last Journal: Monday March 29, @12:04AM) You've been hoodwinked - competition would not drive the price below profitable levels - becuase it wouldn't be feasable for ANY company to do so. Now one companies profitable price may be unmatchable by another company: sucks to be that dumbass company who cannot compete.Competition drives innovation, and lowers prices - it also forces the inept and the profiteering out of the market. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Here the problem arises. by js3 (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:18PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Eccles (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:30PMRe:Here the problem arises. by OrangeTide (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:03AMRe:Here the problem arises. by LordKazan (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:31PMRe:Here the problem arises. by jcr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:04PMWARNING! GROUPTHINK BELOW! by rdoger6424 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:04PMRe:Here the problem arises. by hostyle (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:48PM Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:4, Informative) by The Snowman (116231) * <john@johngaughan.net> on Tuesday October 18, @04:50PM (#13820738) (http://www.johngaughan.net/) I've heard it said, and it may just be FUD from the ISP's, but if multiple broadband ISP's (ignore the fact DSL and cable can be available in two places) were to compete in the same region then prices would be driven down in competition to a point to where the providers costs in laying in the infrastructure down are not going to be made up in profit. In a perfectly capitalistic economy this is true, but the majority of telecommunication companies are cartels. They fix prices above the competetive level, competing more on who can service specific addresses than on pricing or services. Additionally, they may compete in different market segments -- one company may be cheaper but offer only slower (e.g. 512kbps) service, while another is more expensive but only offers 1.5mbps service. One caters to people on a tighter budget, the other caters to people with more disposable income. In this country we really do have good infrastructure. Our backbones are typically high bandwidth even considering the amount of traffic they carry. Many large ISPs and hosting providers offer vast quantities of bandwidth, of which only a fraction is used. The real problem is the last mile: while your local ISP may have an OC-12 pipe coming in, they only use a quarter of it for one of several reasons. The last mile of copper might be too old or low quality to support faster speeds, it might be an artificial limitation designed to boost revenue (artificial scarcity), or they just don't want to raise consumers' expectations which could upset the whole market. In any event, the issue isn't about what we as consumers want, or what technology is available, or what is best for us, it is about what makes the companies money. After all, these are corporations, they exist to earn profit and return value to the stockholders. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Here the problem arises. by SoSueMe (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:26PMthey can make money... by zogger (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:11PMRe:Here the problem arises. by jcnnghm (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:51PMRe:Here the problem arises. by bluGill (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:00PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Bellum Aeternus (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:47PMRe:Here the problem arises. by MooUK (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:04PMRe:Here the problem arises. by mikael (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:55PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Audacious (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:20PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Some minor defenses... (Score:5, Insightful) by Alaren (682568) on Tuesday October 18, @04:36PM (#13820544) (http://www.kennethpike.com/) Let me first establish that I agree with your sentiment and I wholeheartedly believe that corporations are part of the problem. Their never-ending efforts to shut down municipal efforts, to preserve their monopolies, and to create a "delivery system" rather than a "networking system" (4MBits down, 256kbits up, anyone?) are a blight on our great (if, sadly, not as great as once it was) nation. However.With the exception of Canada, the countries mentioned have a tremendous advanage regarding broadband penetration, and that is relative population density.Although we are not as rural as once we were, the United States still has one of the largest rural populations of any first-world nation. So in addition to the problems you've mentioned, there is an extra infastructure cost and the comparable difficulty of wireless solutions.It's not an excuse, really, but there are logistical issues with U.S. broadband that also have to be addressed if we are to have any truly comprehensive solution. Frankly I'm not sure which kind of issue will be easier to resolve, but if the slow spread of municipal broadband in rural areas (where big companies can feel comfortable ignoring it) is any indication, we'll get fiber to Anytown, U.S. long before we overcome the greed that prevents us from getting it in urban areas. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Some minor defenses... by jeriqo (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:49PM Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:4, Insightful) by sheddd (592499) <jmeadlock@perdid ... m ['chr' in gap]> on Tuesday October 18, @05:21PM (#13821080) Sure... lots more area to cover, thoughFrance 2004 gdp: ~1.7TUSA 2004 gdp: ~11TFrance sq miles: 211kUSA sq miles: 3537kFrance gdp/sq mi: $8MUSA gdp/sq mi: $3M [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Some minor defenses... by Ghorin (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @06:21PMRe:Some minor defenses... by C0rinthian (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @07:20PMRe:Some minor defenses... by LnxAddct (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:14PMRe:Some minor defenses... by johansalk (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:41PMRe:Some minor defenses... by coaxial (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:24PM Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:5, Informative) by RobinH (124750) on Tuesday October 18, @04:59PM (#13820866) (http://slashdot.org/) With the exception of Canada, the countries mentioned have a tremendous advanage regarding broadband penetration, and that is relative population density.As has been pointed out many times before, Canada is actually more "urban" than the US. Something like 3/4 of Canadians live in cities whereas about 2/3 of Americans do, or something like that. Yes, queue jokes about huddling together for warmth, etc., but the facts are there. It helps that only 20% of Canadian land is "habitable" (meaning you can grow crops on it), which is the type of land typically settled on hundreds of years ago. So, Canada has an easier time hitting more of its population with broadband due to population density.Also, Canada has certain government initiatives to get broadband access to the more remote parts of Canada, such as the far north. Canada has always been on the leading edge of communications technology, and is actively trying to stay that way. The first commercial communications satellite was Canadian owned, as was the first national coast to coast microwave telephone network. This is all because the politicians realized from the start that the only thing stopping the small relatively isolated colonies that became Canada from being absorbed by the US was to overcome the vast communication and transportation obstacles that separated them. Those ideas continue today. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:4, Interesting) by Erioll (229536) on Tuesday October 18, @05:54PM (#13821462) I have no doubt your numbers are correct, but at the same time can the 2/3 vs 3/4 difference in urbanization really account for the difference in penetration and pricing? I would argue not. While there has been a focus on greater communications infrastructure by government (just look at Alberta Supernet [albertasupernet.ca] for a dramatic example. Services every community in the province with high-speed internet that has any of a school, a library, or a medical centre), IMO it definitely was the co-location and promotion of competition that made the REAL difference. Telus (as well as the other big incumbents in Canada) fought tooth and nail against co-location, but it NEEDED to happen, and it has succeeded (somewhat).But this gets into a bigger discussion about government involvment in industry. Personally I think government's main role in the market should be to encourage competition, and BREAK UP monopolies, not encourage them. With almost-no exceptions, there are always better results from MORE competition, and MORE players in the market, rather than fewer. And when the "natural" market starts creating dominant giants, either introduce factors to break their monopoly with new initiatives (mandating co-location would be one example of such), or break the companies up (more extreme, and necessary only when the previous option fails). But above all they should be ENSURING that meaningful competition always occurs.Governments have an essential role in economies completely seperate from government spending and federally (or provincial/state) run companies. More competition is almost always good, and should be the government's PRIMARY responsability (aside from money flow), not encouraging monopolies. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Some minor defenses... by addbo (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:18PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Some minor defenses... by Hard_Code (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:01PMBad nerd BAD by DeadMilkman (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:08PMRe:Some minor defenses... by pammon (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:04PMRe:Some minor defenses... by e1618978 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:36PM wrong. (Score:5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, @05:14PM (#13821018) I just came back from a vacation in france, at my parent's house, in a lost "village" in the middle of the alps. There are maybe 4 farms on a square kilometer. What do you know, over there I had 20meg dsl line with wireless hotspots. Their cost: 12 euro a month (around 15 bucks).Why do I pay 40 bucks in LA for a crappy connection ? The US has guaranteed local monopolies to corporations who have zero interest in investing anything in infrastructure when they can bring it insane profits on obsolete products. Telcos in the US function like energy and healthcare companies. They are not a public service like in most european countries, it's a racket that gets blank support from politicians to milk a captive market as much as they can. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:wrong. by goofballs (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:55PMRe:wrong. by goofballs (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:26PMRe:wrong. by njh (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:01PMspoken like a true american by xTantrum (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:23PMRe:wrong. by jafac (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:05AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:wrong. by goofballs (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:51PMRe:wrong. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:32PMRe:wrong. by jafac (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:16AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:wrong. by glaucopis (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:31PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re: Wrong. by Deathanatos (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:42PMRe:wrong. by SlimFlem (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @10:19PMNo DSL or broadband where I live by Rick17JJ (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:22AMRe:wrong. by cthulhu11 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:32AMRe:Some minor defenses... by FatAlb3rt (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:19PMRe:Some minor defenses... by jZnat (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:08PMRe:Some minor defenses... by poopdeville (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:03PMRe:Some minor defenses... by dgatwood (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:12PMRe:Some minor defenses... by mindstrm (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @10:12PMRe:Some minor defenses... by aztektum (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:26PM Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:5, Insightful) by thisissilly (676875) on Tuesday October 18, @05:27PM (#13821149) If population density were #1 factor in cheap-high speed Internet, why are there not cheap fiber connections for everyone in NYC and NJ?France has a population density of 284/square mile.South Korea has 1275 people/square mile.New Jersey has 1133 people/square mile.New York County, which includes Manhattan, has 66950 people/square mile. No, that's not a typo.Obviously, NYC and NJ have "a tremendous advanage regarding broadband penetration". So why don't we have cheap broadband? [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Some minor defenses... (Score:4, Informative) by badasscat (563442) <[basscadet75] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Tuesday October 18, @05:56PM (#13821488) (http://doubleperf.blogspot.com/) New York County, which includes Manhattan, has 66950 people/square mile. No, that's not a typo.In fact, New York County is only Manhattan. (Queens is Queens County, Brooklyn is Kings, Bronx is Bronx, and Staten Island is Dutchess.) So that number is a bit skewed - Manhattan is far denser than any other borough in New York City or any part of New Jersey.According to Wikipedia, NYC's population density is 26403 people/square mile (that's rounded up just to match the look of your number). Newark, NJ's population density is 11400 people/square mile and Jersey City's is 16093 people/square mile. Other areas close to NYC in NJ have lower densities (those are the two main "cities" in NJ on the edge of NYC). So the average of the whole NY metro area would be a lot lower than 66950. And nobody's going to bother laying infrastructure for a single borough, although typically the telcos and cablecos will start with one borough and work their way out.Just to compare, Tokyo is similarly difficult to calculate (it depends on if you're talking the 23 official wards of the city, the prefecture of Tokyo, or something else), but the 23 wards have a density of 34734 people/square mile. So, both cities are pretty dense, but NYC is not even close to twice as dense as Tokyo, which your numbers suggest.I do sort of agree with your main point, though, which is that there's no real reason why the Northeast Corridor, the California Corridor or the cities of the upper midwest shouldn't be wired up better, if population density is the problem. The USA is extremely regional, and there are whole areas that are just as urban and just as large (in terms of population) as all of South Korea, for example. The NEC has a greater population than South Korea in a smaller area, so it should be theoretically cheaper to wire up on a per capita basis. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Some minor defenses... by badasscat (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:00PMThe people of Richmond County will be surprised... by jpellino (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:52PMYou may be right, or not. by thisissilly (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:06PMRe:Some minor defenses... by goofballs (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:01PMRe:Some minor defenses... by warren96 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:39PMRe:Some minor defenses... by thisislee (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:27PMRe:Some minor defenses... by Jebediah21 (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:00PMRe:Some minor defenses... by Guppy06 (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:48PMRe:Some minor defenses... by rabbitinpumpkin (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @10:26PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Incorrect by NicolaiBSD (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:36PMRe:Incorrect by piper-noiter (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:46PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Some minor defenses... by redmond_herring (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:44PMRe:Some minor defenses... by RobFrontier (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:51PMRather sad excuses by WebCowboy (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:43PMRe:Some minor defenses... by mrbcs (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:43AM7 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Here the problem arises. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:36PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Shinobi (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:17PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Buzz_Litebeer (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:42PMNot again... by LeonGeeste (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:45PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Bun (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:46PMRe:Here the problem arises. by geminidomino (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:22PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Here the problem arises. by aichpvee (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:56PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Ucklak (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:04PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Here the problem arises. by Martin Blank (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:39PMRe:Here the problem arises. by aichpvee (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:10PMRe:Here the problem arises. by dresgarcia (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:57PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Moofie (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:47PMRe:Here the problem arises. by jcr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:07PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Moofie (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:17PMRe:Here the problem arises. by jcr (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:46PMRe:Here the problem arises. by Moofie (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:26PMRe:Here the problem arises. by ghostfacehallik (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:39PM Re:Here the problem arises. (Score:5, Interesting) by LilGuy (150110) on Tuesday October 18, @05:03PM (#13820902) Believe it or not they're working on it. SBC is currently in the process of rolling out fiber to the home in Houston. They plan to have everyone in the city connected up to the new equipment within a couple years. I asked the technician that was out at my house how much they planned on charging for their new "limitless" connection and he said it was going to run the same as what we were currently paying.I found it hard to believe at first, but now I see they really have no choice. DSL can only go so far, and Time Warner was running them out of the internet biz by ramping up speeds. So in the end everyone will end up with uber-fast fiber connections and pay about the same $40-$60.Then again, that was Houston. There are quite a few cities nationwide that aren't nearly as cut-throat. Some that have only 1 "high-speed" option, that isn't really even high-speed.But I'd say, once the word gets out about those new blazing fast connections, EVERYONE is going to want one, and the demand overcome the cost of all the telcos upgrading their lines and equipment.All this IMHO [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Here the problem arises. by rho (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:11PMRe:Here the problem arises. by timeOday (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:45PMRe:Here the problem arises. by rho (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:22PMRe:Here the problem arises. by MightyMartian (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:53PMRe:Here the problem arises. by k0dydraven (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:21PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Here the problem arises. by Seigen (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:36PMWait for WiMAX? by TastyCakes (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:40PMWiMAX and remote areas by mparaz (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:42AMRe:Here the problem arises. by Alex P Keaton in da (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @07:34PMThe real issue is ONE word, that you uttered by WindBourne (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:07PMRe:Here the problem arises. by etzel (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:29PMRe:Here the problem arises. by dextroz (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:33PM9 replies beneath your current threshold.I've had broadband for 6 YEARS!! by Work Account (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:22PM did you rtfa? (Score:5, Insightful) by avi33 (116048) on Tuesday October 18, @04:45PM (#13820670) (http://www.usrnull.com/) In japan you can download an HD movie in 5 minutes. Just because you've had it for 6 with 'no problems' doesn't mean it can't be better, as in faster and cheaper.I bet you're paying the same or higher prices as you were all those years ago. If you rented a brand new car and paid the same price for 6 years, you'd be a fool. If you rented the same computer for 6 years for the same price, wouldn't you expect the technology to improve, or at least for the economies of scale to make it cheaper? Why not expect more from your Internet provider?You have been successfully groomed into a consumer with low expectations. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:did you rtfa? by Exstatica (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:07PMRe:did you rtfa? by goofballs (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:09PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. The Least Among U.S. (Score:5, Insightful) by fragmentate (908035) * on Tuesday October 18, @04:23PM (#13820364) (http://stoic.wisdomguild.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 09, @04:57AM) Other countries are claiming [slashdot.org] that the U.S. has mismanaged the internet. Which has led to broad speculation that the internet will splinter soon while those other countries work on their own "Internet."If one were to judge our use (read: underuse) of the internet on the public level... well, that's just a whole new angle on our lack of efficacy in educating our own. Think about it, at $50/month for a typical broadband connection in this country it's cost-prohibitive for a large segment of the population to access the internet regulary. Sure, there's dialup, but the frustration involved in dialup could discourage an internet "newbie" from using it. Let us also not forget that many, many metro areas have horrible phone lines. Our infrastructure in the U.S. is sad when you consider the fact that we're still (for now) the largest economy in the world.The best way to build your population up intellectually is through information. The undisputed king of information is the "Internet." Imagine all the eyes that could be opened. Mixed in, of course, with all the idiocy, smut, and exploitation...But some locales are contemplating making wireless accessible [azcentral.com] to the general public. So there is a movement. It's just a shame that in the most mighty economy in the world the cost is still prohibitive for a good segment of its population.Keep squeaking about it... perhaps the corporations will grease the wheel. But I doubt it. What we need is a brave provider to go for the quantity, and not the quality (I never thought I'd say that) -- in other words, make the pricing attractive for everyone. [ Reply to ThisRe:The Least Among U.S. by amliebsch (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @04:30PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by jeriqo (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @04:52PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by bonehead (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:27PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by jeriqo (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:25PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by readpunk (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:36PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by jeriqo (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:34PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by kryonD (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:57PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The Least Among U.S. by EnderWiggnz (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @04:58PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by Darby (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:38PMThree Alternatives by Pfhorrest (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:49PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The Least Among U.S. by ThosLives (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:41PMRe:The Least Among U.S. - corrections by ThosLives (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:45PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by MightyMartian (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:53PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by jejones (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:54PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by amightywind (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @04:56PM Re:The Least Among U.S. (Score:5, Insightful) by Vancorps (746090) on Tuesday October 18, @05:24PM (#13821121) wow, this is so wrong its amazing. As a product of the public education system I am offended by your statements. You also seem to be confusing a broken system with a broken implementation.We had a single 56k line at my high school which I later helped them shotgun 4 ways. Now they have a T1 but the point is that information does help and the Internet is the fastest way to find the information you're looking for. How did I get through calculus? Studying my math book all night every night? Most definitely not, I used Drexel's math forum. It got me through many a math class and my mother is a math teacher. So you say its a misconception? How exactly is it a misconception? Tell me, how many 5th graders were doing Algebra 40 years ago? I would tend to say that kids take in a lot of information about a very broad range of topics these days. Granted its been a few years since I've been in school, but my hs prepared for me college. I got my bachelors in two and a half years. So to your comment I respond by saying that you shouldn't make judgements about an entire system. Go to any community where parents are involved in their children's upbringing and you will find great schools teaching kids both the traditional way and using new tools like the Internet. Seriously, why should I be forced to look through an encyclopedia for an obscure topic when I can just google it and find it in seconds? Isn't that the most efficient use of my time? I can even cross reference what I find on google with other online resources.So please, watch the generalizations, they perform no good for anybody. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The Least Among U.S. by amightywind (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:03PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by StikyPad (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:54PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by 1000StonedMonkeys (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:25PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The Least Among U.S. by Cromac (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:27PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by shmlco (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:28PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by tlianza (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:46PMRe:The Least Among U.S. by jafac (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @11:50PMGreed by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:23PMRe:Greed by Lurk3r (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:56PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Cable internet by zeke-o (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. 100 Times Faster? (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, @04:24PM (#13820376) I'll bet that if MY DSL were 100 times faster than my current DSL, I would have gotten first post. [ Reply to This Re:100 Times Faster? (Score:4, Funny) by toma-kun (919382) on Tuesday October 18, @04:47PM (#13820701) If my DSL were 100 times faster I would be too busy looking at pr0n to post here. [ Reply to This | ParentSorry guys... by Auraiken (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:16PMRe:100 Times Faster? by KillShill (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:33PMA decision must be made. by CyricZ (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:24PMRe:A decision must be made. by JVert (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @04:26PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:A decision must be made. by KillShill (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:37PM How can we change this? (Score:5, Insightful) by MicroPat (895649) on Tuesday October 18, @04:24PM (#13820384) (http://www.mpios.com/) More importantly: How can we, as consumers, change this in America? [ Reply to ThisOne word... by Work Account (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @04:28PMRe:One word... by xs650 (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:21PM1 reply