[MW Forums]

Technology industry experts said U.S. broadband networks need to get faster to meet the demand for on demand video content. more

[macnews]

While I agree we do need faster speeds and the adoption of broadband in general has lagged other countries, I do not agree the government needs to get involved. Start doing that and you could see limits or tremendous gov't control.
Note: I am referring to Fed Gov't. If the people in a state demand of the state gov't to improve things I am more at ease with that then at the fed gov't level but still would prefer a hands off approach.

[thurstonhowell]

I recommend checking out the "Net At Risk" episode of the Moyers on America podcast. While it's really about Net Neutrality, it covers the issue of the U.S. being behind on broadband. Somewhat relevant to this topic.

[macnews]

you have a link?

[tomtom]

In the UK, I get 10 mbs from my Cable TV Provider. From sites such as Microsoft and Apple I usually get the full rate which suggests that the Internet backbone in Europe and the connection thereto is pretty good. Some Cable Co services and UK sites appear to download above the rated 10 mbs.
The upload rate is only 376 kbs which is fine for my purposes (Web sites and E-mail) but will need to be upped if the household becomes involved in simultaneous iChats in future. File Sharing services are rife in the UK and take up a large share of available Internet bandwidth and is the reason given for limiting upload rates.
The Cable backbone here, used to provide Cable Modem service, supports video on demand for hundreds of movies, interactive TV, interactive Gaming and "time shift" viewing of the past week programs where copyright issues are resolved. Reliability and Service Level are excellent.
A separate parallel network is used by the Cable Co to provide phone service.
The Cable Co has upped the Internet Access bandwidth each year for same or lower prices. A 50 mbs service is rumored to be in trial. There are no restrictions on downloads. ISPs generally restrict ADSL downloads per month particularly for the lower priced plans.
Another trend we have here is that the Cellular Operators are buying up ISPs and are providing broadband ADSL access bundled with mobile phone services. This reduces churn. We have plenty of competition then and the UK market is essentially now without much regulation.

[Rhywun]

Yeah - more speed, please. Although I have to admit RoadRunner has done a reasonable job of improving speed. I remember it was around 1 Mbps when I started with them a few years ago, now it's over 4. But then I've also heard the same company offers double the speed in other parts of the country, and that just sucks.

[Ronald_Schoedel]

Quote:

---

The panel also discussed some of the more innovative devices of 2006, such [as] the Microsoft Zune portable music player

---

Best. Joke. Ever.

[Nobody]

For years now, some countries have symmetrical 100 Mbps for $20/month.

[whitedog]

I agree the notion of the Federal government getting involved in developing broadband infrastructure is inimical. In the first place it lacks the expertise. In the second place, corporate welfare is already out of hand. Big media companies have too much influence in Washington as it is.
If broadband were a public utility, like roads, power and water, there might be a bigger role for government to play in its improvement. Or if it were a limited public resource like the over-air broadcast spectrum. But most phone and cable assets are privately held. The government's proper role here is oversight and regulation to insure fair competition and pricing, not financing.
The national government has for many years been neglecting its responsibility for the upkeep of existing infrastructure, like highways, rail, airports and harbors, not to mention national parks, all of which serve essential public interests. Before it spends money underwriting communication corporation expansion, it should look to these fundamental obligations. There is no shortage of private capital available for private companies to draw on for broadband improvements. They don't need taxpayer money - and shouldn't get it.

[MCJ]

Quote:

---

Services that deliver as little as 768 kilobits per second (Kbps) are considered broadband in the U.S., while services in Europe and elsewhere are much faster.

---

Count your blessings! In this country they define broadband as 384 Kbps and up. The fastest connections max out at 4 Mbps.

[j_drake]

Here's that Link you asked for. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Took 43 seconds to find doing a Google search on "Net at Risk" /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Grapho]

I could not agree more with you post. I would think that big corporations in America are just to greedy to spend the money on something that is already providing plenty of revenue as it is (if it is not broken, don't fix it mentality). The only way would be for one of these corporations to offer radically faster service at a reasonable price to offset their competitions market share and force them to follow suit. Money is the only motivation for a profit driven endeavor. If their is a way for one to capture more market, they will do it and they will benefit from doing it. The rest will have to play catch-up. But who will be the first to take the plunge. Even worse, the state of things where one company is the ONLY choice for broadband service further stifles the motivation to upgraded their infrastructure. Not enough competition is the problem.

[k88dad]

Net Neutrality is a huge issue. If we let Verizon, ATT, et al. have control then they will decide which sites download fast and which don't. They would have tremendous financial incentive to do so. They would have an obligation to their shareholders to do so.
Think this is a joke? The lame duck Michigan legislature recently passed a telco-lobbyist-sponsored bill that had no amendments to prevent the scenario that I just descrbed. Those who care are counting on the Governor to veto this bill.
The moral of the story? Infrastructure requires some government intervention. I understand the Libertarian point of view, but pure capitalism and adequate infrastructure are mutually exclusive. I'll take my capitalism lightly modified. Thank you.

[derbazooka]

Let market forces reign. If the American markets demand (on the whole, not strictly the user base on this message board) 4Mb connections, so be it. Corporations have every right to earn a profit. It's not "greedy" if they decide not to provide a service for which there is limited market and no profit justification.
That assumes, of course, that we're operating in a competitive market. If we're not, then it would be reasonable for State or Federal intervention to either encourage competition or legislate performance levels that would approximate that which would be seen in a competitive marketplace. (or the "tubes" guy's best guess at it.)