FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Microsoft's dual-screenbooklet shows 'face' on web ¤ The Register
Next: NEWS: Android Market Push Threatens BlackBerry and iPhone
From: David Kaye on 17 Mar 2010 17:34 seaweedsl <seaweedsteve(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it. Serves >me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group. This is true, especially since the FCC's plan is back in the news as of a couple days ago. For a country that brags about being first in everything, we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet infrastructure.
From: DanS on 17 Mar 2010 19:10 sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:hnrec2$m5f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > seaweedsl <seaweedsteve(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for >>it. Serves me, more or less. Far more informative than the >>spam on this group. > > This is true, especially since the FCC's plan is back in > the news as of a couple days ago. For a country that brags > about being first in everything, we're actually behind > Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet > infrastructure. > Croatia - 21,829 sq. miles - 4.492 million Serbia - 34,116 sq. miles - 7.350 million Czech - 49,007 sq. miles - 10.427 million USA - 3,537,441 sq. miles - 281.421 million There are 31 states that are larger than Czech, 39 states bigger than Serbia, and 41 states bigger than Croatia. I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than all three of those countries combined. If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia) it shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that covered nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 = 23,138 sq. miles).
From: John Higdon on 17 Mar 2010 22:58 In article <Xns9D3EC322CDCE6thisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131>, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote: > I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than all > three of those countries combined. So, are you saying that the US has more people than it can handle? By that logic, we should have shortages of everything. Funny that we used to lead the world in quality and quantity of telephone service *per capita*. Now, to justify our miserably inferior broadband availability (and on a per-capita basis, it IS worse than most third-world countries), you compare our infrastructure on an absolute basis with some of the poorest nations on earth. > If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia) it > shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by > broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that covered > nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 = 23,138 sq. > miles). So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our problem? -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: Roy on 18 Mar 2010 01:29 On 3/17/2010 7:58 PM, John Higdon wrote: > In article<Xns9D3EC322CDCE6thisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131>, > DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote: > >> I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than all >> three of those countries combined. > > So, are you saying that the US has more people than it can handle? By > that logic, we should have shortages of everything. Funny that we used > to lead the world in quality and quantity of telephone service *per > capita*. > > Now, to justify our miserably inferior broadband availability (and on a > per-capita basis, it IS worse than most third-world countries), you > compare our infrastructure on an absolute basis with some of the poorest > nations on earth. > >> If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia) it >> shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by >> broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that covered >> nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 = 23,138 sq. >> miles). > > So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our problem? > Density is the difference. Its easy to justify running fiber when the line supports multiple households. South Korea is usually used as a comparison. Its only 2/3rds the size of California but has 4 times as many people per square mule. The density in South Korea is slightly less than Santa Clara County. 20% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul and most people in live in high rise apartment buildings. Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
From: John Higdon on 18 Mar 2010 02:13
In article <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d(a)posted.southvalleyinternet>, Roy <aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: > Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing > multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no > wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage. That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee. If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap. Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |