SG Broadband Community

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-i ... -disaster/

What we need is a war on our own turf to destroy everything and we can rebuild from the ground up... this is pretty much why all those other countries have faster speeds as they've built everything in the last 10-15years vs us still using old phone/copper lines from the 20's!!


It's time these ISP's start investing more into their lines, dropping more and more fiber in rural area's to expand to everyone - not just those in a high populated area.

That..and size. The author of that article doesn't touch on many of the actual reasons.
*Size of country.
*Population density. Many of the smaller countries that have ultra fast high speed, a HUGE percent of their population live in dense cities. Author doesn't consider the rural and hill populations in those countries, yet he whines about ours.
*Gov't subsidized internet in many of those countries. Do we want our gov't to take ours over? Thus pay higher taxes? Didn't think so....

Sava700 wrote:
It's time these ISP's start investing more into their lines, dropping more and more fiber in rural area's to expand to everyone - not just those in a high populated area.

And yet you'd be first to bitch about the price hikes that would accompany that expansion

Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the obvious.

Humboldt wrote:And yet you'd be first to bitch about the price hikes that would accompany that expansion

Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the obvious.

Ohh but the price hikes now are more than enough to feed them the billions in profits they already get that could be sunk into just a fraction of the expansion needed to maybe double what we have now. The faster the speeds the less strain you put on the network thus allowing more traffic and higher bandwidth.

YeOldeStonecat wrote:That..and size. The author of that article doesn't touch on many of the actual reasons.
*Size of country.
*Population density. Many of the smaller countries that have ultra fast high speed, a HUGE percent of their population live in dense cities. Author doesn't consider the rural and hill populations in those countries, yet he whines about ours.
*Gov't subsidized internet in many of those countries. Do we want our gov't to take ours over? Thus pay higher taxes? Didn't think so....

Winner winner chicken dinner. A great example is Maine where about half the state can only get dial up or have to use satellite.

Lefty wrote:Winner winner chicken dinner. .

Gimme some arroz con pollo please! And lots of pegao in there!

Surely!!!

I bet many Japanese would take a bit slower speeds if they could trade their $6 a gallon gas, $100 watermelons and multi-generational mortgages for it!

Sava700 wrote:Ohh but the price hikes now are more than enough to feed them the billions in profits they already get that could be sunk into just a fraction of the expansion needed to maybe double what we have now. The faster the speeds the less strain you put on the network thus allowing more traffic and higher bandwidth.

That comment is 100% true and accurate. Like others and myself have said before.. the ISP's hide behind download caps and do not expand their already overloaded infrastructure because that would require them to spend more $$$money$$$.

What we need is some different independent companies to pop up in the future.. here in the U.S.A. nationwide.. Solid GB+ wireless technology will probably be the way to go in the future. Put up a tower and then maybe some repeaters of some sort.. don't have to worry about replacing old copper lines and laying out new fiber.

Leatherneck wrote:I bet many Japanese would take a bit slower speeds if they could trade their $6 a gallon gas, $100 watermelons and multi-generational mortgages for it!

A little research turned up this...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/0 ... -per-home/

JCom invested $20 per home to get broadband speeds up to 160Mbits. Compare that to $817 per home in the US. That was in 2009. There are many myths surrounding this issue. We should look towards having an honest discussion rather than one based on emotions.

The lifestyle of Suburbia is not sustainable without cheap oil, and the poor internet service in the US is only pointing out this reality. Perhaps each community pools funds together to pay and maintain a 50-mile fiber line to the nearest ISP ultra speed node, then the cost of living in such a way will hit home.

"the Japanese government regularly provide subsidies of up to 33% for the maintenance and upkeep of the entire network infrastructure with the aim of propelling Japan to the forefront of the fast growing global digital economy."

Now, lets think about that for a minute before people start demanding that the US government pave the roads for broadband all across the US. Cities in Korea and Japan are very..VERY dense. Tall modern buildings. A higher percentage of the overall population live in these denser areas. Relatively easy for Japans government to subsidize these projects and cover a fat percentage of their population. So when you see statistics like "invested 20 dollars per home"...don't forget to think about that for a minute...they light up one skyscraper apartment building with tons and tons of those typically tiny apartments in one building...that does not compare to what it costs to light up a typical home over here in the US with our more typical 'burb and rural areas. Proceed just one block down..and plug in another super high dense apartment building.

"the FTTH does not yet enjoy full coverage in Japan"

http://techsling.com/2009/05/fast-broad ... rom-japan/

Now, why are people saying broadband in the US is not growing?
When I signed up at Speedguide (2001)...I had just gotten DSL, a whole 3/4 of a meg. The faster packages were cable...at 1.5 megs. Soon 3 meg cable came out..and DSL went to 1.5 megs. A year or so later I upgrade to cable, getting the 6 meg package. A year or so later, they introduced power boost...and I enjoyed downloads of up to 28 megs (early in they had the throttle wide open and I enjoyed up past 70 megs) I'm now with U-Verse, 18 megs, I could get faster but keeping budget down, and most cable companies have packages of 100 megs, and Verizon has a package above 100 megs (160 megs I think?)

Summary...10 years of broadband for me, and I've seen steady growth. Rock steady growth.

YeOldeStonecat wrote:"the Japanese government regularly provide subsidies of up to 33% for the maintenance and upkeep of the entire network infrastructure with the aim of propelling Japan to the forefront of the fast growing global digital economy."

Now, lets think about that for a minute before people start demanding that the US government pave the roads for broadband all across the US. Cities in Korea and Japan are very..VERY dense. Tall modern buildings. A higher percentage of the overall population live in these denser areas. Relatively easy for Japans government to subsidize these projects and cover a fat percentage of their population. So when you see statistics like "invested 20 dollars per home"...don't forget to think about that for a minute...they light up one skyscraper apartment building with tons and tons of those typically tiny apartments in one building...that does not compare to what it costs to light up a typical home over here in the US with our more typical 'burb and rural areas. Proceed just one block down..and plug in another super high dense apartment building.

"the FTTH does not yet enjoy full coverage in Japan"

http://techsling.com/2009/05/fast-broad ... rom-japan/

Now, why are people saying broadband in the US is not growing?
When I signed up at Speedguide (2001)...I had just gotten DSL, a whole 3/4 of a meg. The faster packages were cable...at 1.5 megs. Soon 3 meg cable came out..and DSL went to 1.5 megs. A year or so later I upgrade to cable, getting the 6 meg package. A year or so later, they introduced power boost...and I enjoyed downloads of up to 28 megs (early in they had the throttle wide open and I enjoyed up past 70 megs) I'm now with U-Verse, 18 megs, I could get faster but keeping budget down, and most cable companies have packages of 100 megs, and Verizon has a package above 100 megs (160 megs I think?)

Summary...10 years of broadband for me, and I've seen steady growth. Rock steady growth.

IT's growing as well as pricing but mostly for those that already have it. The point that was being made was that there are still many areas in the US that don't have access to high speed broadband. Now it's true that Japan does provide subsidies but they are trying to push their economy for everyone. Of course this brings up the tax burden. In America this is demonized. I think we need a better balance. I would support limited taxation for network infrastructure so long as it is not tied into government control. I don't know how much government control Japan exerts over it's net. What we have to figure out in America is how much control are we willing to give the government in exchange for it's help in expanding broadband beyond those of us that are lucky enough to get it.

IMHO, I think we could be doing it better than Japan or anywhere for that matter so long as we take the best ideas from those success stories while discarding those portions that clearly won't work for us in America. I think that the net in America should be regarded as critical infrastructure rather than an entertainment luxury. The global economy has shifted and we need to be able to keep pace. But if it's considered critical, who protects it? Another point to consider is the lack of competition with ISP's. We need more imho. This would not only be better for consumers...it also avoids single points of failure. If the Chinese were to attack the Comcast network, the end effect could be devastating. Look at what recently happened to the Play Station network. If this were taken to a larger level, the result could be catastrophic. I look at the PSN example as a warning.

Here are my main points that I think our legislators should be discussing.

1. Short and long range plans to expand broadband access to all parts of America.
2. Keeping the net open
3. Fostering competition
4. Protecting the net and regarding it as critical infrastructure without unreasonable government intervention or oversight.

Lastly, I think America is going in the right direction. I think technology and innovation in the wireless space is where we can make our greatest gains in rural areas.

I absolutely agree on allowing more competition between ISPs. Reworded....allow ISPs to overlap areas. It's especially bad with cable, usually where you live..you have just one choice for your cable TV 'n internet. With DSL, you have your one local phone company providing DSL...many people assume it's just that but you usually are able to get DSL/fiber from other (specialized) DSL ISPs.

I'm not fond of allowing our gov't to step in. Japans (and others) gov'ts may be able to do things right...take Japans for example, they have growth and best interest in mind. The amount of horror that could happen if our gov't tried to emulate that....would be staggering. You have a valid point...how much control would we give our gov't over that. Because you know our gov't won't subsidize that without being able to stick both hands in that pot.

Allowing ISP competition, overlapping regions. The size of the region, or country for that matter. Smaller countries...focused in small cities...it's easy to allow competition across many ISPs. Large countries...ISPs are broken down into regions of coverage. Because they have to rely on their backbones in regions. It's a physical limitation that grew out of the chopped up monopoly of regions. Comcast has lines in its regions, but it has no lines on towns across the border. How does an ISP lay down lines to areas outside of its prior borders, if it will not get 100% of the residents? For that to happen, in a country our size...that's a huge logistical barrier. There would have to be some common, neutral, backbone providers. Which still raises cost, 'cuz there's now a "man in the middle".

Anyways, would love to see competition happen.

YeOldeStonecat wrote:I absolutely agree on allowing more competition between ISPs. Reworded....allow ISPs to overlap areas. It's especially bad with cable, usually where you live..you have just one choice for your cable TV 'n internet. With DSL, you have your one local phone company providing DSL...many people assume it's just that but you usually are able to get DSL/fiber from other (specialized) DSL ISPs.

I'm not fond of allowing our gov't to step in. Japans (and others) gov'ts may be able to do things right...take Japans for example, they have growth and best interest in mind. The amount of horror that could happen if our gov't tried to emulate that....would be staggering. You have a valid point...how much control would we give our gov't over that. Because you know our gov't won't subsidize that without being able to stick both hands in that pot.

Allowing ISP competition, overlapping regions. The size of the region, or country for that matter. Smaller countries...focused in small cities...it's easy to allow competition across many ISPs. Large countries...ISPs are broken down into regions of coverage. Because they have to rely on their backbones in regions. It's a physical limitation that grew out of the chopped up monopoly of regions. Comcast has lines in its regions, but it has no lines on towns across the border. How does an ISP lay down lines to areas outside of its prior borders, if it will not get 100% of the residents? For that to happen, in a country our size...that's a huge logistical barrier. There would have to be some common, neutral, backbone providers. Which still raises cost, 'cuz there's now a "man in the middle".

Anyways, would love to see competition happen.

Wow, talk about timing lol...this is the latest ruling by the SCOTUS where they said that AT&T must share it's lines with the competition while not raising rates.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... ection.ars

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that AT&T and other incumbent telephone companies must provide their competitors, including petitioner Talk America, with facilities needed to connect to the incumbents' network at regulated rates. The FCC urged the court to side with Talk America. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Thomas held that the court owed deference to the FCC's interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation was inconsistent with federal law.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act imposed two distinct obligations on a Baby Bell such as AT&T. First, AT&T is required to allow interconnection with a competitor's network at regulated rates. Second, AT&T's facilities are subject to "unbundling"—a competitor is entitled to use certain parts of the incumbent's network, such as the "local loop" that connects a customer premise with the Baby Bell's network, to provide its own services. Unbundling rates are also regulated by the FCC

At the same time, I'm not really fond of the idea that the SCOTUS had to step in. Sure, it was a legal matter to begin with but the FCC had already made it's decision consistent with current law. This ruling is gonna crop up elsewhere and I imagine that it will come up with Comcast and their "last mile".

Many folks in my area are under the impression that it is absolutely impossible to compete against Comcast. They wish there was competition and of course that could be good. Problem is cable companies rarely overbuild and you can't just "share" the fiber and coax for today's advanced services. It's not simple voice or just analog TV so you'd need to build an entire plant then market and sell it. It must not be worth it or we would see it more. Company "B" isn't likely to offer a vastly superior product at a reduced price or even the same price unless there is some real change. What is that change? People are worried about keeping their homes right now.

At least for 700 or so homes it won't suck for $70...the same damn price I pay for my MUCH slower package thru Comcast!

American ISPs have convinced us that Internet access is expensive—getting speeds of 100Mbps will set most people back by more than $100 a month, assuming the service is even available. Where I live in Chicago, Comcast's 105Mbps service goes for a whopping $199.95 ("premium installation" and cable modem not included). Which is why it was so refreshing to see the scrappy California ISP Sonic.net this week roll out its new 1Gbps, fiber-to-the-home service… for $69.99 a month.

Sonic.net has been around since 1994, selling DSL service in California, but it has recently expanded into fiber; the company has even secured the contract to manage Google's own 1Gbps fiber network that will connect 800+ faculty homes at Stanford University.

Sonic.net's new approach to broadband involves stringing its own fiber lines to homes and offering bargain-basement pricing; indeed, the new 1Gbps offering is the same price as the company's earlier bonded 40Mbps DSL offering (in which two phones lines each provide 20Mbps of bandwidth to a home). The price even includes home phone service.

Is this really a sustainable model? After all, Comcast offers 1.5Mbps service for a list price of $40; Sonic.net's new offering is more than 600x faster at only twice the price.

Dane Jasper, Sonic.net's CEO, tells me that the new fiber-to-the-home deployment is a trial and will reach about 700 homes when complete. "Honestly, only as those wrap up will we have a complete picture of the economic model," he says. "But I believe that fast service for a low cost is possible."

If the pilot in Sebastopol, California goes well, Sonic.net hopes to expand the service across the region.

Jasper doesn't think like a typical US Internet exec; in an interview last year, he made clear that his company tries to avoid artificial limits as a way to make more money. "The natural model when you have a simple duopoly capturing the majority of the market is segmentation: maximize ARPU [average revenue per user] by artificially limiting service in order to drive additional monthly spending. But fundamentally this is the wrong model for a service provider like us, and we have looked to Europe for inspiration… I believe that removing the artificial limits on speed, and including home phone with the product are both very exciting."

Though the current trial is small-scale, Sonic.net's pricing reminds us just how much room there is in the US Internet market for truly disruptive pricing of the kind that Google has been promising—but on a much larger scale—with its 1Gbps fiber builds in Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... ca-yup.ars

Leatherneck wrote:Many folks in my area are under the impression that it is absolutely impossible to compete against Comcast. They wish there was competition and of course that could be good. Problem is cable companies rarely overbuild and you can't just "share" the fiber and coax for today's advanced services. It's not simple voice or just analog TV so you'd need to build an entire plant then market and sell it. It must not be worth it or we would see it more. Company "B" isn't likely to offer a vastly superior product at a reduced price or even the same price unless there is some real change. What is that change? People are worried about keeping their homes right now.

The real change will be in the wireless space as it's not only eco friendly, but generally speaking, the start-up costs are much smaller.

Another point...Comcast didn't create the infrastructure they now own, they bought it. I know, I was a customer of 2 companies that were bought by Comcast. The first was Tri-County Cable and the second was Garden State Cable TV. The problem is that through the 70's and 80's there was a lot of competition just in my county in NJ. There were many disputes and hearings and of course much zoning and planning...all of which is paid for by the taxpayers. In essence, the people of NJ have a stake (a shareholder) in the physical infrastructure that Comcast now owns. This is why Cable needs to be regulated just as any other public utility and priced accordingly BASED ON CONSUMPTION.

If Comcast doesn't want to price based on consumption then they must allow a-la-carte programming. What would be even better is if Comcast started charging media companies to air their content. The only thing that we as consumers would pay for is consumption just like electric or water or gas.

JawZ wrote:The real change will be in the wireless space as it's not only eco friendly, but generally speaking, the start-up costs are much smaller.

Another point...Comcast didn't create the infrastructure they now own, they bought it. I know, I was a customer of 2 companies that were bought by Comcast. The first was Tri-County Cable and the second was Garden State Cable TV.

You're in an area that got absorbed by Comcast...so in those cases...yes, immediately the assets are assimilated. But when an ISP is bought up, its equipment is usually upgraded/replaced over time to become standardized with the mothership ISP that just bought them up. And the backbones get replaced/dropped and point to the new mothership.

BTW, I'm also totally 100% pro "pay by consumption"...I've been saying that for years. Pay for what you use..just like gas, electricity, food, etc.

YeOldeStonecat wrote:You're in an area that got absorbed by Comcast...so in those cases...yes, immediately the assets are assimilated. But when an ISP is bought up, its equipment is usually upgraded/replaced over time to become standardized with the mothership ISP that just bought them up. And the backbones get replaced/dropped and point to the new mothership.

BTW, I'm also totally 100% pro "pay by consumption"...I've been saying that for years. Pay for what you use..just like gas, electricity, food, etc.

I only watch about a dozen channels but I have to pay for all those packages to get just those damn 12 channels. LOL

YeOldeStonecat wrote:
BTW, I'm also totally 100% pro "pay by consumption"...I've been saying that for years. Pay for what you use..just like gas, electricity, food, etc.

Yeah see this would be maybe ok if they did TV programming the same way. Otherwise it's not right to do one part of the service different cause I don't watch much TV but I have to sub to a package to get the few channels I watch.

JawZ wrote:The real change will be in the wireless space as it's not only eco friendly, but generally speaking, the start-up costs are much smaller.

Another point...Comcast didn't create the infrastructure they now own, they bought it. I know, I was a customer of 2 companies that were bought by Comcast. The first was Tri-County Cable and the second was Garden State Cable TV. The problem is that through the 70's and 80's there was a lot of competition just in my county in NJ. There were many disputes and hearings and of course much zoning and planning...all of which is paid for by the taxpayers. In essence, the people of NJ have a stake (a shareholder) in the physical infrastructure that Comcast now owns. This is why Cable needs to be regulated just as any other public utility and priced accordingly BASED ON CONSUMPTION.

If Comcast doesn't want to price based on consumption then they must allow a-la-carte programming. What would be even better is if Comcast started charging media companies to air their content. The only thing that we as consumers would pay for is consumption just like electric or water or gas.

Whether or not wireless is wholly eco friendly remains to be seen. That is for another thread.

No argument to you second point. It is why attention should be paid when the private sector (conglomerates) are allowed to purchase public (our) properties. Like some mining rights, they should be leased. Thus permitting some level of public control.

David wrote:Whether or not wireless is wholly eco friendly remains to be seen. That is for another thread.

Agreed..a whole 'nother discussion. There's quite a bit of concern about the effects of "noise" like that for humans.

IMHO, our government doesn't do a very good job on deciding where/how our tax dollars should be spent. Special interest groups and pay offs control this country. Greed! The people want everything, with no clue on how to pay for it... Just keep printing more money!

So what is more important to you guys- internet, free healthcare, military, police, schools, firemen, research on why frogs fart, uncollected debt, good grief! Just give me what I deserve! Right! A chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway and unlimited internet- because I need it, want it, must have it and, well, I deserve it!

Blows me away... 20 years ago, there was no internet, per say and now it is necessary to sustain life!!! People had better prioritize, that is all I'm saying. Just give ME what I DESERVE!!!!!

Ken wrote:IMHO, our government doesn't do a very good job on deciding where/how our tax dollars should be spent. Special interest groups and pay offs control this country. Greed! The people want everything, with no clue on how to pay for it... Just keep printing more money!

So what is more important to you guys- internet, free healthcare, military, police, schools, firemen, research on why frogs fart, uncollected debt, good grief! Just give me what I deserve! Right! A chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway and unlimited internet- because I need it, want it, must have it and, well, I deserve it!

Blows me away... 20 years ago, there was no internet, per say and now it is necessary to sustain life!!! People had better prioritize, that is all I'm saying. Just give ME what I DESERVE!!!!!

so after reading all of this I'm now really wondering why frogs fart...

Sava700 wrote:so after reading all of this I'm now really wondering why frogs fart...

Seeing as how their ass is water tight, it is a bit intriguing!

How many poles lean where you live? You think they want to hang expensive line on poles that lean? Even one pole.

We are an enormous country run by a bunch of monopolies. Our speed has increased since the 80’s. Just not as fast as other countries but then we wasn’t blown to shreds during WWII either. Much of our infrastructure is old.

Our infrastructure sucks.

Dang we got slow internet!!!

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Dang we got slow internet!!!

Lolz that's a business account AND it's expensive compared to lower prices and much faster speeds for residental areas in other countries. Roundeye said it good too, our country wasn't blown to hell in WWII with everything starting off fresh - we are still dealing with old copper lines that need to be replaced YESTERDAY not now. As for leaning poles..my God If I got a nickle for each one in my area I'd be rich!!

I have pretty good service. Can't bitch for free.

Sava700 wrote: our country wasn't blown to hell in WWII with everything starting off fresh - we are still dealing with old copper lines that need to be replaced YESTERDAY not now.

Sava700 wrote:Lolz that's a business account AND it's expensive

Subject of this thread is "...internet in america sucks.."....this business account is still internet in america. 50/10 doesn't suck in my book.
And for what you get, fast support, multiple static IPs, ability to run whatever you want (within legality), that's a lot of good stuff for the money.

The thunderstorms we had roll through a week ago...one of my clients had their building hit...took out their SMC gateway. I went onsite after talking on the phone and having the girl in the office do basic troubleshooting...I determined that the modem was toasted. Called Comcast business support..got a live body within a minute. Talked to him briefly, didn't have to argue with him like many other ISPs that want you to try everything like "restore your computer" just because your internet is down. Nope..within 1 minute..he said he'd roll a truck out in about 2 - 3 hours and have a tech replace the modem. I went down the block to work at another client. About 1.5 hours later the tech calls my phone, he's onsite and they're all set.

I know that our infrastructure is old compared to....I've said that at least 100 times in past threads about this subject. Not only that...but those countries (for some reason) we try to compare ourselves to, are often with over 90% of the computer using population packed into dense cities...and those small areas are quite easy to upgrade the infrastructure in. Compared to...just look at the size of our country, and we're more rural as far as population coverage. Common sense tells you we're immensely...absolutely exponentially much more expensive and massive of a task to just go out and drop fiber across our nearly 4 million square miles.

YeOldeStonecat wrote:. Common sense tells you we're immensely...absolutely exponentially much more expensive and massive of a task to just go out and drop fiber across our nearly 4 million square miles.

Which is why wireless will probably be the tech that advances us. Look at all the spectrum that was freed up with the transition to DTV.

We just demo'd 1GB/300MB High speed data at a show. Would that be fast enough?
Some big stuff in the works. Cable is not dead and will evolve into more of an internet feel.

Leatherneck wrote:We just demo'd 1GB/300MB High speed data at a show.

Nice!

Leatherneck wrote:We just demo'd 1GB/300MB High speed data at a show. Would that be fast enough?
Some big stuff in the works. Cable is not dead and will evolve into more of an internet feel.

Depends on the cost of it and if a insane 250gig/month cap is still in place which would make the service useless. As I posted earlier there is a small company out on the West Coast that is giving very high speeds several times faster than what Comcast is offering on average for way less than what they charge as around $50/month!! So yeah the speeds sound nice but how much does it cost, when is the time frame as in before I die will it be available and will there be a data cap which will make it pointless?

I'm sure it will be a while before consumers see these speeds at an affordable price. It's coming though. Along with this kind of speed comes many other changes and I can't see a 250GB being feasible.

Lefty wrote:

Duuuuude! Even in Maine you got pretty nice speeds!

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Duuuuude! Even in Maine you got pretty nice speeds!

Yeah, I do, b/c I live in the middle of town. If I lived in North Bath 1.5 miles away I would be on dial up or satellite.