The Future of Broadband Internet

25

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

vanFurbsman

My situation in Western Massachussetts is the wireless option, LTE through verizon.
We have this ad hoc setup that uses an antenna to a specialized router, its really a huge save though – our only other option was 56k.

In spite of how rural our market is, there was a DSL box installed not to long ago, but it zero markings. Also, there's this goverment-funded slug of a project:

http://wiredwest.net/about-us/value-mission-and-values/

avatar

kajol

what Joe replied I'm stunned that someone can profit $7499 in four weeks on the computer. have you seen this site link http://www.wow65.Com

avatar

rrighteous

We could have had real competition in the broadband industry if the FCC and Congress would have chosen to enforce the Telecom Act of '96 and kept a course that would have provided open access to the last mile for competitive broadband companies.

As others have mentioned, the telecom oligopoly (the Baby Bells, and Big Cable) has been able to effectively squash the emergence competitive carriers not because they were better or cheaper, but because they have maintained regulatory advantages that cut off competitors from the heavily subsidized and monopoly protected last mile infrastructure. I was a senior exec in one of the fastest growing broadband companies in 2000 - and watched enforcement of the Telecom Act dissolve in real time. Where it once took 3 weeks on average to get a copper pair for DSL it began taking 3 months average not due to supply, but due to a litany of problems the Bells were able to make-up and not resolve, since there were no consequences if they failed to provide service.

I also saw first hand big telecom squashing local municipal broadband efforts by sowing fear and uncertainty (with both flat out lies and exaggerations) with multi-million dollar ad and door to door scare campaigns. We would have and could have broadband like South Korea if we had government officials that were willing to stand up to big telecom and promote a healthy competitive market, but we don't so enjoy paying more for service and getting less.

Oh and to Buttersoft above - In Australia you should be thinking fixed wireless. In low density situations like what you have it works great and with the right gear can transmit a signal to the end user for miles, and use wireless backhaul to reach a POP. My theory back in 2000 was that DSL would predominate in the most dense areas due to its range limitations but high bandwidth capability, Cable in the medium density areas due to its range advantage over DSL, and Wireless in the low density areas due to its low cost of infrastructure and lack of signal congestion in rural areas. So far I think that's the way the market has gone - Fiber is coming and getting deeper into the network but is still too expensive for most last mile deployments and still relies on DSL or Cable infrastructure to reach the subscribers.

I wish muni and county broadband would have taken off, I think those would have been massively transformative to the technology landscape of the country and promoted both proactive local government and greater citizen involvement in their communities.

avatar

dgrmouse

Thank you for the detailed and realistic description of the state of affairs. You're the guy I wish I could talk to to find out why my 400ms pings and 8%+ packet loss can't be resolved.

avatar

PCWolf

Some Fun facts this Article Fails to mention.

DSL:
Anybody who says that DSL is a non-shared dedicated connection, is either Ignorant, or Flat Out Lying. The Share point is at the DSLAM. So when it reaches it's capacity, YOU WILL SLOW DOWN!
Most DSL Provides will not offer "Stand Alone" DSL & will require you to have "Home Phone Service" before you can get DSL. Depending on Area, this might Double or Triple the cost of having DSL.

Satellite:
Tends to suffer from High Latency & is said to be horrible for Internet Gaming. Also tends to be be Expensive as compared to other options, not including the Dish & the Time it takes to install & orient the dish. May not work if you don't face the right direction or have obstructions that block view of the sky. Such as Trees or Buildings.

Cable: Most Cable Providers charge up to $10 more if you don't bundle it with their "Double/Triple Play Options.

avatar

The Mac

that actually hasnt been true of telephone DSL in several years.

They all offer whats called "dry loop" which doesnt require telephone service

avatar

gamewizard

I feel like a lucky bastard I have a 50 Mbps downstream fiber connection with a up speed of over 20 Mbps and its less than 80 bucks a month, so suck it cable.

avatar

aarcane

I chose the best of a bad situation. There's only one ISP in my area that supports static IPs with broadband speeds. The others with static IPs only provide 1.5Mbit, and the ones with near fibre speeds only provide Dynamic IPs unless you spend a prohibitive amount on their "Business Class" services.

avatar

HeroOfCanton

Why not buy the faster service and use something like DynDNS to simulate a static IP address? http://mingersoft.com/blog/2010/07/no-static-ip-use-dyndns/

avatar

yammerpickle2

My internet provider has not upgraded their network in 8 to 10 years, but the price has sure gone up in that time. I hope the Google fiber networks really take off and knock these guys out of the market.

avatar

everettehouse

Moorhead said, “Countries leapfrog each other as it relates to broadband. The United States was viewed as the mobile laggard during the EDGE days, but now has one of the top spots in LTE. Countries like Korea and Japan will continue to dominate with speeds, unless the US government would subsidize fiber rollout. Given the US budget challenges, I don’t see that happening, meaning the United States does not gain leadership footing in broadband.”

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Mitt Romney.

And corporate welfare is welfare, my friend.

avatar

lordfirefox

Our ISP here where I live got rid of their xDSL and Dial-Up packages and Offer only Fiber Optic. And later this week they're upgrading everyone to Fiber 2.0 which doesn't need IP addresses on the customer end because it's DHCP.

avatar

LatiosXT

Riddle me this...

The underlying lack of competitors is a both an infrastructure and political issue. You could either put down your own wires in the ground, which is very expensive and there's the government bureaucratic process to get permits to do such. Or you can piggy back on the bigger telecom's lines, where they'll probably rape you anyway.

So you know what I say? The government should own that infrastructure.

It's too bad that won't happen.

Oh and there's also the fact that America is a pretty huge country to try and say "broadband for everyone!" It's much easier with say Japan who covers a third of the US population in an area the size of California.

avatar

dgrmouse

LatiosXT said, "The underlying lack of competitors is a both an infrastructure and political issue."

This is absolutely true. AT&T and Windstream made news not too long ago for pushing GA HB282, a law that would prevent Georgia towns and cities from constructing their own municipal networks in cases where existing options (including overpriced garbage 1.5Mb DSL lines) were available.

LatiosXT said, "It's much easier with say Japan who covers a third of the US population in an area the size of California."

The geographically large area is a factor, but it factors into /everything/. If we were geographically smaller, as a country, we would be able to elect politicians that we can meet at the bar on weekends instead of faceless fund-raisers whose constituents are not citizens but multinational corporations.

avatar

buttersoft

Come to Australia instead. Same land area as the continental US, with one tenth the population.

avatar

Nixon

Oh I would love to change my ISP, but everything available to me where I live is nothing less then choosing a poison.

"Arg, which poison do ya choose me lad!?
Death by data caparoos, or how about ye take a bottle of ol' flimsy?"

avatar

Dorito Bandit

I have Comcast's Performance Internet that just received a speed increase from 20Mbps to 30Mbps and I do see a big difference in performance. Especially watching HD videos on youtube. Sadly, my monthly bill is $130 US dollars for basic cable and Performance Internet (Double Play Bundle). We need more competition out there for CON-cast and the other big dogs. Prices, at least to me, are outrageous. When you want Internet, and have no other choices, you have to give your money to these over-charging fackers! I hope more tish will arrive soon! We desperately need it!

Also, I have been thinking about buying my own cable modem to eliminate the $7 monthly rental fee, and was wondering if any of you have done this, and if so, have you noticed an increase in speed? Also, what modem would you recommend to use with Comcast?

Thanks!

avatar

The Mac

i own my own. Motorolla SB6121.

But in my market, there isnt a separate charge for the modem, its part of the price. I just hated the shitty westrel they gave me.

I pay $140 for performance internet+Digital perferred cable

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

You need to contact your local Comcast office and ask what modems you can use. There should be some place you can drive to, usually where you could pay your bill or pick up new equipment.

Oh, and unless they substantially increase the upstream bandwidth (they won't), you're not going to see much improvement. Jumping from 20 to 30 downstream is inconsequential.

avatar

QuikWgn

http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net provides a real time list of all approved equipment for a customer's area and level of service. Be advised that some manufacturers do not sell all models at retail especially MTA's (which do both internet and phone).

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Problem with Internet service in America is that we lack market competition.

A single service provider will typically dominate a given geographic region.

Dominant service providers bride state politicians to keep competition at bay.

Service providers have no incentive to upgrade infrastructures, as competition is minimal. Bribery is always cheaper than infrastructure.

Service providers can charge exorbitant rates following a cheaper honeymoon period, as there is, again, a distinct lack of competition.

The FCC cannot regulate the industry as needed, thanks in no small part to the aforementioned bribes.

avatar

Dorito Bandit

I agree! I was typing what I wrote above as you were posting your comment. We badly need more competition!

avatar

The Mac

It has little to with bribery, and everything to do with deomgrpahics.

If a build out is to occur in a town, the provider makes a deal with the town government so that they can recoup their costs before competition sets in. Sometimes its a 5 year exclusive deal, sometimes 10, sometimes they allow DSL along with cable. there are many types of arrangements. Sometimes the town has to subsidize the buildout because the provider wouldnt be able to make it profitable otherwise.

Its called a charter.

Without that guarantee, no one in their right mind would spend the kind of capital it would require to build out in east bumbfuck.

So you deal with a oligopoly/monopoly, or you get nothing.

take your pick.

avatar

dgrmouse

The Mac said, "It has little to with bribery, and everything to do with [sic] deomgrpahics."

Except for the cases where it has everything to do with bribery, of course. Look at the Chattanooga case, where the power company wants to expand its $70 100mbps fiber network. Comcast tried to sue them out of business, and then resorted to legislative extortion. There are plenty of places right now that are being hamstrung by extremely powerful lobbying interests and extremely corrupt political systems - and these cases have nothing to do with charters.

avatar

The Mac

I agree, but thats the exception, not the rule.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.