Other nations zip by USA in high-speed Net race

http://www.usatoday.com/ ^ | 1/18/2004 | Jim Hopkins Contributing: Michelle Kessler

[BigSkyFreeper]

The article is misleading only to the point that corporate management is only saying their franchises should only be relegated to dialup and nothing more. I'll bet you these franchises are close enough to a DSLAM they could be wired with even a xDSL connection.

There are many areas of the country where there is crappy cell phone coverage, no wireless internet, no cable or dsl internet. I happen to live in such an area.

[CasearianDaoist]

Yea, you are right. WiFi does not scale very well. The new technology (ED-VO?) is a real breakthrough. True unteathered broadband in large subscrber areas. Where are you that you only have dialup, if I might ask?

[dpwiener]

There's no excuse for not having the entire country wired.

At whose expense? You want the government (which means taxpayers) to do it? You really think that will be more efficient and effective than simply letting individuals and businesses pay for their own broadband connections at such time as they think it is worth their while?

This is reminiscent of the flap a few years ago about the "digital divide". Remember how the poor were being permanently segregated and left in the backwaters by advanced technology? And the solution was to have the government subsidize (or give away) computers for poor people?

Unfortunately for the proponents of computer give-away programs, technology raced ahead too fast for them. The price of computers dropped to the point that anyone could afford one. Just like a VCR, which only the rich used to be able to afford. Just like a TV, which only the rich used to be able to afford. Just like a telephone, which only the rich used to be able to afford.

And just like 2400 baud modems, which only the rich used to be able to afford. But of course broadband is entirely different, isn't it?

[BigSkyFreeper]

Of course not. The government IS the problem, not the solution. I've always believed and maintain that viewpoint. By and large, the only reason the large content providers aren't racing to wire EVERYONE is because it's too expensive, and they won't be able to turn over a profit in sparsely populated areas of this country without charging exorbantly high prices that it will deter people from jumping onto the bandwagon. It's easier for say a AT&T to slap up a wi-fi antenna in say Phoenix, Arizona. They can cover several neighborhoods, as oppposed to say an antenna on top of a large hill in remote Montana, where the population is spread out to the point it's 1 person per 7 square miles.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Northeastern Montana

[Lessismore]

It is the IEEE after all.

The "I" stands for "Institute", not "International".

While this issue may be oriented towards the technologies you cite, other issues cover the whole field.

In communications technology, Europe and Asia are now as advanced as the US. This was not the case as recently as the '80s.

Besides the research work being done outside the US, there are excellent commercial companies, e.g. Nokia in wireless, Bookham in integrated optics, JDS Uniphase in optical components, etc.

The US doesn't have any particular lead in lambda networking. Unless, lacking a George Gilder, they have a "hype gap".

[HAL9000]

At whose expense? You want the government (which means taxpayers) to do it?

Ubiquitous broadband will be paid for by ratepayers, not taxpayers.

What the government needs to do is order a rapid phase-out of dial-up circuits from the PSTN over - say - seven years. Then the telcos can upgrade our telecommunications infrastructure to a modern system in a timely manner.

[fatso]

World's largest mobile operator to expand with Motorola

China Mobile Communication Corporation (CMCC) has selected Motorola's Global Telecom Solutions Sector to expand its Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications network and improve data services for users in Beijing and 13 important provinces of China.


The $510 million expansion project will prepare CMCC for the coming evolution to 3G by upgrading its GSM/General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) network and enhancing the transmission of wireless data to users through an improved GPRS offering.

The expansion will enable CMCC to meet demands for high-quality mobile and data services as well as enable the operator to increase subscriber capacity by up to 10.5 million users.

[Lessismore]

GSM is the mobile standard developed mainly by the Europeans.

[Bogey78O]

FTTP. Fiber cable straight to the house. Capable of up to 625MB/s (from what I've been told) but they split up up and cap it down.

[Bogey78O]

DSLAMs are expensive to install. Not to mention you need to be within range of the CO or an RT. If not they then have to place an RT. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for these suckers to get rolling. A T-1 and DSL are not in the same class of service either.

[Bogey78O]

Placing plant is expensive. You'd have to have both runs up and in place in working order then cut it over. This isn't chump change.


The gov't had a grreat plan in the early 20th century that got almost every person in America a phone. Once that happened they abandoned the plan and decided to see how much money could be squeezed out of the Bells. Now America has to deal with the mess it created.

[justlurking]

Yes, the USA has a much larger land mass, but here in Canada we have an even larger one. And yet, we have broadband connectivity rates something like twice that of the States. What's going on, why is the hi-tech superpower falling behind in this area?

Because most of the Canadian population is concentrated into a much smaller geographical area.