Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: billybudd
Somebody please explain this to me. I hear a lot about the US "falling behind" because we don't have 100mbit lines to the house.

For millions of Americans, the only Internet service available is dial-up telephone service - often at speeds of 15-to-20 kilobits-per-second.

Internet via wireless and satellite is not a practical alternative. It is too slow and expensive and has inadequate capacity.

Is downloading pirated movies and music faster really that necessary to the economy?

No, but digital communications is becoming an essential requirement for business. A modern telecommunications infrastructure would also reduce our energy demands, and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

Unfortunately, AT&T doesn't really care about our position in the global economy or our national security.

13 posted on 08/05/2007 12:33:01 AM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: HAL9000
For millions of Americans, the only Internet service available is dial-up telephone service - often at speeds of 15-to-20 kilobits-per-second.

I live in a suburban city, I have several high speed options, Comcast, WOW, Sprint, ... and I have to pay for them. I should not have to pay a higher rate so those in the boonies can have the same choices.

Those living out in the middle of nowhere, have other advantages, like a quieter country side, and the ability to keep chickens in the back yard. Should people in the sticks be taxed extra to provide services to city dwellers?

No. People are free to live where they want, they just have to set their priorities.

51 posted on 08/05/2007 5:08:55 AM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: HAL9000
Unfortunately, AT&T doesn't really care about our position in the global economy or our national security

It really, really didn't help a few years ago when AT&T went around buying up cable services so that they could implement a high-speed delivery system (which as AT&T, they were barred from doing themselves), and immediately upon completing sinking a couple decades worth of profits into the project, the FCC announced a regulation change which required them to give free access to the bandwidth to all communications companies....making billions of dollars just go "poof".

82 posted on 08/05/2007 9:19:58 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: HAL9000

See, that’s a total strawman argument. I’m not talking about dialup vs. broadband. Obviously, dialup is too slow for *any* internet application. My argument is that the big bulk of economic benefit comes within the first 250 to 500kB of bandwith. What I don’t get is why we need 100mbit lines. Even the 3-8mbit lines available in most of the country are overkill for most productive applications. Also, how would increasing our bandwith reduce our energy demands? Please don’t say telecommuting - that ship sunk about 10 years ago. If anything, people would leave their computers on longer to download more porn and movies, wasting more electricity.


84 posted on 08/05/2007 10:33:59 AM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson