Posted on 03/24/2015 10:22:40 AM PDT by Patriot777
In response to the government's recent declarations that internet speeds of 100Mb/s should be available to "nearly all homes" in the UK, a great many might suggest that this is easier said than done. It would not be the first such bold claim, yet internet connections in many rural areas still languish at 20th-century speeds. The government's digital communications infrastructure strategy contains the intention of giving customers the "right" to a broadband connection of at least 5Mb/s in their homes.
There's no clear indication of any timeline for introduction, nor what is meant by "nearly all homes" and "affordable prices". But in any case, bumping the minimum speed to 5Mb/s is hardly adequate to keep up with today's online society. It's less than the maximum possible ADSL1 speed of 8Mb/s that was common in the mid-2000s, far less than the 24Mb/s maximum speed of ADSL2+ that followed, and far, far less than the 30-60Mb/s speeds typical of fibre optic or cable broadband connections available today.
In fact a large number of rural homes still are not able to access even the previously promised 2Mb/s minimum of the Digital Britain report in 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
I was surprised to find San Diego CA all wired at DSL speeds.
I now have lived in two town with population smaller than 100k who have better internet service
I live in a town with less than 100 people and have high speed internet.
The free market werks fer me.
he done gave us Our Obamaphone and caint give us no Obamanet??
Good to know that the guys at Los Alamos can download their Netflix in 1/8 the time.
“he done gave us Our Obamaphone and caint give us noObamanet?”
Careful, he might give you free COMCAST !!! You’ll be sorry...
The internet is like cars.
Some can afford Ferraris, while others have Fords and Chevys.
Some can afford 4G. Some can afford dial-up.
But everybody gets to work................
ObamaCast....theres a dreadful thought!
and what ‘bout our right o fast pron downloads?
that will be covered in that new Net Nueterality Beel!!!
Here in NH, I’m half a mile from a cable connection, so I have to rely on DSL.
Our DSL was great, until the geniuses in Concord decided that a fly-by-night, seat-of-the-pants, shoestring-operation should be given the communications franchise for the whole state.
Verizon out, Fairpoint in.
Now when communications equipment breaks, it stays broken.
I’m thinking of going to satellite, because the on-again-off-again, 1 Mb connection is extremely frustrating to use.
The only time we can see HD is if we rent a DVD.
I live in a town of about 14k population.
I got cable + Internet in late 2003. The speed was 1 Mbps and it cost around $35. Not long after, the cable company increased the speed to 4 Mbps.
Periodically (2x per year until the last 2 years) the cable co would raise the rate a $1 to $3. Occasionally, they would increase the speed, too.
About 2 years ago I had to buy a new modem because they had increased their speed, but in order to access it, I needed a DOCSIS 3.0 and I had a 2.0.
Last year, they increased the price and the speed. I now have around 50 Mbps at $65.
The advantage with cable Internet is that my preferred-level service also allows me 250 Gb of download/upload, so video streaming (Netflix, youtube, etc.) is no problem. I seldom exceed 100 Gb of downoad/uploads.
I saw some remarks claiming that the new net neutrality regulations require a service speed of at least 25 Mbps for a provider to call it ‘broadband’.
Some clever marketing guy will have to rebrand the 10Mbps service as “Boardbrand”.
How could people possibly have survived in the dark ages of dial-up?
Internet interconnection is different then ethernet, this makes your post suspect from the start. I am not so sure about the availability of really high-speed internet if the customer is willing to pay.
We are in a small town in southern Oregon. 8 years ago, I checked on even getting cable internet to our house, and the cable company was not willing to extend their network the 4000 feet we needed. Even if we paid for the entire extension ourselves. I told them that $20k was not out of the question, although I would have preferred less.
For years we had DSL from the local phone company, which was advertised at 1.8 Mbps, but measured 0.3 to 1.2 depending on the day and who had squawked the most recently. They had a few good pairs, which they would rob from someone else when we complained. Then they gave them to others when they complained and put us back on the noisy ones.
Right now, we have a provider who has microwave internet, which is not very common. We get almost 3 Mbps which is great compared to the old DSL, but not "modern" in any sense.
I admit, I never checked on fiber optic, but suspect that right-of-way issues would make it impractical for costs under several million$.
We would love to have any improvement.
I tried reading through that 300 pages of FCC regulations. It’s a bunch of Soros researched legaleze . they made it really hard to understand for a lay person. Soros funded the research to implement these socialist net neutrality regulations regulating the Internet.
I did hear and read that almost anyone can file a grievance complaint with the FCC against an ISP and or web site “oh that’s unfair” or “against FCC regulations”. that alone will throw a monkey wrench in the Internet as was the intent. It’s obamacare for the Internet at BEST
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.