

Broadband: other countries do it better, but how? - Sam_Odio
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080511-broadband-other-countries-do-it-better-but-how.html

======
smanek
It just isn't economically viable to run fiber/copper out to areas below a
certain population density. Particularly because those low density area also
have less demand for broadband.

Also, why is it automatically assumed that more broadband is better? How much
more productive is broadband going to make a farmer or a welder (over 56K or
ISDN?).

This is just as bad as thinking more education is always better. A doctor with
20 years of school may be more productive than one with 14, but would a
mechanic with 20 years of school be that much better than one with 14? (Note:
I'm talking about formal in-school education. Both doctors and mechanics have
considerable on-the-job training in addition to their schooling).

~~~
nki
That's very short-sighted.

Broadband in a rural area means that the area is more appealing to business,
leading to development of the area and economic improvement.

This can be seen happening in various European countries. Some of the farms
outside of the city where I live have been able to convert some of their land
into serviced offices, making them a pretty penny since broadband access was
mandated.

------
javert
This article is wrong. There exists a duopoly all over the US in broadband
Internet - one can choose DSL or Cable - because every local municipality
grants a local monopoly to one phone company and one cable company (and they
usually choose one of the largest national companies in each case).

We need to break these monopolies and allow any company to build
infrastructure. Then we will see competition increase and prices go down.

Not mentioned in the article is the UK, which has exactly the system I am
proposing - one with almost no government regulation - and is at least on par
with all the countries listed in the article, if not doing better. This
example goes to show that socialist infrastructure and regulation is not the
essential factor that makes broadband access better.

~~~
menloparkbum
Broadband access in the UK is definitely not on par with the countries listed
in the article.

~~~
paulsb
So very true. The best you can get in the UK is about 24 Mbps down, and 1.3
Mbps up - and that is with ADSL. When it comes to cable, there is only really
one operator and that is Virgin Media. When it was NTL it was really good:
fast, reliable, no throttling and no monitoring. But when Virgin bought it,
then everything went tits-up: throttling, unreliable and part of the phorm
debacle. If I had my choice I would go for the Scandinavian or Japanese
system, i.e. fast and relentless.

~~~
nki
Yep, UK access isn't that great.

24Mbps down? Only if you're sitting directly on top of the exchange! From Be*,
I get around 13-14Mbps down and 1.3Mbps up with the option to move to Annex M
to increase my upload speed to around 2.3Mbps, for an equivalent (or greater)
drop in download speed.

However, a very good thing about unbundling is the ability to combine several
SDSL lines from different providers to give a leased-line-like connection for
a fraction of the cost.

~~~
javert
So maybe it's not that great (that's not what I had heard), but you have
different providers!! That is at least a huge step up from what we have here.
That is like music to the ears of an American. Here you pretty much have no
choice except, Cable or DSL.

