U.S. Should Stop Calling Slow DSL “Broadband”

Comments

1. Hey Walt, Excellent commentary. Lets hope the cable/dsl companies listen to you in the same way the cell phone companies did this time last year when you spoke up about the lame state cell service was in the USA.

   I haven’t heard any presidential candidate talk about broadband yet. Maybe if Obama gets elected he can appoint Al Gore head of broadband internet initiatives. Hell, Al invented the internet so he should be able to speed it up!

   Posted by Tim Cleves at April 3rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
   

2. The problem with broadband in the US is that our country is too spread out. Companies like Verizon just can’t get a fast connection to this country because of the last mile problem.

   The problem with internet TV is that no one has yet been able to get all the networks on-board because the cable operators protect their turf.

   I would love to ditch my cable company and get all my shows through a TiVo device or through a Apple TV type product but for whatever reason no-one can bring this product to market.

   P.S. Hope all is well. It was good to meet you in DC last year.

   Posted by Greg Raiz at April 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
   

3. Greg: concerning your point about the country being to spread out:
   I understand what you say, however, the population density in the US is 80/sq mi. Yet in countries like Sweden (52/sq mi) and Norway (31/sq mi) broadband with 8-50 Mbit/s connections is common, also in the many remote areas of these countries.

   Posted by E Cantona at April 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
   

4. I live in Haiti. Here in Haiti horrible infrastructure makes the slow broadband seem lightning fast. The options are dial up or wireless. Wireless is either US$70/month for 128kbps down /64kbps up, US$100 for 256k/128k, US$150 for 512k/256k or US$200 1Mb/512k.

   Meanwhile in our home in Miami, we get 768kbps DSL for $15.99/month. While there are other faster and more expensive options, I chose the cheapest one because I am in Miami for a total of one month per year. The slow Miami DSL is 3 times faster than my current connection at home and one year of service costs me what 2 months of service costs me here in Haiti.

   I do agree that when compared to Europe and Asia, the slow DSL should not be called broadband. But compared to what I have in Haiti and at the price that I pay for it, it is lightning fast. Mr. Mossberg, I am sure you knew that you had fans all over, but did you know you had one in Haiti?

   Posted by Geoffrey Boutros at April 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
   

5. Hello Walt,
   I live in Saudi Arabia, people in here still using Dial UP!
   Average DSL for Person is 256Kbps.
   I’m planing to get 2Mbps internet it will cost me 459SR (122$) per month. I’M NOT RICH!!

   (^_^)

   Posted by Hatim Saif at April 5th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
   

6. Mr. Mossberg, I was amaze to read on the Internet that Japan, China, and some parts of Europe have true Broadband compare to the U.S.A, and then whatever amount of bandwidth they (Time Warner) give us the consumer doesn’t get the full amount.

   So these Companies are not giving me the whole product that am paying for and at a lesser standard then Japan, Europe and of all places China that just disgust me.

   Mr. Mossberg, you have my permission to start a Public Relation War against the Time Warners, Verizons, and its like, so “We The People”/Consumer get the better end of the deal when it comes to real Broadband like they have in Japan and Europe.

   Thank You for Listing!

   Posted by Felipe Agosto at April 6th, 2008 at 10:04 am
   

7. I’m all for faster speed, and if changing the definition of “broadband” as a way of embarrassing the carriers into offering more will work, then sign me up.

   On the other hand it is fairly easy to see that the companies involved are trying to work within their existing infrastructure for as long as possible. You can’t put much more than what we already have over a pair of copper wires and in fact it is a minor miracle that the same wires that were speced to be able to handle 300 baud can now do ten times the speeds that we used to pay $20 a month for (dial-up at 56kb) and do it for $15.

   I often hear (or read) fantastic tales of how great the connections are in another country only to find out by posts from individuals that the conditions worldwide aren’t so rosy after all.

   I too am a libertarian. But I also know that digging a new trench to every house in America to lay fiber is going to cost *somebody* a lot of money. So that either means high fees for these services, or a new set of taxes, which we need like a hole in the head.

   Posted by Mac Beach at April 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
   

8. im just dropping a line from sweden, and i wanted to let you guys know that im paying about 30-40$ for 100mbit upsteam and downstream… that’s broadband!

   Posted by fredrik rodin at April 7th, 2008 at 1:09 am
   

9. Hi Walt. Now you got me interested, how come the Finnish embassy?

   I’ve got a 24 Mbit/s / 1 Mbit/s connection in Pori Finland (basically in the middle of nowhere) by 49€/m.

   Posted by Toni Lähdekorpi at April 7th, 2008 at 4:24 am
   

10. First rate commentary on the issues. I suspect there are powerful forces within the media companies that like it the way it is in the US, which forces us to watch at least some commercials.

    As for the providers, they count on ignorance of what is possible. Bandwidth costs them money and if they can get about the same for a slow connection as the EU provides for a fast one, they see no incentive to increase bandwidth. This is especially true of the DSL providers, who in my experience seem locked in a POTS mentality.

    The density issue may well be a straw dog. Certainly in urban areas, where much of the US population resides, the densities are quite high.

    Congress and the FCC should hear your comments as well. I suspect they are at their core not interested give their uncertainty even over net neutrality. Given the lack of true competition, this is an area they should be active supporting things lie net neutrality and adequate bandwidth at reasonable cost.

    I ignore commercials. For me, it gives me a chance to go to the bathroom or feed the cats. I don’t get that chance with HBO or PBS.

    Posted by Russell S Vaught at April 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
    

11. Keep in mind, “broadband” is a specific technology, not a specific speed or capacity. It allows multiple signals over a single medium, like cable or DSL use. There are also international standards governing this technology. DSL is broadband. And, as with cable , there can be a wide range of capacity.

    Address the true issues of capacity, misleading advertising, lack of compentention, etc.

    Posted by Paul miller at May 14th, 2008 at 8:33 am
    

12. I have comcast which for me means 8mb/sec. if I lived in CT I could get 15mb/s via cox cable for less money but that still pales in comparison to what asia and other regions can get. verizon fios says they have more speed but its absurdly expensive like everything else they offer. where is the entrepreneur who will offer us higher speed broadband for around a fair 45-50 dollars per month. I mean 40-50mb/sec.

    Posted by Robert Freeman at May 20th, 2008 at 12:46 am
    

13. IMHO, part of the problem stems from a lack of understanding in government that Internet infrastructure is a primary driven of the Global Networked Economy.

    The U.S. government has a history of denial, regarding the essential role of transportation infrastructure as a catalyst for economic development.

    Then-U.S. President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, but this significant accomplishment was the culmination of a vast concerted effort by many determined policymakers and their credible advisers. Furthermore, this enactment was preceded by many years of preparatory analysis and planning work. As an example, Congress originally decided to explore the concept by creating The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1938, and directed the chief of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) to study the feasibility of a six-route toll network.

    In addition, Eisenhower’s advisers didn’t cloud the public debate with how wide interstate highways should be; they instead espoused the social and commercial end results made possible by this underlying infrastructure development program. Of course, these technical points had to be addressed behind the scenes in a detailed proposal, but it wasn’t mentioned in the initial “issue positioning and messaging.”

    Resisting the urge to focus attention on two-lane or four-lane highway capacity, or the utility of straight or circular access-egress ramps to main highway arteries, they instead captured the people’s imagination with images of positive social and economic transformation (improved access to regional trade, easier movement of goods for export, more jobs created to support this increased movement of goods, etc.).

    Also, the staged implementation of this plan and the deployment of the physical infrastructure (highways and bridges) occurred over many years, and actually didn’t reach nor benefit all the intended beneficiaries as soon as had been originally anticipated. In fact, consider how long it really took to make ubiquitous high-speed road transportation a reality in America: “The last stoplight on the Interstate system was removed in the 1980’s. It was on I-90 in Wallace, Idaho and when it was removed, the local townspeople gave it a proper burial in the local cemetery, complete with a 21-gun salute.”

    Posted by David H Deans at May 25th, 2008 at 7:17 am
    

14. Colombia’s telecoms regulator already banned the marketing of slow DSL as “broadband.” Look for other Latin American countries to follow suit. The euphemism is “dedicated connection,” although here in São Paulo, subscribers to Telefónica’s Speedy service find that their “always on” connection tends to kick them off with clockwork regularity.

    Posted by Colin Brayton at June 9th, 2008 at 6:21 am
    

15. Many of us who reside in DownEast Maine would like to get some form of broadband internet service. Much of rural Maine (as well as rural NH and VT) still have to use dialup service. FairPoint Communications recently took over land telephone service in northern New England from Verizon. FairPoint promises most of us some form of broadband or DSL service within two years, by 2010! So even slow DSL would be an improvement. And this is the United States of America!

    Posted by LARRY BARNES at June 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am