Comments on: U.S. Should Stop Calling Slow DSL "Broadband"

By: Kuhulin

Kuhulin — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:09:54 +0000

Obama elected and there seems to be nothing about the broadband. Not surprisingly – that is an expensive toy compared to Medicare, education stc. – really appealing things.

By: The broadband battle - who will win?

The broadband battle - who will win? — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:59:02 +0000

[...] United States, in this regard, has historically been a laggard with a ranking of 8th in the world. Walt Mossberg even argues that much of what is currently marketed as ‘broadband’ in the U.S. is actually a [...]

By: LARRY BARNES

LARRY BARNES — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:05:07 +0000

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!

By: Colin Brayton

Colin Brayton — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:21:38 +0000

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.

By: David H Deans

David H Deans — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:17:16 +0000

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.”