[LUconn]

From what I understand, we have the slowest internet speeds of most modern nations. Clark Howard often talks about taking trips to Europe and how movies etc. can be downloaded in a matter of seconds, it's so much faster. Why are we getting jipped in this country? In Japan, they just broke the internet speed record http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070424/ap_ ... internet_4

A group of researchers led by the University of Tokyo has broken Internet speed records — twice in two days. Operators of the high-speed Internet2 network announced Tuesday that the researchers on Dec. 30 sent data at 7.67 gigabits per second, using standard communications protocols.

And here I am, a mile over the Lynchburg border and the fastest I have access to is my 56k dialup modem. With no DSL or cable company showing any interest in coming my way any time soon.

[jcmanson]

Yeah, its pretty sad. If I lived a mile north from where I live now I would be able to get DSL, and I live just 20 miles from downtown Richmond! I've also heard that there are many places in Asia where you have access to wireless interent wherever you go and here you have to be in certain "hotbeds".

[HenryGale]

Dude... that sucks for you.

Apparently it sucks for all of us as well...Somebody get Al Gore on the phone!

[LUconn]

my father seemed to think it might be because our "infrastructure" is older since it was first, where as most of Europe tends to be wireless altogether. And they can get away with that because Europe is such a small place. Just a theory I suppose.

[4everfsu]

I live in country, Burke County and it took me four years to get DSL. I bugged the cable company, telephone company, sending emails after emails.

I feel your pain using dialup. But don't worry the man who is concerned about global warming and invented the internet should have a remedy for this dilemma.

Seriously I tried to get the electric company in the area to offer broadband thru their services, but stopped talking to them once I got DSL

[Libertine]

As I understand it, it's a couple of things -- and I'm sure Scorcho will correct me on the details.
First, the fastest internet access is cable and, in the US, the local cable companies are, by and large, monopolies. Obviously, if you can't go out and buy from their competitor, there is no incentive for them to improve anything in terms of price or service.
Second, as mentioned, Europe is a lot more condensed. If you can't get the service you want in the country where you live, the chances are pretty good that you can get it pretty easily in the next country over. This also means that the various nodes of communication are closer together and servicing, on average, fewer people which means fewer bandwidth problems.

[TallyW]

It should be pointed out that although this story is based in Europe... these connections are on a closed network called Internet2. It's a consortium of Government and Educational Institutions (similar to how the current internet started). The speeds are achieved mainly b/c of the fiber optic lines connecting the institutions and the fact that not many people (relatively) are using the lines at one time. When you have a super highway and you keep everyone else off it's easier to achieve ridiculous speeds...


Here is some text from an article on Slate:http://www.slate.com/id/2120440/

While Internet1 is open to pretty much anyone with a computer, access to Internet2 is limited to a select few, and its backbone is made up entirely of large-capacity fiber-optic cables. Rather than Internet1, which is cobbled together out of old telephone lines, Internet2 was built for speed—the roads are all wide and smooth, like your own private autobahn. Internet2 moves data at 10 gigabits per second and more, compared with the 4 or so megabits you'll get using a cable modem. As a result, Internet2 moves data 100 to 1,000 times faster than the old-fashioned Internet.

nternet2 was never designed to replace the Internet most of us are using now. It's more like a beach or a restaurant—great when not too many people know about it, frustrating when everybody and his mother starts to show up. Internet2's promoters like to compare it to early research networks that fostered the creation of canonical apps like the World Wide Web and e-mail. So, even if you never use Internet2 to download movies at hyperspeed, you still might benefit from the research.

[LUconn]

So basically, by the time Internet2 is open to the rest of the world Verizon may think about hooking up my area with DSL? And jetbroadband will still be ignoring me.

[TDDance234]

Apparently it sucks for all of us as well...Somebody get Al Gore on the phone!

Beat me to the punch. We need Al Gore to conjure up something.

[ATrain]

I live in Charlotte County (near Farmville) and we still don't have DSL. GRRR!!!

[El Scorcho]

As I understand it, the first problem for us in the U.S. is that most countries are just physically smaller. It doesn't take a lot of fiber optic cable to be laid and lit to have all of South Korea or France online. At least, not compared to how much it will take us to get the U.S. up to those speeds. The second problem is that here in the states, phone companies aren't going to spend the money on the fiber, equipment and man hours it will take to get broadband out into areas with small populations. The money is where the people are, so while some people out in the country still can't get any kind of broadband, people in some cities are already ditching their much faster cable/dsl for fiber connections directly to their homes. (Verizon's FiOS service, for example).

Now if you really want to feel your blood boil, read up on the $200 billion dollar broadband scandal. Essentially, in the 90's, the telecoms promised a fiber optic revolution so that the U.S. wouldn't get left behind. They said millions of U.S. home would have a fiber connections (much like Verizon's FiOS). The exact numbers they quoted to the government are out there, but I can't remember them right this second. Anyway, in order to fund all of this supposed revolution, the telecoms lobbied Congress for a rewrite of some laws, ended up getting some new ones passed and as a result, deregulated a lot of the industry. This was all done so they could charge us more to pay for our fiber connections, mind you. The companies collected over $200 billion in tax perks and rate hikes dedicated for these connections, which is about $2000 per U.S. household. As of 2006, 0% of their customers had fiber connections.

It was a big scam. The infrastructure in the U.S. remains unchanged. We're all still stuck with two copper pairs to our homes and nothing more. Cable modem speeds are nothing compared to what that $200b should have bought us. New Jersey was supposed to be 100% fiber by 2010! We'll never see that money back, and it's not likely that we'll see our infrastructure upgraded on the massive scale that it should have been.

[FlameDad]

Move to the Philly 'burbs
You can choose between Verizon fiber-optic (best) Comcast cable (bad company, decent broadband) & DSL from multiple sources.
No need for dial-up

[LUconn]

yeah, but then I'd be in the Philly 'burbs.

[LUconn]

I dont understand why Cable and phone get their monopolies in their own territories. I thought the whole idea of breaking up Bell was because it was a monopoly. Look how much better the cell phone industry is run because there's decent competition. And even that leaves a little to be desired. I don't understand how all of these companies staying out of each other's hair isn't collusion.

[FlameDad]

yeah, but then I'd be in the Philly 'burbs.

Impressive

It only took you 2 minutes to trot out that tired one liner

[LUconn]

It really only took me a couple of seconds. The rest of the time was spent reading your post.

[FlameDad]

Evelyn Wood

No offense, I just expect more from a LU grad......

[El Scorcho]

I dont understand why Cable and phone get their monopolies in their own territories.

It's mostly because the cable and phone companies are paying for the physical infrastructure as well as the service. There's no way for them to share the same physical infrastructure. You can't have Comcast cable and Time-Warner cable running on the same system, and the competition in a locality isn't going to bring enough customers for them to build two separate infrastructures.

Now, the upside to fiber connections finally being rolled out is that there's enough bandwidth in fiber for the telecoms to deliver television as well as data/voice services. So while you won't get multiple cable providers, you'll eventually at least have the option between Verizon and Comcast, or the equivalents in your area.

I think I'll pass out from disbelief when I finally get a fiber connection at home.

[PAmedic]

yeah, but then I'd be in the Philly 'burbs.

HEY NOW

the trees may get buds any day now. Hoping it stays warm enough that my grass may start to grow soon, seeings as the last of the snow melted between Monday and Tuesday this week! WOO HOO!


BTW - I love my DSL

[mrmacphisto]

I live in Lynchburg, and I still can't get DSL. I guess I'm too far from the Verizon office or something.

I'm alright with cable broadband, but I'd switch to DSL for the price.