U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind

That's part. The thing some broadbanders (and want to be) have to worry about is bundling, and those "too good to be true" offers.

Before I click on the link, let me guess. Another article lamenting about the "digital divide"

Wow, I was right. I should start my own physic hotline.

Some people just don't get it. There is an "analog" divide. Those that can afford it will get it. That is what happens in a capitalistic society. Broadband is not an American birthright.

The report fails to note the difference between area and population density of the US and European and Asian nations. It is blatantly unfair, and biased. It is vastly easier to provide infrastructure over a few miles in a small country, like Switzerland than a large one like the US or Canada. Also, in Europe, much of the telephone infrastructure is relative new, while in many areas of the US, telephone service has been available since the late 1870's, and many of the telephone lines are getting near 100 years old! Very little European, Japanese, or Korean infrastructure is over 50 years old. Failure to consider these factors leads of incorrect, and misleading conclusions.

I have broadband, but have only ONE alternative to dialup, cable. Fortunately the cable service here is better than average, but it is the only viable alternative. If the government wants to encourage internet use, then they can give telephone and cable companies (and power companies) tax incentives to expand the availablity of broadband, rather than regulating them out of existance.

You mean ads for '3 months of DSL service for $19.95'? When you check, you find you are outside their range limit, and why don't they tell in the ads how much the charge is after 3 months? Sigh.

Well as someone noted elsewere. If it was purely a density issue? Then one needs to explain those cities and suburbs that don't have broadband, but do have the population.

Point noted. However as I'm certain you're aware DSL isn't the only way to get broadband. And even with DSL advances are being made.

The example near the end of the PDF uses SBC's $14.95 offer as an example. The contract, the bundling with phone service, the termination fee. Things that when taken into consideration make the offer less attractive. Plus the less than upfrontness of it all.

Well the issue isn't weither technology is a birthright (phones aren't). But does the US overall need broadband to succeed and grow (roads, airways, etc)? The second one is, is the present system in place doing an adequate job of fulfilling the goal of growing broadband in the US without leading to harmful effects to society?

Not to mention cases like my neighbor who was told he could get DSL, bought the 'self-install' kit ($200), and when he installed it, he found it didn't work. Called support, and they said he was too far from the office. He said he would pack up the kit and return it for a refund. The said no refunds. He said, ok, see you in small claims court. Nice was to do business.... He has cable now.

Currently, DSL and cable are about the only choices. Cable requires a minimum density to make it viable economically. DSL suffers from distance limitations. Powerline broadband offers hope for rural customers, but is a few years from general availability.

I received one ad yesterday, offering speeds up to 3Mb for $9.95 (CDN), for

3 months. After that, it's $24.95/month. I've never heard of the company before, so I wonder how long they'll last.

Powerline broadband also has serious interference issues with licensed radio services.

snip...

PB also suffers badly in low density deployments. The only pratical solution for rural customers will probably be some form of wireless.

I am sure that those problems can be overcome, in time. Right now, its use is limited to a few test areas, but I understand wider tests will begin very soon. It's a great idea, using current infrastructure in a new way, and it should be encouraged.

Re: infrastructure age in the US. I have lived in my current home for 38 years, and the telephone lines haven't been changed, or added to, in that time. They are paper wrapped single copper wires in a lead (yes) tube. Wind and rain plays havoc with them. To my mind, the best thing the phone companies can do to improve my life is to put the phone book online, and save me from inundation in phone books, and save a few million acres of trees in the bargain. We need the oxygen!

There are huge tax, regulatory, and historical issues here. The US had a great phone system in the 60s relative to the rest of the world. They mostly had zilch. So they laid new wire in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. We didn't need to then. Now we do. But now we no longer allow the Telcos to just spend money and roll it into the rate structure like we used to. (I can argue both sides of this one.) So now the Telcos have to KNOW the new services will make the money back before they invest. And if you think Europe isn't subsidized, you're nuts. And while just NOW it leads to some things better, research the "great" minitel (not sure of the name) that France gave everyone 20 - 30 years ago to leap ahead of the rest of the world. Gov forces solutions can be great at times and a total money pit at others.

Overcoming those problems will involve changing the laws of physics. Power lines were never intended to carry RF and as a result act like antennas. When you feed RF to an antenna, you radiate energy, which can interfere with radio services. This also means that the broadband service is also likely to be interfered with, by nearby transmitters. Also, those tests have revealed interference problems severe enough to cause some of the planned services to be cancelled.

While I certainly encourage the spread of broadband services, broadband over powerlines (BPL)is not the way to go. Incidentally, some of the proponents of BPL have asked the FCC etc., to loosen the regulations, so that they can meet them. This means they know they're producing harmful levels of interference to licensed services, but want to continue anyway. Incidentally, the law requires such unlicensed services to not produce such interference.

Technically, that French service was inferior to others, such as Telidon:

However, it was deployed nationally, which made it more useful than the others.

CD would be better, and reduce reliance on having an ISP, plus be faster.