Posted on 08/18/2005 9:31:30 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
August 12, 2005
Despite a rosy picture painted by the Federal Communications Commission, America's access to affordable, high-speed Internet lags far behind the rest of the digital world.
"Despite claims to the contrary, the digital divide in America remains large and will continue to grow unless some real changes are made," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "By overstating broadband availability and portraying anti-competitive policies as good for consumers, the FCC is trying to erect a façade of success. But if the president's goal of universal, affordable high-speed Internet access by 2007 is to be achieved, policymakers in Washington must change course."
A July 2005 report from the FCC hailed recent progress in improving broadband access in the United States. But upon closer scrutiny, the claims made in the report — and a subsequent op-ed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin published in the Wall Street Journal — are, at best, wildly optimistic.
"Broadband Reality Check," a new report by Free Press research fellow S. Derek Turner, calls into question the FCC's conclusions. Among its findings:
• The FCC overstates broadband penetration rates. The FCC report considers a ZIP code covered by broadband service if just one person subscribes. No consideration is given to price, speed or availability of that connection throughout the area.
• The FCC misrepresents exactly how many connections are "high-speed." The FCC defines "high-speed" as 200 kilobits per second, barely enough to receive low-quality streaming video and far below what other countries consider to be a high-speed connection.
• The United States remains 16th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. The United States also ranks 16th in terms of broadband growth rates, suggesting our world ranking won't improve any time soon. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan.
• Despite FCC claims, digital divide persists and is growing wider. Broadband adoption is largely dependent on socio-economic status. In addition, broadband penetration in urban and suburban in areas is double that of rural areas.
• Reports of a broadband "price war" are misleading. Analysis of "low-priced" introductory offers by companies like SBC and Comcast reveal them to be little more than bait-and-switch gimmicks.
• The FCC ignores the lack of competition in the broadband market. Cable and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. Yet the FCC recently eliminated "open access" requirements for DSL companies to lease their lines, rules that fostered the only true competition in the broadband market.
"The FCC is trying to put the best face on this problem it can, but the people who can't afford or don't have access to high-speed Internet know the truth," said Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America. "Affordable high-speed Internet means stronger economic growth, more educational opportunities and exposure to diverse points of view. If the FCC continues to ignore reality, the gap between the haves and have-nots will become too wide to bridge."
The three groups call on Congress to take notice of these alarming trends and enact clear policies that will free the broadband market from domination by a handful of large cable and telecommunications companies.
Their recommendations include ensuring open access to all high-speed communications networks, removing restrictions on public entities that seek to offer broadband services to consumers, and opening up more of the broadcast spectrum for wireless Internet applications.
"Fudging the facts won't provide high-speed Internet access to those who need it most," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union. "If the FCC is content to let cable and phone companies control the broadband market, then consumers need a third option — wireless broadband that is less expensive and which doesn't depend on DSL or cable modems. It offers the best and perhaps now the only way to close the digital divide."
Where are you? I find it simply amazing there is this much lack out there.
Central Texas. Hills. Can't even get Wireless. You won't believe it but our dialup speeds aren't even 56k. Phone company, Verizon, says they can't manage it.
My guess is, if S Dakota has state wide broad band the state govt. had something to do with it.
Well, the state made funds available to that every single small town school had broadband access, so the state influenced it, this is true. I was down in Uvalde, and the worksite had DSL, which is probably in your neck of the woods.
wrong!
What part of Central Texas? There are Wirless Broadband Providers(WISPs) that cover almost the whole state. The exception being the desert part in West Texas.
The best solution for the USA is the implementation of 802.16/802.20 WiMAX long-range wireless networking technology. Unlike WiFi, WiMAX can cover thousands of users on a single antenna array literally up to line of sight; this means you only need a relatively small number of antennas to cover a whole metropolitan area, and it also means you can get broadband Internet out to rural communities by placing WiMAX antenna towers on mountainsides, hilltops, the top of grain silos, or small standalone towers on flat areas. Indeed, we can "piggyback" on top of current cellphones towers as one way to get WiMAX widely available. Because of WiMAX's potential speed as high as 45 megabits per second bidirectional, this also means that same broadband Internet connection can be used to set up local telephone service using VoIP.
You don't have to wait for HypeMax. WiFi has already been doing the job and is less expensive. Even with that is hard for WISPs to make financially. WiMax gear will be very expensive making it hard for current and new WISPs to justify the cost. But otherwise yes you are right. Using Wireless Broadband for the last mile in rural areas is the cheapest alternative compared to a Fiber/Copper solution.
Except for a couple of things:
1. WiFi requires thousands of antennas of cover a whole city, which would be a daunting task to install, let alone to maintain on such a setup! 
2. WiFi is too interference-prone from microwave ovens and cordless phones. 
Yes, I do admit that WiMAX will be initially quite expensive, but you know prices will come down rapidly and given the tremendous advantages of WiMAX over WiFi....
Is this group a cry baby group of socialists, communists and Freeploaders wanting a subsidized free pass to broadband
Intel sees WiMax project expanded to 100 cities
Some of these Technology are going to drive cultural changes....If everyone had high speed access to the internet, why would we need the local newspapers.....?
The Information Reformation ~~ It's speeding up and conservatives are still coming out on top.
Also, did the article address those of us with Satellite Tv systems.
We have had ours for over 5 years and will never return to cable even when it became broadband in our area.
We spend a lot of vacation time on the N California and SW Oregon coast. I go there to fly fish often. On each trip we see more Dish and Direct TV satellites dishs. Rentals that had terrible cable a few years ago now have Dish or Direct TV systems.
There are a lot of new developments in Eastern Contra Costra county. In the last few years the developers have wired their new homes to be able to accept cable or satellite. We have younger relatives in a large development where the developer suggested satellite tv over cable because the lack of problems due to construction interferring with cable.
Satellite TV may not be considered broadband ....fast speed receiving, very slow speed transmitting....
"Satellite TV may not be considered broadband ....fast speed receiving, very slow speed transmitting...."
That apparently can be overcome. Many businesses today use Direct TV's sysem to receive and transmit financial data including processing credit card purchases and returns.
One day I complained to a store manager about the slowness of the response after I had run my credit card through for a purchase at a store which uses Direct to transmit and receive the credit card data.
He said the slowness was in the little printout machines and even in the cash registers which print out the data. Apparently, when they do day end and other summaries in their office, massive amounts of data are sent and received by their server in what the Manager said. He said that some stores transmit the data on DSL and receive it via satellite.
My knowledge of what actually goes on here is very small.
Not when theres a 120 ft hill between you and the tower. Also you have to be within no more than 7 miles from the tower but it's really more like 5.
The Uplink, is a focused transmitter....and currently is NOT inexpensive...
Depends on the equipment and how tall the tower is, but for the most you would be correct. Has the provider not looked into put a tower on the hill. They should of done that in the first place.
There's lots of hills. Would require too many towers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.