U.S. Struggles to Keep Pace in Delivering Broadband Service

[august948]

Not trying to Hi jack this thread but earlier this year my mother traveled to Europe and called me from her cell phone to mine. The  clarity was amazing compared to when we used the same phones from site to site in the US. You have to wonder why and the most reasonable explanation I can think of is that other countries do have better service whether it be phone or internet infrastructure. I don't think the size of our country is the only reason there has to be more to it.

 

HTX

 

The NSA pays a premium for the infrastructure to make sure the call quality is high for international calls so they can listen in.

 

[Subdude]

Not trying to Hi jack this thread but earlier this year my mother traveled to Europe and called me from her cell phone to mine. The  clarity was amazing compared to when we used the same phones from site to site in the US. You have to wonder why and the most reasonable explanation I can think of is that other countries do have better service whether it be phone or internet infrastructure. I don't think the size of our country is the only reason there has to be more to it.

 

HTX

 

That is correct that Europe in many cases has notably better mobile call quality.  And while we're discussing infrastructure, better road quality too.  Infrastructure in the US is nothing to write home about, as it were.  

[ricco67]

That is correct that Europe in many cases has notably better mobile call quality. And while we're discussing infrastructure, better road quality too. Infrastructure in the US is nothing to write home about, as it were.

never mind the fact that their countries are small geographically compared to, say Texas.

[Subdude]

never mind the fact that their countries are small geographically compared to, say Texas.

 

I can't quite get behind an argument that runs "The US is physically large.  Let's settle for second-rate infrastructure."

 

I would qualify this by adding that it is of course impossible to generalize as to the quality of infrastructure.  But that said, there are areas in which the US could do better, and should do better, size notwithstanding.

[IronTiger]

What, exactly, are we arguing? Should the United States nationalize broadband Internet? Should they wire up houses for potential Internet access?

 

I can imagine a scenario in which the U.S. wires up potential Internet access for IPs to charge access for, then in exchange for doing the heavy lifting of actually wiring up the houses, help ensure net neutrality, but I'm afraid that's not what people are talking about here.

[ricco67]

I can't quite get behind an argument that runs "The US is physically large. Let's settle for second-rate infrastructure."

I would qualify this by adding that it is of course impossible to generalize as to the quality of infrastructure. But that said, there are areas in which the US could do better, and should do better, size notwithstanding.

not saying is an excuse, it's a reality.

The roads, electricity, and sewage trashes time and money to install and upgrade, it takes money and time.

As far as cell and broadband goes, they are maintained by private entities who have to keep costs reasonable to have a profit.

When electric and phone services became available, they simply didn't blanket the entire country overnight. It took decades.

Yes, cell service is National, but do guy realize how many dead zones there are between cities?

How much water is subsidized in parts of the country because it is just too expensive?

Yes, it socks to be behind in certain technologies and services, but a company can't be put in the red so everyone can access YouTube or the can text their girlfriend selfies.

[Subdude]

An article about Chatanooga's investment in high-speed internet.  Apparently they saw more value than watching youtube.

 

Fast Internet Is Chattanooga’s New LocomotiveIn the 21st century, it is the Internet that passes through Chattanooga, and at lightning speed.

“Gig City,” as Chattanooga is sometimes called, has what city officials and analysts say was the first and fastest — and now one of the least expensive — high-speed Internet services in the United States. For less than $70 a month, consumers enjoy an ultrahigh-speed fiber-optic connection that transfers data at one gigabit per second. That is 50 times the average speed for homes in the rest of the country, and just as rapid as service in Hong Kong, which has the fastest Internet in the world.

It takes 33 seconds to download a two-hour, high-definition movie in Chattanooga, compared with 25 minutes for those with an average high-speed broadband connection in the rest of the country. Movie downloading, however, may be the network’s least important benefit.

“It created a catalytic moment here,” said Sheldon Grizzle, the founder of the Company Lab, which helps start-ups refine their ideas and bring their products to market. “The Gig,” as the taxpayer-owned, fiber-optic network is known, “allowed us to attract capital and talent into this community that never would have been here otherwise.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/technology/fast-internet-service-speeds-business-development-in-chattanooga.html?ref=business&_r=1

 

 

[IronTiger]

Ah, but the difference is a city by city approach, which helps keeps costs down and has more community input, as well as a "test run" to see how it would fare elsewhere.

[august948]

Whatever happened to the initiative to roll out public wifi service here?