Groups say U.S. needs faster Internet
Consumer groups are saying the U.S. lags behind other nations in terms of broadband service. The FCC will look into the U.S. Internet connection, but Janet Babin reports we need to redefine what exactly "broadband" is.
Woman enjoys browsing online (iStockPhoto.com)
More on Innovation
TEXT OF STORY
Scott Jagow: How much Internet access does one country need? Apparently, this country needs a lot more. Consumer groups say the U.S. lags behind other nations in broadband service. The FCC will look into this a bit more today at a hearing. Janet Babin has more from our Innovations Desk at North Carolina Public Radio.
Janet Babin: Exactly what is broadband Internet access?
Analyst Craig Moffett at Bernstein Research says it depends on who you ask and what country they're in.
Craig Moffett: There are no international standards defining what broadband is. In the U.S., broadband, believe it or not, is still described as any service that's over 200 kilobits per second.
Yeah, that's really slow. Forget kilobits -- you have to be in megabit territory just to stream video online.
Moffett says the U.S. needs to redefine what's considered broadband. And then, if we want everyone to have it, we're going to have to subsidize it.
Moffett: Everybody would love to see broad availability of broadband connections, but nobody wants to really grapple with the hard question, which is how much are taxpayers willing to pay for it?
Countries with widespread broadband access, like Korea and Japan, have already figured that out.
I'm Janet Babin for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Kingston, GA, 06/26/2008
"Consumer groups say the U.S. lags behind other nations in broadband service."
Say?
Yes but it is simply a matter of fact ,not an opinion as this wording would suggest.
Mr. Logan, I don't know if what your prof. said is true or not but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. When they broke up the Bell system we (the tax payers) also paid for a fiber optics system in the form of incentive based legislation.
Whether or not the system is in place, this report suggests, what needs to be done, is for the taxpayers to pay for something they have already paid for. Hardly a surprise
considering the source. The only thing better than "free market" ideology is when those "free market" companies are subsidized by the tax payers.
I would add, that attempts by local entities, to provide broadband for citizens that don't fit the telecoms business model, have been challenged in court by the same telecoms that claim it isn't profitable for them to provide the service. Good work, if you can get it.
The PBS program NOW , had a very good report on this for tens of people who saw the show. Transcript here http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW108_full.html
From vineland, NJ, 06/23/2008
I recall an optics professor back in 2001 who told our class: "95% of the country has a fiberoptic infrastructure in place, and only 5% of it is lit". Lit, meaning transmitting light signal.
Communications companies were relying on the maintenance and upgrading of traditional copper coaxial cables. Getting by on the status quo was best for the bottom line; the companies could afford it, and the consumers would gladly pay for it.
This is a case where communications companies could have acted with mild discomfort, whereas today they are losing business to shrinking wallets, and so, losing capacity to improve themselves.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.