Obama touts plan to get wireless Internet to 98% percent of U.S.

• Cucurbita wrote on 2011-02-16 17:27

  Quote from whocares8128;337888:

  One thing that isn't entirely clear, is how much of this wireless internet availability is seen as the responsibility of the end-user. For example, I have a wireless router to connect various devices through my cable internet connection, but if I go downtown, wireless "hot spots" are relatively few and far between.
  
  Of course, there is internet connectivity available from the phone companies, but that would only connect my phone (or tablet if I owned one), and they want to charge extra for me to share my own connection with other devices I may have.
  
  I sincerely hope that when Obama said that "we've got to out-innovate, out-educate, out-build and out-hustle the rest of the world," that he wasn't merely referring to building more cell towers. Since the article specifically mentions "smartphones and tablet computers" (which almost always come with mobile data subscription plan), I'm a bit skeptical.
  
  @Yoorah
  It may be that 95% of the nation already has access to broadband, but one thing I'm sure of is that not all "broadband" is the same:
  

  [Image: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Images/commentarynews/broadbandspeedchart.jpg]

  
  For that reason, though not explicitly stated in this article, I'm hoping for a speed boost as well (mainly for upload speeds).

  
  
  Outdated chart. Korea is up to 200 and took the lead a few years ago.
  Japan lingers around 150ish, and the US has been pushed further back in the list. So you can see why we would want an investment in internet.
• whocares8128 wrote on 2011-02-16 18:21
  I realized the chart lacked a date when I posted it. I was only trying to point out the dissimilarities of "broadband," but thanks for the update.
  :thumb:
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-02-16 21:25

  Quote from whocares8128;337888:

  [...] that he wasn't merely referring to building more cell towers. [...]
  
  @Yoorah
  It may be that 95% of the nation already has access to broadband, but one thing I'm sure of is that not all "broadband" is the same:
  [...]

  
  He is referring to cell towers. :P
  
  And I'm aware that not all broadband is the same. However, the US still ranks 15th in the world, according to Cisco's latest broadband quality study, with downlinks averaging at around 10Mbps and uplinks of around 2Mbps. Despite being only ranked 15th, this isn't bad by any means, and is sufficient for all those new business models coming up as a result of broadband availability. But this is unrelated to the issue at hand: Obama wants a high performance wireless infrastructure, in part to help cover areas that are out of reach of the current broadband net services. That's fine and all, but again, for $18 billion?
  
  Not to mention.. if you don't like broadband's performance currently, you will be very disappointed by what that wireless broadband will be like.
  
  

  Quote from EndlessDreams;337916:

  The internet makes business runs more efficiently and effectively. Better infrastructure is good at attracting businesses. Besides, to get these wireless internet all over the place, people are needed to maintain and install such devices, which means more jobs are created.
  
  I don't see how that could be a bad thing at all.

  
  It could be a bad thing because the government is spending money that it doesn't need to spend, and.. that it doesn't have, in the first place. :( Jobs are nice and all, but not when they are created artificially, in a way that's not self-sustaining. Not to mention that massive investments in infrastructure are already being done through private sector initiatives, making this government funded thing redundant pretty much everywhere, except for the tiny segment of the population living in the middle of nowhere, where private sector investment isn't worth it for the companies.
  
  Google's planned 1Gbps ISP pilot project, anyone?
  
  Take Action
• whocares8128 wrote on 2011-02-17 15:39
  I would take the results of this study with a grain of salt. If you look at the world results as shown on speedtest.net, you might have noticed that the US is not even within the top 30 for upload or download speed. Of course, just using data from the site for the study presents a self-selection bias.
  

  Using the data from 40 million real-life broadband quality tests conducted in May-June of 2010 on the Internet speed testing site, speedtest.net, the researchers were able to evaluate the broadband quality of 72 countries around the globe.

  
  
  The 15th spot the US holds in the study is based on a broadband quality (by combining upload speed, download speed, and latency, in some way... I never could find the formula (on page 4?)).
  
  If we're only talking about mobile broadband, then the US is doing rather well already, according to this study.
  

  Sweden, Denmark, USA, and Spain are the world leaders in mobile broadband quality.

  
  In a chart on the slideshow, it shows the US in the 3rd seat (again based on their Broadband Quality Score (BQS)).
  
  

  Quote from Yoorah;338214:

  He is referring to cell towers. :P

  
  ...then I am disappoint. :sigh: