I've debated about the subject of fiber optics with friend and fellow poster Matt about if it's truly the future of broadband. Matt feels that wireless will lead the way, as cities prepare to offer that service to many communities. But for me, it still doesn't answer the question about why this nation is ranked 16th in 'true broadband' service. The FCC defines anything above 200 Kbps in one direction as broadband (1000 Kbps = 1 Mbps), which is a joke. The most common top speed use of broadband in the U.S. is 768 Kbps, which is hundreds of times slower than 100 Mbps, bi-directional service that is offered in other countries at the same price of about $40 a month.
So why do we pay the same amount but get service that is a hundred times inferior? This country was on track to get fiber optics, with many of the countries phone companies on board to build the infrastructure to make it happen. They lobbied state governments for financial incentives to 'up grade' their fiber optic plants, to the tune of $200 billion. So what happened to the networks? A bait and switch of sorts with DSL, which was considered inferior back in 1992 because it worked over copper wires. So customers paid $200 billion for a service they never received. So there are still no 45 mbps, bi-directional 500 channel services as outlined in the FCC filings. And the only 30 mbps offered from Verizon at a cost of $179.95 a month.
So not only would fiber optics have the ability to bring 'true broadband' to the U.S., but it would offer more bandwidth for HD channels than standard cable copper wire and dish services.
If you really want to find out what is going on with fiber optics in this country, and the big lie being told to us; check the article after the leap. [niemanwatchdog.org]
2 comments:
Thanks for posting this. The bigger they get the less I trust them.
There are a few things you need to consider/remember:
1. Years ago, when the world was faced with developing wireless phone networks or wired, the US chose Wired. The rest of the world, wireless. That's why we suffer there, and why 3rd world China has better coverage than Arkansas.
2. Fiber optics is ridiculously expensive to run.
3. The other countries that have the best setup have Telecom's run by the government, not private enterprises. When delivering service, and not a profit, is the main concern, there's a huge difference.
Post a Comment