Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create 2.4 Million Jobs

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the taking-development-cues-from-kentucky dept.

Businesses 171

Ward D points out a story about a recent study that predicts significant economic growth through increased broadband adoption in the U.S. The study is based on a program in Kentucky that has, through the increased use of broadband, "saved an average of more than $200 per person per year" on health-care services, and decreased the average amount of time residents spent driving by 100 hours per month. From Computerworld: "The Connected Nation model ... focuses more on broadband adoption and local needs than huge, government-funded programs. Several Kentucky businesses have benefited from the increased access, according to Connected Nation. Geek Squad, the Best Buy subsidiary, moved its headquarters to Bullitt County, Kentucky, in late 2006 because of the broadband availability."

cancel ×

171 comments

Hrm. Geek Squad in Kentucky (0, Flamebait)

bignetbuy (1105123) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510736)

That explains a lot.

Re:Hrm. Geek Squad in Kentucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22510750)

> That explains a lot.

"Bring out the Geek."
"The Geek's not online."
"I guess you'll have to page him, then."

Re:Hrm. Geek Squad in Kentucky (4, Funny)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511024)

I've always wondered why a group of people that bite off heads of chickens for the amusement of others would organize themselves into a squad. Knowing their location, it all makes sense now.

Re:Hrm. Geek Squad in Kentucky (3, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512040)

Broadband adoption in the US will really take off only when Hollywood celebrities begin adopting a lot of broadband from Africa. Then it will be all the rage.

Re:Hrm. Geek Squad in Kentucky (1)

TheIndifferentiate (914096) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511214)

It explains nothing.

Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510776)

A few lucky economic development wins doesn't constitute rapid job growth. I'm glad people shop online and glad they save fuel. But so far, no one has shown direct, only indirect benefits..... not job creation (save for nebulous 'tech' jobs) or anything else than infrastructure maintenance positions (truck rollers, moles, linemen, and so forth). It would be nice if there could be an easier quid pro quo data set that motivated communities (and not to get in bed with telcos without titanium strings attached to the deals). Look at the problems with muni-wifi, the failures of WiMAX, and the sheer dominance of the telcos. Community networking is in a sad state, and this study, sadly, doesn't help.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (5, Insightful)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510820)

Think of it this way. Its very hard to run an online business on dial up. The more broadband we have here in the US the faster tech jobs will grow because people can actually use the internet. For example, downloading Linux ISOs, on a decent connection it might take an hour at the most, with dial up that could take days. Also dial-up users are less likely to download programs because a good sized program may take 10 minutes on dial up but take a few seconds on broadband. This is by far good news for Linux people and to people wanting more tech jobs.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510938)

Think about it this way. We need more than just tech jobs.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511068)

That's an easy trap to fall into. Non-tech businesses benefit from broadband too.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511196)

I should have worded that better. I agree that non-tech companies benefit from broadband, I was just commenting on his tech industry stance and stating broadband is more important than just creating more tech jobs.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (-1, Flamebait)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512090)

However whilst the illusion might create the impression it creates job, the harsh reality is it eliminates more jobs than it creates. Other wise the crazy economist theory is, everybody users computers and the internet because they just generate more overheads and cost more and necessitate the employing of more workers. Where as the reality is, company deploy computer systems and make use of the internet to make productivity savings.

The internet whilst it most certainly employ people it will also favour the smarter more creative states, cheap dumb red necks do not make could It professionals, and top be brutally honest It professional don't want to reside in close minded, bigoted communities, so setting up business doesn't really work either. California and Washington do well, because they are, well, Washington and California and not some cheap labour, hick, red state.

Seeing as tech can so readily outsourced and the greed of corporations, that still leaves India and China, cents in the dollar employers, as the likely target for a lot of those jobs.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (4, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512132)

I live in a red state (very southern Indiana, and in a very rural area) and hicks or not, they are not dumb rednecks, nor is my community bigoted. Everyone gets along quite well thank you. If you know anything about Indiana, you would know there is a large push to get hi-tech industry here (by a republican governor, oh my gosh), and it's working.

Personally, I don't work in IT and have no desire what-so-ever to be in that line of work (I'm a chemist), but plenty of people are. I'm sorry that you don't like the Midwest, but your stereotypes are just plain wrong. Don't think for a second there is no hi-tech work or expertise.

From my experience, the IT folks are usually the anti-social type and really aren't that fun to be around.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (2, Informative)

DarkShadeChaos (954173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22513128)

Well I live in Kentucky (Bullitt County as a matter of fact) and work in Louisville (Jefferson County)... yes technically they are correct about broadband creating more jobs and saving hours / travel; however they are low-level jobs which I wouldn't consider unless I wanted a pay cut!

As an aside, our local cable internet is Insight which offers a decent package (business too) for 10Mb/1Mb and we don't get all the nasty filtering we hear about from elsewhere or saturated nodes...

I'm 23 with certifications in Microsoft, Novell, Cisco and an associates in my field.
We're not all rednecks down here :P

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (4, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512184)

Where as the reality is, company deploy computer systems and make use of the internet to make productivity savings.
You know, the advent of the assembly line marked a new era of cost savings in manufacturing, but it also opened up a lot of jobs for engineers and other workers. It's the nature of progress; adapt or die. Nobody has an inherent right to a job, but it is everyone's personal responsibility to take steps to make sure their skills stay relevant. If a particular skill becomes obsolete or subject to significantly less demand, the burden lies on the individual to find another way to make himself economically valuable.

Nice idea, but possibly dubious cycle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22513240)

"If a particular skill becomes obsolete or subject to significantly less demand, the burden lies on the individual to find another way to make himself economically valuable."

Yup. After knowledge worker went the way of the dodo. The cycle starts all over again with "would you like fries with that?".

Re:Nice peel, but possibly dubious rath (1)

noshellswill (598066) | more than 6 years ago | (#22513486)

A political culture may choose to ESTABLISH jobs-as-property ... right to a job --- and fsck in the azzwhole any libertoon who thinks otherwise. Take their money and they SQUEAL like the smarmy little piggys they are. He-he! In general jobs such as pouring-steel and building autos are far superior than byteboyz computer tapa-tapa-tapa.

Think of it this way. (3, Interesting)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510986)

Its very hard to run an online business on dial up.

Ah but what businesses, and jobs, will be created? TFA says 2.4 million jobs will be created but it does not name 1 job. All it is really about is money saved and not jobs created. Then again the study itself does not say what jobs wll be created.

Falcon

Re:Think of it this way. (3, Funny)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511382)

2.4 million jobs would include more domain squatters, spyware/adware authors, Nigerian scam artists, and V!4gr4 spammers.

Re:Think of it this way. (1)

David Munch (939296) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512846)

Actually, I thought the 2.4 million extra jobs would be RIAAs. But okay, thats almost the same as what you suggested.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511054)

Aren't most distros sold or given away on pressed CDs, if not from the distro maker then at least from third-party online stores? Why not just buy one of those and make several copies?

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (2, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511186)

The math is more than dubious - its impossible:

decreased the average amount of time residents spent driving by 100 hours per month

Do you really believe that people drove 25 hours less every week - 5 hours less every day, Monday to Friday?

From the stupid article:

Using broadband for health-care services has saved an average of more than $200 per person per year in Kentucky, and residents there drove more than 100 fewer hours per month because of transactions done online, according to the study.

If we allow the "more than $200 der person per year", and put 100% of the savings into savings in driving time, we're looking at $200 per year/1200 hours per year = $0.17 per hour. Do you really believe that it costs only 17 cents to drive an hour? Even idling costs more than that!

Maybe they should put the money into real education - math instead of intelligent design.

Should say miles, not hours (4, Informative)

AlpineR (32307) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511274)

From the report:

In the 2007 ConnectKentucky residential survey, 66% of broadband users report driving an average of 102 fewer miles per month because of their online activity.

The error is in the Computerworld article which misstates:

[R]esidents there drove more than 100 fewer hours per month because of transactions done online.

Re:Should say miles, not hours (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511534)

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

66% of broadband users report driving an average of 102 fewer miles per month
This tells us nothing. if the other 34% drove 200 more miles per month ( 50 miles/week - for example, to look at stuff they found on cragislist, or to meet people they chatted with online) then there are zero savings in driving distances. The fact that they didn't give an overall figure shows they cherry-picked, and the real savings is more like 25 miles/month overall.

Another bogus claim:

$35 billion in value from 3.8 billion hours saved per year from accessing broadband at home
WTF is that supposed to mean? That people will suddenly be saving $9.50 /hr for every hour they surf the net form home? That's not my experience. Or maybe they're trying to claim that, if people can access the tubes from home, they won't at work ... saving their employers $35 billion. Guess they didn't see the studies that showed 70% of all porn is accessed from work ...

The "study" is bogus. Its an attempt from the telcos to get more "incentives" from the government.

Should say uploads, not downloads. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22512186)

"The "study" is bogus. Its an attempt from the telcos to get more "incentives" from the government."

Or geeks trying to get their piratebay fix but lets pretend that big business is the only group with an agenda. Oh right, you all don't have any kind of pull, economic or political. That's what makes slashdot such fun reading with my morning coffee.

Re:Should say miles, not hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22512366)

This tells us nothing. if the other 34% drove 200 more miles per month

But they probably didn't. To know for sure, you have to look at the data.

The fact that they didn't give an overall figure shows they cherry-picked, and the real savings is more like 25 miles/month overall.

They at least have data; you're just bullshitting.

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

There's also an inability by people like you to distinguish scientific research, a commissioned study, and raw data, as well as how to deal with each of them and verify and interpret the statements.

Re:Should say miles, not hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22511934)

Good catch. There is a lot of very sloppy reporting around, with people who can't bother to think through the stuff that they are writing. Especially in the domain of statistics.

You see a fair amount of that in regards to global warming (which I do believe in, btw). The numbers quoted in the press are sometimes inflated beyond any credibility, mostly because the writers can't do any math in their head and have no sense about proportions and orders of magnitude. Well, like this guy.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511586)

Aren't most distros sold or given away on pressed CDs,
The stable releases are but anyone who wan'ts to get involved with thier distros future (if only to the extent of making sure all thier stuff still runs when the next version comes out) needs to track the development version and for that the fast connection is extremely usefull.

Enonomist math (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510974)

"What do you want the numbers to say? We'll torture them until they say it!"

These studies are such a crock and use very dodgy extrapolations. Of course I didn't RTFA, but they're generally along the lines of: Give a company 56k dialup and they become 20% more profitable. Therefore is we give them 2Mbits they will become 20% * 2M/56k = 700%. Or: a survey shows a correlation between company size and bandwidth. Larger companies tend to have more bandwidth than smaller companies. Therefore we will give all the small companies broadband and they will all turn into big companies thus creating more jobs and money!

These studies very seldom take a holistic view either. Less driving might mean more hours worked, but it is just as likely to mean more time doing something useless. It also means less wear and tear on cars and roads (therefore less auto mechanic jobs and less road contruction/repair jobs).

I think you have the answer already (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511042)

Look at the problems with muni-wifi, the failures of WiMAX, and the sheer dominance of the telcos. Community networking is in a sad state, and this study, sadly, doesn't help.
(emphasis mine)

The sheer dominance of telcos is what is causing the problem with increased broadband deployment, when you include cable operators in that group. Very little is being done among that group to GROW their business. I know that Verizon is doing FTTH and that is good, and T-Mobile is doing the WiFi hand off phones which is good. The trouble is that this is a day late and a dollar short.

FTTH is not helping improve overall broadband deployment - it is there to compete with incumbent cable players. The T-Mobile WiFi hand off phones do not improve coverage, rather it offloads traffic from their wireless network to cable operator's networks.

As long as North America is plagued with companies that don't want to invest (or can't) despite the tax incentives they've been given and their incredibly draconian billing practices (well sort of draconian). Like AT&T and Comcast et al wanting to shape traffic so there are no bandwidth hogs making a bad day for ordinary users. They believe ordinary users are those that pay for 6Mbps but only use an average of 56kbps. This whole broadband game in North America is rigged, and rigged in favor of the Telcos and cable companies. If they had ample bandwidth there would be too much competition. Right now they have the markets all carved up by region, and only compete with each other if they stand to make millions off of a win.

To stay on topic, home based Internet businesses, and cost savings due to broadband use will only come when all those people are willing to pay through the nose for access. If the telcos are not reeled in on their anticompetitive practices, you will only be able to use your ISP's VoIP solution, and probably will have to pay extra to have a VPN connection to your office.

Again, THE only real block to greater broadband deployment and use is the ISPs themselves. They are clinging to their quickly-becoming-outdated business model in nearly the same way that the **AA has... dumb fuckers

Why, yes, I do have ideas on how they should and could do this, but there is not much room here and shareholders don't really want to see flat profits for 6-8 quarters.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511236)

This is spot-on. The lack of long-term investment in communications infrastructure is slowing down progress. Fix that and everything will take off.

Re:I think you have the answer already (2, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512480)

And it isn't just greed either.True story---A few years back a guy I went to school with worked at a little tv/appliance/pc shop outside of town.Nobody would run broadband there,and the dialup was pitiful(14k on a good day).So he talks his boss into paying out the rear to have a T1 run the 15 miles to the shop.He had already talked to the neighbors and other local shops and they were happy to hand him $50-100 a month depending on their needs and take a piece of the T1.He gets everyone wired up,sets up a server to cache things like OO.o and firefox,as well as giving them email accounts,and everyone was happy.


A couple of months later the ISP gets wind of it and comes up with some rule about "amount of computers allowed to connect to the line" or some BS,it was obvious they had made it up just to get rid of him.Basically it would have made the price about 500% higher while limiting them horribly.He asks around trying to find another service provider,and wouldn't you know it,the only two that would service that area had the exact same rule! What are the odds,huh? So they give up the T1,they went out of business less than a year later,and do you think that anyone brought broadband to those folks willing to pay $50-100 a month? Nope.The line sits rotting away last time I went out that way and they are all still stuck on 14k on a good day.


The moral of the story? It isn't just about greed,it is about power. They consider it their sandbox to do with as they see fit,and they "compete" with their golfing buddies over a few choice spots.The rest can go rot for all they care.If we had let big business and "the market" handle it when it came to water and power I bet folks in the hills would still be using candles and crapping in a outhouse.Like a national highway system this is something we as a nation are going to need to compete in this century,period.But with the current "F*ck everything but the stock price!" attitude most aren't going to invest in the long term because the day traders only care about the quarter.We have to invest in our infrastructure,power,water,roads,and communications.If we don't we are simply going to be left a backwater while everyone else advances.As always my 02c on the subject,YMMV.

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (1)

t33jster (1239616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511630)

But so far, no one has shown direct, only indirect benefits..... not job creation (save for nebulous 'tech' jobs) or anything else than infrastructure maintenance positions

Silence, you!!! There's no reason to let 'facts' or lack thereof get in the way of a report that faster internet connections = good - we need all the support we can get in the fight against the ISPs ( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/19/2048219 [slashdot.org] ), even if it sucks. It's our FUD vs. theirs!

Re:Nice idea, but possibly dubious math (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512212)

Here is my take: those numbers are completely fictitious.

If the jobs are located in those states:

* Are there even 2.4 million people without jobs in those states?
* In fact, are there even 2.4 million people in those states to begin with?

If the jobs are located outside those states:

* Can the people in those states support the salaries of 2.4 million people?
* Would they care about creating 2.4 million jobs for Indian and Chinese residents?

We get reports like that here in Holland as well: "another 15000 jobs will be created if software piracy goes down 10%". Gee, that's nice - in what country, though? If it is on another continent it won't help us much, now will it?

Rednecks and NASCAR fans have the internet? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22510836)

News to me

Useless statistical models (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22510854)

Besides the concept of the "service based economy" is falling flat on its face with capital moving away from pixel pushers and paper shufflers to people who actually produce tangible goods/services.

Re:Useless statistical models (3, Interesting)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510904)

Useless is right. Service based economy is the last thing we are. Try going to a restaurant there is no waitor/waitresses most of the time. Try calling tech support the wait time on average 10 minutes if you are lucky. Anything having to do with services doesn't pay well. People are not attracted to building a career off low paying jobs. Nobody wants to do it.

Wireless (2, Insightful)

simpl3x (238301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510866)

And, I bet that free wireless will create even more! Better broadband is great, but most of our "surfing" isn't really useful, whereas searches on mobile devices likely tend towards needs. As with the iPhone and Google searches, and I can attest to it, making it available makes it happen. Quick, easy, and slow...

How much more gets done with 1gps versus 128k? Not much IMHO.

Re:Wireless (3, Funny)

The Orange Mage (1057436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511092)

Are you saying a 128k connection should be enough for anybody?

Re:Wireless (3, Funny)

simpl3x (238301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511392)

Oh no, but 640 should be!

Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create (5, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510902)

2.4 million jobs.

And what jobs are those? TFA doesn't say. Sure some temporary jobs would be created to build the infrastructure and a few more permanent jobs will be created to maintain it but what other jobs will be created? /.'s title is a bad one as TFA is more about money saved not jobs created.

Falcon

Re:Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create (1)

vought (160908) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511076)

Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create 2.4 Million Jobs
...in tech support.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create (3, Insightful)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511650)

> > Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create 2.4 Million Jobs
> ...in tech support.
... In India.

> There. Fixed that for you.

Still had a bug.

Re:Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create (1)

lachian (1243352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511298)

And if the jobs are created won't they just go to India anyway because low level tech support is always shipped overseas because customer support means shit in America and it is cheaper, though they don't mind charging $300 per help desk ticket (yay M$).

more shootouts (0)

goga_russian (544604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511442)

afer how many "hallo, my coffee cup holder on the computer is broken" are you gonna drop some nades (take a dump)

"decreased the average amount of time..." (3, Insightful)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510920)

"decreased the average amount of time residents spent driving by 100 hours per month"

Huh? The average resident now drives 3 hours less per day? Is everyone in KY a truck driver or something?

Re:"decreased the average amount of time..." (1)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510978)

Huh? The average resident now drives 3 hours less per day? Is everyone in KY a truck driver or something?
If the 75-90% concentration of "Drivers Wanted" ads in any paper in the state are an indication, yes.

Re:"decreased the average amount of time..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22511078)

Didn't say "per capita"...

On the other hand, it kinda reminded me of "The Machine Stops" (look it up if you aren't familiar with the story.)

Re:"decreased the average amount of time..." (1)

PopeGumby (1125507) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511110)

"decreased the average amount of time residents spent driving by 100 hours per month"

Huh? The average resident now drives 3 hours less per day? Is everyone in KY a truck driver or something?


Maybe they mean the residents when considered as a whole, rather than any individual resident driving 100 hours less per month?

Re:"decreased the average amount of time..." (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511146)

Apparently by resident they meant 'lackey of the local hospital' since the only documents i could find 'driving' savings from were hospitals, that now transmit medical data via computer, instead of sending them by courier to the major hospitals where specialists determine whats wrong etc. and how that creates jobs is beyond me, it sounds like it replaces the job of 'medical document carrier' with no jobs.

perhaps the manufacturer of medical equipment that transmits and allows specialists to return a diagnosis are based in Kentucky?

I know the internet has made stuff that you 'can't buy at the local wal-mart' easier to buy, which is surely a win for these niche market manufacturers, which are mostly USA based small companies, so perhaps there is some truth to the positive job growth in terms of products that before you had to hunt for in a major city at a store large enough to have all the special goods in stock.

or perhaps they're counting all the economic benefits of companies like yahoo and Google, Netflix etc.

Sears was built from its catalog, which was the closest thing to 'internet shopping' in the analog era. After they built their skyscraper they stopped growing, but once people thought nothing could stop sears stores from replacing the old downtown shopping, the way wal-mart has done in the modern era. personally, i save $30 a year over paying the 'wal-mart' price for blank DVD media. I don't buy the cheapest blanks or i would save more, but then I'd be worried about my data becoming corrupted, or never burning the first time.

Re:"decreased the average amount of time..." (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511168)

How many days a month do you work? Looks to me like more like 5 hours less per day. So indeed, it sounds like a lot of truckers lost their jobs.

Re:"decreased the average amount of time..." (2, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511376)

Huh? The average resident now drives 3 hours less per day? Is everyone in KY a truck driver or something?
no, they must just contract their article writing out to the /. editors. the study linked by TFA says the broadband folks tended to drive about 102 fewer miles per month and they somehow came up with "hours". minutes would have been closer.

Re:"decreased the average amount of time..." (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511390)

The original report said miles, not hours. The article made a mistake copying the text, apparently.

...$200 Billion...nothing delivered...no consequen (4, Insightful)

distantbody (852269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22510960)

Some might think 'what's done is done, it's in the past, it was done a decade ago'. Surely someone is keeping this issue alive because, even with all the time that has since past, there is still a huge public interest that needs to be served by ripping that money back, by whatever means necessary, to send the message that: 'for all of our belief in contractual agreements, and for all of our corrupt, lazy and intimidated politicians and government; no-one so vastly screws with our hard-earned money and future prosperity and gets away with it, regardless of whether it was committed a year ago, ten years ago, or whether the contract set performance penalties or not' I want to see the looks on the executives and senators faces who, long thinking they had got away with it, all-of-a-sudden get the f**k charged out of them. Someone needs to keep this issue alive.

the rest of the story (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22511006)

This is a tech related jobs article which seems to have been accidentally truncated.

Increased US Broadband Adoption Could Create 2.4 Million Jobs in India

fixed

Opportunity cost (4, Insightful)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511022)

Whenever some one proposes a great govt. undertaking that will "create jobs"*, ask yourself what the opportunity cost is - in other words, what use would the money have been put to had it not been taken away and invested somewhere else.

*The challenge is not to create jobs, but to create wealth. If the govt.just wants to create jobs, they can hire a million goons to destroy stuff and hire another million people to rebuild stuff - boom, 2 million jobs created.

Re:Opportunity cost (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511120)

The assumption is inherent that those jobs are to do something productive. If a town builds a new hospital capable of handling 1000 more ER calls a week, that doesn't mean that the cops are going to go around beating people to meet a quota. But, thanks for the clarification, Mr. Norquist.

Re:Opportunity cost (2, Insightful)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511330)

If the money to build the new hospital was taken away from a sanitation project that could save more lives, then yes, it is a net loss.

That is a simple economic fact, but I feel it is wasted on you since you are intent on childish name calling. Maybe you should be on reddit/digg with the other kids?

Re:Opportunity cost (3, Insightful)

shadwstalkr (111149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511350)

If the govt.just wants to create jobs, they can hire a million goons to destroy stuff and hire another million people to rebuild stuff - boom, 2 million jobs created.

Apparently you don't keep up with the news.

Re:Opportunity cost (1)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511402)

Apparently you don't keep up with the news.

Too depressing for me.

Re:Opportunity cost (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511886)

The challenge is not to create jobs, but to create wealth. If the govt.just wants to create jobs, they can hire a million goons to destroy stuff and hire another million people to rebuild stuff - boom, 2 million jobs created.

What do you think war is for?

I have pretty libertarian views and prefer smaller government, but I can see the allure and benefits to projects like this and increased spending on infrastructure (roads, rail, etc.). I wish we'd get the hell out of the Middle East and use the trillion or so we'd save (and countless lives) and do two things with that savings: reduce taxes and increase physical and technological infrastructure.

Re:Opportunity cost (1)

denormaleyes (36953) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512302)

If the govt.just wants to create jobs, they can hire a million goons to destroy stuff and hire another million people to rebuild stuff - boom, 2 million jobs created.
Thus you get Iraq, where we pay the military to break it and then turn around and pay contractors to rebuild it. Quite the stimulus package, although it seems less effective than spending US tax dollars in the US.

Comcast, for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22511046)

I live very near a major Comcast technology center and they are constantly hiring programmers, systems and network engineers, software testers, etc. They generally want quite a lot of experience, especially Cisco. And it's good to know how to quietly throttle certain packets...

I doubt it... (1)

Kev647 (904931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511050)

Create 2.4 Million jobs? I really really doubt this...How many times have we seen hyperboles such as this which ended up, when actually researched, to be grossly overstated. I know it is trying make a statment, but I would believe perhaps a million jobs. Anyone feel that way?

Re:I doubt it... (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511198)

There are 4.1 million people in Kentucky, and the unemployment rate is 5.4%. This article claims that each of the unemployed people in Kentucky will land 10 jobs.

Re:I doubt it... (1)

martinX (672498) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511268)

How many times have we seen hyperboles such as this which ended up, when actually researched, to be grossly overstated
A million times. At least.

They don't explain what they mean by broadband (4, Insightful)

grandpa-geek (981017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511074)

From their document, this looks like a front for the cable industry and the telcos who are peddling what they call broadband. Their "broadband" is really at dumbed down legacy speeds compared to what other countries in the world are doing.

Real broadband is gigabit speed, bi-directional, to homes and small businesses. It allows every subscriber to become a content provider. The cable industry sees itself as being part of the entertainment industry, and the telcos would like to join the broadband-as-entertainment model. Real broadband scares the entertainment industry because they see it as a challenge to their business model.

The economic impact of real broadband would be immense. I like to analogize the comparison of legacy broadband to real broadband as the difference between animal power and engine power. If one horsepower is a fundamental limit, innovators will try to work out ways of getting two horses to work together. If power comes from engines, innovation goes to a much higher level. Innovators in countries with with real broadband can conceive ideas that American innovators can't even imagine.

The sponsors of this report are pushing legislation. I would urge people to examine the legislation to see how it defines broadband. If it doesn't talk about gigabit to the home, it is part of the trend in which the US is becoming a third world telecommunications country to protect entertainment business models.

Re:They don't explain what they mean by broadband (1)

jayp00001 (267507) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511628)

It's not even dumbed down legacy speeds. Some "rural" providers (eg fairpoint)try to claim that a 150k dsl line is broadband. It's not entertainment that drives the crappy speeds we get, its pure greed. Putting up fiber costs cash. Sadly legislators won't even listen to technical folks on what broadband should be since we don't line their pockets and there are not enough of us to make a reasonable voting block come election time.

Re:They don't explain what they mean by broadband (3, Interesting)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511714)

In Japan, very fast broadband is common, but online shopping is much less popular in Japan than in the US, and in fact Japanese people are more likely to use their cell phones to browse the Internet than their broadband connections - mostly for chatting, which could easily be done on a 2400 baud modem. The Japanese software industry sucks, their economy has been in an 18 year rut...

Just saying "the economic impact of real broadband would be immense" isn't enough. What would be the economic impact? You vaguely mention "people becoming content providers", but isn't Youtube a better model than running your own server off broadband for this? Why is Youtube popular in Japan? And why haven't amazing new business models been developed in nations that do have near-universal broadband?

Anyway, generally speaking, broadband is easily and widely available in the US as long as you live in an urban or semi-populated area. Any business model would revolve around them, not people in the countryside or people who just haven't bothered upgrading from AOL, because it's good enough for e-mail.

Re:They don't explain what they mean by broadband (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512718)

Just saying "the economic impact of real broadband would be immense" isn't enough.

My opinion is that is. Why build a highway system, when people are just going to use it for visiting their neighbours. Infrastructure questions are historically narrow and shortsighted, embarassingly so for the generations that follow.

Anyway, generally speaking, broadband is easily and widely available in the US as long as you live in an urban or semi-populated area.

Generally speaking, 640K was easily and widely available, but look where we are today.

Re:They don't explain what they mean by broadband (1)

Sparkle (131911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511806)

You think that is bad? Ha! I got my definition directly from my "broadband and entertainment company," when they offered me "broadband for everyone." None other than Verizon. Invite them to sell me some and they respond, "Oh sorry, FIOS not available... Hmmm DSL not available 'in your area at this time.'"

To which I ask, "Fine since you offer broadband for everyone, what sort of broadband do you offer to me, your customer?"
"Dialup, sir. Can we sign you up?" "Scuzzi? Dialup is not broadband!"

So you see we are not becoming the 3rd world of connectivity. We define it!

If I was truly in the middle of nowhere, it might be understandable. Here in middle of Texas, one exchange outside a major metro area, we connect at 24,000 if we are lucky.

Adopting broadband is moot. One cannot adopt what one cannot get.

They don't explain what they mean by agenda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22512042)

"The economic impact of real broadband would be immense. I like to analogize the comparison of legacy broadband to real broadband as the difference between animal power and engine power. If one horsepower is a fundamental limit, innovators will try to work out ways of getting two horses to work together. If power comes from engines, innovation goes to a much higher level. Innovators in countries with with real broadband can conceive ideas that American innovators can't even imagine."

Well none of those innovators will be getting ideas from this forum. Real broadband and all you all can come up with is to do the same thing only faster. The instant gratification this countries been on for decades will spike but that doesn't translate into anything this country can use. Also all these countries that have had "real broadband" really haven't done anything any greater than we have. Simply made the "I want it yesterday...the day before that...as soon as the director thinks of it...entertain me" industry very happy. Yes I've heard of things like telemedicine and a faster pipe between my doctor and the hospital. Nice but that doesn't translate into "real broadband" for me and even less indicating that I need "real broadband".

"From their document, this looks like a front for the cable industry and the telcos who are peddling what they call broadband. Their "broadband" is really at dumbed down legacy speeds compared to what other countries in the world are doing."

Sounds more like a front for penis envy. Look at what we have now and all people are doing with it presently. Some innovation. Thinking more is like thinking more women will make a baby come faster. Show me this widespread over there innovation that's not confined to academia and we'll talk.

"The sponsors of this report are pushing legislation. I would urge people to examine the legislation to see how it defines broadband. If it doesn't talk about gigabit to the home, it is part of the trend in which the US is becoming a third world telecommunications country to protect entertainment business models."

What a load of agenda pushing BS. Like the rest of "over there" somehow is bustin out all over with their "new and improved" business model which consists solely of a faster pipe to piratebay.

Re:They don't explain what they mean by broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22512086)

Gigabit? You want to run the whole internet at the speed of the fastest segment of my own network? WTF for? So everyone can download the entirety of the Library of Congress, and have their own local backup? The 2.4 million jobs will be at storage system manufacturers, and contractors who come to flip geeks over so they don't get "chair sores". I'm trying real hard to not pull a "nobody will ever need more than 640k", but get real...

I would be infinitely happier about my internet connection than I currently am, if I could get only a hundredth of that speed. I'm a small business owner who's stuck with ~1.1Mbit down / 380K up shitty ass DSL connection, and only because it's about a fourth the cost of the next operator's offering, which is insanely overpriced compared to what you get. Who actually provisions T1s to run small office networks and servers these days? I would kill to be able to get a 10Mbit symmetrical pipe, and for all I care, I could leave the gigabit shit in some remote data center somewhere (where it still costs an assload of money). Unless consumer technology goes fucking apeshit, turns everything on its head, and soon, there won't be a use for gigabit to every port within the next hundred years at the rate of growth we're now under.

Sure, if you give it to everyone, someone is going to find something to do with it, but it's probably going to be stupid anyway.

Hardware (1)

genican1 (1150855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511082)

don't forget that new hardware is going to be necessary to allow access to this newfound wealth of broadband. Think of the construction jobs... Somebody has to lay the cable, build the datacenters, etc. Is this not where most new jobs will com from?

More Comcast Support Technicians Needed... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511088)

"The reason why your super-mega fast connection is behaving like a 300 baud modem is that you downloaded an illegal MP3 with some naughty bits. Next time, please download a legitimate MP3 file with no naughty bits from one of our approved sponsors if you want to maintain faster service."

In other news (3, Informative)

bagsc (254194) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511096)

Infrastructure reduces costs. Reduced costs increase consumption, which increases jobs. The question is not whether the infrastructure is beneficial (it is), but whether it is the best use of money given the risks. Of course AT&T thinks the government paying for their broadband network is good for the world.

How much did these people drive before? (1)

devjoe (88696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511128)

100 hours a month less driving is a tremendous amount, over 3 hours a day. Assuming they are driving mostly in the city with lots of stop lights and averaging 15 MPH, that is 1500 miles/month or 18000 miles/year. If they are driving a lot on the highway, it is even more miles. I know that some people drive that much, but to say that they reduced their driving by this much is a really amazing statistic that is hard to believe. Some of the people with tech jobs might be able to telecommute with the broadband, but the fraction of people who can do this can't really be all that high, and even that does not seem to account for the amount of driving saved.

And I suppose I am expected to believe that they all started using grocery delivery services, Amazon and other online shopping, Netflix, and started downloading all their music instead of driving to local stores to do these things? Well, I can believe this about the music. But if the people aren't shopping their local stores, isn't that going to destroy a lot of jobs rather than creating them? I suppose it creates jobs for the delivery services, which makes the reduction in driving by the broadband users a rather pointless statistic.

Re:How much did these people drive before? (3, Informative)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511218)

Actually, I can almost believe this. I live in a small town, out in the middle of no-where. You know, Rural. If I want anything other than a Wal-Mart or Homedepot, I have to drive 70 miles over a mountain range. If the pass is nasty (and in the winter it is) I have to drive 120 miles north. Of course, groceries and other necessary items are in my town, but other things aren't. Internet shopping has saved me many trips. Not many small towns have places that specialize in "big and tall" I'm 6'5, with size 15 foot. Clothes and shoe shopping used to be pain, involving day long trips, to hit the other towns. Definitely not 100 hours a month, but a few thousand miles a year.

Re:How much did these people drive before? (1)

xZoomerZx (1089699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511408)

I agree with he figure of 100 hours a month being a high number. However, your second assertion is incomplete. If the local grocery store did convert from storefront to warehouse, the energy and manpower wasted on 'look pretty' would be saved. Delivery of the orders would represent a vast increase in fuel saving due to organization. I know far too many people who make individual trips to various stores and places then back home each time, rather than an efficient circuit, unlike a delivery route.

Another poster asserted that mechanics and road builders would be out of business due to decreased traffic, but with tens of thousands of bridges and hundreds of thousands of miles in roads in need of desperate repair, it will be decades before they catch up and by then nature will have damaged even more. I for one welcome a surplus of mechanics. The least apt will go out of business first and the good ones will charge a more reasonable rate, say $45/hr rather than the $90+/hr now.

I think that the real gains from universal broadband coverage would be efficiency. Efficiency in information delivery (read the soup can label in your shorts rather than an air conditioned store while blocking the aisle). Efficiency in movement of goods (delivery routes vs running all over town) Efficiency of infrastructure (roads and bridges repaired/replaced as needed rather than decades too late [I-35?]) Energy efficiency (warehouses use a fraction of the power, and which stores several times more product, than a brightly lit climate controlled store does) Thats just off the top of my head, Im sure there will be even more.

Re:How much did these people drive before? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511482)

I know I'm not the only one that thinks this way, but I will never order my groceries via the net or even a courier service.

For one, shipping is not free and groceries aren't light. Secondly, I need my milk for my cereal in the morning, not 3 days from now. Lastly, people enjoy the shopping experience and being away from their home. I personally don't care for shopping, but almost every female I know does.

As a society we are accustomed to easy and instant travel. We will never go back. Face it, people like to go places.

Re:How much did these people drive before? (1)

russ_allegro (444120) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511988)

Seriously, no one like shopping at grocery stores. Shopping for cloths yes, but groceries you must be kidding. You can get pizza delivered in most cities and towns. We should be able to get our groceries delivered as well. Delivered within 20 minutes of ordering, just like pizza's. It is almost impossible to do grocery shopping over the phone, but is is possible to do it on the internet. While you are shopping on the internet it can even offer helpful suggestions: recipes (as well as links to the ingredients), list of what you bought last time, etc..

Re:How much did these people drive before? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512006)

If it a local place, perhaps, but I'm not going to hop on amazon.com and order it from half-way across the U.S. and then wait for UPS to deliver.

Dial up should be discontinued (1)

56ksucks (516942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511192)

I firmly believe we are at a point where ISP's need to stop offering dial up access by itself and give it away free to its existing broadband customers as a backup or for traveling purposes. There is no reason why dial up should be offered as a primary means of getting online. With lite DSL access at $24 a month and dial up speeds so slow it's practically unusable I see no other reason to offer the service. The internet is no longer geared towards dial up users and modern web pages are full of multimedia content. It's like going to a car lot and seeing a couple of horse drawn wagons for people who don't want to spend the extra money on a car.

So, to summarize I think that ISP's need to replace dial up as primary access with an affordable, basic, low spead (maybe 512k) broadband connection plan and offer dial up as part of all broadband plans as a secondary means of connection for backup/travel. For people who simply live to far out, they can subscribe to the basic plan and just use the dialup connection.

It should be a forced thing like the coming abandonment of analog TV.

Re:Dial up should be discontinued (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511246)

You can force DTV because all you need is an antenna, but for full dial-up replacement you need new infrastructure. For people down the road from me and for others all over the country, dial-up is the only option. Yes I know, 80% of people live in an urban area, but that still leaves 60 million of us that live in rural areas. DSL just became available for me a couple months ago, and at one speed (1.5/384).

Why gives you the right to cut my neighbors off? They are too far away for DSL. The closest area being served by cable is 15mi north of me, and that is just cable tv.

Oh yea, I live 25mi from Louisville, KY in Indiana.

Re:Dial up should be discontinued (1)

56ksucks (516942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511334)

That's why I said make the basic plan affordable enough to where if they are too far out they can still use the included dial up, but be eligible for broadband when it comes available.

Re:Dial up should be discontinued (1)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511632)

When broadband becomes available? This is likely to be never, unless forced by a state or federal regulators. The sad fact is that the less population density, the less likely it is that any company is going to invest in the infrastructure needed to bring broadband into that area. Fiber or wire costs, as does the various switches, repeaters, and so on. If you have to run long distances to serve a few hundred people, then it's a losing proposition. For example, the area I currently live in has an average village size of 500 people, and there's a minimum of 12 miles between villages. I'm fortunate enough to have access to DSL, but that only came in two years ago, and is very limited as to where it runs. Cable system? The local cable company has trouble just getting basic service to people, and has no plans on adding Internet service to their mix. No, none of the major cable firms have any interest in expanding into this area, since there aren't enough people to make it worth their while. Wireless? Forget it. We (due to various regulations) don't have cell towers, and the chances of ever getting any cell service here ranges from slim to none. Satellite is an option, but having been an installer of those systems in the past, it's not a great answer. It's expensive, has weather issues, high lag times, and depends on getting a clear line of sight - which can be a major problem in some areas.

This area is not unique with these problems. I know, because I've lived in various places around this country. You can find a lot of rural areas with the same problems. It's great when you live near a population center and can have a choice of broadband providers, or get broadband. But if you don't, your choices rapidly become spending a lot of money on a somewhat satisfactory system, or dial-up. That is not likely to change anytime soon.

You know what would create even more jobs? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511244)

Having a political party come into office that is dedicated to taking an engineer's eye to fixing the legal code of the entire state. The last figure I saw for the cost to businesses to comply with federal income tax requirements was $289B. Just going to a flat tax would be an automatic release of $289B worth of labor! There are so many messed up statutes and regulations that a savvy political party wouldn't even need to do much in the way of cutting taxes. All it would have to do is start repealing old laws left and right when they no longer make sense, and find ways to optimize the existing regulations that are still needed.

Re:You know what would create even more jobs? (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511910)

Having a political party come into office that is dedicated to taking an engineer's eye to fixing the legal code of the entire state. The last figure I saw for the cost to businesses to comply with federal income tax requirements was $289B. Just going to a flat tax would be an automatic release of $289B worth of labor!

Although it's not like $289B would materialize out of nowhere. It would be $289B less for the accountants of the world.

Granted, it would improve efficiency and productivity for the economy as a whole. But you could see how certain people would be against it. It would be akin to the government allowing an unlimited number of visas for overseas developers. A net positive for our economy (and the world), but your average developer who now has more competition is likely going to frown on such legislature.

Create 'em then outsource 'em (1)

plurgid (943247) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511252)

By definition, any job whose primary enabling factor is broadband, can be done from anywhere in the world, cheaper. IF any jobs AT ALL are created, it won't take long to ship 'em overseas.

Try again.

Maybe "green" technology could stimulate the economy, with the right policy decisions, and the right breakthroughs.

Jobs going fast! Sign up now! Only 2.3 mln left! (4, Funny)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511316)

Top jobs created by broadband adoption:

1) Comcast traffic filterer
2) MPAA P2P network monitor
3) DMCA takedown notices writer
4) RIAA fake torrent uploader
5) Botnet senior manager
6) Senior wiretap installer

Re:Jobs going fast! Sign up now! Only 2.3 mln left (1)

davidc (91400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511868)


1) Comcast traffic filterer
2) MPAA P2P network monitor
3) DMCA takedown notices writer
4) RIAA fake torrent uploader
5) Botnet senior manager
6) Senior wiretap installer


7. Bandwidth usage tax adjuster.

Re:Jobs going fast! Sign up now! Only 2.3 mln left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22513120)

7) Geek Squad pr0n manager

broadband vs. green tech (3, Insightful)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511340)

For all the trillions of dollars pouring into alternative fuels, hybrid cars, & transportation taxes, all it would take to solve most of this problem is willingness to let workers telecommute.

It's like living in a parallel universe where we sit in traffic 10 hours a week & spend half our income getting to work with all these unused internet cables sitting just a few feet away.

broadband vs. geek utopia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22512094)

And just what percentage of US jobs lend themselves to telecommuting and why haven't they been outsourced already? And the follow up question what percentage of those need "real broadband" like some poster said above? And last why do slashdotters think everyone's like them?

"For all the trillions of dollars pouring into alternative fuels, hybrid cars, & transportation taxes, all it would take to solve most of this problem is willingness to let workers telecommute."

No, what would go much farther is not having a society that's built up around "cars being king". From acres of parking lots to urban design that's jobs over here, and housing waaay over there. But that horse left long ago and there's no "non-car" utopia that "real broadband" will bring about. Now get off my lawn, you're blocking my ability to SSH in and mow.

Read between the lines (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#22511758)

The "creating 2.4 million jobs" bit is just butter to help grease this idea into the proper ears. That's state-government speak for "This is a good thing".

Allow me to translate this into plain english: This is a good thing. Broadband, even the cheap 512kbit stuff, is enabling refined efficiency across the board for all sorts of services. Anything that brings pertinent, timely information to great numbers of people causes ripple effects throughout society. It helps humankind inch forward as a lubric, progressive society. If a few public voices want to give that inch a push, they're effectively accelerating progress.

Twenty years ago, we got all our information from books, periodicals and TV - biased, slow-moving media. I think it's safe to say that people 20 years ago possessed less useful information, on average, than people today. I know it's not a quantifiable asset, but you can't deny the casual benefits brought forth by the web and instant messaging.

Re:Read between the lines (1)

Yoozer (1055188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22513436)

The "creating 2.4 million jobs" bit is just butter to help grease this idea into the proper ears. That's state-government speak for "This is a good thing".
Agreed.

Twenty years ago, we got all our information from books, periodicals and TV - biased, slow-moving media. I think it's safe to say that people 20 years ago possessed less useful information, on average, than people today. I know it's not a quantifiable asset, but you can't deny the casual benefits brought forth by the web and instant messaging.
Don't agree - the internet can make an even more perfect echo chamber; you can completely tune out any dissent and peer pressure on messageboards can make you go nowhere else.

Re:Read between the lines (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 6 years ago | (#22513476)

Peer pressure on message boards can only make you not *post* dissenting opinions. You are free to go to alternative sites, and no one can stop you.

In the meantime, I've created my own forum and posted whatever the hell I felt like.

broadband adoption my ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22511880)

Moved to the USA 2 years ago. Bought a 3mbps dsl from verizon for $30 bucks/mo which at the time seemed like a great deal compared to Greece's like 80euros for 1.5mbps. 2 years later still in the US and im paying $30 for the same dsl when 24mbps in Greece costs 35euros and u get unlimited local and long distance calls. Where the hell do you see broadband adoption?

Blah! (1)

Vskye (9079) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512396)

Seriously, at least where I live you have a choice between 1 crap ass broadband company and dsl. The city / town does said contract with cable provider and your locked in. As an example, I'm suppose to get 5mb down and 512K up, but for the past month I've been anywhere from 0.20% (faster than dialup at 56K) to 1.5MB. Beg's to differ the WTF factor. My ISP is, Charter. Their tech support sucks, and is out of India. (script reading dumb ass that has not a clue.. at least to the ones I've spoke to) Seriously, I can pay my bill in town, speak to someone that talks english to order new services, but yet the tech support side goes out to India? WTF? Don't think so.

A great leap forward in broadband usage (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22512556)

That's what's needed in America today.
 
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...