48 responses to “Broadband – Not”

1. 

   Christopher Perry September 9th, 2009 at 06:27

   I hope they dont get that one through. As it is right now I have been having lag issues at purdue and home that were not there or at least as bad a year ago.

2. 

   Chris Miller September 9th, 2009 at 07:51

   Paying a premium for a mere 256k won’t fly with people; they’ll look towards alternative ways to get faster access.

3. 

   Jesus Pozo September 9th, 2009 at 09:58

   What they are trying to do is so wrong… The phone companies where I come from (Spain) have tried something similar and they accomplished what they aimed for. We currently have one of the slowest broadband in Europe! which is ridiculous! I think for entrepreneurs, this might be a good time to research how the internet works in Korea or Japan because they seem to have a pretty decent speed…Cool article!

4. 

   Andrew Rodriguez September 9th, 2009 at 10:52

   I have been to Spain, and I was living in the suburbs or a pretty major city [much like the locale where I live here], and the internet is dreadfully slow! I also attended an Internet Cafe while traveling the country and for being an industry dependent on rapid access and customers paying by the time spent on the internet, their broadband was no better than my dial-up AOL back in the 1990s.

5. 

   Olivia Freeman September 9th, 2009 at 11:06

   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. The last thing anyone would want is a slower connection. Surprise surprise it boils down to money, but hopefully if the general public is aware of this issue there will be enough bad press on these companies to where they would feel obligated to keep a reasonable standard. As a nation we should always try to move to towards raising the bar not lowering it. But slowing our internet could potentially harm us in the long run. Other countries are climbing ahead of us with more technical efficiency. If anything we should learn from the best and speed up the connections we have while still expanding the connection to rural areas.

6. 

   Jake Vanhooser September 9th, 2009 at 11:08

   Where I’m from in Evansville we have the same problem with not getting Internet because we live so far out. I would love to have high speed Internet out there. But I wouldn’t want to pay huge sums of money for I Internet that isn’t any better than dial up. I sure hope this doesn’t go through.

7. 

   Micajah Green September 9th, 2009 at 11:30

   I think the United States is too bogged down with trying to squeeze a dime out of anything and everything. This is yet another example of big companies getting too greedy. I think we have enough going on in our country without worrying about an issue like this as well.

8. 

   Stephen Williams II September 9th, 2009 at 12:00

   I truly hate when people are so “stingy” with their money, especially when they are rich and make millions to billions of dollars in revenue a year. It is very true that with that kind of money and influence, they could flip a switch and everyone could get larges amounts of megabits in their connection. Of course, the “higher ups” would not do that because almost none of them care for the little guy, or the guy in the middle who’s just trying to get a bit taller to get to the tallest guy. It truly amazes me.

9. 

   Greg Forney September 9th, 2009 at 12:31

   That really is absurd, I despise Comcast as a company especially. They have a strangle hold on high speed internet in a lot of places and they know it, they provide some of the worst customer service I’ve ever dealt with in my life. I’d like to say that I’m surprised by what these companies are doing but I’m not unfortunately.

10. 

    Theresa Reinhart September 9th, 2009 at 13:22

    This just aggravates me to no end. My parents home (a.k.a. where I grew up) is located outside of a rural town and where some people would call “the boonies.” They have recently upgraded to a better, faster service. However, it is not half as fast as my service here at Purdue. I feel like something should be done to stop these greedy bastards from, as Hank said,”laughin all the way to the bank.”

11. 

    Dave Uhlenhake September 9th, 2009 at 13:50

    This sucks unless you work for the communication companies, in which case it is not a bad idea to make money these days. It is a dog eat dog world out there and it is the American dream to make as much money as possible. But hopefully this will not go through!

12. 

    Yi Li September 9th, 2009 at 14:06

    People will always find some ways to earn benefit even without the 256k “broadband”. I think it’s better to make a compromise in which the internet won’t be very slow and people doesn’t need to pay a lot of money.

13. 

    Nick Brenneke September 9th, 2009 at 14:52

    Like the people above me, any company making money by lowballing customers is not very ethical. Broadband used to be an issue where I’m from. Before Verizon installed DSL 2 years ago, the only ISP’s available were slow 56k dialup connections or the really expensive Comcast cable internet service. Taking advantage of such situations, these crappy companies are making bank because they meet the requirements for broadband. I hope the FCC steps in and increases the requirements for broadband. 256k used to be fast when broadband first started, but in this age of Youtube and online gaming, that low of bandwidth just won’t cut it. Upping the requirements will ensure that customers get reliable and quick internet, a must for the expanding digital age. On a side note, this plan from Obama has striking similarities to FDR’s New Deal. ?Of course, in Obama’s case, the plan is to bring faster internet to rural areas whereas FDR’s plan was to provide electricity to rural homes.

14. 

    Sanford C September 9th, 2009 at 15:06

    Seeing Obama’s recent political stance,I am surprised that he used the subsidy approach when he could have just close the “broadband” loophole by tightening up the regulation approach. I do doubt the possibility of the companies lowering the standard though, if the FCC take a look at other country’s statistics, America being America would not want to have a “inferior” number relatively to others.

15. 

    Alex Lewis September 9th, 2009 at 15:09

    I really hope that this doesn’t go through. I’ve been having problems with my Comcast internet since the beginning of the school year. I do think that it would be funny if this backfired on the Internet Service Providers and the FCC increased the speeds instead. I know that won’t happen, but it would be funny.

16. 

    Kyle Chen September 9th, 2009 at 15:18

    If 256K is consider as broadband, might as well start using satellite internet since it will cover most so called rural and underserved areas.

17. 

    Lyndsey S. September 9th, 2009 at 15:51

    My question is simply why is broadband just now looking toward having a clear definition? Why was the frequency not decided on when we started using broadband? That just seems so absurd that we are just now looking into doing this.

    Also, I just found this on Michigan.gov: “Federal Full broadband lines are lines with information carrying capability in excess of 200 Kbps in both directions, simultaneously. One-way broadband lines are lines with information carrying capacity in excess of 200 Kbps in one direction (typically downstream) and less than or equal to 200 Kbps in the other direction (typically upstream).”

    So I would really like to know why we’re looking for a fraction of 1kbps.

18. 

    Allison Weilbaker September 9th, 2009 at 16:13

    My situation is the same as Nick’s, except it’s still going on. My parents had to make the choice of extremely slow dial up or extremely expensive comcast. My parents chose dial up and though infuriating it was cheap. Comcast got my grandparents who live down the street though and have made some crazy increases.

19. 

    Shawn Tomlinson September 9th, 2009 at 16:29

    This is what will happen if government money is doled out without first checking to see where it is going and how it is used. Government spending is only effective if properly managed and controlled.

20. 

    Ross Peare September 9th, 2009 at 17:07

    It isn’t far to try and lower the broadband speed now just so the companies can get their hands on some more cash in new areas. If they lower the bar in all areas we will see even more lags in the internet. The companies should focus on faster connections in areas that use internet the most instead of being greedy. Spreading broadband to areas that rarely use internet will not benefit the main internet users. But if you look at this from the rural area users point of view you could see an increase in profits because they will now start to surf the web even more.

21. 

    Aaron Curtis September 9th, 2009 at 18:21

    Most internet companies have been very selfish with their money towards customers because their main focus is the money, not the customer appreciation, or how well they are percieved. If they can sell the product, they will sell it for as high as they can, and put little effort after it is sold to make more and more money.

22. 

    Lyndsey S. September 9th, 2009 at 18:47

    Everyone seems to think that the companies are mostly concerned with the money and I have recently been learning in one of my courses that if a business starts to forget its main focus (the customer) it will begin become nonexistent and lose revenue. These companies really should consider putting both areas into focus rather than just the money alone. For entrepreneurs out there, they can take this opportunity to focus on meeting the demands of this market and companies like Comcast and AT&T will, in fact, lose.

23. 

    Joshua Johnson September 9th, 2009 at 19:04

    This is the last thing that we need. The internet companies need to realize that we, the consumers, are the ones who keep them in business. They are simply trying to make more money at our expense, which is wrong.

24. 

    Xi Wu September 9th, 2009 at 19:10

    The speed in rural and underserved areas doesn’t change much, so why the people still invest? Are there any other factors besides ‘profit’ that contribute to the 256k?

25. 

    Will Chandler September 9th, 2009 at 19:26

    I think these companies will suffer if they follow through with this because their customers will look to alternative internet providers that can provide them with a faster internet connection for business and personal reasons. Technology runs this country and everyone that uses the internet will feel the affect.

26. 

    Bin Lin September 9th, 2009 at 20:03

    The honesty is the most important thing for people to know f they are really want to do, or keep the business.

27. 

    Clement Mak September 9th, 2009 at 20:03

    If verizon and comcast slow down the internet, I believe that more and more and more people will look for better internet provider. Therefore, it is a good chance for people who want to start a new internet company.

28. 

    Zacheriah Ruggles September 9th, 2009 at 20:15

    I understand why they want to lower the speed of what they call broadband, cause it will allow them to make more money. But i really hope this does not happen bacause I would not wanna be a user of broadband and it be very slow. I’m a very impacient person and slow internet is not something that I could deal with. GRRR.

29. 

    Karlis Jansons September 9th, 2009 at 20:22

    Thats ridiculous, companies are constantly trying to manipulate laws in order to make a lot of money. Hopefully we can raise the minimum standards for broadband so the investment actually helps us and increases the speed of internet. A recent survey showed that the U.S ranks only 15th among countries for broadband speeds.

30. 

    Quentin Campbell September 9th, 2009 at 20:24

    RIGHT!!! I’ve been having internet problems without the brodband speed being at its lowest point. They need to get themselves togother.

31. 

    Mayura Davda September 9th, 2009 at 20:34

    A service, once defined by a company should keep up it’s definition and name. An improvisation and a speed voost is always welcomed; but lowering the speed of the internet is only going to bring out complaints against the internet provider! That’s what I’d do as a customer.

32. 

    Zhiheng Liu September 9th, 2009 at 21:08

    Of cause what the internet service companies did were wrong, but the worst service they have, the more incentive there is for people to seek out for alternative solutions. Satellite connection, for example, is much much faster than even cable services.

33. 

    Caroline Stephenson September 9th, 2009 at 21:33

    What’s really got me, is the fact that this is a problem that have people worried. I feel like the FCC will recognize the motivations behind the companies “broadband” plans and never agree to it.
    It is things like this that make me wonder how entrepreneurs are not in it for the money. (Supposedly a myth in chapter 1) These companies all started out as little ventures, so does the greed just expand with size? Or were they in it for the money all along?

34. 

    Jenna York September 9th, 2009 at 22:18

    This is ridiculous! It is really sad to see what billion dollar companies will do to make more money. I personally use Comcast as my internet provider (not by choice) and I am already pretty disappointed in the high prices that accompany the less than average quality of service. If my internet connection were to become any slower it would just be unacceptable.

35. 

    Ankit Buti September 9th, 2009 at 22:42

    This is certainly going to be a step back as far as growth is concerned. I feel rather than cutting down speed for more money they should try and develop better technology to provide faster speeds at lower costs and in a wider area. I pray that this doesn’t get approved.

36. 

    lukephillippo September 9th, 2009 at 22:56

    Have you ever noticed how often you use the phrase “laugh all the way to the bank”?

    By the way my Broadband can vary in speed anywhere from the advertised 16mbps all of the way down to a measly 500kbps. Really annoying sometimes.

37. 

    Phillip Jenkins September 9th, 2009 at 23:34

    Internet Neutrality is a big issue to me and the definition of broadband is a very hard subject. ISPs purposefully restrict your bandwidth consumption and charge you more based upon the speed you want. They are even talking about making “plans” like satellite companies so they can give you different “levels” of service. The lesser companies, like Hughes Net (god forbid) also purposefully market to areas that do not receive broadband with promises of high speed and then give you slower than 56k modem speed and only open the ports between 1am-4am. I know, I’ve used it. It took my house, which was in the middle of nowhere, 4 years to get a cable hooked up from a high speed network 2 feet from my house, all because we were the only people in the neighborhood who wanted it. It wasn’t raking in enough money basically. I’ve used Insight then Comcast, both crap, but you have to gauge service and reliability versus availability, however what they are trying to do it just plain extortion.

38. 

    Sree Harsha Uddandam September 10th, 2009 at 00:08

    The point that is mentioned is very important that USA is a big country compared to JAPAN n korea .
    So what I feel is the internet speed should not decrease but it should atleast remain the same speed as it is now.

39. 

    Kevin Buczek September 10th, 2009 at 00:10

    That is just ridiculous that they would try to pull something like that. Something like that will never happen but I give the greedy companies credit for trying because after all they are trying to make easy money.

40. 

    Nathan Ferguson September 10th, 2009 at 00:17

    Bogus, companies need to stop being so selfish.

41. 

    Eugene September 10th, 2009 at 02:13

    This kind of open selfishness really makes me mad the same companies who have gotten us in a mess keep milking the system and nothing is done about it.

42. 

    Chris Cookley September 10th, 2009 at 07:57

    At some point the entire country should have access to true broadband. The internet infrastructure situation is just like the rest of the infrastructure that runs this country. It’s old. It’s tired. It needs to be replaced. Why not create thousands if not millions of jobs to rebuild and repair all of this like they did during the great depression? That move helped that economy, maybe this would help ours too.

43. 

    Michael Mullen September 10th, 2009 at 08:55

    That’s just not right. Everyone who pays for it should get the same quality. There should be no differences.

44. 

    Steve Shih September 10th, 2009 at 10:14

    They mentioned that the USA is a big country including Hawaii and Alaska. And now they want to add internet speed to rural and underserved areas. There will definitely be some money issues. However, how much it costs shouldn’t be the issue but instead will it be successful and reliable in the future?

45. 

    Leah Keough September 10th, 2009 at 12:21

    I feel that our fast paced society will not let this happen! This may also open up an opportunity for some entrepreneurs who have new ideas to solve these problems. I’m not sure how it is around the world. Of course money is the fuel behind this, that’s no surprise, but this is kind of shocking. I don’t believe they’ll get too far with that one.

46. 

    Marisa Strupp September 10th, 2009 at 20:11

    This company looks like there not going to get that far. The ghastly amount that people have to pay for the premium might as well sink there hope of growing quick and fast. The idea is good, but is there really a good market?

47. 

    Sung Jae September 11th, 2009 at 16:29

    This is not surprising news and why would the internet company be willing to spend extra money on other people’s comfortableness? To make the company’s life in danger? Also, because its located at U.S. it is different issue. The company predicts the internet will probably still work at 1mb/s and although there is complains it is unlikely result to revolution. It is true many internet companies earned billions of dollars at U.S. but i don’t think that is good enough to suddenly be willing to afford free high speed internet. Otherwise, they would have to fire their workers. Having fast internet is possible at Korea and Japan because the land is condensed and there is less opportunity cost when it gets to setting up high speed connection. But as Obama mentioned, i think it is good idea for these internet companies to provide little faster internet service to educational facilities.

48. 

    Chris Borer September 13th, 2009 at 17:58

    A great example of this crisis is Purdue own internet! For being such a technology driven school our network is just terrible. IT@P needs to seriously improve our system.