Nickname: Douglas W. Goodall

Review: I have had Internet access from the beginning. SLIP, ISDN, DSL, CABLE. I have had servers, problems and solutions. I understand the problems that ISPs face and providing stable efficient reliable service is not easy. To make things worse, people are being taught to expect streaming services for audio and video, and I am concerned that it will be too hard to provide free wireless for high volume users of this type. Email and browsing aren't so bad. That would be valuable, but expecting to get your video entertainment off the free network will put too much of a strain on things, in my humble opinion. Thanks, Doug

Date reviewed: Mar 16, 2008 6:10 PM

Nickname: Douglas W. Goodall

Review: I have had Internet access from the beginning. SLIP, ISDN, DSL, CABLE. I have had servers, problems and solutions. I understand the problems that ISPs face and providing stable efficient reliable service is not easy. To make things worse, people are being taught to expect streaming services for audio and video, and I am concerned that it will be too hard to provide free wireless for high volume users of this type. Email and browsing aren't so bad. That would be valuable, but expecting to get your video entertainment off the free network will put too much of a strain on things, in my humble opinion. Thanks, Doug

Date reviewed: Mar 16, 2008 6:10 PM

Nickname: singaporcupine

Review: "Free" broadband won't get off the ground in the USA for some time to come. And it won't be cheap. I'd pay $20 per month for DSL or cable with 6 MBPS, but I don't think that will ever be offered because of the profit motive (not to mention the greed motive). The free kind would probably be as slow as dial-up. When broadband and Wifi are free to the masses it will be slow, but the provider will offer enhanced DSL or cable for a price. I cynically believe that the price would be in the neighborhood of what DSL or cable costs now, which is anywhere from $40 to $60 and up. So why wait for free? We're going to have to pay for speed eventually, no matter who offers "free" broadband. Plus, it won't fly because everyone talks about it and nothing gets done. All the politics involved will never let it get off the ground. Some provider should just cut to the chase and offer fast broadband, period, because after all the hemming, hawing and manipulating, that's what the end product will be.

Date reviewed: Oct 16, 2006 10:34 PM

Nickname: Ed

Review: Peter, ud be surprised. I believe my ex gf paid 30 euros per month for adsl2 (in an old building !!), 22 mbit (works out to be 8x faster than version 1.5 mbit dsl in real!) or 4x faster than comcast 4 mbit cable. But be glad you have the option for this. In Indonesia we still pay 50 for 256k/cable unlimited, or 50 for dsl 384 with 1 gb datalimit. want limitless expect to pay 300+ per mo. Want t1 fork out 6 grand a month, excluding installation and isp.

Date reviewed: Jun 1, 2006 9:27 PM

Nickname: Peter

Review: Hard to believe that America is far behind the Europeans when broadband pricing is more affordable in the USA. I think the writer needs to do more research.

Date reviewed: May 23, 2006 9:07 AM

Nickname: jon

Review: Eris, the poster is right on the money. Knowing their capital investments aren't protected, why would anyone spend tens of billions in broadband investment? This is the government interference at its worst. No wonder US is 16th in world's broadband ranking.

Date reviewed: May 22, 2006 9:39 PM

Nickname: Cajun in Texas

Review: Let's see, just a few years ago the Bells were "thrown in the briar patch" like in that childhood story. Now the Baby Bells have remerged. We have only two real alternatives for multiple TV programs, and many cities have only a single provider of any Internet access, much less broadband. The established companies like it just the way it is. We, the people, on the other hand, deserve (are entitled to?) and expect a level playing field. When did multi-billion dollar bidding fests benefit "we the people?" "We" benefit by ensuring the normal monopolistic behavior of large corporations is kept checked and well regulated so innovation is not stifled and technology advances get implemented so "we" can benefit from all the tax breaks "we" have been financing.

Date reviewed: May 22, 2006 9:15 PM

Nickname: broadband in the US? Wow.

Review: I like the coy tone of the article here. "Harder to settle is what needs to be done." Now, don't be so shy. It's quite obvious what needs to be done. In fact, telecoms need to be owned by the community. Yeah, that's right. Privatization is a huge failure. Funny how many examples of state-owned telecoms are mentioned that have far better broadband than the U.S. It's so obvious it's absurd how the article pussyfoots around the point.

Date reviewed: May 22, 2006 6:59 PM

Nickname: Eric

Review: This is laughable. First, the government imposes on the large carriers the obligation to resell/wholesale any access (both broadband and telephone) to competitors below their cost and then the same government wonders why we don't have higher broadband penetration. Nobody in their right mind would spend huge sums of dollars when somebody could legally the buy it from them below the carriers' cost. Now, one of those same former government officials is starting a business and wants special treatment. This smells of corruption!

Date reviewed: May 22, 2006 6:35 PM

Nickname: Chris

Review: WiMax is OFDM-based and will be the global technology for wireless broadband networks. WiMax works in both licensed and unlicensed bands and equipment costs are a fraction of typical wireless networks. WiMax is also a pure, all-data IP technology and is optimized for new applications such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Internet-Protocol TV (IPTV). Operators are already utilizing the technolgy in certain markets, i.e. Clearwire, Towerstream, etc.

Date reviewed: May 22, 2006 5:35 PM