of kids want an iPad
The Nielsen Company presented a cadre of individuals with a list of nice, shiny gadgets and let them cross off anything and everything they'd like to buy in the next six months, and 31 percent of kids 6-12 picked the iPad as one of them.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why is the US so behind in broadband speed? :(
@Ninetysix
because we're a democracy. We don't tell private enterprises that they MUST provide their service to everyone, regardless of cost. You know how expensive it is for telecoms to reach most rural of areas? Not cost-effective.
@Ninetysix
Because theres little demand for it. People seem fine with 56kb internet as long as it loads CNN or FoxNews. Plus, Cable TV is much more popular than internet, so most be end up paying a lot for TV rather than something that can do BOTH (D:) like the internet. Even so, the U.S is catching up. I have 50+mb/s in my area and sometime this year in CO they'll be releasing 1gb/s speeds in select areas.
@Ninetysix
shut up. come over to the UK and then you'll start missing your internet connection back home.
@TomSawyer
we don't even FORCE grocery stores to operate in a given region, and i'd consider food more vital to life than the internet.
@Ninetysix
It must be because the US doesn't recognize it as a fundamental human right! Quick- make it a right, the internets will get faster!
@TomSawyer
The US is a republic, not a democracy.
@Special Agent Steve
Where in CO, exactly? Probably not the Springs, I'm sure.
Please learn the meaning of the word democracy before you spout your fallacies. Finland is just a more left-wing democratic state and they seem to do pretty damn well by it.
@TomSawyer you are confusing democracy with capitalism
@TomSawyer
sorry, i can't hear you mocking our democracy over my high-speed Internet here in Finland
@TomSawyer
Like someone else above said, we are a Republic in the US. We have a constitution that lays out the rights of the people and limits the government's power. Democracy is "mob rule". 51% could kill any number of people and it would be "okay" if the majority of citizens said it was.
As to the desire for faster internet, all I can say is that you don't want to get it this way. Once the government forcibly sinks its teeth into the internet they will proceed to pass TONS of regulations that 1)track your every moment on the net, and authorize you to be jailed if you say something that the State doesn't like, and 2) SLOW your computer/connection down with mandatory software and government filters.
Think about it this way, if you depend on the government for something that is important to you (ie the internet) how are you going to deal with it after they drive private sector businesses out of the industry and then restrict (or eliminate) your access to the web because they feel like it?
@Ninetysix Because they rather spend money changing their name than increasing their bandwidth/service
Looking at you crapcast.
Or is it xfin...suck...ity?
@dedparrot Actually, despite the UK's broadband being laughable compared to the mainland, it's still a heck of a lot better than the US. For example, Virgin's 50Mbit internet access is actually affordable (the same price as FiOS 15Mbit, and a hell of a lot cheaper than FiOS 50Mbit), and is actually available to a fairly significant chunk of the population instead of a couple of select cities.
The solution for ultra-fast broadband is for the government to build and maintain a fibre network, and then lease it out to ISPs. It'll therefore be run like a utility, much like electricity/water/gas/railways. Unfortunately, given the recent Budget, this seems pretty unlikely atm.
@New Reformation 1. They already scan all internet traffic. They cant jail us because of that whole Constitution. But I guess mandating expanded bandwidth would nullify the Constitution. Remember how mandating phone service put us all into gulags?
2. Stop being a crazy hat. There are no black helicopters over your house.
If they "feel" like restricting my access then we can elect people that will unrestrict it. Thats the nice thing about our country. Why they would want to restrict it? I haven't got a clue? be realistic. you're being a crazy watermelon. stop it.
@Ninetysix
Consider the size and population difference between the two countries and you will get a better idea. They only have about 5 million compared to USA 309 million. Also, the the USA is a lot larger country. Besides, I am happy with my 25/25 Mbps fiber connection :D
@Ninetysix
For everyone confused as to what the U.S. government structure is, it is a representative republic, meaning that we as a people are represented by a smaller number of individuals we elect to represent us, and that our head of state is not a monarch and is elected as well. A democracy, on the other hand, is a strict majority-rules form of government. The best analogy to describe democracy is "two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner."
To answer your question, Ninetysix,
U.S. companies that provide broadband access spend billions of dollars every year to maintain and upgrade their networks, and since the United States is so large of a country, it's a very costly investment to pump high-speed access to areas with limited amounts of people. Also, The U.S. is roughly 29 times larger than Finland in area and 58 times larger in population, so the investment required to do the same thing Finland is doing on the scale of the U.S. would be astronomical.
@dedparrot Why would he miss slow internet?
@PyRo1509 You mean that same Constitution Obama says puts too many restraints on the government? The same one he ignored concerning the commerce clause?
@PyRo1509
It is interesting that you admit that the State is monitoring all that takes place on the net (arguably an invasion of privacy). As to the belief that our constitution idealistically protects us from being "drug into a black hole", I whole heartedly agree. However, you would probably be interested in legislation that is currently being pushed by a bipartisan group from the senate:
S.3081 - Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.
Our liberty is fragile, that is all I am saying. The government has NO business mandating how businesses expand or demanding that they offer a better service (heck they don't even have the right to give these businesses tax dollars to accomplish their goal). In giving the government power to do this we are opening the window to the government passing more laws saying that "we gave you tax-payer funding thus you must comply to the content standards that the State dictates". Is that something you want?
@Commie ooooookkkkkkk looks like we have more crazy tires...
But i assume you're talking about putting a tax on people who choose not to have a means of paying for health care services. Because I know I only go to the hospital when I choose to.
I refer you to right above the commerce clause:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
@New Reformation
You're absolutely right. Our republic doesn't need 51% of the vote. 0.000178% of the population could kill any number of people and it would be "okay" as long as it was between election cycles.
Voting != Choice
I'll vote for my internet speeds with my wallet, thank you very much.
@Ninetysix because its sooo big!
@Pockets
Except for the fact that our nation (if you are a fellow US citizen... ) is founded on a constitution that clearly lays out what the Government can/can't do, and establishes basic human rights. The structure of checks and balances seeks to insures that a president (part of the executive branch) can't just decide to do whatever he want's to. It are those checks and balances, the constitution, and representative leadership ( A system can have certain democratic elements without being a 'democracy' ) that seek to retain the rights of the people whether they are in the majority or the minority .
@New Reformation I do think it is a violation of the 4th.
as for the senate bill. Senators put in all kinds of crazy bills. But there are a lot of checks and balances. It is a pretty partisan bill that has been lost of committee since March. Don't go crazy over every little thing the 538 do.
I would disagree that government cant regulate business, giving money to companies to do a service for the general public.
Article 1 Section 8.
The company always can say no.
We can always elect representatives that say no.
@Ninetysix
And We "the Americans" Started the friggin' internet. Get up to speed AMERICA!
@Ninetysix
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/
1. South Korea = 32.43Mbps
26. United States = 9.79Mbps
36. United Kingdom = 7.51Mbps
@New Reformation
Well, if you're being serious then I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it is in Finland. I'm actually not sure what you're basing that on, wasn't there a movment in the USA for banning internet gambling? I can remember a senator or something rambling about his tubes getting so clogged that he couldn't use his internets. Does that mean that USA will also get a similar law?
Just a side-note, according to this law wireless broadband is enough, so the telecos don't have to draw cable to every hut in Lapland
@New Reformation
+10 for your comments.
@New Reformation
How are those checks and balances working out?
"Our" constitution is a bunch of words on a piece of paper, amended at the 11th hour to make the tyranny seem palatable. It doesn't matter if it's 51% or 60% or 95%, you and the people who vote can still steal from me as long as enough approve.
Tell me, would it be OK for you if 60% of the cell phone users in the US decided you should own an iPhone and you had to buy it? Would it seem nicer if I used the phrases, "voting" and "checks and balances"?
@Stupidiot Krhmn... To be exact :)
There are three "big" parties in Finland, each one has about 20-23% of the seats in congress. One is left, one is center and one is right. Currently the left one isn't even in our government, the same government that passed this law. But you are right that traditionally in Finland and in Europe socialism is more widely spread and that might have some affect on the matter.
@Spartan117458
"Also, The U.S. is roughly 29 times larger than Finland in area and 58 times larger in population, so the investment required to do the same thing Finland is doing on the scale of the U.S. would be astronomical."
That doesn't make any sense. This means the population density in the US is way higher than in Finland, so building the infrastructure should be cheaper.
And, you might have guessed it, this is actually the reason the government of Finland intervenes here: there is no way the ordinary Fin could have that kind of internet access whithout it being subsidized heavily with public money. There are many remote, small villages, and I can see the value of connecting them to the big wide world, in the interest of education (and porn ;-)).
I feel like people are calling Finland a democracy? We are a republic... A semi-presidential republic.
@New Reformation
Even if the internet is run soley by private industry as it is today in the US, the government could pass laws to still do all those dreadful things you talked about--regardless if its a public or private service. Private industry doesn't preserve your privacy, just look at all the illegal, warrantless data-mining and wire taps done by the Bush administration using AT&T and Verizon networks. One of the main reasons I'm with T-Mobile is that they did not give the executive branch our information, and Quest tried to deny giving the info to the government and we all know what happened to their CEO.