Got broadband?

You are supposed to have it.

TMT


Study: US broadband goal nearly reached By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated
Press Writer
Wed Jan 30, 6:41 PM ET



In 2004, President Bush pledged that all Americans should have
affordable access to high-speed Internet service by 2007. A report to
be released Thursday by the administration says it has succeeded --
mostly.

"Networked Nation: Broadband in America" is an upbeat assessment of
the administration's efforts to spur growth and competition in the
high-speed Internet market. Critics said the report's conclusion is
too rosy.

The report was prepared by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department
that acts as the president's principal adviser on telecommunications
and information policy issues.

The report concludes that "a reasonable assessment of the available
data indicates" that the objective of affordable access to broadband
for all has been realized "to a very great degree."

Richard Russell, deputy director for technology in the executive
office of the president, also answered the question in the
affirmative, but with a caveat.

"The answer is by most metrics yes," he said. "However, there's still
a lot more that needs to be done."

Broadband penetration has been a sore point for the government and
industry as international surveys have shown that the United States,
the birthplace of the Internet, lags behind other nations. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the U.S.
in 15th place for broadband lines per person in 2006, down from No. 4
in 2001.

The NTIA report drew its conclusion using data from the Federal
Communications Commission and other sources. The FCC reported that
more than 99 percent of all U.S. ZIP codes received broadband service
from at least one provider by the end of 2006.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

"More data is necessary," Meredith Attwell Baker, acting chief of
NTIA, said in an interview. "We support the FCC's current efforts to
produce better data."

A bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would develop an
annual inventory of existing broadband services has passed the House
and awaits action in the Senate.

The report paints a picture of a broadband environment that is
becoming increasingly competitive, for which it credits the
president's policies. Bush has promoted polices that created "an
environment in which broadband innovation and competition can
flourish," the report states.

Among them: a freeze on state and local taxes on Internet access; a
policy of clearing airwaves for use by commercial providers of
wireless broadband service; and continuing efforts to "clear away
regulatory obstacles" that might thwart investment in new
technologies.

"If you look at the administration policies from the beginning,
there's been a comprehensive set of technology, regulatory and fiscal
economic policies that have laid the foundation for the robust
competitive environment that we are enjoying today," Baker said.

The FCC numbers indicate that the total number of broadband lines has
grown from 6.8 million in December 2000 to 82.5 million in December
2006.

But defining broadband is a highly subjective exercise. The FCC
defined it as 200 kilobits per second. That's about four times the
speed of a good dial-up connection and barely fast enough to stream
video.

"The notion that a 200-kilobit connection is broadband is itself
ludicrous," said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a
nonprofit public interest group that studies media and technology
issues. Turner wrote a report critical of the FCC's data analysis.

Turner said there have been great strides in the growth of broadband,
but said there is still a digital divide.

"In rich suburban areas they're getting broadband," he said. "But in
many poor and many rural areas we're not seeing the same kind of
competitive marketplace that President Bush outlined in his speech in
2004."

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:06:03 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

The government report calls the puny, FAP limited satellite providers
"broadband", and since I'm potentially served by two of them, they've
declared "Mission Accomplished".

Loren

Loren Amelang wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Ouch that sucks. I'd hate to connect to my shell sessions on net bsd boxes
using satellite. I guess I'll keep being happy paying 45 bucks for 384K U/D
with static ip from the phone company.

I want to know why my phone bill pays for the dispatch function of the
sheriffs office (911) since they already nick me for county property taxes
and why my land line should pay for interernet in the schools. Maybe it
would be better for used for 10M U/D for ME the guy paying for this chit.

Wes

Wes wrote:

Loren Amelang wrote:


Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.


Ouch that sucks. I'd hate to connect to my shell sessions on net bsd boxes
using satellite. I guess I'll keep being happy paying 45 bucks for 384K U/D
with static ip from the phone company.

I want to know why my phone bill pays for the dispatch function of the
sheriffs office (911) since they already nick me for county property taxes
and why my land line should pay for interernet in the schools. Maybe it
would be better for used for 10M U/D for ME the guy paying for this chit.

Wes


DON'T aske what the extra charges on your phone bill are for.

I did once.

I guarantee you won't like the answers.

In San Antonio, one of the riders pays for sidewalks downtown.

Or so tehy claim...

"Loren Amelang" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:06:03 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

The government report calls the puny, FAP limited satellite providers
"broadband", and since I'm potentially served by two of them, they've
declared "Mission Accomplished".

Loren

Typical. It's just like in the Vietnam War days. They tell you what sounds
good but isn't near the truth. In this case they call minimal service in an
area "serving the area", they call slow service "broadband, and they call
service you can get but can't afford "providing broadband". That's what you
get from people who are basically dishonest. All they care about is whether
the business is profitable or not and the kind of service means nothing as
long as money is being made. When corporations rule the world that's what
you get.

Take my case. I'm told by the phone company that I'm 20,000 ft. from the
nearest switching station. To get DSL I need to be 15,000 ft. or less so I'm
5,000 ft. away from getting the service. I might as well be 1,000 miles
because they aren't going to provide the service. They won't put in the
equipment to serve my area because it costs money and they won't get enough
customers to justify it. So I sit here with ridiculously slow dialup and
there is nothing I can do but order satellite service that is way too
expensive. If I was 5,000 ft. closer I could get DSL for 15.00 a month. The
bottom line is that me and plenty of others are left out. So much for
providing the service to everyone. They're full of ****.

Hawke

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Loren Amelang" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:06:03 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

The government report calls the puny, FAP limited satellite providers
"broadband", and since I'm potentially served by two of them, they've
declared "Mission Accomplished".

Loren

Typical. It's just like in the Vietnam War days. They tell you what sounds
good but isn't near the truth. In this case they call minimal service in an
area "serving the area", they call slow service "broadband, and they call
service you can get but can't afford "providing broadband". That's what you
get from people who are basically dishonest. All they care about is whether
the business is profitable or not and the kind of service means nothing as
long as money is being made. When corporations rule the world that's what
you get.

Take my case. I'm told by the phone company that I'm 20,000 ft. from the
nearest switching station. To get DSL I need to be 15,000 ft. or less so I'm
5,000 ft. away from getting the service. I might as well be 1,000 miles
because they aren't going to provide the service. They won't put in the
equipment to serve my area because it costs money and they won't get enough
customers to justify it. So I sit here with ridiculously slow dialup and
there is nothing I can do but order satellite service that is way too
expensive. If I was 5,000 ft. closer I could get DSL for 15.00 a month. The
bottom line is that me and plenty of others are left out. So much for
providing the service to everyone. They're full of ****.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

TMT

We finally got broadband here in a small Sierra Nevada Mountain community
about 6 months ago. We had the last dial phone system in the state, and no
"caller ID" until 2 years ago. We still cant get callers blocked here.
DSL lines run past but there aren't enough paying customers here for them to
tap the line for us.
Next week i am going to Comcast phone service, and throwing Ma Bell out on
her lazy ass.
--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty

Stupendous Man wrote:
We finally got broadband here in a small Sierra Nevada Mountain
community about 6 months ago. We had the last dial phone system in the
state, and no "caller ID" until 2 years ago. We still cant get callers
blocked here.
DSL lines run past but there aren't enough paying customers here for
them to tap the line for us.
Next week i am going to Comcast phone service, and throwing Ma Bell
out on her lazy ass.
Ma Bell, back in 1981 in Wichita my dad and I were trying to call
England and kept getting a message saying all international line were
busy, made sense it was Christmas, after about 2 weeks we called the
operator and were told that was because we didn't have international
direct dialing from our location so she dialed and we got straight
through. All that technology and they couldn't provide a correct message.

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:40:40 -0800, "Stupendous Man"
wrote:


Next week i am going to Comcast phone service, and throwing Ma Bell out on
her lazy ass.
Be careful when you do that - I did it a year ago. I got the new
provider on line, then returned their rental phone to their phone
centre. Next day I called to cancel Ma Bell's service and got told al
97 reasons why I was a total F*****g idiot for signing on with an
alternate provider, Then I got the final billing including a $60.00
charge for a lost telephone set. It took me three months and numerous
phone calls to get my $60 back, so a bit of advise - If you are
going to cancel Ma Bell, make certain you kill auto payment first.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:28:06 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
snip
I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.
snip
=============
If the "brave new world order" and "global economy" is a reality,
and the U.S. is to successfully compete, the failure to construct
adequate broadband facilities, at least equal to those in Europe
and the "Asian Tigers" is the height of folly and negligence"

Unfortunately, it's not just Bush [he will be gone in a year] and
it's not just broadband.

Both Republicans and Democrats must shoulder responsibility for
the total failure to improve or even maintain much of the
American infrastructure, including not only broadband, but roads,
bridges, airports, air traffic control, etc., going back at least
30 years.

While much has been written about the "hollowing out" of
America's manufacturing and technology, comparatively little has
been said about our "patch and pray" infrastructure maintenance
policy. Huge sums are being spent to construct the NAFTA
interstate from Mexico to Canada, but pittances are spent on our
existing bridges, roads, tunnels, etc.

We are eating our seed corn, and now most of it is gone…

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:38:39 -0500, Wes wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes


Arnt broadband providers private entities? Along with phone
companies?

So if you dont have a cell phone, its Bush's fault?

Typical leftard bliss ninny nanny state socialism.

Gunner

On Feb 1, 6:38*pm, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. *Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes

Well you may have a point...where does government's responsibility end
and the free market begin?

Just because I have a car doesn't mean that it is the government's job
to provide roads.

Just because I have a house doesn't mean that it is the government's
job to provide fire protection.

Just because...well one can go on and on but again you may have a
point. ;)

TMT

On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

[ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Feb 1, 11:25*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

* * * * [ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

* * * * You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

* * * * Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. *If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

* * * * Enjoy,
* * * * * * * * DoN.

--
*Email: * * | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
* * * * (too) near Washington D.C. |http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
* * * * * *--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Actually I consider the failure to control spam is a good indicator of
how secure America's infrastructure is from cyber attack.

And of how good the Government's ability to protect its databases with
our SS numbers and financial data.

TMT

TMT

On Feb 1, 11:25*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

* * * * [ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

* * * * You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

* * * * Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. *If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

* * * * Enjoy,
* * * * * * * * DoN.

--
*Email: * * | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
* * * * (too) near Washington D.C. |http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
* * * * * *--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

I should add that I strongly agree with you on the "their own email"
issue.

Politicians need to live in the world we do instead of the bubble they
call Washington, D.C.

TMT

On Feb 1, 11:25*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

* * * * [ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

* * * * You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

* * * * Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. *If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

* * * * Enjoy,
* * * * * * * * DoN.

--
*Email: * * | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
* * * * (too) near Washington D.C. |http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
* * * * * *--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Don...I was thinking....isn't the flood of spam for body part
enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams just the free market in
action?

Does a person want the Government to protect us from it?

In fact if one considers the "Do Not Call" list, its effect is the
Government limiting the actions of the free market.

I really do miss those dinner calls I used to get.... ;)

TMT

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:32 pm, "Hawke" wrote:

[ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---


I don't need help from legislators on Spam.
They're already Fkcuing up too many other things.

Mark

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)


ICASMs? (Inter-Continental Anti Spammer Missiles) ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Hawke wrote:

Take my case. I'm told by the phone company that I'm 20,000 ft. from the
nearest switching station. To get DSL I need to be 15,000 ft. or less so I'm
5,000 ft. away from getting the service. I might as well be 1,000 miles
because they aren't going to provide the service. They won't put in the
equipment to serve my area because it costs money and they won't get enough
customers to justify it. So I sit here with ridiculously slow dialup and
there is nothing I can do but order satellite service that is way too
expensive. If I was 5,000 ft. closer I could get DSL for 15.00 a month. The
bottom line is that me and plenty of others are left out. So much for
providing the service to everyone. They're full of ****.


Yeah, but for $15/Mo they are not going to put an RT in your neighborhood to
bring you DSL until somebody else (competitor) has a viable way. I was
paying $79/Mo for a commercial static-IP DSL from Covad, when my local
phone co decided they didn't want their lines used by somebody else, so
they started lengthening my copper loop. I started out at 12,600' and
ended up at about 18,000'. My DSL still worked marginally, but Covad
didn't want to deal with it anymore. They told me they'd keep the line
up as much as they could, but I'd get no more service on the modem or line.

I eventually had to switch to cable modem, which works, but it is a
shared service, and also Charter Comm. is running an extreme low-budget
business, and their 1st tier backbone providers have them throttled.
There are times in the evening where it takes 5 seconds+ to ping a IP
address some distance away. So, now I pay $89 /Mo for a service that
can actually be WORSE!

AT&T's new high-speed package seems to be mostly for video streaming,
and so the IP performance doesn't look much better. And, more money
again, as you have to buy the whole bundle. And, we are not a
Verizon-served area.

Jon

Heard of the Sat up/down link ? Hughes provides. No phone service needed.
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Got broadband?

You are supposed to have it.

TMT


Study: US broadband goal nearly reached By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated
Press Writer
Wed Jan 30, 6:41 PM ET



In 2004, President Bush pledged that all Americans should have
affordable access to high-speed Internet service by 2007. A report to
be released Thursday by the administration says it has succeeded --
mostly.

"Networked Nation: Broadband in America" is an upbeat assessment of
the administration's efforts to spur growth and competition in the
high-speed Internet market. Critics said the report's conclusion is
too rosy.

The report was prepared by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department
that acts as the president's principal adviser on telecommunications
and information policy issues.

The report concludes that "a reasonable assessment of the available
data indicates" that the objective of affordable access to broadband
for all has been realized "to a very great degree."

Richard Russell, deputy director for technology in the executive
office of the president, also answered the question in the
affirmative, but with a caveat.

"The answer is by most metrics yes," he said. "However, there's still
a lot more that needs to be done."

Broadband penetration has been a sore point for the government and
industry as international surveys have shown that the United States,
the birthplace of the Internet, lags behind other nations. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the U.S.
in 15th place for broadband lines per person in 2006, down from No. 4
in 2001.

The NTIA report drew its conclusion using data from the Federal
Communications Commission and other sources. The FCC reported that
more than 99 percent of all U.S. ZIP codes received broadband service
from at least one provider by the end of 2006.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

"More data is necessary," Meredith Attwell Baker, acting chief of
NTIA, said in an interview. "We support the FCC's current efforts to
produce better data."

A bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would develop an
annual inventory of existing broadband services has passed the House
and awaits action in the Senate.

The report paints a picture of a broadband environment that is
becoming increasingly competitive, for which it credits the
president's policies. Bush has promoted polices that created "an
environment in which broadband innovation and competition can
flourish," the report states.

Among them: a freeze on state and local taxes on Internet access; a
policy of clearing airwaves for use by commercial providers of
wireless broadband service; and continuing efforts to "clear away
regulatory obstacles" that might thwart investment in new
technologies.

"If you look at the administration policies from the beginning,
there's been a comprehensive set of technology, regulatory and fiscal
economic policies that have laid the foundation for the robust
competitive environment that we are enjoying today," Baker said.

The FCC numbers indicate that the total number of broadband lines has
grown from 6.8 million in December 2000 to 82.5 million in December
2006.

But defining broadband is a highly subjective exercise. The FCC
defined it as 200 kilobits per second. That's about four times the
speed of a good dial-up connection and barely fast enough to stream
video.

"The notion that a 200-kilobit connection is broadband is itself
ludicrous," said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a
nonprofit public interest group that studies media and technology
issues. Turner wrote a report critical of the FCC's data analysis.

Turner said there have been great strides in the growth of broadband,
but said there is still a digital divide.

"In rich suburban areas they're getting broadband," he said. "But in
many poor and many rural areas we're not seeing the same kind of
competitive marketplace that President Bush outlined in his speech in
2004."