Talk:Internet access

Just what is "Broadband" access anyway?
Under the "broadband" heading, we have "multilink"... multilink is definitely NOT "broadband". I think the problem here is not with including "multilink" in this article, but with using (misusing) the term "broadband" as a heading for this section. this section should be reneame something else and broadband should come under the new heading alongside multilink. Some other subheadings in addition to "multilink" do not belong under the "broadband" heading. Then again, popular usage perhaps changes everthing ... even when it bears no connection to the (an) original meaning for any word... maybe "broadband" is like that??? But I don't think so... :) ... somebody please change the "broadband" heading to "High speed" or something like that. "Higher speed"? "Fast data rate"? Something generic that can take in all the subheadings.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.204.219 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oy... I see now that "broadband" is used / mis-used throughout this article and not only in connection with this points I made above. It appears that "broadband" has become synonymous with "higher speed" (compared to an old modem on plain old telephone service). Maybe I should just surrender this point even before anybody shows up to fight me on it... :( ... but then again, isn't the maintenance of this sort of reference material in part for the purpose of maintaining clarity and meaning? Unleash the arguments for and against. Does Wikipedia set the record straight on the meaning of "broadband" and merely include the proviso, "... but people use the term broadband for many other non-broadband technologies, as well" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.204.219 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The article currently explains broadband as follows:
 * Broadband Internet access, often shortened to just broadband and also known as high-speed Internet access, are services that provide bit-rates considerably higher than that available using a 56 kbit/s modem. In the US National Broadband Plan of 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defined broadband access as "Internet access that is always on and faster than the traditional dial-up access", although the FCC has defined it differently through the years. The term broadband was originally a reference to multi-frequency communication, as opposed to narrowband or baseband. Broadband is now a marketing term that telephone, cable, and other companies use to sell their more expensive higher-data-rate products. Broadband connections are typically made using a computer's built in Ethernet networking capabilities, or by using a NIC expansion card.




 * Is there something wrong with this explanation or definition? Can you suggest a better explanation or definition? We'll need a reference to a reliable source. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Broadband affordability in 2011 graphic
The graph is a completely made metric up by the editor that put it in the article. This came to attention with other graphs that were made up and weren't a reflection of the sources used to create them. It's Original Research and is not peer reviewed. I removed it but was reverted. There is no underlying source that says the data is related to affordability or that the data used in the graph is accurate depiction of affordability. --DHeyward (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted/restored graphic/map
At 4:47 on 11 May 2015 DHeyward deleted a graphic/map labeled "Broadband Affordability" with an edit summary that said "rm original research with arbitrary criteria not made by reliable source". At 7:33 on 11 May 2015 I restored the graphic/map with an edit summary that said "restore previously deleted graphic. Lets discuss this on the talk page before deleting it". This is an item to start that discussion. Here is a copy of the graphic/map in question:

I don't understand why the graphic/map was deleted. It seems like a useful addition to the article. It might make sense to move it down into the section on "Pricing and spending" or "Digital divide". It doesn't seem like original research to me, at least not original research by Wikipedia editors which is what we are worried about here. It is sourced. Not sure what makes the Oxford Internet Institute an unreliable source. The caption seems to do a reasonable job of explaining the criteria used in the graphic/map. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia editor that added the graphic to the page also made it and put it at the Oxford page. It's listed on the Oxford page attribution as well as the Commons attribution. It's not reviewed however.  It's not a recreation of an existing graph, rather it was the Wikipedia editors criteria for what they thought affordability was.  It's Original Research and it came to light because of other graphs that were problematic with sources they cited.  Either way, it's OR.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm still not following. Are you saying that the source for the graphic isn't the Oxford Internet Institute or someone affiliated with the Oxford Internet Institute? Elsewhere at the reference it says: "Dr Mark Graham is Director of Research and a Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute" and "[Dr. Stefano De Sabbata's] work at the Oxford Internet Institute focuses on the analysis and visualization of the geographies of the Internet."


 * Based on information found at the reference, the graphic/map seems like a straight forward visualization of two data items: (i) the “Fixed (wired)-broadband monthly subscription charge, in USD” indicator published by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in the 17th edition of the World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database and (ii) gross national income per capita (Atlas method, current USD) data available from the World Bank. If I'm understanding this correctly, that would make the graphic/map a summary of other primary source data and not itself original research.


 * In any case the graphic/map seems quite useful in helping people look at and think about an important aspect of "Internet access" and the "Digital divide". The map/graphic allows readers to draw their own conclusions based on the data presented.
 * --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, other graphs from the same source "based on information found at the reference" turned out not to be the case and data was created that wasn't in the source even though the graph claimed it to be there. Second, primary sources should be avoided.  “Fixed (wired)-broadband monthly subscription charge, in USD” is data.  Not sure where or who says it's a measure of "affordability" as is claimed in the graph and is why we avoid primary sources.   Without a source that combines the two metrics cited as an indicator of affordability, it's just a pretty picture without a supporting reference.  It's even more onerous to check because the data isn't readily available.  It's also misleading because the author of the graph and the WP editor that uploaded it and added it to the article are apparently the same person.  Oxford isn't vouching for the graph, they simply provide visualization tools.  The graph itself is a creation from a dataset unrelated to Oxford so Ixford isn't the source of the data.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * for reference, see this discussion about the same institute and the same person creating a "map" of submarine trunk lines. It's made up.  It was in our article until someone realized it was made up and had no secondary source support.  It's a pretty graph, though.  Just not reliable and not reflecting the sources claimed.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that the map/graphic in this article (Internet access) is inaccurate or that it doesn't fairly present the data from the ITU and the World Bank? Or is the only complaint here that the author of this map/graphic and another map/graphic are the same and that some people don't agree with how the other graphic was produced? I think we should stick to talking about the map/graphic in this article and not base judgements on some other unrelated graphic. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dial-up is NOT broadband.
Why is dial-up listed in the Hardwired broadband access sub-section?

Dial-up Internet access explains that it was replaced by broadband Internet access.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Completely agree! I created a new sub-section about dial-up technologies and moved those two sections into that new sub-section. Thanks for pointing this out! - Dyork (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Created new archive page for this Talk page
Given that there were so many older conversations on this Talk page dating back to 2008, I followed the H:ARC manual process and created a new Talk archive page with all those earlier/resolved conversations. You can access and/or search that page from the top of this page. I kept the discussion about the graphic so that it was easy to find for any editors should someone want to remove or update that image in the future. - Dyork (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove the MOSFET paragraph in the history section?
Why is this paragraph about MOSFET included in the History section?

"An important factor in the rapid rise of Internet access speed has been advances in MOSFET (MOS transistor) technology.[8] The MOSFET, originally invented by Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng in 1959,[9][10][11] is the building block of the Internet telecommunications networks.[12][13] The laser, originally demonstrated by Charles H. Townes and Arthur Leonard Schawlow in 1960, was adopted for MOS light wave systems around 1980, which led to exponential growth of Internet bandwidth. Continuous MOSFET scaling has since led to online bandwidth doubling every 18 months (Edholm's law, which is related to Moore's law), with the bandwidths of online communication networks rising from bits per second to terabits per second.[8]"

It seems out of place and does not fit with the flow of the section. Right now the flow of the paragraphs is:
 * Brief intro to history of Internet
 * 1980s/1990s - about LANs and dial-up connections
 * MOSFET paragraph going back into the 1960s
 * Rise of broadband Internet access and terminology explanations
 * More about broadband and different types
 * 1990s/2000s - evolution of broadband
 * (more paragraphs about the evolution of Internet access)

That one MOSFET paragraph seems to be out of place and disconnected from the rest of the flow. It is too granular and diving deep into one specific technology instead of feeding into the overall story. Would anyone be opposed to me removing that paragraph? - Dyork (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

History section needs better ending mentioning satellite / LEO access
Just flagging that the History section should have a bit more toward the end mentioning the rise in satellite systems for Internet access. The final three paragraphs need some help. The first one mentions installation of Wi-Fi networks and then wireless, satellite and microwave. Then a paragraph about some technologies for fixed wireless. Then a paragraph about mobile broadband access technologies. I think some of those could be combined or at least re-ordered. For satellite, there could be some brief mention in the rise of low earth orbit (LEO) systems. There is a lengthier discussion farther down the page but some mention would be useful in the History section. I don't have the time to do this kind of editing right now, but just want to flag it in case another editor does have the time. - Dyork (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Satellite broadband section needs better, updated text on LEOs
The Satellite broadband section needs some updates. It refers to a system that is "scheduled for launch in 2015". It does not mention Starlink or the other various services now available. I see there is a whole page on Satellite internet constellation that could be linked to from this section. - Dyork (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Before undoing my edit
Realise that:

1. All the graphs at the cited source show 2004 and not 2005

2. The one who changed it to 2005 comes from a blocked IP range for disruptive editing

Thank you. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)