Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA | 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream?
And there ya go....
It's sad really... Defining broadband in 1991 terms.
We're going to throw $7.2 billion at 768/200? |
|
fishacura
join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA | Better than dial up. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Neyland
In areas where it is dial-up or sat, 768/200 with be VERY welcomed. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Neyland
said by Neyland  :And there ya go.... It's sad really... Defining broadband in 1991 terms. We're going to throw $7.2 billion at 768/200? So how much money will AT&T and Verizon get for their already existing 3G "broadband"? |
|
tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN
| reply to me1212
said by me1212 :In areas where it is dial-up or sat, 768/200 with be VERY welcomed. Exactly. After reading about the issues in the satellite broadband forums, I'm positive that this will be very much welcomed. |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Oh good.
That's what I like to see... my tax dollars keeping the bottomless pork barrel full. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Commerce Dept waives the "Buy American" part of pkg
While practical(anything made in U.S. anymore ?), the waiver of the "Buy American" provisions of the Stimulus Act is disappointing. The Commerce Dept waived practically every component needed for a broadband system. So much for the "creating American Jobs" part of the act. 
The waiver published in the Federal Register today(July 1):
»broadbandusa.sc.egov.usda.gov/fi···1-09.pdf
What was waived:
• Broadband Switching Equipment
• Broadband Routing Equipment
• Broadband Transport Equipment
• Broadband Access Equipment
• Broadband Customer Premises Equipment and End-User Devices
• Billing/Operations Systems
Note that this list does not include fiber optic cables, coaxial cables, cell towers, and other facilities that are produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to be reasonably available as end products.
To the extent that an applicant wishes to use equipment that is not covered by this waiver, it may seek a waiver on a case by-case basis as part of its application for BTOP funds Not only did they waive a ton of stuff upfront. They will waive "Buy American" even more if asked.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to patcat88
Re: 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream?
I hope none, a 5GB cap is useless. |
|
tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88 :said by Neyland :And there ya go.... It's sad really... Defining broadband in 1991 terms. We're going to throw $7.2 billion at 768/200? So how much money will AT&T and Verizon get for their already existing 3G "broadband"? Start sending those letters and let the lawmakers know why they don't deserve one red cent of that money. |
|
courty3210
join:2004-03-29
Wilmington, DE | broadband stimulus
768/200 is an amazing speed for folks who are forced to use dial-up because of lack of infrastructure. comcast today told me cable is a mile away and i'm SOL. hopefully this stimulus package will help me out. |
|
bcreek
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to Neyland
Re: 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream?
I would take 768 over 56K any day of the week. Right now my only options are dial-up, satellite, or EVDO (which has a 5gb a month data cap). I have to wonder just how long it will take for people to start seeing this bills impact, and how many rural and sub-rural areas will still be left without broadband once this is all over. I just hope that there is legislation that prevents the Telcos from taking the $7.2 billion and throwing it into already established markets. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| I hope.....
The big ISPs do not get much of this, they have already made it fairly clear they do not find these rural areas profitable enough. I say give it to smaller ISPs that don't mind serving rural areas and DO find them profitable enough, that way they can expand, build better networks, or maybe even offer faster speed or lower their prices. |
|
bransby
join:2009-06-09
Onondaga, MI
| I'll take it
The people snickering at a 768/200 connection obviously live in areas that already have decent broadband options. I live in the country and I have the option of getting dial-up or satellite. A relatively cheap 768 kbps connection would be a godsend. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to courty3210
Re: broadband stimulus
768/200 is WAY better than dial up or sat. I do wonder why it is 768/200. what makes that number so magical? |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| reply to bcreek
Re: 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream?
"I just hope that there is legislation that prevents the Telcos from taking the $7.2 billion and throwing it into already established markets."
Me too. I would not bet on it though. I think they will spend more on areas that have high speed already and pocket more, combined, than they will spend on rural areas. They have made it fairly clear that they do not find these areas profitable enough, why would that change now?
"I have to wonder just how long it will take for people to start seeing this bills impact, and how many rural and sub-rural areas will still be left without broadband once this is all over."
Me too. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to me1212
Re: broadband stimulus
said by me1212 :768/200 is WAY better than dial up or sat. I do wonder why it is 768/200. what makes that number so magical? I think that with the right equipment, DSL can be provided at those speeds over the chicken wire that often passes for telephone wires in rural areas. Also those speeds can be achieved over long distances from the CO.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
anjorusso
@speakeasy.net | who needs this plan?
whitespace broadband will solve everything in a year or 2...
this money for universal broadband plan will just get robbed by greedy politicians.... |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to fishacura
Re: 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream?
That's not my point. If we're going to throw $7.62 BILLION at something, it should offer something better than 768/200.
How does the US plan on having a good broadband plan if they start off by defining broadband using such a dated measuring stick.
As Patcat88 points out below... you're just going to see ATT put up cell towers and rake in money for a 3G deployment. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA | reply to bransby
Re: I'll take it
Would you take a 3G wireless plan at $99/month with a $5GB cap? It fits the requirements.... |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to bransby
said by bransby :The people snickering at a 768/200 connection obviously live in areas that already have decent broadband options. I live in the country and I have the option of getting dial-up or satellite. A relatively cheap 768 kbps connection would be a godsend. I see it definitely. If we're going to be dropping $7.2 billion dollars to bring broadband to rural areas, then make sure that those receiving the money bring you speeds that competitive. 768/200 is pathetic, IMO, given that we're going to fund it.
For us in "decent" broadband areas, we don't need public money - competition has done a decent job on giving us faster speeds.
For rural areas, the minimum I'd shoot for is 3000/1000
.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
