  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Dump It quote:
The bill could actually increase the cost of broadband and phone service.
This alone makes this plan a non-starter. You cannot make something more affordable by raising the price.
I hope all you people out there who were clammoring for central planning with regards to broadband are happy now, and will cheerfully pay this tax every month.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 | | | Anything but VZW I got a bill for $275 from Verizon Wireless this month because I went over the 5 GB limit. Give me anything but Verizon! | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | Re: Anything but VZW said by Upstate NY :
I got a bill for $275 from Verizon Wireless this month because I went over the 5 GB limit. Give me anything but Verizon! And under this plan you'll pay $276 to $285. Isn't that swell?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | |  Duramax08A Challenger AppearsPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
 ·Millenicom
·Cricket Broadband
 ·Juno Express
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: Anything but VZW said by pnh102:said by Upstate NY :
I got a bill for $275 from Verizon Wireless this month because I went over the 5 GB limit. Give me anything but Verizon! And under this plan you'll pay $276 to $285. Isn't that swell? get real..............
--
Would like a landline but wireless will work for now. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Anything but VZW Is my math off?
quote:
it could raise your monthly broadband bill from anywhere from $1 to $5 a month.
quote:
the plan could actually wind up with American families paying $5-$10 more a month
So we're looking at a tax hike of $1 to $10 a month per subscription. The original poster paid $275 in one month, simple math tells us that under this plan the poster would have paid between $276 and $285 instead.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Anything but VZW said by Duramax08:so on average it would be like $60 plus a small tax. Heh. We have lots of small taxes and fees tacked onto our bills. What's the harm in one more?
said by Duramax08: That was a one time charge since the user went of there limit. atleast they are telling us now of a small fee. If they didnt, I bet you wouldnt notice the few cents extra on your bill if you auto bill. Except it is not a few cents, it is between $1 to $10.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Anything but VZW said by Duramax08:"The plan annoyingly omits how much this fee could be, but once the details are hashed out, it could raise your monthly broadband bill from anywhere from $1 to $5 a month." .... You missed this:
quote:
the plan could actually wind up with American families paying $5-$10 more a month
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Anything but VZW said by pnh102:said by Duramax08:"The plan annoyingly omits how much this fee could be, but once the details are hashed out, it could raise your monthly broadband bill from anywhere from $1 to $5 a month." .... You missed this: quote:
the plan could actually wind up with American families paying $5-$10 more a month
except that in theory by using money from the USF, instead of paying $275 for 3G he would be paying $60 + up to $10 for another carrier. Saving him $215 a month.
Of course it doesn't work out so well for those already covered.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | While I think the plan sucks and "expanding the contribution base" for USF to include consumer broadband is a terrible idea, Burstein frankly doesn't understand what he is talking about on this specific issue. He's a IP telecom guy, not a POTS one, and it shows in his 3:29 am analysis here.
What is being floated, is that sometime after the year 2017, intercarrier compensation fees paid by interstate long distance carriers to local ILECs will be phased down (they are essentially a hidden cross-subsidy now for rural carriers). After 2020 the system will move to bill and keep.
What the plan suggests, that in some cases, (under a completely new cost allocation system, where all revenues (voice, video, data) and all network costs are taken into account, unlike today), local Incumbent Exchange carriers will be able, in some states, to raise the Subscriber Line Charge, which is currently $6.50, by a couple of bucks at most if they can demonstrate that this is needed to recover costs.
The plan also talks about "rate-rebalancing" in a few states where state regulators have kept the price for basic local service artificially low compared to the national average.
But what is important to note here, and what Burstein fails to understand:
1) These potential increases will only ever apply to customers of traditional phone service -- Cable VoIP and Wireless are not permitted to charge SLCs, rates are not regulated by any entity, and are not permitted to bill long-distance carriers at the inflated interstate access fee.
2) This is not even going to happen until 2017;
3) When it does happen, it is unlikely to impact anyone, because the entire subsidy formula will have changed, accounting for currently-off-the-books data and video revenues (when all costs are billed for recovery). i.e. the rural guys who are feeding at the subsidy trough will find themselves unable to raise the SLC.
I appreciate Dave Burstein's work, and he's dead on about how the NBP doesn't address affordability, but in this case, his analysis suffers from lack of complete understanding about the USF/ICC debate. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | .... I stand corrected. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Anything but VZW said by jjeffeory:Again. this isn't an extra fee, it's the USF rebranded. No, the plan talks about adding another fee. Not just repurposing the USF.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Anything but VZW Oh, I stand corrected. That sucks! | |
|
| |
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | It's already well known that many who don't have broadband even where it is available say it's too expensive. Making broadband more expensive and seeking spectrum from broadcasters (get the additional spectrum entirely from the government, not potential wireless competitors) makes the plan a failure from the start. | |
|
| | Actual Speeds "4 Mbps of actual download speed and 1 Mbps of actual upload speed"
Actual is what people should get, not what AT&T dishes out that is less than you pay for. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Actual Speeds said by wahoospa:"4 Mbps of actual download speed and 1 Mbps of actual upload speed" Actual is what people should get, not what AT&T dishes out that is less than you pay for. ... I was gonna say... and besides, this will really invalidate many DSL connections as "broadband" anymore... I wonder what Qwest is gonna do now as they have a large amount of 1.5 connections.. and also, all the RT customers..
Further, DSL doesn't do 1 meg up.. so I guess it really puts DSL into a bad spot. | |
|
| |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
 ·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Actual Speeds said by fiberguy:Further, DSL doesn't do 1 meg up.. so I guess it really puts DSL into a bad spot. yea.. kinda feel sorry for qwest... NOT!
anyone wanna guess when they file for bankruptcy protection?
i have no faith that they will get this mess fixed anytime soon.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Actual Speeds I also look at it this way... they'll just stop selling "broadband" service and start calling it something else... as it is, they already call it "High Speed Internet" as well... | |
|
| | | | | Yeah I'm a Qwest customer, I hope they choke on their own sh!t!! If they were dieing of thirst, I wouldn't give them the sweat from my balls!!! Yeah, I love Qwest!! | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Actual Speeds tell us how you really feel  | |
|
| | | | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Just call it Internet access instead of broadband.. It's not that hard.
The more likely thing is that ISPs that aren't currently providing this 4/1 Mbps of actual throughput will more easily be able to dip into the perverted USF new tax burden AT&T and Verizon executive pension fund CAF | |
|
| | | | Actually, Qwest is probably able to deliver 1 meg up with some tweaking. When Qwest began selling ADSL service, it originally was provisioned at 1024k up, but was changed to 896k 5-6 years ago, as poor line quality is less noticeable at 896k. If any customers still have the same, unrepaired service, 1024k is grandfathered. I'm pretty sure that most of the DSLAM equipment out there can do a 1024k up profile. Maybe some other tweaking can get the thruput close to that. | |
|
| | |  pnjunctionTeksavvy ExtremePremium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
·TekSavvy Cable
| Re: Actual Speeds 1024 kbps DSL profile means you'll only get ~850 kbps throughput.
I'm curious as to why they went so aggressive for upload relative to download. Is it for video communications?
The person who said that this would mean big bucks for DSL providers to upgrade might on to something.
Personally I think 7 mbps and 0.5 mbps actual throughput would be a more useful and attainable goal. 4 mbps down isn't even enough for 720p video which is much more important than uploading at 1 mbps IMO.
Could it be that they are more focused more on the communications side of things and less on video delivery since they're not as keen as many are to see the internet replace the traditional crappy cable/satellite tv systems? Thinking about this makes sense as they have considerable control over the content of TV that they wouldn't have with online video... | |
|
| |  IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | said by fiberguy:... I was gonna say... and besides, this will really invalidate many DSL connections as "broadband" anymore... I wonder what Qwest is gonna do now as they have a large amount of 1.5 connections.. and also, all the RT customers.. Further, DSL doesn't do 1 meg up.. so I guess it really puts DSL into a bad spot. ADSL 1 doesn't no but most modems should be able to cope with ADSL 2/2+ which goes up to 1.4. Possibly a line card upgrade in the CO / remote. | |
|
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Cable doesn't go 1M up either. I, personally, do not know anyone with an actual, functional 1M up. And this includes a 1M up business cable connection -- TW can and will drop packets above 500k, the best I have ever seen it do is ~900k.
DOCSIS 3.0 and VDSL (aka Uverse) will work at these speeds, but getting the operators to stop shoveling cash into their pockets long enough to upgrade their systems will require putting a gun to their head.
(The office has a T1 and DS3, and they work at full rate 100% of the time. But, they aren't $29.95 a month.) | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Actual Speeds said by cramer:Cable doesn't go 1M up either. I, personally, do not know anyone with an actual, functional 1M up. And this includes a 1M up business cable connection -- TW can and will drop packets above 500k, the best I have ever seen it do is ~900k. Obviously provider/network dependent, but I routinely see 2.5-3 Mbps upstream with my cable ISP. | |
|
| | | bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | Cable doesn't go 1M up either. I, personally, do not know anyone with an actual, functional 1M up. And this includes a 1M up business cable connection -- TW can and will drop packets above 500k, the best I have ever seen it do is ~900k.
I call BS. My home line gets 1 up 15 down consistently. my 2 up 15 down business cable gets that consistently. My 5Mbit and 3 Mbit fiber links get a bit over that consistently. All TW provided. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Actual Speeds He COULD be talking locally, but thanks for coming to the defense of Time Warner! | |
|
| | | | | said by cramer:Cable doesn't go 1M up either. I, personally, do not know anyone with an actual, functional 1M up. Three Words: "Cablevision Optimum Online" | |
|
| | | let me also include lame-ass Qwest! | |
|
| | MadtownPremium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA | Re: Actual Speeds Maybe AT&T will finally offer faster speed than 3.0 in this area. I live in a residential type neighborhood, so it's not like I live in a rural area. | |
|
|
1 edit | Will this include an end to halting downloads every 5 to 10M per Time Warner Roadrunner DPI? | |
|
| | Making Docsis 3 services cheaper Thanks for the write-up. Awesome.
Quick note about affordable high-speed plans from cable. Brian Santo at CED makes an interesting point in a recent article about the benefits for MSOs in seriously cutting fees for D3-enabled Internet tiers. In short, it costs a lot of money to get D3 up and running, but the cost to add subscribers is minimal. So far, interest in paying for the highest speed plans is minimal, so operators should cut fees to spur adoption and therefore a better revenue return. Makes sense to me. Cheaper D3 service = more people using it.
»www.cedmagazine.com/News-D3-made···110.aspx | |
|
| cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Making Docsis 3 services cheaper DOCSIS 3.0 gear is not as expensive as you think. TW's profits from a single month could buy dozens of new, list price, CMTS's from Cisco -- no discounts of any kind. a) Nobody pays Cisco retail/list prices. b) They don't need a new CMTS, just new line cards. Of course, until there's a gun to their head, they aren't going to divert any of the cash headed to their pockets to network upgrades.
(Their SEC filings have been very damning. Month-on-Month their revenues are increasing and operating costs decreasing. Yet they won't divert even 1% of those millions for network upgrades. Instead they want tiered pricing, bandwidth caps, and go to extraordinary lengths to screw with p-t-p traffic.) | |
|
 netddosLife Goes On..
join:2001-08-28
Fullerton, CA
2 edits | A sad reality It's very sad that one of the world's most technical countries in the world cannot enact on a broadband infrastructure plan which can outdo Korea or Japan's....all because of 3 conglomerates (ATT Verizon Comcast)...
What have our country become? Congress has lost its function and heeds their head down to mega companies for filthy money....
--
¡°Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.¡±-- Carl Sagan | |
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
 LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Government panacea It always amazes me when the blogger talks about lack of competition. Monopoly/duopoly problems are caused by government regulations.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules of the road, but anything much beyond the enforcement of contracts is too far for the government and leads to the problem of the crony-capitalistic system we now have.
The other thing, from an economic standpoint, is that when we treat broadband as a public utility, while having some benefits, the costs are not talked about.
Those costs are higher prices through less efficient means of production (e.g., rates-of-return pricing causes the firm to hold on to older out-dated equipment longer), and less innovation (because profits are guaranteed through a regulatory board so why try to build a better mousetrap?).
Tell me what I'm missing. | |
|
| | | Re: Government panacea said by LegoPower77:It always amazes me when the blogger talks about lack of competition. Monopoly/duopoly problems are caused by government regulations. I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules of the road, but anything much beyond the enforcement of contracts is too far for the government and leads to the problem of the crony-capitalistic system we now have. The other thing, from an economic standpoint, is that when we treat broadband as a public utility, while having some benefits, the costs are not talked about. Those costs are higher prices through less efficient means of production (e.g., rates-of-return pricing causes the firm to hold on to older out-dated equipment longer), and less innovation (because profits are guaranteed through a regulatory board so why try to build a better mousetrap?). Tell me what I'm missing. Everything you said was either a lie, totally contradictory, or completely illogical. That's what you're missing. | |
|
| | | Uh, you are missing everything.
1) If we didn't have things like antitrust laws, we'd only have a monopoly in telecommunications, because the economies of scale would tilt it that way.
2) Broadband isn't treated like a public utility at all in this country. No ISP is a rate of return or price cap regulated provider. Internet service is not a rate regulated service, even when offered by the few rate-of-return carriers left (rural ILECs, who are RoR on historical network costs, but only POTS rates are regulated; most telephone providers are incentive-regulate ("price-cap") on their phone services, due to the issue you hint at here).
So yeah, you really should learn a little bit about how the markets here in the U.S. actually intersect with regulation. | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Some issues: •The FCC wants more competition in the set top box market: The FCC is pretty clearly annoyed with the industry's (and their own) failure with CableCARDs and starting on page 49 explains how the agency is going to push hard to end proprietary conditional access systems "on or before" December 31, 2012. In other words: they want more consumer choice in broadband-powered set tops that can access the Internet without carrier restrictions. Again, the devil will be in the details and whether TV operators want consumers to have access to their choice of completely open set tops (hint: they don't).
This is already possible.. has been ever since cable card became a hard mandate back July.. What the FCC or Congress should ALSO have enforced, more so than the cable company changes, they should have REQUIRED STB manufactures to sell them to the consumer as well.. Really, this would have been a no-brainer. While I don't think the consumer really is going to want to buy their own equipment for some time to come (price, quality, reliability,.. combined with paying service mirroring fees on top of the purchase, etc) this still could have been EASILY done...
Even tho Tivo and some televisions already allow for Cablecard, I assume this is directed towards OnDemand services.. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | Of course it will be more expensive. "Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets."
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." | |
|
|  roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: Of course it will be more expensive. said by Dagda1175:"Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets." "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Quoting Ronald Regan I see. Perhaps you can tell me, why do people keep electing people who say that the government can do no good, then, when elected, proceed to prove it?
The government that you get, is only as good as the government that you elect. If you keep electing people who say that government is the problem, and then proceed to prove that government is the problem when they are elected, you will have the same problems.
We need election reform, to take the elections out of the hands of big corporations, and back to WE THE PEOPLE.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| | |
| | | | Re: Of course it will be more expensive. No, just no.
Back into the hands of "we the people" and out of corporations. So who would run these new "agencies" and how would they be better than companies who have to do it to make a profit?
Would you pay for the new service to the existing companies or just steal it? Err, nationalize it.
You please propose exactly how such a new plan will work. Who pays for it? How much does it cost? What is included? Who sets the standards?
We the people is pretty vague. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Starting out with bad suggestions.. can it get any worse? Well, I have a revision for the USF/subscriber line reform...
First of all, if you have a broadband line and buy VOIP .. I don't think the FCC should be able to hit you with MULTIPLE fees and/or taxes.. it needs to be ONE fee and be under $5 a month for ALL (the less, the better).. and that's whether you have a combination of wireline/wireless services from the SAME carrier. This is my suggestion AFTER they tackle the issue of competition FIRST.
There is no doubt that 4/1 can be put into those "RED DOTS" relatively quick, but if the price is $50-$100 it's not affordable.. if it's $15-$25 it's reasonable WITH a VOIP line included. Don't care if it's wireline or wireless in the last mile.
I haven't read this in it's entirety.. but when we're talking about reform, the States seem to have their greedy little hands into the wireless/POTS pie with their tax & fee schemes as well.. once the infrastructure EVOLVES so to speak, how do you prevent the States from making that $15-$25 cost balloon into $50-$100 for 4/1 and a voip line? Keep in mind that I'm talking 2010 dollars and by 2020 the inflation could well make 15-25 be 50-100 by that time so we'd see $90-$125 in real inflationary dollars, while the rest are UPTO $200+ for internet, phone and video...
A POTS subscriber charge is anywhere between $5-$10 now and that's outrageously high. I'm very suspicious that once the fcc gets the authorization to RAISE your internet bills the states will want their share too and they will screw over VOIP as well and god help those STILL on POTS by 2020, you'll need a mortgage to pay the bill. Thinking of projected price hikes make me sick.. I'm still bracing for the ultra-high GASOLINE prices we're facing this summer!! | |
|
|
| | A first step in the right direction But there's still NO REAL competition in many parts of the country. | |
|
| | Hit the Nail... I agree. They definitely layed up instead of going for the green. I would have liked to see them take a much bolder and stronger stance.
To me, they've already accomplished much of what they are asking for...so I guess it's another "mission accomplished." | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | what's not promising •The FCC wants wireless broadband to be a priority: The plan clearly pins a lot of hope on 4G wireless broadband services as a cornerstone of future competition, and Chapter 5 (starting on page 73) is entirely dedicated to spectrum. The plan's goal is to get 500 megahertz of spectrum into the hands of 4G providers, of which 300 megahertz (between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz) is to be made newly available for mobile use within five years. There's an ocean of details involved in the FCC's agenda, and the devil will be in the end-game details and whether broadcasters want to give up some unused spectrum (hint: they don't).
Yes take away FREE TV so the mobile companies can offer mobile "broadband" with their 5 GB monthly caps and $50 per GB overage fees for $60 a month. If they want spectrum then MININMUM 50 GB cap and ZERO overage fees. If someone goes over do like satellite, just throttle down the download speed. | |
|
| | Dearth? quote:
"The dearth of consistent, comprehensive and detailed price data makes it difficult to evaluate price competition."
At first I thought that 'dearth' meant wide or encompassing a lot of data, but...
Acording to Princton WordNet, dearth is defined as:
said by Princton WordNet :
an acute insufficiency
I don't see why price is lacking in any sense. Prices are available everywhere. Most ISP sites just enter a ZIP and boom! or Call and tell a zip. So why is price an issue? Just get the data and break it down into a unit like price/bit (price per bit).
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Dearth? One, using prequal tools zip code by zip code is technically cumbersome and impractical, so the government has turned to getting this data directly from carriers -- but this data has not been independently verified, and what data exists carriers won't let the FCC share with the public or independent auditors.
Two, the advertised price is never the actual price, and hitting site prequal tools doesn't tell you what people are paying by zip after you've factored in below the line fees, charges, or bundle discounts (or penalties, depending how you look at it). | |
|
| | | | Re: Dearth? Then certainly the first thing this "plan" should have tackled was to make sure ISPs release independently verified data at least annually. That would have gone a lot further than adding another speed test to the thousands out there today. Data warehouses are not new, so why can't our government make sure that data is available about our connections?
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | Re: Dearth? I agree completely. The problem is that the carriers control policy, and have worked very hard to fight any public release of raw data on speed and penetration in court. | |
|
| | terrible It makes me sick to think about the present state of broadband in the U.S., the lack of competition, and monopolies supplying the content and the medium in which it is delivered. These large companies should not be allowed to exclusively control access to the lines in which the data is transferred. Imagine if that were the case with the roadway system today, i.e. where the car manufacturer also builds the roads on which you drive. You would buy a car and then also be charged to drive it on the road. Well, this does happen today, except you are charged in the form of taxes instead of a monthly bill, however the most important aspect of this is the fact that the government controls the roads, not a capitalistic corporation. There are some fundamental things (such as roads, water, mail, etc.) that should not be controlled by large, profit driven corporations and I believe that broadband has reached that level of necessity. Now, believe me, I am not one for more government, but on the other side history has shown that it can be done and with satisfactory results. The other option is what we have today: large corporations that have no competition, squeezing every last cent out of their customers. The customers have no where else to go and no other option and cancelling service is not an option because broadband is a necessity these days. | |
|
| trish2
join:2008-03-24
Laurens, SC | Re: terrible agreed wholeheartedly!! | |
|
| | WTF Government is simply failing the American people, plain and simple. Why should these bozos get paid when many other Americans are losing their jobs? One way or another something needs to happen for the better! | |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | We had some very low expectations and they still managed to shock us with the BS in this report.
When a report states the basically 95% of the country has access to 4 Mbps downloads, you know it basically was a waste of tax payer money.
"Some 36 public workshops, 9 field hearings, and 31 public notices later, the FCC today finally unveiled their national broadband plan (pdf)."
After all that we get a plan for a plan with absolutely no teeth. The sad part is probably the FCC folks are probably gving each other high fives for job well done.
--
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| End result: Higher prices, more profit for incumbents Most likely result:
Higher prices, more fees. Profit for large entrenched players increases while pushing off costs into the USF.
... no real speed or consumer protections increases.
USA far behind on broadband.
Rural areas may actually get some form of broadband. That's the only positive... but the rest of us will pay dearly for it.
No open access.
Very little competition in most areas. (In some areas, none.) Which therefore means very few choices except one for rural areas and two for most people in the USA. A small minority gets to see 3 or more choices. (Very small.)
Internet regulations will grow stronger and more controlling (content/intelligence/Sales taxes etc)
Damn.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|
1 edit | Re: End result: Higher prices, more profit for incumbents said by KrK:Most likely result: Higher prices, more fees. Profit for large entrenched players increases while pushing off costs into the USF. ... no real speed or consumer protections increases. USA far behind on broadband. Rural areas may actually get some form of broadband. That's the only positive... but the rest of us will pay dearly for it. No open access. Very little competition in most areas. (In some areas, none.) Which therefore means very few choices except one for rural areas and two for most people in the USA. A small minority gets to see 3 or more choices. (Very small.) Internet regulations will grow stronger and more controlling (content/intelligence/Sales taxes etc) Damn. It's not just america that is being behind,it's canada as well.It's like when the US telco's and Cableco's play the dirty cards,our canadian telco's and cableco's do the same thing.It's like monkey see,monkey do. When will it stop and the CRTC & the FCC say NO! to the Cableco & the Telco's.Things have GOT to change,the cableco and telco's can't keep their duopolies forever THEY end up to have to give it up cause ONE day or another,they'll have to give up their duopoly. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| That coverage map--- They counting Wirelesss too? I see that they show Osage county--- a huge, rural county here in NE Oklahoma as having 96-100% availability of broadband.
I know personally that's BS. I also know people in said county that are getting xDSL at speed of 300k/down 300k up. Beats dialup by a wide margin but is hardly "broadband".
In fact as I look around the Tulsa area and think of personal experiences with people and co-workers It appears I must know exceptionally unlucky people who all are part of the "other" 4%.
I call horsepucky on this map. It's flat out wrong.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | Re: That coverage map--- They counting Wirelesss too? I wonder if it's still based on the "if one person in a zipcode has broadband, then everyone has access to broadband" crap? | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: That coverage map--- They counting Wirelesss too? I have no idea how they determine it.... but it's no where near accurate. Some of these counties are very large. I know Windstream has deployed DSL into rural areas in many of them, with extreme line lengths and very slow DSL (due to distance) there's still most of the county without DSL. It's a cost of choosing to live in the boonies..... Yet then this map shows the whole county as dark blue and the key says "96-100% of homes have access to broadband. Ha, RIGHT. No way! They better not be counting satellite or something into the map. There's counties here that have spotty cell coverage and it's still listed as 96% penetration for broadband. It's not adding up.
I'd like to see someone explain where they get this from.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|
McRat
join:2009-09-09
Corona, CA | It is a problem, it's not fixing itself, and it's national. I have a small business in a 25 year old industrial park in a heavily populated region of the US (Corona, Southern California).
When I started up 17 years ago, less than 1% of business communication in our industry was digital, but I set-up a BBS service over a telephone modem to service customers who were ahead of the curve. Probably about 1 megabyte a year total communication, and 56k speed. Today, 95% of our business data is digital, and it's now several megabytes a day, sometimes 100 meg or more. I'd say about 500 times more digital data today.
While data needs have skyrocketed, small business bandwidth has not. We have been stuck with slow/unstable DSL service for about 10 years. A good day will have us see 384k average speed. IF IT WORKS AT ALL. There is no hope for improvement because the phone company has a captive audience. However, our house is a couple miles away and gets over 3mbps for less money. To move large files, I drive home with a memory dongle...
Yes, there are options, but not very good ones. T1 was $1100/m (today it's $400-700) and it made our phone lines freak out, so we removed it. We now have Hughes Satellite as a backup system, but it's still not that fast, especially upload, which is most of what we do. At least it doesn't crash as much.
Perhaps it will "fix itself", but I can't rely on that forever. Right now, my cellphone is faster than my hardline DSL, so the technology to service this area is certainly there.
Today Broadband is a business utility every bit as critical as phones, electricity, water, or shipping. It's time to move into the 21st century. | |
|
|
|
·
·
Youtube Video of the FCC Commission mtg on Broadband