  tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 2:36 pm
He didn't say it'd be ready by 2015.He just said that he'd make it possible within 5 years.
It's simply saying that he'll push for the extended AWS-3 auction, as well as maybe a final 700mhz auction. | |
|
 | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
1 edit
2 recommendations |
pandora
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 5:30 pm
Re: He didn't say it'd be ready by 2015.I'm tired of people judging politicians by their actions and or subjecting their statements to a reality test.
Lets just listen to their nice words and melodic voice, isn't that enough? | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: He didn't say it'd be ready by 2015.you forgot to turn on [/sarcasm]  some people may think you're serious | |
|
| | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 7:33 pm
Re: He didn't say it'd be ready by 2015.You got me. I thought the sarcasm was obvious.  | |
|
| | | | | |
DRDarkeNY
Anon
2011-Jan-30 12:15 pm
Re: He didn't say it'd be ready by 2015.It was obvious to me - but then again, we're smart, not chuckleheads like THOSE guys.... | |
|
| | |
to tiger72
I doubt if Obama knows a single detail behind any of the statements he makes regarding broadband. It's just another platitude that sounds like something is going to be done, when in fact there will be absolutely no change whatsoever to the current situation vis-a-vis incumbent control.
what gets done will only be done if the big boys want it, and it will only get done on their terms and at their pace. | |
|
| | | |
Re: He didn't say it'd be ready by 2015."I doubt if Obama knows a single detail behind any of the statements he makes regarding broadband. It's just another platitude that sounds like something is going to be done, when in fact there will be absolutely no change whatsoever to the current situation vis-a-vis incumbent control."
I think that applies to a lot of other things that person pontificates on. | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
to nasadude
said by nasadude:I doubt if Obama knows a single detail behind any of the statements he makes regarding broadband. It's just another platitude that sounds like something is going to be done, when in fact there will be absolutely no change whatsoever to the current situation vis-a-vis incumbent control.
what gets done will only be done if the big boys want it, and it will only get done on their terms and at their pace.
I don't expect the president to worry about the finer details behind spectrum auctions. If anything, that's in the legislature's purview. That said, spectrum auctions are still a good thing. A lack of spectrum is partially why we're in the mess we're in right now with regards to wireless competition. | |
|
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ERPro8
Netgear R7000
|
I feel sorry for that 2%That always seems to get left out of about every single carrier commercial and politician talking point. Seem that 98% is the magic number that is constantly used to justify some folks not having access to any kid of internet access and that is just dandy.
I'll give him credit for at least this line- "South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do." Maybe just maybe it will wake up these phone companies that offer low speed DSL to up their game. | |
|
| openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 2:55 pm
Re: I feel sorry for that 2%said by AndyDufresne:Maybe just maybe it will wake up these phone companies that offer low speed DSL to up their game. You seem to believe that telecoms are unaware of the services being offered elsewhere in the world. How does a residential connection to the Internet in South Korea affect a US company's investment strategy? | |
|
| | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
1 recommendation |
pandora
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 5:34 pm
Re: I feel sorry for that 2%said by openbox9:said by AndyDufresne:Maybe just maybe it will wake up these phone companies that offer low speed DSL to up their game. You seem to believe that telecoms are unaware of the services being offered elsewhere in the world. How does a residential connection to the Internet in South Korea affect a US company's investment strategy? It doesn't, but it sounds nice. Listen to the soothing tones of his voice. Just enjoy his calm determination that after he has had his last election, and can no longer be held responsible for anything, then things will magically get better for everyone. Yup, once he is done with us, all promises will be fulfilled. | |
|
| | jjeffeoryjjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN |
to openbox9
He does have a point. Perhaps many regular folks weren't aware until last night. Maybe they'll be upset with that knowledge and pressure the telcos a bit? | |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR |
to AndyDufresne
said by AndyDufresne:I'll give him credit for at least this line- "South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do." That didn't happen by accident, BTW. The So. Korean gov't made it happen; they wanted to "catch up" with the U.S.; how ironic, since they blew past us. There's no mystery in what this speech was referring to. It was a reference to the Nat'l Broadband Plan, which is supposed to free up spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed ISP's. As for Wildblue (which I'm on now) and existing wireless being considered broadband, I use a simple criterion - can you run the most popular broadband applications, the ones that consume the most internet bandwidth, on them. The answer is clearly NO; e.g., Netflix does not run on low-capped, slow Wildblue nor existing wireless services very well, if at all. | |
|
| | | |
CanAmFam
Anon
2011-Jan-26 5:45 pm
Re: I feel sorry for that 2%PDXPLT - ding ding ding. We have a winner. I'm on HughesNet and have investigated all the available technologies. Wireless will not run modern and future apps, it just doesn't have the bandwidth.
South Korea invested in Fiber to the home, that's why their internet usage is higher than ours. The difference is their government doesn't have wireless industry lobbyists lining their pockets and whispering in their ears like we do here. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: I feel sorry for that 2%said by CanAmFam :Wireless will not run modern and future apps, it just doesn't have the bandwidth. Wireless will handle virtually every application other than high def video streaming (and it will even do some of that, just at limited capacities). The problem is that those who want to provide the services (WISPs) aren't given the tools they need (spectrum) and instead the US likes to auction it off to huge cell phone companies so they can make a short term monetary gain that ends up costing the economy many times more by not just giving it to those who would do something good with it. | |
|
| |  WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX |
to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:The answer is clearly NO; e.g., Netflix does not run on low-capped, slow Wildblue nor existing wireless services very well, if at all.
Actually it does run on lots of WISP systems (to a point)...and that's the problem. Too many people are foregoing their $100 or even $200 per month cable and satellite dish for a $40 WISP account and $8 Netflix. Already in past few months, WISPs are dealing with performance issues. | |
|
| | |
to AndyDufresne
And Germany has better roads. What about the promises he made 2 years ago to build infrastructure? Oh, right, the same place the energy promises went. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
to AndyDufresne
I feel sorry for all 100% because any national broadband plan based so heavily on wireless is smoke and mirrors propaganda worthy of a third world government. The countries with 95% fiber to the premises will be the future broadband leaders and they will undoubtedly also have over 95% wireless broadband before a plan to make two huge corporations even bigger profits ever achieves the same. | |
|
| | |
to AndyDufresne
said by AndyDufresne:I'll give him credit for at least this line- "South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do." I don't give anyone any credit when they compare the US to South Korea. Apples to Oranges. Heck, it's more like an Apples to Carrots comparison. | |
|
| |
USA already has 100% coverageWith Wildblue and Iridium we already have 100 % cellphone and broadband coverage in the USA. | |
|
|  ArrayListDevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: USA already has 100% coveragewildblue != broadband | |
|
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to patcat88
said by patcat88:With Wildblue and Iridium we already have 100 % cellphone and broadband coverage in the USA.
yes wildblue is "broadband. With 1500 MS latency and low cap. Yeah ok. When is 1.5 Mbps considered broadband? I though the defintion was 4 Mbps? | |
|
| | | |
Re: USA already has 100% coveragewhere've you been? The FCC can't define or touch the Internet. Their definition doesn't mean shit and the ISPs know that. Broadband is what ever the ISP decides it is. | |
|
| | (Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
|
to 88615298
People always ignore the latency issue, that's why I want to upgrade to LTE is for the reduced latency, not really the bandwidth.
I can live on the 3mbit down / 1.5 up I get on AT&T, but not at 300 - 450ms latency, which is worse than dialup, LTE has sub 100ms latency and that's what really makes webpages load faster and snap up instantly like they do on my 30-40ms latency cable connection.
Wildblue imho isn't broadband.
It's dialup with an occasional high speed file download. | |
|
|  Ben
Premium Member
join:2007-06-17
Fort Worth, TX |
to patcat88
said by patcat88:With Wildblue and Iridium we already have 100 % cellphone and broadband coverage in the USA.
Wildblue doesn't satisfy the already below meager FCC definition of 4Mbps/1Mbps, even on their top tier, which is 1.5Mbps/256K for $80/mo. and a two year contract. I'm not even going to touch on their obscenely low caps of 17GB/mo. (again on the top tier). As far as Iridium is concerned, I've never heard of anyone placing satellite phone service in the same category as traditional mobile phones. Satellite phones remain a strictly niche service for those who must have phone service and absolutely no other option exists. When it costs someone $9/min. to call such a phone, you will use any other possible alternative if one exists. For this reason, you only use satellite phones in third world countries, aircraft, or ships at sea. It's also considered an international call, since satellite phone companies get their own country codes. I get the $9/min. figure based on what AT&T charges a POTS customer. I've seen rates between $6 and $14/min., but even at $6 you will seek out any other possible alternative. | |
|
| jjeffeoryjjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN |
to patcat88
Well that's just not true. | |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 2:58 pm
Tens-of-Billions of What?said by Karl Bode:AT&T and Verizon currently squat on tens-of-billions in unused spectrum Karl, can you quantify how much unused spectrum VZ and T are "squatting" on in terms of bandwidth instead of the regurgitated and pointless dollar guesstimate often reported elsewhere? | |
|
|  coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY
1 recommendation |
coldmoon
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 3:10 pm
Re: Tens-of-Billions of What?said by openbox9:said by Karl Bode:AT&T and Verizon currently squat on tens-of-billions in unused spectrum Karl, can you quantify how much unused spectrum VZ and T are "squatting" on in terms of bandwidth instead of the regurgitated and pointless dollar guesstimate often reported elsewhere? If you have a counter argument with verifiable facts I would love to read it... | |
|
| | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 3:19 pm
Re: Tens-of-Billions of What?What am I to counter? I've asked this question before and so far have not received an answer. Am I off-base to want to know how much unused spectrum is currently under control of VZ and T given our current understanding of the laws of physics? Money is irrelevant in regards to this topic. Quoting billions of dollars only serves to show what companies valued the spectrum at some point in history and is only relevant if the spectrum were to go up for sale again. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Tens-of-Billions of What?Close enough for you? 
| |
|
| | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 3:35 pm
Re: Tens-of-Billions of What?If you find me one detailing used and unused spectrum, I'd be ecstatic. That's a good start though, thanks. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Tens-of-Billions of What?Well Verizon and AT&T don't use the 2100 MHz band they hold. So thats some. Heres maps of The 700Mhz they hold and in what markets they have more spectrum. AT&T's is probably larger from the Qualcomm spectrum acquisition recently » thinkd2c.wordpress.com/2 ··· -vs-att/ | |
|
| | | coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY |
to openbox9
quote:
...Am I off-base to want to know how much unused spectrum is currently under control of VZ and T given our current understanding of the laws of physics? ...
Absolutely not and is also what I am curious about. | |
|
| |
| | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 3:55 pm
Re: Tens-of-Billions of What?Yes I know, that's where a lot of the "billions of dollars" quotes come from. It still doesn't answer my questions regarding how much spectrum is used, planned to be used, or simply "squatted" on. Besides, the article is a little dated given AT&T's announcement that it will begin deploying LTE this year. | |
|
| |
Nothing new here98% of everything Obama says is empty rhetoric. Hes a politican.... | |
|
|
••••••••••• |
| |
Wireless Satellite Internet, hahahaWith the launch of the ViaSat 1 with 140Gbps capacity (in service maybe late 2011 if it don't get dropped again) and
Hughesnet Jupiter(?Gbps) for launch in 2012, then sure the country will have 98% coverage with high speed(other than 600ms+ lag times).
But if a satellite(or two) dies or has a electrical failure, future millions could be without high speed(just over 1 million 'residential' users are now on Hughesnet and WildBlue combined), unlike if a fiber optic line or copper gets cut and can be repaired within a couple of days.
And Satellite Caps are so low until the 2 new high throughput satellites get in service, with hopes of higher caps for video streaming.
Satellite is a bandaid for people who live far from any townsite. But the Telco's and Cableco's keep suing small towns that try to put in their own fiber to the home, since the Cablesco's and Telco's refuse to spend anything above a small portion of the billions of dollars of profits that mergers and tax free incentives have given them.
-
Canada isn't much better off, but at least towns have the option to get high speed wireline if they are very aggressive to get a government subsidy for the Telco to add in DSL. Otherwise they are stuck with wireless providers that can't keep up with the bandwidth needed for the modern Internet of video's and cat pictures. And the coming low caps will kill some Internet video sites, of movies and TV(to prevent cable cutters and to keep the expensive movie ticket alive). | |
|
| |
treich
Member
2011-Jan-26 3:42 pm
about stupid obama plansI am sorry but obama plan for next gen wireless is not going to happen at all from what I can see and why would anybody wants to go with cell phone company for broadband access that limits your speed and gives you broadband cap of 5GB of month then they charge you out of the a$$ if you go over that small cap of 5GB. I think if want better access to broadband give money to smaller/medium wisp's so they can grow bigger and provide better service to ppl. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Mr. President you are a joke.Nice lets not face the fact that our economy and states are falling apart. Lets think about giving everyone Internet and or wireless broadband!
Come on we need 98% of US OF A on facebook. | |
|
|
••••••••• |
gigante
Premium Member
join:2000-06-30
Anchorage, AK |
gigante
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 4:13 pm
Perhaps the President is trying to kill us all offthe RF from 98% of us should be plenty to kill us all right? And if not us, it will definitely kill the bees. | |
|
| |
Anything..from a presidential state of the union address is empty rhetoric. Anyone who believes it is out of touch with reality.
There is nothing to stop businesses from deploying high speed wireless right now. They are just waiting for the government to give them the billions of dollars they want first and then allow them to charge huge prices for something that was paid for by taxpayers. | |
|
 herb77
join:2005-02-23
Fort Myers, FL |
herb77
Member
2011-Jan-26 5:02 pm
Empty Rhetoric?This article is 98% Empty Rhetoric. But hey whatever it takes to get the page hits right. | |
|
2 recommendations |
pipe dreamover 90% of the proposals & jolly talk seemed to come with NO REAL ways to pay for it...
suddenly: wireless gets ubiquitous & dirt cheap
suddenly: biogasoline & alternative fuels become mass produced & lower the cost at the pump
suddenly: governments spend less & cut bureaucracies across 100% of government departments
reality: punt for 2012, soundbites for re-election campaign.. running on "win the future".. more like win the next election cycle. reality is more like sell out the future to the greediest & biggest special coroporate interests.
in wireless telecom that's AT&T, VERIZON. Tmobile & Sprint have too little market share to be significant competitiors. 85% of the MVNO operators resell the at&t verizon service. You dont' see Sprint & Tmobile reselling prepaid wireless for 3 cents/minute (inclusive of taxes & fees) and under $30 a month unlimited. | |
|
|
•••• |
| |
You had me thereYou had me there until I got to "noble technology goals". What country do you live in anyway? | |
|
 OneEye
join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA |
OneEye
Member
2011-Jan-26 6:55 pm
Obama and BroadbandObama isn't going to deliver on anything except what his Chief-of-Staff and former AT&T corporate lobbyist tells him to do. | |
|
| OneEye |
OneEye
Member
2011-Jan-26 7:07 pm
Non Carriers that own fiber.What about companies that own thousands-of-miles of fiber, but are not considered carriers. Lets put some of the internet on their now dark fiber.
The former WilTel comes to mind and others. What about power companies, railroads, etc.
Back when I worked for WelTel, there was so much "dark" fiber in the ground and unused gas lines, it was sometime referred to as the Midnight Fiber Group. | |
|
| |
Verizon is already doing this.Verizon will have 98% of the country covered with 4g-ish coverage in 2 years won't they? That's what they say anyway. | |
|
 burner50Proud Union THUG
Premium Member
join:2002-06-05
Iowa |
burner50
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 11:13 pm
.quote:
It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world.
Farmers in Iowa sell their grain to local elevators (generally cooperatively owned) where it is sold all over the world or turned into ethanol. Average farmers lack the capacity and capital to ship their products all over the world anyway... I do not see high speed internet access changing this. quote:
It's about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device
This means that somebody is going to have to obtain and digitize the blueprints for every building in a city. The database would also have to be updated regularly as building designs and layouts change during remodeling or renovations. I think firefighters can generally look at a building and the way it is burning to figure out alot of what would be on this "handheld device" anyway... I do not see high speed internet access changing this. quote:
a student who can take classes with a digital textbook
Digital textbooks leave alot to be desired over a paper textbook. There are some things that electronic devices just cant beat their old school counterparts at. Also, I do not see why a "digital Textbook" would need a wireless internet connection. Download it once, and you're done... I do not see high speed internet access changing this. quote:
or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.
If you need your doctor to see something, the doctor probably needs to examine whatever you're showing them. This cannot be done with a face-to-face video chat. This patient should be face-to-face with their doctor... I do not see high speed internet access changing this. | |
|
| | |
Re: .Yep, sounds a lot like late 90s dot com style talk of information superhighways and how our lives are gonna be totally changed. The big things IMHO that show that we are in the future are cell phones, instant publication and distribution of entertainment goods /public notices /records, digital photography, and e-commerce.
As an example of how the internet is not magic: A recent law passed by Congress was printed out and brought along by an aide during Obama's vacation to Hawaii. Apparently they couldn't have just downloaded, printed, signed, and certified the law there instead of jetting a stack of paper.
The burning building problem isn't completely solvable. A few years ago, some firefighters died when they got trapped running for a exit that had been walled up years ago and the business had not updated the records. Records, even electronic ones, will never be totally accurate (even with inspections, fines, and criminal charges).
I don't know why we haven't implemented internet voting yet. Have each citizen get a public key certificate notarized by a national CA. They could use this for other government services in lieu of traditional ID. | |
|
 Noah VailOh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica |
Noah Vail
Premium Member
2011-Jan-26 11:25 pm
Media = Corporations = Government = Press = Mediaquote:
More empty rhetoric, more broadband lip service, and more government policy dictated almost-exclusively by the nation's wealthiest carriers -- all while the press nods dumbly without asking any real questions and the public engages in hollow partisan debate.
Karl may be presuming that the Press, the Government and Corporations are NOT different facets of the same power structure. I'm not sure why Karl or anyone else would make that assumption. In other news: I seem to remember there were people who believed Pres Bush's promise about a Manned Mission to Mars inside of a decade. Just as then there are some folks who'd believe an implied broadband promise from Pres Obama now. People believe what they decide to believe; reality is optional to so very many of them. What can you do? NV | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Media = Corporations = Government = Press = Media.. did you catch the part where he talks about the Sputnik moment and all? ..yet he's pretty much killing NASA. The space program has landed us MANY of our innovations going on for the past several decades.. it's why we HAVE cable and satellite TV.. it's WHY we have little things in our cars telling us where to take that left turn.. and it's why we have the ability to predict weather, and even some of our advances in health care. We owe a LOT to that program, and he thinks its not worth while, and then bases much of his feel-good statements on it.
The man is an idiot.
Just like the conditions of the Comcast/NBC merger happening as a matter of fact anyway, so will many of the things Nobama promised would happen last night - and he'll sit back and take the credit when they happen on their own naturally.
Obama and Queen Pelosi and the rest spent the last two years writing into the THE biggest tax reform in history, and called it health care reform,.. WAY out-did GW in spending in his 8 years, in just 2.. and continues to push this country into ruin.. and he sits there last night telling everyone how he's going to fix it..
... only instead of "spending".. we're now "investing".. funny, still, 82% of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum see that "investing" really is nothing more than more spending. | |
|
 old_dawg"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD |
SeriouslyObama and empty rhetoric?, say it isn't so !  | |
|
| |
...........All of Obama's talk is just empty rhetoric. Who cares about wireless issues? We have far greater problems in this country. | |
|
|
|
