JTRockvilleData Ho Premium Member join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD |
Verizon's use-it-and-lose-it EVDO counts as broadband?Astonishing. |
|
|
MaxoYour tax dollars at work. Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL |
Maxo
Premium Member
2007-Feb-7 10:16 am
Great article.Just wanted to give a thumbs up to Karl Bode for a great write up. Wish we had more like this at BBR. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2007-Feb-7 10:21 am
Cellular/wireless broadband is where broadband is going ....... for the future and to NOT count it is ludicrous. Everyone, including BBR says wireless broadband is the future. So, why shouldn't the FCC count it as broadband growth? |
|
|
Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2007-Feb-7 10:27 am
said by FFH5:... for the future and to NOT count it is ludicrous. Everyone, including BBR says wireless broadband is the future. So, why shouldn't the FCC count it as broadband growth? " Isenberg argues it's not fair to include these capped, pricey and restrictive connections because the[y] violate the FCC's own free-access guidelines, and without them the U.S. broadband growth rate is only actually 27% -- which would mean it has the 26th fastest growing number of broadband Internet access lines. " Pretty much sums it up. |
|
|
Can there be any more question...That "ChairShill" Kevin Martin is as useless as mammalian protruberences on a male of the genus sus?
Any one of us should try handing off such specious data to our bosses, on the job, and see how many femtoseconds we last. |
|
|
Its all defined wrong......Broadband needs to be redefined as something at least closer in speed to the other countries that its all measured against. The US should be in the lead, with the fastest speeds, the highest penetration and cheapest prices.
A 10/5 connection should be the minimum to be called broadband.
Over 50% of an area code covered or it doesn't count. AND it must be serviced by at least two providers, wireless doesn't count! |
|
CMoore2004 Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Jonesville, MI |
to FFH5
Re: Cellular/wireless broadband is where broadband is going ....Perhaps Sprint's should. A 5GB limit with Verizon can really be considered a broadband connection? 200kbps allows for over 60GB/month. |
|
Stumbles join:2002-12-17 Port Saint Lucie, FL |
to Robert
Yep with the main point IMO being the FCC CANNOT even follow their own guidelines. If that don't smack of incompetence I don't know what does. The FCC is nothing but a laughing stock of a government organization. |
|
|
No News HereHey wheres the fire? Frankly, I do not see what all fuss is. There are many factors from hurdles from government to simply the market reached its saturation point. Outside the activism of DSL reports I do not see the general public clamoring for very high speed connections. its more like thats nice and they go about their daily business.
Broadband penetration will never justify one more tax payer broadband boondoggle. |
|
halfband Premium Member join:2002-06-01 Huntsville, AL 1 edit |
to haplo2112
Re: Its all defined wrong...said by haplo2112 :
The US should be in the lead, with the fastest speeds, the highest penetration and cheapest prices. The US leads in the production and consumption of McChickens. Unfortunately we are a long way from being a leader in broadband. |
|
JTRockvilleData Ho Premium Member join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD
1 recommendation |
to TScheisskopf
Re: Can there be any more question...Even if that's what your boss asked for? |
|
|
to TScheisskopf
Listen you two...the sooner you get on board and start blaming everything on "regulatory uncertainty," the better off we're going to be. |
|
|
to JTRockville
said by JTRockville:Even if that's what your boss asked for? Then, you should start looking, seriously and aggressively, for new employment. Why? Because when the boss get's his procreative nodules in a mangle over the bad data, he's gonna blame you and deny all knowledge. You will take the hit, while the lying slug gets off. |
|
TScheisskopf |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Listen you two...the sooner you get on board and start blaming everything on "regulatory uncertainty," the better off we're going to be. Sorry, Karl. I will make sure I get my meds upped, so I can get into the correct and drooling frame of mind for such a position. |
|
|
to TScheisskopf
Technically in this instance "taking the hit" will mean getting a million dollar a year job working at a think tank whose entire function is to spawn bad data.... |
|
DoctorDoomTroll hunter Premium Member join:2006-09-19 Becket, MA |
Satellites are not evilquote: (anyone who has ever been stuck on satellite would probably contest that)
I'm a HughesNet user in an otherwise unserved rural town in MA. There is exactly zero possibility of any option BUT satellite here. The telco and cable companies have stated flatly that they have no intention of, nor interest in, wiring the town for broadband. Re FIOS, an invasion from Mars is almost infinitely more likely. And being of a practical bent, I agree with them that it is financially unjustifiable. The installation and maintenance costs could not be recouped. Critics are fond of citing countries where broadband penetration is vastly higher than in the US. They neglect to note that America's rural area is larger than most of those countries, and that population density is the determining factor for broadband deployment. A wireless broadband company is exploring this area for a Motorola Canopy setup, but they don't call it the Berkshire Hills for nothing. The geography limits the utility of wireless. There is nothing that big government can do to change the laws of economics. Unless some magical technology is developed that can make it profitable to wire 38.7 square miles with about 200 households (5.17 per square mile), the situation will not change, and the town will continue to choose between 28.8 Kbps max dialup or satellite. As for me, a consistent off-peak speed of 1 Mbps with HughesNet Pro vs 20-24 Kbps typical with POTS does not represent a tough choice. It isn't fiber, but ... |
|
JTRockvilleData Ho Premium Member join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD |
to TScheisskopf
Re: Can there be any more question...Ditto |
|
|
thx fccthank you FCC for limiting america's broadband by lying to the public. you are truely a terrible organization |
|
biobob join:2003-09-04 Bayside, NY |
to haplo2112
Re: Its all defined wrong...The US will never be a leader in broadband speeds. It's just too big for the ROI to be worth it to most companies. I think the FCC should define broadband as 1.5m/256k and the focus on making sure every American has that. Let the free market worry about the speed. |
|
|
to DoctorDoom
Re: Satellites are not evilI see that you have covered yourself for replies quite nicely. I was just waiting for yet another, "Well move out of the sticks", or "It's unprofitable" statements. Nicely done Doom. |
|
biobob join:2003-09-04 Bayside, NY |
to DoctorDoom
Agreed. A lot of people on here don't realize how hard it can be to server rural areas with current technologies. Most of the countries ahead of us aren't even the size of an average US state. |
|
|
to DoctorDoom
If it is true that the market is not going to bring services to your area, does it follow that society is obligated to passively resign itself to this fact? If markets aren't going to solve this maybe we shouldn't be such blind idolaters of the ideology that markets are a solution to everything.
You should be glad that past americans were not so passive or you would probably not have roads, electricity, mail or telephone service either.
History seems to invalidate your claim that there is nothing government can do. Rather, we live in a political climate in which powerful people don't want the government to do anything.
You are free to subscribe to such a view but you may be undermining your own interests by doing so, which is a bit ironic given that seeking one's own self-interest is deemed to be one of the individual's highest purposes. |
|
|
to Karl Bode
Re: Can there be any more question...Karl - Thanks for posting the story. One thing I don't follow though is if satelite is considered broadband then shouldn't the FCC stats reflect that American broadband penetration is 100%? Also, in the story it mentions that USA is 26th in the world in terms of broadband penetration. Who and how is that determined?
I think that with the telco's two pronged attack of lobbyists getting biased legislation passed and buying the media through MONSTER advertising budgets, we are only going to slip deeper further and further behind the rest of the world. |
|
systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah join:2001-11-29 Cyberspace |
to haplo2112
Re: Its all defined wrong...10/5 is a nice target, although more realistic values of 3/256, provided by three providers to 65% of a ZIP Code would be in-line with what is very feasible ROI by private enterprise, if the Right-of-Way issues can be opened to free access and Point-of-Entry issues can be resolved. |
|
|
to T1 Rocky
Re: Can there be any more question...quote: One thing I don't follow though is if satelite is considered broadband then shouldn't the FCC stats reflect that American broadband penetration is 100%?
Technically they say there's some satellite service in 90% of zip codes. I assume they're eliminating people with line of site issues. Cable modem and DSL are available to at least one customer in 88% of zip codes, according to the FCC. The 26th in the world ranking is pulled from Isenberg's piece. I believe he takes the 11 million cellular total and subtracts it from the 54% growth, then compares it to OECD data. For the record, I don't think adding 3G customers to this total is nearly as big of a deal as he does -- more important to me would be valid penetration data and bumping the minimum speed criteria to something more reasonable -- at least 1Mbps. |
|
JTRockvilleData Ho Premium Member join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD |
to T1 Rocky
Not everyone can get satellite, and there's a reason why the adoption rate is so pitiful. |
|
|
to biobob
Re: Satellites are not evilsaid by biobob: Most of the countries ahead of us aren't even the size of an average US state. You mean a country like Canada? Take a look at the rural penetration here in certain provinces. most towns over 200 houses are served by broadband in Saskatchewan |
|
systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah join:2001-11-29 Cyberspace |
to richardpor
Re: No News HereThe problem isn't that people don't care, it's that they don't see a need for 6/8/10/15Mbps broadband at $60/mth, when 1.5 or 3 at $19-$24/ mth would be of more interest. |
|
systems2000 |
to Maxo
Re: Great article.I agree! |
|
biobob join:2003-09-04 Bayside, NY |
to Tikker_LoS
Re: Satellites are not evilWell, the US has many small communities with great broadband. I worked for such a company, that covered a lot of Illinois outside of Chicagoland.
I just meant you're never going to see the penetration of ultra high speed connections like you do in South Korea for example.
I say the FCC should shoot for everyone having 1.5m/256k from 1 carrier, and then let the free market work out the speeds. |
|