dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-12-01 11:55:18: The Wall Street Journal says the FCC will vote on whether or not to support a plan for a free national wireless broadband network on December 18. ..



baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

1 edit

Will Vote...

And Will Fail. Government taking over broadband will saturate it and deliver a lower quality product than if in the hands of private companies.

Plus, 768k in 10 years!??!?! Comcast and Verizon have 50,000k hsi THIS YEAR. what will the point be then?



Millenniumle

join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY

Hope it goes through

At 786k I don't think suppliers have much to concern themselves with. The demand for higher speed should be sufficient.

I'd love it. I don't need more than 786 for reading. Nor do I need to pay $50 every month for the pleasure. Somehow I wonder how it would ever be kept from being absolutely drowned with traffic though. I'm sure all the major carriers would do their part to keep it swamped too.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
reply to baineschile

Re: Will Vote...

said by baineschile:

And Will Fail. Government taking over broadband will saturate it and deliver a lower quality product than if in the hands of private companies.

Plus, 768k in 10 years!??!?! Comcast and Verizon have 50,000k hsi THIS YEAR. what will the point be then?
so are you saying that the private sector has produced a good product? this nationwide broadband is not meant to replace the comcasts and verizons or at&t's out there. i know my grandma would love to get something like this. think about it. it may be slow but it could easily replace the remaining dialup users.

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to Millenniumle

Re: Hope it goes through

said by Millenniumle:

Somehow I wonder how it would ever be kept from being absolutely drowned with traffic though. I'm sure all the major carriers would do their part to keep it swamped too.
All the carriers will have to do is make sure some of the pr0n that's encrypted just enough to evade the smut filters gets through.


DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
reply to ArrayList

Re: Will Vote...

Indeed. This would be a great replacement for my 26k.


voipdabbler

join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
reply to baineschile

The vote is not about the government running it--it's about auctioning this bandwith of spectrum with conditions imposed on the buyer. Problem I see is there isn't enough oversight on the spectrum already sold off to the private sector. That's why the last data published on how many of the 425 Rural Service Areas in the cellular market show fewer than 50 percent (specifically 150) actually have any cellular service. Communication infrastructure is a critical national security asset and the government needs to start overseeing the private sector that's given the privilege of operating it--remember all the complaints and concerns about cellular failure during 9/11. If they don't comply with government imposed conditions, then they need to be stripped of their license and fined.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Please let this pass...

1. If mobile carriers think this is competition, they need to fix their horribly broken networks. In more sparsely populated areas I can pull 1.5 Mbit over EvDO no problem. T-Mobile HSDPA will be similar in speed...and LTE is much, MUCH faster...

2. This will bring people normally limited to dialup/sat/lo-fi WiSPs into true, reasonably fast, inexpensive broadband access.

3. This isn't meant to compete with DSL/cable. DSL can provide service for cheap with no ads, cable can provide service at lightning speed. This is a new market sector.

4. Deployment of such a network would allow more people to move into the broadband mainstream. The result? More use for web apps, which is a very good thing. Web apps meaning basically anything serious online 9aside from surfing forums).

Caveat: I don't want the government taking over the project if it fails. They have enough to worry about. OTOH they could allow for secured large loans to cover equipment costs for deployment. That's a bit different...


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 recommendation

reply to voipdabbler

Re: Will Vote...

said by voipdabbler:

Problem I see is there isn't enough oversight on the spectrum already sold off to the private sector. That's why the last data published on how many of the 425 Rural Service Areas in the cellular market show fewer than 50 percent (specifically 150) actually have any cellular service.
A condition to provide 768 Mbps service to 275 RSAs first at a reasonable price (maybe $30 / month maximum) would make sense. Conditions such as free internet service to 95% of the country in 10 years with smut filters are just stupid.


baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
reply to ArrayList

Although there are some problems with the major ISPs, they still have done a far superior job than a government run agency would have.

Everyone has a service outage once in a while; poor weather, wiring, network upgrades, etc. Would government run broadband work any better?



Glaice
Brutal Video Vault
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
reply to DrModem

Does this mean there will be more spamming, scammers, typhoid marys and people who just don't give a shit.
--
»[FS] PC games, music and movies for sale



NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

1 edit

Doublespeak

"Subject to appropriate government rules to prevent harmful interference, government should rely on market forces to determine the best use of spectrum."
Industry talking point doublespeak. It roughly translates to "We want to buy spectrum to lock out competition, but not be required to actually use it."
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little.


SHABAZZ

join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA

25 MHz is hardly enough for broadband

If the government wants this to really work and not just play lip service they need to allocate at least 60 MHz. Wimax and LTE uses 10 MHZ per channel so who ever tries to launch this will not be able to use the best options available.


probboy

join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA

Why not 50Mbps and 100% coverage 15 seconds after approval?

Seriously, if anyone thinks someone can provide free service to 95% of the country (unclear whether this is based on population or area--it makes a huge difference as a very large number of people in this country are concentrated in a relatively small area) within 10 years of being granted a license, you've got to have your head examined.

IIRC, AT&T's cellular network covers approximately 270 million POPs (which is roughly but not exactly people) and this is 25 years after the network started being deployed!

My prediction: this plan will be approved and then the "let's make a deal"ing will begin. We can't afford to cover 95% of the population within 10 years, so can we cover 50% (which probably isn't an area much larger than I-95 from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA). So this will do nothing for rural users. Or maybe they'll blow their nugget getting NYC and LA online only to run out of money before servicing a single rural country.

If the government was smart, they'd make it a condition of the license that rural areas without other service were put online first. Or, for financial feasibility, pair rural areas and urban areas--you only get to service the latter if you service the former.



odreian615

join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL

Smut filter

What the hell they think the internet is about



Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Sweet!

Finally, an alternative to Dialup!

I will be glad when this gets approved. Especially the ranchers out here that CAN'T get broadband, except by satellite (ahh, who loves being FAP'd to death?).

Whoever bitches about "Why not faster?", quit whining. It's 95% coverage and it's free. For "light" web surfing, it's perfect. For the people who DL massive files and use a ton of bandwidth (like me), you need something wired. I'd be willing to pay for my 15mbps feed and have free 768kbps for backup.

All I can say is "When do they go live?"
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|Mine[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|Wife's[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo]



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

1 edit

Nice.

All the people whining can stop and think about it.

Free internet for your laptop anywhere. Camping, trips, etc.

Try and think of this as free backup internet anywhere your wired or 4g/3g/2g coverage is not.


majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1

wow

So you guys rather have nothing then something. Id rather have a horrible free wireless connection then none at all.



yolarry

join:2007-12-29
Creston, WV
reply to Simba7

Re: Sweet!

but it will be pornless.

I take FAP instead of Porn.
or have both internetz



yolarry

join:2007-12-29
Creston, WV

I mean I take FAP than Pornless



Hpower
Roflmao

join:2000-06-08
Glendale, CA

1 edit

yea....great idea...not

haha I can only imagine trying to get a signal anywhere...and imagine the security risk of having the entire county be infected with viruses that will spread like crazy. Now I wonder what they would say to that.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually.