| reply to newview
Re: Not so hidden agenda anymore . . . said by newview:ISPs, Public Relation & marketing droids and lobbyists are pissed off that the American consumer and the FCC have seen through their bullshit for what it is . . . So what has the FCC seen through?
So far all I have seen is they are *planning* on reforming USF in the name of bringing broadband to the many who still do not have access. Now, I support the idea but unless I see actual meaningful changes I don't believe it. They could easily "reform" the USF and still have it end up doing nothing but lining incumbents' executives' pockets. Not to mention, as this article states: It does nothing to address the millions who have broadband access but are still being kept on the slowest allowable broadband speed with little prospect of innovation. Like I say many times over: I'll believe it when I see it. Not before!
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
 ·DIRECTV
1 edit | said by jimbo2150:So what has the FCC seen through? Just the fact that the FCC isn't swallowing the same crap from the lobbyists and have begun compiling their own data, with input from the actual consumers affected, is a huge step in the right direction, and 180 degrees from what was the norm as little as 2-3 years ago.
I agree that much more needs to be done, and they need to grow a set and challenge the Broadband Mafia, but the baby steps they have recently taken are encouraging. |
|
|
|
| said by newview:Just the fact that the FCC isn't swallowing the same crap from the lobbyists and have begun compiling their own data, with input from the actual consumers affected... If that were true they would be starting serious policy change for better competition to. Just reforming USF (which could easily be influenced by corporations) is not listening to all customers. It is just saying they are only looking to do the least disruptive and most-likely-to-be-corporate-influenced issue surrounding broadband. If they were serious they would be saying "we need more fair competition" and they would be saying to congress (who make the ACTUAL policy -- FCC can truly only make recommendations) "Look, we need to work closely to make broadband policy." Personally I think they need to start with congress coming up with a minimally influenced "Broadband Consumer Bill of Rights" followed by policy meant to increase competition and expansion of broadband.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·DIRECTV
| That very well may be their agenda . . . for the future. Their recent loss to Comcast in the courts which ruled this month that the FCC did not have the authority to sanction Comcast for its P2P blocking, has brought about discussions by the FCC to rewrite Title II of the Communications Act to regulate ISPs as common carriers, which can possibly open up other avenues of regulation, such as increased competition. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Comcast
| reply to jimbo2150
My opinion: set a baseline above which USF doesn't help out AT ALL because it needs to be spent on rural areas first.
Now I'm fine with this baseline being set pretty high, like 8 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up for $70 per month or less, and 3 Mbps down and 768 kbps up for $50 per month or less. Sorry guys, but there are TONS of places that can't get those packages (my current location included, though that's gonna change) and we need to fix what's broken there before we address competition in areas that already have reliable cable internet or VDSL/bonded ADSL2+.
are better speeds in big cities something we want to deal with? Absolutely! However there are some areas that CANNOT get 3 Mbps down, 768 kbps up service AT ALL unless they pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars per month for a bonded T1. Those areas need to get fixed first. |
|
