dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1104
share rss forum feed

aerith
Premium
join:2008-12-31
Milpitas, CA

Best quote by Karl Bode is

"the free market has failed the majority of the United States broadband market in stellar fashion, resulting in slow, over-priced services in the majority of markets."

As the pig man (RL) would say "Right On, Right On, Right On!!!"

The fascist market has done nothing to improve broadband choices for the USA, and probably will NOT improve for the next 100 years, unless Government tells the fascist market to say:

You the company must provide at least 100 mbps access, for no more than $100 (if government subsidies are needed, so be it) and any device that needs to have internet access, has a public IP address (this eliminates having a router, because if the router fails, one can't share internet access, however for wireless only devices, new equipment will need to be developed,) as well with no caps and/or "usage based billing," otherwise, you can't operate as an ISP in the USA.

I know the above is a "pipedream," but IF the USA wants to be number one in internet speed, it must do the above.

Unlike a San Jose Mercury News article I read this week saying "less regulation," MORE regulation, and/or higher goals are needed.



caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom

1 recommendation

New companies and investors would be jumping to invest money in that kind of market! /sarc

"The fascist market has done nothing to improve broadband choices for the USA" - Ummmmm.....a lot more people have internet access now in 2012 than did in 2000 or 2002. Kind of an incorrect, overgeneralized statement don't you think?



Steve Mehs
Gun Control Is Using A Steady Hand
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to aerith

Wow, that’s the worst thing my eyes have ever been subjected to reading.
1) The last thing that is needed is the government to have any involvement is in broadband. Let private businesses compete and leave them alone. The government has absolutely no right to say how fast and how much an ISP must sell their service for.

2) I do not so much as one red cent of tax money to toward some ‘Universal Broadband’ nonsense

3) Let’s keep our own routers, so that we, as individuals and consumers have direct control over our home networks. There is absolutely no reason at all for my two desktops, laptop, two PDAs, two smartphones, tablet, MP3 Player, TV, Blu Ray Player, A/V Receiver, two DirecTV DVRs, Xbox 360, PS3 and printer to have their own public IP addresses. And I like the fact I can manage network access of all of these devices from one central location.

Good thing all of your wishes are a pipedream, and thankfully they weill never happen.
--
For the future of our nation, we must unite and vote out the terrorist known as Hussein Obama. Come November 6 2012 we must remove the socialist pig out of office and get our country back on the RIGHT track.


iansltx

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

Good luck delivering 100 Mbps, uncapped, over wireless. You'd need more spectrum than is currently available for one company to do this, let alone a couple competitors.

Also, I'm (slowly) trying to get the pieces in place to build an ISP. It won't be 100 Mbps symmetric. It won't be uncapped (though for $100 or so per month the plan is that anything less than 1TB per month is fair game...and for $50 enough usage will be given that 90% of folks won't be throttled or charged). However it will be better than the competition, and it won't be asking for subsidies directly (my bandwidth provider might be subsidized via USF...we'll see). The plan is to sell a level of connectivity that I'd be happy using for my own (power user) activities, which is saying something. But your regulation wouldn't allow me to even get started. How's that fair?



Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

Where would this ISP be located? Do tell more!
--
(Insert political rant here)


iansltx

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

Yep. If a local government wants to do FTTH and it gets voted in by its constituents, that's okay. If someone else wants to do a super high speed wireless network, that's fine too. The key here is allowing/pushing everyone to use the resources available to make 'net access more ubiquitous, more reliable and more functional (higher speeds, lower latency, etc.).

To this tune, a government that is less powerful to regulate can't pass statewide franchising for TV services, so U-Verse can cherry pick areas with brazen abandon. That government also wouldn't be able to outlaw a utility from creating their own FTTH network (compare Texas utilities to Chattanooga EPB).

In this same vein, licensed wireless spectrum is great...as long as it's being used. if it isn't, then it's being wasted. Maybe there needs to be a smaller-area "homestead clause" for large region AWS and other licenses such that, if T-Mobile or CricKet won't build out an area of their license, they need to find someone who will.

For "the rest of us", more spectrum like 3.65GHz ("light licensed") would be amazing, particularly at lower frequencies. Less profitable for the US government? Yep, but 3.65 has allowed wireless ISPs to set up cheap, reliable "middle mile" networks at 100+ Mbps (which is a lot in a more rural area) and serve more folks wiht better access than would otherwise happen.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to Duramax08

Not quite your area. Yet anyway. Close though.


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

1 recommendation

reply to aerith

"The fascist market has done nothing to improve broadband choices for the USA, and probably will NOT improve for the next 100 years, unless Government tells the fascist market to say:

You the company must provide at least 100 mbps access, for no more than $100 (if government subsidies are needed, so be it) and any device that needs to have internet access, has a public IP address (this eliminates having a router, because if the router fails, one can't share internet access, however for wireless only devices, new equipment will need to be developed,) as well with no caps and/or "usage based billing," otherwise, you can't operate as an ISP in the USA."

Yeah because the government forcing companies to offer and price ceilings always works so very well. Not that what we have now is better, just a different 'evil'.



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to iansltx

"If a local government wants to do FTTH and it gets voted in by its constituents, that's okay."

With the EPB project the constituents (or rate payers) didn't get to vote for anything. Now EPB has a choice. Raise rates to cover expenses or expand into more areas while running more private businesses out of business. They have already raised electric rates to cover the money spent on the fiber network. I guess now that they are moving in to home automation, home networking, hosted pbx, and rumored alarm systems they have chosen to go after more private businesses to make their bottom line.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
reply to aerith

Have the fascists outlaw DSL...then our average will be sky high like these other countries were only urban areas get service.


Telco

join:2008-12-19
Reviews:
·Callcentric
reply to Steve Mehs

You really do live under a rock. We've heard your ilks rant about the private sector and against our government for decades now. 30 years later (i.e. post Reaganomics/trickle-down) and we rank close to dead last in everything but defense; where you guys send close to a trillion a year, with little concern about ROI.

Millions of Americans only have access to less than a few megs broadband speeds, yet you have the nerve (ignorance) to claim we should continue to leave it up to the same private sector that has failed them; that does not deem these Americas profitable enough for them to service.

We need to vote every one of your 18th century TEAnutter ilk out of office and send you back to the swamps. Time for the rest of America, as in those of us who pay for the bills and actually contribute the majority to the GDP (Democrats) to push forward. As in, the uber liberal and world leading San Fran/San Jose area.


Telco

join:2008-12-19
Reviews:
·Callcentric
reply to iansltx

100Mhz of spectrum somewhere should be freed up for the use of the community. This way, it leaves enough bandwidth to run LET-advanced at full speed and will not interfere with anything else.

This is a must for anyone who lives in rural areas.


iansltx

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

LTE and other similar techs work best when a license holder has exclusive rights to that spectrum.

Now, if you're suggesting that 100MHz be offered at a lowish price on a short term, subject to a buildout requirement (you lose the spectrum if you don't build out to 70% of the people it covers within two years, otherwise you have a 7-year license), that could work. Auction off four 10x10 paired allotments (a provider can buy at most two) and one 20MHz unpaired allotment, with a buying power clause that gives businesses already in the community 20% more bidding credits vs. anyone else, and you've got yourself a workable system.


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to battleop

said by battleop:

"If a local government wants to do FTTH and it gets voted in by its constituents, that's okay."

With the EPB project the constituents (or rate payers) didn't get to vote for anything. Now EPB has a choice. Raise rates to cover expenses or expand into more areas while running more private businesses out of business. They have already raised electric rates to cover the money spent on the fiber network. I guess now that they are moving in to home automation, home networking, hosted pbx, and rumored alarm systems they have chosen to go after more private businesses to make their bottom line.

Do you actually believe your own lies?

EPB's electric rates were raised to cover the cost of two massive storms that damaged the public electric grid in February: »www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011···ncrease/

The key quote: "Without revenues from the utility’s telecom, TV and video divisions, the rate hike would be at least twice as much, said Harold DePriest, president and CEO of EPB"

Now shut it about EPB- no one wants to hear you spew the same trash over and over again.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to caseywor

said by caseywor:

New companies and investors would be jumping to invest money in that kind of market! /sarc

"The fascist market has done nothing to improve broadband choices for the USA" - Ummmmm.....a lot more people have internet access now in 2012 than did in 2000 or 2002. Kind of an incorrect, overgeneralized statement don't you think?

Oh gosh, I wonder if that has anything to do with tens of billions of dollars in mostly untracked USF subsidies that have gone into the telcos' coffers?

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to Telco

said by Telco:

You really do live under a rock. We've heard your ilks rant about the private sector and against our government for decades now. 30 years later (i.e. post Reaganomics/trickle-down) and we rank close to dead last in everything but defense; where you guys send close to a trillion a year, with little concern about ROI.

Millions of Americans only have access to less than a few megs broadband speeds, yet you have the nerve (ignorance) to claim we should continue to leave it up to the same private sector that has failed them; that does not deem these Americas profitable enough for them to service.

We need to vote every one of your 18th century TEAnutter ilk out of office and send you back to the swamps. Time for the rest of America, as in those of us who pay for the bills and actually contribute the majority to the GDP (Democrats) to push forward. As in, the uber liberal and world leading San Fran/San Jose area.

R's are insane, but Democrats are corrupt. After all the current FCC head is Obama's choice- and college buddy/roomate or something.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

Good luck delivering 100 Mbps, uncapped, over wireless. You'd need more spectrum than is currently available for one company to do this, let alone a couple competitors.

Also, I'm (slowly) trying to get the pieces in place to build an ISP. It won't be 100 Mbps symmetric. It won't be uncapped (though for $100 or so per month the plan is that anything less than 1TB per month is fair game...and for $50 enough usage will be given that 90% of folks won't be throttled or charged). However it will be better than the competition, and it won't be asking for subsidies directly (my bandwidth provider might be subsidized via USF...we'll see). The plan is to sell a level of connectivity that I'd be happy using for my own (power user) activities, which is saying something. But your regulation wouldn't allow me to even get started. How's that fair?

Even ultra-congested satellite has uncapped services in the dead of night.

Until wireless users are suffering from sub 1 mbps speeds, wireles ISPs should be offering uncapped services during off-peak hours.


caseywor

join:2004-04-19
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Charter
·Mediacom
reply to sonicmerlin

I would say for the most part it doesn't. Sounds to me like you are claiming that all broadband growth is related to the USF. Kind of s stretch isn't it? Besides, if the USF is "mostly untracked", then it sounds to me like another government mandated black hole, something that should be abolished.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to sonicmerlin

Forgot to mention that I was planning on doing that


tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

Good luck delivering 100 Mbps, uncapped, over wireless. You'd need more spectrum than is currently available for one company to do this, let alone a couple competitors.

Also, I'm (slowly) trying to get the pieces in place to build an ISP. It won't be 100 Mbps symmetric. It won't be uncapped (though for $100 or so per month the plan is that anything less than 1TB per month is fair game...and for $50 enough usage will be given that 90% of folks won't be throttled or charged). However it will be better than the competition, and it won't be asking for subsidies directly (my bandwidth provider might be subsidized via USF...we'll see). The plan is to sell a level of connectivity that I'd be happy using for my own (power user) activities, which is saying something. But your regulation wouldn't allow me to even get started. How's that fair?

LTE 4 may not be able to, but LTE is not finished developing.. it is likely the next speed bump in this evolution will be able to handle 100mbits per customer easily up/down. Also the handset technology is not there yet either.. handsets barely run 20 megabits without chewing up the battery in 30 minutes-- so there are alot of technology hurdles which need to be solved simultaneously for this to work. Also the way the market is overcharging for current bandwidth, it's not likely you will see them be chomping at the bit to replace LTE4 anytime soon-- cellcos like to milk technologies for as long as the consumer keeps paying what they demand.. and the market is saturated with plenty of apathetic customers on both pre & post paid accounts.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to sonicmerlin

"EPB's electric rates were raised to cover the cost of two massive storms that damaged the public electric grid in February"

They are using the rate increase to replenish their reserves that was tapped for the fiber build. That money should have never been used for anything but an emergency fund, not to build a fiber network.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to tmc8080

LTE4? What are you talking about? Verizon has LTE Release 8 deployed. Sprint has Release 9, and will have LTE-A online in a year or two. T-Mobile will start with Release 9 as well, and move to LTE-A shortly thereafter. AT&T is probably on Release 8. No LTE4 though.

Also, there's only so much bandwidth that you can cram into one MHz of spectrum with a given signal. LTE is already more susceptible to signal quality based speed fluctuations than, say, EvDO. You can up the modulation to 256QAM, sure, but then you're only increasing speeds by one-third, and you have to be close t the center of the cell to get those speeds. You can go from 2x1 MIMO to 3x3, but where are you going to put a third transmit antenna on a phone?

Sure, you'll be able to hit 100 Mbps per subscriber over channel bonded TD-LTE in 2500MHz in two years' time. However you've seen what Clearwire's coverage is now. It won't be any better in those cases, possibly worse since their network will be a relief network rather than the main event.