Cable Angry About Higher 6 Mbps FCC Broadband Definition > As Far As I'm Concerned

As Far As I'm Concerned

Hardly anyone would have broadband, with no reasonable way of getting it. What good would that do? The point is to have achievable thresholds. No telco would be able to provide that, even with Annex M, unless they have fiber or VDSL.

reply to buzz_4_20
.. and what will your definition, or THEIRS do? Nothing, Nada, zip. The providers will still call it high-speed internet,because when compared to dial-up, it is.

How does anyone expect these companies to invest heavily into boosting speeds? Especially the MSOs when both legal and illegal video downloading is eating at their profits?

Who do I blame? Judge Harold H. Greene, because if we still had a regulated monopoly, and universal service, the state of internet service in this country would be 100X's better.

reply to silbaco

reply to buzz_4_20
10/10 is nice...until you realize that that rules out anyone in an area served by a cable provider other than Comcast or Cablevision, pretty much...or served by short-loop VDSL2 by CenturyLink, or fiber by most providers. At that point you aren't giving money to rural areas to get them into this century anymore; you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category.

Don't get me wrong. I want 10 Mbps up. But CAF isn't the way to get me there (i'm in an apartment complex in Austin, TX for gosh sakes).

In contrast, 6M down, 1.5M up can be deployed via either single-pair Annex M or pair-bonded Annex A ADSL2+. The latter can cover a LOT of territory if things are set up correctly. 6/1.5 is also within reach for many wireless technologies. And cable providers have been able to hit 6/1.5 on 100% of their plant for years. That said, far from being an already-surpassed goal, plenty of areas nonetheless can't get 6/1.5 service, and would greatly benefit from having it; with that speed, you can watch HD Netflix and do tuff like online backup without tearing your hair out.

Put another way, let's get most of the US to a reliable 6/1.5. Then worry about the next step (12/3 anyone?).

quote:

---

...you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category.

---

reply to iansltx
If we're going to raise the bar and get some innovation or progress, why put it just out reach. Or within reach of already deployed technologies all we get is people stretching that extra inch to be within the definition, and progress slowly inches forward.

Why not strive for progress and to be better than the baseline.

reply to jmad980
There are some companies that strive to make sure all their subscribers have real broadband or compare their services to what is classified as broadband. If the definition of broadband is too high, they will stop taking the FCC seriously.

reply to iansltx

reply to ITALIAN926

reply to coldmoon
Except when you've got more urgent goals to spend taxpayer money on. Like getting everyone up to 6/1.5. We're talking about CAF here, not naming and shaming everyone other than FiOS and Comcast.

reply to buzz_4_20
Because it's better to make actual progress toward an incremental goal than to just sit there and have nothing happen. Telcos, who have phone lines everywhere, can't do 10/10 without being cost-prohibitive in many areas (they can't even do 10/10 in town in many places).

reply to coldmoon

reply to Skippy25
It would be 1Mb service and cost $500/mo.

Obviously you OR him cant seem to remember what REGULATED means. Obviously competition has done such a wonderful job, that we deal with this predicament, and headlines on a regular basis.

And I hate to break it to you, but this will NEVER change as long as the major internet providers also provide TV.

We once had the greatest, innovative telecommunications network in the world. Then came along Reagan and Judge Greene, and turned it to crap. $500 a month, yea ok. When were you born 1985?

Yeah because monopoly means lower prices, lack of competition means lower prices and better service. Wow, proof crack doesn't smoke itself. Remember what telephone service used to cost? Remember what airline tickets used to cost? Sky high thanks to monopoly. Unlike you I remember 1985 and what competition brought. Lower prices, better service.

Go take a microeconomics class sport.

reply to ITALIAN926

reply to ITALIAN926
I was born in the 50's. No way in hell would I want the old AT&T back. I figure you probably owned AT&T stock, were very rich so you didn't have to worry about long distance costs or else could make long distance calls on someone else's dime, and lived in an urban or suburban area where AT&T service was fairly reliable. And for whatever reason, you somehow escaped the experience of AT&T billing you for calls you never made and then basically calling you a liar when you tried to get them taken off your bill. Maybe not all those, but probably most of them.

The breakup of AT&T was the best thing that ever happened to America. In fact I daresay that had AT&T not been broken up, the Internet as you know it would not exist, because the old AT&T would never have allowed people to connect modems to their phone lines unless AT&T was renting them out at some astronomical monthly charge. The only thing a customer could own and legally connect was the old acoustic model where you placed the phone handset inside foam cups, and those struggled to hold a 300 baud connection! I can't think of a company I have ever hated more than AT&T, and that's why it so shocked me when SBC bought the AT&T brand from the then-bankrupt original AT&T. Talk about a tarnished brand, at least with many people of my generation.

The only somewhat good thing you can say about them is that there was a time when AT&T labs was on the cutting edge of science. But I guess when you are gouging all your customers with exorbitant long distance charges and monthly phone rental fees (where the phone was paid for in about six months but the rent went on forever), and even charging extra for things like longer line cords or phones in attractive colors rather than basic black, you can afford to fritter some of that away on research and development. Of course they patented everything they developed, so that raked in even more money for them.

There is a reason people fled from AT&T like rats from a sinking ship when they finally had the chance, and actually realized they could (unfortunately, a lot of older people never really understood that they had choices). If you really think we were better off with the old AT&T, I'd get your affairs in order because it sounds like maybe you are pole-vaulting into senility!

Youre right, AT&T took this country out of the technological stone-age by inventing the transistor, but the internet never wouldve existed down the road. sigh

Don't forget Unix, the laser, and the C programming language.... all three of which are critical underpinnings of the modern internet.

Alas, the days of companies throwing money into R&D like AT&T did with Bell Labs are over. Bell Labs got money for bragging rights as much as for practical technology that could advance AT&T's bottom line.