ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to shoan
Re: another approach
Sorry, but your idea won't float for the following reasons:
1) Data collected from citizens would probably be incomplete, and erroneous.
2) Telco and Cableco employees would be encouraged to provide data that could be misleading for obvious reasons.
3) Paying anyone would really encourage and REWARD Telco and Cableco employees to respond.
4) Forcing the industry to release the required data is the only way an effective and accurate audit of infrastructure can be compiled and assessed. Anything less would produce sham results. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
1 edit | Anything less has and continues to produce sham results. |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to ross
4) Forcing the industry to release the required data is the only way an effective and accurate audit of infrastructure can be compiled and assessed. Anything less would produce sham results.
Yet the companies would quickly falsify or mislead that information provided in that audit.
Its better done having a citizen simply put if he has "DSL, Cable, Fiber" and if so he is classified as broadband.
Now broadband classification is 256k but thats another issue and that would be forcing the FCC to raise the minimum of what broadband will be. Which in general should be 1.5/256 IMHO.
Another thing to know is that during the time of the census you are dealing with a government employee those who are paid shills are best brought up in the census as well but under another classification.
If the surrounding area has from each and every home around such cable or telco employee than his answer will validate.
A answer could be validated as false stating that he has broadband 8.0/768 yet the neighbor next door does not.
A simple show of your phone bill or ISP bill will show what package you have and that data could later be validated to see what that customer is capable of getting but simply does not due to price.
But to simply rely on the industry for an answer will provide only one side of the story. Data should be collected from both sides and compare that data to get a good estimate on what is covered and what is not.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| Validation yes, but putting the onus on the general public seems rather backward. Half of america still couldn't define broadband much less tell you if they have it.
Corporate reporting should form the basis possibly correlated with USGS data in an interactive mapping format. (think google maps, with a different color flag for each provider) Companies simply define areas they claim to service. Anyone that cannot get service in an area indicated as serviced can file a notice or have that territory removed from the coverage map. Of course some sort of fine system would also have to be in place to keep commercial entities from repeatedly claiming coverage in non-serviced areas.
The technology and geocoding data is readily available. There absolutely no need to keep up hiding public data. |
|
