dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon: We're Not Setting Broadband Definition Bar Low
We're just, well, setting the broadband definition bar low

As noted earlier this week, a number of carriers have responded to the FCC's request for a concrete definition of broadband with the suggestion that the FCC stick to their current definition of broadband as 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream. Consumer advocates want the definition set higher, given this is about setting a goal for ourselves as a nation as we craft our first national broadband plan. Verizon, in a post over at their regulatory affairs (read: lobbying) blog, apparently took some offense to our suggestion they're setting the bar low:

quote:
Click for full size
The implication here is that we want to keep the speed set low so we won't have to upgrade our networks. From where we stand, this is clearly absurd. Verizon is deploying the country's most advanced wireline and wireless broadband services. Our FiOS Internet service is delivering speeds up to 50 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up over fiber to the home today and will be able to provide 100 Mbps, 200 Mbps, and beyond as customer demand continues to grow.
Of course this ignores the fact that Verizon has a long history of leaving rural states horribly under-served, and is selling off huge chunks of their network they don't want to upgrade. While these deals net Verizon huge debt and tax relief, the sales have had a disastrous impact on consumers. After claiming they're not setting a low bar for broadband, the company goes on to admit they're, well, setting a low bar for broadband, because they're constrained by the laws of physics:
quote:
After all, we live in a mostly rural nation with a population density very different than most of the developed world.. If we set a baseline definition too high as we aim to wire the unwired in remote areas, we may have made that goal much harder to achieve due -- not to will or policy -- but the laws of physics.
In reality, refusing to provide DSL, LTE or FiOS to rural America isn't so much about physics as it is about lower profits, which is the whole reason Uncle Sam is doling out broadband stimulus funds Verizon didn't bother to apply for. Why? Because the money has to be spent on unserved, rural markets Verizon wants nothing to do with, and Verizon has grown used to getting their taxpayer dollars with zero accountability. Verizon seems to want to have their cake and eat it too here, highlighting that their filing (pdf) actually sets "aspirational" goals of 50 Mbps for landline broadband and 5 Mbps for wireless broadband. What their filing actually says is considerably more wimpy:
quote:
For example, setting a broad objective of moving toward a downstream target of 50 Mbps for fixed services and 5 Mbps for mobile services would be an aggressive longer term goal, recognizing that as the marketplace continues to develop there will continue to be variability in the levels of service available in particular areas for the foreseeable future based on a range of technological, geographic, economic and other factors.
In other words, Verizon doesn't mind a floating, vague goal of 50Mbps -- provided nobody really holds their feet to the fire, and it's understood that they can wimp out of these demands at any time, because deploying broadband is just too damn hard. But for any decision that actually matters, Verizon thinks 768kbps is just fine. The lower the base standard, the less work Verizon has to do in upgrading networks in the still significant number of markets where they don't think FiOS is profitable.

Verizon continues by arguing that setting the base bar any higher will usher forth some kind of confusion apocalypse, given the broadband stimulus funds (which again, they didn't apply for) define broadband as 768 kbps/ 200 kbps. Of course this discussion is about our national goals, not the stimulus funds, and it seems fairly obvious to everybody but the carriers that this baseline goal (immediate or long term) should be higher than 200 kbps upstream.

How about symmetrical 2Mbps? Symmetrical 1Mbps? 1 Mbps / 768 kbps and a ham sandwich? I'm no physicist, but I'm fairly certain the wealthiest nation on the planet can set its broadband infrastructure baseline at something a little higher.
view:
topics flat nest 

Z80
1 point 77
Premium Member
join:2009-08-31
Amerika

Z80

Premium Member

Healthcare and lobbyists

Two industries never hurt by a recession.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

50 Mbps for wired, 5 Mbps for wireless

Both are very attainable goals. DS/US channel bonding for DOCSIS 3 can make it there for wired, as can fiber (of course). WiMAX has been shown to provide 5+ Mbps in each direction when speeds aren't capped (get Sprint, not ClearWire).

So all you have to do is deploy that infrastructure everywhere.

That said, a baseline broadband definition should probably be a baby step. 3/768 would be my suggestio, as that's very possible with whatever technologies are available to providers right now so there's a higher probability of stuff being deployed in short order.

Goals vs. standards. 50/50 for wired and 5/5 for wireless is an awesome, doable goal. 3/768 should be the standard RIGHT NOW for broadband.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: 50 Mbps for wired, 5 Mbps for wireless

said by iansltx:

Both are very attainable goals. DS/US channel bonding for DOCSIS 3 can make it there for wired, as can fiber (of course). WiMAX has been shown to provide 5+ Mbps in each direction when speeds aren't capped (get Sprint, not ClearWire).

So all you have to do is deploy that infrastructure everywhere.

That said, a baseline broadband definition should probably be a baby step. 3/768 would be my suggestio, as that's very possible with whatever technologies are available to providers right now so there's a higher probability of stuff being deployed in short order.

Goals vs. standards. 50/50 for wired and 5/5 for wireless is an awesome, doable goal. 3/768 should be the standard RIGHT NOW for broadband.
And how long before the legislation can be pushed through for that 3Mbps/768Kbps goal? Then, how long will it be tied up in courts? Then, how long will the carriers tie it up in court again when they don't meet those goals and they are punished?

It would be 10-15 years before anything came of it and we'd be laughing at 3Mbps/768Kbps just like we laugh at 768Kbps/200Kbps now. We need to scrap trying to define "now" and set a goal; 100Mbps symmetrical in 10 years as a minimum sounds about right to me. That's very doable and would likely still put us behind other countries, but it's a step in the right direction.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: 50 Mbps for wired, 5 Mbps for wireless

Remember, 3 Mbps down and 768k up is a baseline. Believe it or not, some providers offer packages below 768k/200k right now as "high speed internet". Wireless providers and WildBlue come to mind.
nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX

nevtxjustin

Member

Re: 50 Mbps for wired, 5 Mbps for wireless

said by iansltx:

Believe it or not, some providers offer packages below 768k/200k right now as "high speed internet". Wireless providers and WildBlue come to mind.
As a wireless provider, we offer several tiers, 800 Kbps, up to 8,000 Kps. Guess what? 80% opt for the $24 800 Kbps 5 GB soft cap plan and no one has taken in anything over 3,000 Kps 20 GB soft cap plan.

We don't bother with any areas that have DSL or cable, so we're the only reasonable alternative to satellite internet.

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium Member
join:2002-03-05

NOVA_Guy to Matt3

Premium Member

to Matt3
One simple solution is to just not tie this definition to any sort of punitive action/regulatory fine right away. Make fines, etc. enforcable two years from now.

Just make the current standard 3/768, and have the FCC/FTC (not sure which) create a rule that makes advertising anything slower than that as "broadband", "high speed internet" or anything similar a deceptive advertising practice enforcable under current statutes.

Also have the FCC/FTC set the definition of the word "unlimited" to mean "no usage caps" in terms of number of bytes uploaded/downloaded while you're at it.

Make both of the above decisions enforcable immediately. That should get the industry busy upgrading, and make advertising practices fairer to consumers as well.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: 50 Mbps for wired, 5 Mbps for wireless

and you would have Comcast and everyone else dragging the FCC and the FTC into court and suing them. The only ones that would win is the ISPs. The tax payers would pay out the ass for the issue going to court.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to Matt3

Premium Member

to Matt3
said by Matt3:

And how long before the legislation can be pushed through for that 3Mbps/768Kbps goal? Then, how long will it be tied up in courts? Then, how long will the carriers tie it up in court again when they don't meet those goals and they are punished?
This is about establishing a policy and strategy for our nation's infrastructure, not forcing providers into minimum ROI situations. If anything actually comes of this strategy, I would expect the incumbent ISPs to hold out their plates for big stacks of cash at the government feeding troughs. Failing that, the carriers will continue to upgrade their infrastructure as they've already planned, regardless of this strategy.
Luminaris
join:2005-12-01
Waterford, VA

Luminaris to iansltx

Member

to iansltx
I completely agree. If Verizon is touting 50/20, the baseline and median should be much higher than what it is now. I would be perfectly happy with 3-5 DS and 768 US.

Neiswinter
@lvcablemodem.com

Neiswinter to iansltx

Anon

to iansltx
I would agree, much of what you have suggested is "doable", however the infrastructure to make that happen is another issue. Here in the West, because of population density the nodes are over subscribed. This means that you can NOT get the speeds, even with DOCIS 3.0. To get the faster speeds means to add more nodes, more node splits and all of that takes capitol and man power to build. I think it will happen, but its going to take time.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: 50 Mbps for wired, 5 Mbps for wireless

The cost of node splits is minimal compared to the initial capital cost. It's really not that expensive to expand a network, as Time Warner's financials demonstrate.

Ignite
Premium Member
join:2004-03-18
UK

Ignite to Neiswinter

Premium Member

to Neiswinter
said by Neiswinter :

I would agree, much of what you have suggested is "doable", however the infrastructure to make that happen is another issue. Here in the West, because of population density the nodes are over subscribed. This means that you can NOT get the speeds, even with DOCIS 3.0. To get the faster speeds means to add more nodes, more node splits and all of that takes capitol and man power to build. I think it will happen, but its going to take time.
Node sizes are usually provisioned in terms of 'homes passed' so density of population is irrelevant to that equation, just means that node requires less plant connected to it to reach the homes passed target.

SomeToldMe
@swbell.net

SomeToldMe to iansltx

Anon

to iansltx
Setting goals and enforcing them after some years is a waste of time. In order to get service providers to improve infrastructure, laws need to do away or highly limit contracts between consumer and provider. The only contract that should be allowed is the provider on what it will provide at a stated price. The consumer should NOT be tied down to some provider for fees that the provider is paying up front. The provider has the means to take the risk of keeping a consumer long enough to recover any cost.

In effect, the provider now must entice the consumer to stay on the network. By allowing the flow of customers to come and go, a provider is forced to find the best balance of service to keep a sustainable base of customers. Since quite a few consumers look towards bandwidth as an enticing service, some providers will be forced to increase their bandwidth to provide for those consumers.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Verizon History

If they can't meet goals like 45Mbps to 50% of one state in 10 years, even when they are given $2 billion to do so, no wonder why they don't want any part of this stimulus.
glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY

glinc

Member

....

As long as they can bring 100Mbps+ in NYC or big cities then its all good. The truth is farmers don't need broadband....only dial up is enough for them.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: ....

are you a farmer? do you know what farmers need? if not, please keep your ideas to yourself.
JBT
Premium Member
join:2002-12-06
Odessa, FL

JBT

Premium Member

Re: ....

Most of the farmers I know inherited their farms from their parents/grand parents it doesn't mean they aren't tech savy people. There is no difference between them and the city folk who "need" faster internet connections. They just happened to inherit a family legacy and want to keep it alive.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 edit

Transmaster

Member

Farmers

I guess the urban wa-zoo's here have never been in modern computerised farm tractor. They amount to a rolling digital office, the farmer can run his farm from one. GPS, soil sensors, local weather, communications with his implement dealer, his seed suppler, commodity markets etc all are at his finger tips. Having a solid broadband ISP would be a real boon to such farmers.

As for a dial up being good enough have you ever seen what passes for dial up in some of these areas, you are lucky to get a 14.4 connection, with an internet designed for much higher speeds this just will not work.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Farmers

said by Transmaster:

I guess the urban wa-zoo's here have never been in modern computerised farm tractor. They amount to a rolling digital office, the farmer can run his farm from one. GPS, soil sensors, local weather, communications with his implement dealer, his seed suppler, commodity markets etc all are at his finger tips. Having a solid broadband ISP would be a real boon to such farmers.
This urban wa-zoo occasionally looks at industrial equipment. So how much does that "modern computerised farm tractor" cost? $75K? $100K?

Are we supposed to pay for that too?

Does this "digital office" actually require more than dialup speeds? Why? Did anyone bother to look at the bandwidth requirements and tailor them? Or is just easier to stick the taxpayers for billions?

If, *after* you've done the analysis, and you really need more than an IDSL circuit could deliver, buy a T-1.

Belinrahs
I have an ego the size of a small planet
Premium Member
join:2007-09-07
Nashville, MI

1 edit

Belinrahs

Premium Member

Re: Farmers

said by elray:
said by Transmaster:

I guess the urban wa-zoo's here have never been in modern computerised farm tractor. They amount to a rolling digital office, the farmer can run his farm from one. GPS, soil sensors, local weather, communications with his implement dealer, his seed suppler, commodity markets etc all are at his finger tips. Having a solid broadband ISP would be a real boon to such farmers.
This urban wa-zoo occasionally looks at industrial equipment. So how much does that "modern computerised farm tractor" cost? $75K? $100K?

Are we supposed to pay for that too?

Does this "digital office" actually require more than dialup speeds? Why? Did anyone bother to look at the bandwidth requirements and tailor them? Or is just easier to stick the taxpayers for billions?

If, *after* you've done the analysis, and you really need more than an IDSL circuit could deliver, buy a T-1.
If you think we can even get DSL in any form, you haven't looked close enough. It's dial-up, satellite, or EvDO for us (and we're EXTREMELY fortunate to be in range to a Sprint tower. We're in fact just outside the coverage zone but we have a special antenna) And if you realize how narrow-band and old the technology of dial-up is, it's not something that's going to work for a "digital office". It takes a PHONE LINE and is OBSELETE.

By the way, off-topic...I bet what you think is slow, I would consider extremely fast. I love this connection but getting faster speeds would boost my business and save me time. Here's my "fast" connection:



I've never used a connection faster than 2mbps down. It was a dream come true to use that connection.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Farmers

said by Belinrahs:

said by elray:
said by Transmaster:
Having a solid broadband ISP would be a real boon to such farmers.
If, *after* you've done the analysis, and you really need more than an IDSL circuit could deliver, buy a T-1.
If you think we can even get DSL in any form, you haven't looked close enough. It's dial-up, satellite, or EvDO for us (and we're EXTREMELY fortunate to be in range to a Sprint tower. We're in fact just outside the coverage zone but we have a special antenna) And if you realize how narrow-band and old the technology of dial-up is, it's not something that's going to work for a "digital office". It takes a PHONE LINE and is OBSELETE.

I've never used a connection faster than 2mbps down. It was a dream come true to use that connection.
I'm not trying to rain on the farmer's parade here, but you didn't answer the question. What is it, that is so vital within this tractor-digital-office, that requires more than dialup or IDSL speeds?

I'm *very* aware of how narrow-band dialup is - which is why I'm very skeptical that any "digital office" actually requires more bandwidth, properly configured.

When you're asking me to pony up $300-500 in tax money (my share of $20B subsidy) so you can have a fiber optic line, I'd like to know that it isn't being done for entertainment, and it isn't "required" because you have bloated software, or have imagined that Skype, Vonage, or other bandwidth-intensive VOIP technology are essential business tools - on a farm.

I also understand that it isn't always easy to order/configure ISDN and IDSL circuits these days, but the infrastructure exists - it would be a lot quicker and affordable to revive ISDN/IDSL than digging trenches for fiber.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

1 edit

Lazlow

Member

Re: Farmers

Elray

Try looking at high res weather maps on a dialup connection. This is a daily event for most farmers. The weather determines when they do what. Try looking at online service manuals(most do not print them anymore) to get part numbers on a $100K tractor that is broke down in the middle of harvest. Then tracking down what the nearest dealer that has it in stock. Then go back up the thread and reread all the things I listed. Now consider that during the growing season most farmers work 12+ hours a day, seven days a week. That cannot afford to sit in front of a computer for two hours a day to get weather reports that they should be able to get in a couple of minutes.

What you still fail to realize is that the physical lines going out to the farms do not exist. When they moved from party lines to individual lines they never imagined that anybody would need more than one line per farm, so they only put down a very limited number of lines. So NO, the infrastructure does NOT exist. It does not make any sense now to trench in new phone lines, as compared to trenching in fiber(or whatever). The cost to benefit ratio does not work out.

Edit: One of the things I think people fail to realize is how little of food prices actually (currently) go to farmers. Wheat is going for about $5.28 a bushel. A bushel is 60lbs of wheat. So out of that bushel you can get over 30 loaves of bread. Most bread is going for over $2 per loaf. So one bushel of wheat is producing $60 of product but the farmer is only getting $5.28(under 9%).

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

Duramax08 to elray

Premium Member

to elray
I might not live on the farm but I am currently unserved but I have the same needs you have but I do all my downloading at work. Would be nice to have it at my home like alot of people do. Why bring an old technology alive for a few years and watch it go under again? I say go for dsl and cable for them. You sound like one of the people that only cares if they have it and they dont give a hoot about anyone else. Must be that california smog getting to ya.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Farmers

said by Duramax08:

I might not live on the farm but I am currently unserved but I have the same needs you have but I do all my downloading at work. Would be nice to have it at my home like alot of people do. Why bring an old technology alive for a few years and watch it go under again? I say go for dsl and cable for them. You sound like one of the people that only cares if they have it and they dont give a hoot about anyone else. Must be that california smog getting to ya.
If you're unserved, you have my sympathy. But what gives you the right to TAX me, just because you chose to live somewhere where "faster broadband" isn't yet available?

You kid that my brain is fouled by smog. Indeed, I'd breathe a lot better in Hawaii or Lake Havasu City. Are you going to consent to a tax so I can afford to relocate?
Or are you one who has clean air, and doesn't give a hoot about anyone else?

For that matter, I don't live in a house like you apparently do. That isn't fair, is it? Maybe existing homeowners like you can "contribute" to "help" me, you know, being "neighborly" on a national basis, and buy me a house.

Do you see how ridiculous the concept gets?

By coincidence, we now have broadband. But I spent a very long time as a datacom "have not", and struggled and fought with the regulated entities and the regulators for the simplest of services.

ONLY when the telcos were more deregulated, and the cablecos went through economic upheaval, did we see any progress. When we did finally get broadband, we paid a very high price for it. Subsequently, having two competing services has caused prices to moderate.

If your community remains unserved, then you should be motivated enough to either move, entice a vendor to deliver the service, or form a coop to do it yourselves.

I suggest IDSL because it works on existing facilities, is a proven technology, and is sufficient to deliver an always-on connection that will fulfill any legitimate "need" for internet access, at longer cable lengths. Anything requiring more than 128/144K is, as you put it, "nice" - but it isn't necessary. For less dense areas, reusing existing copper should prove to be much more cost-effective than trenching for fiber, and thus, achievable in the near term, not requiring a massive public works program that won't come online for ten years and cost more than the "Big Dig".
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: Farmers

Elray

Those are the exact same arguments that were made when electrical and phone service were put in. Both of those service(put in with public money) have reaped huge paybacks to our society as a whole. As for why we should support the farmer in this issue and not you with your housing, it is simply a matter of self preservation. If you do not have any housing it pretty much only effects you. If small farmers are no longer able to stay in business, it will effect us all. Either a large number of farms just stop producing (and food prices go up) or (more likely) the large agricultural conglomerates buy up the farms (and food prices go WAY up).

As I stated above, in most areas their are no extra copper lines available to add in these new ISDL services. Which means in order to provide the service they will have to trench in new copper. Nobody is going to trench in a significant amount of new copper. If they trench in anything it is likely to be fiber. You obviously do not understand the needs of today's farmers. The services they use and why they need a broadband speeds have been posted above.

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

Duramax08

Premium Member

Re: Farmers

To back up the farmers, They barely make any profits as it is. I met this one guy that spends 100k a year and only makes 70k with that money. The only way he makes money is that he sells his right to a well he gots and that brings him 30k a year putting him right where he started. He said the only reason he is doing this is to continue the family tradition that his grandparents started. All his brothers and sisters wants to sell the property but he still wants to do farming. Just watch, One day there wont be any farmers.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: Farmers

The good news is that there will always be crops grown. The bad news is that the farms will be run by large conglomerates. History has shown us time and again what happens when large corporations take over a market. Prices vastly increase and quality decreases.

For this site just look at ISPs. When dialup was "the" way to get internet there was real competition (3-4 options even in rural areas). As the providers got bigger they pushed the small guys out of business, which was rapidly followed by poor customer service. Today very few areas have real competition. For my place in St Louis (in the city) I had one real choice (Charter) until ATT brought in Uverse. Before that I was too far from the CO to get service.

For a more direct comparison, look at the cost of a loaf of bread in the 1980s vs now. The average price of wheat (always been volatile) has not changed much, but look at bread:

»www.thepeoplehistory.com ··· ood.html

"Bread Sliced 55 cents New Jersey 1986"

Remember for each bushel of wheat you can produce about 30 loaves of bread. Most bread I see today is at least $2 a loaf. So what changed? Most of the small flour producers and bakeries were bought out. Once the market was controlled by a relatively smaller number of players, prices shot up.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Farmers

said by Lazlow:

The good news is that there will always be crops grown. The bad news is that the farms will be run by large conglomerates. History has shown us time and again what happens when large corporations take over a market. Prices vastly increase and quality decreases.

For this site just look at ISPs. When dialup was "the" way to get internet there was real competition (3-4 options even in rural areas). As the providers got bigger they pushed the small guys out of business, which was rapidly followed by poor customer service. Today very few areas have real competition. For my place in St Louis (in the city) I had one real choice (Charter) until ATT brought in Uverse.

For a more direct comparison, look at the cost of a loaf of bread in the 1980s vs now. The average price of wheat (always been volatile) has not changed much, but look at bread:

"Bread Sliced 55 cents New Jersey 1986"

Remember for each bushel of wheat you can produce about 30 loaves of bread. Most bread I see today is at least $2 a loaf.
If individuals can't run farms profitably, then whats wrong with them selling to corporations who can? If corporate farming is so evil and will rake in "record profits", why not buy their stock, sit back and reap the dividends?

You may be able to find data that cites a statistical cost for a "loaf of bread", but in my neighborhood, we pay less today, even before adjusting for inflation, for a loaf of bread, than we did in 1990 - a savings probably exacted from the wages of the store clerks, but still, cheaper.

The consolidation of ISP's occurred because they didn't add any value to the equation, and the fact that DSL is actually cheaper than dialup, for telco.

You have UVerse as an option today, because AT&T has the deep pockets to install it, and is willing to take the risk. Most of the small, local entities would never take on that cost.

Its true, few places have real competition (5 or more true sellers, not resellers), but even with two and some resellers, prices are kept in check.

The regulated model may still apply in a relative few non-profitable settings. But it doesn't apply simply because your neighborhood has to wait another year or four for the market to get around to you. Wholesale, forklift upgrades take time and money.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

3 edits

Lazlow

Member

Re: Farmers

Elray

Essentially what you are suggesting is to put food into the same situation we are in with oil(as in gasoline) and we have seen how well that has worked out. Right now no one has control over the farming market, so no small group can effectively control the price of raw food (such as the price of wheat). This keeps competition high and prices low. IF we allow the large corporations to take control of the market they will determine what they think is a fair price. If people will not pay what the corporations want, they will simply stop production. Corporations have deep enough pockets to do this, individual farmers (even if organized) do not. Instead of $5.28/bushel wheat we will likely see $15.28/bushel wheat(assuming bread manufactures keep there same markup of 91%, that will put a loaf of bread at $5.79). When you account for all the hours the average farmer works he is making well under half the minimum federal hourly wage. Corporate employees will not work for less than minimum wage. In addition to that, if these corporate farms do not have basic amenities (real broadband) they are going to have to pay a premium in order to get employees to stay on the farm (yes you need a live person on site 24/7). If for no other reason, these two facts alone will raise the price of our food significantly.

Here is a list of the cost of stuff running from 1930 to 2008.

»www.thepeoplehistory.com ··· nge.html

According to it, bread was $.70 in 1990 and was $2.79 in 2008. So I really doubt you are paying less for bread today (regular plain bread) than you were in 1990.

As far as local entities being willing to take the risk, the large corporations have done everything possible to block this. Look at how many time they have blocked communities (for years) by filing multiple lawsuits.

Considering St Louis is a metropolitan area (pick any direction and you need to drive 20+ miles to get out of town) and the 10 years (that I know of) that we had no other broadband competition, I suspect that the VAST majority of rural areas will have to wait MUCH longer than a year or four before they see any broadband. Much less broadband competition.

Edit: A second source puts the cost of a loaf of bread in 1992 at $1.05. In 1992 there was a massive wheat shortage and wheat prices shot up at a record breaking pace.

»findarticles.com/p/artic ··· 2150969/
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Farmers

said by Lazlow:

Elray

Essentially what you are suggesting is to put food into the same situation we are in with oil(as in gasoline) and we have seen how well that has worked out.
Uh, no. Gasoline and "food" are two very different commodities, with very different economic and production characteristics, and they cannot be put "into the same situation".

Apparently you believe you have the right to cheap gasoline. I'm not sure how you arrived at that. The rest of the world certainly doesn't see it that way.

Unlike "food", gasoline is a finite, diminishing, non-renewable commodity. If you try to regulate the price, rationing and shortages will result. Maybe you weren't around for that the last time the ("right wing" republican) administration tried price controls, so you'll have to learn it the hard way.

$5/gallon gas ($1 of which is tax) may hurt a bit, but it [price AND profit] is the ONLY practical way to encourage conservation and efficiency, to promote development of less expensive, more profitable domestic alternative fuel supplies. Who is going to produce and distribute 100 billion gallons of biodiesel every year if there is no profit to be made?
said by Lazlow:

IF we allow the large corporations to take control of the market they will determine what they think is a fair price. If people will not pay what the corporations want, they will simply stop production. Corporations have deep enough pockets to do this, individual farmers (even if organized) do not. When you account for all the hours the average farmer works he is making well under half the minimum federal hourly wage... if these corporate farms do not have basic amenities (real broadband) they are going to have to pay a premium in order to get employees to stay on the farm (yes you need a live person on site 24/7).
Nonsense. So long as the dollar doesn't tank, imports will check any price gouging attempts by corporate AG or farmers. "Corporate greed" will assure that product is sold, as low as necessary, not hoarded.

And if we did have to pay more for food, so what? 70% of America is overweight. Cutting back a few plates wouldn't hurt.

If the farmer is making below minimum wage for the hours worked (you have a tendency to spin numbers to suit your POV), perhaps he should find another line of work. Or maybe, he can become an employee of Corporate AG and get that premium salary you refer to.
said by Lazlow:

As far as local entities being willing to take the risk, the large corporations have done everything possible to block this. Look at how many time they have blocked communities (for years) by filing multiple lawsuits.
Nope. Telcos block MUNIS from trespassing on their franchise using taxpayer money, not private coops or overbuilders or WISPs. The 5th Amendment is pretty clear on this subject: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
said by Lazlow:

Considering St Louis is a metropolitan area (pick any direction and you need to drive 20+ miles to get out of town) and the 10 years (that I know of) that we had no other broadband competition, I suspect that the VAST majority of rural areas will have to wait MUCH longer than a year or four before they see any broadband. Much less broadband competition.
If those areas truly are to remain unserved by any wired broadband capacity (IDSL) or a functional WISP beyond 4-5 years' time, and they aren't willing to undertake the collective effort to form a coop to build the facilities, I'm not sure there is a problem there.

Since y'all continually lambast Verizon for selling off their rural copper wouldn't it make it sense to buy the lines and ROWs and upgrade them as you see fit?
said by Lazlow:

Edit: A second source puts the cost of a loaf of bread in 1992 at $1.05. In 1992 there was a massive wheat shortage and wheat prices shot up at a record breaking pace.
Feh. We had some price escalation from 1990 to 1992; it didn't last long. As always, there was some short-term pain, but that's nothing compared to the permanent pain brought on by government interference.

I DO buy bread for $1 every week at several regional markets. Grocery costs go DOWN with corporate greed, not up. Its the Walmart effect.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

2 edits

Lazlow

Member

Re: Farmers

Actually, I think cheap gas is bad. Last I checked the gas tax was $.47 a gal (average in the US).

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu ··· d_States

When it was raised to that in 1993(gas was just over $1 a gallon at the time) it should have been based on a % rather than /ga. Maybe we would have had some money in the infrastructure budget if they had thought of that. Cheap gas just makes people burn more (which is heading in the wrong direction). The threat of high gas prices is how we encourage projects like Telsa and Aptera.

While farming is renewable and oil is not, in this case the same rules do apply. We have well over a century of oil left. When gas shot up the last time it did not come back down when the price of oil did. It stayed high for a long time(months) after the price oil had dropped. The timing of oil refineries being shut down for "maintenance" during a shortage also has a pretty strong smell to it. Consider that there are only 149 oil refineries in the US, no new refineries have been built in the last 29 years, and that there are fewer refineries today than there were 15 years ago seems a little odd (we are using more gas today than we were 15 years ago). I wonder how many companies control those 149 refineries? Effectively the oil companies control the price by just controlling the flow. If we allow the farms to go the same route they will control the price the same way. They simply will not grow a crop until the profit margin is high enough. Take a look at the world production of crops and then consider the relative population of those countries:

»nue.okstate.edu/crop_inf ··· tion.htm

"The United States is the world's leading wheat exporter."

»www.ers.usda.gov/briefin ··· rade.htm

As the US is the largest EXPORTER of those crops, if US production would stop there would not be enough excess world production for any serious amount of importation of those crops to the US. So the prices would skyrocket.

The reason those MUNIS were putting in the service is becuase the telcos did not want to service those areas. This is the exact same way both telephone and electricity were installed (with government money).

You must live in a very blessed area if you can regularly get bread for a dollar. As I posted above, that is not the national norm. You are right, it is the Walmart effect. Take a look at the towns where Walmart has come in with below cost prices to drive the existing shops out of business. As soon as those businesses close Walmart raises the prices up higher (to cover the losses over the time they were showing a loss)than they were before they came to town and they stay that way.

Edit: A few more of the Walmart effect casualties:

»www.wordspy.com/words/Wa ··· fect.asp
Lazlow

Lazlow to elray

Member

to elray
Most farms in the central core of the US cannot get dsl or a t1. When the phone lines were put in we were on a party line. When they replaced them they only installed enough main line for one phone per house. Cell service is basically non existent.

Basic tractors start at $100K, without any implements(disk, planter, etc). A six year old(used) combine(harvester) runs about a $100k, without any headers. No we do not expect you to pay for that. This is the same argument that was made when phone and electricity first came out(they were both done with public money). Can you imagine how expensive food would be if the farmers had to pay for the line out to their houses(20 miles of electric line is big bucks)?
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Farmers

said by Lazlow:

Can you imagine how expensive food would be if the farmers had to pay for the line out to their houses(20 miles of electric line is big bucks)?
But you can just collect USDA subsides to plow your field under.
patcat88

patcat88 to elray

Member

to elray
said by elray:

If, *after* you've done the analysis, and you really need more than an IDSL circuit could deliver, buy a T-1.
A T-1 is a DSL line nowadays, your just a fool paying $400 a month for an insurance plan they will never keep up (cheaper to refund that month's service change than to send the truck off hours). If DSL doesn't work at your location, they will want 50K to run T3 fiber to your location, then cut a T1 chunk off that.

Belinrahs
I have an ego the size of a small planet
Premium Member
join:2007-09-07
Nashville, MI

Belinrahs to ArrayList

Premium Member

to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

are you a farmer? do you know what farmers need? if not, please keep your ideas to yourself.
I'm no farmer, but I live in rural farming areas and I need high-speed internet for what I do. Guy's a bit self-centered.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: ....

I grew up in Iowa. I have a lot of friends that run farms back home. I know that the rural areas are getting hosed when it comes to internet access. most of them are stuck with crap like HughesNet or Wildblue. of course it goes to hell as soon as heavy clouds or a little rain comes by.

poor guys need some reprieve.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

1 recommendation

fifty nine to glinc

Member

to glinc
said by glinc:

As long as they can bring 100Mbps+ in NYC or big cities then its all good. The truth is farmers don't need broadband....only dial up is enough for them.
Most people in NYC only need water and alcohol.

No food for them from those pesky farmers.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: ....

The alcohol came from farmer's corn or potatoes.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

Lazlow to glinc

Member

to glinc
Having worked on the family farm I can assure you that farmers are probably MORE dependent on a good internet connection than most people. NO dial up will not work. Try getting a local (within 50 miles) weather forecast in rural America with dial up(high resolution maps take bandwidth). The "local" TV station on our farm is 180 miles away. They do a pretty good job of forecasting the weather within about 50 miles of the station but beyond that, it is merely a guess. Virtually all aspects of farming is computer interactive. Planters and harvesters are tied to gps to determine yield/planting rates on a 1/4 acre basis. Feeding of animals is done by automated feeders to reduce waste. Milk cows are tracked (rfid on some) and yields measured to optimize health/nutrition (which equates to profit). Moisture, protein levels, etc are all tracked with computer controlled equipment. All these require regular firmware updates and many require the internet to do the analysis of the data.

Then lets move on to buy and selling stuff on the farm. In the 1970's you could just read the newspaper (which typically arrives 3days late) and figure out when the prime time to sell was going to be(you had a week to think it over). Today you (maybe) have a day to make that decision and if you are making that decision based on a three day old paper, you just missed your window. Next look at the number of expendables a farm used every year, baling wire, bolts, bearings, etc. Just like everywhere else you can save a ton of money if you buy it online. The vast majority of repair/maintenance manuals are now online too, so you either pull it up online or waste an hour running into the dealership to figure out the part number just to find out they do not have it on hand (most dealer now keep very little on hand). Then you have the growth of direct marketing. Many farmer now sell directly to grocery chain and customers. This virtually requires that you be online.

Next try getting someone to live twenty miles from a town of 3k and 180 miles from a city of 30k without decent internet. Nobody wants to live with 1970's technology today. How do your kids do their schoolwork without a decent internet connection? Most decent schools now have a website for each class that lists assignment and additional materials need for the class. Plus the vast majority of reports are written from information gather over the internet.

There are pages more of stuff, but I think my point should be clear.

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium Member
join:2002-03-05

NOVA_Guy to glinc

Premium Member

to glinc
And I always wondered why New Yorkers had reputations of being arrogant, self-absorbed pricks. Hmm... Could it be that my question is finally answered?

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

Duramax08 to glinc

Premium Member

to glinc
Lol you know that you are going to get flamed for this. Why would you post something that ignorant?

I gots an ideer, y dont u takes them fiberoptics and cabels from them city slickers n them big appels and gives them to them underserves ppl. them big cities get enough of them internets as it is I tell u wut.

•••
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco to glinc

Premium Member

to glinc
said by glinc:

As long as they can bring 100Mbps+ in NYC or big cities then its all good. The truth is farmers don't need broadband....only dial up is enough for them.
You probably never step foot out of Brooklyn have you? Good luck getting food out of that fiber connection.
Expand your moderator at work
Luminaris
join:2005-12-01
Waterford, VA

Luminaris to glinc

Member

to glinc
You obviously are not a farmer. Why should anybody regardless of who they are, what they do, where they live have to deal with not having a choice while others do have a choice?

glinthecity
@208.86.67.x

glinthecity to glinc

Anon

to glinc
yeah and when the shit hits the fan i'm sure glad I will be in the rural part of america instead of New York city, sitting here with my fat 20M/10M fiber connection

Belinrahs
I have an ego the size of a small planet
Premium Member
join:2007-09-07
Nashville, MI

1 edit

Belinrahs

Premium Member

Re: ....

said by glinthecity :

yeah and when the shit hits the fan i'm sure glad I will be in the rural part of america instead of New York city, sitting here with my fat 20M/10M fiber connection
I'll believe it when I see it Based on telcos and cablecos reputation for servicing our areas, I still have my doubts, even for once we've got flying cars.

jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Asheville, NC

jimbo48 to glinc

Member

to glinc
Truth be known, your response sounds like that of an elitist snob who thinks people outside of NYC are nothing but rubes who don't need technology. Please try and get off the island for AT LEAST once in your life. There's a BIG WORLD BEYOND THE LINCOLN TUNNEL and NYC is NOT the center of the universe despite the attitude of someone like you! If Federalmoney is to be spent let it be spent fairly not just for your benefit!
jcl9
join:2009-09-05
San Marcos, TX

jcl9 to glinc

Member

to glinc
From one big city person to another, I think that was an ignorant and elitist comment to make.

WiseOldBear
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Litchfield Park, AZ
Motorola MB8600
Synology RT2600ac

WiseOldBear

Premium Member

For Profit Not Always Right Choice

When do we wake up to the fact that "free market, for profit" approach is not always the correct way to provide services to all of our population. The thinking of many is still tied to economic models that are no longer appropriate or relevant to today's world. It is too bad that virtually all elected politicians and the organizations they create are unable or unwilling to grasp this simple reality. The enemy of all of us are those who cling to the past blindly and without thought. They will doom us all!

•••

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

What is broadband?

In my opinion, broadband should be defined by what it can do, not so much by a speed-number.... although that is important to define.

In my opinion for a connection to be broadband, it should have the ability to watch streaming video at at least 500 Kbps and have good buffering so it doesn't stutter.

The reality is that 768kbps is often just not cutting it to stream 500 kbps streams, sometimes because it can't reach that advertised speed, sometimes because you are browsing other sites at the same time too.

With multitasking in mind, I believe the BARE MINIMUM for a broadband connection should be defined as 1.5 Mbps downstream and 384 kbps upstream.

And I do believe this nation has the technology to supply 95% of the inhabitants with at least that speed at an affordable price (less then $50 per consumer), with the last 5% living in areas so rural it just wouldn't be financially feasible.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: What is broadband?

3/768. Youtube HD streams around 2.5/3 mbps. Its the baseline of what the internet is used for.
neufuse
join:2006-12-06
James Creek, PA

neufuse

Member

definition

of course we cant define broadband... because um the speed is not the bandwidth... thats the troughput... lazy people who write bills and specifications...... broadband is just "board" bandwidth... aka a spectrum of frequencies... throughput is how much data you can fit into that bandwidth... we need to define minimum throughput people!
cptmiles2
Premium Member
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN

cptmiles2

Premium Member

Breakup of the Spectrum Monopoly

The next big baby bell breakup that needs to happen is all the spectrum Verizon and ATT have quietly (and not so quietly) snatched up through the years with no real plans to deploy. The FCC needs to reacquire those licenses and put a similar spin on them as they treat the 3.65Ghz frequency.

Even if they just did it in the rural areas where they never plan to deploy anything else to give someone else a chance to deliver a product worth a crap.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

ask to not what they SAY but what they DO

Verizon = GTE, Bell Atlantic, NyNex, MCI
»investor.verizon.com/pro ··· history/
AT&T = Speaks for itself
»www.corp.att.com/history ··· ry1.html

Telcos have quite a sorted history about taking advantage of the consumer (aka RESIDENTIAL) markets for their own greed and gain. This brief spike in Cable delivered telephone and broadband has brought down a realization that the "last mile" can have a second successful gate keeper in the marketplace. However, you don't see cable companies getting into the wireless business (too much), or the payphone business, or the global telecom business (ie tier-1 isp provider presence)... or the deployment of RURAL residential networks business. The two industries have also come to the realization that beating up one another and offering MORE for LE$$ can hurt them more in the long run... so why not screw the consumer over until regulation rears its ugly head and forces them to play nicely (AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN 1996).

So ask not what these companies SAY but look at what they DO as a clear indicator of their stance upon which to judge whether things will get better at a quicker pace for the left out DIAL-UP broadband black holes left in this country (or for that matter de-factor cable brodband monopolies in geographies left wanting in Telco land).
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

There will never be enough bandwidth.

Content providers are not continuing to make their webpages efficient. New ways are being found to use the internet. As a result we are all screwed. There will never be enough bandwidth. The ISP industry went through the following dial up speeds between 1994 and 2000:

14.4K
28.8K
33.6K
X2 56K*
K56 56K*
V.92 56K

When dial up was the only way for most people to access the internet, web masters tried to reduce the download time for their web pages through a 28.8Kbps modem to as fast as possible. These days web masters do not seem to care. They do nothing to reduce file sizes such as using low resolution images where it does not impact the presentation of the webpage. As a result those stuck using dial-up suffer very poor results.

The other issue is the upload speed of the websites server to the subscribers browser. Unless the website has high performance servers and a high speed connection to the internet performance will be unsatisfactory.

I was having a problem with slow download speed from a website to my PC at my job location. When I contacted the webmaster for the site they said it was my connection. For amusement I went to a test PC. That PC had a Gig-E port connected directly to the edge router which terminated several OC-3's and DS-3's. The download speed from the website in question was still 56Kbps. Even having a Gig-E connection does not necessarily mean you will have a satisfactory experience accessing all services at all websites.

The proper way to determine the amount of bandwidth required by a customer is to set objectives defining the maximum total combined bandwidth that will be required by a customer. A SWAG would be 4 HD video streams plus 2 VoIP streams plus say 5 Mb for other traffic. Maybe a reader of this post might have the numbers to fill in the blanks.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: There will never be enough bandwidth.

The Voip would not be worth counting. The HD streams is where you are going to get into a problem. Who gets to determine what a HD stream is? Full HDTV quality is 27Mbps.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da ··· Examples

As far as the websites; people do not like the "lite" sights. They complain that they look old and uninteresting. The people running those websites usually pay based on peak Mbps. If they could reduce the size of the website data load (what they pay) and still have the same traffic(customers), they would do it in a heartbeat.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to Mr Matt

Member

to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:


When dial up was the only way for most people to access the internet, web masters tried to reduce the download time for their web pages through a 28.8Kbps modem to as fast as possible. These days web masters do not seem to care. They do nothing to reduce file sizes such as using low resolution images where it does not impact the presentation of the webpage. As a result those stuck using dial-up suffer very poor results.

The other issue is the upload speed of the websites server to the subscribers browser. Unless the website has high performance servers and a high speed connection to the internet performance will be unsatisfactory.
Its sickening how bloated websites are today. 1 MB just for the home page, 200KB javascript libraries are loaded. 100KB CSS is loaded, table and divs to hell bloat the HTML to 200 KB. Thats excluding images, and evil flash.

If your on dialup, you have to use the "mobile" versions of websites nowadays. Sickening.
I was having a problem with slow download speed from a website to my PC at my job location. When I contacted the webmaster for the site they said it was my connection. For amusement I went to a test PC. That PC had a Gig-E port connected directly to the edge router which terminated several OC-3's and DS-3's. The download speed from the website in question was still 56Kbps. Even having a Gig-E connection does not necessarily mean you will have a satisfactory experience accessing all services at all websites.
Yep, most websites on the internet are on shared servers, and couldn't even saturate a 3mbps DSL line. Or its security features in Apache that rate limit how fast each file is sent out in some stupid attempt to prevent a DDOS.
Jim_in_VA (banned)
join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA

Jim_in_VA (banned)

Member

Karl Bode should be on the FCC Board

If anybody has a handle on the BS handed out and calling it what it is ... its Karl. The man KNOWS what he is talking about.

mrflabbergas
@67.151.241.x

mrflabbergas

Anon

768kbps/200kps, yes if it's 4am.

Verizon is one of the biggest corporate scum among all american corporate scums. your average wireless "3G" is about 400k-300k, same with ATT, the only problem is ATT took on more than it could handle, wait till iphone hops on these other networks. I poop on Verizon. how riddiculous is it..you gotta pay $$ for airwaves.
Mordhem
Love it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD

Mordhem

Member

Verizon The Network in decay!

I like How they say they are giving the nation this Fios bull and that there network is so state of the art.

Well here in Baltimore city we see all the commercials about fios all day long, having it drilled down our throats, yet no one in our city can get it. Hell I wish Comcast was allowed to block the dam annoying things. Here is the fact Baltimore City is not a poor city by a long shot the average income here is 60g but facts are facts, Verizon is just purely cheery picking the community's to install and mainly installing in places for the affluent rich maby to further lobbying tactics?"pun intended"

Yet they refuse to wire our Major city of Baltimore, So as for wiring the country with the most advanced network I think not and they have a identity crisis on hands they are not the only company rolls out fiber, I love my Comcast Fiber optics network, Thanks! Here in Baltimore there network is crap Comcast offers speeds starting at 12 MB/s, Verizons top notch DSL starts at 1 and goes to what 3mb pfft.

The Verizon is all about the mouth not allot backup, they purely refuse to enter Baltimore for the fact that Ol' Comcast has a vary built out network here and they are scared to go toe to toe & when it comes down to a competition Verizon reps are no where to be found because they know Comcast is the Herizon! As for there holy grail 50MB/s

Comcast rep: Yep we got that! Can you hear me now?
Verizon rep: F**k!!!!!

Ghost6007
join:2002-01-06
Piscataway, NJ

Ghost6007

Member

its all capitalism

While its great to read all these comments and city bafoons fight it out with farm boys; everyone seems to forget the simple thing here. Verizon's motives are drawn by capitalism; profit and more profit is all they care about.

I don't think any of you are naive enough to think that the government and the telcos and even the FCC actually has YOU the individual American Citizen at the heart of their decisions? Its profits and success of the big corporations! (remember the whole "too big to fail" statement during he stimulus package?)

Unfortunately for all of us individual voters of this country; we cannot afford to bribe err... "lobby" Washington and FCC to do the right thing for us. That lofty dream can only be achieved by the big capitalist business entities. This here is a perfect example of a capitalist business entity who is smart enough to know that while YOU the individual are not stupid enough believe that 768kbps is actually high speed, they are arrogant enough to believe that YOU have no choice BUT to take up your @$$ because they say so!

Rogue Wolf
An Easy Draw of a Sad Few
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY

1 recommendation

Rogue Wolf

Member

Re: its all capitalism

And who elects these politicians who keep kowtowing to corporate bribes? Who keeps them in office after years of proven disregard for the betterment of the very people they're supposed to serve? It's not the corporations; corporations can't vote.

It's We The People.

We The People keep these bozos in office, despite clear evidence that they have zero understanding of critical issues of the day. We The People refuse to stand up and call these people out when they blatantly do wrong.

Why? Because We The People, by and large, don't want to think. We want to be told what to do. We let others guide our actions, by getting us to vote by party lines, by telling us that "they" (whoever's on the other side of the aisle) will ruin the nation if they ever have power. We The People let sound bites and attack commercials form our opinions. We The People care only about what pork projects our elected representatives can bring us, no matter what the cost to the rest of the country.

Until We The People realize that both government and corporations are not our friends, that they are merely necessary evils and should be constantly watched and threatened with just punishment at any transgression, and that we must band together whatever our ideologies to ensure our continued freedoms, this situation will only get worse.

“Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” -Bernard Shaw

ateyearsncnt
@optonline.net

ateyearsncnt

Anon

a Bush style corp policy leftover?

Bush is gone.. but the greed and arrogance of coporations remains so you'll just have to keep making the cable companies richer until the telcos smarten up and begin deploying their network AND LOWERING PRICES-- it's not one or the other!! No wonder Verizon doesn't want a high bar.. DSL can't reach it and they are too CHEAP to spend the money to make it reach a high-bar-- and they've all-but used up the political captial they had on jettisoning VERY BAD return on investment (ROI) copper network geographies and STILL find it more useful to delay, stall, and price gouge customers into either staying with the cable company who may or may not upgrade their plant or paying through the nose for FIOS (if you can get it, if not.. your stuck with a conceded monopoly).

until the telcos see the light, the cable companies will be walking away with the lion's share of broadband services-- and if the telcos do get you as a customer.. make sure you DO NOT PAY the asking price, GET A BETTER DEAL than the cable company (10% less on the bottom line price for FIOS and 1/3 to 1/2 price for DSL at max speed).
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: a Bush style corp policy leftover?

said by ateyearsncnt :

Bush is gone.. but the greed and arrogance of coporations remains so you'll just have to keep making the cable companies richer until the telcos smarten up and begin deploying their network AND LOWERING PRICES-- it's not one or the other!!
I guess you missed the part where telco HAS lowered their prices, from $60/256K to $20/1M, and deployed to millions over the past ten years.

Competition, even in the weak form of a duopoly or oligopoly (for those with satellite rights), combined with your much assailed "greed and arrogance", does drive down prices.

Greed works. The fiber backhaul network and much of the cable internet infrastructure was paid for by shareholders who lost everything, NOT by customers. I'd much rather have private investors risk billions in the hopes of making a profit, than have my government print a trillion dollars that I now owe, then have some insider bureaucrat dole it out to his buddies.

What telcos need, is to enjoy the same regulatory playing field that cable has, and give us predictable, national pricing structures, free from local, state and federal line-item taxes, so your $80/month triple-play package is truly $80/month - the taxes may still be there, but they are buried in the total, not detailed, so telco uses its so-called lobbying power to fight them.

pizmo pete
join:2007-10-24
Portland, CT

pizmo pete

Member

It's all about the NUMBERS

At&t is even having a hard time doing Uverse in the "rural" state of Conn. They barely did DSL as SBC and in the most wealthy state places still don't get it.The bottom line dictates all corporate functions in deployment. The Mantra for DSL was "Houses Passed", Uverse is "DA Connected".So in the DSL build, it never mean't you were able to get it but, the box in the area passed your house? HUH? You get a large foot print without real service.They built in the most densest areas and put pots cards in the DSL slots to claim service. In Uverse they must certify each house connected so each Distribution Area must be large enough to meet build goal numbers. So the nice $1 million homes are passed for the inner city low income plan. It is always a number game...the "suburbs commuters" who the auto industry convinced, "Hey commuting is the way to live a life in the country, and get out of the city"... becomes the biggest Loser. Even my middleclass street, has too few homes to be fed. I guess since it's a numbers game we loose. So unless we force these greedy Corps. to "SERVE" RURAL AMERICA they will make excuses. Look at VZ selling "rural" New England to Fairpoint, Dumping is more like it..Sad. These Fools demand a new Mantra now "Mean time to recovery of investment" They want instant gratification like they get with Cell Phones, and the old POTS way,or even fiber is seen as too "costly" to get involved..and here we are today.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 edit

Sammer

Member

FCC should ignore Verizon etc. in setting broadband goals.

Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Qwest, etc. have been in charge of defining "broadband" and that's why our nation has a failed definition. 768 kbps / 200 kbps is a bad joke. It's time for the FCC to actually do its job and serve the public by setting the bar a little higher.

lakotahope
@comcast.net

lakotahope

Anon

Broadband speeds should be higher

I just checked my speeds with my Comcast cable. Download speeds are 15.8 mbit/ Upload are 5.8....I like these numbers and we don't pay any extra at home....what is the problem? This neighborhood with the apartments and condos should have a fair share of cable connections to compare adequately with most communities....Verizon installed FIOS in our area and are refusing to activate it--this was 2 years ago....Wimps
Mordhem
Love it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD

Mordhem

Member

Re: Broadband speeds should be higher

Yea Comcast speeds are great, its a good thing when a company takes care of there network like comcast... unfortunately the majority served under Verizon is still getting a Super Fast connection of 1 MB connect. The Telco's are brain dead they are only installing Fios where our congress people live lol.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson

Member

Re: Broadband speeds should be higher

Capitalism doesn't work when creating infrastructure in this country -- it never has. Most of this country wouldn't have electricity or phone service if it weren't for the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and the extension of it in 1949 for phone service. The situation is remarkably similar for Internet now as it was then for electricity and phone service. Neither one of those were considered essential back then and only urban America was being adequately served.

It'll literally take an act of congress to change things for rural America because the phone companies don't want to put money into infrastructure in any area where there will not be a fast payback. They have to be forced to or the government has to create its own network for these areas. With the current administration, it's more likely we'd get a new government network which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

The technical solution would seem to be a series of Wimax towers connected via fiber optic links. Where a tower is impractical, run direct fiber links. Imagine the possibilities of a totally fiber optic network direct to the home. It would cost money but would basically be futureproof and could carry phone, tv, and internet.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Set the standard too high & it will be too expensive to meet

Let's say you set the minimum at 768Kbps. That means that in rural America, where bandwidth costs $100 per Mbps per month at wholesale, the wholesale cost of the bandwidth alone is $76.80. Way to go, guys; you've just priced rural America out of having "broadband." Doesn't make a difference if the last mile is fiber, wireless, copper.... You can't sell it for less because the bandwidth can't be had for less. Simple arithmetic.

If we want to keep "broadband" affordable to everyone, we'd better set the bar no higher than 384Kbps.