 | | Finally Well, it's nice that they at least admit they have a problem. As for solving it, I really don't think the FCC can handle it. At this point, I don't believe there's anything anyone can do short of a mass government take over with the US Army to change the way ISP's are running in this country. | |
|
 | innoman-Premium
join:2002-05-07
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Finally Or maybe if legislatures stop giving in to their (ISPs) every request. | |
|
| | | | Re: Finally said by innoman:Or maybe if legislatures stop giving in to their (ISPs) every request. Most of them are getting payed by the ISP's anyway. ISP's pay them. They pay ISP's. It's an endless cycle. | |
|
| | | innoman-Premium
join:2002-05-07
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Finally so very true. | |
|
| | | | Stop lumping all ISPs into one pot. It's the ILECs and Cable COs that are doing this. The rest of us are doing evey thing we can but it's an very expensive venture when you are not a natural monopoly. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Finally said by battleop:Stop lumping all ISPs into one pot. It's the ILECs and Cable COs that are doing this. The rest of us are doing evey thing we can but it's an very expensive venture when you are not a natural monopoly. The problem is, is that if you were... most would be doing the same thing ILECs and Cable Cos are doing. That is why I support regulation that:
Requires ISPs to reveal the true number of households they serve and the numbers and general location data of how many households have what services available to them at what price.
Regulation that promotes competition and disfavors monopolies/oligopolies/etc (many smaller companies vs a couple large ones).
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | said by battleop:Stop lumping all ISPs into one pot. It's the ILECs and Cable COs that are doing this. The rest of us are doing evey thing we can but it's an very expensive venture when you are not a natural monopoly. Natural monopoly? most of the time these monopolies are created by the government! limiting access to permits and signing exclusive or semi-exclusive deals for their cities keeps competition out! the only way smaller companies come in to these markets is by paying the government-created mono-duopolies. Take the government out of it and we'd have double the # of companies providing service or wanting to almost overnight.
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Windstream
| Re: Finally I would argue that physical connections to the home through the public right-of-way *is* a natural monopoly, regardless of whether we "take the government out of it" at this point. The only reason we have a duopoly situation is that cable TV was originally given a government monopoly (usually at the local level) on that service, keeping the phone company out. Only after the cable companies had established themselves in most places was there a push for any openness in the process, but by then the natural monopoly barriers are too high for another entrant to lay their own infrastructure (in any meaningful way - I realize that there are small areas of overbuild scattered around.)
Unless there is a municipally owned power company (like LUS, Jackson Energy, Wilson, NC, etc...) with its own existing infrastructure, the monopoly/duopoly will stand unchallenged. Public power utilities with shareholders to appease will not generally enter that market (and the legal hornet's nest from the duopoly - See LUS for an example), content to remain with their guaranteed rates of return and predictable dividends.
If we want a truly national broadband policy, we have to recognize that the existing "private" infrastructure was largely created under a government monopoly umbrella, and treat it accordingly. IMO, the local loop needs to be separated (by forced divestiture, if necessary) from the service provisioned on the loop, regulated as a monopoly with fixed rate of return, and the national policy should to be to improve the loop with fiber everywhere - rural, urban, small islands in the Aleutians, etc...
Without captive loop subscribers and with common carriage rates for all competitors, the private marketplace for services should explode nearly everywhere. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Finally Yay! Someone finally gets it. I've been saying this for years.
We need a separate heavily regulated last mile provider(s). Then you will see lots of ISPs offering service to those people over the same lines. At that point we can finally have a true vibrant capitalistic ISP market place. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally said by jdjbuffalo:Yay! Someone finally gets it. I've been saying this for years. We need a separate heavily regulated last mile provider(s). Then you will see lots of ISPs offering service to those people over the same lines. At that point we can finally have a true vibrant capitalistic ISP market place. I agree. Municipal installs like UTOPIA did just that and the large companies assumed they were too good to compete and backed out of those areas. If we could get something like that everywhere in the US it would then force the monopolies to compete with smaller providers or die a slow painful death.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | innoman-Premium
join:2002-05-07
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | calm down!
A generalization doesn't necessarily apply to the whole. When someone says American's are ..., they don't mean every American, just the ones who are ... (you can fill in your own blank there). | |
|
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | Nothing will be fixed. As long as greed exists, nothing will change this industry.
MMH, I know that companies must make a profit to survive. I know that boosted profit margins are nice. I'm not arguing that point.
The problem is there is no such thing as enough for some people, like I stated a while ago. I don't mean to sound bleak, but this "want want want" attitude will eventually destroy America.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|
| | | Re: Nothing will be fixed. said by The Limit:As long as greed exists, nothing will change this industry. MMH, I know that companies must make a profit to survive. I know that boosted profit margins are nice. I'm not arguing that point. The problem is there is no such thing as enough for some people, like I stated a while ago. I don't mean to sound bleak, but this "want want want" attitude will eventually destroy America. but if we don't keep up with others then the US will fall way behind. | |
|
| | The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | Re: Nothing will be fixed. We don't need to keep up with the others, we need to get federal spending under control first so that we can afford our children's future, which is looking quite bleak atm.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|
| | | said by The Limit:As long as greed exists, nothing will change this industry. MMH, I know that companies must make a profit to survive. I know that boosted profit margins are nice. I'm not arguing that point. The problem is there is no such thing as enough for some people, like I stated a while ago. I don't mean to sound bleak, but this "want want want" attitude will eventually destroy America. This "want want want" attitude is what America what it is today...the idea that greed drives individuals to succeed and produce goods, and the Constitution's limitations on the government from stopping individuals from doing so is the single biggest cause of our rise as the premiere country on Earth...
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Small Number Assuming the current US population is a little over 307 million, that means about 4.5% to 7.8% of people cannot get broadband.
That's impressive. The way you read it in some comments here you'd think there were a billion people here who cannot get broadband.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Small Number I strongly suspect that those numbers (the number who can't get broadband) are vastly understated.
Now, how many people can't get broadband 4mbps and up? Then the numbers would REALLY jump.
How many people can get real broadband (wired) vs a "Wireless" broadband system that has severe caps?
The World may never know.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | Re: Small Number According to those parameters, I don't have broadband.
I have VZW and a grandfathered Alltel contract (no cap) or I'd REALLY be screwed. Satellite is NOT broadband. I'm not *that* far out in the sticks; I just don't live in a big, dense subdivision. Our cul-de-sac has a total of 12 houses spread out on 2+ acre lots tucked into a big state park.
I really wish they'd used the census to get a true, mostly accurate map of where broadband is available. | |
|
| |  kontosxyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | said by KrK:I strongly suspect that those numbers (the number who can't get broadband) are vastly understated. Now, how many people can't get broadband 4mbps and up? Then the numbers would REALLY jump. Are we really at the point where "able to receive a HD video stream" is put at the same level of importance as access to electricity, or running water? | |
|
| | |  woodwardXMission BroadbandVIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: Small Number said by kontos:Are we really at the point where "able to receive a HD video stream" is put at the same level of importance as access to electricity, or running water? No, but we're long past the point where it is as important as a phone line. Or maybe rolling those out everywhere was a mistake, too? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Small Number said by woodward:said by kontos:Are we really at the point where "able to receive a HD video stream" is put at the same level of importance as access to electricity, or running water? No, but we're long past the point where it is as important as a phone line. Or maybe rolling those out everywhere was a mistake, too? Besides, having electrical power is not important either. You can always burn wood to use a steam engine to generate your own.
Such "luxuries". We really should not expect those in the US. If Congo can get by without them so can we. | |
|
| | | | said by KrK:I strongly suspect that those numbers (the number who can't get broadband) are vastly understated. Now, how many people can't get broadband 4mbps and up? Then the numbers would REALLY jump. How many people can get real broadband (wired) vs a "Wireless" broadband system that has severe caps? The World may never know. Well, I guess I CAN get broadband, IF I want to pay more for Charter Cable vs. Verizon/Frontier DSL.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by pnh102:Assuming the current US population is a little over 307 million, that means about 4.5% to 7.8% of people cannot get broadband. That's impressive. The way you read it in some comments here you'd think there were a billion people here who cannot get broadband. 7.8% is 1 out of every 13 people. That sucks for supposedly the most advanced nation on earth. What if 1 out of 13 lack electricity? or 1 out of 13 didn't have indoor plumbing. Would you be saying how "impressive" it is that 92.2% of American can use the toilet indoors?
Also look at the other numbers 50% of those that have broadband can't play internet video. So in other words 54% of Americans can't play internet video. That's good? It's 2010 for christ's sake.
Also considering how the FCC lowballed numbers before I still say this new number is lowballing. Hell HALF my county can't get any broadband. It may be rural but it isn't in the middle of Alaska or Montana. | |
|
| | | | Re: Small Number No, they can't play a high definition video stream. Most Internet video is not high definition and it takes a lot less bandwidth for that. | |
|
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | How long did it take to electrify our country? How long did it take a heavily regulated monopoly to build out a nationwide PSTN? How long have ISPs realistically been deploying residential broadband infrastructure? I believe some perspective is needed for your argument. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Small Number said by openbox9:How long did it take to electrify our country? How long did it take a heavily regulated monopoly to build out a nationwide PSTN? How long have ISPs realistically been deploying residential broadband infrastructure? I believe some perspective is needed for your argument. In both cases the government and the people made it a PRIORITY to do these things. Even people in "unprofitable" areas where provided with access to both these things. If left up to big business we'd still have areas where electricity and PSTN would not be there. Trust me we are better off as a nation today because 60 years ago we spent money on giving a bunch of Farmer Brown's electricity even though it was "unprofitable" for the electric companies to do so. | |
|
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Small Number That wasn't my point. My point was that even if we the people make it a priority, and we regulate/subsidize entities to deploy infrastructure that it still takes time (even longer since it isn't a priority and we aren't forcing deployments). | |
|
| | The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | Most advanced nation?
Sources please.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by BF69:7.8% is 1 out of every 13 people. That sucks for supposedly the most advanced nation on earth. What if 1 out of 13 lack electricity? or 1 out of 13 didn't have indoor plumbing. Would you be saying how "impressive" it is that 92.2% of American can use the toilet indoors? I remember reading somewhere here that 30% or so of people in the US simply were not interested in broadband service for whatever reason. I am not going to suggest that all of those people are in the same category as the 7.8% of people who cannot get broadband, but the fact that so many people in the US simply do not care for broadband means that getting the entire country wired up simply isn't that big a priority.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | Re: Small Number said by pnh102:I remember reading somewhere here that 30% or so of people in the US simply were not interested in broadband service for whatever reason. Joe Barton puts it at less than 5%.
From »www.cio.com/article/593573/Repub···yId=3137
quote:
May, 2010 - Only about 5 percent of U.S. households don't have access to broadband, and many of those households are in rural areas, Barton said during a hearing of the committee's communications and Internet subcommittee.
"My guess is they live in rural areas because they want to," Barton said. "It's at least possible that they don't want all the encumbrances and accoutrements of the modern Internet Age. So even if we forced it on them, they probably wouldn't take it."
| |
|
| | | | | said by pnh102:said by BF69:7.8% is 1 out of every 13 people. That sucks for supposedly the most advanced nation on earth. What if 1 out of 13 lack electricity? or 1 out of 13 didn't have indoor plumbing. Would you be saying how "impressive" it is that 92.2% of American can use the toilet indoors? I remember reading somewhere here that 30% or so of people in the US simply were not interested in broadband service for whatever reason. I am not going to suggest that all of those people are in the same category as the 7.8% of people who cannot get broadband, but the fact that so many people in the US simply do not care for broadband means that getting the entire country wired up simply isn't that big a priority. Do you realize how many people were uninterested in electricity before the Rural Electrification Act was passed? | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Small Number said by sonicmerlin:Do you realize how many people were uninterested in electricity before the Rural Electrification Act was passed? That's the wrong argument. There are many people who can get broadband already but choose not to do so.
Maybe as time goes on this will change, but if the FCC numbers are to be believed, or are even in the ballpark, then the problem isn't as bad as we're being led to think.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | I think even that number is low. Based on my own experiences, I suspect there are quite a bit more than 24 million without broadband access in the U. S. Unless they're counting satellite access or $60 per month mobile broadband with a 5GB cap. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Criteria I think this is a step in the right direction with adjusting the definition to "4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream" but also has interesting impacts. Many wireless, cellular, satellite and DSL connections will not qualify as broadband - nor should they. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Criteria Nobody on AT&T DSL would as they do not give you 1mbps up on any package. Best they offer on DSL is 640k up. | |
|
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: Criteria Nor can they. My modem is sync'd at 882kbps right now. I think the max it can is 1.5mbps. (Of which I'm allowed to use 512k.) | |
|
| | Progress This is some good news. It's not an overnight solution but then there never was going to be anything like that anyway. However, it is a step in the right direction and it gives me hope that this will be solved as time goes on. Keep up the work and keep the letters going to the FCC and the representatives of government. | |
|
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
1 edit | Liars, more liars . . . and lobbyists quote:
Our new, more "sciency" FCC is slowly changing that, doing things like actually testing user connections instead of just taking ISP lobbyists at the word in terms of delivered speeds.
Our government representatives, agencies and departments always seem so damned surprised to discover that they have been strung along, and lied to, by people that have a vested interest in deceiving them.
I'm glad to see that, for right now at least, the FCC is taking some of the crap emanating from the orifices of these mega-corporations with skepticism instead of swallowing it all hook, lie line and sinker. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
1 edit | about the broadband Think about this if your in the most rural place in states there is no TELCO or CABLE is going spend there money on building dslams or coax build outs because it would cost them crap load money for 10 or people in that area. Its say if there was 10 people in a rural area on one road I am sure the telco or cable is going to charge them crap load of money per month. As you know private smaller WISP's doesn't even account for broadband but just think Smaller WISP's can get more customers in rural area then telco and cable companys can get. I know some WISP charge 60 dollars for 512/256 which is stupid. When I start my own WISP I am going to give what the customer needs like 768x768,3m x 3m, 5mx5m. for a cheaper cost. | |
|
| | | Re: about the broadband said by treichhart:Think about this if your in the most rural place in states there is no TELCO or CABLE is going spend there money on building dslams or coax build outs because it would cost them crap load money for 10 or people in that area. But are we all paying into the USF fund on our phone/internet bills so internet service can be expanded to underserved areas? I seem to recall that a few billions of dollars have been given to compaies to expand service. I wonder how much really is going for its intended reason vs. just adding to someones profit margin? | |
|
| | | Yeah they wouldn't do anything for 10 people. I live in an area of over 460 houses, and we cannot get wired internet here because we live 1 mile from town(which has comcast and ATT servicing them) and are listed as non incorporated. I am sick of getting shafted.
I had a WISP for 4 years, and for 4 years I had latency that went from 20ms to 3000ms every other second during the day and was only stable at night. So I had to cancel, I couldn't handle it anymore. Now I'm forced to use 3g USB device on my desktop so I can have some kind of access besides dialup. | |
|
XJakeX
join:2005-03-05
Coventry, RI | 4mb minimum download for broadband? Hmm.....if this definition sticks, the US telcos may have to actually back to working on DSL. Other countries are finding creative ways to use existing copper with bonding and other multiplyer techniques to achieve previously unheard of speeds.
This FCC bears watching. It may turn out to be the most consumer friendly we have had in a a long time. | |
|
| cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: 4mb minimum download for broadband? Att appears to be moving it adsl network to adsl2. Adsl2 would allow for bonding of pairs. Maybe we will see that as a viable feature in the future. | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·magicjack.com
| So what? Broadband doesn't make life. Before there was anytype of internet people were able to entertain, educate themselves. They were able to reach out to others through social events.
In some ways the "good" modern age has been really bad for people.
There used to be an author on ZDTV. He had a one minute spot where he would talk about the need to unplug the PC and go outside and live your life.
--
Care Bear This: If anything I say offends you, then you have a problem. As I am a stranger to you, so my words should have zero emotional impact on you. If they do, please seek help from Dr. Phil. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| the unserved people MOVE for many reasons... jobs, affordable housing, etc... why not add access to broadband as part of the list and PACK UP AND MOVE! a majority of the 50k+ jobs aren't in the areas that don't have broadband by now.. unless your talking about FARM country.. many of these are dominated by corporate farming into the tenthousand + acres of land.
I say, bring fiber to the county.. it's up to the locals if they want it distributed to figure out a way to pay for it.. | |
|
| | I'm one of these people... Time Warner won't run cable lines for internet/tv another half mile to the end of the power lines on our road which covers 12 homes, including mine. I went through a lot of trouble to get ahold of their engineering dept. and a local executive sent me a generic BS response in a letter that said it's too expensive. Really? half mile of cable to only support 12 people? F*** you prick. Next time I'm hunting up the road where the node box is I'll make sure to put a few rifle rounds in it. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: I'm one of these people... Haha... man oh man you aren't alone in that statement. I think some of Windstream's DSL boxes have some holes in them in my area. How could you dare call 1.5Mb/394Kb broadband?! And 9 out of 10 times it's screwed up. I'm glad the FCC is finally doing something useful. But they need to hurry up before more and more telco/cable boxes end up with more holes in them. | |
|
Core0000Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| IT isn't the same, but its like... How the Obama administration finally admitted the mandated health care was really a masked tax, just the other day as a matter of fact. That's why it was all mandated and stuff on young people who definitely would not need it.
Yeah, its great that they admit it, just like the FCC is admitting this after research, but nothing is changing for the better.
I do like the fact they give broadband a definition/standard though. | |
|
|
|
Lake County, Fl poster boy for lack of broadband service.
Here in Lake County Florida there are more holes in broadband deployment than a round of imported Swiss Cheese. The lucky customers like me have three choices: Comcast, CenturyLink and Wireless Broadband. Unfortunate there are some areas where the only choice is Wildblue or Hughsnet. CenturyLink has not deployed DSLAM's in some areas and some customers are to far from the DSLAM for DSL or a Cable Node for DOCSIS. In some cases there are failed subdivisions that were wired for cable but installation was never completed. 
