dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
FCC May Again Change Broadband Definition Threshold
Also Says They're Going to Study Caps
by Karl Bode 04:57PM Thursday Aug 23 2012
If you've been following this sector at all for the last decade, you'll note that the broadband industry has had a hard time even accurately defining what broadband is, much less how we should forge a national policy. The FCC originally defined broadband as anything faster than 200kbps, then upgraded that definition to 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream -- and only just in 2010 to 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. Now the FCC says they're considering taking another look at the broadband speed definition threshold (pdf) to raise it so it's better in line with modern users. The FCC says they also plan to start looking more closely at usage caps as part of their overall definition of what qualifies for real broadband. "If we add a data capacity threshold for fixed broadband in the next report, what data capacity threshold or thresholds should we adopt," asks the FCC in their notice of inquiry. "What data capacity limits do most fixed broadband providers offer today? How often, and under what circumstances, do consumers exceed these limits?"

view:
topics flat nest 

rit56

join:2000-12-01
New York, NY

FCC

This is such crap. Their function now is as a mouth piece for Corporations and all the stated definitions will be dictated by their corporate overlords. The rampant gouging and screwing of consumers is the new America.
en103

join:2011-05-02

Re: FCC

This will actually kill DSL lines in many places, as well as AT&T's Uverse offering of 'pro' at 3Mbps/1Mbps.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: FCC

It won't "kill" DSL, anymore than the wireless carriers have been "killed" by selling non-4G service as 4G.

I'd be curious to know why a 4/1 definition of "broadband" meets with such disdain though. That's more than enough to meet the needs of the typical residential customer. It might be nicer if it was defined as 5/1, 4mbit/s is borderline for HD streaming, I'm still not seeing a reason for outage though.

Slow upload speeds are the most annoying thing from my vantage point, though that was a necessary technical compromise back in the day, and remains so with services like ADSL.
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
It's not going to kill anything. The FCC can adopt these guidelines all they want, but they are unable to enforce them. They have no control over the Internet. They can not set speeds, caps or anything else. They lose that battle YEARS ago when they decided to let the Internet be an information source instead of a communications source. That was back with X Case over wholesale cable modem services. Now they need Congress to fully give them the power, and you have a better chance of being struck by lighting sitting at your computer than that ever happening soon.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
You mean the new is now just like the old? IMO -- I don't think it's much different now than pre-1996. Recall that we used to pay for extra for outlets, touch-tone dialing and long distance. However, in those days we paid more for intrastate long distance than interstate long distance. Given that we were charged for long distance, one assumed the greater the distance, the more the cost but it didn't work that way! There were also metropolitan charges that were higher for the suburbs -- even though that's where most of the population lived!

Today voice is virtually free and data caps are the new long distance.

Regarding the FCC's upcoming data cap definition, rather than look at what people use, I wish they would look at whether or not there is any sane justification for the entire concept.

The carrier's usual explanation is that most customers never exceed the limits and additional charges are levied on the few to maintain a quality experience for all. By this logic, we are left to conclude that the few are being billed significantly more than most and the additional revenue generated makes a significant contribution to ongoing network upgrades. If that isn't true, it sure smells like intrastate vs. interstate long distance charges.

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

I don't even have broadband anymore i guess

...and only just in 2010 to 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.

Go Frontier!

I was just thinking this morning that all the broadbandless people in the country would get faster service than I have if they got any sort of new service at all most likely. Pathetic.

There's so many incumbents that can't even be bothered to try and upgrade their own customers service it's not a surprise so many avoid using the term "internet service provider" when they seem to only care about creating customers rather than providing service.

--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author
famu720

join:2008-03-24
Simpsonville, SC

Re: I don't even have broadband anymore i guess

If the FCC had any guts, they would put the definition of broadband as one gigabit download and upload via fiber to the device.
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: I don't even have broadband anymore i guess

and you think they're going to enforce this how? Read above- they have NO control nor power over the Internet.
Technicholas
Premium
join:2010-11-11
Winterset, IA

False ads.

You are telling me that anything over 4mbps is considered broadband? I know of ISP's advertizing 1.5mbps as "broadband" That is misleading
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: False ads.

it's not misleading due to the FCC does not control the Internet. They can make these claims and policies until their blue in the face, yet they have no legal ground. Why do you think Verizon and Comcast sue them so much over their stupid Internet rules??

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

Cap limits eh?

Well, looks like the FCC needs to make it considered "broadband" if the cap is large enough to allow consumers to watch all their favorite TV shows without going over the cap and paying overages, equivalent to what the average TV consumers watch every month, if it's 1TB, then so be it, at least the carriers then hopefully won't "get their way" with charging people ridiculous fee's for wanting a different medium to view their media. This is 2012, and with 4TB drives being sold now, 500GB should be the cap for g-ma, and 1 - 2TB for everyone else.

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by mmay149q:

This is 2012, and with 4TB drives being sold now, 500GB should be the cap for g-ma, and 1 - 2TB for everyone else.

At what point in computing history has anyone (other than porn addicts) needed to routinely download such a large fraction of their hard drive capacity on a monthly basis? Regarding "g-ma", I deploy dd-wrt routers as a matter of course for friends/family/colleagues who ask me. The "g-ma" users I have are lucky to use 1GB/mo. The streaming video people range in the 100GB to 200GB range.

Bellyache about caps all you want but they've been very carefully calibrated to only ensnare a small fraction of the total user base. It's a win-win for the ISPs, they either drive the heavy users off their network and get to postpone upgrades, or they monetize those users and gain additional revenue to fund upgrades.

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by Crookshanks:

said by mmay149q:

This is 2012, and with 4TB drives being sold now, 500GB should be the cap for g-ma, and 1 - 2TB for everyone else.

At what point in computing history has anyone (other than porn addicts) needed to routinely download such a large fraction of their hard drive capacity on a monthly basis? Regarding "g-ma", I deploy dd-wrt routers as a matter of course for friends/family/colleagues who ask me. The "g-ma" users I have are lucky to use 1GB/mo. The streaming video people range in the 100GB to 200GB range.

Bellyache about caps all you want but they've been very carefully calibrated to only ensnare a small fraction of the total user base. It's a win-win for the ISPs, they either drive the heavy users off their network and get to postpone upgrades, or they monetize those users and gain additional revenue to fund upgrades.

Or they just kill off the idea of online video all together, oops guess you forgot about that one... Again, this is 2012, where the minimum speed tiers are reaching 10 - 15Mbps in a ton of areas, fast enough to at least stream 1 1080p HD stream, with that being said (and blu-ray's compressed taking up 10 + gigs at that HD ratio) 250GB is a joke, stop living in the past.

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: Cap limits eh?

You just don't get it, do you? Nobody gives a damn about caps so long as they only impact a small minority of the user base. They are not set in stone and will be adjusted as time goes on, technology matures, and HD streaming video becomes more mainstream. Until the latter happens, they are only impacting an extremely small minority of "legitimate" (loaded word, I know) customers, most of the rest are porn/bittorrent addicts.

In any event, you should stop being such a pessimist, we have made and will continue to make tremendous progress on internet connectivity. In the last 15 years I've watched my available connectivity options go from a 14.4kbit modem to a 50mbit/s DOCSIS 3.0 cable connection.

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by Crookshanks:

You just don't get it, do you? Nobody gives a damn about caps so long as they only impact a small minority of the user base. They are not set in stone and will be adjusted as time goes on, technology matures, and HD streaming video becomes more mainstream. Until the latter happens, they are only impacting an extremely small minority of "legitimate" (loaded word, I know) customers, most of the rest are porn/bittorrent addicts.

In any event, you should stop being such a pessimist, we have made and will continue to make tremendous progress on internet connectivity. In the last 15 years I've watched my available connectivity options go from a 14.4kbit modem to a 50mbit/s DOCSIS 3.0 cable connection.

No, I get it, you don't get it, it's a way to stop tomorrow's online competition so they remain in control, because it's kind of funny 10 + years of unlimited internet and now all the sudden we need caps, and the reason is because some small minority of 2% makes the experience horrible for the other 98%...

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by mmay149q:

No, I get it, you don't get it, it's a way to stop tomorrow's online competition so they remain in control

You call me a kool-aid drinker while you ramble on about conspiracy theories? How do you account for telco ISPs that have zero connection to the video industry but whom still have AUP language against excessive use? What status quo business model are they seeking to protect?

said by mmay149q:

because it's kind of funny 10 + years of unlimited internet and now all the sudden we need caps, and the reason is because some small minority of 2% makes the experience horrible for the other 98%...

There has always been a clause in the AUP of your ISP about engaging in behavior that degrades the experience of others. All they've done with caps is codify a hard limit rather than having the policy implemented differently depending on the whims of the local network administrators.

Mind you, I don't think caps are the best way to go here, QoS and different contention ratios would be more logical. I'm just hard pressed to see the existing caps as overly restrictive when such a small number of users encounter them.

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by mmay149q:

No, I get it, you don't get it, it's a way to stop tomorrow's online competition so they remain in control


said by Crookshanks:

You call me a kool-aid drinker while you ramble on about conspiracy theories? How do you account for telco ISPs that have zero connection to the video industry but whom still have AUP language against excessive use? What status quo business model are they seeking to protect?

Conspiracy theory? Can you provide evidence to show where people using their connection 24/7 degrades network performance for others on the same node when it's properly maintained and not overloaded with too many subscribers? If you can find evidence of this, I bet it's rare, not common that's for sure.

said by mmay149q:

because it's kind of funny 10 + years of unlimited internet and now all the sudden we need caps, and the reason is because some small minority of 2% makes the experience horrible for the other 98%...

said by Crookshanks:

There has always been a clause in the AUP of your ISP about engaging in behavior that degrades the experience of others. All they've done with caps is codify a hard limit rather than having the policy implemented differently depending on the whims of the local network administrators.

Mind you, I don't think caps are the best way to go here, QoS and different contention ratios would be more logical. I'm just hard pressed to see the existing caps as overly restrictive when such a small number of users encounter them.

You're right about the clause in the AUP and etc, however those are 2 totally different things, people using 3 - 5 different Netflix accounts in 1 home all at the same time will not be billed $10 per 50GB, if all of these caps were due to actual network issues, then the conclusion would be to cap at XGB's and then throttle the connection back after the cap is surpassed. By the method of the current which is to pay $10 per 50GB, it's pretty much like saying "well if this person wants to pay us a huge premium, then we don't care if they degrade everyone else's service" this is just completely backwards in moving forward with new advancements.

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by mmay149q:

Can you provide evidence to show where people using their connection 24/7 degrades network performance for others on the same node when it's properly maintained and not overloaded with too many subscribers? If you can find evidence of this, I bet it's rare, not common that's for sure.

I don't have to provide any such evidence. It's indisputable that someone who uses their connection 24/7 imposes a greater capital cost on an ISP than someone whose usage is closer to the median. You say "properly maintained" but fail to define what that is. Would it require a 1:1 contention ratio in your mind, so that everybody could use their connection at full speed 24/7?

said by mmay149q:

You're right about the clause in the AUP and etc, however those are 2 totally different things, people using 3 - 5 different Netflix accounts in 1 home all at the same time will not be billed $10 per 50GB

This example is silly, few people are going to have 3 to 5 Netflix accounts simultaneously streaming on the same connection. Those that do should probably be paying more than I do anyway, they are imposing a much greater burden on the network than I am. If they can pay for five Netflix accounts they can pay for a higher tier of service from their ISP.

said by mmay149q:

if all of these caps were due to actual network issues, then the conclusion would be to cap at XGB's and then throttle the connection back after the cap is surpassed. By the method of the current which is to pay $10 per 50GB, it's pretty much like saying "well if this person wants to pay us a huge premium, then we don't care if they degrade everyone else's service" this is just completely backwards in moving forward with new advancements.

No, they pay a "huge" premium ($10 is "huge" to you?) because they require a greater infrastructure investment on the part of the ISP. Who should pay for the required infrastructure upgrades to support such users? I used a grand total of 22GB last month, I should have to pay more to help fund network upgrades because of my porn/bittorrent addict neighbor?

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by Crookshanks:

said by mmay149q:

Can you provide evidence to show where people using their connection 24/7 degrades network performance for others on the same node when it's properly maintained and not overloaded with too many subscribers? If you can find evidence of this, I bet it's rare, not common that's for sure.

I don't have to provide any such evidence. It's indisputable that someone who uses their connection 24/7 imposes a greater capital cost on an ISP than someone whose usage is closer to the median. You say "properly maintained" but fail to define what that is. Would it require a 1:1 contention ratio in your mind, so that everybody could use their connection at full speed 24/7?

said by mmay149q:

You're right about the clause in the AUP and etc, however those are 2 totally different things, people using 3 - 5 different Netflix accounts in 1 home all at the same time will not be billed $10 per 50GB

This example is silly, few people are going to have 3 to 5 Netflix accounts simultaneously streaming on the same connection. Those that do should probably be paying more than I do anyway, they are imposing a much greater burden on the network than I am. If they can pay for five Netflix accounts they can pay for a higher tier of service from their ISP.

said by mmay149q:

if all of these caps were due to actual network issues, then the conclusion would be to cap at XGB's and then throttle the connection back after the cap is surpassed. By the method of the current which is to pay $10 per 50GB, it's pretty much like saying "well if this person wants to pay us a huge premium, then we don't care if they degrade everyone else's service" this is just completely backwards in moving forward with new advancements.

No, they pay a "huge" premium ($10 is "huge" to you?) because they require a greater infrastructure investment on the part of the ISP. Who should pay for the required infrastructure upgrades to support such users? I used a grand total of 22GB last month, I should have to pay more to help fund network upgrades because of my porn/bittorrent addict neighbor?

/sigh

So paying for internet with caps regardless of your speed is paying for an allotment of data (otherwise if you can provide proof of a billing statement showing you've saved money since the implementation of caps I'd be happy to see it, or anyone has saved money or has a lower bill)

Example:
Customer A buys 20Mbps internet service at $30 a month with 300GB cap

Customer B buy's 50Mbps internet service at $50 a month with 300GB cap

Customer A pays 10 cents per GB up to 300GB's and then $10 per ever 50GB after (or 20 cents per GB)

Customer B pays 16 cents per GB, and then $10 per additional 50GB after the cap (or 20 cents per GB)

So what you're saying is that it's ok for people who already pay more for internet than the norm, and use the internet more than the norm, pay more for the same amount of GB's even though they already pay more than the norm, as well as give the lower tiers a cap they may never hit, and in addition offer no subsidies or lower cost even though it's already evident due to math that there's no reason for them to have a higher bill anyway... This makes no sense, at all, not to mention, I've never seen it be good business sense to offer customers that "buy in bulk" or "get bulk" to not get discounts or etc, unless you count the 4 cents per GB instead of 10 cents per GB for overages, but even then there's still 6 cents difference being taken from those on lower tiers.

In fact, this is exactly why this whole plan is screwed up, if you really look at it, people on lower speed tiers are being completely screwed because they are paying high up front premiums, can maybe only use 1 - 3 devices at a time (which may not include streaming on 3 devices depending on the speed tier) and are forced to watch consumption like a hawk when the family is in town. In addition the people on higher speed tiers are also being screwed because now they could be paying $100 a month to get a 100Mbps connection, could be a family of 5, (husband, wife, and 3 kids, which isn't uncommon now a days) but can't even let everyone use the internet to watch videos at once, even though the connection should be able to support it.

Would it require a 1:1 contention ratio in your mind, so that everybody could use their connection at full speed 24/7? I think you meant to type "Connection ratio" there, but I'll still answer the question anyway.

In short, yes, there should be a 1:1 connection ratio, or infrastructure in place to allow everyone to use full speed 24/7, otherwise what's the point in selling the speeds? I mean I understand paying for 100Mbps and only getting 50 - 70Mbps out of it because of the server you're downloading from, but paying for 100Mbps and only getting 50 - 70Mbps because your ISP didn't do proper planning? That's just sad, plus it's equivalent to walking into a store, buying a new t-shirt, and then them cutting it in half and saying "Here's your shirt!" oh well, guess I should just find out how to live in alternate universes...

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48
said by Crookshanks:

They are not set in stone and will be adjusted as time goes on

Really, so a 50GB increase in 6/7 years is "progress" when hard drives have increased in TB's over the past few years? Keep drinking that koolaid... Maybe the koolaid man will bust through your wall screaming "OH YEAH!!!" for you every once in a while

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

2 recommendations

What They'll Find

They will discover that for all the ranting and whining, virtually no one ever exceeds their caps or pays "steep overages", and that the small minority who do have other options available.
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Re: What They'll Find

No one? That's cool, then stop wasting money implementing them.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: What They'll Find

Virtually no one, 'cept the few who are abusing their service, and/or out to prove they can, or because they need to fight-the-machine, or in Sprint parlance, "stick it to the man".

Implementing the caps and throttling costs little money versus the lost goodwill if the network is saturated by datahogs. The mere existence of the policy shapes behavior for most, and keeps the system usable.
Expand your moderator at work

DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1

Re: What They'll Find

If you watch the monthly average amount of television in via streaming standard definition (~100 hours) you will use roughly 34gb. 720p will double that usage. 1080p will have you well over 100gb. This is not a niche usage. Between Netflix and Amazon it's quite simple and increasingly more common.

And that's only one common usage. Another, Steam, will cost you 8-12gb for a single game. And then there are others, like video chatting. Even basic web surfing is not exactly a light activity anymore. That's all for one person. Families do that many times over because they have many people.

This is not 2006. The average household doesn't use only 20 gb anymore.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: What They'll Find

said by DrModem:

If you watch the monthly average amount of television in via streaming standard definition (~100 hours) you will use roughly 34gb. 720p will double that usage. 1080p will have you well over 100gb.

Two problems with your reasoning:

1) Few people are exclusively watching television via streaming.

2) Even by your own metric, you're only at 100GB, which is well under the caps currently imposed by terrestrial ISPs in the United States.

said by DrModem:

And that's only one common usage. Another, Steam, will cost you 8-12gb for a single game.

How many games do you buy a month?

said by DrModem:

That's all for one person. Families do that many times over because they have many people.

This is a silly argument, why should those families pay the same as a single person who has a fraction of their usage?

said by DrModem:

This is not 2006. The average household doesn't use only 20 gb anymore.

Citation needed.

inthedesert

@charter.com

Re: What They'll Find

I find this to be a very generous assumption actually. I work for a wireless ISP in an under served area (Verizon's DSL doesn't even top 1mbit in most areas and Charter hits a select few areas) and we've found that usage has increased ten-fold over the past few years with us suggesting Netflix, etc to our customers as a way to stream movies and TV shows. Our average user went from 25 - 30gb used per month to right up around 175 - 200gb a month and doesn't really show signs of slowing down.

Know what our response to this was? Invest in our infrastructure, remove our caps and increase our speeds. This hasn't bankrupted the company like AT&T and others would like you believe (and we don't have the billions they have to play with), but has actually brought on a lot more customers and given us the opportunity to expand our service area and given a huge boost to our customer base thanks to word out mouth advertising.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by DrModem:

If you watch the monthly average amount of television in via streaming standard definition (~100 hours) you will use roughly 34gb. 720p will double that usage. 1080p will have you well over 100gb. This is not a niche usage. Between Netflix and Amazon it's quite simple and increasingly more common.

And that's only one common usage. Another, Steam, will cost you 8-12gb for a single game. And then there are others, like video chatting. Even basic web surfing is not exactly a light activity anymore. That's all for one person. Families do that many times over because they have many people.

This is not 2006. The average household doesn't use only 20 gb anymore.

Actually, they do. The 2009 FCC study showed between 9GB and 11GB average, with a MUCH LOWER MEDIAN of less than 2GB. In other words, the "average" is heavily influenced by a small number of data-hog households. ("The top 20% of users consume 80% of the total bandwidth").

Surveys and projections from Cisco and (taken with a healthy dose of skepticism) AT&T also cite "average household" consumption levels of less than 20GB in 2010-2011, while charting substantial increases year-over-year.

Regardless, all of these stats fall way short of the 150GB cap for DSL, and we've seen industry start to raise wired caps, as well as offering commercial tiers without caps.

Wired caps will probably go away after a few years of political posturing, to be replaced by per-device-registration and sim-authentification-for-wifi and throttling-by-device and toll-free delivery packages.

dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

Regulation?

Does this mean those who offer less than 4mbps service are no longer considered a "broadband" provider and therefore no longer subject to FCC "broadband" requirements?

Who cares what the FCC thinks qualifies as "broadband" today? What difference does it make?

Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1

Re: Regulation?

They just stopped offering broadband, and now offer "High speed internet". Why actually do anything when you can just sidestep the issue.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by dslcreature:

Does this mean those who offer less than 4mbps service are no longer considered a "broadband" provider and therefore no longer subject to FCC "broadband" requirements?

Who cares what the FCC thinks qualifies as "broadband" today? What difference does it make?

It makes no difference at all what the FCC thinks. They don't call the shots and how they define broadband won't change what is being offered by ISPs.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: Regulation?

Totally agree. It's the FCC's way of making them look good and trying to call the shots. But it's really their way of spending more and more Gov't money than what needs to be spent.
Dan2112

join:2001-08-24
San Jose, CA

Either caps or overage charges... take your pick.

This smells funny.

If the FCC says "you have to increase your caps", the broadband companies are going to cry foul and press for stiff overage charges once the new caps are in place. The FCC will of course roll over and say OK.

Once they do that the precedence is established and you and I take it in the rear.
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Re: Either caps or overage charges... take your pick.

they won't cry foul, they'll sue the FCC again and again and again. They know and the FCC knows they have no power over the Internet.
tmc8080

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

shouldn't be caps

there is no consumption ratio where ISPs lose money for a fixed wireline service at current price levels given most of these companies have monopoly or duopoly status and serve milions of customers!

the fact that the FCC & DOJ have let this sharade go on for so long only proves they don't have an understanding of the costs and greedy self interest large corporations have over their customers and it's beginning to look like regional Ma Isp madness..

Perhaps a 21st century update for the telecom industry parody is in order... (appologies, in advance, HULU is kinda anal about showing an ad before you see the Lilly Tomin video, can't be found on youtube anymore.. )

»www.hulu.com/watch/70826
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 edit

We already know....

This is going to go badly. The typical FCC will find 25GB an acceptable cap. Then companies will lower their caps to "be in line" with the federal guidelines. By raising the threshold companies will be able to cut those rural DSL subscriber much easier.

The FCC never does much to stop small companies from ripping off customers anyway. Our government looks at companies like LISCO, congratulate them for offering 100mbps service, but ignore the 20GB cap.
decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1

yeah

Yeah, its the year 2012, I still do not have either dsl/uverse nor cable as an option for real internet.. I'm thinking the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and so forth are looking to be the same.. More of the same... More and more of the same...
25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Wasted Money

It seems like everytime some huge election is going on the FCC is up to spending more and more money trying to dicate what is broadband and what is not. Good job FCC for spending more money that is not needed. Especially when you have NO CONTROL over it.