baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI 1 edit |
Will Vote...And Will Fail. Government taking over broadband will saturate it and deliver a lower quality product than if in the hands of private companies.
Plus, 768k in 10 years!??!?! Comcast and Verizon have 50,000k hsi THIS YEAR. what will the point be then? | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Will Vote...said by baineschile:And Will Fail. Government taking over broadband will saturate it and deliver a lower quality product than if in the hands of private companies. Plus, 768k in 10 years!??!?! Comcast and Verizon have 50,000k hsi THIS YEAR. what will the point be then? so are you saying that the private sector has produced a good product? this nationwide broadband is not meant to replace the comcasts and verizons or at&t's out there. i know my grandma would love to get something like this. think about it. it may be slow but it could easily replace the remaining dialup users. | |
|
| | DrModemTrust Your Doctor Premium Member join:2006-10-19 USA |
DrModem
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 12:44 pm
Re: Will Vote...Indeed. This would be a great replacement for my 26k. | |
|
| | | GlaiceBrutal Video Vault Premium Member join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY |
Glaice
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 2:37 pm
Re: Will Vote...Does this mean there will be more spamming, scammers, typhoid marys and people who just don't give a shit. | |
|
| | baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI |
to ArrayList
Although there are some problems with the major ISPs, they still have done a far superior job than a government run agency would have.
Everyone has a service outage once in a while; poor weather, wiring, network upgrades, etc. Would government run broadband work any better? | |
|
| |
to baineschile
The vote is not about the government running it--it's about auctioning this bandwith of spectrum with conditions imposed on the buyer. Problem I see is there isn't enough oversight on the spectrum already sold off to the private sector. That's why the last data published on how many of the 425 Rural Service Areas in the cellular market show fewer than 50 percent (specifically 150) actually have any cellular service. Communication infrastructure is a critical national security asset and the government needs to start overseeing the private sector that's given the privilege of operating it--remember all the complaints and concerns about cellular failure during 9/11. If they don't comply with government imposed conditions, then they need to be stripped of their license and fined. | |
|
| | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA
1 recommendation |
Sammer
Member
2008-Dec-1 1:36 pm
Re: Will Vote...said by voipdabbler:Problem I see is there isn't enough oversight on the spectrum already sold off to the private sector. That's why the last data published on how many of the 425 Rural Service Areas in the cellular market show fewer than 50 percent (specifically 150) actually have any cellular service. A condition to provide 768 Mbps service to 275 RSAs first at a reasonable price (maybe $30 / month maximum) would make sense. Conditions such as free internet service to 95% of the country in 10 years with smut filters are just stupid. | |
|
|
Hope it goes throughAt 786k I don't think suppliers have much to concern themselves with. The demand for higher speed should be sufficient. I'd love it. I don't need more than 786 for reading. Nor do I need to pay $50 every month for the pleasure. Somehow I wonder how it would ever be kept from being absolutely drowned with traffic though. I'm sure all the major carriers would do their part to keep it swamped too. | |
|
| Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2008-Dec-1 12:31 pm
Re: Hope it goes throughsaid by Millenniumle:Somehow I wonder how it would ever be kept from being absolutely drowned with traffic though. I'm sure all the major carriers would do their part to keep it swamped too. All the carriers will have to do is make sure some of the pr0n that's encrypted just enough to evade the smut filters gets through. | |
|
|
Please let this pass...1. If mobile carriers think this is competition, they need to fix their horribly broken networks. In more sparsely populated areas I can pull 1.5 Mbit over EvDO no problem. T-Mobile HSDPA will be similar in speed...and LTE is much, MUCH faster...
2. This will bring people normally limited to dialup/sat/lo-fi WiSPs into true, reasonably fast, inexpensive broadband access.
3. This isn't meant to compete with DSL/cable. DSL can provide service for cheap with no ads, cable can provide service at lightning speed. This is a new market sector.
4. Deployment of such a network would allow more people to move into the broadband mainstream. The result? More use for web apps, which is a very good thing. Web apps meaning basically anything serious online 9aside from surfing forums).
Caveat: I don't want the government taking over the project if it fails. They have enough to worry about. OTOH they could allow for secured large loans to cover equipment costs for deployment. That's a bit different... | |
|
1 edit |
Doublespeak"Subject to appropriate government rules to prevent harmful interference, government should rely on market forces to determine the best use of spectrum." Industry talking point doublespeak. It roughly translates to "We want to buy spectrum to lock out competition, but not be required to actually use it." | |
|
|
25 MHz is hardly enough for broadbandIf the government wants this to really work and not just play lip service they need to allocate at least 60 MHz. Wimax and LTE uses 10 MHZ per channel so who ever tries to launch this will not be able to use the best options available. | |
|
|
Why not 50Mbps and 100% coverage 15 seconds after approval?Seriously, if anyone thinks someone can provide free service to 95% of the country (unclear whether this is based on population or area--it makes a huge difference as a very large number of people in this country are concentrated in a relatively small area) within 10 years of being granted a license, you've got to have your head examined.
IIRC, AT&T's cellular network covers approximately 270 million POPs (which is roughly but not exactly people) and this is 25 years after the network started being deployed!
My prediction: this plan will be approved and then the "let's make a deal"ing will begin. We can't afford to cover 95% of the population within 10 years, so can we cover 50% (which probably isn't an area much larger than I-95 from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA). So this will do nothing for rural users. Or maybe they'll blow their nugget getting NYC and LA online only to run out of money before servicing a single rural country.
If the government was smart, they'd make it a condition of the license that rural areas without other service were put online first. Or, for financial feasibility, pair rural areas and urban areas--you only get to service the latter if you service the former. | |
|
|
Smut filterWhat the hell they think the internet is about | |
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Sweet!Finally, an alternative to Dialup!
I will be glad when this gets approved. Especially the ranchers out here that CAN'T get broadband, except by satellite (ahh, who loves being FAP'd to death?).
Whoever bitches about "Why not faster?", quit whining. It's 95% coverage and it's free. For "light" web surfing, it's perfect. For the people who DL massive files and use a ton of bandwidth (like me), you need something wired. I'd be willing to pay for my 15mbps feed and have free 768kbps for backup.
All I can say is "When do they go live?" | |
|
| |
Re: Sweet!but it will be pornless. I take FAP instead of Porn. or have both internetz | |
|
| | yolarry |
Re: Sweet!I mean I take FAP than Pornless | |
|
Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state 1 edit |
Nice.All the people whining can stop and think about it.
Free internet for your laptop anywhere. Camping, trips, etc.
Try and think of this as free backup internet anywhere your wired or 4g/3g/2g coverage is not. | |
|
|
wowSo you guys rather have nothing then something. Id rather have a horrible free wireless connection then none at all. | |
|
Hpower join:2000-06-08 Canyon Country, CA 1 edit |
Hpower
Member
2008-Dec-3 3:42 pm
yea....great idea...nothaha I can only imagine trying to get a signal anywhere...and imagine the security risk of having the entire county be infected with viruses that will spread like crazy. Now I wonder what they would say to that. | |
|
|
|