FCC Wants 100 Mbps For 100 Million Which in typical Genachowski fashion sounds good, but means little... Speaking at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) conference in DC today, FCC boss Julius Genachowski touched on some of the details of the agency's national broadband plan, which is scheduled to be presented before Congress in 29 days. Genachowski, who has had a bit of a nasty habit of being immensely and sometimes painfully vague when talking about broadband, continued that theme this week, talking about the immense benefits broadband brings American communities, but not being particularly clear about the FCC's goals on this front. Genachowski's speech (pdf) covered familiar ground, telling attendees the plan would work on reforming the eRate program (funded with USF funds), freeing up spectrum for fourth generation wireless broadband use, and creating a national emergency wireless broadband network. One new wrinkle Genachowski did bring to his speech is the unveiling of something called the "100 Squared" initiative. According to Genachowski, the agency would like to see 100 million Americans delivered speeds of 100 Mbps (you'll note with no hard timetable): Our plan will set goals for the U.S. to have the worlds largest market of very high-speed broadband users. A "100 Squared" initiative -- 100 million households at 100 megabits per second -- to unleash American ingenuity and ensure that businesses, large and small, are created here, move here, and stay here. And we should stretch beyond 100 megabits. The U.S. should lead the world in ultra-high-speed broadband testbeds as fast, or faster, than anywhere in the world. In the global race to the top, this will help ensure that America has the infrastructure to host the boldest innovations that can be imagined. While "100 x 100" certainly sounds good, it's not a particularly lofty goal once you understand that without the FCC even lifting a finger this goal will be accomplished in a few years. The nation's cable providers already offer DOCSIS 3.0 service, which is theoretically capable of speeds in excess of 100 Mbps, to 52 million of the nation's 120 million cable customers. DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades are relatively inexpensive, and the cable industry should easily pass at least 100 million cable customers with these faster speeds in the next few years. Comcast already passes 90% of their footprint. That's before even considering municipal and cooperative fiber or Verizon's FiOS deployment, which currently passes 15.4 million homes and businesses in 16 states. Verizon's network is capable of offering service at speeds of 100 Mbps, but the carrier largely believes that speed is little more than a marketing talking point until higher-bandwidth applications are developed. While there are carriers now offering 100 Mbps service, such services are expensive and uptake is low. Hitting 100 Mbps is certainly nice, but pricing, rural coverage and competition (only hinted at by the FCC boss) are the real issues. Reaching a third of the country with obscenely fast speeds excites your audience, but what's more important is the FCC determining a broadband baseline, then ensuring that service level for everybody. Finland wants to make 100 Mbps service a legal right for everyone by the end of 2015. According to Genachowski, our baseline metric for broadband will be "faster than 1 to 2 megabits," though he's again, not specific and offers no concrete solution or timetable. While Genachowski's latest lip service to broadband sounds good, it's still hard to shake the feeling that the national broadband plan is going to be neither ambitious nor evolutionary. In addition to the catchy-sounding but rather empty 100-squared initiative, Genachowski took time to praise the plan's inclusion of the cable industry's new "A+ program," which we already informed you was a largely empty project aimed at using taxpayer funds to advertise only slightly subsidized cable services. There's still absolutely no indication from the FCC that their national broadband plan is going to tackle the industry's lack of competition. If there's one thing you can be sure of, a truly worthwhile broadband plan would make competition its central theme, given competition organically cures many other problems (net neutrality, abusive pricing). More competition would mean less revenue for major carriers, whose lobbyists would be screaming bloody murder right now if the plan did anything of particular note. You'll notice carriers aren't sweating. 29 days until the plan's unveiling....
|
 jammmin join:2000-12-14 Upper Marlboro, MD | FIOS not interested Verizon has made it clear recently that is it not interested in offering 100 mbps to the masses right now even though Cablevision and Comcast is currently offering it. | |
|  |  | | Re: AT&T also probably not interested. They'll need to abandon/upgrade their FTTN Uverse stuff to FTTH to even have a slim chance. I think I'm more likely to win the lottery than that happening. | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: AT&T also probably not interested. We're talking about Verizon here, not AT&T. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: FIOS not interested Once CV/Comcast start taking customers from Verizon (Xfinity, Optimum) then Verizon will react. Until then Verizon probably won't do much on the speed front.
However if they get a pat on the back and a buck in the pocket fromthe gov't for deploying 100M broadband I could see things going faster. | |
|  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: FIOS not interested said by iansltx:Once CV/Comcast start taking customers from Verizon (Xfinity, Optimum) then Verizon will react. Until then Verizon probably won't do much on the speed front. They wont. CC uses 4 D3 channels for a 152 mbitps bandwidth pool. CV uses 3 D3 channels for a 114 mbitps bandwidth pool. Downstream wise. 2 simultaneous users will destroy D3 on CV (100 tier). 3 or 4 users will destory D3 on CC (50 is highest tier, not the magical 100).
D3 is a gimmick, on CC, you can't really use it because of the cap. You can use your CC D3 for 11 hours at full blast before you max out your cap. Which also means, ideally CC can fit 65 users onto 1 D3 system/node (it can't, broadband has peak usage periods). CV doesn't have a cap but use price to keep congestion low. | |
|  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: FIOS not interested I had 50/10 and 22/5 D3. It's not a gimmick. That said, Comcast might need to budget six downstream channels per node in order to provide 100 Mbps service...which they do offer in MN. | |
|
 | | 100 Million? Yeah sure! Like that'll happen | |
|  1 edit | you don't always get what you want and in another reality.....it happens. the dmca is gone copyright is sane at 10years people and society live much better off, the prices on internet are affordable to all and we all live in a star trek 60's universe.
...we interrupt this pipe dream for a reality check commercial brought to you buy HAIRBALL the new product that takes it out and dissolves the lil nastey. only 99.99 NOW.
---------------- yea in our reality it will have a 5GB cap and cost 500000000000$ and will have DPI spyware out the yin yang. YA know that same kind that wired said the FBI was using real time on 100megabit lines. NOW after extensive testing and improvements you can now have 100megabit cause they can yes see you in your underwear at night ...oh the joy of panty wiping.
Message to the corporates ...time to share a lil a that wealth you have. NO debate DO IT. do not whine you aren't getting enough. DO not bother to lie , or use big long flagellant wording to obfuscate meaning and cajole the public. THEY TOO got an education , bet you wished you hadn't given them that now eh? | |
|  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 1 edit | Re: you don't always get what you want said by chronoss2009:Message to the corporates ...time to share a lil a that wealth you have. NO debate DO IT. And in a free market WORLDWIDE investment community, the investors pull their funds from those companies and go elsewhere. And the funds to do what you want disappear from the telcos and they stop funding the build-out of the infrastructure you want. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: you don't always get what you want Investors don't fund crap. They take profits (reinvestment dollars) from the company. Which just so happens to come from the consumers.
These aren't start up companies trying to earn their spots so every dime spent comes from consumers. Investors have no interest in anything other then dividends and an escalation of stock prices so they can sell it. | |
|  |  |  |  |
 | | 100Mbps.. ..if you are lucky enough to live or do business in a VZ neighborhood. | |
|  |  |  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | 100 Mbps download is meaningless unless you have at least 20 Mbps upload with low latency both ways. | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: 100Mbps.. Not meaningless. Just lame. | |
|
 LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | And how do you create that competition?
»FCC Wants 100 Mbps For 100 MillionIf there's one thing you can be sure of, a truly worthwhile broadband plan would make competition its central theme, given competition organically cures many other problems (net neutrality, abusive pricing). And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished.
Is the way another few $100 billion dollars of taxpayer money and a gov't bureacracy like the TVA from the 1930'?
Tax breaks or subsidies to bribe existing companies to build where economics make it unprofitable(the USF shows how poorly that idea works).
Or the opposite of the above - confiscatory tax rates on the existing telcos to fund a gov't run competing telco?
And vastly expanded USF making everyone pay extra so that rural Idaho potato farmers can get Fios to the farmhouse?
Well, any viable ideas that won't cost the average taxpayer an arm & a leg? | |
|  |  Host: Time Warner Intern.. PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: And how do you create that competition? Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator?
Or maybe MAGIC BEANS? | |
|  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: And how do you create that competition? said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, said by Linklist:{stop there because I agree with that} use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? said by Linklist:{and instead return some of the money to the taxpayers in lower taxes; and use the rest to reduce the deficit. The improved economy can then create more investment to start paying for repairing the nations infrastructure - including telco fiber} | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: And how do you create that competition? Creating a better economy through a lower deficit and trickle-down Reagonomics, and then just hoping the nation's networks achieve utopia organically doesn't strike me as very concrete.... | |
|  |  |  |  |  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA | Re: And how do you create that competition? said by Karl Bode:Creating a better economy through a lower deficit and trickle-down Reagonomics... Actually that would be a pretty good start. One enormous problem we have as a country is that we have no capital to lend small innovative businesses to create fiber networks. Companies have to grow on a pay-as-you-grow "self funded" model which slows down fiber rollouts.
Why do we lack capital formation? Two reasons are tax policy and competition for lending with the government to finance the debt. It really would help all Americans if the government would just live within its means and cease micromanaging everybody in the country. | |
|
 |  |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Ashburn, VA kudos:1 | said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? That might only be a temporary solution. When we no longer have the ability to control and police the vast amounts of resources our nation uses, and we lose our position as a threat to those looking to take these resources for themselves, those trillions of dollars will drop off significantly. It's not that we are really all that powerful, as has been shown on several occasions, it's merely the projection of our perceived power that allows us to dominate many of the international markets and generate such a disproportionate amount of the world's income. We don't manufacturer anything nowadays, and our military might has become increasingly more important to our economic stability. Our dominance has already waned a great deal, and in the end we will most likely be fighting for our survival on someone else's terms if we drop our guard too much. Brush up on your Mandarin. 
I do agree that we have reached the point where we really need to seriously consider providing high speed communications services throughout the nation. Currently, the best option for any infrastructure that could endure the test of time would be a fiber network. We are nowhere near the point where we should be trying to make all rural points across the country have the same level of service as in the middle of a thriving metropolis, but these folks should not be expected to pay taxes and be completely shut out of the loop. There could be other means to compensate rural areas, such as with tax cuts and discounted wireless options, as an example. Perhaps a national Internet tax model based on population density would be appropriate? | |
|  |  |  | | said by Karl Bode:Reduce the amount of International bases from 850 to 475, stop pouring money into nation building, use the several trillion dollar windfall to build a national fiber backbone, then employ a wholesale model over that and ultimately migrate the government out of the role of wholesale operator and shift wholesale operations to a private operator? Or maybe MAGIC BEANS? We can't even do socialized medicine and you want socialized broadband? | |
|  |  |  |  Stumbles join:2002-12-17 Port Saint Lucie, FL | Re: And how do you create that competition? I'd opt for the magic beans. At least then my farts would smell as bad as our government and the FCC performs. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by Linklist:And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished. .... line sharing would be a good start. the Harvard study that recently came out recommended that.
it'll never happen, though, since all govt agencies are currently in the thrall of big business. until that changes, nothing will change, including broadband.
i'm lucky - I have FIOS and make enough money to afford it. I guess my attitude should be "who cares, I got mine!", but that's no way to run a country. | |
|  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: And how do you create that competition? said by nasadude:said by Linklist:And how exactly do you create competition? I'd be thrilled to hear how that is accomplished. .... line sharing would be a good start. the Harvard study that recently came out recommended that. Line sharing was tried and it failed. It will always fail unless price controls by the government on the wholesale rates are part of the deal. And price controls have their own downside - investors will take their money out of price controlled companies and go elsewhere. So this becomes unworkable unless government controls are extended to the whole economy. And even then, because the economy is international the US couldn't make it work because the price controls won't extend overseas. | |
|  |  |  |  Host: Time Warner Intern.. PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: And how do you create that competition? Line sharing wasn't "tried and failed" so much as it was implemented in a half-assed fashion, and then destroyed by a one-two punch of incompetent and corrupt regulators and incumbent ISP lobbyists.
Claiming line sharing was "tried and failed" in telecom historical context would be like telling a kid to go run a hundred yard dash, smashing his kneecaps, and then proclaiming that he tried and failed. | |
|  |  |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: And how do you create that competition? said by Karl Bode:Line sharing wasn't "tried and failed" so much as it was implemented in a half-assed fashion, and then destroyed by a one-two punch of incompetent and corrupt regulators and incumbent ISP lobbyists. said by Linklist:I'm assuming, but correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, that if the gov't had set wholesale rates for line sharing, that you think line sharing would have worked. But if the Gov't had set wholesale rates, other financial mechanisms,including the flight of investor money in the telcos, would have killed it.
Something similar has worked in the EU to some extent. But the socialist minded; gov't bureaucracy directed economies of the EU are different from the US system. And that is a whole other msg thread to discuss whether the US economy should be run like some EU economies. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Re: And how do you create that competition? said by Linklist:But if the Gov't had set wholesale rates, other financial mechanisms,including the flight of investor money in the telcos, would have killed it. Most of the telcos are just milking the cash cow until it's dry and aren't investing in anything really new anyway so what difference is investor money in the telcos making now? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: And how do you create that competition? Wireless? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | But the government did set the wholesale rates under the linesharing regime and the general UNE-P regime. Rates were set by states, using the TELERIC cost model. And contrary to the historical revision, investment by both CLECs and ILECs increased dramatically in the post-1996 period. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | said by Karl Bode:Claiming line sharing was "tried and failed" in telecom historical context would be like telling a kid to go run a hundred yard dash, smashing his kneecaps, and then proclaiming that he tried and failed. I literally just smashed my knee last weekend
Thanks a lot | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium join:2004-09-30 Happy Camp kudos:5 | Re: And how do you create that competition? said by Van:I literally just smashed my knee last weekend. So, what was your time?  -- Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green Day.
| |
|
 |  |  OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium join:2005-01-30 Berwyn, PA | Competion will not work in this case. It will create islands of incompatability to ensure profit maximization. For example, Comcast would prefer to only allow its subscribers have access to NBC content. If Verizon bought CBS, then you would need Verizon and Comcast to get NBC and CBS. (I know they cannot do this but they would really like to and as it should be).
There should be a combined Wired/Wireless infrastructure that is run as a utility. It just provides the pipes and everyone has access. Then, competion can be at the content level. I think that in many ways, this would make more money for all the companies. | |
|
 |  | | 1. Free up wasted spectrum reserved but unused by broadcasters. 2. Auction off the spectrum but prevent large spectrum holders like Verizon and AT&T from bidding.
I don't think we will have true competition until we get a wireless competitor for the current cable/phone duopoly. | |
|
 VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | How about you get me service above 5mbs first? Yes, I am shortly getting FiOS but many around me can only get one company that offers either Qwest or Verizon DSL maxing out at 5mbs | |
|  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Natch Genachowski, who has had a bit of a nasty habit of being immensely and sometimes painfully vague Isn't that a prerequisite for being part of the Obama administration?
So all these wonder innovations that are going to come provided we all have 100 megabit service -- what's the incentive for companies to develop them, given the proposed punitive tax policies and "soak the rich" mentality? Why would the much-maligned venture capitalists bother investing in American innovation if they're going to be taxed into oblivion and regulated to the point of instanity? | |
|  |  tschmidtPremium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH kudos:8 Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Natch said by jester121:Why would the much-maligned venture capitalists bother investing in American innovation if they're going to be taxed into oblivion and regulated to the point of instanity? 1) Because they are not being taxed to oblivion. Look at historical tax rates vs economic growth.
2) If they are successful they will be much richer then if they had done nothing.
/tom | |
|  |  |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Natch said by tschmidt:1) Because they are not being taxed to oblivion. Look at historical tax rates vs economic growth. going to be.
2) If they are successful they will be much richer then if they had done nothing. No, the smart alternative is to invest in other markets with lower taxes on profits, all other things remaining equal. | |
|
 joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA | FCC missed the point -- Google didn't The key to successful broadband rollout isn't just speed -- it must be open access. There is no reason to support incumbents who demand you use their tv service, internet service, and phone service.
The only real impediment we have as a country is that there is no capital to lend to small business to create the networks we need. If small innovative companies like Paxio had access to capital, they would happily pave their area with FTTH service.
For God's sake -- keep the stinkin' government out of it! They only screw up everything they touch. | |
|  |  tschmidtPremium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH kudos:8 Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: FCC missed the point -- Google didn't said by joebarnhart:keep the stinkin' government out of it! They only screw up everything they touch. Yea they sure screwed up the Internet and GPS.
So you don't see a need for government helping innovative small companies like Paxio gain access to capital?
/tom | |
|  |  |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: FCC missed the point -- Google didn't said by tschmidt:Yea they sure screwed up the Internet and GPS. Two systems originally developed by/for the military -- but wait, doesn't the playbook say that the military-industrial complex is the root of all our problems and must be destroyed?
Aren't the evil banks supposed to be providing capital? That's what we hear from the administration on a near daily basis, moaning that there's no money being lent (although Joe Biden thinks companies should borrow money to make payroll). If the banks are so terrible why didn't we just throw a few hundred billion at the SBA for interest-free loans?
What tangled webs.... | |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium join:2004-06-21 127.0.0.1 kudos:2 1 edit | one of the requirements should be via fiber optic cable only one of the requirements should be via fiber optic cable(to the house) only as D3 is just a shared hub and is slow should not count | |
|  |  | | Re: one of the requirements should be via fiber optic cable only said by Anonymous_:one of the requirements should be via fiber optic cable(to the house) only as D3 is just a shared hub and is slow should not count A fiber optic cable isn't a direct connection to the Internet either, so it is shared at some point on the ISP's network before it gets to the Internet. Show me an ISP that has every residential connection connected directly back to their peering router with no aggregation points in between, and I'll show you a company that doesn't exist, is out of business, or will soon be out of business.
And fiber optic cable doesn't have any guarantee on the speed. The speed comes from the technology. I know plenty of fiber connections that are 10mbit. So just requiring that it be fiber optic doesn't solve anything. Especially when technology is available that makes coax and twisted pair copper go much faster than 100mbit.
10gigabitethernet over copper is available today, would you call that inferior to 10gigabitethernet over fiber just because it is using copper? | |
|  |  |  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA | Re: one of the requirements should be via fiber optic cable only said by skuv :
A fiber optic cable isn't a direct connection to the Internet either, so it is shared at some point on the ISP's network before it gets to the Internet. Show me an ISP that has every residential connection connected directly back to their peering router with no aggregation points in between, The internet itself is "shared" by your definition. It isn't important where the switches are located, as long as the provider has adequate bandwidth to pass the aggregate traffic.
My provider, Paxio, offers speeds up to 1Gbps symmetric, and they guarantee you are not impacted by other users on their network. I have the 100M symmetric service and I have never seen any slowdown due to traffic on Paxio's network.
Paxio happens to use fiber to the home, but I agree that twisted pair or coax is perfectly acceptable for 100M users. I would point out, however, that fiber is inherently more "future proof" as WDM and other technologies currently push greater than 14Gbps on a single fiber today. | |
|
 |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ kudos:1 | said by Anonymous_:one of the requirements should be via fiber optic cable(to the house) only as D3 is just a shared hub and is slow should not count at what point do you consider it "shared"? do you realize that *every* piece of network hardware (aside from the truly insane backbone devices) is oversubscribed, right? the reason you or i are able to pay for a d3 "tier" of speeds and not pay for the full ds3 is because of oversubscription, right?
everyone wants to think fiber is a panacea for everything. sure, but how long has it been worked on and being refined? fibers were first used in the 70s and aside from cleaning up the glass in the desired wavelength, not much has changed. when you throw fiber in the ground its still essentially the same as it was in the 70s, just different transport mechanisms over top of it. now, coaxial cable was around *long* before docsis. docsis is a way to retrofit and reuse existing cabling to fit to the methods of delivery already in use by the cable industry before hfc-based broadband was the norm. they inherently had a disadvantage.
now - r&d for docsis has been slow, i'll give you that. however, now that there is a "market" for it, companies will want to be on the leading edge to make top-notch gear. couple that with mpeg4 video encoding, the droppage of analog stations from the cable delivery, sdv, and the push of 1ghz plant, cable has a *hell* of a lot of life left in it. don't doubt that.
i - for one - don't care about how the speed is delivered. i just want it to work.
q. -- "...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|  |  |  |  | | said by Anonymous_:one of the requirements should be via fiber optic cable(to the house) only as D3 is just a shared hub and is slow should not count Currently all FTTH deployments are shared at a neighborhood node which is essentially a "hub" so that doesn't change anything. -- CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
|
 | | 100 Squared??? The initiative is called 100 Squared?!?!?!?
Anyone else realize 100^2 is only 10,000? | |
|  |  1 edit | Re: 100 Squared??? i don't really get it either... it is actually 100^4 not 100^2 | |
|
 TZi join:2001-07-05 Miami Beach, FL | It's about time... It's about time the government did something.
Granted, I support free market economics, but something obviously failed in our free market system if we invented the internet, pioneered the technologies for delivery and then somehow ended up 18th in the world.
True, we are larger in land mass, but still **18th?!!?**. We don't even have comparable speeds/prices to Hong Kong or South Korea in New York City!
100Mbps does seem like a low goal given the time frame, however it will encourage companies resting on inferior technologies like AT&T to get off their behinds and get into what we truly need--> Fiber to the premises, after that incremental capacity increases will be easier and cheaper. -- 128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough! | |
|  Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| 100 million ports vs affordability... A mass market subscription model would have to look something less than $1 per megabit with symmetric speeds(unbundled) and we're nowhere near that right now-- the closest are the cable companies at $99 with large upfront activation for early adopter docsis 3.0 costing $ hundred$ $ Soundbites are all we get, but until you get down to actual afforability, that new milestone might as well be a few hundred miles away. I like that 25/15 FIOS delivers.. though speedtests (and sustained thruput) throughout the country vary-- so anything in the 100mbit tier range will only net consumers the UP-TO speeds, particularly on docsis if docsis 2.0 oversold status mirror upon mass adoption of docsis 3.0-- which the HYPE said it wouldn't, however since they have a nearly 10:1 (if cablevision) 5:1 (if the rest with 50mbit tiers) ratio on download speed to upload speed, that can not be officially called a true docsis 3.0 tier since the upstream doesn't even break a docsis 2.0 sweat.
Ancient wisdom say, fcc talk very much but say little & do even less. Even though it's the actual companies that have to get with the doing... Higher video rates just got shoved down the throats of many consumers but you will find a much bigger disconnect between higher broadband adoption with much higher prices above what I mentioned earlier.
What one is trying to say, if you gouge consumers for $100 (or more) for just internet, good luck trying to get them to buy anything else from you-- be it video or phone service. | |
|  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| As Karl said, totally possible Comcast will be pushing out Xfinity across their entire footprint in a year or two, though areas with FTTH will get it first. The result: 100M broadband speeds available to anyone in Comcast territory who is willing to pay for them. If Comcast buys other cable providers (TWC, parts of Charter) then you're already a long ways toward 100 million people with 100M available.
Cablevision already has 100M available if you're willing to spend $300 to set the service up (that's cheaper than the setup charge on some WISPs).
Insight will probably hit 100M when they launch DOCSIS 3 as well, which will also happen sooner than later.
Qwest and AT&T will be the big two providers who WON'T hit 100M any time soon. VDSL doesn't have what it takes. Windstream is in the same boat in most of their territory, except they're using ADSL2+ instead of VDSL. Frontier? Fuhgetaboudit. CenLink OTOH is rolling out fiber to compete with DOCSIS 3, so with a little pushing they'll hit 100Mbps without a problem.
FiOS, once it sees competition will hit 100M. Smaller fiber projects are either already at 100M or will get there with cheap bandwidth and/or competition.
The bottom line: 100M will be here sooner than you think for 1/3 of the nation. That said, there's a TON of people on older cable systems competing with standard DSL, so getting to 200 million on 100M will take a bit longer. | |
|  Ulmo join:2005-09-22 San Jose, CA | FCC way out of bounds in its desire I first learned of this from ba.internet, referring to an article linked below. Here's what I had to say:
(ba.internet posting:) Subject: Re: FCC to propose faster broadband speeds The government doesn't propose faster broadband speeds unless it is the service provider itself. Is the FCC becoming a communist government owned "we" machine of the communal manifesto, which itself will dig up our streets, place our conduits, and run our fibers?
Excerpt in the ba.internet posting from the below linked article: The FCC wants service providers to offer home Internet data transmission speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) to 100 million homes by a decade from now, Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said. I want a chocolate bar. My desire is more legitimate than FCC's desire, however; I can go buy one right now. But the FCC's "want" for the industry to invest into new product isn't its place, unless there is some sort of fixed resource allocation that goes along with that desire.
Because such a fixed resource allocation is a prerequisite for FCC to have jurisdiction, any article regarding FCC's desires must link such desires to such fixed resource allocations. So, I find the reporting of the desire at fault, as well.
Let's see what the article actually said in full, despite the horrible, horrible title and incomplete excerpt.
Quoting the linked article:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission unveiled a plan on Tuesday that would require Internet providers to offer minimum home connection speeds by 2020 What allocation policy does this link to? What will the ISPs not be allocated if they do not do such a thing? IP#s are reprogrammable, and no one has to use TCP/IP. We have IPv6, with ample IP#s for eons for free. FCC doesn't even pretend to allocate IP#s, but even if it did, it wouldn't have the legitimacy of necessity of a scarce resource with IP#s to be able to control ISP's actions. Once again, no jurisdiction.
"A 100 meg is just a dream," Qwest Communications International Inc Chief Executive Edward Mueller told Reuters. "We couldn't afford it. First, we don't think the customer wants that. Secondly, if (Google has) invented some technology, we'd love to partner with them," Mueller added. The scarce resource that Qwest takes up is conduit space in streets. It's scarce only because it's prohibitively expensive to build. So its scarcity derived from cost, pretty much. It's really not that scarce: there's enough roadway to put in hundreds of conduits jammed full of fibers, probably enough for millions of ISPs to reach each house simultaneously. It would just be really, really expensive. Also, we might run out of sand first, which would allow the FCC to claim scarcity, but let me know if we would really run out of materials to build fiber when one puts a more reasonable estimate of the number of ISPs that would use that fiber to go to each house.
Mueller's absolutely ridiculous and incorrect statement is proof of the fact that FCC doesn't have jurisdiction in this matter: Qwest is plain wrong, and FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over whether or not Qwest is right or not. All FCC has jurisdiction over is scarce resource allocation regarding communications that cross state boundaries.
AT&T, the top broadband provider among U.S. telecommunications carriers, said the FCC should resist calls for "extreme forms of regulation that would cripple, if not destroy, the very investments needed to realize its goal." Since when is AT&T the top broadband provider among US telecommunications carriers? Comcast is, with 15.9 million customers at the end of 2009. The only data I found for AT&T said about 14.8 million in Oct 22, 2008. Oh, well, I suppose that's close, but for the article to blithely call AT&T top dog is premature.
Genachowski said speedier Internet service would help create jobs and economic growth. So does "stimulus money", and the "President". They all "create jobs". Laws that do away with nuclear power also "create jobs". When pressed for what jobs they create, they said "well, theoretically someone could decide to start working for themselves and call the job a "green job"." They never named anybody whose job was created by such actions. I wonder what "jobs would be created" by speedier Internet service?
I agree that it's true that it is easier to have a more meaningful communication with more bandwidth, but the connection between that and "create jobs" is not a direct path. Indirectly, higher bandwidth makes a *potential* for greater amounts of all sorts of things, including such things that may be used in the conduct of jobs. So, theoretically, higher bandwidth availability means less limitations, and create possibilities for jobs. But none of that means create jobs, directly. In fact, there are all sorts of possibilities with higher bandwidth: create jobs, in India because of that higher bandwidth, causing more jobs lost (in USA); create jobs, for work at home people that are more efficient than when they had to go to a common office, thus eliminating far more jobs at those offices. Create jobs, with higher bandwidth that allow computer applications that save work time, thus creating new combined jobs removing the need for prior multiple uncombined jobs. So, there's three possibilities of higher capacity causing created jobs that mean fewer jobs, not jobs gained.
However, the potential for creating jobs from higher bandwidth is also there. The potential. No direct correspondence.
"Despite significant private investment and some strong strides over the last decade, America's broadband ecosystem is not nearly as robust as it needs to be," he said. Needs to be for whom?
The United States ranked 19th in broadband speed, trailing Japan, Korea and France, according to a 2008 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Yup. I'm one of the fiercest advocates for higher bandwidth. I'm somewhat tempered by having 50megabit/s inbound and 10megabit/s outbound with Comcast, a larger fraction of fiber speeds than before. It's much less slow than before I had that. Of course, it's not quite show changing, yet, except for some old-world medium-bandwidth Hollywood applications (HDTV) and remote desktop stuff.
USA sucks in broadband, hands down. It is atrocious.
"We should stretch beyond 100 megabits," Genachowski said. "The U.S. should lead the world in ultra high-speed testbeds as fast or faster than anywhere in the world." Yes, of course. I agree. And the FCC should facilitate that. But to desire it, without context of facilitation, or to require it at all, is patently ridiculous, as far as I can tell. I may be misunderstanding something, so anybody is welcome to explain additional information or alternate information or interpretations. Furthermore, I don't like being a cog in the wheel of progress in an issue I have been extremely annoyed about lack of progress, but how does the FCC changing roles (illegally I'll note) to dictator of communications help?
Despite the problems I point out, if the result is a kick in the ass of those like Qwest, and results in an improvement of the situation, while I will not agree with the means, I will welcome that particular portion of such an outcome, despite me being wholly suspicious of its underpinnings and resultant strength and dependability. Although, once a dark fiber is lit, it's pretty hard to qualify its darkening in context. However, who is it lit for? What light does it carry? The underpinnings do matter.
Brad Allen | |
|  | | 100 Squared? 2010? What the hell happened to 100mbit by 2000 »www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007···683.html
»www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandSca···ntro.htm
Yeah... FCC, where are the fines? If we recovered that whole $200 billion, we could re-invest it back into our slumping (see: dead) economy and bring our country back. They let this slide at the time we had the largest surplus in our history, not so much a sweat, but now that we're all pinching pennies... it's time to pinch the bastards that stole 200 trillion of them and never gave us shit.
Don't get me wrong, I love my 25mbps service, but we should have had 100mbps long ago... What the hell. It's either high time the companies that got money from that scandal to pony up the bandwidth and do away with caps, or, piss off and pay up to the government. We've repo'ed plenty of the money from AIG, what's stopping us from hitting Cox, Comcast, and the like for our money back? They have it, they're sitting on it, smoking fat cigars, where's my fat internet pipe or our money?
100mbps by 2010... more like 2001... FCC FAIL, TELCO THIEVES. | |
|  | | Huh? Where the "10-cubed" effort? You know... 10mbps for 1,000 million (aka 1 billion)--more economically feasible. Everyone gets 10mbps symmetrical... at a reasonable price...
Hey... if you're gonna dream... | |
|
 | |
|
|