dslreports logo
 story category
Hey Julius: 100 Mbps To 100 Million Is Easy
Fixing the broken duopoly for the majority of Americans is not...

Updated, reworded, clarified houses vs homes in two instances: As we noted yesterday, the FCC has started their sales pitch for the national broadband plan, which is scheduled to be unveiled in twelve days. Given the plan doesn't appear to do much about competition for fear of upsetting the nation's biggest carriers, the sales pitch so far has consisted of focusing on more murky concepts like "digital literacy," or the need to spend taxpayer dollars to advertise cable service. Less talked about is the failure of our duopoly markets, and why specifically they're failing.

Instead of focusing on 100 Mbps, the FCC should be focusing on competition and the huge swaths of American markets served by two or fewer carriers; carriers who keep prices high and lag on network investment because they have no competitive incentive to do otherwise.
Genachowski has had a tendency to be murky in public interviews, saying all the right things -- but usually not saying much of anything specifically. In an interview with Steven Levy at Wired, Genachowski offers one of the more cogent interviews we've seen. In it, he defends his recent declaration that the plan will boldly aim at delivering 100 Mbps service to 100 million households (with, you'll note, no hard deadline):
quote:
Anyone who tells you it's easy is mistaken. The first thing we need is a plan that sets goals and that identifies the key levers to make progress on deployment and adoption, which will be out March 17.
Getting 100 Mbps to a huge swath of Americans will actually be rather easy (whether you're talking 100 million homes, or 100 million users). We're not mistaken. According to the cable industry's own data, cable service now passes 125 million American homes. Installer sweat aside, DOCSIS 3.0 service, capable of 100 Mbps, would be relatively easy and inexpensive to deploy to almost all of those users within five years. DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades already reach more than 52 million of the 120 million current cable customers in the United States.

This is before adding in municipal fiber or Verizon FiOS (which will likely deliver 100 Mbps service in a year or two). This is happening now, slowly, without the FCC lifting a finger. Setting a goal the FCC knows could be attained without them actually doing very much is clever, but it doesn't really solve core industry problems.

The problem will be that while these networks may be capable of delivering 100 Mbps to users, many carriers aren't going to actually offer it unless there's competition. Those who do offer it will charge an arm and a leg for it -- again because there's limited competition to drive pricing down. Genachowski wants this 100 Mbps service to be "affordable" but again, he's not implementing any policies that are going to spur the competition necessary to make that happen.

Getting 100 Mbps to most people should be easy. What will be hard is getting telcos who milk aging copper to upgrade to fiber without competition spurring them to do so. What will be hard is finding a solution to the ridiculous influence companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast wield over our lawmakers on both the federal and state levels. What will be hard is creating competition. So instead of focusing on 100 Mbps, the FCC should be focusing on competition and the huge swaths of American markets served by two or fewer carriers; carriers who keep prices high and lag on network investment because they have no competitive incentive to do otherwise.

The FCC's own study found that open access policies are one possible solution, but the agency has clearly indicated they're not willing to upset the biggest carriers by pursuing it. Genachowski's latest interview does manage to touch on competition, and one of our more favorite topics: getting carriers to be transparent with their billing. As we noted on Wednesday, the FCC appears poised to require that carriers advertise their average speed and do a better job informing consumers as to what kind of connection they're buying. We're hoping the FCC's transparency efforts go even further. Strangely however, Genochowski seems to think transparency is going to somehow help address a lack of competition:
quote:
Healthy competition places discipline on the market and should focus providers on providing the best service at a lower cost. Consumers are confused about their service and the price. They're confused about what speeds they're actually getting, they're confused about what they're paying for. As part of a competition strategy, increasing the transparency to consumers empowers consumers to make the market work.
Except we have an aching suspicion that if the FCC isn't willing to stand up to carriers by supporting things like open access or tough network neutrality laws, they're not really going to have the courage to touch on transparent billing issues like the use of below the line faux taxes and fees to jack up the advertised price after sale. And while an educated user buying clearly-defined product is a great thing -- clarity in pricing isn't going to help them all that much if they have the choice of just one carrier -- or two carriers quietly working together to keep regional prices high.
view:
topics flat nest 

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Start Small

quote:
... they're not really going to have the courage to touch on transparent billing issues like the use of below the line faux taxes and fees to jack up the advertised price after sale.
And this is why so many people think that government in general is pretty much useless.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

1 edit

SLD

Premium Member

Re: Start Small

In some areas, you are spot-on!
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS

1 recommendation

mlundin

Member

The time it takes to embrace technology...

I was once told that the time it takes for the first 10% of the population to embrace a technology is roughly equivalent to the time it takes for the next 80% to embrace it (90% total). The final 10% embrace at a much slower pace. Therefore, instead of arbitrarily setting a speed that an arbitrary number of people should have available, the analysis should look at what the top 10% of speeds are and try to get those to 90% of the people in the same time frame that it took those top 10% to migrate from the national average to their current speed. Does any of that make sense?
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: The time it takes to embrace technology...

Yes it does. But we already know what is needed to get symmetrical 100Mbps connections to the other 90%. Fiber optic (Fiber To The Home, FTTH) networks. Since that same fiber may be capable of symmetrical 1Gbps service, the installation of FTTH covers future growth needs in the area of data transfer rates. Now if those deploying DOCSIS 3.0 do the proper channel bonding they might be able to get symmetrical 100Mbps according to the theory of DOCSIS 3.0, so I could see that being used also.
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

1 recommendation

gorehound to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
this goverment will not do the right thing but they will do what the greedbag industry wants them to do.they are like robots controlled by industry.

asdfdfdfdfdf
@opera-mini.net

asdfdfdfdfdf to pnh102

Anon

to pnh102
But how did we get to this point, that even small things are impossible?

Cynicism only reinforces the problem.
Government works well only if there is the desire and will for it to work well amongst a broad swath of the public.
If the very idea of government working well is considered ideologically dangerous then...

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

jadebangle to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

quote:
... they're not really going to have the courage to touch on transparent billing issues like the use of below the line faux taxes and fees to jack up the advertised price after sale.
And this is why so many people think that government in general is pretty much useless.
this is a joke right?

ipv456
@comcast.net

ipv456

Anon

Markets served by only one carrier?

"many of whom live in markets served by two or fewer carriers; carriers who keep prices high and lag on network investment because they have no competitive incentive to do otherwise"

How many markets are served by only one carrier, where that carrier is a Cable company, CLEC or alternative provider?

Are we just talking about markets that are served by Telco's that were funded by the government to provide rural service?

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

said by ipv456 :

"many of whom live in markets served by two or fewer carriers; carriers who keep prices high and lag on network investment because they have no competitive incentive to do otherwise"

How many markets are served by only one carrier, where that carrier is a Cable company, CLEC or alternative provider?

Are we just talking about markets that are served by Telco's that were funded by the government to provide rural service?
I lived in a major Southern City that only allowed me one option for Internet.

I also just moved to Arlington and out of DC because my area in DC only allowed me Verizon DSL....that was IT. In DC?

ipv456
@comcast.com

ipv456

Anon

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

I would think Verizon fits a Telco definition.

In the major Southern City was your only option for Internet a Cable company, CLEC or alternative provider?

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

TamaraB

Premium Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

My ONLY option here in this Brooklyn NYC Neighborhood is Verizon DSL. No cable service, no fiber.

I have 1Mb service because the copper here can't handle more. I tried to upgrade to 3Mb, and it was discovered that the wire is too old and degraded. It's Dry Loop service, so the wire is not under any tariff requirements, therefor there is no requirement for VZ to even maintain it, let alone make it better.

How is this location EVER going to get 100Mb service without the government mandating some minimum level of access? Remember the way it used to be for POTS service? They HAD to provide a minimum level of service no matter where you lived.

If this is the situation in some parts of urban America, imagine how bad things are in rural America.

100Mb to 100 Million, simply improves service to those already serviced, but does nothing for those under-serviced or unserviced at all. A "NATIONAL" broadband plan has to have broadband access for "all" as A FIRST PRIORITY.

Bob

Bill Dollar
join:2009-02-20
New York, NY

Bill Dollar

Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

Have you tried this, from Dave Burstein:

"One million New Yorkers can get free WiFi through 187 access points across Harlem, the South Bronx, and Brooklyn in the neighborhoods that need it most. If your WiFi can see smartnetnyc, urbanwifitv or smartnetnych, you should be able to register on the splash page that comes up. When I visited them Saturday, 392 users had logged in by 1:30, although until now they have had zero publicity. more »bit.ly/5hJbaY"

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

1 edit

TamaraB

Premium Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

said by Bill Dollar:

Have you tried this, from Dave Burstein:
The Only WIFI I see here apart from my own is a good signal from OptOnline. OptOnline does not service this area with cable, but their wifi signal is available. So, I called them and asked if I could subscribe to their WIFI as a separate account. NO! was their immediate answer.

I will keep my eyes open for those you mentioned, but to date they are not here.

EDIT: It shows up here as optimumwifi with good signal strength.

Bob

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5 to TamaraB

Premium Member

to TamaraB
said by TamaraB:

My ONLY option here in this Brooklyn NYC Neighborhood is Verizon DSL. No cable service, no fiber.

Don't you live on a boat?
»Re: Veterans Stimulus Checks anyone?
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to TamaraB

Member

to TamaraB
So where in brooklyn is there a place without TWC or Cablevision, both of which are required to build out to 100% properties? Unless you have a crazy landlord which won't allow either onto the property, then you don't apply.

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

1 edit

TamaraB

Premium Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

said by patcat88:

... Unless you have a crazy landlord ...
Crazy landlord fits the bill. There are 12 households here which cannot get cable of any sort. Most have some form of Sat TV. I have no TV at all. Most have POTS and DSL, the few who don't, "share" Internet via WIFI with a neighbor. I only have DSL because I ordered pots, got a line, and then, a year later, converted it to dry loop.

Point being, POTS is tariffed, and a must-provide public service, while Internet is NOT. A National broadband policy should address this fundamental problem; don't you think?

EDIT: With more and more folks moving off wired (tariffed) phone service and onto wireless (untariffed), coupled with the telcos abandoning copper, there exists the very real potential for there being many pockets of the country totally without Internet access. This access question needs to be addressed by a national policy.

Bob

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

said by TamaraB:

said by patcat88:

... Unless you have a crazy landlord ...
Crazy landlord fits the bill. There are 12 households here which cannot get cable of any sort.
You haven't replied to the question of "Aren't you referring to a boat?". Living on a boat wipes out a lot of your claims about not having the connections you are demanding.




»Re: Veterans Stimulus Checks anyone?

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

1 edit

TamaraB

Premium Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

said by FFH5:

Living on a boat wipes out a lot of your claims about not having the connections you are demanding.
Says who? You? This is a community of folks like any other. See:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=richard.robert&target=ALBUM&id=5435120857476365457&authkey=Gv1sRgCNaxu6-n5P2L9QE&feat=email
 

Con Edison (meters) and Verizon (pots) services us under tariff regulations like any other community. This is an area owned by NYC, and Leased to the landlord, who has decided not to allow cable installations.

Public Service law 65,66 96.1 sets out the PSC's regulations for Residences, Trailer Parks, Camp Grounds, and Marinas. All are covered equally as residences under the tariff laws.

Bob

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Markets served by only one carrier?

said by TamaraB:

said by FFH5:

Living on a boat wipes out a lot of your claims about not having the connections you are demanding.
Says who? You? This is a community of folks like any other. See:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=richard.robert&target=ALBUM&id=5435120857476365457&authkey=Gv1sRgCNaxu6-n5P2L9QE&feat=email
 

Con Edison (meters) and Verizon (pots) services us under tariff regulations like any other community. This is an area owned by NYC, and Leased to the landlord, who has decided not to allow cable installations.

Public Service law 65,66 96.1 sets out the PSC's regulations for Residences, Trailer Parks, Camp Grounds, and Marinas. All are covered equally as residences under the tariff laws.

Bob

You really expect Verizon to run Fios to a bunch of boats docked in a Marina?

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson to ipv456

Premium Member

to ipv456
Cox Cable

I used DirecTV for TV but Cox was the only competition for internet
betam4x
join:2002-10-12
Nashville, TN

betam4x to Bill Neilson

Member

to Bill Neilson
Forget that, there are several markets outside metropolitan areas that have NO high speed options. My mother's house for instance in rural Dickson, TN doesn't even have a cable TV option, much less cable internet.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

1 recommendation

cableties

Premium Member

Jump the economy Stupid!

I was thinking, out loud. And it made some sense.

If you provide bandwidth to places that don't have it, it will spur growth.

Looking beyond infrastructure (like repair, maintenance, power req), you create jobs. I would move in a heartbeat to some rural land I own if only 20+Mbps speeds were available.

Honestly, the communications companies in this country are doing nothing to help the economy for the rest of us. Only their pockets and those that lobby for them.

They've created this "tower of babble" ...
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Jump the economy Stupid!

said by cableties:

Looking beyond infrastructure (like repair, maintenance, power req), you create jobs.
Create jobs or relocate them? Assuming you currently have a job, what job will be created by you moving to your rural property?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Jump the economy Stupid!

So your assumption is that when people move they always take their jobs with them?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Jump the economy Stupid!

said by Skippy25:

So your assumption is that when people move they always take their jobs with them?
Nope. But if cableties See Profile is willing to move to an existing property if it has availability of 20+ Mbps access to the Internet, I assume that s/he either works from home or will move if a job is available. Jobs don't just magically get created because people want to move.

BTW, I'm not disputing that sufficient communications capabilities in specific locations can't be a boon for local economies and in turn spur regional job growth. What I will debate is whether sufficient communications availability in certain regions actually creates jobs, or merely provides a potential to relocate jobs from other higher cost locales.

Bill Dollar
join:2009-02-20
New York, NY

1 edit

Bill Dollar

Member

He has no plan for competition

This interview is telling. Kudos to Steven Levy for actually following up on Genachowski's verbal diahareaa a couple of times.

But, look... his plan for competition is the same as Micheal Powell and Kevin Martin's... the mythical "third pipe."
--
Wired: But the competitive structure itself is such that no one is willing to deliver the kinds of speeds at the kinds of prices that we’re seeing elsewhere there.

Genachowski: There are reasons, absolutely, to be concerned. The barriers to entry in this area are high. Building networks is very expensive; you can’t do it as an entrepreneur in your garage. A reason to be hopeful lies in the potential of global broadband to provide more competition throughout the ecosystem. As the next generation of mobile broadband rolls out, if we can get it to roll out quickly, if it rolls out universally, and if it hits high enough speeds, it could become a legitimate substitute for people who have wired broadband, in the way that wireless telephone service is becoming a substitute for wired, and that’s providing some competition.
---
His first answer, transparency leading to more informed consumers, didn't fly with the reporter. So what does he do? He tells us that we should be "hopeful"; that "if" mobile BB is a) rolled out quickly; b) is made universally available; and c) if it hits high enough speeds, that it *could* become a substitute for wired, and provide competition.

Genachowski is living in fantasy land. This sounds nice, but LTE won't be our savior in next gen broadband no more than 3G was in current gen. It won't be a viable substitute, and the providers have every incentive to not make it one.

He just showed he could care less about consumers. He wants there to be more transparency, so you know better how you are getting ripped off, and he's got some of that good Obama-Administration "Hope" that the 3rd Pipe Fairy will come and save us all, at last.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: He has no plan for competition

While LTE will certainly do more than BPL yeah -- always with the miraculous "fourth pipe" that will rush in at the last second and save the day, no matter which party is running the FCC.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to Bill Dollar

Premium Member

to Bill Dollar
Here is the only thing that will come from the broadband plan:
Wired: Will you ask for a universal service fund for broadband?

Genachowski: The universal service fund over the last several decades has promoted near-universal deployment of telephone service in our country. It needs to be transformed to a broadband universal service fund. That’s the path that we’ll lay out in the broadband plan, transforming it over time so that it doesn’t support yesterday’s communications technology but supports tomorrow’s. We’ll be suggesting options to do it over 10 years or faster.
Unfortunately, the usf will be revamped and expanded to increase the tax burden on internet users; cellphone users; and telephone users and the extra usf money will be doled out in those favored congressional districts so that the pols voting for this can send some pork to their home districts.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: He has no plan for competition

One person familiar with the plan tells me they believe there will be a new $1 fee (or more) levied on each broadband connection. I'll give you one guess where the majority of that money is going to go. AT&T and Verizon have been lobbying to "reform" the USF for five years, but their version of "reform" involves more money going to them, less money going to small carriers, and the same level of FCC accountability in tracking money expenditures we've grown used to...

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: He has no plan for competition

said by Karl Bode:

One person familiar with the plan tells me they believe there will be a new $1 fee (or more) levied on each broadband connection. I'll give you one guess where the majority of that money is going to go. AT&T and Verizon have been lobbying to "reform" the USF for five years, but their version of "reform" involves more money going to them, less money going to small carriers, and the same level of FCC accountability in tracking money expenditures we've grown used to...
Seems we agree once again.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson to Karl Bode

Premium Member

to Karl Bode
Of course it does....we shouldn't be shocked that the major corporations are running this train

They have for some time now and will continue in the future

SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium Member
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ

SSidlov

Premium Member

Without a high degree of government direct partnership....

In the US, we are proud that capitalism works. Companies do the investment, sometimes with special tax breaks or incentives, but private companies OWN the resulting product. This has been the case for broadband in the US. Private companies own the copper, fiber, and cable; not the US government.

This is not always the case elsewhere in the world. Government built/funded the base infrastructure and leased it back to private businesses so that competition was possible.

Nowhere in the USA does the density of population reach the major Asian countries that everyone likes to point to as having 'fast and cheap' competitive internet services. 70% of our population doesn't live in one city and it's environs (BosNewWash or any segment of it, still isn't as dense as Seoul or Tokyo or Hong Kong). Since our infrastructure is privately developed and held, the companies that are willing to invest wish to produce as soon as possible, profits to justify that investment. They have little interest in expensive deployments in lightly populated areas and are quite willing to skip towns where they feel the income levels are too low but always make sure that urban areas are covered.

Internet infrastructure must be thought of in the same manner as the interstate highways. It's a necessity, vital for our future and the government should partner with companies if necessary to build out the next generation of the networks by collecting small modest fees from all end-users just as they did with the rural phone service tax. However instead of giving away windfalls in money, just for the no-profit areas, they should partake and partner in the profitable areas too. By having an interest in the infrastructure that they can control and resell, the possibility of smaller and specialized service providers can be created by sharing and paying for access to that infrastructure. Absurd fee structures by private companies to stifle competitors won't happen, even if a competitor is partnered with government in any particular segment they won't be able to block competition. Smaller companies leasing from the government's portion would be willing to come forward since they will not have to have vast sums for infrastructure investment -- just enough capitol for a few years leasing as they try to garner customers. The possibility of a 'gaming network ISP' that specialized in low latency high speed consumer equipment rather than generic ISP deployment could be possible. More tiering of services that are geared to niche segments of the population with specialized portals for private and professional use.

It's not socialism but a guarantee that the market IS competitive while making sure that the USA, nationally is prepared and directly invested in what used to be called the 'Internet Super Highway." And making sure that the highway is accessible to everyone.

•••••••

BillRoland
Premium Member
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL

1 recommendation

BillRoland

Premium Member

What I would like to see

Rather than incessantly complain about any and every proposal that comes up about this, can you offer your own comprehensive plan on how to cure the problem? The two requirements I have are:

1. Must not involve federal government takeover of ISP industry or the creation of a new bureaucracy
2. Must not involve declaring broadband a universal human right

SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium Member
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ

SSidlov

Premium Member

Re: What I would like to see

said by BillRoland:

1. Must not involve federal government takeover of ISP industry or the creation of a new bureaucracy
2. Must not involve declaring broadband a universal human right
For this, you already have what you describe. You're a free marketer subject to the whims of industry and what they think is 'good enough' and that is what you got. Are you happy?

The US will shortly, in your and my lifetime become a truly second class society as our ability to 'do what is needed' to be done,' such as prepare for the next 3 generations is totally eroded by the inability to take action, fear of politics and out of control litigation.

Our cities are crumbling; the base infrastructure is often more than 100 years old. Our highway systems and bridges are rotting away and we have no money to fix them, and we don't want to make them all toll roads for anyone but truckers. We can't build power plants anymore close to demand. We can't build power transport systems due to costs. We can't even build cell towers or other services due to NIMBY and the cost of litigation. We can't protect watersheds because that limits the rights of land owners. We can't protect our water supply anymore thanks to the Supreme Court being a bit too literal and heartless.

The list goes on forever. We say we don't want to impoverish our children or children's children, but we are condemning them to be followers, a society that will not be able to move goods or have a high quality of life without being millionaires.

The USA needs a Marshall Plan for US! It needs companies who can say, 'time and materials plus 10%' not the 18-30% the stock market people say.

And please don't take any medicare, medicaid or social security benefits during your lifetime, I wouldn't want the bad government agencies to have to put you to death or keep you partially housed or fed. You should be impoverished when you have medical services.

XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL

XBL2009 to BillRoland

Member

to BillRoland
said by BillRoland:

Rather than incessantly complain about any and every proposal that comes up about this, can you offer your own comprehensive plan on how to cure the problem? The two requirements I have are:

1. Must not involve federal government takeover of ISP industry or the creation of a new bureaucracy
2. Must not involve declaring broadband a universal human right
How about a new federal law that prohibits att, verizon and comcast from blocking towns that want to wire themselves?

I'm sick of these big companies blocking fiber deployment in small towns because they see it as a threat.

Michael Turk
@cox.net

Michael Turk

Anon

100mbps to 100 million HOUSEHOLDS, not people

Genachowski has said he wants 100mbps per second to 100 million households, not 100 million people. That would be 260 million people.

Read it in his own words...

»reboot.fcc.gov/blog?entr ··· d=172819

•••••••

ipv456
@comcast.com

ipv456

Anon

Broadband Public Option

Are people arguing for a "single payer" system in this country for Boadband.

Seems like a trend.

•••
thehondaboy
join:2009-07-19
Auburn, GA

1 recommendation

thehondaboy

Member

People and Households. Sometimes considered different things

It was a good post Karl. Very passionate. It's just unfortunate that the error in the mix up of people and households sort of leaves the whole argument to fall in on itself.

But on the other hand you got 18 people to jump off the cliff with you before anyone fact checked what was being said. That's like a small cult!

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: People and Households. Sometimes considered different things

It's just unfortunate that the error in the mix up of people and households sort of leaves the whole argument to fall in on itself.
Well one, I've fixed the sentences that confused people and households, and two, it doesn't make any difference. The beauty of how empty this declaration is -- is whether you're talking about 100 million homes or 100 million people, the same rules apply.

Cable service passes 125 million homes according to NCTA data. With the exception of a few very old rural markets, the majority of those 125 million homes can be updated with 100 Mbps-capable DOCSIS 3.0 within five years for surprisingly little money. That's before you count FiOS or municipal fiber.

So again, Genachowski setting a goal of 100 Mbps to 100 million (with no actual timeline! He could be thinking fifty years!) is not really doing anything.
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

hey i know

we can buy up all canada after the conservatives allow us ( americans that is )
screw them big time and use the profits o give our own people really nice internet

YAYA
thats it
Firefly2003
join:2010-02-14

Firefly2003

Member

100mbps to 100 million HOUSEHOLDS

What good is offering better speeds to people that already have actual wired broadband in their homes when there is still millions of people still without broadband or inferior services out there?

The demand for it is there but clearly we aren't being given a option or a choice or even services, when I moved from a town that had several different types of internet and the setups like cable, dsl, wi-fi, wireless, and fiber. Mind you this was a town of 2600, to a town of 800 where the only option is satellite , dial-up , and wireless which is very spotty in certain areas.

My beef with these companies and the government handing out stimulus money to areas that don't need the funding with their existing infrastructure, the question is when will we get broadband to the last mile?

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

jadebangle

Premium Member

Re: 100mbps to 100 million HOUSEHOLDS

said by Firefly2003:

What good is offering better speeds to people that already have actual wired broadband in their homes when there is still millions of people still without broadband or inferior services out there?

The demand for it is there but clearly we aren't being given a option or a choice or even services, when I moved from a town that had several different types of internet and the setups like cable, dsl, wi-fi, wireless, and fiber. Mind you this was a town of 2600, to a town of 800 where the only option is satellite , dial-up , and wireless which is very spotty in certain areas.

My beef with these companies and the government handing out stimulus money to areas that don't need the funding with their existing infrastructure, the question is when will we get broadband to the last mile?
i dont think many who has att, comcast, roadrunner, charter etc really cares about a faster connection
they just want cheaper service
let's say 10 bucks, 15 bucks, 20 bucks
that is the kind of customer that want a good enough connection and cheaper then dirt!
1mbit for 9.99 or 2mbit for 19.99
majority will choose 1mbit over price difference
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

iansltx

Member

Third Pipe Fail

Here's the problem: only one provider in the US with any sort of footprint (sorry Paxio) has turned on 100 Mbps service as of right now. Comcast's 100M trial doesnt count yet, though it will later this year.

Everyone else is happy to sit at 50-60 Mbps, even in areas with vibrant competition.

For example, San Antonio, TX is home to four internet providers. TWC top sout at 15/2, upgrading to 50/5 later this year. Grande Communications tops out at 12/1, or 12/1.5 if you're a business, or 15/4 if you have FTTH (not in San Antonio I'm pretty sure). AT&T hits 24/3 if you're close enough to the VRAD, going down to 18/1.5 or 12/1.5 if you aren't. Clear WiMAX *might* hit 10/1 if everything is working correctly. Heck, it might hit 15/5, but you aren't guaranteed these speeds.

So you have the telco, the cableco, a cable overbuilder and "third pipe" WiMAX...and none of 'em are hitting 25 Mbps right now, or 55 Mbps later. The same exact thing is the case in Austin.

Let's go to another overbuilder situation: WOW. They top out at 15/2. Never mind...

RCN? They have 60/10 in some areas...for business. 60/6 is available for residential serice. That isn't 100 Mbps.

So apparently we need more competition than four providers to amp up broadband speeds to 100M, at least in most areas, where we aren't talking about Comcast (who'll get to that eventually) or Cablevision (who has that now). What to do?

•••••

yolarry
join:2007-12-29
Creston, WV

yolarry

Member

If it so easy

Then why you just do yourself.

I would love to have 100Mbps rather then 1mbps