Hey NY Times: Broadband Coverage Gaps Are Not 'Hooey' Opinion: Sorry Mr. Hansell, DOCSIS 3.0 Is Not A Magic Bullet Thursday Jan 22 2009 15:00 EDT Saul Hansell of the New York Times today editorializes that the nation doesn't really need a significant national broadband policy, because broadband coverage gaps are "hooey." Hansell, who we talked to personally for a piece largely lambasting FiOS upgrades last August, says significant investment in national infrastructure isn't really necessary. Why? DOCSIS 3.0 will very shortly be available to "19 out of 20 American homes" who'll soon see "Internet service that is faster than any available now anywhere in the world." Continues Hansell: quote: What is most significant about Docsis 3 is that it turns out to be quite inexpensive to upgrade existing cable systems to use it. As a result, Comcast and other cable systems are already deploying the technology rather quickly. In other words, with no government intervention, the country is going to have the infrastructure very soon to provide almost everyone with the fastest possible Internet service.
Which would be nice, were it actually true. It sounds like Hansell might be drinking a little too much cable industry insider kool-aid. While it's true that Comcast has promised to wire 100% of their markets with DOCSIS 3.0 by the end of 2010, they represent the pinnacle of DOCSIS 3.0 achievement. And that achievement comes with some caveats: namely that Comcast is charging users $140 or more for 50Mbps service with a 250GB/month cap -- and a fancy new throttling system that slightly cripples your connection should you actually choose to use it. Meanwhile, most other cable operators are only planning to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "tactically" (read: not to poor, rural neighborhoods). Time Warner Cable have yet to announce a serious DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade timeline. Charter Communications will probably file for bankruptcy protection next week, and lacks the cash to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 -- just like countless smaller carriers across America. Not that DOCSIS 3.0 won't be a welcome upgrade, but Hansell's confidence in the technology as a sector cure all is poured on just a little bit thick: quote: The next generation of modems, using a technology called Docsis 3, allows several of those video channels to be combined to offer what ultimately can be Internet service as fast as 1 gigabit per second — 10 times faster than is offered in Japan, which generally is regarded as having the fastest broadband infrastructure.
While aided by geography, Japanese carriers already offer 1Gbps fiber connections for prices as low as ¥5,460 (US$51.40) per month, and are already working toward 10Gbps connections. The 160Mbps provided by initial flavors of DOCSIS 3.0 will of course be shared between multiple customers and their respective thirsts for HD content. 1Gbps cable service will eventually happen, but the fact is it's several years away -- while Japan is offering 1Gbps fiber to the home now. It's hard to see how that's "ten times faster" than Japanese broadband. That's not to say Hansell's wrong about the industry evolving to faster speeds naturally without government involvement -- in some places. Many profitable markets will see significant competition between FiOS and DOCSIS 3.0 cable -- eventually. But many more markets will not -- particularly across rural America. Blue collar cities like Syracuse and Binghamton, NY -- just a few hours northwest of Mr. Hansell's employer, will likely never see full coverage from next-generation broadband. Many are lucky to see 3Mbps DSL or 5Mbps cable. Rural broadband coverage gaps are not "hooey," DOCSIS 3.0 is not some mystical, magical bullet that makes a substantive national broadband plan unnecessary, and blind faith in carrier promises is precisely why we currently trail more than a dozen countries ( latest OECD data) in broadband speed, availability, and price. |
rob316 join:2005-10-17 Carteret, NJ |
rob316
Member
2009-Jan-22 2:06 pm
Kool AidHe is drinking the Cable Company Kool-Aid. | |
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Kool AidBullshit sells. Once again. 99 percent of facts are made up...Slap these "facts" on a nice, well conjured report, and you have congressional testimony and works cited. Money sure buys good shovels. | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| |
to rob316
Some cable hack obviously, knows nothing about alternate delivery methods and very short sided. DOCSIS 3.0 could be obsolete by 2010 or shortly therafter. Again a hack drinking kool-aid. | |
| | | kamm join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY |
kamm
Member
2009-Jan-23 12:04 am
Re: Kool AidAgreed; just another rent-a-journo paid industry mouthpiece or a fuckin' clueless loser who shouldn't be writing anything other than short police news just yet - back when I was a journalist wannabes like this Saul Hansell had been either booted immediately or sent to the backburner to give'em time to learn at least the basics properly. | |
| | | | |
peterprincipal
Anon
2009-Jan-23 4:30 pm
Re: Kool AidThis kind of Non News or Faux News is why I typically buy the NYT for the Science section on Tuesdays. And even that once fun and informative section and subject has become ever thinner on science scope and article substance. I expect the NYT Science section will shortly be folded into the Sports section. Then I won't buy the NYT at all. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Kool AidNews is only as good as those who report it. There's no such thing as being non partisan when it comes to a story. You will see two people give two different accounts of the same events. Whether it be due to varied perception, personal bias, etc, it just happens. Unfortunately, being ill informed seems to be a major Achilles Heal to add insult to injury... | |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA 1 edit |
Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?"cable's high-speed Internet service is sitting in front of 92% of American households." - Kyle McSlarrow, National Cable Television Association »www.multichannel.com/art ··· head.php interview date: January 12, 2009 published: January 18, 2009 If this is true, I'm surprised. | |
| | jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 2:26 pm
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?I think someone is pulling data off the sheet that lists an entire zip code area as having high-speed internet service if just one person has it. | |
| |
2 recommendations |
to funchords
I would guess those stats are culled from FCC data, which is about as reliable as the Dallas Cowboys come playoff time. | |
| | | jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA 1 edit |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 2:43 pm
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?There is always the NCTA database; however, trying to find an accurate number of total households in the US is challenging. » www.ncta.com/Statistic/S ··· ics.aspxEdit: Ok, this source states that there are 128.2 million households. » www.nytimes.com/2008/10/ ··· ing.htmlThe NCTA claims that 117.7 million homes are passed by cable internet. So, that is about 92%. | |
| | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?You'd need to get out into the field to confirm anything. Some new digital technologies don't work at longer distances where previous homes passed worked fine, etc.
Before we spend billions or do anything -- we need to seriously map who has service -- and who does not. | |
| | | | | jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 3:23 pm
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?said by Karl Bode:Before we spend billions or do anything -- we need to seriously map who has service -- and who does not. That would take a considerable amount of coordination and assistance from the cable/telco industries. The information coming from them would have to be audited to help ensure accuracy. And the end result of all their hard work would most certainly have a negative impact on their business and possibly get them into trouble after "exposing" their footprint, at least with regards to public opinion. Any semi-legitimate map would have to survive the usual gauntlet of lobbyists lining the paths of our politicians' careers. Here's to hope. | |
| | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Before we spend billions or do anything -- we need to seriously map who has service -- and who does not. We have a Decennial Census coming up here shortly -- couldn't we just add a couple questions to that and kill 2 birds with one stone? Sure, it's not going to be all that accurate, but it's not like any other sampling method is going to gain much ground on the accuracy front. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?We have a Decennial Census coming up here shortly -- couldn't we just add a couple questions to that and kill 2 birds with one stone? I think that certainly should be part of the equation. | |
| | | | | | | KoolMoeAw Man Premium Member join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD |
KoolMoe
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 10:52 pm
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?I do projects for the Census Bureau on occasion. They're the standard government bureaucracy. No way they'd get that question in by the Decennial. However, the Census Bureau has several survey programs - the full person Decennial count is just the Big One. With the right inside ear, it's feasible that could be added to something like the ACS Survey. I'll have to remember to ask about that KM | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?If I remember correctly, the most recent mapping bill by Congress does put some mapping authority into both the hands of the GTO and the Census Bureau already.... | |
|
| | |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I would guess those stats are culled from FCC data, which is about as reliable as the Dallas Cowboys come playoff time. You know why Romo is so happy Prez Bush is back in Texas? He's no longer the biggest disappointment in the state... | |
| | | | |
NYG1fan
Anon
2009-Jan-24 9:56 am
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?Hey quark, I couldn't agree more. BTW, that intel-like avatar is awesome. good stuff. | |
|
| | ·AT&T FTTP
|
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I would guess those stats are culled from FCC data, which is about as reliable as the Dallas Cowboys come playoff time. Ouch! | |
|
| |
to funchords
I wouldn't out of hand dismiss that number. By covering large cities and their immediate suburbs, you can cover a large portion of the nation's population--it's the remaining 8% (or whatever) that's difficult to wire because it's spread out over a large (>50%) area of the country.
The most apt comparison is probably to Sprint's cellular network. Don't they claim to cover a very large portion of the nation's population (something like 260-280 million people out of 300 million or so) by only covering cities and freeways?
Again, it's the few remaining percentage of the population that's difficult to cover because it isn't economically feasible for anyone to do it. | |
| | tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey Premium Member join:2002-02-02 Stewartstown, PA |
to funchords
said by funchords:"cable's high-speed Internet service is sitting in front of 92% of American households." - Kyle McSlarrow, National Cable Television Association »www.multichannel.com/art ··· head.php interview date: January 12, 2009 published: January 18, 2009 If this is true, I'm surprised. Well sure, I can see the cable companies line 100 yards down the road from my house. But will they run it to me? NO! But I guess that counts as "sitting in front of" my household. | |
|
|
NY Times, no surpriseYou know, the all knowing NY times who think big cities like NYC are the center of the universe and everyone living outside of a big city is a dumb hick. | |
| | 1 edit
1 recommendation |
Re: NY Times, no surpriseThat's exactly how I read this. This is just some arrogant big city hot shot who thinks America doesn't extent past big cities.
We can barely get 50Mbps to cities let alone 1Gbps. By the time 50Mbps is affordable (~$50/mon) Japan or elsewhere will have >1Gbps. The guy has no idea what he's talking about. | |
|
|
Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.We've allowed the debate about broadband to become a vocal slug fest with an "us" versus "them" mentality. Those with ready access (generally urbanites) looking down on and dismissing the needs of those communities that cannot get access. In large part, I blame federal regulators and their lack of a national policy (that would hopefully also keep carriers from selectively dumping less-populated markets). I'm not sure the new administration will be an improvement, their proposed broadband spending is minimal.
Unless we're willing to understand that the lack of a national policy and broader deployment will make our country as a whole less competitive, we'll continue to get sucker punched by US carriers. In the meantime, those nations willing to invest in countrywide deployment will overtake us economically, not just technologically.
Did the debate about other "utilities" sound like this one, with urbanites saying they should be the only areas served by electric companies?
Being a former urbanite who lived on the east coast most of my adult life, I have no tolerance for the divisive "us" vs. "them" rhetoric. It doesn't serve any of us. | |
| | |
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.Yep, though even some urban areas get lame internet. Max speed in Denver 17 Mbps on Qwest (20 mbps minus 15%) for dang expensive, with about 700k up. Comcast business cable is $90, 16/2. 8/2 is the highest end residential tier, $65. $60 for 6/1. Meh, no...
Problem: DOCSIS 3 isn't gonna get deployed in non-competitive areas, unless you've got a decent co-op-style cable company. Windjammer ain't it. Yeah... | |
| | | |
jay_rm
Member
2009-Jan-22 3:53 pm
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.said by iansltx:Yep, though even some urban areas get lame internet. Max speed in Denver 17 Mbps on Qwest (20 mbps minus 15%) for dang expensive, with about 700k up. Comcast business cable is $90, 16/2. 8/2 is the highest end residential tier, $65. $60 for 6/1. Meh, no... Lame internet = 6/1 slowest and 17 'available' ?? You're drinking the same KoolAid as the NYT. Get out of town and look at what the VAST majority of your own state geography has available. | |
| | | | |
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.I'm talking about Denver, an urban area in Colorado.
Fastest Qwest has here is 5/896 (more like 4.2/700).
Which means no DOCSIS 3 for a long time, since DOCSIS 1.1 can keep up with FTTN ADSL2+ as long as Comcast is smart about things...
And yes, I know what it's like to have lousy broadband options. I just happen to live in town and don't want to be a glutton for punishment. Back home, 512k for $43/month.
Also, you can get service slower than 6/1...$40 per month for 1.5/896 (1.3/700) or $47 per month for 3-7/896 (2.5-6/700) through Qwest DSL. | |
| | | | iansltx |
to jay_rm
Additionally I don't pretend that the future is rosy, or that we'll soon be faster than Japan on 'net access speeds. I'm not a shill for the cable/telcos and I'm just pointing out that large cities may also be limited in internet access (DOCSIS 3/FiOS/fiber-above-DSL-speed = not limited). | |
|
| dadkinsCan you do Blu? MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA |
to voipdabbler
"Utility"? Broadband is not a utility - not yet at least. As soon as it is recognized as a utility, then it will surely get treated as such. | |
| | | •••••••••••• | | CorydonCultivant son jardin Premium Member join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO |
to voipdabbler
said by voipdabbler:Did the debate about other "utilities" sound like this one, with urbanites saying they should be the only areas served by electric companies? Well actually, yes. It took decades from when reliable electrical service was available in the major cities (more-or-less available from the turn of the century) to when it was reliably available everywhere (the Rural Electrification Agency and the Tennessee Valley Authority were part of Roosevelt's New Deal in the '30s). And even then, there was considerable argument over whether electricity should be a government run and regulated "utility" or something run by private enterprise. | |
| | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to voipdabbler
broadband isnt a utility, but my god if some guy cant load his emails from outlook he calls up the ISP and acts like someone who lots their gas and electric on a 1 degree day during a blizzard. | |
|
garmst join:2000-09-17 New York, NY
1 recommendation |
garmst
Member
2009-Jan-22 2:53 pm
92% is not surprising or unreasonableCable in general has been in existence so long that the infrastructure (wiring) has had a long time to spread virtually everywhere. Adding 2-way and therefore Internet was just swapping in electronics.
The cable industry serves the poor neighborhoods because the poor CAN afford cable, and the cablecos want to sell. Some of my family members who are on welfare have faster cable Internet than I do (It hasn't helped them find a job....). Verizon is wiring FIOS in Buffalo which is a dying Northeast city, inner city areas included.
There is no need for a BB policy, between DSL, cable, FIOS, growing WiMax, Cellular Wireless you have to work hard to be out of Internet coverage. | |
| | ••••••• | |
Hi! American consumer here..I don't fully understand all these fancy bit and byte words you use. Nor do I care. While it may cost a company millions of dollars to deploy some kind of service, I am entitled to use all of it for the lowest price I can pull out of my head.
If someone tries to explain the cost of providing broadband services to me I'll call them a shill and point out the profit that these businesses are making. After all I am the only one that should matter. Forget all those people that invest in and work for the company. I got musics to "share" and it's my God given inalienable right to "share" music and video with up to 3.5 million of my closest friends.
Don't you dare say the only reason I use this much bandwidth is for illegitimate reasons, because I totally need 50Mbps with no caps to web browse, watch youtube, and send pics of my kids to grandma. By the way, how do you turn on this damn porno machine. | |
| wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Syracuse?quote: Many profitable markets will see significant competition between FiOS and DOCSIS 3.0 cable -- eventually. But many more markets will not -- particularly across rural America. Blue collar cities like Syracuse and Binghamton, NY -- just a few hours northwest of Mr. Hansell's employer, will likely never see full coverage from next-generation broadband. Many are lucky to see 3Mbps DSL or 5Mbps cable.
Having lived in Syracuse for a few years, I can tell you that I was not aware of any significant portion of the city (proper) that couldnt get TWC, even as far back as 1997. Perhaps if we are talking about the rural areas around the city then that might be true (as it is in many rural areas! ), however (other than maybe a small, isolated pocket) I think everyone within the city limits has at least one broadband provider available to them today. While I cant speak for Binghamton, I would imagine its probably in a very similar situation. The funny thing is that Rochester NY was one of the first test markets for TWC's higher speed tiers (7Mbps and above), a good year before we were able to get them in NYC. The cable companies have a big footprint upstate, and in fact probably pass more customers than DSL. I spent a week this past summer up in very rural Phoenicia NY, so far off the path that there was no cell phone service for miles. There was no hope of DSL, however the house was equipped with a 7Mbps TWC cable connection with full VOD and HD for the television. This place had bears roaming around, yet I was able to surf quicker than I could in the heart of Manhattan (NYC). The argument that upstate is under-served isnt working for me, especially given my personal experiences up there. | |
| | 1 edit |
Re: Syracuse?Having lived in Syracuse for a few years, I can tell you that I was not aware of any significant portion of the city (proper) that couldnt get TWC, even as far back as 1997. I grew up in the area. I know Time Warner Cable does a good job getting services throughout the cities proper and many rural areas because of franchise obligations, but I also know many others only have a choice of one provider -- if anything at all. But the argument isn't that they can't get first-gen broadband (and many rural areas still can't), but that they won't be seeing the next-gen upgrades Hansell seems to think are right around the corner. Highly unlikely that Binghamton will ever see FiOS. Neither city is going to be an immediate DOC 3.0 upgrade priority, either. But Hansell tells us gigabit connections are right around the corner. In cities like that? Maybe by 2020. | |
| | | |
liverpool fios
Anon
2009-Jan-22 10:29 pm
Re: Syracuse?FYI, While it is spotty coverage like everywhere else, Fios in available in the Syracuse area | |
|
|
UGh why does everybody forget about cablevisionWhy does everybody forget about cablevision. we already have 305 speed with ports 8-0 and 25 opened up.
Cablevision is also working on upgrading to docsis 3 and pretty much lites up their whole area all at once.
Whats the rush with going to docsis 3 with cablevision when they already have 30/5 speeds?
Why is it when people bash the cable sector they convieniently leave out cablevision and when they say good things about the cable induustry they include them ?
Also fios is doing the same things with their only upgrading certain areas with fios and leaving the others out in the cold. | |
| | ••••• | Emiya join:2006-03-30 Southington, OH |
Emiya
Member
2009-Jan-22 3:51 pm
How the Times change!Now that the dems are firmly in control the Times is looking for new crap to spew. Now these liberal rags need to find some sort of FUD to spin and it won't be to long before they really start turning on the people they supported the same way conservative media outlets started on the Republicans before the elections. | |
| cchhat01Dr. Zoidberg join:2001-05-01 Elmhurst, NY |
Yeah Yeah Yeah!!!Okay I want to add my tidbit.
I agree with what many of us are saying: that Docsis 3 is not really the solution.
What is difficult in the United States is that there is such a vast **area** of land to run through to provide service. The cost/expenses to run fiber over this vast area is a huge burden. If cable companies can work together and decide to cut costs by wiring the nation in a joint venture, it all works to everyone's advantage: country gets wired quickly and everyone benefits in the long run. Another thing that I think can work is government incentives (lower/fewer taxes, etc) for companies who to build infrastructure in rural areas. Lastly, an option (and in a failing economy where we're out of a budget not the best recommendation) would be for govt to build such an infrastructure.
Just my 2 cents | |
| |
Anon5645
Anon
2009-Jan-22 4:19 pm
Japan ppfff Of course Japan is all fiber, because they are smaller then the USA, Just the fiber Verizon have laid down in the USA could rewire Japan 5 time again LOL , plus too many greedy company will never see 1Gbps fiber connection for $51 here in the USA, it will be more like an arm and a leg to be able to get that type of connection for residential of course. | |
| | aSicapplication specific Premium Member join:2001-05-17 Wakulla, FL |
aSic
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 7:27 pm
Re: Japan ppfffThats one of the stupidest arguments I see tossed about every time this subject comes up. If it really was all about geographical size and ROI, then cities like New York and Chicago would all be epicenters of blazing fast speed....as oh, they're SMALLER than the entire country of Japan. They all [Japan] have fiber because they realize the importance of the Internet in today's society, and the people of Japan refuse to be last...so the companies deliver and innovate. | |
|
dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
dynodb
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 4:48 pm
How does DOCSIS 3.0 change anything?It's great that cable providers are working on offering higher speeds with DOCSIS 3.0 and all, but what does that have to do with coverage gaps? Higher speeds don't mean much to those who don't have coverage at all.
However important broadband is, for the vast majority speeds higher than 5M or so are a luxury. A nice convienience to be sure, but if Johnny cant read it's not because he's stuck with a 1.5M or 5M broadband connection. | |
| |
Most are missing the forest for the treesYeah ok, lets assume we wire up the whole country for fiber and give everyone 100Mbps symmetrical service. Now the problem none of you thought about? The nationwide backbones that backhaul all this traffic would have no hope of keeping up, not to mention that no site on earth is going to have the capacity to send you content at that speed (nor will they have much incentive to buy the capacity to do it). It may be hard to believe, but there is actually something called a "big picture" out there.
At what point does speed become overkill? Practically (that's the keyword, not theoretically or dreaming), what can a 100Mbps fiber connection give the average consumer that say, a 25Mbps cable or even DSL connection can't? They have no idea the difference from CNN loading in .5 seconds or 2.5 seconds. Its kind of like inventing a TV that displays colors and resolutions the human eye can't discern, what's the point? | |
| | |
Re: Most are missing the forest for the treesWell, Qwest's definition of next generation upstream is 896kbps. That's the fastest upstream speed they offer, or will offer, for some time unless they shift to VDSL or FTTH.
I think it's a while before we get to the part where we argue that we're getting so much speed -- we can't possibly use it. Though yeah, the 100Mbps metric is kind of just blather, and if that's your point -- I agree. | |
| | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
to BillRoland
Think back to Gates quote of "who would ever need more than 640k?" Your statement will soon fall into that category.
For web browsing you are probably correct but the internet gets used of a lot of things and will (if allowed to) be used for many more things (some not even thought of yet) that will make use of those speeds. The backbones in Japan (and other countries) have not seemed to have had much difficulty in handling their customers having 100Mbps symmetrical service. Why should our backbone be unable to handle what theirs can?
As soon as a significant portion of the US has 100Mbps service, servers(or server farms) will appear that will be handle that kind of capacity. When the the Cord boat tail speedsters were first developed (first production car to do over 130mph?) there were no production tires that could handle the speed(why develop a tire that could handle speeds that no car could go?). It was not long after that tires could be purchase to handle the speed. 10GigE equipment has been around long enough that it is pretty well understood and there are faster technologies in development. As soon as there is a real need of those speeds(backbone), they will be rapidly available. | |
|
ztmikeMark for moderation Premium Member join:2001-08-02 La Porte, IN |
ztmike
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 5:10 pm
High Speed | |
| jimbo48 join:2000-11-17 Asheville, NC |
Open mouth insert footComcast and its predecessor TCI "promised" all the bells and whistles in my area (SF bay ) and glibly raised rates for these upcoming improvements yet all we ever saw was a bigger Cable bill. Well Comcast has finally gotten around to offer HSI with PowerBoost for 42.95 per month. They define Power boost of 12MB/sec for PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file. Wow 1-2 seconds of PowerBoost but ongoing speed is FAR FAR less in actuality-how about less than 4.0Mb down and 768kb up. If this guy thinks Comcast is going to offer DOCIS 3.0 anytime soon in my area of the US (Several million people live in and around here). He has been drinking more than their kool-aid- maybe smokin' their stash as well. He probably sits in his uptown Manhattan high-rise (paid in part by the Cable industry for being their shill)and pontificates on conditions in the US of A of which he knows nothing about. It will be years before Comcast does anything because they're getting rich on the swill they already put out as HSI around here. | |
| | mrvid join:2007-06-19 Levittown, NY |
mrvid
Member
2009-Jan-22 6:05 pm
FCC makes a good point, CDV over private net, its a phone co.I think what the FCC is pondering on is, if its their own, then their a phone company, not an information service.
Best of my knowledge, "voip" like movies, etc. was an internet service, basically "data", since what was viewed, watched, talked or heard over was categorized as an informational data stream, it was all treated as the internet.
If C is now saying CDV is a private network, voip technology or not, its a phone company, thats the point I think the FCC is trying to make.
If I were C, I would advise the FCC that they will mix the voip with the rest & just leave the throttling to bittorrent, if I am correct and that was the initial plan, otherwise they could see regulation and surprise taxes added to their phone service.
Since the service is delivered over the internet, caps would now apply for their own voip service as well but they could just choose to waive the caps if customers take their CDV service. | |
|
|
What someone in an 'urban area' might like to have...I'd like to have blackberry bushes and pear trees grown next to my apartment for me to pick and eat at my leisure fresh, vine-ripened, organic fruit when its ripe. I'd like to have a picturesque river to raft on in the summer only 20 minutes from my apartment, and an alpine ski slope less than an hour. I'd like to have a federal law requiring that the police, fire, and ambulance sirens not be allowed to blast within 5 miles of my apartment more than once a week and never at 1 a.m. I'd like all roads and cars designed so that the large volume of traffic that flows on them does not do anything to increase the ambient noise of my domicile more than 10 dB.
And if I can't have these things, and I have to pay for people in 'rural areas' to some of the things that I have here, then I want them to have ALL of the things that I have here. | |
| |
19 outta 20 myThis is total bs... why is this person allowed to live? | |
| DoctorDoomTroll hunter Premium Member join:2006-09-19 Becket, MA |
Facts of life for rural BBOne factor that renders America fundamentally different from the countries cited is that the USofA has a helluva lot more rural area than those countries. Time for some number-crunching. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 01/23/09 at 02:01 GMT (EST+5) is 305,666,578. The area of the USofA is 9,631,420 sq km (3,718,712 sq mi). Therefore its population density is about 82 people per square mile. In 2000, 79.2% of the US population was in urban areas ( » www.fhwa.dot.gov/plannin ··· ps2k.htm ). Thus 20.8% of the US population is spread out in 94.6% of the US that is classified as rural ( » www.heartland.org/Articl ··· Id=12402 ). 3,718,712 x 94.6 = 3,517,902 square miles that are rural 305,666,578 x 20.8% = about 63,579,000 people in 94.6% of the US. The rural population density is thus about 18 people per square mile. Since the 18/mi² are certain to be in families, reducing the number of potential customers, what incentive is there to hardwire that 94.6% of America for broadband? | |
| | jimbo48 join:2000-11-17 Asheville, NC |
jimbo48
Member
2009-Jan-22 10:47 pm
Re: Facts of life for rural BBThe numbers may very well point out that a lot of people live in rural areas but those same peoplehave a vested interst in the very same infrastructure that the Cable companies use to string their wire. They have a vested interest in the poles sititing in publlic right of way that these cable companies use to hang their wire or bury their cables. Telling a lot of peole that because they don't live in a densely populated area means they don't get the same rightss and benefits of the urban dwellers is a bit hard to swallow. I guesss their taxes aren't as important and carry as much weight as those paid by the city dwellers. Yes its financially impractical to hardwire the vast stretches of the United States but the utlity companies sucked it up and strung electrical, telephone wires were strung for telephones and no one went broke. What is happening here is maximizing profit by cherry-picking those areas that return the most money per dollar investment then telling the states, cities, counties that they can't afford to serve all the people but they want their subsidies, their right to access of public property their exclusive monolpoly contracts etc. If cable is NOT a utility then I say they have no right to public right of way because its not a necessity and they should pay for using public property. I ramble on so I'll shut up! | |
|
|
Paulttu
Anon
2009-Jan-23 1:11 am
Real ruralI'm in Tennessee here, and I know of plenty of houses around here, by farmland usually, that don't even get cable tv service. No DSL, No Cable TV, No Cable internet. Dialup, cellphone (no 3G), and satellite are the only choices for internet access, and I think these are the people that are being left out, not people like me who are stuck with 10/1 mbit internet.
I personally can't think of an immediate use for 1Gbit internet at my home. An HD stream uses 10-20mbit, and that's good enough for me. I'm not certain what the future holds as far as data needs, and of course we all want faster internet, but I think government should only get involved to keep those very rural internet users from falling into an internet poverty or to prevent price gouging in areas with internet monopolies. | |
| |
95% ?Is Hansell saying that 95%(19 out of 20) of US homes have cable TV availability?
I seriously doubt that statistic. | |
| | wilbilt Pronto Resurrected Premium Member join:2004-01-11 Oroville, CA |
wilbilt
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 10:25 am
Re: 95% ?said by Bob61571:Is Hansell saying that 95%(19 out of 20) of US homes have cable TV availability? I seriously doubt that statistic. I can accurately say that within a ten-mile radius of my home, there are zero homes with cable TV availability. | |
|
| |
|
|