bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY
2 edits | Regarding broadband penetration
They have a company to run and profits to be made so who is expecting them to run fiber in rural Maine.
NY, NJ etc are much better places to pick up customers. |
|
SkyBlue
join:2007-03-31
|  Watch out!
"It's likely the folks at both companies fear a changing of the FCC guard with the coming election, and wouldn't mind having the agency's wings clipped -- just in case Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a frequent telco critic, got the nod as the new FCC boss."
----------------------------------
Yeh they better watch out before someone else takes a different stance like Copps.
Wonder what changes Copss would make to the FCC dealings with the BELLS.
 |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL | America's Motto..
Blame someone else. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | That is a great pic of Tauke!
He looks like the slimy, greedy little piggy that he is. And from such a trough he feeds from. Throw some more "piggie" to the politicos, Tauke. (Ironic last name, eh?) |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to bgraham
Re: Regarding broadband penetration
said by bgraham  :They have a company to run and profits to be made so who is expecting them to run fiber in rural Maine. NY, NJ etc are much better places to pick up customers. Correct. Which is why these fiber deployments are going on in areas where people are going to buy the service, where people can afford to pay for it, and you have a large penetration of people. |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Limited bandwidth is artificial
Meanwhile AT&T's fastest speed offered to consumers
is 6Mbps, a choice that had more to do with impatient
investors than regulation.
The choice of copper based VDSL2 was based upon time to market, but I don't agree that this limits consumers to 6 Mbps.
Here are my thoughts on why consumers are limited to 6 Mbps, instead of the much faster 24 Mbps minimum that's actually being delivered on the VDSL2 loop: »corp.sonic.net/blog/2008/01/08/s···-anyway/
-Dane |
|
SkyBlue
join:2007-03-31
| reply to cableties
Re: That is a great pic of Tauke!
said by cableties :He looks like the slimy, greedy little piggy that he is. And from such a trough he feeds from. Throw some more "piggie" to the politicos, Tauke. (Ironic last name, eh?) He looks like one of those Old Russian presidents.  |
|
JoeyDee
Premium
join:2004-07-23
Las Vegas, NV
·Cox HSI
| I am soooo against government ...
...interfering in private enterprise it pains me to say this, but,
BROADBAND NEEDS TO BE BUILT OUT JUST LIKE THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. CLEARLY THE ECONOMICS AREN'T THERE FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO DO THE JOB.
It's going to have to be done by the public sector to get us 100% coverage at acceptable connection speed.
We have no choice.
Joe |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by JoeyDee :BROADBAND NEEDS TO BE BUILT OUT JUST LIKE THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. CLEARLY THE ECONOMICS AREN'T THERE FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO DO THE JOB. Is that why we are always stuck in traffic every day on the Interstate? Why doesn't the government fix that?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering | reply to DaneJasper
Re: Limited bandwidth is artificial
Great article. Thanks for sharing. |
|
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| I don't understand
How is against "network neutrality" against tech? The incumbents want to ADD technology onto the net such as Class of Service recognition over the Internet. It is in use and demand in the business world already.
Of course, I'm against the blocking of content, but that isn't what the US telcos are really pushing for from what I've seen, but that what propagandist are pursuing. Of course there is the Comcast debacle, but that isn't content blocking, it was service blocking, affecting only peer-to-peer packets, not blocking certain websites based on the incumbents beliefs.
--
**Disclaimer** My views represent only what the voices in my head tell me. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to SkyBlue
Re: Watch out!
said by SkyBlue :"It's likely the folks at both companies fear a changing of the FCC guard with the coming election, and wouldn't mind having the agency's wings clipped -- just in case Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a frequent telco critic, got the nod as the new FCC boss." ---------------------------------- Yeh they better watch out before someone else takes a different stance like Copps. Wonder what changes Copss would make to the FCC dealings with the BELLS. That might depend on what happens to Republican Commissioner Tate whose term expired 6/30/2007. She has stayed on and her re-nomination is pending and no one has been nominated to replace her. IF Bush can get her re-approved or a new Republican nominated and approved to replace her before he leaves office, then the FCC stays Republican thru at least 6/30/2009(when McDowell's term expires) unless a Republican Commissioner resigns in the meantime.
»broadcastengineering.com/news/ma···es-1217/
To add to the building pressure on FCC members, Sen. Lott noted that there are pending nominations for two sitting FCC commissioners: Democrat Jonathan Adelstein and Republican Deborah Tate.
Though Lott had high praise for Adelstein, he said he hoped Tate will help keep the other Republican commissioners in line on this week’s vote. It was a subtle, but stark reminder that only a single senator can block a commissioner’s renomination to the FCC. --
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to JoeyDee
Re: I am soooo against government ...
said by JoeyDee :.... BROADBAND NEEDS TO BE BUILT OUT JUST LIKE THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. CLEARLY THE ECONOMICS AREN'T THERE FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO DO THE JOB. .. you absolutely, positively hit the nail on the head. Much as I hate the cable and phone companies, these guys are doing what their investors want them to do - maximize profit. The investors could care less about broadband speeds or prices or comprehensive coverage, they just want to make as much money as they can.
If our government is too corrupt or lazy or ideological to properly regulate these industries to ensure competition (which in turn should bring reasonable prices, faster speeds and full coverage), then the government itself should ensure it gets done.
these industries have set the U.S. back several years in the broadband revolution and if something isn't done soon we will get so far behind we'll never crawl out of the hole they have created.
I also might add it's not that the economics aren't there, it's that these corporations don't give a sh1t about their customers and are only interested in extracting maximum revenue from their customer base and there is no competition to temper that. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Is that why we are always stuck in traffic every day on the Interstate? Why doesn't the government fix that? they are - they are selling road systems to private industry so they can turn them into toll roads. that will keep the riff-raff off the roads and they won't be so crowded. |
|
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | reply to DaneJasper
Re: Limited bandwidth is artificial
Video is a time sensitive application. You only need 2-3 Mbps of download to watch HD, but because of the volitility and capacity limits on the Internet backbone are the reasons why you can't watch HD over the net. If they allowed quality of service over the Internet with an increased backbone, which AT&T is working on and has already implemented some, then I think you'd see an increase in IPTV competition, but the consumers are against quality of service for their so valued "network neutrality". |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica | reply to bgraham
Re: Regarding broadband penetration
Isn't the whole point that they were given special treatment by the government, on the condition that a certain percentage of their deployments be in rural areas? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
Re: I am soooo against government ...
said by nasadude :they are - they are selling road systems to private industry so they can turn them into toll roads. that will keep the riff-raff off the roads and they won't be so crowded. I've never liked this idea. Roads are a public resource, and a toll, while it is an entirely logical and fair way of funding a road, is in essence a regressive tax if you have someone who is low income who has to use the toll road every day.
My argument is that the government could do a better job of improving capacity on highways, but it chooses not to. And while there are a few things that government can and should do, and does well, providing internet service is not going to be one of them.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to pnh102
Fact is, though, private enterprise could NOT build a better road system either and you would have the same gridlock.
Gridlock comes from two sources - idiots and design. The idiot part is self explanatory - some guy tail gating slams on his brakes causing a chain reaction that eventually results in backups, etc. etc.
As to design, done mostly by PRIVATE companies, the problem is not that the design is bad, but that the design and construction are ALWAYS behind the traffic flow. There's an interchange near here that, when construction started, the specs were just fine. However, in the time since the construction started, traffic patterns have changed and the problem is back. Road construction, no matter who does it, is ALWAYS behind the traffic patterns it is looking to correct/improve. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
1 edit | Need more info
References are made here about how much penetration and speed is available in the US vs. other countries. Other references are made indicating that the problem in the US is lack of competition. My question, which I could not find the answer to in the OECD data, is how much 'last mile' infrastructure (fiber, copper, wireless, etc.) competition exists in these other countries? Or is the 'last mile' owned/subsidized by the gov't? |
|
guardfrog
join:2004-08-27
Dallas, TX
| Giving Google a free pass
quote:
By this I meant that the big U.S. telephone companies' failure to offer faster broadband is hindering the emergence of a whole new wave of innovative, connected devices, and applications--things like telemedicine apps, advanced teleconferencing and 3D interactive TV.
So, big U.S. telephone companies should spend billions to upgrade their networks...but not be able to recoup some of those costs by charging application providers who make money off of the phone companies' investments?
That's not anti-tech...it's anti-common sense. |
|
