 
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Many Changes at the FCC... 1) Remove the Chairman. The guy is a waste of our money.
2) Increase what is classified as "broadband" from 200kbps to at least 1.5mbps.
3) Redefine how the FCC determines if an area is broadband serviced by making it that at least 50% of a zip code qualifies for broadband. | |
|
 | MASantangelo
Premium
join:2004-07-19
Pittstown, NJ
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... 1) Agreed.
2) 2 at the minimum would be nice, I'll settle for 1 for now.
3) What is the current requirement? I've not heard much on it.
--
Don't Let Them Take Your Rights! | |
|
| |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... said by MASantangelo  :3) What is the current requirement? I've not heard much on it. According to the FCC, if 1 person in a zip code qualifies for broadband, then the entire zip code is considered to be broadband ready.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
|
| | | MASantangelo
Premium
join:2004-07-19
Pittstown, NJ | Re: Many Changes at the FCC... That's just ridiculous... | |
|
| | | |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... said by MASantangelo :That's just ridiculous... Yep.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
|
| | | | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... and watch how quickly, just by raising the bandwidth rate from 200k to 1.5m, how many zip codes suddenly DON'T have access to "broadband."
I think that would be very telling...we may actually start to get a "closer to real" view of where we stand. Granted if only one person in the zip could get 1.5 down, you're still going to see misrepresentation, but it would be a start. | |
|
| | | | | | Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... said by PeterCollins :and watch how quickly, just by raising the bandwidth rate from 200k to 1.5m, how many zip codes suddenly DON'T have access to "broadband." I think that would be very telling...we may actually start to get a "closer to real" view of where we stand. Granted if only one person in the zip could get 1.5 down, you're still going to see misrepresentation, but it would be a start. and then the costs get past down to you... the providers will never foot the bill in either case however broadband is catergorized... | |
|
| | | | | | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL | Re: Many Changes at the FCC... That's not really my point.
Regardless of who pays for it, we shouldn't be calling 200k down "broadband." It pains me to call 1.5 down broadband too, but if we're looking for a minimum it seems like a better place to start. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... THANKS.
But I believe this statistic quoted in the same report is more relevant than 99% of ZipCodes have broadband stat.
As a nationwide average, we estimate that high-speed DSL connections were available to 78% of the households to whom incumbent LECs could provide local telephone service as of December 31, 2005, and that high-speed cable modem service was available to 93% of the households to whom cable system operators could provide cable TV service.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... "As a nationwide average, we estimate that high-speed DSL connections were available to 78% of the households to whom incumbent LECs could provide local telephone service as of December 31, 2005, and that high-speed cable modem service was available to 93% of the households to whom cable system operators could provide cable TV service."
Sounds like this fairy tale is based on 200kbps "broadband", and if that's all you believe is needed, then, as in your myopically pedantic world, the Telco line is all you need to tow. | |
|
| | | VerizonCynic
join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA | Should be ZIP plus 4 for an area. that is like 20 homes | |
|
| |
| |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... said by TK Junk Mail :said by Rob :1) Remove the Chairman. The guy is a waste of our money. They have no power to do so. In fact, the Dems signed off on Martin when he was reappointed. If the Dems want to do something about the FCC, they should pass new laws. The trouble would be getting a veto-proof version thru the Senate. And w/o Repub concurrence on the new laws, that won't happen. I know, it's wishful thinking. 
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
|
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Many Changes at the FCC... More accurately sounds like karma. | |
|
| 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| 1) Agreed. We need someone with some real open-ended experience in the field.
2) Sorry to spoil it for ya, but 256k and up should still be considered broadband (albeit the slowest). The differences in speed between dialup and ISDN over that is quite noticeable. Plus 256k has been an offering for broadband for well over a decade, and not just from DSL. Fractional T1 lines and cable broadband are still offering this. Keep in mind most things done on the web are just as fast at 256k as they are for 6Mb.
3) Also agree. Maybe a slightly smaller percentage like 40% to give a fair compromise, but no more one-house-entire-zip-code tricks. | |
|
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... "Keep in mind most things done on the web are just as fast at 256k as they are for 6Mb."
Really? I certainly notice that I get my email, webpages, and downloads much quicker over a 3mb connection than I do over a 1mb connection.
Or wait, is email, web surfing, and downloads not still considered "most things" done on the web? | |
|
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... What ISP did you use for that 1Mb? Same as your 2Mb? Some ISP's have a higher latency due to the equipment they use or the saturation on their bandwidth (which can vary by the hour). Email, too, is dependent on either your ISP or whomever you get your email service from. Also how fast a web page loads depends on the ISP the web site is using and the kind of bandwidth available at the time, latency and such.
Most web sites only need 5k-10kbps to load up quickly. More graphic and multimedia intensive sites probably no more than 30k-40kbps to load fast. Downloads are they ONLY factor where a faster connection makes a difference, and even then it would depend on if the download site can bear the load. Many don't go much faster than 50kbps, and the good ones usually stick at 200k and lower.
Yes, there are places like BT and some sites that can kick downloads at 1Mb or higher. The point is there is absolutely no reason why a 256k connection cannot give somebody a good, fast Internet experience that can be indiscernible from faster connections when it's with the right provider. | |
|
| RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| said by Rob :2) Increase what is classified as "broadband" from 200kbps to at least 1.5mbps. I disagree, that is really too high. Sure everyone here wants 1.5 minimum, but there are millions of folks to whom an always on 256k connection is just fine. Maybe they should classify different ranges of broadband or something, but I have no problem with 256k as a minimum. | |
|
| |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... said by RJ44 :said by Rob :2) Increase what is classified as "broadband" from 200kbps to at least 1.5mbps. I disagree, that is really too high. Sure everyone here wants 1.5 minimum, but there are millions of folks to whom an always on 256k connection is just fine. Maybe they should classify different ranges of broadband or something, but I have no problem with 256k as a minimum. Ok. Then classify broadband as a Internet Connection of 200kbps, but do not classify the area 'broadband ready' if the only available speed is 200kbps.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
|
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Many Changes at the FCC... said by Rob :Ok. Then classify broadband as a Internet Connection of 200kbps, but do not classify the area 'broadband ready' if the only available speed is 200kbps. That's fair enough. A true 'broadband ready' area has to have availability of speeds reaching 1.5Mb and beyond if you want to give an honest description. At the same time there should be a designation for areas that can only get lets say 128k-512k that say they are broadband ready, but at limited speeds. | |
|
| | | |
|
| 
Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast
| Re: Business As Usual said by pnh102 :<sarcasm> Perhaps the Democrats can push for a law that prevents the FCC from having any jurisdiction over American Samoa </sarcasm> LOL!! 
--
To be rich in friends is to be poor in nothing. | |
|
clecssuck
join:2002-01-23
Birmingham, AL
| TV for Telco's seems fair to me said by :
Of primary interest is the FCC's recent telco-friendly decision to ease the rules governing telco entry into the TV space,
Was there any complaints about the cable co's moving into data and pots? (other than telco's ofcourse) Telco's getting into TV seems fair to me. You folks are always all about plenty of competition. | |
|
| viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: TV for Telco's seems fair to me said by clecssuck : said by :
Of primary interest is the FCC's recent telco-friendly decision to ease the rules governing telco entry into the TV space,
Was there any complaints about the cable co's moving into data and pots? (other than telco's ofcourse) Telco's getting into TV seems fair to me. You folks are always all about plenty of competition. There seem to be lots of telco haters here, so fairness doesn't always apply. BTW, good user name  . | |
|
| battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | But they didn't make a bunch of empty promises to get Billions in tax breaks and then not deliver. They don't take proceeds from slush funds to build out their networks either. | |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| it doesn't really matter it doesn't matter who is in the majority on the FCC or in congress, what needs to be done will not be done for years, if ever.
and what needs to be done is for congress to force telcos to open up the last mile for use to any vendor that wants to provide service. there should be severe financial and other penalties for any incumbent that prevents or hinders anyone else providing services over last mile infrastructure. THIS MUST INCLUDE THE FIBER CURRENTLY BEING BUILT.
the telco lobbies are way too strong and the congress still too oblivious to the need for real competition in broadband for this too happen anytime soon. that means the U.S. will continue to fall behind the rest of the developed world until a viable, last mile wireless solution becomes available to compete against the wired last mile stranglehold of the ILECs.
in the meantime, get used to expensive, slow (by developed world standards) broadband with little or no new innovations or improvements. | |
|
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: it doesn't really matter said by nasadude :there should be severe financial and other penalties for any incumbent that prevents or hinders anyone else providing services over last mile infrastructure. THIS MUST INCLUDE THE FIBER CURRENTLY BEING BUILT. We've already seen the results of this policy in action. Phone companies which are required to share their copper networks with competitors are simply not building out these networks anymore.
Cable companies, which are not subject to these restrictions, were able to expand their networks as they saw fit.
The only reason AT&T and Verizon are investing in a completely new fiber-based network is because of the lack of regulation. Imposing a sharing requirement will kill any incentive for cable and/or phone companies to expand their networks. This is an undisputed, irrefutable fact.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | clecssuck
join:2002-01-23
Birmingham, AL | Re: it doesn't really matter Would you build a new garage if you had to let your neighbor use it too??? | |
|
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
edit:
January 12th, @11:28AM
| Re: it doesn't really matter "Would you build a new garage if you had to let your neighbor use it too???"
As long as he was paying reasonable rent, why not? | |
|
| | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: it doesn't really matter said by ross :"Would you build a new garage if you had to let your neighbor use it too???" As long as he was paying reasonable rent, why not? I call BS on that. No one (and I mean NO ONE) has enough space in their garage, let alone enough to let a neighbor use it.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: it doesn't really matter I too agree and call BS on that! He's really spewing crap now.
People build out their garage to put another car in it for their own use.. why build out simply to let someone else use it and pay just the cost or less?
I see it, for the other guy, a great way to get his car covered at less than the cost to build and with out any investment on his own... but in all seriousness, this is what telephone is being asked to do.
I don't much care for telephone, but I don't agree with forcing them to do anything other than provide dial tone. They are either a public utility and should be run like one, or a private company allowed to dictate their own destiny.
If the giverment wants to run a phone company, then the tax payers should buy it out and put it in the hands of a municipality. Why don't they now? Becuase the giverment realizes that they don't want to run a pig that's already ridden with enough problems keeping it profitable and innovative. It's much easier to sit back and arm chair quarterback as they are now.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| pnh102, it's clear you either don't know the history of the telephone and cable industry in the U.S. or you choose not to understand that history.
Unfortunately, it seems most people don't know this history and we are far enough removed from the beginnings that it is easy to trot out the sarcastic "yeah, let's just let the government control everything, then it'll be alright" or " would you build a garage if you had to let your neighbor use it".
you also apparently don't know the history of the lack of success of the 1996 telecom law and why it failed.
I dispute your statement that the only reason fiber is being deployed is because of lack of regulation - that's certainly the spin the telcos put on it. The telcos threatened to not deploy fiber so they could get line sharing killed and they were successful - but look at how far behind the cablecos they got while playing this regulatory game.
Do you seriously believe that if line sharing had not been killed for fiber the telcos would have never deployed fiber? You believe they would have just rolled over and let the cablecos eat their lunch? As it is, the telcos got way behind the cablecos by playing their games with the regulators and now they are playing catch up. That just means they are arrogant and stupid (happens when you are a monopoly too long).
and yes, I did forget to mention the cablecos should be made to open their last mile to other vendors also. | |
|
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: it doesn't really matter said by nasadude :pnh102, it's clear you either don't know the history of the telephone and cable industry in the U.S. or you choose not to understand that history. And you have no understanding of capitalism, private property or economics, so touche.
said by nasadude :it is easy to trot out the sarcastic "yeah, let's just let the government control everything, then it'll be alright" or " would you build a garage if you had to let your neighbor use it". So your best response to an accurate comparison is to trot out personal insults? You have yet to prove how the garage analogy is wrong.
said by nasadude :you also apparently don't know the history of the lack of success of the 1996 telecom law and why it failed. I never disputed the failure of TA1996. Your alternative though, would basically apply TA1996 to new fiber buildouts which are exempt from such regulation. Since TA1996 failed for copper lines, it is reasonable to conclude that it will fail with fiber lines too.
said by nasadude :The telcos threatened to not deploy fiber so they could get line sharing killed and they were successful Can you blame them? Again, the phone companies were not expanding DSL availability because of line sharing rules. This is a fact. You still have not provided an answer as to why would the phone companies spend billions of dollars on a brand new fiber optic network and be forced to share it with competitors? Where is the benefit to the phone company to do this?
said by nasadude :Do you seriously believe that if line sharing had not been killed for fiber the telcos would have never deployed fiber? Yes. As you said, the phone companies did not deploy fiber until line sharing was killed.
said by nasadude :You believe they would have just rolled over and let the cablecos eat their lunch? Phone and cable companies do not care about subscriber counts the way you think they do. They care about profit and how to grow it. The phone companies would have lost a lot of profit if they built out a new fiber optic network that would be available to their competitors, which is why they did not build it.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: it doesn't really matter You too make some good points, but I fail to see how you can't understand how one building a garage should be forced to give part of it up. I think you should focus on the words "force" and "Private property"...
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | | | | 
hyzmarca
@alltel.net
| Re: it doesn't really matter The garage analogy is incomplete.Your forgetting the land. In this case, the land is not owned by the person building the garage. The land is owned by the third party who is forcing the individual to open up his garage at a reasonable rate. And guess what, the land owner may not own the garage but he certainly doesn't have to let the garage stay on his land. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: it doesn't really matter Wrong wrong wrong.
The land that the network is sitting on is paid for by the cable company each and every month. Heard of a franchise fee?
It can be "negotiated"... but land owners don't have the right to force the tenant, necessarily, to tell them what to do after the fact... even then, it's purely negotiation. In cables case, during franchise renewal, the city or county can "ask" for it and put it on the table, but if the other side says "no" and they don't budge, it's not likely the franchise would get it.
After all, it's a negotiation... it's not "franchise gets what they want and cable just takes it up the butt"... The cable company still owns the network 100%.. not the franchise authority.
If you look at the history of cable and franchise.. I don't believe there's been many, if any, instances where a franchise was able to pull an agreement and the system/plant away from the owner because they franchise didn't get what they wanted during negotiation.
So, unless the GIVErnmnet wants to step in, over reach with their unlawful (at time) powers and "take" from a entity in this land - of - the - free, well, again, your argument over the garage still holds no merit.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I understand why telephone should open their lines... they were funded largely by tax payer money to build that infrastructure. With that in mind, I think that people have a stake in the phone lines.
Cable... cable was paid for by private industry. It was paid for by private investors, cable had to pay it's own way either from a collected fee or by giving into local demands for money to fund PEG channels, equipment, and government cable-way space.
So, why should cable, a private industry, have to open up their last mile again? Why is it that you want the government to seize the last mile and open it up? The moment they do that, is the moment I call dictator ship on this government. What's to stop them from taking my grocery store and make me open up some space for the poor immigrant worker that wants to sell his native food but can't afford to build or rent his own store?
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | I would take it further.
One nationwide network managed by 1-3 companies with government oversight that reaches every person / place and that any provider can lease to deliver any service they wish. | |
|
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: it doesn't really matter Best solution yet... It separates the infrastructure from the companies who offer services. It would be a carrier neutral network, very similar to the muni networks out west where multiple providers offer service across a single network.
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Sounds like something Hugo would do in Venezula. | |
|
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: it doesn't really matter said by lesopp :Sounds like something Hugo would do in Venezula. No, because Chavez would let the government own it, not private firms...
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | | |
| viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by nasadude : ...what needs to be done is for congress to force telcos to open up the last mile for use to any vendor that wants to provide service. there should be severe financial and other penalties for any incumbent that prevents or hinders anyone else providing services over last mile infrastructure. THIS MUST INCLUDE THE FIBER CURRENTLY BEING BUILT.
Why just the telcos? Why not cable, also? Then pretty soon WISPs, then sattelite. Then BPL. Then 2 cans and a string! Let the gov't run it all. | |
|
tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA
·Vonage
| Oh Oh I want the Dems out of telcom.
I can see it now:
In order to assure tha broadband is everywhere, we will TAX Internet service and use those funds (right) to help promote Broadband. I can see a Department of Broadband costing us millions!
Get real! You know they are salivating at the tax possibilites from the Internet! | |
|
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Oh Oh been there, done that - can you say USF? sure you can.
and look how good that worked out
I don't want government involved in deciding what companies succeed, like they are doing now. I want the government to keep the incumbents from leveraging control of the last mile to exclude competition. | |
|
| | tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA
·Vonage
| Re: Oh Oh said by nasadude :been there, done that - can you say USF? sure you can. and look how good that worked out I don't want government involved in deciding what companies succeed, like they are doing now. I want the government to keep the incumbents from leveraging control of the last mile to exclude competition. Exactly. that is why the "telco friendly" decision mentioned here supports competition. Our local townships united (Harrisburg, PA - about ten of them) under the name "The West Shore Council of Governments" in order to group negotiate tons of ridiculous requirements from Verizon. Different restrictions than placed on Comcast since they were in the position of power since their townships were already bsing serviced by Comcast. And... you can bet when Comcast renews, if Verizon is available, they will try and rape them. The point - the FCC bill prevents this style of Mafiaism! It's a shame that we have no choice in Internet, phone, tv, trash, etc. At one time we could choose our own trash provider, and the cost was about a third of what is is now! | |
|
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | There will be no changes. FCC will not make owning a cell phone less expensive and broadband will still cost the same.Nothing changes.
Guaranteed. | |
|
|
|
|
Dems Eye FCC Decisions
·
Business As Usual