Slashdot Mirror

82% of households have access to two or more broadband providers:

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/...

Currently an ISP is classified as an "information service", which is distinct from a telecommunications service.

The United States does have a "plan": http://www.broadband.gov/plan/...

Billions in government money is available for expanding broadband.

you want internet and there's only 1 cable co that services your area. how are you going to 'choose' some other vendor when there isn't any!

Although there are places where the choice is 1 or practically 0, the areas where you are so limited is decreasing given the increasing number of possibilities.

cable | dsl | 3G/4G wireless | satellite | isdn | dial up | T1 (or fraction) | fiber | Broadband over Powerline

From what I've seen, most public libraries make internet available, even in the sticks.

About Broadband

At the state level, agreed. The policy right now is only to allow LFAs to tightly control rates in near monopoly situations: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/regulation-cable-tv-rates

However they are doing major cost shifting from urban to rural: http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/

What would you want regulated that isn't?

Show me some evidence that your precious democrats give a flying fuck about your internet connection.
http://www.broadband.gov/

Obama: "As president, I will set a simple goal: Every American should have the highest-speed broadband access—no matter where you live or how much money you have." -- Flint, Mich. JUNE 16, 2008

In terms of a citation the FCC did a substantial study and says we are 275 mhz short by 2014 ( http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-staff-technical-paper-mobile-broadband-benefits-of-additional-spectrum.pdf ).

Why can't the US, what makes the US this special case that has made it impossible to operate on a single band.

A few big issues.

1) The US has much lower population density than most other countries that invest in carriers. The US also has more terrain blockages like mountains and deserts.
2) The US never agreed to a single standard GSM or CDMA

. Why is this an issue only in the US, and why do we have to a) give it away or b) sell it?

Needing to give it away or sell it, isn't only an issue in the US. As to why only those two, I explained in the original.

http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/netflix-performance-on-top-isp-networks.html

Has netflix shared their data with the FCC database used to create the The National Broadband Map?

http://blog.broadband.gov/?entryId=1278226&#respond

This has been going on for quite a while now, they've already shipped a bunch of routers, mines been hooked up for a few months already.

Better yet, the FCC should be running the test.

"The Consumer Broadband Test, currently in beta, is the FCC’s first attempt at providing consumers real-time information about the quality of their broadband connections."

http://www.broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/

If you have not, consider heading over to the FCC's Broadband website, and report a broadband dead zone, run their speed tests, etc. Get all your friends to do the same, even if they have to sign on with a dial-up internet connection to do it.

Who knows if it will make any difference, but they are building a database of underserved areas.... and there may be government action, incentives, etc, to improve matters now or in the future. I assume the more reports they get for an area from different people, the more likely someone is to take notice and move that area "higher up on the list" of areas that are suffering from poor choice, incumbent monopolization, etc.

No where in the article does it say that Google/Verizon laid out the specifics. No where in the article does it say that the G/V plan forces the FCC to do anything. In fact, it is the Democrats that are the ones urging the FCC to take action.

It doesn't have to say in the article. We've already seen the framework proposal from Google/Verizon. So have they, or they wouldn't be bitching and moaning. And it is immaterial that Google/Verizon are not forcing the FCC to do anything. I didn't assume, say, or otherwise imply that they were. The Democrats are urging the FCC to take action. So are Google, Verizon, and other groups with political or philosophical interests in the matter.

Well, they reference this: http://www.broadband.gov/the-third-way-narrowly-tailored-broadband-framework-chairman-julius-genachowski.html

Which is, interestingly, the FCC Chariman's proposal. Not a congressional one. And literally, cannot be implemented. Because it cherrypicks which parts of the Telecomm act to apply to broadband providers. So, I will retract one part of my original post. They did have someone else's proposal to latch on to. Although it seems rather useless to suggest an alternative proposal that can't be used because Congress has to change the law.. Also, the Google/Verizon framework is specific enough that the FCC could make a ruling on a case with it. The FCC Chairman's is legally impossible.

Google and Verizon, at least, believe that their framework can be partially implemented under FCC authority now. I don't know if they're right about that. That would require more legal ability than I possess. But I know the issue has been around for years and gone nowhere. I stand by the "we don't like it, we have no ideas of our own, do something that doesn't piss us off" bits of my original translation.

Personally, I think the Google/Verizon solution is .. pragmatic. Thats about all I can say about it. The FCC chair's is currently dead, legally. On the other hand, the solution I would prefer is wildly idealistic and as such won't happen, ever.

The vast majority of people have access to only one or two ISPs.

Here is the source of the graph in your link. It only allows for a maximum of 3 wireless providers ("either DSL or fiber, the cable incumbent and a cable over-builder"). It counts DSL as one provider, even though a customer with a DSL line may choose from multiple ISPs. It doesn't count leased lines, wireless ISPs, satellite broadband, or mobile broadband.

So it doesn't support your claim that most people have access to only one or two [broadband] ISPs.

This headline and summary blow and are almost exactly contrary to the facts. The FCC's position, as outlined here is that the FCC is identifying *only* the transmission component of broadband as a telecom service. In practical terms, this means precisely that they will *not* pursue net neutrality-based oversight at this time, and will ignore content-related matters in favor of simple access and transmission oversight.

In other words, the "web" itself is exactly the thing they are not trying to take greater control of.

I appreciate your attempt to clarify exactly what this means, but after reading the FCC statement, I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm not sure I disagree with you either, though because the meaning of it is really unclear.

My interpretation of the statement was that the FCC is simply stating that they won't regulate content on the internet (as on TV), but will regulate the transmission of services (as in telephone).

In fact, one of their arguments is that that their position does nothing but ensure the status quo prior to the Comcast incident--that the government is not enacting anything which results in increased regulation above and beyond what was already present de facto prior to Comcast.

I fail to see how this isn't adopting a net neutrality principle, at least as far as "net neutrality" means. However, if someone reads it differently, I'm honestly interested in hearing the explanation, because I'm not following.

This headline and summary blow and are almost exactly contrary to the facts. The FCC's position, as outlined here is that the FCC is identifying *only* the transmission component of broadband as a telecom service. In practical terms, this means precisely that they will *not* pursue net neutrality-based oversight at this time, and will ignore content-related matters in favor of simple access and transmission oversight.

In other words, the "web" itself is exactly the thing they are not trying to take greater control of.

For the details, you can head on over to The FCC's site and read their headlines released on today's (5/6/2010) date. Also, the general counsel of the FCC gives a decent explanation of what the FCC is trying to achieve here and you can read the chairman's remarks on the matter here. The rest of the headlines are in pdf format and I haven't bothered to read them yet as I prefer HTML.

The approach the FCC seems to want to take is applying very select sections of Title II regulations to Comcast while still keeping all ISP's classified in the manner they are. They seem to think this is the best approach because it will give the FCC the authority to step in on ISP business when necessary, without giving the FCC sweeping authority to over-regulate the internet as some 'dotters have worried about. All in all, it seems like, theoretically, a nice approach to take. Of course, there was so much legal jargon in the statements made that I am certain both sides in the Comcast case will find all sorts of loopholes to exploit if things don't go their way in the future. Then again, this kind of political maneuvering really isn't my field so I am not one to judge the matter particularly well.

For the details, you can head on over to The FCC's site and read their headlines released on today's (5/6/2010) date. Also, the general counsel of the FCC gives a decent explanation of what the FCC is trying to achieve here and you can read the chairman's remarks on the matter here. The rest of the headlines are in pdf format and I haven't bothered to read them yet as I prefer HTML.

The approach the FCC seems to want to take is applying very select sections of Title II regulations to Comcast while still keeping all ISP's classified in the manner they are. They seem to think this is the best approach because it will give the FCC the authority to step in on ISP business when necessary, without giving the FCC sweeping authority to over-regulate the internet as some 'dotters have worried about. All in all, it seems like, theoretically, a nice approach to take. Of course, there was so much legal jargon in the statements made that I am certain both sides in the Comcast case will find all sorts of loopholes to exploit if things don't go their way in the future. Then again, this kind of political maneuvering really isn't my field so I am not one to judge the matter particularly well.

My point is that, because A) 100Mbps service will most likely NOT include 100Mbps upload speed (or even 50Mbps upload speed, most likely), and B) I don't *think* the backbones can actually handle millions of users all transferring 100Mbps data at the same time, that I *still think* the usage cases you bring are still not going to happen?

Why would you criticize the plan based on the assumption that it will reach part of its target (100 million homes with 100 Mbps real download speed) but not assume part of the same target (that those same homes would also have 50 Mbps real upload speed.)

Does this FCC proposal even *address* upload speeds?

Yes, in the very same sentence that it addresses download speeds.

Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.

Suggestion, at least skim the plan for the specific things you want to criticize it based on before criticizing it.