Slashdot Mirror

Just a comment...when you hear someone talk about the US expanding broadband access consider that it is up to the individual country to define what constitutes broadband. For the US (as defined by the FCC), it's a connection that provides at least 200 kbps one way. The other direction can be much slower. For comparison, Canada defines broadband as at least 1.5 mbps both ways. I believe the UK defines it as at least 256 kbps one way.

In any case, almost all DSL connections in the US would be classified broadband by the FCC. This of course is not to say they should be. Almost everyone would agree that 200 kbps is not sufficent for any interactive digital technology other than web browsing. At the current trend the FCC will fail to meet the requirements for US broadband penetration by the year 2007 as it is defined by the 1996 Telecommunications Act (which defines broadband as a connection capable of originating and receiving high-quality voice, data , graphics, and video communications using any technology). Of course, it will be highly unlikely that there will be any negative consequences because of the failure either.

These figures are from the Free Press 2005 broadband report (warning, PDF link).

Just a comment...when you hear someone talk about the US expanding broadband access consider that it is up to the individual country to define what constitutes broadband. For the US (as defined by the FCC), it's a connection that provides at least 200 kbps one way. The other direction can be much slower. For comparison, Canada defines broadband as at least 1.5 mbps both ways. I believe the UK defines it as at least 256 kbps one way.

In any case, almost all DSL connections in the US would be classified broadband by the FCC. This of course is not to say they should be. Almost everyone would agree that 200 kbps is not sufficent for any interactive digital technology other than web browsing. At the current trend the FCC will fail to meet the requirements for US broadband penetration by the year 2007 as it is defined by the 1996 Telecommunications Act (which defines broadband as a connection capable of originating and receiving high-quality voice, data , graphics, and video communications using any technology). Of course, it will be highly unlikely that there will be any negative consequences because of the failure either.

These figures are from the Free Press 2005 broadband report (warning, PDF link).

because according to this report, this is sorely needed.

Actually I don't mix WiFi and broadband at all. I simply changed the subject. My issue is broadband and the fact that the US is falling behind. (We are also falling behind in math and science training for students). Most of the international stats came from a NYTimes article by Friedman . I also highly recommend his book "the world is flat"

Just a few miles to the south of Orlando a backwater town named St. Cloud also is experimenting. St. Cloud experimental WiFi area covers the whole downtown (not just a park for the homeless and a few joggers like in Orlando) & St. Cloud hospital's Home Health Division is using the subsidized WiFi to reach patients that are in this downtown area.

St. Cloud hospital is currently working on technology that would allow tel-medicine to reach folks at home thereby reducing the need to travel to a doctor's office for treatment. Not only is this more convenient for those that are ill, but eventually this technology may reduce the spread of infections as folks can recover at their own home rather than risk infecting others or themselves becoming infected with other pathogens. Wireless technology is vital to implementing this technology that help lower the costs of heath care. (The above info was from a letter to me from the hospital director). The phone and cable companies are getting legislation passed that will prevent towns from even experimenting and that I what I oppose.

as for Orlando trying (and failing) WiFi I think this is healthy. I am glad the government tried and I am glad they literally pulled the plug when they failed.

It is a shame that we will all click and post on a issue but very few of us will actually do something about it. The fight over Community Internet has reached Capitol Hill. A bill in the House would prevent cities and towns anywhere from providing high-speed Internet access OR WiFi. Send a letter now

Actually I don't mix WiFi and broadband at all. I simply changed the subject. My issue is broadband and the fact that the US is falling behind. (We are also falling behind in math and science training for students). Most of the international stats came from a NYTimes article by Friedman . I also highly recommend his book "the world is flat"

Just a few miles to the south of Orlando a backwater town named St. Cloud also is experimenting. St. Cloud experimental WiFi area covers the whole downtown (not just a park for the homeless and a few joggers like in Orlando) & St. Cloud hospital's Home Health Division is using the subsidized WiFi to reach patients that are in this downtown area.

St. Cloud hospital is currently working on technology that would allow tel-medicine to reach folks at home thereby reducing the need to travel to a doctor's office for treatment. Not only is this more convenient for those that are ill, but eventually this technology may reduce the spread of infections as folks can recover at their own home rather than risk infecting others or themselves becoming infected with other pathogens. Wireless technology is vital to implementing this technology that help lower the costs of heath care. (The above info was from a letter to me from the hospital director). The phone and cable companies are getting legislation passed that will prevent towns from even experimenting and that I what I oppose.

as for Orlando trying (and failing) WiFi I think this is healthy. I am glad the government tried and I am glad they literally pulled the plug when they failed.

It is a shame that we will all click and post on a issue but very few of us will actually do something about it. The fight over Community Internet has reached Capitol Hill. A bill in the House would prevent cities and towns anywhere from providing high-speed Internet access OR WiFi. Send a letter now

Actually I don't mix WiFi and broadband at all. I simply changed the subject. My issue is broadband and the fact that the US is falling behind. (We are also falling behind in math and science training for students). Most of the international stats came from a NYTimes article by Friedman . I also highly recommend his book "the world is flat"

Just a few miles to the south of Orlando a backwater town named St. Cloud also is experimenting. St. Cloud experimental WiFi area covers the whole downtown (not just a park for the homeless and a few joggers like in Orlando) & St. Cloud hospital's Home Health Division is using the subsidized WiFi to reach patients that are in this downtown area.

St. Cloud hospital is currently working on technology that would allow tel-medicine to reach folks at home thereby reducing the need to travel to a doctor's office for treatment. Not only is this more convenient for those that are ill, but eventually this technology may reduce the spread of infections as folks can recover at their own home rather than risk infecting others or themselves becoming infected with other pathogens. Wireless technology is vital to implementing this technology that help lower the costs of heath care. (The above info was from a letter to me from the hospital director). The phone and cable companies are getting legislation passed that will prevent towns from even experimenting and that I what I oppose.

as for Orlando trying (and failing) WiFi I think this is healthy. I am glad the government tried and I am glad they literally pulled the plug when they failed.

It is a shame that we will all click and post on a issue but very few of us will actually do something about it. The fight over Community Internet has reached Capitol Hill. A bill in the House would prevent cities and towns anywhere from providing high-speed Internet access OR WiFi. Send a letter now

Actually in most parts of the US towns and counties can still do this. However Rep. Pete Sessions has introduced federal legislation that would prevent cities across the country from providing their citizens with Internet access.

Community Internet could provide citizens everywhere with affordable, universal access to high-speed broadband services. New wireless and wired technologies allow local governments, schools, public-private partnerships, non-profits and community organizations to offer faster, cheaper and more reliable service than ever before. But the biggest telecom and cable companies are fighting these alternatives every step of the way.

NEW REPORTS: Three newly released reports make a definitive case for municipal broadband and counter the telecom and cable companies misinformation campaigns.

Read the Reports.

Read a letter from the broad coalition supporting Community Internet.

Actually in most parts of the US towns and counties can still do this. However Rep. Pete Sessions has introduced federal legislation that would prevent cities across the country from providing their citizens with Internet access.

Community Internet could provide citizens everywhere with affordable, universal access to high-speed broadband services. New wireless and wired technologies allow local governments, schools, public-private partnerships, non-profits and community organizations to offer faster, cheaper and more reliable service than ever before. But the biggest telecom and cable companies are fighting these alternatives every step of the way.

NEW REPORTS: Three newly released reports make a definitive case for municipal broadband and counter the telecom and cable companies misinformation campaigns.

Read the Reports.

Read a letter from the broad coalition supporting Community Internet.

So many communities have made good on the promise of municipal broadband, that industry is getting nervous about a competitor with a public motive, not a profit motive. The bills they are pushing in the statehouse would cripple new community efforts to offer broadband and strand much of Florida on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The telecom and cable companies backing this legislation thought it would be a cakewalk. But a determined grassroots coalition has emerged to defend the right of local communities to decide how to best serve their own citizens.

Join the effort. Sign the Free Press petition, and tell the Florida legislature: "Don't Mess with Community Internet."

http://www.freepress.net/action/FLinternet

Hi all. I actually wrote that article for my blog MediaCitizen. How it ended up on Progressive Trail is beyond me. I submitted it to SlashDot but, as with everything else I have written it too was rejected. hmmmmmm . . . . I'm pleased your reading it now and providing intelligent repartee. You might be interested in my sock puppet report there as well. We have just published a separate report debunking the lies of these coin-operated think tanks at Free Press. Check it out.

Because the vast majority of CO, like most Western states, is rural. There is no cable, no DSL, and no cell phones. There's no plan whatsoever from "private corporations" to move into such unprofitable areas. The only option is to form co-ops or muni access. SB 152 as originally written, would have made these options impossible and even made existing co-op/munis illegal, like this: http://www.freepress.net/news/7060

http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/=CO

SB 152 was a POS legislation from the get-go, and many of us Coloradoans have been actively lobbying against it. State senator Jennifer Viega threw this gem together to pay back the telcos that financed her campaign. While the revised bill passed is better than the original, it's still bad news for municipal services.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/arti cle/0,1299,DRMN_38_3545616,00.html

Dont pay any attention to what the telco's say to your face. Here is the map of where they have already been lobbying and where it is now against the law to provide free WiFi.

http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/=munibr oad/

It's not "Free Pass", it's Free Press. It's not surprising you got it wrong, most people have no idea of the concept.

According to this, Indiana (my oh-so-flat state) has killed the proposed legislation.

"On Feb. 16, the Local Government Committee killed House Bill 1148. The bill, championed by SBC Communications, would have prohibited Indiana cities and towns from providing municipal broadband services."

At least someone sees the danger. That, or maybe my congressman is paying too much for broadband like the rest of us.

The bill in the works for Texas would kill not only municipal internet service but could be used to shut down municipal web sites, information channels, etc. "Information" services is a large amount of stuff to block with a single piece of legislation.
http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/=TXbill
Under the bill, municipalities and municipal electric utilities would be prohibited from providing, directly or indirectly, alone or in partnership with other service providers, either "telecommunications" or "information" services as those terms are defined under federal law.

He lost my vote.

I found this from Bill Maher message board:

Freepress.net has a site all set up for protests. You enter your zip and it will give you numbers/addresses of stations near your zip. It ALSO has a PETITION to send to the FCC.

Go to http://www.freepress.net/sinclair/ and enter your zip, sign the petition. It may not accomplish much, but it'll feel good to 'express' your distaste.

US citizens can voice their displeasure here.

I wouldn't bet on it. Even the Republican Congress has not gone along with everything the FCC has wanted to do

Stars don't run Hollywood. Hollywood is run by movie and TV studios/networks, and their corporate owners. Like Disney/ABC, TimeWarner/CNN, NewsCorp/Fox, GE/NBC, and Viacom/CBS. Actors, like other rich people, can donate to whomever they like - unlike other rich people, they're the minority who donate to Democrats, and get press coverage for their politics. The media corporations are ignored by their press, as they create these national politicians. And the sense that a raise in the minimum wage is very, very far left, while 2 billion Chinese people are communists.

It's about time for everybody to stand up to those fuckheads at the FCC.

The FCC is supposed to represent the people. Unfortunately, like politicians, they seem to be more responsive to the biggest corporations, which is why they are doing this.

However they do listen.

Two FCC Commissioners recently held a townhall meeting in Portland, Oregon to hear what real people want from the FCC. Note that these two (out of five I think) were opposed to the proposal to even further deregulate the mainstream media's ability to consolidate and tighten the media monopoly.

When Janet's nipple was shown on TV Focus on the Family got something like 40,000 letters written to the FCC to complain.

We can do better than that. Write to them and tell them you don't care about nipples or the seven words George Carlin supposidly can't say on television. What you want is control over your own electronic devices, and more diversity in the media.

Or whatever it is that you want from them. They are supposed to serve us, not dictate to us.

You _do_ understand that the Low Power Radio Act of 2004 (which would deploy LPFM on a mass scale) is RIGHT NOW before the Senate and that a campaign is underway to rally support for this act.

There has been a proposal to do exactly this, however the broadcast industry purchased a vote by Congress to override the FCC's technical plan. Recently a followup study found the interference concerns were without merit, look for legislation to be introduced very soon that will allow thousands of low power FM stations to be licensed.

For background see the Free Press LPFM page.

The FCC proposed doing just what you have said is impossible, that is, licensing thousands of low power FM stations. However, the broadcast industry purchased a vote in Congress to override the FCC's technical findings. They cut the number of stations from thousands to a few hundred by requiring overly strict and told the FCC to study it a second time. The FCC study came back recently with the same results as the first one, thousands of stations can be licensed w/o causing interference.

Watch for a new bill from John McCain to allow thousands of low power FM stations to be licensed. Maybe if you become more informed about the issue you will ask your Congress critters to support this legislation since your interference concerns have been allayed. If you want more info take a look at the Free Press LPFM page