Slashdot Mirror
Broadband Data Improvement Act Clears Committee
MBCook writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the Broadband Data Improvement Act has left committee with a unanimous vote. Among the changes proposed are requiring the definition of 'second generation broadband' (enough to carry HDTV) instead of the current definition of broadband as 200Kbps, and aggregating the data by ZIP+4 instead of just the full ZIP code. The act can now move to the full Senate."
Isn't this par for the course in almost all fields, not just broadband market? In almost every thing the Congress does there is an interest group that funds studies, think tanks, policy white papers all designed to muddy the waters. Everywhere, ODF adoption, credit report freeze, bankruptcy reform, S-Chip, ID vs Evolution ... There is this huge industry whose sole purpose is to force the lawmakers and the public to act in the dark and providing inaccurate and misleading information. Why single out broadband alone?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You are moving too fast, Politicians are not concerned with the details. They have been advised that broadband sucks. The details of making broadband suck less are left to the providers and they will pass that cost on to us........
K
Note they aren't mandating 2nd-generation broadband that is a DEFINITION. And it's good they did that, because oftentimes I see advertisements for "broadband" internet that is just a few touches better than a 56k. That's why House Democrats called for a higher definition, right now, that definition includes any connection over 200Kbps, which Markey wants to boost more than 10 times. I doubt anyone on /. would consider 200kbps as "broadband."
Now we'll finally know if crucial ZIP+4 zones like my regional IRS tax return mail basket are getting suitable broadband hookups.
This bill was written solely to upset the current relatively free market of broadband. Because the government will set "standards" of speed, this leaves smaller providers -- who may still be able to provide acceptable speeds -- out of the market. If you won't be able to give the minimum, get out of the market.
Here's why I am against Net Neutrality -- instead of providing for a truly "neutral" pipe, regulations like these will be written by the strongest elements in a market, designed to kill the smaller competitors. It is unfortunate if geeks and techies support these kinds of bills, especially without reading them fully. There is no Constitutional power allocated to the Senate to REQUIRE levels of service. The interstate commerce clause was written so that the Federal government can restrain the individual States from harming commerce -- the word "regulate" in the Constitution did not mean what we think it means today.
Very, very unfortunate.
Internet News has more details and analysis of the act, including comments from Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who voted for the bill but expressed reservations:
"I worry that the provisions addressing broadband speeds and smaller geographic areas in this bill could inadvertently paint a picture of an America without broadband that is not accurate," he said in a statement... I am not sure that Congress, rather than the FCC, should be getting into this level of detail, particularly given technological changes, such as compression technologies that could make these standards a moving target."
I'm not sure I agree with him that the "America with broadband" picture is inaccurate. By most other modern countries' standards, we are far behind.
I disagree, this is a case where the market will adjust because of competition with the end result being overall faster connections for everyone for probably the same prices. This bill does nothing to force improvements or upgrades. What it does do is actually put a realistic definition on the word broadband. So you'll no longer get all those adverts in the mail from verizon dsl or comcast cable telling you how you can have high speed broadband for $19/mo when in reality it is a 750/128 connection. Although I'm still a little bit grey on whether this applies to the current broadband or this broadband 2 or whatever the word was.
In the cut throat isp business eventually one of the big players will push the envelope and actually offer a true broadband for a decent price, and everyone else will have to scramble to adjust, starting a price war.
Sure, initially people who want a faster connection will pay a bit more, but this is a case where the market will adjust for it pretty quick. Competition is just too fierce for it not to. And a price war between two 800lb gorillas (cable vs phone) can be nothing but good for consumers.
29.99, ADSL2+, includes TV and free international calls (VoIP). Free modem and HDTV PVR set top box provided.
All that in socialist France. The only gov't improvement is in aggressively enforcing competition. You know, the real free market thing, not that corrupt semi-fascist oligarchy you have in the US.
..where it was promptly shot down by senators who listened to the lobbyists who went on and on about how it would bankrupt their companies, when in reality, they would just pass the cost directly to the consumer.
"Oh, BTW, we're increaseing your rates by $100 a month, starting three months ago. Congress is forcing us to do this, we'll call it the broadband tax."
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
"This bill was written solely to upset the current relatively free market of broadband. "
Because we have an aggressively pro-competition regulating agency in France, you have a dozen way to get broadband in most cities. And you basically can't get anything below ADSL2+ those days.
At the moment I pay 29 euros a month for 24/1Mbps, HDTV service, and free international phone (analog and voip). They also provide me with a free router, Wifi AP, HDTV PVR set top box and analog telephone adaptor.
No cap on data, no filtering whatsoever, no shaping. Quality of service is good, and has been improving steadily. You have the occasional day long outage (two last years, none this year so far), but other than that downloading speeds are stable and pretty much max out my line 24/7.
And the reason for this is that ARCEPT has been given a lot of power to enforce competition in the broadcast market. None of those services are subsidised. They haven't been so successful with cellphone, OTOH. But they're working on it.
You are a socialist. I hate that you get a better deal than me.
Even though we were born of your enlightenment, we hate you. Frenchy.
Besides, we don't even like the Statue of Liberty.
Get your Unix fortune now!