Slashdot Mirror
FCC Revises Broadband Penetration Metrics
joelt49 writes "Ars Technica reports that the FCC has revised its broadband penetration metric. Previously, if only one subscriber in a zip code received connectivity at 200 Kbps, then the entire zip code was considered to have broadband access. Now, the FCC will count the number of subscribers in census tracts. The FCC has also revised its definition of broadband; previously, it was anything over 200 Kbps. Now, speeds between 200 and 768 Kbps are considered 'First-Generation' broadband, and speeds up to 1.5 Mbps are considered 'Basic' broadband." Unfortunately, the FCC has decided to keep all this new data to themselves.
Isn't the FCC a federal agency, subject to FOIA? It's not like they can label such basic data as a state secret or something.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The F in FCC stands for fsck!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Once the Obama administration comes in and sets the white house in order, a good indicator that he's keeping his campaign promises would be the opening of this kind of data (if the FCC doesn't see the light beforehand).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
768 Kbps are considered 'First-Generation' broadband, and speeds up to 1.5 Mbps are considered 'Basic' broadband.
Hello, cable operators, how you doin? I see the FCC is still fondling your genitals.
So - is that maximum speed? Typical speed at peak time? How about sustained speed before you get your account cancelled?
How about this - is that up or down? It's the friggin' Internet - it's supposed to be bidirectional, remember?
Good to see the FCC was willing to look past all that and just write what the cable operators told them to write.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
(yeah yeah. lameness filter. yeah yeah.) Some more antilameness filter. And some more. There is also the issue of the antilameness filter. It really sucks.
Why must there be a federal organization to handle crap like this? Customers can't find this stuff out on their own, or choose not to go with a provider that does not make such information available?
Next they're gonna start saying toilet paper doesn't count as kleenex and can't be used as such. Well, damnit, I say it can be.
To permit some public entity like, say, power districts, to provide citizens access to the post roads of the 21st century.
I read about that somewhere, but I've misplaced the reference...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Hey, if the government is putting together a report for its own purposes, and there's no state secret involved, there's really no reason to NOT publish the data...
Joe Blow is paying a pretty good chunk of taxes for this report. Indeed, given that the government is in debt such that each and every American is at least 20k in hoc, the least the FCC can do is publish the report it already paid for. Is it really cost that much to put a link on its web site and upload it?
This is my sig.
FCC: You can't handle the data
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
And they've labeled cable broadband like 7000-8000kbps Road Runner as "real broadband." Hey here's an even better idea. For those "basic broadband" numbers, they should if people are actually getting 1.5mbps or if they're dipping into the "first generation" category in actual speeds. I don't know one single DSL provider that ever gives remotely close to what they promise as a top speed.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
"...with the family down the street/Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet."
I couldn't think of anything else once I heard what those snake-oil salesmen at the FCC were passing off as "broadband". No wonder the Europeans are laughing their asses off.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Because using this new method of measuring, the US comes out level with Albania, but still ahead (though only very slighly) of North Korea.
My ass.
What we therefore need is somebody or some organization (GOOGLE, ARE YOU LISTENING???!!!) to fund the acquisition of around 1000 (why not 1024?) network analyzers to put into the hands of local community groups which could then go door-to-door performing network penetrations testing.
On the ONE hand, *fuck* the FCC, if they won't share the info without the public having to FIGHT for its contents. Japan and Korea and probably even Saudi Arabia and the UAE have better "penetration" than we do here. On the OTHER hand, it's good that the FCC IS out there differentiating the types of access and levels of penetration.
But, obviously, they are beholden to broadband and other interests trying to jockey around for marketability of the information. THIS, therefore, is the PERFECT "open source" activity for nerds, their friends, families and others to join in on.
But, if this penetration assessment campaign (hey, PAC) gains traction, we can visualize the local police and neighborhood watch people being told by Comcast, AT&T, Cox and others to not allow in their homes anyone not a badge-wearing utilities representative. So, for that, then, just ask them to run a 50-foot cable into the door, plug it in, and let them watch the hand-held scanner.
To "warnings" about viruses? Well, then, ask them just how protected THEY are even without the presence of the PAC people at their door...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"But once they do compile it, it rightfully belongs to the people."
Let's follow the logic. The government demands people give up money. People give into those demands (some willingly, others not). They use the money to demand companies give up information. The companies give into the demand and give up the information. So the information rightfully belongs to the people?
No, it rightfully belongs to the companies. The government should give back that information to the respective companies (and destroy its own records), compensate those companies for the work load that was incurred to give into the government's demands, and compensate the public for forcibly taking away a portion of their income.
Some people might think the internet and e-commerce will figure more and more into the future of a nation's economic fitness in an increasingly globally connected and digital world. Those people might want to know how we're doing in terms of the basic network infrastucture with which we'll be competing in said world. Might be a little more important than wiping your nose.
"Those people might want to know how we're doing in terms of the basic network infrastucture with which we'll be competing in said world."
If there is such a demand, surely a private organization will move in to fill that demand. Why is a federal service necessary in this case?
Modded troll? I thought that was only for people who stated opinions they didn't actually believe in order to rile people up. I back what I am saying 100%.
Maybe it's just accepted practice to mod people down who you are too mentally incompetent to refute.
I totally want to do Sleater-Kinney
More music, fewer hits
I wish the FCC required all ISPs to provide the following information, as part of some truth in advertising rule...
Maximum RAW data speed (up/down)
Average RAW speed off peak ours (up/down)
Average RAW speed on peak ours (up/down)
Average ping to first backbone on peak
average ping to backbone off peak
Then I could make a real broadband decision based on merits rather than the pictures of pretty people that the marketing folks decide to put on the websites.
+5 Insightful? I actually thought that OP was going for the "Funny" mod. Especially the first line:
Once the Obama administration comes in and sets the white house in orderThat part had me in stitches...
http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
Ah, the cherished "free market." The free market will fix all our ills. Just look at what it has done to our health care "system." Or gas prices. Or food prices.
No, the free market is only efficient at funneling profits to those at the top of the economic ladder. We need government regulation to ensure equal access. There are some markets where broadband may not be profitable operations, so there will be no broadband offered unless the government mandates it. Keeping these metrics helps us better understand which areas are under-served and thus require more regulation.
I don't know the specifics of this case, but I suspect the same sort of logic that created the Tennessee Valley Authority may be at play. It is often in the public's interest for the government to step in and either directly provide or mandate to private corporations that they provide service in areas that would ordinarily be ignored.
Touche!
Anyone else read this headline and think the FCC is measuring how much porn we're downloading?
Beyond that, what would you do if none of the providers (Cable, DSL, or otherwise) made such information available and were not compelled to do so? Would you go without? Or would you relax your demands and choose one of them anyway? Seeing as you are posting on Slashdot, I think I can guess the answer.
And how do you propose said private organization get at this "private" information (your words, used further up the discussion list)? Surely the companies won't willingly give this information up to a private organization unless there's something in it for them. That usually means money, and large amounts of it, which create a very high barrier to entry for such an organization. That or else government legislation. Oh wait, that's what the FCC is doing.
Cynical Idealist
The summary doesn't really make sense, given that "broadband" doesn't mean what the author (nor apparently the FCC) seem to want it to mean.
Alternatively, perhaps the FDA could put out a memorandum reclassifying spatulas as "spools", just because it sounds cooler to the layperson.
myselfmusic
I'm in Montana, and our 'penetration' is pretty poor. We have good coverage in all the "major" towns, but I'd estimate half of the state population has NO access to cable/DSL.
Our major provider does pretty good, if you live in a town over about 20,000 you can get a 15mbps x 1mbps for around $60. They don't throttle your torrents or drop your service for sucking up your whole connection, either.
Qwest still blows along at their garbage 1.5 DSL that only gives you 1.5 if you're within spitting distance of their offices.
If you remember, he signed a pledge to do the whole public financing thing, but backed out when he was actually competitive.
He did it because public financing isn't a realistic choice any longer--so backing out is a reasonable choice, the only one to make. But he broke the promise, and he didn't have the guts to admit it on TV, doing typical doublespeak around the issue. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he admitted it.
> Isn't the FCC a federal agency, subject to FOIA?
The telcos don't gather the data you want in the first place. Because they were only required to gather it by zip code, that's ALL they gathered (or, at least, all they gave to the FCC). You can't issue a FOIA request for data that doesn't exist. The whole point of this is to make them gather more reasonable data.
But how low will they go?
200 kbps is about ten times faster than connections in my 'census tract', and all the ones adjacent.
Where I live, a fast internet connection is 21.6 kbps! People who live close enough to the phone box get 28.8 - they're the lucky ones.
There is still plenty of the country which receives no broadband coverage. Perhaps the nice folks at the FCC would consider counting people who's telephone service hasn't been upgraded since multiplexers did away with the old "party lines". For you young'uns; in the olden times you could listen in on your neighbors phone calls just by picking up the receiver.
Now there's First Generation and Second Generation broadband. It's a real shame that people who live in rural areas get passed over in these kinds of things.
I have two fat fiber optic cables strung across my property, They belong to AT-n-T; which is unfortunate as Verizon is our local phone company.
If we're lucky, Verizon will build a cel tower nearby soon. Then we'll be able to pay inflated rates for that service to help cover the additional expense of having to provide service in such a low-profit census tract.
Why must there be a federal organization to handle crap like this?
Because the companies won't compile the data, and those that want to lie about it can (to sue over a lie, you must be harmed, who can show an actual harm if SBC claims 80% penetration of "high speed Internet" when it's really 30%?). So the only way for citizens to be able to make informed decisions is to have an organization assist them with the information gathering.
Customers can't find this stuff out on their own, or choose not to go with a provider that does not make such information available?
Most places have two choices of providers. If both agree to not make the information available, it isn't available and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Add in that one or both are partially funded with government/citizen money, then there is some accountability to the government/people. This is just a rule to verify accountability and track the use of government money.
Learn to love Alaska
For all the trolls/marketeers on /. that downgraded or insulted those of us on /. that told you that Broadband in the USA was an advert-lie %~P.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
1. get a gauge on general broadband penetration
2. get a gauge on commerce and digital usage and fesability of govenment based broadband projects
3. report usage to global accunting
4. use as ammunition for net neutrality issues
5. use statistics to attract business to highly penetrated areas
6. use statistics to warrant funding for broadband expansion by public utilities in order to increase broadband penetration
and the list goes on and on....
metrics are very important to both commercial and government sector industries as it is a level of proof of 'X' to be able to initiate programs and such
They've tried a few pilots in the lowest density counties that major providers refused to serve. They deliver 100Mbps for about $50 a month. The fiber hardware goes to gigabit. Apparently it's embarrassing for a government agency to make that much of a profit even at that rate. There won't be any new pilots I don't think.
The bill on its first reading was received so well that they pulled its teeth without it actually being read. The revised bill is not going to get any more or better broadband to the people than have it now - not that it stands a chance of passing anyway.
The incumbent providers have divvied up the market and they have figured out that $60-80 is what people can pay no matter how fast it is. They're not going to invest in infrastructure to make it faster with no competition and no hope of higher revenues.
Every government agency I know of either has online information access or is busting their hump to provide it. It's a shame they won't come the last mile, even to serve the disabled who can't get in the car and drive down to the DMV. The Internet really is the post road of the 21st century. The government should just mandate it -- serve these customers, or we will. But they won't. Incumbent providers have this one in the bag.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I'm reasonably sure you're misinformed - which is understandable, because the media has gotten worse and worse about accurate reporting in recent years.*
Obama promised to run a publicly funded campaign IF HIS OPPONENT(s) ALSO AGREED TO DO SO. His opponents have not. He did not agree to run with one hand tied behind his back while his opponents weren't restricted, only to have a fair publicly funded competition. Honestly given their relative funding this might be a great idea for McCain at this point - but that doesn't mean I see it happening.
However, I'll completely agree that I haven't bothered to look this up, because I just don't care enough.
*I'm not primarily accusing the media of bias here, although it certainly exists in many directions and has gotten worse as a lot of news has funneled through very outlets owned by just a couple people. But when they aren't being biased, they're at least being sensationalist, superficial, and non-critical.
Also their focus on "balanced" instead of "accurate" is pretty disappointing. Equal time to two people with each of two opposite positions isn't good reporting if one of them has a minority opinion refuted by almost everybody and the other represents a consensus of the majority of scientists. I'm not saying you should never present a minority opinion, but it's your job to make sure you SAY that it's the minority opinion. Or when you present Lieberman as the "Democrat" in something, after he left the party. etc.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot