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.

Comments

How can they keep this secret?

[elrous0]

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.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had to change your penetration metrics, would you advertise it? What if the change in metrics show that you cannot penetrate as far, or for as long as you used to? What if they show that you don't penetrate as much as your European or, worse, Asian counterparts?

No, this is very much justified.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[oodaloop]

Yeah, can you imagine the nightmarish Orwelian scenario where citizens wouldn't know how the FCC classified their broadband access in their area? Won't somebody think of the children?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

I'm calling strawman. People are being at best misinformed, at worst outright lied to with the current classification data. You ask why should they give Joe Blow the data? I say for the ability to make an informed decision. More importantly though, why do they feel the need to keep this information private?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[eln]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I think they have pills you can take for that now.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

Umm, I think his point is that they're embarrassed to release this data, because it shows just how far behind the rest of the world they are. He's speculating, but he does have a good point. And let's not fool ourselves, the old metric was a joke and even then/b? the USA didn't always measure up on the global scale.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[value_added]

Yeah, can you imagine the nightmarish Orwelian scenario where citizens wouldn't know how the FCC classified their broadband access in their area?

It's entirely possible that knowing the classification may not help, any more than "Sucks" can be considered an improvement over "Really Sucks", or even "Holy Batman This Really Sucks!".

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"You ask why should they give Joe Blow the data?"

I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information. Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own or choose not to go with a provider that does not make this information available. With enough like-minded individuals the provider will have a huge incentive to make it available.

And as always if the provider misinforms the customer, they can be taken to court.

And of course, if there are no other choices of provider in your area, guess (once again) who you have to thank.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[oodaloop]

Hey, I'm just asking for some sense of proportion here. In general, I believe the government should be open in all matters not related to national security, and even a few that are. But FCC's classification for broadband? Is this really worth getting riled up about? Get upset when people are locked up without seeing a laywer, or when judges are bribed, or kittens are murdered. Getting indignant over this just makes you look like a zealot.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Solandri]

I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information. Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own

Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it. "The government" doesn't pay for anything, the people do. Unless there's a compelling national security reason to keep it secret, the data belongs to the people and should be made available to them. You can argue the FCC shouldn't have compiled this data. But once they do compile it, it rightfully belongs to the people.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

Proportion, fair enough. But we do have to let them know that we notice the small things. If they get into the habit of keeping trivial data from the public with no valid reason, then it's easier for them to keep the important stuff.

Get upset when people are locked up without seeing a laywer, or when judges are bribed, or kittens are murdered.

Who's to say I don't? However, just because the big issues are important doesn't mean that the smaller issues aren't.

Getting indignant over this just makes you look like a zealot.

I'm not indignant, just annoyed. It's up to the public to make sure the government does what we want it to. For the record, I'm actually a Canadian, so your metrics don't phase me in the least. It's the principle behind the matter that bothers me, especially given Harper's tendency to follow suit with the American groupthink.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Vancorps]

Given that billions of tax payer dollars have been used to subsidize broadband in rural areas it would be good to see that our money is being put to good use rather than squandered like we all suspect that it was. I might add that people have been locked up without seeing a lawyer although I'm unsure about the kittens being murdered.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[TubeSteak]

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. It's not a State Secret, it's proprietary business information.
The companies have obviously made a compelling argument for keeping that information confidential.

As a Federal Agency, the FCC can ask for proprietary information & trade secrets, but they cannot disseminate that information to the public.

It's pretty straight forward explanation that doesn't require anyone to get riled up.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

Fair enough, keep trade secrets a secret. That's reasonable. But how on earth do you spin broadband penetration into being a trade secret? They just don't want people to know how much money's been squandered.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[maxume]

They'll just take their time complying, rendering the data marginally useful.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[oodaloop]

I'm unsure about the kittens being murdered I like animals, but there's a few lolcats I wouldn't mind not seeing again, if you catch my drift.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?

To face the consequences of not paying tax.

Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project. All at the expense of the rest of the FCC budget (which should also be eliminated).

Why destroy the information? It's been collected, money's been spent, so why not use it?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Digital End]

Please see my sig for opinion

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Applekid]

And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have? Vote accordingly. FCC chair is a position appointed by elected officials, and are subject to laws passed by Congress.

Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project. The answer again is to vote.

Majority rules (when not doing wonky things with the electoral college), so the idea is to communicate, educate, and inspire others to agree with you and vote for candidates who would be in favor of truly slashing huge rolls of fat in government spending for agencies like the FCC. Sadly, we're talking about the uphill battle of toppling the big two political parties who have no intention of letting in the outsiders in order to do it.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[QRDeNameland]

No, this is very much justified.

Of course it is. Broadband penetration is critically important for the upcoming teledildonics revolution.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"To face the consequences of not paying tax."

The consequences of not allowing the government to violate her right to property? Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right? This is basically the majority imposing on the minority.

"Why destroy the information? It's been collected, money's been spent, so why not use it?"

It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Vote accordingly."

That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade others to vote and think accordingly.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

Wrong and just plain stupid laws still carry consequences. If you break the law, you run the risk of getting punished, no matter how annoying/stupid/evil/unconstitutional the law is. To quote Mr. Thoreau, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.

It's not property. It's information. The two are different, and claiming that they should be treated the same way just confuses issue. After all, there are plenty of good reasons for forcibly tak[ing] information (your words) from corporations and individuals. For example: forcing pharmaceuticals to tell you side effects of their medication, or truth in advertising laws.

That being said, this is not the best way to go about informing the public. The ISPs should have to make it clear what services are available where. However, since the ISPs have received government cash, they should comply with government requests regarding relevant information, and that information should be made public.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[ElleyKitten]

Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project. And where does the money the public should be refunded come from? The government only gets money from us. The refund to ourselves can only come from ourselves, making any kind of refund after money has been spent pointless.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Wrong and just plain stupid laws still carry consequences... [snip] ..."

Who said they don't? I am not for breaking the law. I'm for overturning it. That can only be done by changing the minds of the public - the whole purpose behind my involvement in discussions like this.

"It's not property. It's information."

It's information acquired by force. I have no right to pass out your social security number if I get it out of you by force. Do you agree? Nobody, not even the government, has the right to spread private information that was taken by force.

"For example: forcing pharmaceuticals to tell you side effects of their medication, or truth in advertising laws."

As I said, if something is withheld, and it negatively impacts you, you can take them to court. I covered that in my first post. Just because preemptively forcing someone to do something is more convenient than suing them after the fact, that doesn't make it right.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[aero6dof]

"Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it."

And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?

One has the same choices as anyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values.

Or, you could fall in with the fringe tax protestor crowd that wants so badly to believe that they don't actually have to pay taxes - maybe you could ask Wesley Snipes how that's going...

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[KGIII]

And where does the money the public should be refunded come from? The government only gets money from us. The refund to ourselves can only come from ourselves, making any kind of refund after money has been spent pointless.

Cool! Can I have your tax refund and stimulus check?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"And where does the money the public should be refunded come from?"

The equipment and infrastructure that were used to support the FCC should be sold off to the highest bidders, and that money should be used for compensation.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Applekid]

That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade others to vote and think accordingly. Yup. Brother in arms. :)

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"One has the same choices as anyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values."

That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade more and more members of the public to think likewise, to bring about elected officials that support rights.

"Or, you could fall in with the fringe tax protestor crowd that wants so badly to believe that they don't actually have to pay taxes"

The government does not have the right to tax anyone. It can put down in writing that it has such a right, but it does not make that right a reality. Nothing usurps human rights.

"maybe you could ask Wesley Snipes how that's going"

You've demeaned through association, but you have not refuted anything.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

It's information acquired by force. I have no right to pass out your social security number if I get it out of you by force. Do you agree? Nobody, not even the government, has the right to spread private information that was taken by force.

More strawmen. The government applies legal force such as legislation, taxation, and civil / criminal action to obtain said information (though it's really a threat of force). Getting my social security number out of me is a different matter, as it is a very personal thing (as opposed to the statistical nature of the information the FCC is withholding) and can cause me severe damage. Not to mention it seems that the force required to get my social security number out of me is probably of a more physical nature, or a trick. Even if I willingly give you my SSN for any one of many legal purposes, you can't spread it around because of privacy laws. Please be more careful with your definition of force.

As I said, if something is withheld, and it negatively impacts you, you can take them to court. I covered that in my first post. Just because preemptively forcing someone to do something is more convenient than suing them after the fact, that doesn't make it right.

What if you don't know they're withholding something from you until something bad happens? Like I said, side effects of medication. And besides, suing them will result in the information being placed in the public record through some form of government force (the courts are part of the government, eh), so it's both prudent, expedient, and safer to require certain forms of information be displayed in advance.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[rcw-work]

As a Federal Agency, the FCC can ask for proprietary information & trade secrets, but they cannot disseminate that information to the public.

What does being a federal agency have to do with it? If I ask for and get proprietary information and trade secrets, I can disseminate that information all I want. Unless I signed an NDA. And given the FOIA, wouldn't an NDA signed by a government agency be worthless?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Qzukk]

And as always if the provider misinforms the customer, they can be taken to court.

In your planet, how does the customer find out that he's been misinformed when there is no other source of information but the provider itself?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[TubeSteak]

But how on earth do you spin broadband penetration into being a trade secret? They just don't want people to know how much money's been squandered. I'm not going to dispute that they don't want people to know how much money's been squandered, but the Telcos do have a legitimate interest in keeping their sales figures confidential.

Nobody in their right mind would give their competition a peak into their sales figures. It would allow their competitors to extrapolate how much has been spent in that area, how much profit is being made, etc etc etc.

There's always a balance between corporate interests and the public interest.
The Federal Agency in charge of this issue has decided.
The Telcos really do have a legitimate interest in keeping that info secret.
Don't like it? Complain to your representative.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"In your planet, how does the customer find out that he's been misinformed when there is no other source of information but the provider itself?"

Once they are using the service they will know pretty quickly the accuracy of the claims that were made by the provider to get them to sign the contract.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

These aren't sales figures. This is just figuring out how many people in a given area have a certain type of line. And I'd love to complain, but I doubt they give a rat's ass about some kid in Ottawa.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Qzukk]

if there are no other choices of provider in your area, guess (once again) who you have to thank.

Who, the government? Pfft. I blame the fact that we're so spread out that it would take billions of dollars to rewire everything, and an incomplete network would be worthless without the rest of the country (at the absolute minimum) meaning that a new company could not simply decide to compete in one market and branch out at a later time, their shiny new UselessNet would wither on the vine.

Capitalism is not a magic tool that solves problems, all it does is move money around.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The consequences of not allowing the government to violate her right to property? Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right?

First, I would claim that property is not a human right. I would ask from where the property originally derived. Even were you able to make a claim that a person owns "the sweat of one's brow", for the sake of this arguement, what someone is payed cannot soley be considered the sweat of other people's brows. For instance, milk/bread/foodstuffs require farms, which in turn use some of a limited amount of land. Computers require metals that are mined from the ground in specific locations. Although you can make the claim that the most recent N times that land was purchased using the "sweat of the brow", but traced back far enough, one arrives at the point of initial acquisition. Since this land was merely claimed, there is no inherit moral right to the land. Hence, the original aquisitions arbitraryness propogates through all transactions that derive from it.

In more recent times, virtual homesteading has become a similar concern. One could point to Microsoft as an example of being in a place to claim things early on, and deriving future benefits from early claims.

Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right? T

Second, a government can enforce certain beneficent acts on its citizens, as otherwise a society cannot function. For instance, the government has a right to compel jury duty and the contribution of monies for national defense and public works. If you can tell me how a society could exist where those two things were not required (well, jury duty could be abolished, if that were no longer deemded important from a civil liberties point of view), I would be interested in hearing it. Other human rights, such as the right to free speech, can be overpowered by sufficent societal interest. Free speech does not protect fraud, slander, or yelling "fire" in a public theater.

This is basically the majority imposing on the minority... It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.

I see. I'm sure the Mexicans are delighted we are returning California, the Indians are happy to get their gold mines, oil fields, and hell, most of the continent back, etc.

The reason like it seems like tyranny of the majority is because it is the government's money. People are simply voting on how it is spent. Since the system breaks down if everyone is given a line-item veto on "their" tax dollars, this way seems the only practical one. Lots of people disapprove of tanks; to a large degree it evens out.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Gilmoure]

It's all in how well you use it.

And besides, when you get right down to it, if it works for you and you feel good, who cares how far you penetrate?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[TheRealMindChild]

Well, I'll play the other side of the fence (please note this doesn't confirm or deny my opinion of the situation either way).

Eventually, genetic testing will get cheap. You'll start seeing tests done for $20, buy one get one free on friday's. Somewhere a year or so ago (Please don't hate, I can't find the source), "they" had statistics from a study done, finding, at least in the USofA, that up to one in five children are not from the father who thinks they fathered them. Whether this is accurate or not isn't the issue. When everyone can go get themselves and their children tested for paternity for the price of an outing at a movie, our already broken families are going to break even more. The social impact of such a thing is quite frankly unimaginable... especially when it would likely happen at relatively the same time.

It isn't like you still can't get it done. You just need to explain to a professional why you think it is necessary. I think the GOAL is to hinder an unnecessary social breakdown. Look at the riots that came from the Rodney King beating. Now think about the fallout of millions of men finding out their children aren't biologically theirs.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Qzukk]

Once they are using the service they will know pretty quickly the accuracy of the claims that were made by the provider to get them to sign the contract.

And then the answer is sue? Hmm... I suppose it would be pretty interesting to see a company sue AT&T or a Bell because they chose a location to set up shop for the bandwidth, and demand as damages the cost of relocating the company (breaking contracts, etc), lost business, reprinting letterhead and cards, and so on.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[dodden]

Well said and one more important thing to remember is that it is the govt that created and has allowed the public to use the internet for sharing and using the information provided on the internet. It is provided access to it by ISPs and the ISPs are provided generalized information about the number of users that can connect in the 200K+ limits and combining this with the census information. This provides a method of showing the penetration into the area (zip code). What they know about you specifically is nothing. What they know about the zip code is aggregate and is not able to point to you directly. Now tell me how they ripped and forced you to provide this information. Even if you take a census and they ask the question, it is your choice to provide them that information, to answer the door, or to be factual. This is done by choice here. If they hold a gun to your head and tell you that you will die unless they get the actual data, you then are being forced to provide this data. Now tell me where they forced the data from you? Now to step beyond this ripping and forcing, the data is with good purpose for the general public and especially small businesses that are trying to get a leg up. If they notice that their customers are more likely to be utilizing a faster bandwidth, they will then be able to utilize by developing their website to send a certain kind and type of data. The customers are using slower connections? A different type of data is used. Census data is powerful for the small business owner to be able to leverage what the large conglomerate already buy and sell for data and allows mom and pop to compete.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[AK Marc]

Might as well declare anarchy, invade the military bases, since they belong to us, destroy all utilities, since they use land they never paid for for their pipes and cables, and burn down the White House.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[glittalogik]

Don't stress, your penetration metrics might still be enough for old people in Korea.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[OldHawk777]

That can only be fucking right, obviously.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Ian Alexander]

"Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it." And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have? It's a bit beside the point the GP was making. Mrs. Blow paid for the census, it's just doubly fucking her over if she can't even access the results.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[zippthorne]

We pay for the FCC. They're spending money on this. Therefore, we should have access to the information they're generating. It doesn't matter whether our curiosity is relevant or not, it our money they're spending, and they have to be accountable for it.

There is only one reason for any federal agency to withhold information from the public, and the FCC does not typically have information which is vital to national security to be kept secret. Furthermore, I can't think of any scenario in which broadband penetration statistics could be used by our enemies to harm this nation.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[witherstaff]

The rub is with the monopolistic nature of our telco system it's oftentimes impossible for non-ILECs to put in any sort of broadband. Trade secret on a monopoly network doesn't fly for me. What does make sense is a monopoly protecting their monopoly if the locals don't realize how badly they're getting shafted with our existing telcom infrastructure.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[mobets]

Much like the sibling post:
If inaccurate information about internet connectivity is used as a basis of selecting an area of residence, by the time you are using the service, it is much too late to do anything about it.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Kattspya]

What if you don't want them newfangled Nürnberg (apparently an umlaut is too advanced for slashdot) laws?

One has the same choices as everyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values.

Mod +1 goodwinned

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[igaborf]

As a Federal Agency, the FCC can ask for proprietary information & trade secrets, but they cannot disseminate that information to the public.

Then they can't use that information to make regulatory decisions -- information they use for that purpose must be in the public record, as a recent court decision shows. And surely they are gathering that information in order to inform their regulatory decisions, because what other purpose could they have?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

And why is there no other choice for service in that area? Government restriction. You can't use as an argument for government regulation a status quo that is negatively impacted by government regulation.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Might as well declare anarchy, invade the military bases, since they belong to us, destroy all utilities, since they use land they never paid for for their pipes and cables, and burn down the White House."

Who's supporting anarchy? It is the purpose of the government to defend our rights. It's just that the government has decided it has other purposes, which violate our rights.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[bryce4president]

If you don't like the way the government runs you are free to vote for candidates that you feel will do as you want. Its a government of the "people" not "person" (read:InvisiblePinkUnicorn). Thanks for being so considerate as to take ALL of your fellow countrymen into consideration. I'm glad that only YOU matter.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[bryce4president]

Yes, the government DOES have the right to tax us, because WE gave the government that right.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[pla]

I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information.

Because "We the people" paid for the collection of this information.



Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own or choose not to go with a provider that does not make this information available.

Because Joe can't force his ISP, much less all ISPs, to disclose such information. And as none of them voluntarily disclose this data, Joe has no one to switch to as a means of applying that ever-popular corporate imperialist cop-out, "market pressure".



And as always if the provider misinforms the customer, they can be taken to court

Unless the government decides to give them a pass for selling us all out to the NSA.



And of course, if there are no other choices of provider in your area, guess (once again) who you have to thank.

FCC media consolidation rules, perchance?



I sincerely hope you meant your post as sarcasm, but I didn't detect it as such, so, forgive my tone if I just missed that.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[AK Marc]

The assertion seemed to be that all tax collection was a violation of our rights. An unfunded government is indistinguishable from anarchy. Also, there isn't an agreement on "rights." So to just assert that "the government exists to defend our rights" is a useless platitude until everyone agrees what our rights are.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[ElleyKitten]

Cool! Can I have your tax refund and stimulus check? Your tax refund is basically you just giving the government an interest-free loan. The stimulus checks were economicly stupid. Though I like money, it really wasn't a good plan.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[ElleyKitten]

The equipment and infrastructure that were used to support the FCC should be sold off to the highest bidders, and that money should be used for compensation. Now that makes sense. But you can't make money out of nothing, and you can't refund money to yourself that has already been spent, which is effectively what you were calling for. But, not spending any more money on that waste of time would definately be a good thing.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"An unfunded government is indistinguishable from anarchy."

You're going to have to show some evidence that a voluntarily-funded government is an unfunded government.

"Also, there isn't an agreement on "rights.""

Alright, where do you disagree and why. Or are you just throwing moral relativism at the problem?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[AK Marc]

You're going to have to show some evidence that a voluntarily-funded government is an unfunded government.

Just as soon as you show me a stable government that is voluntarily funded.

Alright, where do you disagree and why. Or are you just throwing moral relativism at the problem?

Moral relativism is always the problem when you are talking about paying to defend rights. Do you have the right to choice, or the right to life? Most believe that you have a right one way or the other, so what right should the government be defending? What if 30% donate to protect choice and 30% donate to protect life? I didn't bring up moral relativism, you did when you claimed that voluntarily funded governments can work.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Just as soon as you show me a stable government that is voluntarily funded."

I proposed a voluntarily funded government as a way of avoiding rights violations. You have equated it with instability. What is your evidence to back up this claim?

"Do you have the right to choice, or the right to life?"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I'm to interpret it as a reference to abortion, then as a rational being I have both rights, but lacking the independence of thought and will, an unborn fetus does not.

"you claimed that voluntarily funded governments can work."

No, I claimed they are a way of avoiding violating the right to property.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[AK Marc]

What is your evidence to back up this claim?

That none exist. Disprove me by showing me one that exists.

If I'm to interpret it as a reference to abortion, then as a rational being I have both rights, but lacking the independence of thought and will, an unborn fetus does not.

You are asserting, without support, that only rational beings have rights. What about those that disagree with you? Just about any government would work if everyone agreed. The problem is that no one agrees. A governemnt is necessarily adversarial for that reason. You attempts to trivialize conflict to "this is what I believe, so it is the truth" with the implication that anyone that disagrees is wrong is a useless stand that is further evidence that your thoughts on government are useless utopian ideals.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"What is your evidence?" - "That none exist."

Argument from ignorance. Either come out and say it's a personal conviction of yours, backed up by no rationale or evidence, or drop your claim altogether.

"You are asserting, without support, that only rational beings have rights."

No, I am asserting that only rational beings have human rights like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

"What about those that disagree with you?"

What rights do they assert humans have, and what rights do they assert an underdeveloped embryo has, and for what reasons?

"You attempts to trivialize conflict to "this is what I believe, so it is the truth" with the implication that anyone that disagrees is wrong is a useless stand that is further evidence that your thoughts on government are useless utopian ideals."

So the measure of truth depends on the usefulness of arguments for convincing others? Or are you attacking my arguments with any other rationale or evidence than that they are "useless".

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[AK Marc]

Either come out and say it's a personal conviction of yours, backed up by no rationale or evidence, or drop your claim altogether.

Sorry, I don't play by your rules. It is a government that can't succeed because there is no government of that kind that has ever succeeded. That's proof, just not what you are looking for. It's easy for you to prove me wrong. Name a government in existance that is solely funded through voluntary payments. When you can do that, you have proven it is viable. Until then, I'll take the lack of that ever happeneing to mean it isn't viable.

What rights do they assert humans have, and what rights do they assert an underdeveloped embryo has, and for what reasons?

You either know the answer to that or you are an idiot. Since you seem so uppity about rhetorical ettiquite, I must assume that you know the answer and are looking for me to answer that which you already know. I will not. If you honestly don't know any of the arguments in use by pro-life advocates, perhaps you should do a little more searching on wikipedia. I know you know the address, you were a smart ass and linked to it earlier.

So the measure of truth depends on the usefulness of arguments for convincing others?

Yes. When the truth isn't an absolute, like what rights a person should have, then beliefs create the reality. If you can't convince someone that you are right, then you are wrong.

Or are you attacking my arguments with any other rationale or evidence than that they are "useless".

Stating your opinion as the truth, then telling other people they are wrong if they can't support their positions better than you did is useless. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything other than you are an ass. If that's your goal, you have succeeded. If you want to convey information, you failed. If you want to convince, you have failed. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, you have failed. If you wanted to harrass others over the Internet because it makes you feel better, then you have succeeded. What is the purpose of your postings?

no!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The F in FCC stands for fsck!

Obama, please prove your platform

[rsborg]

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).

Re:Obama, please prove your platform

[digitrev]

Perhaps it's just my political cynicism showing through, but I personally doubt he'll keep many of his promises, except the really big ones that the news will pick up on. And don't count on a bureaucracy of censors and critics enacting any sort of self improvement. And let's be honest, that's what the FCC is.

Re:Obama, please prove your platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare to be surprised

Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[Bob9113]

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.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[corsec67]

What if the speed they reported is the lowest transfer speed (up or down) that could be obtained continuously for a month?

5GB cap upload? Max reported speed can't be more than: 16 kbps.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[Ark42]

This is so true. What most people don't realize is that bits per second and gigabytes per month are both measuring the same thing, just with different units. Google can do the math for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=5+GB%2Fmonth+in+kbps

The average sustained speed should be what is reported, which would mean factoring the monthly cap to kbps. I don't care if your cable connection is 10mbps and is burtable to 50mbps for 4 seconds if it is limited to even 500 GB/month, because that is just under 1.6mbps average, and my 6.0mbps DSL sustains actual transfer of at least 3 times that speed, even after the DSL overhead.

And yes, up and down should both be reported, or perhaps, the smaller of the two should be what is reported. a 50mbps connection is pretty useless if one direction can only transfer 128kbps.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[corsec67]

And yes, up and down should both be reported, or perhaps, the smaller of the two should be what is reported. a 50mbps connection is pretty useless if one direction can only transfer 128kbps.

Advertisers want to sell 1 number, so it should be the smaller of the two.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[azgard]

They don't measure the same thing. To use a hard disk analogy, the bits per second is latency, while gigabytes per month is throughput. Over large files (streaming videos) the throughput dominates, but if you access a lot of small files (web pages), then the latency dominates.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[Ark42]

Um, no, you are completely wrong. The unit for latency is typically milliseconds, and is measured with "ping" usually.

As long as the units are "any size of bits or bytes" over "any unit of time" then you are measuring speed, plain and simple.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[azgard]

I admit I was a bit misleading in calling it "latency", but I wanted to primarily point out that they are not the same, even though they use the same units.

Consider measuring "how much time it takes to download 1kb". On hard disk, if you do it as a random seek, most of this time really is the latency. However, if you are reading bytes continously, most of this time is inverted value of throughput.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[Ark42]

The difference is in random throughput and sequential throughput. For a network connection, the difference is in short term burstable bandwidth vs average sustained bandwidth. In both cases, you are measuring the same thing.

Burtable is of course just relative to some other measurement, but you are still measuring speed regardless. You can say a 500GB/month connection is burstable to 10Mbps or a 1.6Mbps connection is burstable to 10Mbps. Both things mean the exact same thing.

New cable packages from Comcast with that Speedburst thing are actually 2 levels of "burstable". If they have a 10Mbps connection that you can burst to 50Mbps for the first 3 seconds of each download, but it is limited to 500GB/month, then you really have a 1.6Mbps connection that is burstable to 10Mbps for certain time spans, and within that it is burstable to 50Mbps for some given shorter timespan.

As it stands, 1.6Mbps should be the advertised figure for downstream speed, not 10 or 50. Right now they tend to advertise 10Mbps in that kind of situation, but just wait until they start advertising the burstable speed only.

STOP

[Rezonant]

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT SOME OF US ARE STILL ON TLGRPH STOP YOU INSENSITIVE CLODS STOP

(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.

Re:STOP

[andphi]

I'm surprised that the lameness filter does not filter for repeated mentions of itself. Is it a bug, or a feature, I wonder?

Why a federal organization to handle this stuff?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

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.

If only there were a way

[symbolset]

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...

Re:If only there were a way

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Interesting sig. Care to provide your stance on it?

Joe Blow is paying for the information...

[tjstork]

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?

Re:Joe Blow is paying for the information...

[digitrev]

No, you've asserted that the status quo is wrong. It's a fact of life that the status quo will persevere unless there are good arguments and actions against it. You're arguing on how things should be, we're arguing how things are, and the way we should respond.

Re:Joe Blow is paying for the information...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"It's a fact of life that the status quo will persevere unless there are good arguments and actions against it."

That's the whole purpose of my discussion here, to help bring about such changes in the status quo.

"You're arguing on how things should be, we're arguing how things are, and the way we should respond."

I am doing both, actually. I already said what to do with the information given that it has already been acquired....

Re:Joe Blow is paying for the information...

[mobets]

If each individual had to collect this information themselves from each provider, that would create a great deal of duplication of effort. Were this data to be maintained and made publicly available, I would fully support its collection as a means of improving efficiency.

A few good points.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Slashdot: I want the data.

FCC: You can't handle the data

Re:A few good points.

[__aailob1448]

Most awesome response I've read today. Thank you for making me chuckle.

in addition...

[ILuvRamen]

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.

Re:In addition...

[digitrev]

Let's follow the logic. The government demands people give up money. People give into those demands (some willingly, others not).

The government demands people give up money because the people demand a government. It's a trade off, and one most are willing to make. Those who aren't should be given the option to leave (at least, if there's anywhere willing to take them), otherwise they are antisocial and leeching off a system that provides them benefits without paying for it. I suggest you read some theory on social contract, especially Thomas Hobbes and other related philosophers. Note that a lot of them are full of shit, but it still gives you an idea of the justification for government.

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?

They don't use the money to demand companies to give up information, they use the power that the people gave them to demand companies give up information. Remember, those same companies benefit from the existence of government (through various legal channels, such as tax breaks and government handouts). Whether or not they deserve to is another question entirely. The companies then willingly give up the information (or don't, and face the consequences) for various reasons (threat of negative consequences, acknowledgment of government aid, etc...). So the information does ultimately belong to the people. You also seem to make a fairly strange mistake of assuming that, because the government has this information, no one else can.

Of course, my arguments are mostly meaningless to you, since you seem to have major issues with the existence of a government that is empowered to tax people and use force to ensure compliance.

Re:in addition...

[mc900ftjesus]

Time Warner gives me 15/1, I get 13.5/900 in reality (peaks that I've seen). I live in not-typical-for-Americans land.

Re:in addition...

[Dan Ost]

I have DSL, pay for 3Mb downstream, and usually get 3Mb downstream. For some reason when it rains, I get 2Mb downstream, but my upstream remains the same (about 300Kb).

For the most part, I get what I've paid for.

Re:in addition...

[wagnerrp]

My DSL line is rated at (up to) 5M/768k. My modem is currently trained at 5120Kbps/952Kbps. Speedtest just gave me 4481Kbps/777Kbps at 8ms. I've seen as high as 4500Kbps/815Kbps (as reported by MRTG).

Re:In addition...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"It's a trade off, and one most are willing to make. Those who aren't should be given the option to leave (at least, if there's anywhere willing to take them)"

Who is not demanding a government? There needs to be a government to uphold the rights of the citizenry. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be funded by force.

Re:In addition...

[digitrev]

Then how should it be funded? People are selfish, stupid, and short sighted. It'll be a subzero day in Hades before we see Joe Sixpack willingly give money to the government, no matter how much they'd benefit from it. You know damn well that there are very few people who'll part with their paycheck without immediately getting something for it. The government may damn well be evil, but it's a necessary evil.

Re:in addition...

[ILuvRamen]

wow, you have RR Turbo then. That's awesome. Sad to see you get slower than rated but that's still not bad. If you have a router and antivirus and other assorted stuff like that it probably cuts off the 2 megabits.

Re:in addition...

[internic]

On my Speakeasy DSL line I consistently get the rated 1.5 Mbps downstream. Upstream I don't max out as often, but I definitely get something close to the nominal 384 kbps. I've even found this to be true during the day, which surprised me a little.

Re:In addition...

[zippthorne]

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people would donate to government in a "as you please" scenario.

Certainly, they wouldn't be able to maintain current spending levels, but at the moment the government is demanding three times as much as God. Five times as much if you count state tax.

Re:in addition...

[vuffi_raa]

don't know one single DSL provider that ever gives remotely close to what they promise as a top speed. I just tested- I am on a 6000kbs line and I test @ 5699 kbps down and 634kbps up (it is supposed to be 768 max) - that isn't too far off the mark- that is on AT&T DSL

Re:In addition...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Then how should it be funded? "

Voluntarily.

"People are selfish..."

Selfishness is a good thing. It demands efficient and quality performance from those one deals with.

"...stupid..."

And therefore they should be ruled over, and their choice should be taken away? That sounds pretty "stupid" to me.

"and short sighted"

In an economic climate where every 2-4 years newly elected officials stick their claws into the economy, and where the federal reserve can sway the entire market with one action, I am not surprised that people are being short-sighted. They are forced to be, because every other organization in the market is forced to be. Try getting a long-term loan (30+ years) in today's market. In a more stable economy, where the government does not assume power over the market, I can see people becoming less short-sighted.

"It'll be a subzero day in Hades before we see Joe Sixpack willingly give money to the government, no matter how much they'd benefit from it."

Maybe for the current government where so much goes to waste and rights violations, but you'll have to show some evidence that the same would be true for a rights-upholding government. The US population is one of the most willing to donate to worthy causes. Make the government a worthy cause and I see no reason why people wouldn't be willing to support it. If you do, please elaborate.

"Let's drive..."

[hyades1]

"...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.

Kept to themselves BECAUSE...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because using this new method of measuring, the US comes out level with Albania, but still ahead (though only very slighly) of North Korea.

Re:How can they keep this secret? Compelling...

[davidsyes]

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...

Re:Why a federal organization to handle this stuff

[Floritard]

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.

Re:Why a federal organization to handle this stuff

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"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?

speaking of broad band penetration...

[OglinTatas]

I totally want to do Sleater-Kinney

I wish the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I wish the FCC

[corsec67]

You are missing some critical numbers:

Transfer limit (up/down)

And then a good one to have would be:
guaranteed minimum speed

Insightful?

[scipiodog]

+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 order

That part had me in stitches...

Re:Why a federal organization to handle this stuff

[nickhart]

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?

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.

Double troll?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Touche!

Re:Troll?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Troll is also used to bury nonsense written by people who think they are saying something profound."

I don't think I'm saying anything profound. Rational, yes, but not profound. You've (implicitly) characterized my statements as nonsense - care to show why that characterization is accurate? Or should people just assume you're right?

Re:Why a federal organization to handle this stuff

[digitrev]

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.

How about revising the terminology while at it?

[g0at]

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.

Re:Why a federal organization to handle this stuff

[AK Marc]

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.

AFT, thee FCC learned what is Broadband or BS

[OldHawk777]

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.

Re:What about the low speed category?

[Sparkle]

Right on. They ignore all the politicians who blew smoke about broadband everywhere in the USA. Out here in Verizon land we are happy to often connect at 24,000. Then VZW insults us by saying they are a "broadband and entertainment company!"

Not likely to see a usable cell tower real soon here. Trying Skyway and it goes 3x to 5x the speed of dialup. Clearly not even up to "1st generation" broadband.

Rural America needs to be connected just like we needed electricity 60 years ago and phone service 40 years ago. Maybe it will happen in our life time. How dare they forget us?

Re:Why a federal organization to handle this stuff

[vuffi_raa]

Why must there be a federal organization to handle crap like this? this isn't for consumption purposes- think, you need to see this in order to
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

Oh there it is!

[symbolset]

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.

Re:Troll?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"I thought I was rather explicit about it."

Yes, but there is nothing stopping you from using the "I never said that" defense when it is convenient.

"And, no, I don't want to discuss it because I don't give a crap about the topic you have forced upon everyone."

You've replied twice so far. So you give at least a little crap.

"This is reinforced by many other people modding you as a troll or off-topic."

Ha! What a great world it would be if truth were determined by majority! I must be a troll/off-topic, because one or two people modded some of my posts as such!

Ridiculous...

I'm reasonably sure you're misinformed.

[arete]

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.