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.
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'
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/