FCC Seeks To Improve US Broadband Access

MojoKid writes "The US Federal Communications Commission is working on a plan to solve the problem of nationwide access to high-speed Internet service. The three main issues the agency is tackling first are, figuring out how to improve availability, quality and affordability. Acting FCC Chairman Michael J. Copps held a meeting this week where he asked the public to comment on the national broadband plan, which Congress has demanded be done by February. The public has 60 days to submit comments; the agency and members of the public will be able to reply to comments for an additional 30 days after that."

Comments

Simple

[chill]

Next time you auction off spectrum that could be used for JUST THIS PURPOSE, stop setting the minimum bids at astronomical numbers. "Public benefit" doesn't necessarily mean "get as much money for the gov't as possible".

Some good 700 MHz spectrum, at cheap to nothing rates, would spur small businesses to be created to provide access at costs much more in line with what people can pay. You know, if the entry costs weren't more than the GDP of a 3rd World Nation it might spur some innovation.

Then reduce the bureaucracy and cost of getting a license to use that spectrum.

Idiots.

Re:Simple

[postbigbang]

Resist wireless. It's a short term ploy that isn't even 'broadband'. Modulation schemes today require lots of nearby APs, and that sucks.

Instead, the USA has to buckle down and run fiber, like we did twisted pairs decades and decades ago. Wireless sounds good until you realize just what a rotten long term investment. Remember 802.11a, then, b, then g, and now the might-one-day-be-ratified n? Or how about that great WhyMax stuff? Want some LTE anyone? How about some bonded channels for GSM? Really-- trenched fiber is the best long term way to go. If you invested 20 years ago, you're still using it and haven't found an upper end limit to its capacity for speed.

Re:Simple

[causality]

Next time you auction off spectrum that could be used for JUST THIS PURPOSE, stop setting the minimum bids at astronomical numbers. "Public benefit" doesn't necessarily mean "get as much money for the gov't as possible".

Some good 700 MHz spectrum, at cheap to nothing rates, would spur small businesses to be created to provide access at costs much more in line with what people can pay. You know, if the entry costs weren't more than the GDP of a 3rd World Nation it might spur some innovation.

Then reduce the bureaucracy and cost of getting a license to use that spectrum.

Idiots.

I think a big part of the problem is that right now, most people who have any choice at all have a choice between two monopolies: telco and cable. Your idea would provide that missing "third option". An agile competitor with minimal infrastructure costs, license costs, and other barriers to entry might just provide the innovation and options that are sorely missing from the monopolies.

I say that with the assumption that what you had in mind was WiMax or something like it. Although it would be yet another monopoly, this also makes me wonder what happened to the internet-over-powerlines idea. The above was my realistic response to you. What follows is what I'd like to see despite how unrealistic it may be.

What I'd really like to see is a more decentralized Internet. This is more like the mesh networks consisting of many low-power wireless connections that communicate with each other. On a truly decentralized Internet, it would be impossible for any single entity to force filtering, censorship, deep packet inspection, bandwidth caps, and the like on large numbers of people who do not want them. It would also be a truly "public benefit" as in owned and operated by Joe Public instead of owned and operated by large, centralized, political bureaucracies in Joe Public's name. Right now this may not be feasible or likely but it would be pleasing to see a step in that direction. Of course, I would not expect the FCC to encourage this idea at all, for it would reduce the amount of control they now enjoy, but that's why I call this unrealistic.

Just as an aside, isn't there currently a lot of dark fiber? If there is a large amount of it, does anyone know why it's not currently being used, or have an idea of what could be done with it?

Monopolies

[Chabo]

Make it harder for companies to have monopolies or duopolies. This is the system that's in place in most areas of the nation outside big cities.

Other companies may technically have an opportunity to join in and provide service to the people, but in practice it's just not possible anymore.

A friend of mine used to work at an ISP in New Hampshire. His company sent letters to all of their customers basically saying "Please support the legislation that will limit Verizon's stranglehold on New Hampshire". The ISPs connection to the outside world (provided by Verizon, surprise-surprise) went down that night. Two days later, they got a Verizon employee on the phone who apparently wasn't "in on it", and he was like "Oh, how did this configuration get changed?" and turned their connection back on.

Re:Monopolies

[subreality]

Make it harder for companies to have monopolies or duopolies. This is the system that's in place in most areas of the nation outside big cities.

Seconded, and it's not even hard to do. Here's how:

Municipalize the last mile. Take it away from the telco monopolies. Sell access freely to anyone at fair rates as a municipal service, just like water service. Let people plug in any service they want on the other end of the wire. That might be AT&T, giving you phone and internet. It might be some local ISP just giving you DSL and IPTV service. Guaranteed, though, competition will explode overnight.

What, copper's not good enough? Quit waiting for some slow telco to deign to drag it in for you (years and years after we've already paid for it!). Drop some city funds to pull fiber, and start leasing access at fair rates, the same way you did for copper.

The cities that have already done this have *fantastic* service for minimal cost... Other than making a big telco monopoly hate them for the rest of time.

Didn't they

[Sylos]

Try this already? What..with the billions of dollars given to them already...and monopolies given to them..the tax breaks...etc. This is just buying some CEO a new boat.

When?

[Nom du Keyboard]

asked the public to comment on the national broadband plan, which Congress has demanded be done by February.

Uh, February of which year?

Not that Congress can get anything right done by February of any year.

First

[iminplaya]

Demand that all service providers act as common carriers, or "dumb pipes", if you will. To insure access for everybody, the basic infrastructure must be managed by a publicly accountable entity, the government, just like the roads. And these "roads" must accept all kinds of traffic. No tiering, no filtering, none of that. The "last mile" can be leased out to those who will accept these conditions. We need consumer protection with real teeth. They won't do it unless they hear from us. So speak up, and speak LOUD. I am formulating my letter at this very moment. To those of you who want to leave it up to the market, I respectfully remind you of the AM stereo debacle, and American cell phone service.

Re:Is this a purpose of today's FCC?

[jcr]

Lazziez faire doesn't work in reality.

Oh, for christ's sake...

Companies want to profit and destroy the competition and lock in their customers.

What do you think these eeevil companies use to attack their competition? Hint: it starts with a "g", and ends with "overnment".

-jcr

$7 billion for the phone companies?

[jafo]

IMHO, the telcos and cable companies are why we have some of the worst "broadband" access in our homes. They've been dragging their feet, similar to the way the RIAA has been, fighting tooth and nail to not give the customers what they want.

As much as I'm for better broadband, I'm extremely against giving it to the telcos to implement. We already gave them $2 billion to develop Fiber To The Home by 2000. As of 2009 I know of almost noone who has or even can get this service, it's only in a couple of hot spots where you can get it.

Worse, the telcos seem to see high speed home networks as competition for their business services, so they dramatically limit the outbound rates. 900kbps is a pretty small pipe to push backups of my home systems across, for example.

I personally like the ideas of "homes with tails", the home owners owning the fiber from their houses to a pedestal or "meet me" location, and then the providers can get access in there and users can get different options for that connectivity.

Sean

Re:$7 billion for the phone companies?

[ZosX]

If I only had mod points. You just took the words right out of my mouth. Congress should be DEMANDING better/cheaper access after the phone companies have done virtually nothing to hold their end of the deal up. Now they want to implement a tiered internet and ridiculously low caps (40GB??) All the while trying to charge us more?? I think the consumers are getting a pretty raw deal, especially when you see the Japan and Korea are getting hundreds of megabits out of copper. Surely bandwidth costs have come down in the last 10 years domestically. So theoretically they should be making even more off consumers as their costs should be going down. Look at it this way. You pay $50 for cable and $50 for internet. Those 150 channels cost the cable company a LOT more than even 200 gigabytes worth of data transmissions. Problem is that the ISPs all want a piece of a bigger pie than just simply providing 0s and 1s to your door will give them. God help us if net neutrality fails.