Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Proposes 100Mbps Minimum Home Broadband Speed

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the still-can't-get-cable dept.

oxide7 writes "The US Federal Communications Commission unveiled a plan on Tuesday that would require Internet providers to offer minimum home connection speeds by 2020, a proposal that some telecommunications companies panned as unrealistic. The FCC wants service providers to offer home Internet data transmission speeds of 100 megabits per second to 100 million homes by a decade from now, Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said."

4 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. If the FCC wants to accelerate it by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should federalize all franchising so that local and state governments cannot limit which telecoms and cable companies can operate where.

  2. Re:FCC: Setting High Goals by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Japan has 1Gbps internet. I had it when I lived there a few years ago. Even at 100Mbps we would be way behind.

  3. Re:That would be all well and good by netruner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Consumers squeeze corps, corps squeeze consumers - agreed

    Corps have industry trade groups and lobbyists, consumers have (in the USA) representatives and senators.

    When it comes down to it, people decide what's ok and what's not. Corps are not people, consumers are. (except when it comes to campaign financing)

    Having minimum standards sucks from the supply side, but their absence is much more damaging on the demand side. To use your analogy - ways to make flights cheaper would include doing away with seatbelts and emergency exits (the seals are a maintenance issue). Nobody uses them anyway. Also, would you even notice if aircraft inspections were reduced? The average consumer wouldn't either.

    --



    DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
  4. Re:That would be all well and good by wintercolby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, the cost of the upgrades should come out of the $200 Billion that Hatta (162192) mentioned below. The BIG problem with this is that it would seem the money was handed out without:

    (a) A mandate with a specific goal.
    (b) Mileposts clearly specified for progress toward that goal.
    (c) Follow through by Government regulators (wait, could this be that?)
    (d) Payment per milepost acheived, due upon delivery not upon agreement to consider delivering.

    --
    Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley