Slashdot Mirror
FCC Asks You To Test Your Broadband Speeds
AnotherUsername writes "The Federal Communications Commission is asking the nation's broadband and smartphone users to use its broadband testing tools to help the feds and consumers know what speeds are actually available, not just promised by the nation's telecoms. At http://www.broadband.gov/, users enter their address and test their broadband download speed, upload speed, latency, and jitter using one of two tests (users can choose to test with the other after one test is complete). The FCC is requiring the street address, as it 'may use this data to analyze broadband quality and availability on a geographic basis' (they promise not to release location data except in the aggregate). The agency is also asking those who live in a broadband 'dead zone' to fill out a report online, call, fax, email, or even send a letter. The announcement comes just six days before the FCC presents the first ever national broadband plan to Congress. Java is necessary to run the test." Lauren Weinstein points out some of the limitations in the FCC's testing methodology.
Users are randomly assigned the Ookla or M-Lab application.
Note: the M-Lab application currently does not work with Safari, Chrome, and Opera web browsers.
Really? So the 3 most standards compliant browsers arent supported?
"His name was James Damore."
This is a waste of time, and simply another one in the current Democratic FCC's array of disappointments. This kind of voluntary speed test information gathering is worthless, since there's no way to vet the contributors' address claims. It's really just for show, just like the rest of the FCC's attempts to regulate.
The problem right now is the FCC's policies, and from what I've heard its upcoming National Broadband Plan, are wimpy, non-confrontational, and will do nothing to change the status quo in the current duopoly broadband industry. Genachowski, the head of the FCC, early in the NBP creation process took government intervention off the table, essentially maiming any hope the agency had of accomplishing anything. They have no anti-trust powers or backing from Congress. The agency itself is just too weak to accomplish anything.
The worst example of this is the FCC commissioned a study to be conducted by Harvard's Berkman center to determine why US internet had lagged behind. In the conclusion of the study, the foremost recommendation was the reinstitution of line-sharing, which had proved to be hugely successful in expanding broadband in European countries. Yet despite its own commissioned report, the FCC's head of NBP creation, Blair Levin, refuted the usefulness of line-sharing, fearing the FCC would simply be tied up in court over it for years and years, just as Comcast did when it was punished by the FCC for secretly throttling people's P2P traffic.
Until the FCC is given some real power there's no hope for changing things. Unfortunately due to Congress being gridlocked over more important things like healthcare, we won't see this until at the earliest 2012, and only if Democrats maintain a majority in both House and Senate.
>>>If you go by my ISP's advertising you'll see they're offering 10 Mbps in my area. What you won't see is that regardless of which plan you sign up for, you're lucky if you can actually get 3 Mbps.
>>>
On the flip side:
I signed-up for 53k with my Netscape ISP, and that's what I typically get.
I signed-up for 768k with Verizon DSL, and that's what I get.
And it only cost $7 and $15 respectively.
I'm satisfied with that - who are the politicians to tell me I shouldn't be satisfied? Who are they to FORCE me to buy, pay for (via taxes), and get a fiber optic service to my home? I think I can run my own life thank you very much. (Can you tell I'm fed up with the loss of choice?)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>Either you provide social services for the dead weight, or the dead weight turns to crime, or you euthanize the dead weight. Personally, I hate crime and I don't want to even think about the moral and procedural issues of deciding who gets to live. Thus, I pay my taxes. I don't like it, but it's the only solution we have that works.
>>>
(typing from basement)
I and my extended family of 9 appreciate your sacrifice so we can live like parasites on you. In fact my whole town of unemployed persons appreciate it. Keep it up. /end sarcasm
Doesn't that strike you as being horribly inefficient? IMHO the best thing we can do for the poor is make them uncomfortable in their existence (i.e. starve), so they'll be motivated to get off their butts and become self-sufficient rather than parasitic.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall