Slashdot Mirror
FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan
Ars covers a series of questions that US senators put to the FCC chairman following up on his appearance before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in April. The headline question was a blunt one asked by octogenarian Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI): "The National Broadband Plan (NBP) proposes a goal of having 100 million homes subscribed at 100Mbps by 2020, while the leading nations already have 100Mbps fiber-based services at costs of $30 to $40 per month and beginning rollout of 1Gbps residential services, which the FCC suggests is required only for a single anchor institution in each community by 2020. This appears to suggest that the US should accept a 10- to 12-year lag behind the leading nations. What is the FCC's rationale for a vision that appears to be firmly rooted in the second tier of countries?" In the FCC's formal response (PDF), Chairman Genachowski doesn't rise to the "second tier" bait, and in fact talks about "ensuring that America remains a broadband world leader," as if he believes we currently are. A blogger over at Balloon Juice is a little more forthright on the "What is the FCC's rationale" question: "The rationale is that this is the best they can do with a legislative branch in the pocket of telecom providers."
>>>100Mbs
BTW why do you need 100 Mbit/s? It only takes 5 Mbit/s to carry a MPEG4-encoded HDTV stream; I suppose if you have 3 people in the same house but watching different channels, then you'd need 15 Mbit/s minimum. So what's the 100 Mbit/s line for? (just curious)
Plus this broadband plan will be for *wireless* internet and not the answer to your problem. I've never seen a wireless connection that fast. You should be contacting the FCC and saying this plan is unacceptable.
- And final thought. The US really isn't that far behind when compared to other continent-spanning federations:
Russian Federation 8.3 Mbit/s
U.S. 7.0
E.U. 6.6
Canada 5.7
Australia 5.1
China 3.0
Brazil 2.1
Mexico 1.1 Mbit/s
And if you prefer to look on a state-by-state basis of the EU, US, and Canada then you get:
Sweden 13 Mbit/s
Delaware, Romania,Netherlands,Bulgaria 12
Washington,Rhode Island 11
Massachusetts 10
New Jersey,Virginia,New Hampshire,New York 9
British Columbia,Colorado,Connecticut,Arizona, Slovakia 8 Mbit/s
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Who cares? I don't care if Russia pulls into the #1 spot. They are a democracy now, and I wish them all the best of luck. Besides you would expect them to have faster internet, when you consider how much new infrastructure that American and European companies have installed there.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
(sigh). I simply wondered why he needs it. If he can't think of a reason, then he doesn't "need" it. He merely wants it and that's not the same thing. It's like how I want a Porsche but don't really need one. I don't expect the government to setup a program and start handing-out free Porches so I can cruise I5 at 200 miles an hour. Why? Because it's not needed.
It's important that we as Americans separate need from want, else we'll soon end up like Greece (bankrupt and on the verge of collapse).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>> 9Mbit/s in rural New Hampshire? Not a chance.
It's an average ya dope. In the same way a professor might say, "The average for this test was 70%," that means some people got 100% while others flunked with 40%, and there was a sprinkling of other scores in-and-around 70. The purpose is to rank NH's average score versus the average score for other US and EU states.
.
>>>a work of fiction
It came from speedtest.net which is not a government entity, not biased, and not fiction (speeds are measured directly). Nice try though. You remind me of Glenn Beck the way you attempt to twist the facts with false & erroneous accusations.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>you're entitled that the number of things
Yes I am. The electromagnetic spectrum belongs to me and the People in general. The FCC has zero right to take-away OUR common property and lock it up behind a ~$100/month cellphone paywall.
Whoah there. Common property? Who says you own diddly-squat of the spectrum? Did I miss that in the Constitution or in the UN list of human rights? Just because you breathe you "own" something that other people discovered and are using for your free use? They designed the hardware. They produced the content. They maintain the infrastructure. You have no right to require that they continue to do so. Common property and belonging to the "People in general" are communist buzzphrases. We have public land, but thats it. There is no other common property, and there shouldn't be.
If you want to argue that you have the right to build your own hardware and broadcast on licensed spectrum, go ahead. You might have a point there. Arguing that you have a right to receive free stuff on those spectrums is way out there.
Most of the things you list (except hulu) work at dialup speeds. Yes even youtube can be watched over a 56k modem. These items were invented before high-speed was commonplace, so there was a need for broadband.
To install 1000 megabit lines when there's no need is putting the cart before the horse. Like when Senator Byrd built a bridge in West Virginia that literally went nowhere. He thought building the bridge would lead to expansion of the nearby city, but even now 10 years later the bridge is never used by anyone. It makes little sense to build infrastructure for traffic that doesn't yet exist.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall