Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps
An anonymous reader writes On Wednesday at a hearing in front of the US House Committee on Small Business, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stated that for ISPs to be eligible for government broadband subsidies, they would have to deliver speeds of at least 10 Mbps. Said Wheeler: "What we are saying is we can't make the mistake of spending the people's money, which is what Universal Service is, to continue to subsidize something that's subpar." He further indicated that he would remedy the situation by the end of 2014. The broadband subsidies are collected through bill surcharges paid for by phone customers.
But for once, I like something said by the FCC. Granted, jury is still out if this will go through or not, but I'm loving this push.
Wasn't one way that Broadband penetration was improved previously just by lowering what the definition of broadband was?
in urban europe 24mbps is considered subpar; what you yanks have, is frightenly slow.
At this point, the various big ISPs have taken so much taxpayer money, and provided so little in return, that I'd say we should stop providing them with any subsidies, and still require the same level of buildout. They can take the balance out of their execs' bonuses from next quarter—which should be enough to cover a fair amount of infrastructure.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Why not put the bar at something a little more reasonable, like 25 Mbps..
Or, alternatively, the envelope got so big it doesn't fit Wheeler's mailbox anymore.
AT&T and Verizon, always pushing for a quicker response to client needs, are installing a larger mailbox at this very moment.
What about roads? Schools? Sewage? Water?
There are some items that are critical to modern society functioning properly. It is a larger benefit to society to implement them efficiently, at a state wide or national scale, then it is to allow pockets of "haves" and "have nots"
Otherwise what we would have is pockets of civilization (e.g. Cities) and everyone else would be living like the amish.
"Video calls? You need a good upload link if you're going to make that work, or the quality is so crappy it won't be workable."
Please. I've been running Camfrog Video Chats on a 5/1 line for almost a decade without a problem. That's dozens of video cams up at once, with frame rates so fluid deaf people can sign over video chat and be understood perfectly.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
All of Europe has internet and it's faster and cheaper even in the most remote areas. Actually, you should try building out the infrastructure of *our* size and then get back to us.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
"why not just get them all to move"
Sorry, I'm not a dictator.
But you would condemn them to sub-standard living just for the reason of residing outside of a large metropolitan area.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
And in doing you are implying that market conditions should dictate the availability of such services in rural areas. However the cost of such services is increased by the fact that they are being provided in rural areas compared with more densely populated areas. In addition the effect of this cost is exacerbated by depressed earnings in rural areas compared with metropolitan earnings. Thus by removing all subsidies you are reducing the ability of people in rural areas to enjoy the same levels of service as people in metropolitan areas. Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. In effect condemning the Have Nots to a sub standard living compared to the Haves. This is not begging the question .. its a direct consequence of your desired policy.
And while you can't expect to have everything available in rural areas, increasing access to fundamentals such as power, water, health care, education and now internet service benefits the country as a whole. However you seems to have philosophy that its is OK to stratify society based on location. I disagree and think that the job of a country is to raise up all members of its society regardless of where they live.
Now if you want to talk subsidies for sports stadiums .. then yeah .. they should go.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
They might have to use the piles of cash they get to actually upgrade them. We have paid to connect every rural home with fiber several times over. Instead they foisted off outdated slow gear on them and used the fund to pay for it.
Sure their might be some places in the US that are more than the 130ish km allowed by standard optics, it's not like we don't know how to stick a DWDM light pump on a pole for those are are to far.
No sir I dont like it.
If the carriers whine about it (and they will), someone should publicly ask them why their networks are so lousy that they can't offer 1/100th of the speed that municipal projects and Google Fiber are providing.
And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.
Except that there are benefits to society as a whole by having these people live in rural areas.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
can we address data caps too? Who cares if we have 100 MB access if we're capped a 1 GB?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I think he's hinting that internet connectivity should be a municipal service, as it is in some parts of the world (which offer better speeds than most US ISPs seem to offer).
I'd be happy if those fuckers just stopped overselling their bandwidth. I pay for the bandwidth but many times I get squat because everyone else is on the neighborhood cable loop. If the sell it, they need to be able to support it 24/7. This airline approach is bullshit.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Telephone service in the USA is granted monopoly service districts by the 50 state governments to one or more telephone companies within each state. This originally was to encourage the provision of local telephone service when telephony was relatively new (more than 100 years ago). Companies, such as AT&T, operated local districts and franchised technology to other local providers. AT&T began selling long distance (between local districts) in 1885 and coast to coast long distance in 1915. The Kingsbury Commitment (1912) provided for interoperability between telephone networks. Over time, holding companies (including AT&T) acquired local providers and created large multi-state networks. [End of the Line, by Leslie Cauley]. So while the federal government may talk of improving things, the fundamental problem is the 100+ year old state monopolies that inhibit competition in telephone service.
Cable television service (including internet) in the USA is regulated by the 50 state governments. However, the (federal) Cable Communications Act of 1984 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Communications_Act_of_1984] has been both positively and negatively disruptive. The act was used by cable companies to force state and local government to provide right-of-way access to customers. Either by leasing government owned right-of-way or by forcing electric power companies to lease space on neighborhood overhead power poles. (Note: power companies also have state granted monopolies, which allowed the state governments to force compliance.) Initially there were many providers and a great deal of competition. The problem is the act allowed for Cable Television Franchise Fees [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee]. These fees are based on gross revenue collected by the cable company from customers within a local government (ie city, county, or parrish). The local governments discovered that competition drives down prices, which in turn reduces these franchise fees. Thus, local governments have been discouraging competition amongst cable companies.
This is why Americans pay too much money for too little bandwidth.
227-3517