Slashdot Mirror
Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition
WheezyJoe writes Responding to the FCC's proposal to raise the definition of broadband from 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up, the lobby group known as the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) wrote in an FCC filing Thursday that 25Mbps/3Mbps isn't necessary for ordinary people. The lobby alleges that hypothetical use cases offered for showing the need for 25Mbps/3Mbps "dramatically exaggerate the amount of bandwidth needed by the typical broadband user", referring to parties in favor of the increase like Netflix and Public Knowledge. Verizon, for its part, is also lobbying against a faster broadband definition. Much of its territory is still stuck on DSL which is far less capable of 25Mbps/3Mbps speeds than cable technology.
The FCC presently defines broadband as 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up, a definition that hasn't changed since 2010. By comparison, people in Sweden can pay about $40 a month for 100/100 mbps, choosing between more than a dozen competing providers. The FCC is under mandate to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the commission must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition's speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws that restrict municipal broadband projects.
The FCC presently defines broadband as 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up, a definition that hasn't changed since 2010. By comparison, people in Sweden can pay about $40 a month for 100/100 mbps, choosing between more than a dozen competing providers. The FCC is under mandate to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the commission must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition's speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws that restrict municipal broadband projects.
Sure, we need to get 3 or 4 other companies in there laying down fiber! That way none of them will have the subscriber base to pay for it and they'll all go bankrupt! You obviously don't have any concept of how public infrastructure needs to work. We need to have one company (or government) placing fiber to everyone's home. That fiber then needs to be made available to anyone who wants to lease it (or wavelengths on it) at a reasonable price. Then you'll see a new day in telecommunications.
No, it's a useful gauge of how good it would be for the consumer. If the telcos and/or cable industry oppose something then it's a solid bet that it's in the best interests of the average consumer.
Log in or piss off.
You need corporate backing or some sort of astroturf movement that also gets votes.
See, that's where the Teaparty is an example of an effeective [sic] corporate funded astroturf movement. They riled up a bunch of angry white old people and THEY VOTE AGAINST THEIR BEST INTEREST.
\
Fixed that for ya! You are quite welcome, although I'm certain you knew that the Tea Party was invented by the Koch Brothers all along. The rest of us have known for years; it's actually quite common knowledge now that the Tea Party is 100% corporate funded and designed, and has been since it's very first day.
No, the main reason European countries have better Internet access is due to their small size and layout. Sweden is roughly the size of California. If the US was a country that small, it would be easy to get fiber to everywhere. First speed test result I found averaged just over the state puts California at 39MB/s down and 9MB/s up. And that's without nearly as much taxation to support the whole thing as EU countries too.
But the FCC has to set policies that cover the middle of nowhere USA as well. Why do you think Verizon already gave up on laying more FIOS fiber? Because they already got all the interesting urban areas. No one can cost justify fiber to the middle of the US. You could lose all of the continental Europe in that wasteland and not even notice it.
Stop thinking about borders - telecoms doesn't give two hoots about them. If what you say is true, internet in US cities should be the best and cheapest around, with the boondocks suffering. As it is, it's mainly crap across the board. Making excuses for shoddy US infrastructure is only helping it continue - I know you might feel upset at not being #1 #1 #1, but without accepting that you're not going to improve anything.
Plus your map is not showing 'continental Europe' - Europe is larger than the US, so it appears you are merely furthering the stereotype of geographically-hindered Americans. Shame on you. You got so much wrong in one post it's bordering on the hilarious.