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.
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.