Slashdot Mirror
FCC Officially Approves Change In the Definition of Broadband
halfEvilTech writes As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of U.S. households without broadband access. Currently, 6.3 percent of U.S. households don't have access to broadband under the previous 4Mpbs/1Mbps threshold, while another 13.1 percent don't have access to broadband under the new 25Mbps downstream threshold.
ISPs can no longer use false advertisement to try and trick ill-informed consumers (ie. grandma) into paying for garbage.
Hopefully, the result would be that these companies would strive to do better to please their customers. Realistically, the result will be that these companies still know they own a government-sanctioned monopoly over their area(s) and make you pay for shitty service or get no service at all.
It is true those countries are more compact, making economies of scale easier, BUT even well-populated areas of the US still have limited, unreliable, and gimmick-heavy choices. I'm one. Thus, population density is not the full reason. We are doing something wrong in the US.
It looks and smells like oligopoly-based crony-capitalism controlling the strings, but you are welcome to present alternative explanations.
Table-ized A.I.
This morning I had broadband. Now I don't. Thanks Obama!
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
You can't legislate technology.
Ever read the National Electric Code ?
Nope - instead it'll milk the (soon to be announced) 'broadband improvement initiative' tax incentive cow for all that's worth.
Silly rabbit, corporate tax loopholes can be found wherever your lobbyists can dig them. ;)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If you want them to be forced to provide you with high-speed Internet, then you need to support government regulation. This is the result of less regulation; they attempt to pick-and-choose to whom they provide service to maximize profit.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This is why common carrier status should come in. Not providing good Internet to rural areas basically allows local providers to choose who wins and who loses when it comes to business. There are few businesses that can operate without good Internet connections now, and that number is sure to decrease.
If you vote for people who promise to fight for your "freedom" by blocking "burdensome government regulations" that might someday prevent you from throttling off your customers once you form that telecommunications monopoly you've been dreaming of ever since your mom sent you to school wearing bread bags on your feet, then yeah, it is your fault.
Well, I can toss in $100. That and your $100 ought to totally destroy the $890,000,000 the Koch brothers have announced they are tossing in to the ring this election cycle. Though the money that large PACs like Verizon belongs to will match the Koch brothers, then our $200 will be hard pressed to compete.
And the propaganda network is very effective. A family member posted a false quote from Elizabeth Warren he got from FoxNews facebook page.
I pointed out that this quote is false, she never said it. Ever. It is a quote from Joseph Stalin.
All the Fox fans jumped on board swearing it is real, that Snopes is lying, and they heard her say it themselves.
The quote remains false, yet this pack will go to the polls thinking one candidate is Stalin because Fox told them so.
In a reversal from 2012, liberal billionaires top the list of biggest super PAC donors with a little more than two weeks to go before Election Day. Three of the top five givers lean Democrat, while the king of unlimited money mountain — environmental crusader Tom Steyer of California — is lapping the competition, a Sunlight analysis finds.
also note, neither kochs make the top 10 donor list
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
There are two parties. Plus a few fringe groups that have no power and no way to leverage themselves into political power. You're kidding yourself if you think you can break through the corporate/media/political duopoly/oligarchy that is in power. All they have to do is keep the unwashed masses foaming at the mouth over social issues and they won't notice that they're being completely screwed over by the system. Hell, most people couldn't name their local representatives. Forget them doing enough research to see how their representatives actually vote on their behalf. The only thing the average person cares about is what their representatives tell them during the very well financed campaign. Just take a side (for or against) on gun control, abortion, and gay marriage and your constituency will either line up for you or against you (depending on the district). The average voter doesn't have any time to pay attention to 3rd parties (who are usually extremeists or way out past the outfield bleachers anyway). They care more about making sure the "wrong" candidate doesn't get elected by voting for the "lesser of two evils", not realizing that they're voting for someone who doesn't give two shits about them.
My reading of the orignal author's point is that indvidiually most of us can buy very little influence with our contributions (Maybe $100 or so each), while extremely wealthy folks like the Koch Brothers can buy extraordinary influence with theirs. You're reply enitrely ignores that point and instead focuses on making this partisan (both sides do it! Liberals are even worse! etc). Ultimatly none of that matters in the long run. The important point is that a very small number of people in the world hold tremendous influence over the direction of the planet, and that power is becoming more and more concentrated (the top 0.01%'s share of the world's wealth has quadrupled in the last quarter century). Regardless if you think those folks are on your side of a particular issue, the truth is that ultimately they are all on their own side.
This isn't a Conservative vs. Liberal issue, this is a society vs top 0.01% issue.