Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Americans Don't Need Fast Home Internet Service, FCC Suggests (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: Americans might not need a fast home Internet connection, the Federal Communications Commission suggests in a new document. Instead, mobile Internet via a smartphone might be all people need. The suggestion comes in the FCC's annual inquiry into broadband availability. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to determine whether broadband (or more formally, "advanced telecommunications capability") is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. If the FCC finds that broadband isn't being deployed quickly enough to everyone, it is required by law to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market."
The FCC found during George W. Bush's presidency that fast Internet service was being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. But during the Obama administration, the FCC determined repeatedly that broadband isn't reaching Americans fast enough, pointing in particular to lagging deployment in rural areas. These analyses did not consider mobile broadband to be a full replacement for a home (or "fixed") Internet connection via cable, fiber, or some other technology. Last year, the FCC updated its analysis with a conclusion that Americans need home and mobile access. Because home Internet connections and smartphones have different capabilities and limitations, Americans should have access to both instead of just one or the other, the FCC concluded under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler. The report goes on to add that with Republican Ajit Pai as chairman of the FCC, "the FCC seems poised to change that policy by declaring that mobile broadband with speeds of 10Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream is all one needs." Furthermore, "In doing so, the FCC could conclude that broadband is already being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and thus the organization would take fewer steps to promote deployment and competition."
The FCC found during George W. Bush's presidency that fast Internet service was being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. But during the Obama administration, the FCC determined repeatedly that broadband isn't reaching Americans fast enough, pointing in particular to lagging deployment in rural areas. These analyses did not consider mobile broadband to be a full replacement for a home (or "fixed") Internet connection via cable, fiber, or some other technology. Last year, the FCC updated its analysis with a conclusion that Americans need home and mobile access. Because home Internet connections and smartphones have different capabilities and limitations, Americans should have access to both instead of just one or the other, the FCC concluded under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler. The report goes on to add that with Republican Ajit Pai as chairman of the FCC, "the FCC seems poised to change that policy by declaring that mobile broadband with speeds of 10Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream is all one needs." Furthermore, "In doing so, the FCC could conclude that broadband is already being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and thus the organization would take fewer steps to promote deployment and competition."
Americans don't need life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies or other entities and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.
I for one would take reliability over speed. Reliability is a big problem with our current 1.4 choices of providers.
Table-ized A.I.
... to fit the lack of solution.
Just change the definition of "Great".
#DeleteChrome
Karl Marx you halfwit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Internet access in the US is already a joke compared with most other industrialized nations, and has been for years now.
Not content with showing their contempt for the citizenry with their net neutrality positions, now they're arguing that the US should remain in the backwater as a matter of official policy?
This is ridiculous. We already pay more for less than other nations, and the FCC wants us to pay even more for even less.
Is a PoS human being. I mean that in the most apolitical way possible. He does not just suck at his job. . . he sucks at being an individual member of our species. The less he "tries" the better off the human race will be. . . Seriously, we would be better off just paying him off at this point to not do anything else (I guess we would have to pay him more than what he currently is no doubt collecting to screw us over. . .).
"Ajit Pai" should now be the technical term for extremely painful and angry jock-itch between the upper thigh and testicles. . . We've got a real bad case of Ajit Pai. . . something really nasty. . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
This is for the benefit of Verizon. The current FCC Chair is Ajit Pai, who took leave from his lawyer job at Verizon to mastermind this kind of crap (and, he's being the Net Neutrality destruction effort.
We gotta VOTE the kinds of maniacs OUT that appoint these kinds of soulless minions to public office. More "TRUMPcare..." this time, for Internet standards and prices.
The previous FCC guy was Tom Wheeler:
..and surprise, he supported dumping public money into both.
..and surprise, he supports dumping public money into cellular broadband but not any other kind of broadband.
President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
The new FCC guy is Ajit V. Pai:
Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc.
I dont understand why you suckers dont follow the money. We knew when I was growing up that the FCC was bad. Two generations later you guys got no clue at all, but we told you. We told you when net neutrality was spinning up that the FCC was bad and shoudn't be allowed to make internet policy. You were warned.
"His name was James Damore."
"640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates, Seattle, 1981
But hilarious comparison aside, these clowns are just trying to find a way to justify the universally-hated stance that we don't need net neutrality. Mr T's just in the business of appointing yes-men that either always agree with him or get replaced immediately, Pai's just one of the team - there's no point in trying to reason with that, you'll never get anywhere. Not with facts, not with evidence, not with contrary public opinion of any magnitude. These people haven't been hired to be experts or critical thinkers, they were hired to be yes-men, and none of your facts matter.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Not so much, they are also saying that mobile broadband, the MOST EXPENSIVE form of data access is a-ok, and that there is no need to support land-lines which provide lower cost, faster speeds, more reliability, etc... are not necessary
Frankly this will lead to a scenario where families will have to decide if they want to spend their bandwidth supporting junior's school work or watching game of thrones
it will hurt the poor more than the wealthy
Matters for video and voice as well.
Good luck telecommuting when you're choppy as heck and way behind on the conversation.
You are suggesting people who use cellular for internet are getting lower speeds.
Well obviously the ones whom this pertains to are the rural users, right? Since in larger cities you can just get a cable modem or DSL lines...
Well I am here to tell you, for truly rural users where MAYBE they can get a DSL line, cellular internet is a godsend as it is 10-100x faster than what they can get today.
My mother lives not that far outside a major city, but all she could get was DSL - a weak line that often capped out at something like 50k/sec.
That's no typo, that's not MB/s, it was literally at times about like using a modem.
It was so slow she could only use a very old Netflix client on the original AppleTV because modern players would just give up.
I finally ended up getting her a T-Mobile hotspot, because it tests at her house my phone was getting 2 MB/s download. The actual hotspot does an even better job, getting more like 3-5 MB/s download and a respectable 2MB/s or so up.
After just a month of testing both, she scrapped the DSL line (which cost about the same as the mobile hotspot per month).
Now there is a downside - A fairly low data cap compared to most cable modem or DSL plans, she has about 10GB of data per month after which the connection slows. But that has been enough to stream all the Netflix she wants and do occasional device software updates.
So do not claim you are some champion of speed by scoffing at cellular internet. For rural users I am now convinced it is the final solution rather than running expensive cable that will never be maintained well. Instead work on regulations for something like mandatorily higher data caps for those that truly live in remote locations and have to rely on cellular for internet,
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
it will hurt the poor more than the wealthy
Doesn't...everything?
I see the Anonymous Coward's from AT&T, Verizon, Spectrum and all of the other big ISPs and Internet backbone providers have joined in the fray to support the Governments endorsement of their price gouging oligarchy. Ajit Pai is a first generation descendant of people from the Indian sub-continent; anything good enough for the folks over there is more than good enough for the U.S.A. I don't like the man as he is a raging Corporatist. As to affordability, the major players in the game have an informal cabal to control access to real broadband on the internet. And pricks who say move to where there is decent bandwidth because the cabal is trying to more than maximize their profit is a Libertarian Jerk. And these big companies use the government to prevent new entrants in the market who would like to provide affordable internet.
I think the point is that major ISPs who own copper (or fiber) and can offer much higher speeds might have an advantage over those--like Verizon--who only provide wireless. I thought Pai was a former Verizon lobbyist. This rule would be a boon to his former employer. Or, given the revolving door for lobbyists in DC, probable future re-employer.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Welll if fucktards waste their money on entertainment instead of food/education it is their problem. Government doesn't need to regulate access to entertainment. All they are trying to do is ensure access to essential services and what is needed to work. For the vast majority of jobs 10Mbps will be fine because you can easily VPN/RDP into your work computer have a teleconference etc.
It's not about the speed. It's not even about the cost. Currently cell phone companies even though they now have unlimited plans, they cap tethering at 10G/month. A family could easily burn thru this on a home computer just doing school work especially if that school work included any educational videos. Having internet for only part of the month each month is not an acceptable solution. Until cellular hotspots have a much higher monthly cap, it is not a good alternative.
With one exception, a progressive tax system, which hurts the wealthy more than the poor.
I am yet to see a "hurt" wealthy person. Sales tax, lower tax on investment income, and some creative accounting more than compensate for the progressive tax system.