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."
Considering something adequate for federal policy is different than 'all people need'.
Americans don't need life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I'd like my internet to move at least as fast as your goalposts, at all times, Pai.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
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.
If the rest of the world has gigabit fiber at home, services will be optimized for that, and you will be excluded with your mobile plan.
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
The FCC board members should be required by law to use the speed they deem "adequate" for others at home and at work.
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'
Is it possible that this is the cable companies lobbying the FCC to try and make sure people don't have the bandwidth to stream all their TV shows and cut the cord? The funny thing is, these cable companies are the same ones providing the Internet in most cases so they're not actually losing the customer.
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!
"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.
No! No! No! Everyone should contact them and encourage them not to do this.
They have shown that couldn't give less of a shit what the people actually want. Telling them is pointless.
At this point, the best option is to constantly raise hell with your congresscritter. Congress can absolutely force the FCC to do the right thing, no matter how much the FCC doesn't want to.
Three times worse than cable internet. Matters for gaming.
The FCC is run by a guy who works(ed?) for Verizon. That's why. Simple corruption.
I don't respond to AC's.
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
Australia used this excuse back when they were number 38 in the global internet speeds. Where are they now? No one knows because Akamai only publish the top 50.
Just came here to visit. Currently staying 4km from the city center of 2.5million people and downloading at the blazing speeds of 10mbps, only 1/5th of my *upload* speed back in Europe.
Don't cut the cord yet Americans. Netflix doesn't do well at these speeds.
My mother lives about fifteen miles outside of a major city.
I got her a wireless hotspot because it is 100x faster than her DSL line was. The DSL speed was not going to change anytime soon...
Also, how do you know your parents cannot get cellular data than where they are? Have you tried a wireless hotspot? They offer better caption and transmission than smart phones do. There are even re-transmitters you can buy - expensive, but if you want faster speed...
There is no question in my mind now rural users are better served by cellular internet. You can choose providers (unlike DSL or cable). You have faster speeds than any poorly maintained last mile out in the hinterlands will ever grant you. The ONLY downside is data caps but that is where the government could mandate relief if it so chose, and I would be in agreement with anyone living outside of a major metro area getting mandatory larger data caps for internet from mobile tethering or a hotspot (even if your plan has no limits they often have limits on allowed tethering data per month - usually the same as the hotspot maximums).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you're ten miles from Waco, and if Waco has high speed cellular emanating from a tower that is local to the city, then you can definitely get it ten miles away.
You'll need a directional high-gain antenna, and perhaps a little height above ground, but you can certainly do it if those two ifs are true.
The antennas in cellphones are, in a word, hilariously poor performers. You can do considerably better fairly easily and inexpensively (plus, it's a one-time cost.)
Having said that, likely you can also put up a high-gain wifi antenna as well and catch some decent wifi from... somewhere within line of sight. So higher is, as always with this kind of thing, better. This approach is questionable, ethically, unless you make an agreement with the wifi owner, and may be illegal as well. Technically, however, it's not a big deal. Hams do this kind of longish distance wifi with old cans and a wire probe connected to the wifi modem. Works great.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Internet access in the US is already a joke compared with most other industrialized nations, and has been for years now.
I see that claim a lot, but the data seems contrary, in that the US is ahead of most of the EU, and most of the rest of the world.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So, most customers don't *need* blazing fast speeds...The thing is, people *want* it, and in a capitalist society, you service the market. The problem is, the big ISPs have lobbied to crush any competition, meaning the market that desires blazing fast speed can't get it. They can't even *set it up* to offer it to others. THAT is the problem people have with the big ISPs.
Get them while they're sharp!
Come to think of it, mobile internet access is adequate for Twitter. And that's all anyone should need, right? Case closed.