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."

9 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Moving goalposts by thegreatbob · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd like my internet to move at least as fast as your goalposts, at all times, Pai.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  2. Re:There is a difference by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

    When the FCC decides that mobile data speeds are all the bandwidth anyone needs, they're basically saying large parts of the United States are fine with the same level of bandwidth to be found in large portions of India.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. I'll take it! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I for one would take reliability over speed. Reliability is a big problem with our current 1.4 choices of providers.

  4. It's easy to Make America Great Again! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just change the definition of "Great".

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The FCC board members should be required by law to use the speed they deem "adequate" for others at home and at work.

  6. Re:There is a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll use my parents as an example as to why this FCC statement is nonsense.

    My parents live about 10 miles outside of a medium sized city in Texas (Waco).

    They have NO data over mobile. They barely have voice connections for cell phone.

    They can't get ANY decent broadband. They use HughesNet, which is essentially modem speeds of 25 years ago for upload, ping times in the seconds, and download speeds at about ISDN levels. That is the ONLY provider that serves their neighborhood (others have come out, checked signal strengths, and told them they're out of luck).

    My dad drives to a McDonald's about 5 miles away to use their pathetic internet connection (by most people's standards), and my Mom goes to a StarBucks in town to get a better internet connection when she wants to do anything other than read text email.

    Regardless of what the FCC currently says, they do NOT have acceptable internet.

    They aren't poor. The service just isn't available in rural Texas (or, I suspect, most rural parts of the USA). We are essentially a 3rd world country, w.r.t. internet, when you get 10 miles away from the city.

    Meanwhile, in Austin, we have Google Fiber.

  7. Re:There is a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  8. Re:There is a difference by un1nsp1red · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it will hurt the poor more than the wealthy

    Doesn't...everything?

  9. Re:There is a difference by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.