I don't care why politicians are jumping on this bandwagon -- Edwards, Clinton, and Obama have all put out positions on broadband deployment -- it is necessary that something is done. We need a better measurement of what high speed means; we need and accurate broadband map of what is available everywhere in this country, at what speed and at what cost; and we need public policy that requires high speed build out everywhere. These policy discussions and more are at http://www.speedmattters.org./ Several of the candidates have credited this campaign as the source of their information for their proposals.
Just because there are some stupid laws doesn't mean we don't need some public policy to encourage build out, prohibit redlining of certain neighborhoods, promote rural broadband development, protect consumers to make sure they are getting the speed and quality they are paying for. There are some examples of good public policy at http://www.speedmatters.org./
Not only is their methodology on zip codes flawed but their whole definition of what is "high speed" is way off. The FCC needs to update its definition. The minimum high speed should be is 2 MPPS upstream and 1 MBPS downstream. For other countries that would still be slow but we need to start somewhere. Even when we pay for higher speeds there is no consumer protection that requires providers to give you what you pay for. The only way for these issues to be addressed is a serious public policy encouraging real high speed broadband, affordable for every American. It is not going to happen by itself. Other countries (like Japan) have 100 MBPS for the same as we are paying. We need to take steps now. There is some good information on the state of American broadband and proposals for change on http://www.speedmatters.org./
You can look at it the other way too. They will not build out more capacity if they don't have the right to reserve a portion for their own use. I absolutely agree we need an open internet. I absolutely agree there must be protection against discriminatory behavior. But I don't see how, if they increase capacity to what they should, why we would stop them for reserving a portion for video and private network sevices that would help pay for the investment.
You say, "if prioritization is necessary to make it work, then it is because there is not enough bandwidth to go around, so either: 1) the user needs to throttle back their bit rate and/or latency expectations; or 2) the network capacity needs to be increased"
That is exactly the point. Network capacity needs to be increased. If all the energy going into the net neutrality fight went into the fight to increase capacity we might be able to make some progress!
You say:
"Comcast says I get 4Mbps of bandwidth. But they really divided 400Mbps across 100 customers, said I get 4Mbps (that's a simplified version). Now that everybody wants to download stuff from YouTube, Comcast finds that they don't actually have enough bandwidth to give everyone 4MBps."
In your hypothetical example the problem seems to me is that they only have the "400 mbps" to divide among those 100 customers. The real problem in the US is that there is the lack of capacity and the lack of speed. We need public policy to support the building of high speed, affordable access to every part of America, like they have in so many other countries. Would we be worried about slower speeds if everyone had a 100 mbps like they have in Japan. We are concentrating on the wrong issue. We need the FCC to increase its definition of high speed; we need a serious broadband map of America to show where we have what speeds and at what cost; we need consumer protections so people get what they pay for; we need protections against discriminatory behavior on the internet; we need to stimulate investments and growth really high speed network. That's what the FCC should be concentrating on. http://www.speedmatters.org/ has good policy suggestions on this issue.
Creating a Broadband Map of America that clearly shows what is available, what speeds, at what costs in every part of American is a crucial FIRST step to providing high speed internet to all Americans (we also need to increase the FCC definition of high speed from the ridiculously low 200 kbps). We also need Public Policy to make it happen. Of course companies will cherry-pick the most profitable areas. That's why we need tax incentives, public/private partnership and other programs to make sure there is build out everywhere. We already have the Universal Service Fund. It could be redirected to help fund high speed broadband in communities that are not "high profit." The internet is becoming a necessity, not a luxury. So much education and so many government services require the internet that it no one should be left out. For more proposals on this check out http://www.speedmatters.org./
Sounds to me like they need a Union. I don't care how great a place is. When you get down to it, unless you have a Contract, they can keep changing things. It always amazes me - When top executives take jobs they always negotiate contracts for themselves - how much they get if they leave, stock options, benefits, pensions, car, housing - but when workers get together to do it everyone acts like they are doing something wrong! They should get in tough with CWA's http://www.washtech.org/.
The only way we can really get the speed, affordability and universal access is NOT by government ownership but with Public Policy that encourages build-out, requires high quality and high speed and supports growth and innovation.
A good example that people might want to check out is Connect Kentucky http://connectkentucky.org/ which is sponsored by the state without ownership: "ConnectKentucky develops and implements effective strategies for technology deployment, use, and literacy in Kentucky, creating both the forum and the incentive for interaction among a variety of people and entities that would not otherwise unite behind common goals and a shared vision. This level of teamwork is making Kentucky a better place for business and a better place to live." Also see http://speedmatters.org/ for other examples are PUBLIC POLICY options, NOT public ownership ones.
The US speeds are a joke compared to many other countries. We need the fastest internet possible and the countries that have it the fastest (like Japan) primarily use Fiber.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care why politicians are jumping on this bandwagon -- Edwards, Clinton, and Obama have all put out positions on broadband deployment -- it is necessary that something is done. We need a better measurement of what high speed means; we need and accurate broadband map of what is available everywhere in this country, at what speed and at what cost; and we need public policy that requires high speed build out everywhere. These policy discussions and more are at http://www.speedmattters.org./ Several of the candidates have credited this campaign as the source of their information for their proposals.
Just because there are some stupid laws doesn't mean we don't need some public policy to encourage build out, prohibit redlining of certain neighborhoods, promote rural broadband development, protect consumers to make sure they are getting the speed and quality they are paying for. There are some examples of good public policy at http://www.speedmatters.org./
Not only is their methodology on zip codes flawed but their whole definition of what is "high speed" is way off. The FCC needs to update its definition. The minimum high speed should be is 2 MPPS upstream and 1 MBPS downstream. For other countries that would still be slow but we need to start somewhere. Even when we pay for higher speeds there is no consumer protection that requires providers to give you what you pay for. The only way for these issues to be addressed is a serious public policy encouraging real high speed broadband, affordable for every American. It is not going to happen by itself. Other countries (like Japan) have 100 MBPS for the same as we are paying. We need to take steps now. There is some good information on the state of American broadband and proposals for change on http://www.speedmatters.org./
You can look at it the other way too. They will not build out more capacity if they don't have the right to reserve a portion for their own use. I absolutely agree we need an open internet. I absolutely agree there must be protection against discriminatory behavior. But I don't see how, if they increase capacity to what they should, why we would stop them for reserving a portion for video and private network sevices that would help pay for the investment.
You say, "if prioritization is necessary to make it work, then it is because there is not enough bandwidth to go around, so either: 1) the user needs to throttle back their bit rate and/or latency expectations; or 2) the network capacity needs to be increased" That is exactly the point. Network capacity needs to be increased. If all the energy going into the net neutrality fight went into the fight to increase capacity we might be able to make some progress!
You say: "Comcast says I get 4Mbps of bandwidth. But they really divided 400Mbps across 100 customers, said I get 4Mbps (that's a simplified version). Now that everybody wants to download stuff from YouTube, Comcast finds that they don't actually have enough bandwidth to give everyone 4MBps." In your hypothetical example the problem seems to me is that they only have the "400 mbps" to divide among those 100 customers. The real problem in the US is that there is the lack of capacity and the lack of speed. We need public policy to support the building of high speed, affordable access to every part of America, like they have in so many other countries. Would we be worried about slower speeds if everyone had a 100 mbps like they have in Japan. We are concentrating on the wrong issue. We need the FCC to increase its definition of high speed; we need a serious broadband map of America to show where we have what speeds and at what cost; we need consumer protections so people get what they pay for; we need protections against discriminatory behavior on the internet; we need to stimulate investments and growth really high speed network. That's what the FCC should be concentrating on. http://www.speedmatters.org/ has good policy suggestions on this issue.
Creating a Broadband Map of America that clearly shows what is available, what speeds, at what costs in every part of American is a crucial FIRST step to providing high speed internet to all Americans (we also need to increase the FCC definition of high speed from the ridiculously low 200 kbps). We also need Public Policy to make it happen. Of course companies will cherry-pick the most profitable areas. That's why we need tax incentives, public/private partnership and other programs to make sure there is build out everywhere. We already have the Universal Service Fund. It could be redirected to help fund high speed broadband in communities that are not "high profit." The internet is becoming a necessity, not a luxury. So much education and so many government services require the internet that it no one should be left out. For more proposals on this check out http://www.speedmatters.org./
Sounds to me like they need a Union. I don't care how great a place is. When you get down to it, unless you have a Contract, they can keep changing things. It always amazes me - When top executives take jobs they always negotiate contracts for themselves - how much they get if they leave, stock options, benefits, pensions, car, housing - but when workers get together to do it everyone acts like they are doing something wrong! They should get in tough with CWA's http://www.washtech.org/.
The only way we can really get the speed, affordability and universal access is NOT by government ownership but with Public Policy that encourages build-out, requires high quality and high speed and supports growth and innovation. A good example that people might want to check out is Connect Kentucky http://connectkentucky.org/ which is sponsored by the state without ownership: "ConnectKentucky develops and implements effective strategies for technology deployment, use, and literacy in Kentucky, creating both the forum and the incentive for interaction among a variety of people and entities that would not otherwise unite behind common goals and a shared vision. This level of teamwork is making Kentucky a better place for business and a better place to live." Also see http://speedmatters.org/ for other examples are PUBLIC POLICY options, NOT public ownership ones. The US speeds are a joke compared to many other countries. We need the fastest internet possible and the countries that have it the fastest (like Japan) primarily use Fiber.