1. Home
  2. Wireless Networking
  3. FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid

FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid

F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday characterized its Congressionally mandated ?national broadband plan? as a much-needed step for keeping the United States competitive.

The proposal, which the agency sent to Congress on Tuesday, ?is necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness, and harness the power of broadband to help address so many vital national issues,? the agency chairman, Julius Genachowski, said in a statement.

The 376-page plan reflects the view that broadband Internet is becoming the common medium of the United States, gradually displacing the telephone and broadcast television. But many of the recommendations will require Congressional action, and may take years to put in place.

Some proposals will probably face resistance from the telecommunication giants, which over time may face new competition for customers. Already, the broadcast television industry is resisting a proposal to auction off some of its spectrum so that it can be redirected toward mobile Internet technologies.

The plan broadly seeks a 90 percent broadband adoption rate in the United States by 2020, up from roughly 65 percent. The reasons for being unwired vary: some cannot access it at their homes, some cannot afford it and some choose not to have it.

Recommendations include subsidies to extend broadband to rural areas now without access, the development of a new universal set-top box that would connect to the Internet and cable service and the formation of a ?digital literacy corps? to provide skills training.

The plan also includes a faster-Internet initiative that theoretically would equip 100 million households with 100-megabit-a-second access by the end of this decade. According to comScore, the average subscriber now receives speeds of three to four megabits a second.

MORE:

The Proposal:

Reply to
John Navas
Loading thread data ...

[snippy]

John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.

Jonz

Reply to
Jonz

Some years ago.

Reply to
John Higdon

dband Plan Is Vital

I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it. Serves me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.

Cheers, Steve

Reply to
seaweedsl

On 17/03/2010 14:43, seaweedsl wrote:

Broadband Plan Is Vital

This from M.J.Copps applies to a lot of countries and not just the US. "But an increase of technology does not by itself guarantee a more informed citizenry. A 2009 study indicates that, as a country, we now consume in excess of 1.3 trillion hours of media per year. Yet the production and distribution of essential news and information content has never been more in doubt. The same hyper-speculation and consolidation that wreaked such havoc on so much of our economy began early with media, and the destruction was compounded by the almost complete dismantlement of public interest oversight of our broadcast stations, decimating news, newsrooms and news media. A new Pew Research Center report shows a 50 per cent decline in network news reporting and editing capacity since the 1980s and a 30 per cent drop for newspapers since 2000. The pink slips that have replaced pay stubs for so many thousands of beat journalists and the evaporating state of watchdog journalism have left us, to be frank, on a starvation diet when it comes to nourishing our democratic dialogue. A serving of America?s daily news and information is about 500 calories short of a healthy meal. Opinion should feed on facts, not on more opinion?and right now, neither our traditional nor our new media is supplying the nourishment we need to maintain the health of the body politic. If we don?t tread carefully we will have a society with plenty of fat-filled chatter but not enough of the protein of facts, terabytes of opinion but an empty cup of investigatory journalism to tell us what?s really going on, information aplenty about celebrities and weather but a famine of real local, national and international news. And this is not just about the future?it?s about the present,too."

Reply to
Bob

"US broadband seeks ISP speed stickers"

Reply to
John Navas

Did you not read the plan?

Reply to
Bob

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:52:39 -0700, John Navas wrote in :

"FCC Broadband Speed Tests Should Also Support Enforcement"

Reply to
John Navas

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:00:44 +0000, Bob wrote in :

I read it. Did you? ;)

Reply to
John Navas

I doubt they could enforce it with their present tools. see the comments:-

There is an RFQ in progress for testing. "Federal Communications Commission Request for Quotation for Residential Fixed Broadband Services Testing and Measurement Solution."

Reply to
Bob

This is true, especially since the FCC's plan is back in the news as of a couple days ago. For a country that brags about being first in everything, we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet infrastructure.

Reply to
David Kaye

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:hnrec2$m5f$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Croatia - 21,829 sq. miles - 4.492 million Serbia - 34,116 sq. miles - 7.350 million Czech - 49,007 sq. miles - 10.427 million

USA - 3,537,441 sq. miles - 281.421 million

There are 31 states that are larger than Czech,

39 states bigger than Serbia, and 41 states bigger than Croatia.

I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than all three of those countries combined.

If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia) it shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that covered nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 = 23,138 sq. miles).

Reply to
DanS

So, are you saying that the US has more people than it can handle? By that logic, we should have shortages of everything. Funny that we used to lead the world in quality and quantity of telephone service *per capita*.

Now, to justify our miserably inferior broadband availability (and on a per-capita basis, it IS worse than most third-world countries), you compare our infrastructure on an absolute basis with some of the poorest nations on earth.

So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our problem?

Reply to
John Higdon

Density is the difference. Its easy to justify running fiber when the line supports multiple households.

South Korea is usually used as a comparison. Its only 2/3rds the size of California but has 4 times as many people per square mule. The density in South Korea is slightly less than Santa Clara County.

20% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul and most people in live in high rise apartment buildings.

Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.

Reply to
Roy

That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee. If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.

Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.

Reply to
John Higdon

On the 15th March asked for comment on the following:- "COMMENT SOUGHT ON MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING SECTION 271 ACCESS TO DARK FIBER FACILITIES AND LINE SHARING PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED"

Verizons comments include:- "Checklist Item 4 does not include dark fiber loops because dark fiber cannot transmit? anything ? much less provide ?transmission from [a] central office to [a] customer?s premises,? as the statute specifies ? without the addition of electronics. See Verizon Comments 2-3; AT&T Comments 2-3. Checklist Item 5 similarly does not require dark fiber transport or dark fiber entrance facilities, because dark fiber cannot ?transport? anything without the attachment of electronics. 47 U.S.C. §

271(c)(2)(B)(v). Nor is dark fiber connected to ?a wireline local exchange carrier switch,? and therefore cannot provide ?transport from the trunk side? of such a switch, as the statute specifies." "But dark fiber ? which, by definition, is incapable of transmit[ting]? or ?transport[ing]? anything ? is not a ?service.? Therefore, the requirement to provide transport ?unbundled from . . . other services? does not include dark fiber, which is a glass strand unbundled from all services."

While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.

Reply to
Bob

If you wish to check for wireless licences and spectrum allocation the FCC have produced a "Spectrum Dashboard" which is in "beta" development. "

formatting link
"

Reply to
Bob

The USA is also far richer than any of those other countries.

Reply to
David Kaye

Last time I checked they were somewhat smaller and much more densly populated countries.

And they don't have the interesting issues of extensive urban sprawl where lots of folks decided they didn't want to have neighbors so they moved "out to the country" building homes on widely spaced lots. I really have no interest in paying for their lifestyle. If broadband costs an extra $50/month because of the costs to service such properties they need to pay for it.

Reply to
George

John Higdon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.announcetech.com:

No, I'm not saying that, at all.

The three nations I mentioned, was only because someone else named them.

Also, they are not some of the poorest nations on Earth..GDP- wise anyway.

formatting link

Serbia does show as the lowest of the 3 I mentioned, but even that is at a > 50 percentile......meaning more than half the countries of the world are considered 'poorer'.

Additionally, the 'absolute' comparison was nothing more than a comment made agaisnt the original comment.....

"......we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet infrastructure."

Which is not detailed either. How are we behind ? What exactly does that statement mean ? (Both rhetorical.)

Money. If there is no money to be made, no one does anything.

Doesn't everything come down to money ? (Rhetorical.)

Reply to
DanS

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.