FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Microsoft's dual-screenbooklet shows 'face' on web ¤ The Register
Next: NEWS: Android Market Push Threatens BlackBerry and iPhone
From: Bob on 18 Mar 2010 04:37 On 18/03/2010 06:13, John Higdon wrote: > In article > <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d(a)posted.southvalleyinternet>, > Roy<aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > 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. > 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" <http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0115/DA-10-94A1.txt> 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." <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020396213> 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.
From: Bob on 18 Mar 2010 04:40 On 18/03/2010 06:13, John Higdon wrote: > In article > <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d(a)posted.southvalleyinternet>, > Roy<aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > 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. > If you wish to check for wireless licences and spectrum allocation the FCC have produced a "Spectrum Dashboard" which is in "beta" development. "http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard"
From: David Kaye on 18 Mar 2010 07:25 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote: >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 The USA is also far richer than any of those other countries.
From: George on 18 Mar 2010 07:31 On 3/17/2010 5:34 PM, David Kaye wrote: > seaweedsl<seaweedsteve(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > 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. > 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.
From: DanS on 18 Mar 2010 10:49
John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote in news:higgy-72F5F2.19580717032010(a)news.announcetech.com: > In article > <Xns9D3EC322CDCE6thisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131>, > DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote: > >> I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than >> all three of those countries combined. > > 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*. No, I'm not saying that, at all. > 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. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_ (nominal) 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.) >> 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). > > So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our > problem? Money. If there is no money to be made, no one does anything. Doesn't everything come down to money ? (Rhetorical.) |