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: Jeff Liebermann on 18 Mar 2010 13:18 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:13:32 -0700, John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: >That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? There are also isolated areas in the middle of cities where there's no broadband. They're easy to find. Just look on the rooftops for HughesNet or Wild Blue satellite dishes. For example, right next to UCSC, which has excellent connectivity, is the community of Cave Gulch with about 40 residences straddling Empire Grade. The fiber for AT&T goes up Empire grade. Comcast cable/fiber stops at the University. So, there's no DSL and no cable. I know of several other communities with similar isolated areas of no broadband[1]. My guess is that the numbers are not huge, but still significant. Oddly, as the FCC keeps waving the mantra of connectivity to RURAL areas, none of these qualify as genuinely rural, and will therefore be served last. It's most likely going to follow the model of rural electrification in the 1950's. The government subsidized the power companies to provide power to unprofitable rural areas. I expect the broadband plan to degenerate into much the same thing. Whether that will provide more or better service is debatable, but it will certainly add some taxes to the existing services, that can be either stolen or redirected, such as the FCC's Universal Service Fund, E-Rate, and 911 PSAP funding. [1] My favorite irony is that some of the major fiber runs in SCZ County go through farm areas, or along the coast, that have no broadband service. The DWDM fiber bundle goes right through these areas (because Caltrans won't allow cable runs on the freeways). <http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/UCSC-CENIC%2011-13-08.pdf> <http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/att-map.html> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: Jeff Liebermann on 18 Mar 2010 14:23 <On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:29:44 -0700, Roy <aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: >Density is the difference. Its easy to justify running fiber when the >line supports multiple households. Tell that to those farmers that are leasing the right of way to AT&T and Comcast, but can't get DSL or cable. See map at: <http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/att-map.html> Some of the fiber run in the Moss Landing area has no DSL service. The part that does has it via UCSC/UCMB which lease some of the fiber. Same problem between Santa Cruz and Davenport. AT&T and Comcast fiber go right by numerous homes and farms, but no service. Running the fiber and providing RT (remote terminal) pedestals are quite different. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: John Richards on 18 Mar 2010 14:57 "John Higdon" <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote in message news:higgy-4B9801.23133217032010(a)news.announcetech.com... > 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. Even San Jose has nowhere near the population density of Seoul. -- John Richards
From: Jeff Liebermann on 18 Mar 2010 20:42 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:52:39 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >"US broadband seeks ISP speed stickers" ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/17/national_broadband_plan_one/> Federally managed SLA's (Service Level Agreements) for consumers? I can't wait for the tin foil hat crowd to suggest that they add a warning label to the sticker. "Exposure to RF might be hazardous to your health". Bring on the ammendments. It probably won't happen, but if it does, you probably won't recognize the final version. Hmmm... they forgot about latency, MOS score, and suitability for VoIP. Yet, that's the justification for switching the Universal Service Fund from POTS service to data service. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl(a)cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
From: Jeff Liebermann on 18 Mar 2010 21:05
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:20:02 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >"FCC Broadband Speed Tests Should Also Support Enforcement" ><http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/191430/fcc_broadband_speed_tests_should_also_support_enforcement.html> A non-speeding ticket for surfing too slow? Actually, that poses an interesting problem. If the consumer doesn't get their FCC mandated minimum allowable performance because of some kind of upstream failure, can the consumers ISP pass the fines on to the upstream providers? -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl(a)cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |