# U.S. to roll out major broadband policy



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Some details of the plan have trickled out in the last few weeks including how to find spectrum to meet an anticipated explosion of handset devices capable of playing movies and music in addition to handling emails and voice calls.
> 
> But some carriers like AT&T Inc and Qwest Communications International Inc were irked last month when the agency's chief, Julius Genachowski, announced that the FCC would propose in the plan a goal of 100 Mbps speeds to be in place at 100 million American homes in 10 years. The current average is less than 4 Mbps.
> 
> ...


Reuters Article: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62D0ZX20100315


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Yeah. A real "dream". But it's reality in places like South Korea.

Another example of corporate America "Can't Do" attitude.

I can't believe I saw a Comcast "Xfinity" ad last night that said "100Mbps Coming Soon".

COMCAST?!?!?!?!


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

link to the new site for the goverment

http://www.broadband.gov/


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

But with some ISPs, a 100 Mbit connection just means you hit their monthly cap sooner. That and we need more competition. I'd like to use something like DSL Extreme, but around here, it seems to either be TW or the phone company's Zoomtown, and even though Earthlink is available over cable to non-cable subscribers, TW caps still apply.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I really would like to see speeds increase, but I do not necessarily see government intervention as something that will help at all. Also most urban areas do have up to 10mb+ available, just people do not subscribe to it.

If anything it will drive prices up as in some areas it is very unrealistic to increase speeds much at all because of geography (such as rural areas where homes are very spread out and it is almost impossible for ISPs to make any money after putting in the infrastructure to provide coverage to people).


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I see it as trying to make it like telephone, electric, water or any other utility; available to most households even if they don't subscribe.

That said, I just got a municipal water supply about 5 years ago. Before that, I was on a well. There are still quite a few households here that do not have county water because they live down roads where there may only be a handful of houses.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I see it as trying to make it like telephone, electric, water or any other utility; available to most households even if they don't subscribe.
> 
> That said, I just got a municipal water supply about 5 years ago. Before that, I was on a well. There are still quite a few households here that do not have county water because they live down roads where there may only be a handful of houses.


Exactly, in rural areas Well and Septic is the standard still. Heck, I am not that far out and still have well and septic


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Septic/sewer is another matter. There are some very upscale developments on septic tanks. Some have community septic systems instead of individual tanks.

But that may be a better idea than running everything into a sewer and dumping it into rivers and lakes.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

OK, I really do not want to get off on a tangent, but did you go to the FCC site and read any of the material on rationale, premises, goals and objectives? I'm all for broadband but this plan is social engineering on a scale I have not seen before. As I read it, there is a ton of implied government coersion, mandates, and regulatory oversight (and new departments in the federal goverment to oversee all of this) that will affect private industry, spectrum license holders, property owners, and I presume taxpayers at large, across the board in order to realize these goals.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

tkrandall said:


> OK, I really do not want to get off on a tangent, but did you go to the FCC site and read any of the material on rationale, premises, goals and objectives? I'm all for broadband but this plan is social engineering on a scale I have not seen before. As I read it, there is a ton of implied government coersion, mandates, and regulatory oversight (and new departments in the federal goverment to oversee all of this) that will affect private industry, spectrum license holders, property owners, and I presume taxpayers at large, across the board in order to realize these goals.


Before everyone ranted and raved about these things, there was "the phone company." It too needed public space, not the airwaves, but the public rights-of-way. When you know about Kingsbury Commitment of 1913 and the temporary nationalization of AT&T in 1918, followed by regulation designed to ensure that rates subsidized "universal access" you'll know how wired phone communications developed in this country.

It's as if no one remembers that this nation was built on government action, control and/or subsidy, a long history that began with the acquisition of and settling of the land in the west (Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War), then the giving railroads land, then the phone system, then universal access to electricity, then the Interstate Highway System. And of course we all know about the creation of the internet because we know about ARPANET and the role of CERN (an European Government creation) which on April 30, 1993, announced that the World Wide Web would be free to anyone, with no fees due.

All of which ultimately made it possible for the Comcasts and ATTs in the U.S. to get rich on these taxpayer funded creations, without sufficient regulation to assure uniform universal access to the internet and which in a relatively short period of time has created economic winners and losers as these private companies cherry-pick service areas in the process of getting rich.

It is analogous to the government handing land to the railroads but without requiring stops between major cities or the building an interstate highway system with no interchanges between major urban city centers.

For some sense of universality, over the next 50 years someone has to insure uniform universal access to the internet for all at a modest price with high speeds available in as many places as possible at all times if it is to be a national information highway. Or we could just let Comcast and Time Warner and AT&T and a few other CEOs decide how people get access (and how much access at what cost) to this _government created means to future wealth_. The only unfortunate thing is that like the private railroads and AT&T, ISP related companies get rich and then lobby Congress until the ordinary people finally get mad and support reformers.

Then we have Charlie, #148 among Forbes 2010 list of the Worlds Richest Millionaires, in his news release saying:


> We are pleased that the National Broadband Plan recognizes that wireline facilities are not the most economic or efficient means of serving our country's most remote communities, and that satellite broadband has an important role to play.


Good for him, provided of course, that perhaps with government incentives he and others find a way to eliminate the latency and bottleneck problems of satellite broadband. By the way, what's he done with that terrestrial bandwidth he bought at the auction a few years ago?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

phrelin said:


> ... By the way, what's he done with that terrestrial bandwidth he bought at the auction a few years ago?


Waiting for right moment to sell it to cover TiVo fee.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Waiting for right moment to sell it to cover TiVo fee.


And I thought I was cynical....


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

If I were in business, I would pick places where I could make money, not supply my goods and services at a loss merely because some government official feels my company isn't doing enough for someone somewhere. The Class Envy politics has to stop..

This broadband plan is just bad news.. I don't want the government mandating what a company can or cannot do. Business is there to make a profit, in which some people can or do get richer than others based on the merits of their ideas, marketing and ability to deliver. Its all these mandates from government that are screwing many things up, starting with the mortgage industry.. that really worked out well didn't it?

By saying that some town of 50 people in the middle of no-where wants broadband and its going to cost millions of dollars to give to them with little hope of a return on that investment for the 20-25 people out of 50 that might use makes no sense. And then to have the government come along and tell me to spend those millions to give them broadband, is just bad business, or just as bad, taking those millions out if my pocket and yours in taxes to provide it.

The government is largely broke, if this spending spree does not stop, we are all going to pay a heavy price..


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

normang said:


> If I were in business, I would pick places where I could make money, not supply my goods and services at a loss merely because some government official feels my company isn't doing enough for someone somewhere. The Class Envy politics has to stop..
> 
> This broadband plan is just bad news.. I don't want the government mandating what a company can or cannot do. Business is there to make a profit, in which some people can or do get richer than others based on the merits of their ideas, marketing and ability to deliver. Its all these mandates from government that are screwing many things up, starting with the mortgage industry.. that really worked out well didn't it?
> 
> ...


You seem to think this is something that will just start. Perhaps you should go to http://www.nrtc.coop/pub/us/. Then you can ask people who used to deal with NRTC companies. They generally pay a higher premium due to where they are but at least have the same capabilities. You're also thinking short term not long term.

People right now buy houses in new subdivisions rather than out farther due to technology. Getting high speed internet is a factor for home buying for more consumers every day. Where I live fiber services are being setup in new sub divisions to help the 2 major building companies in the area sell homes in those sub divisions. Ever since they started doing that they have sold more homes, yes other factors with the stimulus and economy factor in, but that becomes a huge selling point. The only reason the real estate boom happened is because of the road systems that the government funded as well. Suburbs were created due to interstate highways. Without them they wouldn't be as they are today.

I would prefer not to live in a subdivision and have an acre of land. I weighed the pro's and con's and due to my kids I chose to live in a subdivision so that I could have things like affordable high speed internet for their schooling. You can bet that if I could live 15 miles away from my sub division and have an acre or two of land plus all the normal technology amneties I would in a heart beat.

I can say that my generation will enjoy the broadband internet. I can guarantee that my kids generation will require it and I'm only 34.

I could go into how this will revitalise our farming production but most people won't care. Needless to say overall the benefits of this will be huge it will just take many years for it to be utlized completely.

Here is an article from 2007 and it could be dated tomorrow and still be true. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990.html


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Perhaps a Mod could move posts 7 through 12 to a new thread in the appropriate forum and then delete this post or merge them into http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174156?

If not and this tangent is acceptable then please just delete this post.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Perhaps a Mod could move posts 7 through 12 to a new thread in the appropriate forum and then delete this post or merge them into http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=174156?
> 
> If not and this tangent is acceptable then please just delete this post.


I personally don't think this is a tangent. The thread is about this...


Jason Nipp said:


> "DISH Network congratulates Chairman Genachowski on releasing a bold National Broadband Plan. We are pleased that the National Broadband Plan recognizes that wireline facilities are not the most economic or efficient means of serving our country's most remote communities, and that satellite broadband has an important role to play."


...this being a news release taking a strong political position by Dish Network. I happen to support it. Some might disagree with good reason.

But it most certainly falls under the forum heading General Dish Network™ Discussion. If "wireline facilities are not the most economic or efficient means of serving our country's most remote communities" and "satellite broadband has an important role to play" then how the government gets satellite into a competitive position, and whether they should, deserves some discussion. Dish's web site still advertises WildBlue. Which is why I ended my rant with:


phrelin said:


> Good for [Charlie], provided of course, that perhaps with government incentives he and others find a way to eliminate the latency and bottleneck problems of satellite broadband. By the way, what's he done with that terrestrial bandwidth he bought at the auction a few years ago?


Those of us who are Dish customers are going to see Charlie participating in this debate. I'd love to be able to dump Comcast altogether. So I'm with him on this issue.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Shades228 said:


> You seem to think this is something that will just start. Perhaps you should go to http://www.nrtc.coop/pub/us/. Then you can ask people who used to deal with NRTC companies. They generally pay a higher premium due to where they are but at least have the same capabilities. You're also thinking short term not long term.
> 
> People right now buy houses in new subdivisions rather than out farther due to technology. Getting high speed internet is a factor for home buying for more consumers every day. Where I live fiber services are being setup in new sub divisions to help the 2 major building companies in the area sell homes in those sub divisions. Ever since they started doing that they have sold more homes, yes other factors with the stimulus and economy factor in, but that becomes a huge selling point. The only reason the real estate boom happened is because of the road systems that the government funded as well. Suburbs were created due to interstate highways. Without them they wouldn't be as they are today.
> 
> ...


There are trade offs to most every decision. You perhaps prefer to be in wide open spaces that provide limited access to broadband, if you make that choice, then you have to live within those limits.. Ie chances are your not going to get cable, you'll be watching satellite tV, while wireless maybe within reach, but its performance depending on distance may be limited.

To hang a hat that somehow having high speed broadband everywhere is going to reap great financial benefits would have to really be proven. Considering the cost of deployment.

Based on the Post article you noted, there is no consideration that Japan is a postage stamp for broadband coverage in comparison to the United States, that most of Japan's people live within several large urban areas, of course most of Japan is going to benefit from whatever high speed internet technology is provided.

The US government for all intensive purposes is broke. If any country decided to call in all its notes, the country would be bankrupt virtually over night. So for the FCC to propose spending probably billions of dollars for this broadband infrastructure, then probably want to have some say in how its used, no thanks. Not to mention, some places would still probably be left out because of the prohibitive cost of getting there.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

normang said:


> There are trade offs to most every decision. You perhaps prefer to be in wide open spaces that provide limited access to broadband, if you make that choice, then you have to live within those limits.. Ie chances are your not going to get cable, you'll be watching satellite tV, while wireless maybe within reach, but its performance depending on distance may be limited.
> 
> To hang a hat that somehow having high speed broadband everywhere is going to reap great financial benefits would have to really be proven. Considering the cost of deployment.
> 
> ...


Yes Japan is much smaller but tell me how many of the big 5 cities are doing fiber everywhere? Companies that have the lock on high speed internet do not need to work on it really because as long as they are around the same highest speed as their competitor it's ok.

They had to go to fiber because DSL became too competitive due to what the government allowed. Competition will drive innovation and new technologies. If you could get a 7 meg dsl connection for $15 a month would you be that upset to pay $3-$5 in taxes? So a 7 meg connection for $20 a month? Most people would kill for that as an every day price or even a promotional price. ISP's would start to pop back up prior to the great buyouts of 1998. Low prices and 10% state/fed tax rate would do wonders for both our local and federal budgets.

Look at the billions of dollars being made by internet business's now. With everyone having true high speed internet it would increase the same as it has since we went from isdn to dsl/cable. Faster speeds make more things possible for everyone.

Internet providing is basically liquid gold because the upkeep cost/revenue is so out of whack. Board members know this and therefor are ok with not spending money until they have to become "competitive".


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Shades228 said:


> Yes Japan is much smaller but tell me how many of the big 5 cities are doing fiber everywhere? Companies that have the lock on high speed internet do not need to work on it really because as long as they are around the same highest speed as their competitor it's ok.
> 
> They had to go to fiber because DSL became too competitive due to what the government allowed. Competition will drive innovation and new technologies. If you could get a 7 meg dsl connection for $15 a month would you be that upset to pay $3-$5 in taxes? So a 7 meg connection for $20 a month? Most people would kill for that as an every day price or even a promotional price. ISP's would start to pop back up prior to the great buyouts of 1998. Low prices and 10% state/fed tax rate would do wonders for both our local and federal budgets.
> 
> ...


You seem to assume that these companies are merely sitting around doing nothing, last I checked, speeds have increased significantly over the past few years for cable. DSL was only competitive because of the lower price and the two reasons they were cheaper as I see it, "slower" speeds, and limited technology. Even DSL speeds are increasing, however do not come close to cable speeds because of the methods of transmission.

There is competition, there is more than one company offering high speed internet services last I checked. your way, there is one, the government, last thing I want is to deal with a government bureaucracy.

If I could get 7mbs DLS for $15, which I can't, I still don't want to feed a trough with taxes that more often than not wastes my money. It will never happen either.. the taxes might, but 7mbs anything for $15,.. unlikely.

What in the world is "true high speed internet" the internet used to be 56K modems. Then it went to perhaps a 1mbs, now it averages 12mbs or more depending on the tier of service you elect to get, at least on cable. Could it be faster, perhaps. But its not the governments job to do that, let the private market determine it.

Business has a right to make profits, its how they make things better. Government merely takes money from the private sector and us, accomplishes very little or wastes it on many unnecessary things, and scratches its collective head and wonders why unemployment is high and the economy is bad. Government can perhaps provide some incentives in some fashion, but to tax us all for broadband. The answer is no...


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

normang said:


> What in the world is "true high speed internet" the internet used to be 56K modems. Then it went to perhaps a 1mbs, now it averages 12mbs or more depending on the tier of service you elect to get, at least on cable. Could it be faster, perhaps. But its not the governments job to do that, let the private market determine it.


Oh really.

Fact. I can't elect to get any other tier of service that I get from Comcast - their slowest which tends to be 7-8 mbs for a mere $57.95 a month. And I'm lucky to get that as the "new" AT&T literally has cherry-picked higher density upper and middle class residential areas to offer residential DSL service (not mine) and they will do so with their new fiber initiative because they can make more profit.

When the federally insured mortgage bankers used to draw boundaries around potentially less profitable neighborhoods and not offer financing to those in less profitable neighborhoods, it was termed red-lining and was made illegal after many years of struggle.

In the ISP business, corporations are encouraged to keep up the per unit profit earned on the taxpayer created internet by avoiding low density areas operating in the same fashion as those mortgage bankers.

And in rural America or the inner city slums why would we put in high speed internet in that low customer density anyway? It's obvious the cost per customer would be too high for those poor saps. So their kids won't grow up familiar with the net. So we create a third world group of Americans. The rest of us have ours, right?

One can argue that if it is so important to me I should move. Or one could argue that many American's abandon their fellow Americans for a buck - literally, a buck a month savings by avoiding having to pay for universal access to high speed internet across America - the approach preferred by many, perhaps most.

Luckily their great-grandparents weren't so "I've got mine" or there would be no interstate highways built with gas taxes to haul those laptops and iPhones to the stores.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

phrelin said:


> Oh really.
> 
> Fact. I can't elect to get any other tier of service that I get from Comcast - their slowest which tends to be 7-8 mbs for a mere $57.95 a month. And I'm lucky to get that as the "new" AT&T literally has cherry-picked higher density upper and middle class residential areas to offer residential DSL service (not mine) and they will do so with their new fiber initiative because they can make more profit.
> 
> ...


I see, If you don't want to pay what it costs, then don't use it. I don't even agree with universal access, its just another tax, and if you tried to find out if that money actually went for what it was intended, I suspect you would find out that most of it doesn't go to improving access for anyone. Its just another bucket of money that government uses as they see fit.

You complain about how mortgages were handled, that federal mandate worked out really well didn't it? House market down, house values down, slews of foreclosures, short sales, billions of dollars lost, you cannot give people mortgages just because it makes you feel good if they cannot pay them back.

The only thing standing in the way of many people's opportunity is themselves and a government that whether you elect to believe it or not, keeps them there by continuing to give them other people's money.

You cannot ignore human nature, many people want to take the path of least resistance and if the government comes along and starts handing out money with no expectation of results, what do you get. You get slums, you get poor people, because they never had to do it for themselves. There are always those that do really require some assistance, and I don't have any problem with that, because in some case, they don't want to stay that way, they want to really get out and make something of themselves.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

normang said:


> I see, If you don't want to pay what it costs, then don't use it. I don't even agree with universal access, its just another tax, and if you tried to find out if that money actually went for what it was intended, I suspect you would find out that most of it doesn't go to improving access for anyone. Its just another bucket of money that government uses as they see fit.
> 
> You complain about how mortgages were handled, that federal mandate worked out really well didn't it? House market down, house values down, slews of foreclosures, short sales, billions of dollars lost, you cannot give people mortgages just because it makes you feel good if they cannot pay them back.
> 
> ...


Please tell me how much bandwidth costs. I would be really interested to see what you think on this matter. Considering I was part of one of the first dial up and dsl providers in IL I would love to hear this.

You talk about the path of least resistance like you personally know what it would take to start an ISP today. Please tell me what your local company would charge you to rent service on their copper. I already know the answer and I don't have to know where you live. They don't, and won't lease space on their copper anymore. So that means you have to lay your own copper. Please let me know the process for you to get the permits and rights to even start laying copper in your town.

This is one industry where you cannot just start up. You cannot just choose to lay down what you want when you want to do something.

The layers or tape you have to go through even to get a permit to be heard is ridiculous and then you have to fight the objections of the incumbent services who will block you every chance they get. You want to dig? Well you better get permission from them before you dig near their structure. After you dig any issue they have will always be filed against you as the cause and you have to prove it wasn't you that caused it.

You really don't know what you're talking about in this regard and are just fighting it because it's "the man" trying to tell companies what to do. I don't think the goverment should have to get involved, but as an investor I know that no company will spend that kind of money without absolutely having to. Companies right now don't have to and have done a great job selling the fact that "bandwidth" is expensive when it's one of the cheapest things ever to create that causes a monthly charge.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Threads merged ...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

phrelin said:


> And I thought I was cynical....


If you would own the company I'm pretty sure you'll say about that as a strictly business decision.


----------

