FCC Commissioner Thinks Ultra-Fast Broadband Just a “Novelty”

It is exactly the opposite.

On any given neighbour (I'm talking about my place, of course) you have 6 (or more) companies offering pretty much the same services. So, one of them decides to lay down fiber... do you know what happens? Everybody goes to the one that offers fiber (so they upgrade their package) and the rest of the companies lose a ton of customers. What do the other competing companies, then? In this case, they make joint-ventures to lay fiber together and split the investment costs. So they compete or lose money (because they lose customers).

In here you can't expand to new areas. They do not exist. There is coverage pretty much everywhere (so everybody already has internet)... so companies have to invest to take customers from other companies. In my street they installed the fiber this summer and I know that at least half the neighbours went to fiber. We have 50/50 for 50€/month and 300/300 for ~60€/month. The speed is real because I get sustained download speeds of 39MB/s while downloading steam games, to name a good example.

All in all, the only way to force companies to invest is when they have to invest or lose customers. As far as I know the USA is riddled with areas where you only have a single or maybe two providers. Heck, wasn't there a huge buyout in the industry not too long ago? I thought they were going to save a ton in costs and other stuff but it ends up that those companies are seldom offered together in the same area, so they are in the same industry but they do not compete.

It sounds like you live in a special place that has created a niche market with extraordinary conditions... in other words, you are the exception and not the rule.
 
It sounds like you live in a special place that has created a niche market with extraordinary conditions... in other words, you are the exception and not the rule.

Outside the US so they actually have more than one choice for broadband.
 
Part me thinks that FCC commissioner might think "hey, even if it does become more than a novelty, I would have moved on or passed on, either way it's going to be my problem"

I am sure it's more complicated than that though, but definitely is a vicious cycle that isn't easy to break out of.

I am wondering if Data caps is a bigger problem than bandwidth...
 
The FCC has been like this forever. I don't see it changing any time soon.

They were balking at making an even slower speed the "standard" a few years ago.

And before that they were balking at making an even slower speed the "standard".
 
Unfortunately this is set to continue indefinitely until wireless with landline speeds becomes common, which might take a few decades at minimum. Digging and laying cable without a guaranteed subscriber base is a difficult and expensive job that nobody wants to do. A company as big and rich as Google didn't have the stomach for it, and if they don't see the value in it then it will be very hard to convince anyone else. Removing all government regulation red tape around it would help, but I don't know if that alone would be enough. You would probably either have to force them to do it (questionable legality) or pay them to do it with tax money and incentives (How much?).

This is only a problem when we have a duopoly. If we had more providers in the country, at least one of them would try to get an edge over the others by investing in better infrastructure. And honestly, the states and municipalities should be the ones laying the conduit in the ground anyway. They dig up thousands of miles of roads every year.
 
I guess this affects who?

I mean everywhere I've lived has already laid the foundation for decent high speed internet.

I don't think I've lived anywhere that doesn't do 100/10 at minimum and some of those places were not destinations in themselves.

Also as someone with a 4K tv and a streaming device the only thing I've watched in 4K is the man in the high castle. I figured by now the Super Bowl would be broadcast in 4K.

Get me content and then I'll worry about this numb nuts.


....Rural areas with mountains like the Appalachian dont even have real broadband. its like 384k down and 128k up. Like in Bland, VA, Giles, Tazewell, Ceres, Lewisburg WV....
 
It sounds like you live in a special place that has created a niche market with extraordinary conditions... in other words, you are the exception and not the rule.

Ehm... no. I believe you assume I'm from the USA.. I'm not :) European here! And it is the rule here (to have half a dozen companies to choose from... fiber is another matter).

This is only a problem when we have a duopoly. If we had more providers in the country, at least one of them would try to get an edge over the others by investing in better infrastructure. And honestly, the states and municipalities should be the ones laying the conduit in the ground anyway. They dig up thousands of miles of roads every year.

Why should the states have to pay for anything? This is unheard of in here. What the law forces, though, is that any company creating an infrastructure in the telecomms industry must share it with others (at cost, I believe) after some time (2 decades I think? Not sure). So, the old copper lines can be used by pretty much everybody for very little money. That forces competition and forces companies to innovate.

Also, do your municipalities have to pay for the electric poles and cable used for power?
 
Its amazing how the last remaining super power/first world country has morons like this in positions of power.
Not really. Why, just recently we've put lots of morons in positions of power.
This jackasses will be out of office in 4 years. Whatever shit they try and pull and or end up doing can be reversed when Cuban gets into office or Hillary.
Oh yes. Another billionaire (who simply got lucky by creating a website at just the right time, that went ballistic and made him very, very rich).
And Mark Cuban is an idiot.
He's not an idiot. Neither is Trump. But neither of them belong in the top of gov't without any experience. I think all the missteps Trump is making is demonstrative of that.

I have the choice of 150mb down for $88, 50mb for $78/month, or 15mb for $63/month. I have the 50mb which is plenty for our household, and would switch to 30mb if it was half the price. $63 for 15mb is just crazy.
This is the problem. Once the hardware is in place, why is basic service so expensive?
Conservatives are about freeing business from government and allowing the free market to correct such things.
The last quote explains why we cannot trust the so called free market to correct things; because the folks that run 'the free market' are always using paid for exclusive contracts to PREVENT competition. That's been going on for a very long time in this country, all the way back into the 1800's.
IF the government is going to treat "high speed" internet as a utility, what defines it as such?
The problem there, is that too many old timers (also many conservatives) deem high speed internet as an unnecessary item, because they think of it as only entertainment.....like it was back in the 80's and early 90's. Today, much of what we do is tied into online connections, and big business has used it to offer less service. Many send out manipulative carefully worded letters to account holders in order to stop their snail mail correspondence, in order to increase profits by eliminating USPS costs. So, all that has to be done online now. Support too, now you can't get someone on the phone, and have to have an online chat to get problems resolved. Today, a decent online connection is necessary for a normal life.
Problem is lack of competition. Only solution I see is to force competition.
As others have mentioned, this country is simply too big to do it in a whole lot of areas. It took many decades to get all the rural areas wired just for basic POTS. It will take just as long to get fiber out to them. Satellite is their only hope for the time being.
If it were like this then we wouldn't have monopolies. How would the poor ISPs survive. :bigtears:
Oh my, they'd have to give up all those luscious profits.
It's amazing how cheap internet can be (for the customer) when profit is removed :)
Oh yeah, like the current administration is going to go for removing the profitable private companies from the equation.
 
Last edited:
So, big government in control of peoples' lives is a good thing, until such a bureaucracy negatively affects your life? LOL.

The FCC should have NO say over bandwidth or other market forces. The only proper role is to prevent collusion and monopolistic practices. Such as what exists right now, due to lobbyists and purchased politicians. LOL. Big government caused this problem...and some think MORE big government is the solution?

Let me choose my provider from among dozens. Just like I do for cereal, cars, clothing, and anything else with the letter 'c'. ;) C'mon, guys. The FCC is not there for you...it's there for the "Federal" part. Oh, and whoever buys them up. Like TimeWarner, etc.

Competition is good. Open the market.
 
Thankfully I already have Google Fiber. They aren't going to impose caps or screw shit up like the fucktard cable and phone industry are waiting to do now that their puppets have some power. Hopefully any damage done during this administration can be easily reversed in 4 years (or less).

We moved from Nebraska for the express purpose of getting Google Fiber in Kansas City 4 years ago. Our Fiberhood qualified so we started looking for a rental in the area. Got lucky with something we liked and could afford and it's been a blessing.

I will never ever again for the rest of my life live in an area that fucks people over on internet service. I work from home, I can't afford that type of behavior.

I also have Google Project Fi and my phone service costs me only $25 to $30 a month all fees included.
 
Ehm... no. I believe you assume I'm from the USA.. I'm not :) European here! And it is the rule here (to have half a dozen companies to choose from... fiber is another matter).

Well we're talking about the US here, and market conditions in a country where you can walk a block to get everything you need to survive don't really apply to a country where you have to drive 5 or sometimes even 10 miles just to get a quart of milk. Tiny congested size has a lot to do with the glut of choice you have. Laying cable or any type of infrastructure in the US is an entirely more expensive endeavor.
 
The last quote explains why we cannot trust the so called free market to correct things; because the folks that run 'the free market' are always using paid for exclusive contracts to PREVENT competition. That's been going on for a very long time in this country, all the way back into the 1800's.

The problem with that mentality is NOT that the market is free, but rather that the government has taken too much power on itself to force such exclusive contracts and prevent competition. A free market is ALL about competition. You cannot trust the GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT is the cause of corruption of the markets, not the free market. If competition is ALLOWED by the government, then it flourishes and is best for everybody. The point is that it is not something that the government should have ANY say about.
 
Well we're talking about the US here, and market conditions in a country where you can walk a block to get everything you need to survive don't really apply to a country where you have to drive 5 or sometimes even 10 miles just to get a quart of milk. Tiny congested size has a lot to do with the glut of choice you have. Laying cable or any type of infrastructure in the US is an entirely more expensive endeavor.

Except that I live in a tiny 550km^2 island.

If they have been able to bring a big-ass submarine fiber cable here, then they can install it pretty much everywhere.

Sure, if you live in the middle of nowhere then no... but the problem the USA faces isn't how isolated everybody is, its simply lack of competition. The telecoms industry in the USA is in clear collusion, and thus why it has one of the worst infrastructures of all modern countries.
 
The problem there, is that too many old timers (also many conservatives) deem high speed internet as an unnecessary item, because they think of it as only entertainment.....like it was back in the 80's and early 90's. Today, much of what we do is tied into online connections, and big business has used it to offer less service. Many send out manipulative carefully worded letters to account holders in order to stop their snail mail correspondence, in order to increase profits by eliminating USPS costs. So, all that has to be done online now. Support too, now you can't get someone on the phone, and have to have an online chat to get problems resolved. Today, a decent online connection is necessary for a normal life.

But what type of bandwidth is necessary for this? Online banking, bill paying, chat services, etc., all work fine on a 5/1 service, probably even less. Sure it won't load as quickly as on a 25/5, but if you're on a 50/10 or a 100/20, you won't get your bills paid any faster.

Once the government bureaucrats define what is "necessary" to a "vital utility" we're all hosed.
 
I'd just like a high speed option where I live out in the country. No wisp, dsl, cable, fiber etc... Only 4g or satellite. WTF
 
And Mark Cuban is an idiot. No, he really is. He doesn't call the big shots any more. If he were so important to running his companies, he wouldn't be donating so much of his personal time at the AVS forums. Like Trump, he's just a guy with money who got lucky enough one day with an investment to cash in. I.

Cuban is on AVS? I wonder if he has a build thread. Maybe I can sweet talk him into getting me a JVC-X570R, I need a 4k upgrade and its only $4 grand, that's like lunch money for him.
 
that is the last mile issue. The fiber is fast enough for fast speeds but most homes are one slow copper wires the last mile from a telco slam and no one wants to pay to upgrade those. There was a move to upgrade the last mile to fiber channel but so far every time they try to someone says it costs too much money att was paid for the fiber but I have no idea about the telcos. OC48 is copper T1 line bundled together so it is possible over copper. It does usually require upgrading servers and digging up roads. I would prefer having the speed to down load updates to games or buy games through steam for a reasonable amount of money but the question is what is reasonable is a two sided issue. Those who paid for it and those who do the work.
 
you don't have a clue prava...the free market United States is the only reason you even have internet on your little one horse dorp...hahaha
 
Ehm... no. I believe you assume I'm from the USA.. I'm not :) European here! And it is the rule here (to have half a dozen companies to choose from... fiber is another matter).



Why should the states have to pay for anything? This is unheard of in here. What the law forces, though, is that any company creating an infrastructure in the telecomms industry must share it with others (at cost, I believe) after some time (2 decades I think? Not sure). So, the old copper lines can be used by pretty much everybody for very little money. That forces competition and forces companies to innovate.

Also, do your municipalities have to pay for the electric poles and cable used for power?

The states shouldn't have to pay, but the number one excuse that the ISPs make (from atop their ginormous piles of money) is that running new fiber is too expensive. So they continue to use copper (which was also heavily subsidized by the government, btw) that dates back to the times of Disco and roller skates. It would be more cost effective to lay conduit when the roads are already torn up.

Municipalities do not have to pay for utility poles, they are in the public way and usually either owned by the power company or the phone company. Anyone that wants to attach to the poles must pay the owner a fee. In some states, a certain amount of pole space is reserved for use by the municipality, without fee.

We have similar laws that state ISPs must lease their lines to other ISPs, but it is written in such a way that it only applies to copper DSL phone lines. The copper phone lines in this country are in such bad shape, this usually limits you to less than 1mbps in the country, 8mbps in a decently sized town, and maybe 24mbps in a city. The fastest DSL available in my state is 8mbps, and the fastest cable is 50mbps.
 
...

Oh yeah, like the current administration is going to go for removing the profitable private companies from the equation.


That's the great thing about local. Middle finger to the blow hard piss-shower-happy POTUS. Fiber 1gig up+down for $50? Really strange anyone's waiting for corps to do it. Hint: they never will as they're already making upwards of 90% profit per sub with internet.
 
That's the great thing about local. Middle finger to the blow hard piss-shower-happy POTUS. Fiber 1gig up+down for $50? Really strange anyone's waiting for corps to do it. Hint: they never will as they're already making upwards of 90% profit per sub with internet.

haha...get a job and get your own internet ...I shouldn't have to pay for the free internet that you really seek...besides you have hair on your palms so it's obvious what you use the web for...haha
 
But what type of bandwidth is necessary for this?
I'm not sure, because I'm one of those 'old guys' who really only uses the thing for reading and entertainment; and I have verizon's fios because I can afford it and it's worked without a hitch since around 2010 when I got it (comcast was before that, with lots of intermittant disconnects for no apparent reason; before 2004 I had DSL).
Lots of younger people use it for school and other things in pursuit of education. I don't know how much multimedia is involved in online education, nor how much bandwidth would be a necessity for that purpose. Also, perhaps someone can let me know exactly what the benefit of high speed uploads for the residential masses is. I don't upload a whole lot of stuff. 50/50 exceeds my needs by quite a bit; but it comes with the package.
 
I'm not sure, because I'm one of those 'old guys' who really only uses the thing for reading and entertainment; and I have verizon's fios because I can afford it and it's worked without a hitch since around 2010 when I got it (comcast was before that, with lots of intermittant disconnects for no apparent reason; before 2004 I had DSL).
Lots of younger people use it for school and other things in pursuit of education. I don't know how much multimedia is involved in online education, nor how much bandwidth would be a necessity for that purpose. Also, perhaps someone can let me know exactly what the benefit of high speed uploads for the residential masses is. I don't upload a whole lot of stuff. 50/50 exceeds my needs by quite a bit; but it comes with the package.

A good upload is nice for backups, two way voice, and TCP ACKs. There are a few providers with asymmetrical connections where you can saturate your upload by downloading a large file.
 
haha...get a job and get your own internet ...I shouldn't have to pay for the free internet that you really seek...besides you have hair on your palms so it's obvious what you use the web for...haha
WTF are you saying?

And just to be clear I already have 1 gig up/down for $50 a month. No dream. I have it.
 
Last edited:
Hey at least he's not saying that Americans are not ready for ultra fast broadband and wouldn't utilise it even if it was free, like the government-appointed head of the Australian National Broadband said recently: http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...s/news-story/2271ef7a1b9095ba21fe154a1bb0eb21

The current government in Australia has crawled so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that they can taste what he has for breakfast each morning. Murdoch, of course, runs Foxtel, the only pay cable TV company in Australia. You can get fast internet if you want to pay for cable tv as well. Otherwise you're shit out of luck. The NBN is not fast internet since this government killed it at the behest of Murdoch. It also stops people streaming videos in competition with Foxtel. I'm currently stuck on ADSL 1. I get, at max, 175 kilobytes/sec download. Mean time the NBN chief is loving those Foxtel donations.

RAAAAAAGE


You could make the same argument for me. I spend almost all my time gaming or streaming. The only time faster access would really help me is when I am downloading a new game or a large patch. I do not do these things frequently, only occasionally. That means;
According toThe Courier Mail, Mr Morrow said there wasn’t “that big of a demand out there” for it, and overseas providers found consumers weren’t making the most of high-speed downloads.
 
The FCC has been like this forever. I don't see it changing any time soon.

They were balking at making an even slower speed the "standard" a few years ago.

And before that they were balking at making an even slower speed the "standard".
A while ago they were talking about what qualified for the marketing term 'broadband'. It was an attempt for Cable to block DSL from using the term in advertising. No ones service would have improved either way at that time but clickbaitie articles implied thus.
 
The states shouldn't have to pay, but the number one excuse that the ISPs make (from atop their ginormous piles of money) is that running new fiber is too expensive. So they continue to use copper (which was also heavily subsidized by the government, btw) that dates back to the times of Disco and roller skates. It would be more cost effective to lay conduit when the roads are already torn up.

Municipalities do not have to pay for utility poles, they are in the public way and usually either owned by the power company or the phone company. Anyone that wants to attach to the poles must pay the owner a fee. In some states, a certain amount of pole space is reserved for use by the municipality, without fee.

We have similar laws that state ISPs must lease their lines to other ISPs, but it is written in such a way that it only applies to copper DSL phone lines. The copper phone lines in this country are in such bad shape, this usually limits you to less than 1mbps in the country, 8mbps in a decently sized town, and maybe 24mbps in a city. The fastest DSL available in my state is 8mbps, and the fastest cable is 50mbps.

Thanks for the insight!
 
Back
Top