FCC Pressured To Admit It Sucks

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The award for “headline of the day” goes to this story. Politicians are trying to get the minimum standard to be called “broadband” bumped up to at least 2Mbps and, at the same time, are calling for accurate broadband reporting.

Markey's actually drafting a bill, called the Broadband Census of America Act, that would define "broadband" as speeds exceeding 2Mbps – quite a bit higher than the 768Kbps available via most DSL lines. The bill also requires the FCC to reform its broadband reporting. Under current measurements, based on ZIP codes, artificially inflates the reach of American broadband access.
Click to expand...
 
So this definition of what is "broadband" is simply so federal funds given out are spent as they should?
 
Good for him!! The FCC is incompetent (or just corrupt) when it comes to many issues. He is right that 200Kbps would normally not be considered broadband. Maybe for just viewing web pages, but not much else. Think about how mad most of you would be if your broadband connection averaged only 200Kbps throughput.

Also, this will help get those lazy phone companies to upgrade their DSL service. Verizon in central Illinois still only offers 3Mbps DSL for $30 a month, plus another $30 just for the privilege of having a working telephone line.

Insight cable offers 10Mbps connections for $30 a month. Surprisingly, even at peak hours I get the full 10Mbps, and I have never experienced any congestion on the link. Obviously I don’t have landline phone service anymore.

Despite this, we are still getting screwed on those prices. It is a shame that I feel lucky to get 10Mbps for $30 when in Japan I would be getting five times that much. :mad:
 
stonedwaldo420 said:
Insight cable offers 10Mbps connections for $30 a month. Surprisingly, even at peak hours I get the full 10Mbps, and I have never experienced any congestion on the link. Obviously I don’t have landline phone service anymore.

Despite this, we are still getting screwed on those prices. It is a shame that I feel lucky to get 10Mbps for $30 when in Japan I would be getting five times that much. :mad:
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to have 10Mbps for $30. Mine is $60 a month for 6Mbps with Comcast AND it is very unreliable. No competition though so nobody else to go to.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So this definition of what is "broadband" is simply so federal funds given out are spent as they should?
Click to expand...

After reading more about that $200B, it sounds like it was spent long ago.. mainly on investor dividends and CEO bonuses.
That money is long gone, and with the campaign contributions that the phone giants give to republicans AND democrats, we won’t be getting any of it back.

It is a given that if taxpayers give money to a private company to “help them out”, or “help them improve America”, it will be completely wasted.

I think it is BS that big companies want the benefits of capitalism and the benefits of corporate welfare.
 
I think it's interestingly convenient that the bar was set at 2 Mbps. This is a speed that most DSL connections don't provide, including mine, but that cable companies can easily lay claim to on technicalities even if the end user doesn't get it in reality.

I had cable first. It rarely performed above 800Mbps, had noticeable latency issues, and went down often enough to be noticeable. The price started out high at $40, went up to $50 when the cable company decided that non-CATV subscribers should pay more, then went up to $55 just because.

I jumped ship to DSL the minute it became available in my area. It started out at $49 and now I'm at $30. That's for a 1.5 Mbps connection with no latency problems and average performance tests around 1.1 Mbps. The only time I ever had a serious connectivity problem, it turned out to be a dying cheapo home router.

Markey is obviously in the pocket of a major cable contributor. As I showed above, there's no reason why a good DSL line can't outperform a cable line in many ways, at a lower cost. Defining broadband at 1.5 Mbps or even 768K would provide perfectly acceptable performance for all but the most demanding scenarios. Setting it at 2 Mbps automatically kicks DSL providers in the nads and hands an easy paper victory to cable. That cannot be a coincidence.
 
Hell yeah! About time something happens to start the process of straightening this LameBand deployment.. I'm still stuck with just isdn and i'm pissed off! I am not rural by any means but yet.. ATT still drags ass like no one else... All i could get them to tell me on the phone for my area being upgraded was that it was "planned" but no time has been set... :rolleyes:
 
My connection with charter: 3Mbps for $50+. If that's not price gouging, then I don't know what is. We just now got 5Mbps and it's going to cost us 5 - 10 bucks more to get it.... sigh.
 
if you feel like sticking it to the cable companies and stealing intrawebs, it isnt hard to do...
 
qkool said:
My connection with charter: 3Mbps for $50+. If that's not price gouging, then I don't know what is. We just now got 5Mbps and it's going to cost us 5 - 10 bucks more to get it.... sigh.
Click to expand...

I think things like this have to be taken into consideration by comparison

Dialup is still at least $10 a month 3 Mbps is 60-100x faster than dialup, but only 5x the price.
 
US is dismally sub-par compared to the rest of the world, especially compared to Japan, where 50Mbps fiber connections are available for about $30 per month.
Click to expand...

OMFG!!! 50Mbps fios for only $30?? I can't even get crappy 5Mbps DSL for $30... Is there even a single place in the states where you can get reliable 25Mbps for $30?
 
I'm paying $68 for 8Mbps/768kbps - Comcast. I must admit, Comcast does have great uptime in my area and I am able to hit my top speeds any time of the day.
 
Gotta love the for-sale whores we call pol's.

"Everything I tell you three times is true!"

Where I live, Saint Paul, MN, the telco infrstructure is so old, tired, & just plain worn out, that back in the modem day, the best I could ever hook up was at 28.8 kbps, 24.4 being much more common on a day to day basis. Compared to that, Mega anything IS BroadBand, no matter how some third party may wish to arbitraily define BB.

Granted, 2Mbps or more would be nice, but somebody is obviously plying a nefarious agenda here, as in "Jack up the speed, or else we wont let you call your service BB."

Oh, puhleaze!
 
In my area we are able to get 20mb fiber optics, probably for a high price. Right now I have dsl with 6mb down stream and it costs around $30 a month, so its not that bad but could be better.
 
stonedwaldo420 said:
Good for him!! The FCC is incompetent (or just corrupt) when it comes to many issues. He is right that 200Kbps would normally not be considered broadband.
Click to expand...

uhmmm.... the term "broadband" has nothing to do with the actual speeds of connections, but the transmission method being used. Any transmission of data over multiple frequencies is broadband (DSL is 20hz-20khz for most sync modes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband

To put it in perspective: if someone wanted to redefine the term "vehicle" to refer only to those that are larger than a small pickup, then we would look at that person as if they were crazy. Refusing to call smaller cars vehicles does not negate the fact that they are, in actuality, still vehicles.

In reality this is just another example of our leadership misunderstanding techonological concepts. (why do you think the FCC makes bad decisions many times? they're all congressmen too)
 
lol hahaha thread title
didn't colin powell's son run the fcc for while?
into the ground?
 
Just a sign the government is too big, when they start regulating what can be called broadband. Anyone who has a clue will buy based upon actual throughput, not whether it's called broadband or not.

The real problem with US internet infrastructure is a much lower population density. There's no easy solution for that problem. Until not that long ago Germany had a complete monopoly internet access provider (T-Online), but they still had better internet service then we did at the time. Increased competition would help things in the US, but we'll always be behind other countries like Korea, regardless of what we do.

And the laws dictating that internet service providers go out of their way to provide broadband to rural areas (at cost) actually increase the cost and decrease the quality of internet service. It is a bit disgusting though how at the same time the telcos are doing everything they can to make municipal last-mile networks illeagal. Those are the best hope for rural people to get blazing fast internet, but the Bells don't want that because they might one day want to try to make money in those markets. :rolleyes:
 
hl3395 said:
OMFG!!! 50Mbps fios for only $30?? I can't even get crappy 5Mbps DSL for $30... Is there even a single place in the states where you can get reliable 25Mbps for $30?
Click to expand...
you have to be close to the CO. Fiber to the curb is a option but the last mile is usually copper. I heard the goal in the USA is to get 100 Mbit to everyone some time ... in the future. :p
 
they need to disband alot of those damn agencies. the regulate all kinds of shit it should have no authority to, they are appointed officials, not eletected.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So this definition of what is "broadband" is simply so federal funds given out are spent as they should?
Click to expand...
I think it's to set the record straight. But then it's all relative because in 20 years if we're all still here 2 Mbit will be like 56k I guess. I don't really see the point in re-defining what's broadband. The market defines what's fast and what's "oh so slow." I guess the telco people took that cash and shoved it up their a$$.
stonedwaldo420 said:
I think it is BS that big companies want the benefits of capitalism and the benefits of corporate welfare.
Click to expand...
Welcome to communism *cough cough* capitalism I mean. ;)
 
Martyr said:
they need to disband alot of those damn agencies. the regulate all kinds of shit it should have no authority to, they are appointed officials, not eletected.
Click to expand...

The FCC is very competent, they did a great job regulating transmission bands, minimizing interference and encouraging amateur radio for one hundred years. It's just idiotic politicians jumping in and mucking things up where they don't belong that are causing problems. Politicians need to stick passing pedophile control laws, sleeping with their mistresses and kissing babies, and stop pretending like they know right from left when it comes to technology.

Worst example of a politician pulling this kind of junk: Hillary Clinton. :rolleyes:
^ Don't vote for her if you like games that don't suck.
 
Hvatum said:
The FCC is very competent, they did a great job regulating transmission bands, minimizing interference and encouraging amateur radio for one hundred years. It's just idiotic politicians jumping in and mucking things up where they don't belong that are causing problems. Politicians need to stick passing pedophile control laws, sleeping with their mistresses and kissing babies, and stop pretending like they know right from left when it comes to technology.

Worst example of a politician pulling this kind of junk: Hillary Clinton. :rolleyes:
^ Don't vote for her if you like games that don't suck.
Click to expand...

Uhm.. there are several politicians who voted the same way as hillary, including some republicans who are running for office.

I, for one, think it's horrible that the government HAD to get involved with regulating these games. That's the PARENTs job, but, since the PARENTs aren't DOING their job, so, they've made laws to prevent 7 year olds from playing a game where you kill cops, strangle prostitutes, and get a blowjob.

That's so horrible of them. Damn them politicians.

Will seeing these things in a video game make kids go out and do them? Not necessarily (but, then again, how many 13 year old girls are total sluts nowadays.. an increasing number) but what it does do is anesthetize (sp?) them to it. When you see 500 "headshots" an hour, the real thing won't phase you.

Should there be a federal law that limits the sale of video games? Is the current controversy just the first step?

I am developing legislation that would put some teeth into the ratings system by restricting the sale of M and AO-rated games to minors. The industry has already decided these games are not appropriate for minors and I want to make sure retailers take the rating system seriously. Repeated studies have shown that children as young as 7 can obtain these games fairly easily.
Click to expand...


BTW, jack thompson is a Christian conservative and a Republican, so don't try and feed us bullshit that this is a democrat only issue, this issue is DEFINATELY bi-partisan with both camps feeding it.

I don't think that even thompson is trying to prevent the games from even being made, i think he just doesn't want KIDS to have them.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
Uhm.. there are several politicians who voted the same way as hillary, including some republicans who are running for office.
Click to expand...

Hillary is just the most vocal, at least that I've seen on the news. She seems to really feel strongly about it and see it as more of a crusade, whereas other politicians just jumped on the bandwagon to get a few votes. I might be totally wrong, but it seems like she would push really hard on this if she became president.

You're completely right that a lot of republicans are also harping on this issue.

I, for one, think it's horrible that the government HAD to get involved with regulating these games. That's the PARENTs job, but, since the PARENTs aren't DOING their job, so, they've made laws to prevent 7 year olds from playing a game where you kill cops, strangle prostitutes, and get a blowjob.
Click to expand...

Agreed, to a degree. Parents can't realistically regulate what their children might play at a friends house. Or in public arcades.

But what a kid is doing at home will have by far the most influence, and I agree it's pretty easy to make sure you're kid isn't playing "bad games."
 
Hvatum said:
The FCC is very competent, they did a great job regulating transmission bands, minimizing interference and encouraging amateur radio for one hundred years. It's just idiotic politicians jumping in and mucking things up where they don't belong that are causing problems. Politicians need to stick passing pedophile control laws, sleeping with their mistresses and kissing babies, and stop pretending like they know right from left when it comes to technology.

Worst example of a politician pulling this kind of junk: Hillary Clinton. :rolleyes:
^ Don't vote for her if you like games that don't suck.
Click to expand...

Uhm.. there are several politicians who vote the same way as hillary (i.e. lets increase legislation against video games) , including some republicans who are running for office.
Why don't you read up, and stop democrat bashing
An article about a republican who is anti violent video games

The people who made XXX movies illegal for minors, Playboy, cigarettes, and alchohol should all be villianized the same way, following your logic. Video games are the Porn, Booze, & Butts of the new millienium.


I, for one, think it's horrible that the government HAD to get involved with regulating these games. That's the PARENTs job, but, since the PARENTs aren't DOING their job, so, they've made laws to prevent 7 year olds from playing a game where you kill cops, strangle prostitutes, and get a blowjob.

That's so horrible of them. Damn them politicians.

Will seeing these things in a video game make kids go out and do them? Not necessarily (but, then again, how many 13 year old girls are total sluts nowadays.. an increasing number) but what it does do is anesthetize (sp?) them to it. When you see 500 "headshots" an hour, the real thing won't phase you.

Should there be a federal law that limits the sale of video games? Is the current controversy just the first step?

I am developing legislation that would put some teeth into the ratings system by restricting the sale of M and AO-rated games to minors. The industry has already decided these games are not appropriate for minors and I want to make sure retailers take the rating system seriously. Repeated studies have shown that children as young as 7 can obtain these games fairly easily.
Click to expand...


BTW, jack thompson is a Christian conservative and a Republican, so don't try and feed us bullshit that this is a democrat only issue, this issue is DEFINATELY bi-partisan with both camps feeding it.

I don't think that even thompson is trying to prevent the games from even being made, i think he just doesn't want KIDS to have them.


Do you support 7 year old kids having these types of games?
How about XXX porn?
Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler?
Booze?
Cigarettes?
Weed?

It's all the same in their eyes. Whether it ACTUALLY is the same is up for debate. I happen to agree that there is a point where little johnny just can't REALLY understand that the violence in such & such a game is really wrong. Can a 16 year old handle it? Sure.. but where do we draw the line?
 
Didn't mean to doublepost, meant to amend my statement, did not realize i ever hit submit, thought I was on preview the entire time. Oops.
 
Hvatum said:
The FCC is very competent, they did a great job regulating transmission bands, minimizing interference and encouraging amateur radio for one hundred years. It's just idiotic politicians jumping in and mucking things up where they don't belong that are causing problems. Politicians need to stick passing pedophile control laws, sleeping with their mistresses and kissing babies, and stop pretending like they know right from left when it comes to technology.

Worst example of a politician pulling this kind of junk: Hillary Clinton. :rolleyes:
^ Don't vote for her if you like games that don't suck.
Click to expand...

no, it started RIGHT FUCKIN HERE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Pacifica_Foundation

a non-elected group of people decided they have the right to regulate the first amendment. all of the current bs stems from this decision.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
I think things like this have to be taken into consideration by comparison

Dialup is still at least $10 a month 3 Mbps is 60-100x faster than dialup, but only 5x the price.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can look at it that way, but considering that my friend who lives about 5 miles away can get about 10Mbps for 40 bucks from another company, I say something needs to be done. There's no competition here yet I live 4 miles from downtown.
 
Hvatum said:
The FCC is very competent, they did a great job regulating transmission bands, minimizing interference and encouraging amateur radio for one hundred years. It's just idiotic politicians jumping in and mucking things up where they don't belong that are causing problems. Politicians need to stick passing pedophile control laws, sleeping with their mistresses and kissing babies, and stop pretending like they know right from left when it comes to technology.
Click to expand...

you obviously dont know about the FCC and BPL, and the 800mhz band and nextel... the later is a giant cluster f$#k of epic size...
 
While we are on the topic: DAMN YOU, CINGULAR, DAMN YOU!

Now I agree with the poster who made the analogy with cars. QFT. (I know I didn't quote the freaking post, just turn back a page, you lazy #%!^#!!)

The bill won't go through, I'm sure. There has to be someone there with a lick of sense, right? :D The bill is going through, fo' sho.

I'm paying $37 for 3Mbps and I could be paying $42 for 6. Why don't I? Don't see the need....I need a latency reducer, not a bandwidth increaser. But $5 more a month for twice the theoretical speed? Tough call, guys, tough call.

~Ibrahim~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top