HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wants gigabit internet in all 50 states by 2015. The catch? He actually said "at least one gigabit community in all 50 states." Oh well, at least it's a start.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
FCC Wants Gigabit Internet In All 50 States
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Too bad they didn't say that the ISPs can't charge whatever they feel like for this service.
If the ISPs have their way, they would want to charge a couple grand or higher a month to make sure nobody actually subscribes to it in orde rto make it so that they don't have to upgrade anything.
If the ISPs have their way, they would want to charge a couple grand or higher a month to make sure nobody actually subscribes to it in orde rto make it so that they don't have to upgrade anything.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Why doesn't the FCC and FTC do their jobs and just make it so we have more competition and it will sort itself out. Also, make sure there aren't monopolies or collusion going on.
GTFO this site now...
how can you come to a site like Hard and say some thing like that
you have no idea what wide spread 1Gbps connections could bring
you could say the same thing about multi Mbps connections 10 years ago
oh want a use? i dont know about about streaming games from your PC to any where like NV is doing now but not just over your local LAN
how about HD video and i dont mean shit compressed stuff full 1080p or even 4k uncompressed
how about backing up your PC off site
and thats just stuff i can think up off top of my head
im sure once a lot of people have that much bandwidth new stuff will come out
just like the internet evolved when people get faster then 1Mbps connections
how about HD video and i dont mean shit compressed stuff full 1080p or even 4k uncompressed
how about backing up your PC off site
and thats just stuff i can think up off top of my head
im sure once a lot of people have that much bandwidth new stuff will come out
just like the internet evolved when people get faster then 1Mbps connections
No.
Because it's something the government is doing, and if I don't see a purpose for the American people the government is supposed to serve, I'm going to say so. "It would be cool" is not a purpose.
And who offers that?
Sure, if you want. Stupid idea, in my opinion, but okay.
That's a lot of stuff.
Well, there's no law preventing them from doing it right now. So why aren't they?
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
The FCC Chairman can say all he wants , Corporations with near unlimited funds for lobbyists in Washington will prevent this from ever happening.
This announce is about as realistic as promising everyone there own fertile plot of land on Mars in 2015.
This announce is about as realistic as promising everyone there own fertile plot of land on Mars in 2015.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
By the time we get it all the isps well be on tiered plans with caps...
Falling Anvil
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,570
Less talk, more digging please.
Also, in before MUH DENSITY arguments.
Also, in before MUH DENSITY arguments.
thats why....
they know there are less rules for wireless ATT and VZN want out of the wireline world
more money to be made in wireless
No.
Because it's something the government is doing, and if I don't see a purpose for the American people the government is supposed to serve, I'm going to say so. "It would be cool" is not a purpose.
so your saying the telephone network, road network and power network
all where a waste of money?
i dont see any thing different about this
No, so stop putting words in my mouth.
That's your problem. All the systems you described had dramatic effects on life. We already have internet infrastructure covering effectively the entire country. This proposal simply sets a speed minimum, and not in any constructive way since it only needs to be in one location per state. This will not have any dramatic impact on the lives of Americans, especially since most Americans can barely find enough purposes to use their 50-100M internet already, apart from streaming video which current infrastructure handles pretty effortlessly.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
As long as he has his guns he doesn't care, lol.
you can not in any way know what Gbps internet would bring
if 50-100 where the minimum level you be your ass people would find a use for it
but its not and mostly priced out of reach so ISPs can say the "offer it" but no one wants it
sure no one wants it when you price it at 200 bucks a month
make it 30 bucks a month be you see better up take numbers then
Nor can you, so why are you yelling at me like you know something I don't?
We've had those levels of internet available in most cities now for a few years. They haven't.
It's not priced out of reach. Prices haven't budged much in the last 5-6 years, but speed has. People have barely noticed, though, since they haven't found major uses. They're busy with Facebook, Pinterest, Tumblr, etc. They are also increasingly relying on mobile internet for their activities, which is slower than the internet offered by most ISPs.
Prices are far closer to 30 than to 200. 20-30 meg usually rings in at 50 bucks or under. 50-100 will cost you around 100 bucks. People aren't buying the faster internet because they don't have a use for it. Again, ISPs have been increasing speed but selling them in the same price tiers they have been for years. People don't upgrade because their needs are either met with what they have, or met with mobile internet. The few people that can find a use for the higher-speed internet can usually access it, usually through FIOS.
And that came along organically, not as a result of government decree.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
This is probably gonna go nowhere until internet is dealt with the same way we do highways and utilities. Right now I'd be happy to just get fiber as an option in my area in the next ten years.
not here
and FiOS is dead VZN is selling it off as fast as the FCC and FTC will let them
dont know what ISP you have but 50mbps with any real upload speed is in the 100+ range in most of the US
with the exception a few lucky places
go look up Mediacom prices then look at what AT&T offers (hint they dont even offer better then ~26Mbps)
the 50Mbps you can get from Mediacom has a 5Mbps upload which is bearly enough to support the 50 down
let me know when you can real 50/50 service in 90% of the US for under 100 bucks a month THEN you might have a case
I have no idea where you are, so that means nothing.
Google Fiber what?
I have Charter internet, and for the last couple of years I've been paying 35 bucks a month for 30 meg. Unfortunately, I'm in the dead zone of a metropolitan area where they're my only option. There's also TDS Metrocom, Verizon, and others...some of whom have even better prices. I've never heard of Mediacom, and AT&T has been known as an overpriced telecom company for years.
And since when is the standard for down/up supposed to be 1/1? I've rarely seen a provider that offers anything more than 5/1.
It's funny how you claim that nobody knows what Gigabit internet could mean...but you keep acting like you know something that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't.
Metrocall
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 952
Comcast is the only option in my area, until they can have some sort of competition or are forced to offer more speed for less price, I don't see things changing.
because i have seen what broadband did over dial up and again when multi Mbps connections came about
to think that trend would not continue is short sighted
Google Fiber as much as i would like to see it grow most likely wont ever see the light of day out side KC, KS and KC, MO
if Google can offer it at a good price there is nothing stopping any other ISP other then there own greed
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
If this is to become a reality, I doubt I'll see it in Omaha. Lincoln will likely be first, with the football college and state capitol being there, and all.
OTOH, Omaha does have the grapple on big business and corporations, so there may be some serious persuasion there to bring it to Omaha first.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming years.
OTOH, Omaha does have the grapple on big business and corporations, so there may be some serious persuasion there to bring it to Omaha first.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming years.
that would be awesome, as I would use my entire monthly bandwith limit in exactly two seconds. Also, these government entities should stop make mandates. If they are as clueless with the internet as they are with most of their legislation they will probably double click their network adapter in the control panel, see its connected at 1.0gbps, and high five each other for a job well done!
ninjaturtle
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,327
Beat me to it.
It is short-sighted, actually. People wanted broadband because they could not do what they wanted to do with dial-up. This was true for a lot of people. Now, on the other hand...people have easy, affordable access to speeds of internet that meet their needs. Perhaps if video streaming starts pushing uncompressed 1080p, then people will demand Gigabit internet...but they aren't. Again...many of them are moving to slower internet on mobile devices because they're less interested in speed than they are in accessibility.
And you know this how?
Yes, because most ISPs have the funding of an enormous multinational corporation that revolutionized the internet.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,985
Sounds more like a challenge than any sort of demand.
Like "Come on guys seriously, it's the 21st century, this technology is not exactly new, lets hurry up and stop with the copper!"
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
What's probably gonna happen is advanced internet based services will take hold in foreign markets first where internet is fast and affordable, we'll probably be the modern "dialup" segment, so many cloud products will remind folks of how Jpegs downloaded on 56k vs their neighbor's DSL.
Business will likely prioritize their products there, stuff like Netflix 3D etc, and billions will probably be made in cloud related services there, those products will not make sense in our market.
Naturally some future high tech jobs will probably shift to such areas as well as some places such as Kansas or San Fran where incumbent telcos are getting embarrassed by Google and other smaller companies.
That's the cost of laziness.
Business will likely prioritize their products there, stuff like Netflix 3D etc, and billions will probably be made in cloud related services there, those products will not make sense in our market.
Naturally some future high tech jobs will probably shift to such areas as well as some places such as Kansas or San Fran where incumbent telcos are getting embarrassed by Google and other smaller companies.
That's the cost of laziness.
Toooooo many stupid economic barriers are going to hamper such an endeavor.
This linked article suggests that Google Fiber will be a major money losing experiment:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/08/21/will-google-fiber-waste-28-billion/
It quotes someone in the industry who says the telcos have determined the ceiling for making a profitable investment in upgrades to home internet is about $700/home. The current costs of deploying fiber-to-the-home are running about $2,500/home in urban areas and up to $6,000 in rural areas. You are probably right about it not happening in the near future. Google's experiment in KC will only take off nationwide if it is somehow able to disprove the current industry wisdom and they are able to turn a profit much sooner than the industry has been able to do thus far with fiber. Given the struggles Verizon has had with profitability through their own fiber deployments, it just doesn't seem very likely anytime soon. Google's experiment in KC will remain just that for quite a while.
Then they'll charge us even more for "faster speeds". Utilities and infrastructure should be done by the government (I seriously can't believe I said that) only because in cases like this, there is absolutely no incentive to innovate and make improvements. Also the government really needs to get on the ball with the whole "our power grid dates back to 1900" thing. Electricity consumption is only going to rise and it's ridiculous how terrible our grid is.
The history of rural electricity access almost exactly coincides with the present situation of broadband access in the US. It took a serious push by a big government program (The rural utilities service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electric_Administration) to provide access to electricity for most Americans, because private utilities simply refused to invest in expansion due to a perceived lack of profit potential.
You know what's funnier? The utility companies of the day made the same exact kind of cry-baby comments about that program, too.
"Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise, despite many of these utilities' having refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability."
This is the exact logic, absolutely verbatim, used in challenging municipal programs attempting to provide broadband internet to under-served areas: "The government shouldn't be allowed to compete with us by providing a service, even if we refuse to offer it ourselves."
Ironically, I'm reluctantly optimistic however
This linked article suggests that Google Fiber will be a major money losing experiment:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/08/21/will-google-fiber-waste-28-billion/
It quotes someone in the industry who says the telcos have determined the ceiling for making a profitable investment in upgrades to home internet is about $700/home. The current costs of deploying fiber-to-the-home are running about $2,500/home in urban areas and up to $6,000 in rural areas. You are probably right about it not happening in the near future. Google's experiment in KC will only take off nationwide if it is somehow able to disprove the current industry wisdom and they are able to turn a profit much sooner than the industry has been able to do thus far with fiber. Given the struggles Verizon has had with profitability through their own fiber deployments, it just doesn't seem very likely anytime soon. Google's experiment in KC will remain just that for quite a while.
Then they'll charge us even more for "faster speeds". Utilities and infrastructure should be done by the government (I seriously can't believe I said that) only because in cases like this, there is absolutely no incentive to innovate and make improvements. Also the government really needs to get on the ball with the whole "our power grid dates back to 1900" thing. Electricity consumption is only going to rise and it's ridiculous how terrible our grid is.
The history of rural electricity access almost exactly coincides with the present situation of broadband access in the US. It took a serious push by a big government program (The rural utilities service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electric_Administration) to provide access to electricity for most Americans, because private utilities simply refused to invest in expansion due to a perceived lack of profit potential.
You know what's funnier? The utility companies of the day made the same exact kind of cry-baby comments about that program, too.
"Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise, despite many of these utilities' having refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability."
This is the exact logic, absolutely verbatim, used in challenging municipal programs attempting to provide broadband internet to under-served areas: "The government shouldn't be allowed to compete with us by providing a service, even if we refuse to offer it ourselves."
Ironically, I'm reluctantly optimistic however
Farkle
Lurker
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,610
Gigabit Internet in every city/state would be "cool", but the botnet implications would be a painful one. We'd need to upgrade international links such as Pacrim, AC-1 and Apollo yet again or end up like Japan with a gigabit connection in our country, and a 6-20mbit connection abroad. People bitch about traffic shaping with their 20mbit connection -- just how upset do you think the basement dwelling torrent monkey is going to be when he cons the parents into a gigabit link and it still takes over an hour to download his Bronie cartoons.