FCC Revises Broadband Penetration Metrics

joelt49 writes "Ars Technica reports that the FCC has revised its broadband penetration metric. Previously, if only one subscriber in a zip code received connectivity at 200 Kbps, then the entire zip code was considered to have broadband access. Now, the FCC will count the number of subscribers in census tracts. The FCC has also revised its definition of broadband; previously, it was anything over 200 Kbps. Now, speeds between 200 and 768 Kbps are considered 'First-Generation' broadband, and speeds up to 1.5 Mbps are considered 'Basic' broadband." Unfortunately, the FCC has decided to keep all this new data to themselves.

How can they keep this secret?

[elrous0]

Isn't the FCC a federal agency, subject to FOIA? It's not like they can label such basic data as a state secret or something.

no!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The F in FCC stands for fsck!

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had to change your penetration metrics, would you advertise it? What if the change in metrics show that you cannot penetrate as far, or for as long as you used to? What if they show that you don't penetrate as much as your European or, worse, Asian counterparts?

No, this is very much justified.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[eln]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I think they have pills you can take for that now.

Re:

[digitrev]

Umm, I think his point is that they're embarrassed to release this data, because it shows just how far behind the rest of the world they are. He's speculating, but he does have a good point. And let's not fool ourselves, the old metric was a joke and even then/b? the USA didn't always measure up on the global scale.

Re:

[Gilmoure]

It's all in how well you use it.

And besides, when you get right down to it, if it works for you and you feel good, who cares how far you penetrate?

Re:

[OldHawk777]

That can only be fucking right, obviously.

Re:

[QRDeNameland]

No, this is very much justified.

Of course it is. Broadband penetration is critically important for the upcoming teledildonics revolution.

Re:

[glittalogik]

Don't stress, your penetration metrics might still be enough for old people in Korea.

Re:

[oodaloop]

Yeah, can you imagine the nightmarish Orwelian scenario where citizens wouldn't know how the FCC classified their broadband access in their area? Won't somebody think of the children?

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

I'm calling strawman. People are being at best misinformed, at worst outright lied to with the current classification data. You ask why should they give Joe Blow the data? I say for the ability to make an informed decision. More importantly though, why do they feel the need to keep this information private?

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"You ask why should they give Joe Blow the data?"

I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information. Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own or choose not to go with a provider that does not make this information available. With enough like-minded individuals the provider will have a huge incentive to make it available.

And as always if the provider misinforms the customer, they can be taken to court.

And of course, if there are no other choices of provider in your are

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[Solandri]

I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information. Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own

Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it. "The government" doesn't pay for anything, the people do. Unless there's a compelling national security reason to keep it secret, the data belongs to the people and should be made available to them. You can argue the FCC shouldn't have compiled this data. But once they do compile it, it rightfully belongs to the people.

Re:

[digitrev]

And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?

To face the consequences of not paying tax.

Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project. All at the expense of the rest of the FCC budget (which should also be eliminated).

Why destroy the information? It's been

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"To face the consequences of not paying tax."

The consequences of not allowing the government to violate her right to property? Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right? This is basically the majority imposing on the minority.

"Why destroy the information? It's been collected, money's been spent, so why not use it?"

It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and

Re:

[digitrev]

Wrong and just plain stupid laws still carry consequences. If you break the law, you run the risk of getting punished, no matter how annoying/stupid/evil/unconstitutional the law is. To quote Mr. Thoreau [wikipedia.org], "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.

It's

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Wrong and just plain stupid laws still carry consequences... [snip] ..."

Who said they don't? I am not for breaking the law. I'm for overturning it. That can only be done by changing the minds of the public - the whole purpose behind my involvement in discussions like this.

"It's not property. It's information."

It's information acquired by force. I have no right to pass out your social security number if I get it out of you by force. Do you agree? Nobody, not even the government, has the right to sp

Re:

[digitrev]

It's information acquired by force. I have no right to pass out your social security number if I get it out of you by force. Do you agree? Nobody, not even the government, has the right to spread private information that was taken by force.

More strawmen. The government applies legal force such as legislation, taxation, and civil / criminal action to obtain said information (though it's really a threat of force). Getting my social security number out of me is a different matter, as it is a very personal th

Re:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The consequences of not allowing the government to violate her right to property? Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right?

First, I would claim that property is not a human right. I would ask from where the property originally derived. Even were you able to make a claim that a person owns "the sweat of one's brow", for the sake of this arguement, what someone is payed cannot soley be considered the sweat of other people's brows. For instance, milk/bread/foodstuffs require farms, which in tur

Re:

[Applekid]

And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?

Vote accordingly. FCC chair is a position appointed by elected officials, and are subject to laws passed by Congress.

Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project.

The answer again is to vote.

Majority rules (when not doing wonky things with the electoral college), so the idea is to communicate, educate, and inspire others to agree with you and vote for candidates who would be in favor of truly slashing huge rolls of fat in government spending for agencies like the FCC. Sadly, we're talking about the uphill battle of toppling the big two political part

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Vote accordingly."

That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade others to vote and think accordingly.

Re:

[ElleyKitten]

Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project.

And where does the money the public should be refunded come from? The government only gets money from us. The refund to ourselves can only come from ourselves, making any kind of refund after money has been spent pointless.

Re:

[KGIII]

And where does the money the public should be refunded come from? The government only gets money from us. The refund to ourselves can only come from ourselves, making any kind of refund after money has been spent pointless.

Cool! Can I have your tax refund and stimulus check?

Re:

[ElleyKitten]

Cool! Can I have your tax refund and stimulus check?

Your tax refund is basically you just giving the government an interest-free loan. The stimulus checks were economicly stupid. Though I like money, it really wasn't a good plan.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"And where does the money the public should be refunded come from?"

The equipment and infrastructure that were used to support the FCC should be sold off to the highest bidders, and that money should be used for compensation.

Re:

[ElleyKitten]

The equipment and infrastructure that were used to support the FCC should be sold off to the highest bidders, and that money should be used for compensation.

Now that makes sense. But you can't make money out of nothing, and you can't refund money to yourself that has already been spent, which is effectively what you were calling for. But, not spending any more money on that waste of time would definately be a good thing.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[aero6dof]

"Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it."

And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?

One has the same choices as anyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values.

Or, you could fall in with the fringe tax protestor crowd that wants so badly to believe that they don't actually have to pay taxes - maybe you could ask Wesley Snipes how that's going...

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"One has the same choices as anyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values."

That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade more and more members of the public to think likewise, to bring about elected officials that support rights.

"Or, you could fall in with the fringe tax protestor crowd that wants so badly to believe that they don't actually have

Re:

[Kattspya]

What if you don't want them newfangled Nürnberg (apparently an umlaut is too advanced for slashdot) laws?

One has the same choices as everyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values.

Mod +1 goodwinned

Re:

[AK Marc]

Might as well declare anarchy, invade the military bases, since they belong to us, destroy all utilities, since they use land they never paid for for their pipes and cables, and burn down the White House.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Might as well declare anarchy, invade the military bases, since they belong to us, destroy all utilities, since they use land they never paid for for their pipes and cables, and burn down the White House."

Who's supporting anarchy? It is the purpose of the government to defend our rights. It's just that the government has decided it has other purposes, which violate our rights.

Re:

[AK Marc]

The assertion seemed to be that all tax collection was a violation of our rights. An unfunded government is indistinguishable from anarchy. Also, there isn't an agreement on "rights." So to just assert that "the government exists to defend our rights" is a useless platitude until everyone agrees what our rights are.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"An unfunded government is indistinguishable from anarchy."

You're going to have to show some evidence that a voluntarily-funded government is an unfunded government.

"Also, there isn't an agreement on "rights.""

Alright, where do you disagree and why. Or are you just throwing moral relativism at the problem?

Re:

[AK Marc]

You're going to have to show some evidence that a voluntarily-funded government is an unfunded government.

Just as soon as you show me a stable government that is voluntarily funded.

Alright, where do you disagree and why. Or are you just throwing moral relativism at the problem?

Moral relativism is always the problem when you are talking about paying to defend rights. Do you have the right to choice, or the right to life? Most believe that you have a right one way or the other, so what right should th

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Just as soon as you show me a stable government that is voluntarily funded."

I proposed a voluntarily funded government as a way of avoiding rights violations. You have equated it with instability. What is your evidence to back up this claim?

"Do you have the right to choice, or the right to life?"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I'm to interpret it as a reference to abortion, then as a rational being I have both rights, but lacking the independence of thought and will, an unborn fetus does no

Re:

[AK Marc]

What is your evidence to back up this claim?

That none exist. Disprove me by showing me one that exists.

If I'm to interpret it as a reference to abortion, then as a rational being I have both rights, but lacking the independence of thought and will, an unborn fetus does not.

You are asserting, without support, that only rational beings have rights. What about those that disagree with you? Just about any government would work if everyone agreed. The problem is that no one agrees. A governemnt is nec

Re:

[Ian Alexander]

"Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it." And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?

It's a bit beside the point the GP was making. Mrs. Blow paid for the census, it's just doubly fucking her over if she can't even access the results.

Re:

[digitrev]

Let's follow the logic. The government demands people give up money. People give into those demands (some willingly, others not).

The government demands people give up money because the people demand a government. It's a trade off, and one most are willing to make. Those who aren't should be given the option to leave (at least, if there's anywhere willing to take them), otherwise they are antisocial and leeching off a system that provides them benefits without paying for it. I suggest you read some theory

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"It's a trade off, and one most are willing to make. Those who aren't should be given the option to leave (at least, if there's anywhere willing to take them)"

Who is not demanding a government? There needs to be a government to uphold the rights of the citizenry. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be funded by force.

Re:

[digitrev]

Then how should it be funded? People are selfish, stupid, and short sighted. It'll be a subzero day in Hades before we see Joe Sixpack willingly give money to the government, no matter how much they'd benefit from it. You know damn well that there are very few people who'll part with their paycheck without immediately getting something for it. The government may damn well be evil, but it's a necessary evil.

Re:

[zippthorne]

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people would donate to government in a "as you please" scenario.

Certainly, they wouldn't be able to maintain current spending levels, but at the moment the government is demanding three times as much as God. Five times as much if you count state tax.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Then how should it be funded? "

Voluntarily.

"People are selfish..."

Selfishness is a good thing. It demands efficient and quality performance from those one deals with.

"...stupid..."

And therefore they should be ruled over, and their choice should be taken away? That sounds pretty "stupid" to me.

"and short sighted"

In an economic climate where every 2-4 years newly elected officials stick their claws into the economy, and where the federal reserve can sway the entire market with one action

Double troll?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Touche!

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Troll is also used to bury nonsense written by people who think they are saying something profound."

I don't think I'm saying anything profound. Rational, yes, but not profound. You've (implicitly) characterized my statements as nonsense - care to show why that characterization is accurate? Or should people just assume you're right?

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"I thought I was rather explicit about it."

Yes, but there is nothing stopping you from using the "I never said that" defense when it is convenient.

"And, no, I don't want to discuss it because I don't give a crap about the topic you have forced upon everyone."

You've replied twice so far. So you give at least a little crap.

"This is reinforced by many other people modding you as a troll or off-topic."

Ha! What a great world it would be if truth were determined by majority! I must be a troll/off-t

Joe Blow is paying for the information...

[tjstork]

Hey, if the government is putting together a report for its own purposes, and there's no state secret involved, there's really no reason to NOT publish the data...

Joe Blow is paying a pretty good chunk of taxes for this report. Indeed, given that the government is in debt such that each and every American is at least 20k in hoc, the least the FCC can do is publish the report it already paid for. Is it really cost that much to put a link on its web site and upload it?

Re:

[digitrev]

No, you've asserted that the status quo is wrong. It's a fact of life that the status quo will persevere unless there are good arguments and actions against it. You're arguing on how things should be, we're arguing how things are, and the way we should respond.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"It's a fact of life that the status quo will persevere unless there are good arguments and actions against it."

That's the whole purpose of my discussion here, to help bring about such changes in the status quo.

"You're arguing on how things should be, we're arguing how things are, and the way we should respond."

I am doing both, actually. I already said what to do with the information given that it has already been acquired....

Re:

[Qzukk]

And as always if the provider misinforms the customer, they can be taken to court.

In your planet, how does the customer find out that he's been misinformed when there is no other source of information but the provider itself?

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"In your planet, how does the customer find out that he's been misinformed when there is no other source of information but the provider itself?"

Once they are using the service they will know pretty quickly the accuracy of the claims that were made by the provider to get them to sign the contract.

Re:

[Qzukk]

Once they are using the service they will know pretty quickly the accuracy of the claims that were made by the provider to get them to sign the contract.

And then the answer is sue? Hmm... I suppose it would be pretty interesting to see a company sue AT&T or a Bell because they chose a location to set up shop for the bandwidth, and demand as damages the cost of relocating the company (breaking contracts, etc), lost business, reprinting letterhead and cards, and so on.

Re:

[mobets]

Much like the sibling post:
If inaccurate information about internet connectivity is used as a basis of selecting an area of residence, by the time you are using the service, it is much too late to do anything about it.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

And why is there no other choice for service in that area? Government restriction. You can't use as an argument for government regulation a status quo that is negatively impacted by government regulation.

Re:

[Qzukk]

if there are no other choices of provider in your area, guess (once again) who you have to thank.

Who, the government? Pfft. I blame the fact that we're so spread out that it would take billions of dollars to rewire everything, and an incomplete network would be worthless without the rest of the country (at the absolute minimum) meaning that a new company could not simply decide to compete in one market and branch out at a later time, their shiny new UselessNet would wither on the vine.

Capitalism is not a

Re:

[pla]

I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information.

Because "We the people" paid for the collection of this information.



Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own or choose not to go with a provider that does not make this information available.

Because Joe can't force his ISP, much less all ISPs, to disclose such information. And as none of them voluntarily disclose this data, Joe has no one to switch to as a means of applying that ever-popular corporate imperialist co

Re:

[oodaloop]

Hey, I'm just asking for some sense of proportion here. In general, I believe the government should be open in all matters not related to national security, and even a few that are. But FCC's classification for broadband? Is this really worth getting riled up about? Get upset when people are locked up without seeing a laywer, or when judges are bribed, or kittens are murdered. Getting indignant over this just makes you look like a zealot.

Re:

[digitrev]

Proportion, fair enough. But we do have to let them know that we notice the small things. If they get into the habit of keeping trivial data from the public with no valid reason, then it's easier for them to keep the important stuff.

Get upset when people are locked up without seeing a laywer, or when judges are bribed, or kittens are murdered.

Who's to say I don't? However, just because the big issues are important doesn't mean that the smaller issues aren't.

Getting indignant over this just makes you look l

Re:

[Vancorps]

Given that billions of tax payer dollars have been used to subsidize broadband in rural areas it would be good to see that our money is being put to good use rather than squandered like we all suspect that it was. I might add that people have been locked up without seeing a lawyer although I'm unsure about the kittens being murdered.

Re:

[oodaloop]

I'm unsure about the kittens being murdered

I like animals, but there's a few lolcats I wouldn't mind not seeing again, if you catch my drift.

Re:

[value_added]

Yeah, can you imagine the nightmarish Orwelian scenario where citizens wouldn't know how the FCC classified their broadband access in their area?

It's entirely possible that knowing the classification may not help, any more than "Sucks" can be considered an improvement over "Really Sucks", or even "Holy Batman This Really Sucks!".

Re:

[zippthorne]

We pay for the FCC. They're spending money on this. Therefore, we should have access to the information they're generating. It doesn't matter whether our curiosity is relevant or not, it our money they're spending, and they have to be accountable for it.

There is only one reason for any federal agency to withhold information from the public, and the FCC does not typically have information which is vital to national security to be kept secret. Furthermore, I can't think of any scenario in which broadband

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[TubeSteak]

Isn't the FCC a federal agency, subject to FOIA? It's not like they can label such basic data as a state secret or something.

It's not a State Secret, it's proprietary business information.
The companies have obviously made a compelling argument for keeping that information confidential.

As a Federal Agency, the FCC can ask for proprietary information & trade secrets, but they cannot disseminate that information to the public.

It's pretty straight forward explanation that doesn't require anyone to get riled up.

Re:How can they keep this secret?

[digitrev]

Fair enough, keep trade secrets a secret. That's reasonable. But how on earth do you spin broadband penetration into being a trade secret? They just don't want people to know how much money's been squandered.

Re:

[TubeSteak]

But how on earth do you spin broadband penetration into being a trade secret? They just don't want people to know how much money's been squandered.

I'm not going to dispute that they don't want people to know how much money's been squandered, but the Telcos do have a legitimate interest in keeping their sales figures confidential.

Nobody in their right mind would give their competition a peak into their sales figures. It would allow their competitors to extrapolate how much has been spent in that area, how much profit is being made, etc etc etc.

There's always a balance between corporate interests and the public interest.
The Federal Agency in charge of

Re:

[digitrev]

These aren't sales figures. This is just figuring out how many people in a given area have a certain type of line. And I'd love to complain, but I doubt they give a rat's ass about some kid in Ottawa.

Re:

[witherstaff]

The rub is with the monopolistic nature of our telco system it's oftentimes impossible for non-ILECs to put in any sort of broadband. Trade secret on a monopoly network doesn't fly for me. What does make sense is a monopoly protecting their monopoly if the locals don't realize how badly they're getting shafted with our existing telcom infrastructure.

Re:

[rcw-work]

As a Federal Agency, the FCC can ask for proprietary information & trade secrets, but they cannot disseminate that information to the public.

What does being a federal agency have to do with it? If I ask for and get proprietary information and trade secrets, I can disseminate that information all I want. Unless I signed an NDA. And given the FOIA, wouldn't an NDA signed by a government agency be worthless?

Re:

[igaborf]

As a Federal Agency, the FCC can ask for proprietary information & trade secrets, but they cannot disseminate that information to the public.

Then they can't use that information to make regulatory decisions -- information they use for that purpose must be in the public record, as a recent court decision [arrl.org] shows. And surely they are gathering that information in order to inform their regulatory decisions, because what other purpose could they have?

Re:

[TheRealMindChild]

Well, I'll play the other side of the fence (please note this doesn't confirm or deny my opinion of the situation either way).

Eventually, genetic testing will get cheap. You'll start seeing tests done for $20, buy one get one free on friday's. Somewhere a year or so ago (Please don't hate, I can't find the source), "they" had statistics from a study done, finding, at least in the USofA, that up to one in five children are not from the father who thinks they fathered them. Whether this is accurate or not is

Obama, please prove your platform

[rsborg]

Once the Obama administration comes in and sets the white house in order, a good indicator that he's keeping his campaign promises would be the opening of this kind of data (if the FCC doesn't see the light beforehand).

Re:Obama, please prove your platform

[digitrev]

Perhaps it's just my political cynicism showing through, but I personally doubt he'll keep many of his promises, except the really big ones that the news will pick up on. And don't count on a bureaucracy of censors and critics enacting any sort of self improvement. And let's be honest, that's what the FCC is.

I'm reasonably sure you're misinformed.

[arete]

I'm reasonably sure you're misinformed - which is understandable, because the media has gotten worse and worse about accurate reporting in recent years.*

Obama promised to run a publicly funded campaign IF HIS OPPONENT(s) ALSO AGREED TO DO SO. His opponents have not. He did not agree to run with one hand tied behind his back while his opponents weren't restricted, only to have a fair publicly funded competition. Honestly given their relative funding this might be a great idea for McCain at this point - b

Insightful?

[scipiodog]

+5 Insightful? I actually thought that OP was going for the "Funny" mod. Especially the first line:

Once the Obama administration comes in and sets the white house in order

That part had me in stitches...

Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[Bob9113]

768 Kbps are considered 'First-Generation' broadband, and speeds up to 1.5 Mbps are considered 'Basic' broadband.

Hello, cable operators, how you doin? I see the FCC is still fondling your genitals.

So - is that maximum speed? Typical speed at peak time? How about sustained speed before you get your account cancelled?

How about this - is that up or down? It's the friggin' Internet - it's supposed to be bidirectional, remember?

Good to see the FCC was willing to look past all that and just write what the cable operators told them to write.

Re:Max? Peak-time? Sustained? Up? Down?

[corsec67]

What if the speed they reported is the lowest transfer speed (up or down) that could be obtained continuously for a month?

5GB cap upload? Max reported speed can't be more than: 16 kbps.

Re:

[Ark42]

This is so true. What most people don't realize is that bits per second and gigabytes per month are both measuring the same thing, just with different units. Google can do the math for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=5+GB%2Fmonth+in+kbps [google.com]

The average sustained speed should be what is reported, which would mean factoring the monthly cap to kbps. I don't care if your cable connection is 10mbps and is burtable to 50mbps for 4 seconds if it is limited to even 500 GB/month, because that is just under 1.6mbps a

Re:

[corsec67]

And yes, up and down should both be reported, or perhaps, the smaller of the two should be what is reported. a 50mbps connection is pretty useless if one direction can only transfer 128kbps.

Advertisers want to sell 1 number, so it should be the smaller of the two.

STOP

[Rezonant]

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT SOME OF US ARE STILL ON TLGRPH STOP YOU INSENSITIVE CLODS STOP

(yeah yeah. lameness filter. yeah yeah.) Some more antilameness filter. And some more. There is also the issue of the antilameness filter. It really sucks.

Re:

[andphi]

I'm surprised that the lameness filter does not filter for repeated mentions of itself. Is it a bug, or a feature, I wonder?

Why a federal organization to handle this stuff?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Why must there be a federal organization to handle crap like this? Customers can't find this stuff out on their own, or choose not to go with a provider that does not make such information available?

Next they're gonna start saying toilet paper doesn't count as kleenex and can't be used as such. Well, damnit, I say it can be.

Re:

[Floritard]

Some people might think the internet and e-commerce will figure more and more into the future of a nation's economic fitness in an increasingly globally connected and digital world. Those people might want to know how we're doing in terms of the basic network infrastucture with which we'll be competing in said world. Might be a little more important than wiping your nose.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Those people might want to know how we're doing in terms of the basic network infrastucture with which we'll be competing in said world."

If there is such a demand, surely a private organization will move in to fill that demand. Why is a federal service necessary in this case?

Re:

[digitrev]

And how do you propose said private organization get at this "private" information (your words, used further up the discussion list)? Surely the companies won't willingly give this information up to a private organization unless there's something in it for them. That usually means money, and large amounts of it, which create a very high barrier to entry for such an organization. That or else government legislation. Oh wait, that's what the FCC is doing.

Re:

[AK Marc]

Why must there be a federal organization to handle crap like this?

Because the companies won't compile the data, and those that want to lie about it can (to sue over a lie, you must be harmed, who can show an actual harm if SBC claims 80% penetration of "high speed Internet" when it's really 30%?). So the only way for citizens to be able to make informed decisions is to have an organization assist them with the information gathering.

Customers can't find this stuff out on their own, or choose not to go w

If only there were a way

[symbolset]

To permit some public entity like, say, power districts, to provide citizens access to the post roads of the 21st century.

I read about that somewhere, but I've misplaced the reference...

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Interesting sig. Care to provide your stance on it?

Oh there it is!

[symbolset]

They've tried a few pilots in the lowest density counties that major providers refused to serve. They deliver 100Mbps for about $50 a month. The fiber hardware goes to gigabit. Apparently it's embarrassing for a government agency to make that much of a profit even at that rate. There won't be any new pilots I don't think.

The bill on its first reading was received so well that they pulled its teeth without it actually being read. The revised bill is not going to get any more or better broadband to the p

A few good points.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Slashdot: I want the data.

FCC: You can't handle the data

Re:

[__aailob1448]

Most awesome response I've read today. Thank you for making me chuckle.

in addition...

[ILuvRamen]

And they've labeled cable broadband like 7000-8000kbps Road Runner as "real broadband." Hey here's an even better idea. For those "basic broadband" numbers, they should if people are actually getting 1.5mbps or if they're dipping into the "first generation" category in actual speeds. I don't know one single DSL provider that ever gives remotely close to what they promise as a top speed.

Re:

[Dan Ost]

I have DSL, pay for 3Mb downstream, and usually get 3Mb downstream. For some reason when it rains, I get 2Mb downstream, but my upstream remains the same (about 300Kb).

For the most part, I get what I've paid for.

Re:

[wagnerrp]

My DSL line is rated at (up to) 5M/768k. My modem is currently trained at 5120Kbps/952Kbps. Speedtest just gave me 4481Kbps/777Kbps at 8ms. I've seen as high as 4500Kbps/815Kbps (as reported by MRTG).

Re:

[internic]

On my Speakeasy DSL line I consistently get the rated 1.5 Mbps downstream. Upstream I don't max out as often, but I definitely get something close to the nominal 384 kbps. I've even found this to be true during the day, which surprised me a little.

Re:

[ILuvRamen]

wow, you have RR Turbo then. That's awesome. Sad to see you get slower than rated but that's still not bad. If you have a router and antivirus and other assorted stuff like that it probably cuts off the 2 megabits.

"Let's drive..."

[hyades1]

"...with the family down the street/Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet."

I couldn't think of anything else once I heard what those snake-oil salesmen at the FCC were passing off as "broadband". No wonder the Europeans are laughing their asses off.

speaking of broad band penetration...

[OglinTatas]

I totally want to do Sleater-Kinney

I wish the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the FCC required all ISPs to provide the following information, as part of some truth in advertising rule...

Maximum RAW data speed (up/down)
Average RAW speed off peak ours (up/down)
Average RAW speed on peak ours (up/down)
Average ping to first backbone on peak
average ping to backbone off peak

Then I could make a real broadband decision based on merits rather than the pictures of pretty people that the marketing folks decide to put on the websites.

Re:

[corsec67]

You are missing some critical numbers:

Transfer limit (up/down)

And then a good one to have would be:
guaranteed minimum speed

How about revising the terminology while at it?

[g0at]

The summary doesn't really make sense, given that "broadband" doesn't mean what the author (nor apparently the FCC) seem to want it to mean.

Alternatively, perhaps the FDA could put out a memorandum reclassifying spatulas as "spools", just because it sounds cooler to the layperson.

AFT, thee FCC learned what is Broadband or BS

[OldHawk777]

For all the trolls/marketeers on /. that downgraded or insulted those of us on /. that told you that Broadband in the USA was an advert-lie %~P.