FCC Wants More Time To Craft Broadband Plan 140
adeelarshad82 writes "Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, has sent out a letter to Congress requesting more time for the commission to deliver its national broadband plan. According to the stimulus bill passed in early 2009, the FCC was to come up with a plan to provide all citizens with access to broadband services and deliver it to the committee by February 17, 2010. Even though an outline of the plan was released last month, FCC is requesting till March 17, 2010 to finalize the plan."
Why they need the time (Score:3, Funny)
The FCC is still using a 56k modem and it will take them a month to upload the plan.
Re: (Score:1)
No they hit there download / upload cap and need t (Score:5, Funny)
No they hit there download / upload cap and need to wait for next month.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea how close you are. The FCC building in DC had a very slow connection up until about a month ago. Now it's a relatively zippy 8mbs (same as home cable service mind you). But it was sub 1-mbps before that which was a joke for downloading even moderately sized PDF's.
Don't shoot for all, shoot for 3+ nines (Score:1)
It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+% of the population than 100%.
If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.
300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.
Re:Don't shoot for all, shoot for 3+ nines (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the government. They will start shooting for 100%, budget cuts will cut it to 85%, lobbyists will cut it to 80%, and by the end of the program only 65% will be helped.
And then 10% will not qualify because of some technicality.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny because it's true.
I think it IS possible to get 100%. Go with a plan that helps 99.9% and then have a location-independent plan, something like a portable satellite modem, subsidized by the state, for the remainder. Some people do live in exceptionally remote areas; if the state has problems supplying you with electricity, internet will also prove to be problematic.
Re:Don't shoot for all, shoot for 3+ nines (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should the government subsidize Internet access for somebody that lives an an "exceptionally remote area"? When I bought my house, I checked first to make sure the Internet access I wanted was available. If you choose to live in an area that doesn't have certain services available, why should you be able to demand taxpayers provide it to you later?
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'd say that it depends on the degree of remoteness. I live in Australia, and most of it is pretty empty. People live pretty close to the center anyway and not necessarily in towns or villages. I mean by themselves. The government makes an effort to help them anyway.
If you've bought a house halfway up a mountain, it would probably cost several million to run a line up to your place. But compared to the cost of debating the issue endlessly in court and the news, satellite internet is cheaper.
Re:Don't shoot for all, shoot for 3+ nines (Score:5, Insightful)
As debated in this slashdot thread. [slashdot.org]
The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask? Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight came into being when the City of Wilson approached TWC and local DSL provider Embarq and requested faster service for the area. 'TWC refused the request. And so Greenlight was born,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Now Time Warner Cable and Embarq are upset that they've got competition, and rather than try to go head to head with Greenlight on price and service, they've instead been lobbying the state government of NC to pass laws to put Greenlight out of business.
As I have read about this case local businesses and private citizens lobbied and organized and eventually got the project financed by the issuing of bonds. Quote from their FAQ "The funds for constructing the fiber network come from bonds issued by the City of Wilson. Tax revenues are not being used to fund this project in any way."
With large ISP's fighting local democracy I can understand why public pressure for better broadband infrastructure arises.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"With large ISP's fighting local democracy I can understand why public pressure for better broadband infrastructure arises."
You meant fighting local socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
You meant fighting local socialism.
Certain concepts and ideas covered under the umbrella of socialism are not mutually exclusive with democracy. And if people express, through their words and votes, a desire to favour local socialism over corporate privilege I say more power to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The funds for constructing the fiber network come from bonds issued by the City of Wilson. Tax revenues are not being used to fund this project in any way."
Government bonds are paid back with tax money. That's like saying "I'm not paying anything for this house: I took out a loan."
Re: (Score:2)
Satellite internet isn't broadband.
Its a marginal upgrade from 56k for _some_ downloads. You can't stream, voip or game, and browsing is generally better over a modem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right on! And all those major cities that can't supply their own food, water, power and waste management locally shouldn't see one dime from anyone outside of the city nor should they get any sort of discounts or subsidies!
Just because something doesn't benefit you directly doesn't mean that it isn't benefitting society as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
These places do pay for it. Kinda dumb about how the system works, aren't you?
As the poster you are trying to bash already refereed to, agriculture (most notably corn production) is subsidised, and heavily so, by the federal government. In other words taxes ensures large quantities of cheap corn, which is used for a wide range of products, and that, at least compared to decades before this program was instigated, food is relatively affordable and available.
So while "these places do pay for it" the reason they can, and at the price they do, is because of taxes and government subsi
Re: (Score:2)
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, it's a rip. And why should the government provide subsidized access to provide much cheaper food, water delivery, electricity delivery and natural gas deliveries to those remote densely packed areas where none of those valuable resources occur naturally in the quantities those densely packed areas demand and use now? Why should they be allowed to "vote" to take from other people far away in the rural areas, or to use any public tax monies collected to help provide these goods and services?
Should go to a pure profit, supply and demand based model, no government interference? All private roads, no more government mandated free "right of ways" for pipelines or electrical towers. Let private corporations negotiate with each individual landowner for transit fees and access fees, etc. If they want to move products to these "broadband rich" densely populated areas, those people there should also pay what it is really worth. Then all of our goods and services will be more fairly priced.
Works both ways, man, so do you want that trade? That's what you indicate you want, so are you willing to pay the real free market no government interference/ no tax payer ripoff price of your existence, or do you want to keep the government tax payer help in setting some "commons" that you get now?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given the dramatic amounts of money that the government currently transfers from cities to remote areas, I'm not sure you'll like the outcome.
Cities pay for themselves, and then some.
Rural areas are a financial drain. Nevertheless we put up with them for sentimental reasons (and of course because the original compromise of the Senate gives them dramatically more legislating power per capita).
Re: (Score:2)
Cities pay for themselves, and then some.
Because of the higher population (more people == more taxes), sure, but can they *feed* themselves? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most electricity is generated in very close proximity to major urban areas; it's costlier to ship it around. People in rural areas would be generating their own, or paying thousands of dollars a month to run their clock radios.
They wouldn't have any telecommunications at all except ham radios and satellite phones. They'd be eating only what was in season in their regi
Re: (Score:2)
Most electricity is generated in very close proximity to major urban areas;
Only for power plants that can be built anywhere, and they're put near urban areas for the obvious reason: thats where the consumers are.
it's costlier to ship it around.
Not by as much as you're thinking. Otherwise, power plants in the Arizona desert or the Hoover Dam would be uneconomical. Electricity can be transmitted for hundreds of miles before the losses become severe, and in an emergency, or during periods of extreme demand, those losses are still acceptable: there's a reason we have a *national* electricity grid.
They wouldn't have any telecommunications at all except ham radios and satellite phones. They'd be eating only what was in season in their region, and nothing but root vegetables and salt pork in the winter. They'd be lucky if their alphabet went higher than G or H, maybe only D if there was a poor harvest the previous year.
LOL, you have a
ha! (Score:3, Interesting)
You just don't like it when your little insular urban centric "oh so superior" bubble gets burst. You exist at cheap affordable rates for basic life necessities in the larger cities from the government using a LOT of eminent domain seizures and mandated "right of ways" and massive centralized infrastructure building using tax payer dollars over the generations and regulations to keep your costs down. And the government seems to not pay much to the actual rural owners for this transit action, as in zero. Pur
300 billion ALREADY spent for nothing (Score:3, Informative)
The telcos have already been subsidized via tarrifs and tax breaks to the tune of 300 billion. The FCC has some control over what the telcos charge, even if they are a legislated monopoly. In exchange the telcos were supposed to rewire most of the country. This wasn't just large cities, this was rural, suburban and city. This used to be called the 200 billion broadband scandal. It's now up to 300 billion [newnetworks.com].
This is a good read, a free ebook. The authors even sat on the FCC board. This is well worth sending an
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason the Feds subsidized the telephone in the 30's to the rural areas. Expansion, Security and farmers need porn too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you choose to live in an area that doesn't have certain services available, why should you be able to demand taxpayers provide it to you later?
It should be obvious: not everyone decides where they live, and those that do often have much more complicated factors than "will I have broadband." Farmer Bob's son may want to take online classes so he can do something besides farming, or even if he does, some business, ag, veterinary, or numerous other classes might help. Maybe there isn't a physical college for miles. Participating in online video conferences for classes would be something that you'd want broadband for. Downloading the video lecture
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because paying people to occupied remote territory is cheaper than setting up a military patrol
That too, especially if they're farming or something. The issue isn't completely academic either, I remember friends discussing problems our government has had with actual bandits in the more remote areas. Simply because there was too much empty space to keep track of them until the army could arrive. I also remember them saying the army dealt with that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't shoot for all, shoot for 3+ nines (Score:4, Insightful)
...But if no one is living there, do the "crimes" committed there really harm anyone? Really, if someone was, say, 5 miles from anyone and it was all their own property and they got high, publicly drunk, did every type of drug imaginable, discharged low-power rifles with a range of less than 5 miles, set off fireworks, played music cursing at a very high volume, and did just about every type of crime able to be committed in that time, would it harm anyone other than themselves? No.
Slave Trading, Drug Smuggling, Drug Manufacture, Terrorist Training Facilities, Anti-Government Organization Headquarters; these are actual examples of things going on in otherwise developed countries that can't patrol their entire area.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They want to wait more because in a few months there won't enough free IPv4 addresses left to give every citizen an IP address, then they'll have to wait for IPv6 before rolling out.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality here is the lobbyists will be trying to cut back competition and open access regulations to zero. The biggest problem for the FCC is the very same marketdroids that came up with death panels et al for public option health insurance will be attacking anything the FCC puts forward in order to maintain monopolies, duopolies or cartels.
In this case the incumbents and the lobbyists will be fighting for zero percent helped.
Don't forget the John McCain double speak Internet Freedom bill written fo
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+% of the population than 100%.
If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.
300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.
That's the entire reason for this plan. A fair percentage of the US consumers don't have a viable option for high-speed internet access. Being in a remote location can certainly rule out DSL, cellular, cable, or even satellite. Satellite internet access is probably the easiest to deploy in remote locations, but its pricey with upfront equipment costs and high monthly fees.
Proximity to emergency services isn't really related. As an example, so you live a mile outside of town in a sparsely populated area
You know a month isnt that much time (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You assume that there is some theoretical amount of time that will allow a government agency to "get it right". IMHO, the more time a government agency has to complete a task, the worse the result will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC will deliver a plan before March 18th - this isn't something they can delay more than once, given the direct Congressional oversight on this.
My two cents (Score:2)
Define broadband. Would one mbps down be sufficient enough?
Is their goal simply to make sure people have adequate bandwidth to reasonably surf the Internet? Not necessarily streaming TV shows, but perhaps when it comes to news clips (with a bit of buffering).
Also, VoIP comes to mind, but I'm unsure what my opinion is on that.
Re: (Score:2)
They're currently working on defining it. They'll have the definition in a month.
Then they'll start working on the actual plan...
No doubt the definition will be whatever they can reasonably accomplish in the timeframe. If they can find a way to get 50Mbit to every single person, 30 will be the definition of broadband. More than likely, though, the definition will be something like 256k (5x dialup) just because it's "easier" to get that to everyone than an actual reasonable amount (like 2Mbit).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the Telecomunications act of 1996, and lo and behold, we're supposed to have had 45mbit symmetrical to every household already.
They have not delivered, I say the people should sue for failing to provide contractual obligations in a timely manner, and we file a lien on their entire infrastructure and provide everyone with free service until they deliver on their obligations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simplify (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress funded this as part of ARRA and put a hard deadline on it in the legislation. As it turns out, having a hard deadline is a good thing, b/c it forces all the political monkeys to do their craziness within a fixed window of time. Political monkeys will swing from the branches, chatter and eat bananas for as long as you let them, so a deadline is really valuable for this type of work.
What can they actually do? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm asking this seriously, not rhetorically.
They have a budget of $7.2 billion for grants. It seems like they could wi-max a bunch of major cities, but not the whole US. Or maybe they just want to make the internet "affordable"--not necessarily free. Subsidize people's ISP service? Ugh. I don't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internet.
I do like the emphasis on making things competitive. There are a lot of us that have just one practical choice for broadband, either the phone or cable company. And then there is maybe some not-really-high-speed 3G/GPRS solution available. But without knowing details, I don't see how they encourage competition when there is a monopoly on wired or wireless access.
Seriously, what useful thing can the FCC do here?
Here is my plan: Make sure all the schools and libraries have got broadband-equipped computers to match demand. Let people that can't afford home internet ride the bus down to the library or stay after school. This is probably 90% covered already. It's too boring and unambitious of a plan to be very interesting, but it would do just fine. You'd have plenty of change left over from that $7.2 billion--go stimulate something else more useful with it, i.e. education, mass transit. We don't need to make sure every person is connected to a high-speed multimedia wonderland all the time for free. The emphasis should be on education and basic needs like typing up resumes, checking your e-mail, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm living in the clouds, but if I was the FCC, I'd build a massive fibre network then lease some of the connections wholesale to ISPs. Anyone with enough money can lease some connections/bandwidth and sell it on at whatever cost they want. The FCC would run the network, the ISPs would just fight tooth and nail for customers, forcing them to focus on things like customer service and price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it didn't occur to the US Government that, when subsidizing the construction of the various copper/fiber/etc... lines, to keep ownership of said lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the gov't run the network would be a nightmare. They could sub it out, but then what's the point? FCC estimated in Sept 09 that it could cost as much as $350M to build out fiber to home across the US.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No one likes subsidizing "Zombie Strippers". But people don't like using library computers either, it's unpleasant and a hassle; which is the opposite of letting people have easy access to information. Also, there are things you can't look up while other people are around, politics, sex-ed, Iranian marches, etc... You can't do your banking, and it's embarrasing to talk to family and close acquaintances while on a big screen that everyone can see. Also, you can't run your own software like Linux updates, Fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What can they actually do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Segment the data transport and data service industries?
A T1 is data transport. Cable is data transport. These things get bits from a to b.
TCP/IP, DNS, email, web hosting, etc etc .. these are all data services.
I'd simply declare you can't be both, or you can't be the data service if you're near-monopoly data transport, at least in that area/segment/etc.
This would foster .. competition.
It's so hard for the corporatists to grasp that regulation is often a positive economic force.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard for them to grasp. They understand it all too well. The problem is while it's a macro-economically positive force, it means higher levels of competition and lower margins for individual players. So they fight regulation to keep their margins high, even though it's at the expense the larger marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
The #1 thing they can do is to seperate content from transport. Ban anyone from offering both internet access AND content (such as Cable TV).
Right now the Cable providers like Comcast and Warner have a vested interest in making sure people CANT get decent throughput and access to the increasing number of options for "TV" content online (legal and otherwise). Take away the conflict of interest where the cable companies deliberatly want to stop Hulu, BitTorrent, YouTube etc in order to prop up the business mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many satellites would you need to support this kind of national bandwidth? Plus, who wants 2mbs sat bandwidth? It blows. 500ms minimum ping time? Ugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does HughesNet have to limit traffic for their existing (very limited) customerbase if a single sat could support nationwide traffic for hundreds of millions of customers? Is it a spectrum issue - if a single sat were given more spectrum to downlink, it could support more users?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand "have to" in that context. It's most likely that they just don't pay for enough bandwidth for the number of customers in order to keep costs down and profits up. They aren't "out of bandwidth" in that there are satellites with capacity available, so if they just wrote a bigger check, then they would have more ban
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internet
Yes you do. That website has costs. If the strippers aren't given enough -very expensive- artificial brain substitute, THEY WILL KILL US ALL.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what we have in Belgium:
- The government imposes every operator to have an affordable version of their broadband access. Mostly speed is limited to ADSL speeds of 5years ago and download caps only allow normal surfing/mailing. So most people can afford this.
- If you are unemployed or live on benefits you get this "light" broadband at cheaper prices.
- Once every few years the government will sponsor cheap PC/broadband bundles.
Off course these measures only work because every house is connected to a ca
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea is actually well supported in the public record comments on the Broadband plan (see particularly Public Notice #15 for the Broadband plan on the FCC website) (no link b/c I'm lazy). They might just do something like you describe for schools. And incidentally libraries already permit this, but they don't have enough bandwidth to satisfy customers.
Why wait, we already know the answer (Score:2, Troll)
It will be just like telephone and now health care. The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who don't care enough to buy it on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this much inferior to just making things a public utility. If you want to have the government guarantee a public service, why pussyfoot around?
Re: (Score:2)
It will be just like telephone and now health care. The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who don't care enough to buy it
Wait, is there someplace thats getting free telephone service? Where? I wanna move there!
How typical.
Hint: the telephone subsidy is much like the expansion of the USPS back in the old days. It was not to make it free for anyone, but just to make it *available* to everyone.
And if you don't get why extending mail and telephone was considered so important, why not read some of the history of those times. A large country thats disconnected and out of touch with itself could never move beyond the 2nd-world
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. When will people wake up and realize that the government providing everything is no panacea. It takes from those who have some, to those who don't want to have (or some legitimately who do, but can't afford). This is evil and creates class warfare. In the meantime, we all give up more and more of our freedom and liberty all in the name of "fairness." Of course this is not fair at all, it's a manufactured wrong against the natural order.
I wonder how it will work. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon bought it.
How can they do this on any timeline? (Score:2)
Doesn't serving "everyone" have daunting technical/physical challenges, if not financial ones at a minimum?
How does an extra month give you a good answer that's not completely unrealistic -- "just run fiber to everyone's house" -- and impossibly expensive?
That being said, I'm not against broadband/networking being invested in by the government, for the same reasons I'm not against the government building roads. It's a common thing we all need good, local access to. You benefit from roads, even if you don'
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but does the government actually provide good roads? Sure, there are universal roads around America that you don't generally have to pay to use on-demand. But I think we've all gotten used to a universal crappy standard of excuses for roads. When was the last time roads were actually innovated on? Probably in the 1950s for most states.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the Federal govt made the mistake of having the states fund road upkeep.
I don't know about the state you live in, but the one I live in (Michigan) is requi
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, it would be interesting to see internet access become a utility. It wouldn't matter how it's delivered, and would be a fixed price for a fixed bandwidth. Put it back on the service providers to deliver it however they want. That would leave them with profits on the easy to service customers, and taking losses on the hard to service customers. That's how phone service works. If you live in the boonies, they don't charge you extra monthly costs. They don't charge any different if they have t
What;'s next, Ponies? (Score:2)
After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it. Then software.
After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.
How many people want broadband that can't get it now? Move or pay the price. No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living. Sorry, I'm not buying you a pony.
Yes, many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice. That's a different issue, and I'd like to see something done about th
Re: (Score:2)
After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it. Then software.
After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.
No matter where you live you have a choice in computers, software, and...er... ponies, to fit your budget. The same is not true of broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it. Then software.
After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.
How many people want broadband that can't get it now? Move or pay the price. No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living. Sorry, I'm not buying you a pony.
Yes, many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice. That's a different issue, and I'd like to see something done about that.
I've felt that way ever since I heard the government was delivering mail...The delivered the mail, put up police forces, fire departments, and even paid for a standing army, and I thought, "It's just a matter of time before they give everyone free ponies".
But seriously, slippery slop arguments aside, everybody benefits from an informed society. If we want to be able to compete with the rest of the industrialized world, then we need to have educated people with ambitions that extend beyond "factory moves to
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone benefits from an informed society, but where do you stop? Broadband is worthless without a computer, and nearly worthless without a *contemporary* PC that can keep up with the inane software requirements of the Adobe Flash/Javascript/IE8 world.
And what about college/post-secondary education? That is not free, either.
None of this shit is free, it comes out of the pockets of people who (still) earn a living. Maybe if you woke up and realized that Goldmine Sachs was paying bonuses earned with YOUR
Re: (Score:2)
free luxuries you don't enjoy.
I think that's part of the problem. Internet access is quickly becoming a necessity rather than a luxury.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone benefits from an informed society, but where do you stop?
See...Slippery slope argument. You stop when it makes sense to do so. If a $300 PC could encourage children in trailer parks and housing projects to get an education and become a productive member of society, then I would pay the $300.
But we're not even talking about that. Obama isn't going to give away free internet, and you'd have to be batshit insane to think he was. The best we can hope for is some small regulation that MAY result in lines being run to houses that they were never run to before. Then, th
Re: (Score:2)
A number of years ago? Try today.
Don't live on a municipal sewer system? Guess what, you're building your own septic system.
Water? Drill your own well.
Natural gas? Hope the LP guy delivers or you can deliver your own.
Electricity? They'll usually extend service for you, but it's like $1000 a yard or something outrageous to set poles and string a line. Otherwise, buy a generator and hope the LP guy and/or the diesel guy deliver.
Re: (Score:2)
Failed to fulfil their stated purpose.. yes; failed to reward entities that have close ties to them.. no. There's only one outcome that should have been expected from auctioning off large chunks of bandwidth: whoever had the most cash wins and that's exactly what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
"For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable cha
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, I need to save this quote for later use. Or just the USC number and chapter.
Re: (Score:2)
Fiber isn't "broadband". Of course the FCC probably defines "broadband" as any better than dialup.
Re: (Score:2)
last I checked broadband was considered anything over 256 kbit. Maybe they updated since my last check was a couple years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought DWDM was broadband.
Of course the FCC probably defines "broadband" as any better than dialup.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fcc+definition+broadband&l=1
Re: (Score:2)
Broadband is supposed to mean across a wider frequency range. Typical fiber use is a single frequency/wavelength unless you're doing multiplexing. A modem could actually be considered broadband as is uses a spread of frequencies.
So wikipedia says broadband is better than dialup, but FCC says better than 768k. Why can't these folks simply use far more accurate term "high-speed"?
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be disagreeing that fiber is broadband, then ignoring my comment about DWDM.
A modem could actually be considered broadband as is uses a spread of frequencies.
You must just be dense. A 300 baud modem is not broadband, while a 9.6k is. "A modem [...] uses a spread of frequencies" is a statement that isn't necessarily true, just like fiber not being broadband isn't necessarily true. However, you present both with the view you want, ignoring th
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez got your panties in a wad eh?
I should clarify then. The signal sent on a fiber is usually a single frequency unless you are multiplexing (ie WDM, DWDM or CWDM). The term broadband has many connotations, but it generally doesn't apply to a single frequency signal
Modems using speeds 4800 and up are indeed using a wide frequency range, versus a pair of FSK frequencies like the original Bell 300 baud standard.
You do have a point about "high speed". We just need to look at USB specs for an example of that
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, just feels like you are a bald faced liar when I say "DWDM is broadband" and you answer with "fiber isn't broadband." If you'd stop lying, I'd stop calling you on it, and then you wouldn't have to get so defensive.
Which law are you referring to as the Recovery Act doesn't define broadband, but just refers to boradband service.
Oops. Lying again? Point to any law I referred to. Point to any post I ever stated the words "Recovery Act." I never stated which law
Re: (Score:2)
The heart of this debate is the definition of "broadband", which has become such a widely abused term. You're hung up on associating it with bandwidth, whereas I'm being anal and pointing out that it's a misuse of the term based on the conventional (or historic) meaning of the term. At the technical level versus the consumer level, they still use the term correctly.
You said "The law defines broadband...", which any normal person might interpret to mean there is a law on the books defining the term broadb
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm hung up defining the word as people use it, and you are hung up defining it as it used to be used. The most common definition is "high-speed" (as people use it) and so, that is the current definition. No amount of anality can change that. You are arguing about what the definition used to be.
You said "The law defines
Re: (Score:2)
You said "The law defines broadband...", which any normal person might interpret to mean there is a law on the books defining the term broadband.
Sure. That makes sense. There is something with the force of law somewhere that explicitly states what "broadband" is according to the federal government.
So when you said "the law defines", were you referring to a specific law or piece of legislation? Or were you blowing smoke? I thought perhaps you meant the Recovery Act since that's what provides the funding commitment and tasking for the broadband plan.
You had the nerve to call me a liar when I simply asked what law you were referring to, claiming that you never mentioned a law.
Re: (Score:2)
While you're right the 3 words you mentioned don't, "Federal Communications Commission" or "FCC" is strictly American.
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely the reason that the Telcos are suing to stop municipalities from making th