backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by tjr508.. on Feb 21 at 12:47 AM

The FCC wants broadband companies to reach the 100 Mbps plateau in 10 years

FCC Chariman Julius Genachowski wants to see ultra-high-speed broadband internet in 100 million U.S. households within the next 10 years, though the plan already has met criticism. 

"No one can argue that we are leading the world in broadband, or are even as close as we should be," Genachowski said during a recent speech.  The 100 Mbps idea is "ambitious but achievable" by 2020, but only if the U.S. government and broadband companies work to reach that speed.

The FCC plans to give Congress a national broadband plan sometime in March, but it's unknown how important the issue is to Congress.  Google announced plans for a 100 Mbps service, and the broadband industry continues to discuss the realistic possibility of Internet speeds that high in the coming years.

Some industry executives said they won't be able to afford to reach the 100 Mbps level in 10 years, with Qwest Communications, AT&T and several other companies against the FCC's latest initiative.  Verizon, however, successfully completed tests of a 100 Mbps service using its high-speed FiOS network.

"[One gigabit per second] as discussed in current news reports is a lot of signal; typically enough for many massive business operations," Verizon noted in a statement.  "But we could make it happen over the FiOS network without much trouble, should a market for it develop."  

Until then, the company will continue to offer a 50 Mbps internet connection to subscribers.  Up to 50 million subscribers have access to internet up to 50 Mbps from Verizon and several other companies.  

Even if companies are able to reach 100 Mbps by 2020, it's unknown how many consumers will be interested in purchasing the extremely pricey service.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I can only dream
By gigahertz20 on 2/17/2010 7:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to have faster internet, I live in a less populated area north of Colorado Springs and only can get 1.5Mbps down/896Kbps up from my Qwest DSL.....it's so slow compared to what I had before from Comcast.

What I would love to see is some kind of technology that prevents the signal on phone lines and cable lines from degrading, or can boost the signal very inexpensively, so everybody can have fast internet no matter where you live. Or some kind of breakthrough technology that can be used in satellites that allows companies to offer cheap high speed internet access through a satellite, like Dish and Direct TV do for TV channels.

It would be awesome if there was a way to make the internet like our GPS system. Anywhere you have a view of the sky, you receive a signal and can get online for free and not have to pay for any service, just the hardware that can receive the signal.




RE: I can only dream
By umop apisdn on 2/17/2010 7:47:30 AM , Rating: 3
As a gamer, I would loathe the two way propogation delay introduced by satellite communications. It can easily add up to 500MS round trip. No thanks.


RE: I can only dream
By steven975 on 2/17/2010 8:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it adds at least a 500ms ping. No way to get it any lower than that with geostational satellites. Perhaps low-orbit, but high-bandwidth is going to need aligned antennas so I don't see that happening.


RE: I can only dream
By Motoman on 2/17/2010 10:48:36 AM , Rating: 2
After moving into the boonies 7 years ago, I had to trade my paltry 256k DSL line for satellite modem service.

The very best thing that can be said about satellite modem service is that it's better than dial-up...maybe.

Latency was HORRIFIC. Playing any online game is impossible - you have no hope in hell. Browsing a webpage would take as long, or longer, than dial-up, because of the latency on each request. The ONLY thing better than dial-up was downloading a large file - that was much faster, provided you didn't lose the signal. Which we did - several times a day, regardless of weather or what DirecWay/HughesNet did for us.

Never, never, never use satellite if you have ANY other options. Using a wireless data card would be infinitely better.


RE: I can only dream
By Motoman on 2/17/2010 10:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, should point out that a couple years ago they finally got DSL out to us. We dropped HughesNet faster than a prom dress. Absolutely ecstatic to have ~1.5M down and ~384k up.


RE: I can only dream
By SunAngel on 2/17/2010 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that post. I remember being with AT&T and the line condition in the neighborhood only allowed 256kbps/up. It was was better than dial up and was actually usable. Years later and being on comcast now and 25mbps up /15mbps down seems like heaven.


RE: I can only dream
By ggordonliddy on 2/18/2010 12:21:46 AM , Rating: 1
Gamer is as gamer poops. Delicious, with a slight hint of gaminess!


RE: I can only dream
By EJ257 on 2/17/2010 8:42:44 AM , Rating: 1
The GPS and satellite TV are both 1-way, from the satellite down to your receiver. In order to have Internet access you need 2-way communications. There is satellite internet but the speeds are very slow and the upstream uses dial-up last time I check so your looking at 500Kbps down, 33Kbps up. The alternative if your going wireless is really WiMax if it ever gets widely deployed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX) It will still no nowhere near as fast as Fios if that is available in your neighborhood.


RE: I can only dream
By Flunk on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: I can only dream
By nafhan on 2/17/2010 9:53:03 AM , Rating: 4
Most satellite internet providers are two way, and use a "directv" size dish. Two seconds on wildblue's homepage gave me this:
http://www.wildblue.com/aboutWildblue/how_it_works...
More info on their parent company here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViaSat (also confirms the two way internet thing).
Anyway, you can do satellite data transmissions through the iridium phones even though the speeds will be very slow, and those are handheld. So, no, you don't need minivan sized equipment.


RE: I can only dream
By steven975 on 2/17/2010 10:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
what you also really need is spectrum...iridium phones use a small amount of spectrum for each...to get anything truly fast you need a lot of spectrum...and that is unavailable on the Ku band the sat systems currently use.


RE: I can only dream
By nafhan on 2/17/2010 2:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
Anything portable and handheld is going to be limited mostly by power requirements and antenna design. Iridium is also limited - to a lesser degree - by the technology used in the phones and satellites (base tech is pre-1998, launch of the first satellite) and design requirements (I think it was primarily designed as a voice system and therefore optimized for voice). With all that in mind, bandwidth probably isn't an issue at all.
Anyway, with enough power and proper encoding methods you can send a lot of data over a very narrow bandwidth. Extra bandwidth is definitely a good thing, though, as it provides increased flexibility.


RE: I can only dream
By HighWing on 2/17/2010 2:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to recheck your facts because hughes net has had two way satellite internet that does "not" use a phone for several years now. Taken from their website:
quote:
With the Home service plan, you may enjoy increased download speeds of up to 1.0 Mbps, with typical speeds of about 550 Kbps to 650 Kbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 128 Kbps, are typically 70 Kbps to 80 Kbps during peak hours.

And that is their bottom end service that I had ~4 years ago. Granted there was a latency that makes it hard to play online MMO games. It was still noticeable faster than dial-up, and easily able to stream youtube vids, download large files fast, and even Remote Desktop fairly well.


RE: I can only dream
By tjr508 on 2/21/2010 12:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
That is totally correct if the last time you looked was in 1996.


RE: I can only dream
By chromal on 2/17/2010 11:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Oh man,you strike a chord with me. I'm up in Evergreen, Colorado, and not only does Comcast pull service into my subdivision, but Qwest won't offer any DSL package beyond 1.5mbps to anyone in my entire Subdivision. It's like I'm trapped in 1995. When I had a housemate, if they, for example, were on youtube, my work VPN connection and/or VOIP would start having seizures during the day, and my TF2/L4D latency would jump up by 400ms making multiplayer impossible. What constitutes broadband must yes absolutely be redefined well above 1.5mbps DSL.

Industry has failed and/or refused to provide anything resembling progress, so, yes, absolutely, I applaud and approve and support anything resembling regulatory force of will to make it a reality. It is absolutely the only way to make providers like Qwest see the light of day.


RE: I can only dream
By Oregonian2 on 2/17/2010 2:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Although I haven't been paying attention to the details much, neighboring Portland is served by Qwest, so many sad tales are heard, including by folk "just" on the Qwest side of a border with Verizon.

Seem to read repeatedly that Qwest did/does have sad reports about profitability and there used to be articles about bankruptcy by them some years ago.

That isn't a situation that would be likely to lead to widespread high-speed networks installed by them due to the extremely high capital that needs to be spent (Verizon has been spending incredible amounts of money on getting their FiOS -- which I use -- installed, and they've still a long way to go).

So either they need to get very profitable and spend the profits on high speed service expansion (which is what Verizon had been doing, at least until the downturn) or to go into serious debt borrowing capital funds (assuming there's a bank somewhere now who would actually lend such a huge amount of funds).

So for Qwest, anybody thinking about having QiOS getting installed through another government tera-buck program?


RE: I can only dream
By Ohmniscient1 on 2/17/2010 12:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100mps Now!
I think ultimately what we are all looking for in communications is what I will refer to a QEC, Quantum Entanglement Communications. Direct site to site communications with a QEC device. Uninterceptable, unhackable, untraceable unless you are directly connected to the device, Instantaneous(no ping time), massive bandwidth, at almost unlimited distance communication (Think Interstellar). Lab devices have already been tested short distances(across campus) with simple 1/0 test.
Imagine driving a rover on Mars or Pluto from home, in realtime, no delay!
The reason for no delay? It doesnt use radio frequency communication! In simplistic terms, It uses direct atomic syncronization across a small quantum dimension! Mindblowing but true.
Search "quantum entanglement" for info and expand your thinking a little beyond 3D. QEC!
Then give the FCC 40 yrs to catch up and change their name to ICC (Interstellar Communication Commision)!


RE: I can only dream
By Ammohunt on 2/17/2010 2:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
You can only get 1.5mbs in Monument? I live 20 miles east of Ft. Collins in the middle of the Pawnee and am able to get 7mbs DSL.


lazy companies!
By krazyderek on 2/17/2010 8:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
of course the big name companies are going to say they can't do it, cause it'll cost them money!!!

remember these are he same companies that wanted to re-introduce download caps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm all for faster internet access but what most people really need is greater upload speed to allow for better webcam chats to family members, voip & video conferencing that doesn't sound like you're on the moon, and just plain old sending files faster, remote desktop, ftp, vpn.... the list goes on.

Until you drop $400/mth (which by the way only gets you 1/1 mbps dedicated fiber around here) the fastest you get locally is 15/1.5 mbps and the 1.5 is DEFINITELY the limiting factor there NOT 15! So you're spending a minimum of $500/mth if you want faster upload speeds. Say you want something reasonable like 5/5 mbps, that's $900/mth on local fiber. INSANE!!!!!!!




RE: lazy companies!
By fleshconsumed on 2/17/2010 8:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean wanted? Why are you talking in the past tense? Half of major US ISPs already have caps and other half is itching to introduce caps as well. Charter has them. Comcast has them. AT&T is rolling out caps for their uverse service as well.

I wish more people would read dslreports.


RE: lazy companies!
By HMH on 2/17/2010 8:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
The companies doing the caps are still using coax cable to get the signal to your home. It used to be fine before they introduced HD channels. Now all those companies are finding ways to provide more hd channels without having to run additional lines to your homes.

If they would all just pool together they could negotiate a much better price on fiber cable and the equipment needed. hell verizon already did the leg work for network designs.


RE: lazy companies!
By gamefreak32 on 2/17/2010 12:00:46 PM , Rating: 1
The reason why Verizon has the FIOS network is because they drive the cable companies into the ground negotiating prices. My dad made some of the cable that Verizon used for FIOS. The company he works for was loosing money on every shipment and told them to go somewhere else. Verizon is going to drive other cable manufacturers into bankruptcy. Somebody has to pay for Verizon's cheap FIOS network, it just happens to be their suppliers. The cable companies aren't lazy, they just refuse to drive their suppliers into the ground to provide better services to their customers.


RE: lazy companies!
By mcnabney on 2/17/2010 12:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea what you are talking about.


RE: lazy companies!
By RandomUsername3463 on 2/17/2010 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
#1 Why would you sell to a customer at a loss to begin with?

#2 I suspect the cost of laying fiber is about 95% labor & getting property right-of-ways, 4.9 % switching hardware, and + 0.1% on the actual fiber.


RE: lazy companies!
By Oregonian2 on 2/17/2010 2:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I've FiOS and I agree for the most part.

The labor of installing the hollow tubing (I recall something like 5" in diameter) underground throughout the neighborhood along will pulling the fiber cable through those tubes (with in ground junction boxes every few houses down the street, including one in front of my house) probably is almost all of the installation cost as you mention. At least in my city, there's no individual property-rights per-se in that it all goes down utility right-of-ways on the edge of the streets, but fees are paid to the city to be allowed to do the install.

quote:
#1 Why would you sell to a customer at a loss to begin with?


You know the old joke. Lose money on each item sold, but make it up in volume. :-)

No, I can't imagine selling fiber at a loss unless they're making more than the market needs and they've surplus inventory that would lose them even more money sitting in a warehouse. If that's the case, the "problem" isn't the customer's negotiation skill. Could also be that the competitors have lower costs and can sell it cheaper.


RE: lazy companies!
By bigdawg1988 on 2/17/2010 3:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
Happens all the time, especially when the consumer is much larger than the manufacturer. They lure them in with give us this business at such and such price and we'll negotiate a better deal later. Greedy salesmen fall for it every time. Then months or years later the upper management finally catches on, usually when they run out of money. A lot of times the big company buys one product and promises to buy another higher margin product when the first one works out, which of course they never do.


RE: lazy companies!
By Noya on 2/17/2010 2:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Somebody has to pay for Verizon's cheap FIOS network, it just happens to be their suppliers. The cable companies aren't lazy, they just refuse to drive their suppliers into the ground to provide better services to their customers.


Let me guess, you're a Republican?

It's always f*ck the little guy (consumer) and we can never do anything to "hurt" any type/form of business, even when they've neglected upgrades while their service gets crappier.


RE: lazy companies!
By Oregonian2 on 2/17/2010 2:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think you might have your affiliations backwards.

Republicans usually are pro-freemarket-competition which is what Verizon (AND the cable companies) are doing with their suppliers (someone saying that Cable companies aren't trying to get the lowest price from their suppliers is something I don't believe unless kickbacks are involved).

In any case, Verizon's FiOS takes between two and three years of service just to break even on the install cost (not to speak about runtime costs). Verizon's losing money until then.


RE: lazy companies!
By FITCamaro on 2/17/2010 5:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell are you smoking?

How does his post in any way talk about screwing over consumers? He might be incorrect about Verizon ripping off cable makers (he might be correct though, who knows) but even if he's right that means they're screwing suppliers for the BENEFIT of consumers. Now the cable companies, they're not hurting suppliers with no impact to the lives of consumers except that they're not getting faster internet.


RE: lazy companies!
By nafhan on 2/17/2010 10:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with download caps? I'd much prefer straightforward bandwidth caps over "bandwidth shaping" (i.e. blocking bittorrent, streaming video, etc.). Anyway, most companies already have them, and just don't say what they are. If I was going to change something, I would like telecoms to clearly state what they are giving you for your money.
Also, the reason the sevices you are mentioning are so expensive is likely because they are dedicted lines with guaranteed QoS, not consumer products.


RE: lazy companies!
By Mr Perfect on 2/17/2010 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
The theory is the cable companies are introducing bandwidth caps to keep you from streaming all of your TV and movies online. It protects their own TV business by keeping things like Hulu and Netflix's streaming movies from making cable TV obsolete.

Personally, I'd like to drop a $130 Triple Play bill down to just the $50 internet fee. Somehow I don't think Comcast agrees. :)


RE: lazy companies!
By threepac3 on 2/17/2010 2:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
I pretty much pay that now with Verizon FIOS. Extreme TV Package(HD Channels), 25/25mb Internet and Regular Phone.


I need what?
By rburnham on 2/17/2010 9:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
Why do we "need" our internet to be this fast? This sounds more like a luxury item. Granted, it would be very nice to have, but to refer to it as a "need" seems to be overstating things.




RE: I need what?
By shin0bi272 on 2/17/2010 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 2
because the government knows whats best for you didnt you know that? They are way smart ya know. They know how much health insurance you need too.


RE: I need what?
By mcnabney on 2/17/2010 12:26:00 PM , Rating: 3
Well, you need something because the free-rider situation that we have now isn't working.

Or maybe we allow hospitals/clinics/ambulances to check your insurance before treatment?

Heh, buddy - you don't have health insurance and you only have $20 in your wallet, so we are just going to leave you to bleed over here, okay. Call us back when you can pay.


RE: I need what?
By Oregonian2 on 2/17/2010 2:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
The hospital is going to use my internet connection to check out insurance status?

Hospitals probably already now have their own high speed connections to the insurance companies w/o having to come to my house and use mine (sped up by the proposal).


RE: I need what?
By CurseTheSky on 2/17/2010 10:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
We "need" fast Internet connections because that's the way the world is going. 10 years may not be a long enough time frame to see a drastic change, but in 20, maybe 30 years I'm betting that we'll all see a majority of our everyday tasks handled through an Internet connection.

About 15 years ago, if you went up to someone and said "hey, in 2010 you'll be doing a majority of your Christmas shopping online," they'd laugh like hell. Today nearly all of my friends and family hit up Amazon before shopping locally. Convenience and competitive prices.

That aspect alone might not be enough to justify a faster connection, but imagine what 1.5Mbps speeds will feel like when you (or more likely your kids) are trying to download their college books, reaching into the 500MB - 1GB range due to full color pictures, extended diagrams, and integrated teachers' notes, onto their Kindle 5. Better yet, making a XHD (eXtreme High Definition!) downloadable movie purchase online, with file sizes pushing 50-100GB per movie.

It may seem like a luxury now, but it's paving the way for the future.


RE: I need what?
By Oregonian2 on 2/17/2010 2:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly.

Saying "okay, we now have a need for much faster country-wide high speed connectivity" is all fine and dandy, but the time it takes from everybody agreeing "let's do it" and having it done may be a couple decades of time (or more).

Less bad if needs are anticipated and the clock get started sooner. Unfortunately having all the world's problems being fixed in half an hour or maybe a full hour (as in TV shows) doesn't quite work in real practice.


RE: I need what?
By PetesEscapade on 2/17/2010 1:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
If I can see or type faster than screen re-draws, it needs to be faster.


Why cant the US do internet right???
By 3v1lkr0w on 2/17/2010 12:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if companies are able to reach 100 Mbps by 2020, it's unknown how many consumers will be interested in purchasing the extremely pricey service.


Why does the US still charge an arm and a leg as well as your soul as a down payment for high speed internet??? I have cable here in Alaska, paying like 70 dollars a month (almost 100+ without discount) and its ridiculous. In Japan I was able to get Gig Fiber for 80 dollars a month...and that was in northern Japan. Why cant we get this done in the US???




RE: Why cant the US do internet right???
By Oregonian2 on 2/17/2010 2:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know for sure, but I suspect the density of customers in Japan is probably higher than in Alaska. Might be cheaper to provide the service there.

I also understand that in Japan, that a very high percentage of folk actually take the higher-end services as compared to U.S. customers (where services are available, but not taken).


RE: Why cant the US do internet right???
By Spookster on 2/17/2010 7:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's because each cable company has a monopoly on the cable lines in any one area. Our wonderful politicians gave them that monopoly. Each company is allowed to bury its set of lines in public utility easements throughout cities and neighborhoods but since the local governments don't want every cable company to have to keep diggin things up to add more lines they allow only one company to do it. And do you think that company is going to let competitors use them? Normally competition from other cable companies would drive the prices down. Their only competition is DSL through your phone lines which is not as widely available yet at the higher speeds to compete or you have satellite which others have indicated has its own problems.


RE: Why cant the US do internet right???
By Oregonian2 on 2/17/2010 10:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
Both Comcast Cable and Verizon FiOS are side by side in my City (I can get either one) and it's likewise in neighboring cities. They both provide the same services (TV/Internet/Phone), although I prefer FiOS, which I use.

Not a monopoly at all. But Verizon DID have to cough up the money to install their own stuff underground -- they aren't using the infrastructure that Comcast paid to have installed.

Cities around here don't seem to mind Verizon digging things up.

Note that most of the digging is done underground through small'ish holes only here and there -- it burrows underground with little above-ground disturbance. Can't really even tell that they've been through a street other than seeing green covers on junction boxes here and there (and amazingly neatly in place).


RE: Why cant the US do internet right???
By Spookster on 2/18/2010 12:51:39 AM , Rating: 2
Ok fiber optic lines and coaxial cable are not the same thing. There are however a few exceptions but predominantly it is a monopoly of the cable companies in most areas. One company owns the cables throughout the neighborhood along with the line going up to each building. These companies make deals with local governments to allow them exclusive rights to service the area in exchange for certain things they will provide the local government. And in areas where they haven't specifically been given exclusing rights any other cable company would have to bear the cost of laying lines through a neighborhood with no guarantee of gaining customers. The whole scenario is win/win for cable companies that already have claimed an area and a lose/lose for customers. At least until other companies can provide significantly better or less expensive services. Fios is one of those that can do that since it can provide much higher speeds.


By Oregonian2 on 2/18/2010 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
I will say, however, that the cable company DID complain about Verizon being allowed to come in. Their complaint was ignored, however. :-)

I think it's a local matter having to do with the local officials and what deals they have cut (that are valid forever?) and what they'll allow.

But as you suggest, for a second company to even want to come in, they need to think they can be profitable in something that's very capital intensive, which is harder if there's an existing competitor. At very least that provides a need for the existing company to provide something that can't be eclipsed easily by someone new, even as time goes on. And as you and I have already said, FiOS provides that opportunity with the aggressive long-term view of Verizon.

Not that I like Verizon, they're selling us off, including our FiOS, to Frontier in their tossing away of the old GTE states and our landline facilities.


By FITCamaro on 2/17/2010 5:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair though, Japan's internet infrastructure is a) much newer than the US's and b) heavily subsidized by the government.

We're using 30-40 year old systems for some of the backbone of our internet here. Sure we have fiber to homes in places now. But its not a continuous fiber connection from your home to the data center that routes internet traffic for your area. There's a lot of factors that go into how fast your internet is.


Good idea fcc
By tastyratz on 2/17/2010 10:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe we should try to fund this initiative through a new "broadband tax" in which we find a way to funnel 200billion plus dollars out of taxpayers pockets and into those of major telecom corporations? Then when nothing happens after many years we dont find any of these corporations accountable and let them get away with these massive amounts of funds...

Oh wait we already did that in the 90's. How about we just demand what we PAID for?

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...

In 10 years the fcc hopes we can catch up to what Japan has offered already NOW for less than current usa broadband prices...

Anyone ELSE see the problem here?

Am I wrong to be bitter?




RE: Good idea fcc
By shin0bi272 on 2/17/2010 10:43:04 AM , Rating: 3
There was also a broadband initiative in the porkulus package a year ago which was I wanna say 20B dollars. When All they really need to do to fix the broadband issues of speed in most areas is stop the phone and cable companies monopolies.

Competition breeds innovation... monopolies breed subjugation. If the states denied the cable companies the exclusive rights to an area and they had to compete with each other the speeds would be much higher, the price would be much lower, and the service techs wouldnt show up between 9 am and 5pm a week from thursday.

But Im betting there's kickbacks and political benefit for the state governments the way they do it now so thats why it hasnt changed. Government isnt going to solve the problem it IS the problem.


No thank you, Mr. Governement
By frobizzle on 2/17/2010 8:41:53 AM , Rating: 1
Sure...give us 100 mbit connections and then have the ISPs impose caps of 5GB a month (as some have already proposed.) That means I would only have Internet access 1 day a month or risk huge costs associated with going over the caps.

No thank you!!




By shin0bi272 on 2/17/2010 10:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
or like Time Warner wanted to do ... 40gb/mo. Id like to announce that I was one of the reasons they decided not to do it. My friend works for time warner here in NC and he was in the meeting they were having about when to initiate the caps and I had told him to tell his superiors that if they instituted a cap Id go back to dialup if I had to. So my friend told the execs that he had gotten numerous complaints about the idea and even had some tell him they'd move to dialup to get away from the cap. They "shelved" the idea for now but it'll come back you watch.

Ive always thought it funny that these companies that make us pay higher and higher rates every few months are complaining that they cant upgrade their hardware to accommodate the higher bandwidth users then 6 months later they roll out some new product line (like time warner's 4g mobile broadband roadrunner... which just came out here and its about a year or so since they were talking about capping people at 40gb). You'd think that they wouldnt expand into a new market if they cant service the old ones without making the customer take it up the ass. Again... this is why we need to end the cable companies monopolies and introduce competition... so they wont have us over a barrel anymore.


FCC
By HMH on 2/17/2010 8:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Telecom companies dragged their feet on implementing e911 which is of actual importance (allows police to find you in an emergency within 50ft) and which gave us useful features like gps on our phones and navigation. It costs verizon some $1300/ home for fios and thats in a fairly populated suburban neighborhood. These costs can go down alot once more production of the equipment needed goes up. The good thing is fiber optics can transmit their signal a good 4km before needing to boost the signal which saves on the amount of equipment needed. The other thing is most homes are already wired with coax cable some 90% of homes in the US. Coax used to be used for backbones in offices so it can handle high speed data.
Another option to look at is free space optics which can be pointed to the house to deliver the signal. It transmits in the invisible spectrum a safe light that doesn't damage the human eye. While not ideal for going to each individual home. It can be used to save money by going over valleys and other geographic areas.




I would think Gigabit in 10 years...
By ralith on 2/17/2010 8:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
would be a better standard to shoot for, but tech companies want to go in these baby speed bumps and charge out the wazoo for a 3 MbPS speed bump that they just had to go flip a switch to make happen. It's makes me sick that other countries can offer 100MbPS to folks now and we can't be thinking about gigabit to the home in 10 years!

Maybe that Google plan will show these clods how to get something done. ( http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Outlines+Experimen... )




Cablevision offers it already
By Targon on 2/17/2010 8:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
Cablevision offers 101Mbps service via their Optimum Online Ultra service.




Am I missing something?
By jonmcc33 on 2/17/2010 12:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
100Mbps download but capped at 100GB per month (as some current ISPs restrict to). Sort of defeats the purpose of increasing bandwidth.




this
By Chiisuchianu on 2/17/2010 2:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is the one thing that investing in could cause a dramatic growth in the economy. We need faster speeds IMMEDIATELY.




Slownet
By JonnyDough on 2/17/2010 4:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
This is why I stick to LAN parties in my basement on my GIGABYTE 1000mpbs switch. :)




Again
By FITCamaro on 2/17/2010 5:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Unless the mandated monopolies of service providers end, adoption of faster internet is going to take forever. The government shouldn't be mandating companies offer it either. Just let the free market handle it.

Without the mandated monopolies, nothing would stop Verizon from rolling out FiOS nationwide. That's the main thing standing in their way now. Not to mention the other companies that could possibly spring up as a result of this. The other side effect would be Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, etc being forced to upgrade their systems to handle it or be left in the dust.




Best broadband in the world? Hah!
By SunTzu on 2/17/2010 10:55:51 PM , Rating: 1
How can that guy claim that the US has the best broadband in the world with a straight face? You're not even close to the top, and you cant even get 100/100 to your homes? I had it in my last place, and getting it installed by my landlord in about 2 weeks at my new place. Cheap, very fast, and i dont have to pay anything to get it.

Typical american, claims to be the best in the world without ever having seen anything outside the states :)




US Yes
By wwwcd on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki