backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by Alexvrb.. on Aug 12 at 10:39 PM

ISPs will instead provide data per block of 12 homes

Part of the economic stimulus plan that President Obama unveiled was money for expanding the reach of broadband in America. Specifically, the plan has significant funds set aside to help expand the reach of broadband in more rural areas of the country.

Part of the plan to offer more broadband services across the nation and to see which areas are under-served by broadband was to map broadband use in America. Reuters reports that on Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department said that ISPs in America like AT&T and Verizon don't have to release information including how much they make on each customer and how fast their networks typically run.

Reuters reports that instead of giving broad specific data as was requested for the program, the companies will provide information by the block usually consisting of about twelve homes per block. The providers complain that releasing that information could provide business intelligence to their competition.

The catch for consumers is that by not forcing the ISPs to provide this information, there is no way for consumers to know if the speeds that are actually promised are delivered by ISPs. Telecom policy analyst Joel Kelsey from the Consumers Union said, "The actual speeds delivered to particular areas simply doesn't match up. The government gave a lot and received very, very little in return."

Naturally, the industry association for cable providers in the U.S., the American Cable Association, supports the ruling that doesn’t require cable providers and ISPs to release detailed statistics on their networks. ACA President Matthew Polka said, "The agency's modifications will improve and expedite (the mapping) effort."

The mapping effort is one of the first steps on the road to distributing the $4 billion in funds from the stimulus package that were earmarked for improving the nation's broadband infrastructure. Of the $4 billion, $350 million are set aside for the mapping project.



Comments     Threshold


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

double standard
By mattclary on 8/10/2009 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 5
I like how these companies fall over themselves to offer our personal data and wire-tapping capabilities to the feds, yet will claim corporate secrecy to prevent their info being made public.




RE: double standard
By FITCamaro on 8/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: double standard
By FITCamaro on 8/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: double standard
By Tripmasta on 8/10/2009 2:47:57 PM , Rating: 5
FIT, truth is a concept that seems to be difficult for you. That's why you get rated down with such regularity. It's kind of like Palin's approach to explaining complex issues. If you showed a bit more of a broader understanding, you wouldn't get downgraded so often.


RE: double standard
By Alexvrb on 8/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: double standard
By akugami on 8/10/2009 7:48:31 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize when they "share" this data with other companies that they're really selling it?


RE: double standard
By FITCamaro on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: double standard
By Alexvrb on 8/12/2009 10:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
If you had bothered to read, the OP was talking about ISPs handing over information to the feds. I assure you, there is nothing the ISPs can do to stop the federal government from getting whatever information they want. They will make them cough it up lawfully if possible, or else through coercion. The OP's notion that ISPs are "falling over themselves" to hand over the private data of their users is foolish. That's the kind of narrow "horse with blinders" thinking the government really likes. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!


RE: double standard
By akugami on 8/10/2009 7:50:39 PM , Rating: 3
Dammit, accidentally posted. Anyways when many of these corporations "share" this data with other companies they're really selling it for money. When they share it with the feds, sometimes they're illegally sharing it. Hell, the Bush administration gave retroactive immunity to illegal wiretapping and info sharing to the ISP's.


RE: double standard
By Fritzr on 8/11/2009 5:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
When they help the Feds out of the "Goodness of Their Hearts" it is usually either extortion or buying political favor. You can be sure these companies are not putting their business licenses on the line out of patriotic fervor.

Rather the Feds quietly inform the top managers of what could happen if the Feds decided to "investigate" the business, but of course they would never be so callous with businesses that show a proper patriotic spirit. The other lever that is often used is the political favor.

A business that quietly cooperates with a political power bloc can expect to ask for support from that bloc or it's allies when there is legislation that can be modified or introduced to favor the business.

A case in point being this sharing of confidential data that was agreed to when they received the money. Now they are asking the government to accept generalities instead of the raw data that could allow many different studies to be made. Their friends in Congress are being asked to back off in return for continued cooperation in illegal covert ops. Of course it will never actually be phrased that way, but when a lobbyist passes the message along that "we cooperated with you, now please back off" the message is loud and clear.

Sometimes it is a person in a position to tell management to follow orders, but very, very rarely is it being done out of the goodness of the heart.


RE: double standard
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2009 7:50:51 AM , Rating: 1
So the dumbass comment about how I'm wrong when I was right gets rated to a 5? This is what's wrong with people today. They don't like the truth so they attack it.

If you don't like the law, change it. Otherwise STFU. Until then ISPs will continue to provide wiretapping assistance to the government as they are required to do so. Hell I had a friend that basically ran a VISP business. He got at least 1 request a week from the FBI to track someone's account.


RE: double standard
By Ryanman on 8/10/2009 2:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
man, if I could downrate you to -6 for that incredibly ignorant comment I totally would


RE: double standard
By Boze on 8/10/2009 10:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
Except you'd be wrong to do so. FIT is right in that, legally, these corporations are required by the government to provide wiretap services.

I think the current legal implementation is what frustrates him. In the past, you'd need a signed warrant by a judge in order to do so, no matter who the intended target was. Nowadays though, with the ridiculous amount of rights stripped away from us from the Patriot Act, the government need not bother with such things.

In other words, don't get angry at the telecommunications company, be angry at everyone who was so shocked, hurt, and outraged by September 11, 2001 attacks that they allowed some of our essential freedoms to be stripped away, and be angry at the politicians who did so in a sure bid for reelections. Make no mistake, had anyone on September 12th completely opposed Patriot Act-like legislation, they'd have been burned at the stake by most of the public as being "un-American" (when of course, they're actually being the most American), and then crucified by their fellow politicians who are supposed to be upholding the letter of the Constitution, not wiping their as* with it.

Some of the more well-read amongst DailyTech will recognize this quote:

quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Those of you who don't recognize it, should, and we have only our education system to blame if you don't, as it should be taught in both English & literature classes every year, from first grade until high school graduation.

Who said it? Benjamin Franklin. And what's more, I think he'd be appalled at the American people as a whole for doing exactly what he preached against. We gave up liberty for some (supposed) temporary safety. And what's worst of all is that it seems like no one really cares, because out of the 308 million Americans, they're all so pre-occupied about 'bad things' happening to them that they don't see 'the Big Picture', which is constant erosion of freedom. Its such a pity that in less than three centuries we've forgotten truly how valuable liberty is.


RE: double standard
By FITCamaro on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: double standard
By FITCamaro on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: double standard
By MadMan007 on 8/12/2009 4:06:53 AM , Rating: 2
There was a 48 hour (or maybe 72 hour?) in which they could tap before getting a warrant, or really while going through the procedure to get one, under regular FISA law. And there is no proof that the Patriot Act did anything to stop acts of terrorism, it's faulty logic that the lack of a thing is proof that preventative measures were directly responsible for the lack.


RE: double standard
By mattclary on 8/11/2009 6:28:47 PM , Rating: 1
If they have a warrant, I don't have a problem with it. A warrant from a real court.


RE: double standard
By AlexWade on 8/10/2009 11:04:15 AM , Rating: 5
It is no so much the feds I'm worried about. It is how some companies were trying to install deep-packet inspection hardware to sell your browsing habits to advertisers. NebuAd may be gone, but something like it will resurface when the heat is off. A company called Front Porch is still here, and the mafia goes to them to learn how to keep secrets.


RE: double standard
By Sulphademus on 8/10/2009 11:58:37 AM , Rating: 3
I fear both.


RE: double standard
By MrBlastman on 8/10/2009 12:03:22 PM , Rating: 1
The Family knows how to keep secrets really well. If you snitch or speak up, you'll be keeping secrets at the bottom of the Hudson with a pair of cement shoes... Kapiche'?


RE: double standard
By spinportal on 8/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: double standard
By omnicronx on 8/10/2009 12:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
Ugh.. lower your head, as you just butchered one of the best movie quotes.
The first rule of Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club.


RE: double standard
By messyunkempt on 8/10/2009 6:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
and the second rule of fight club is, 'do not talk abo.. erm, sorry, got that wrong... no smoking'.


hmm
By StevoLincolnite on 8/10/2009 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
4 Billion seems small compared to the Aussie National Broadband Network cost of 43 Billion.

However, the government should either:

1) Do nothing, waste of tax payers cash, let competition and the free market handle it. (Doesn't seem as though it's worked to well for this market, many ISP's seem to "Dominate" one particular area, while others dominate others, which results in minimal competition and lowering the amount of consumer choice).

2) Host a bidding process to create better back haul projects into country areas that are currently under-served, but it needs to be able to be accessed by all ISP's for competition reasons, also awarded to the lowest bidder, something like that would probably push DSL technology's over the copper to those areas, ADSL 2+ with Annex M should provide adequate performance.

3) Create another small company which focuses on country broadband technology's like Wireless, Satellite, IDSN, ADSL, hopefully with competition it will end up being cheaper and offer higher penetration levels. (But you still need better back haul to provide the bandwidth).

-----

All in all, unless they have the necessary information, and it wont create a monopoly in the country areas, as well as show real benefit and meets the demand and requirements of businesses and people, it's a waste of tax payers money.

And with the governments view of spending 1 million dollars on a toilet seat, the results may not even be that significant.




RE: hmm
By prenox on 8/10/2009 11:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
There is alot of areas that the copper lines just won't support DSL or even 56k dialup. I know of alot of places in not so rural cities that the people could only get 28.8 dialup.


RE: hmm
By StevoLincolnite on 8/10/2009 12:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Same Situation here in Australia, where the copper lines are of low quality, but a way around that would be to create "Nodes" in those area's with low copper phone line quality.
Which will then extend the reach of ADSL, because with ADSL the Lower your attenuation and the higher your Signal to Noise (SnR) ratio the better the speed you will obtain, hence the closer to the Exchange or Node the better your connection quality becomes.

Some of the time a noisy line which doesn't have very good quality Dial-up speeds will work fine with ADSL because of the different frequency it is operating at, A friend of mine who lives out of town a little bit was using dial-up and because of the poor copper quality he was only achieving around 14kbps, he switched over to ADSL 1 on a 512/128kbps plan, and it's been a completely different experience altogether.

However here, we have a Monopoly on our telecommunications industry, and there are regulations set in stone by the Government that states that Telstra has to provide at-least a 28kbps download speed on a 56k connection, mind you the battling to get a phone line fixed is a harder battle than going to war, thus it's sometimes better to try ADSL before battling with them. (Provided you are near enough to an exchange/node)


RE: hmm
By spartan014 on 8/10/2009 11:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
More like 'pockets of monopoly'? Shouldn't that be illegal?


RE: hmm
By Tsuwamono on 8/10/2009 1:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
should be but you cant FORCE another company to go install lines in the area. We have the same problems here in Canada. Not quite as bad since our government built the infrastructure but now the infrastructure is old and since it belongs to the companies now instead of the government, not only are we limited in providers but our providers impose low bandwidth limits on its users to force them to conform to the limits of the network instead of upgrading their network to conform to the needs of the users.


RE: hmm
By MrBlastman on 8/10/2009 12:02:00 PM , Rating: 3
That "1 million on a toilet seat" is just the Government's way of cooking the books to hide stuff such as:

Secret Agents
Secret Agent Gadgets
Sanction Missions (Did that foreign diplomat really choke on his salad or did he? ...)
Area 51 test programs
etc.

You get the idea. :) They're just hiding stuff that the average American socialist-loving weenie would have problems with.


RE: hmm
By spinportal on 8/10/2009 12:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And with the governments view of spending 1 million dollars on a toilet seat, the results may not even be that significant.


But that is a zero-G toilet seat! We wouldn't want a back-flush, um "Houston we have a problem", like the Space Station. Gives "to the void" a whole new meaning.


RE: hmm
By mmatis on 8/10/2009 7:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that was a Congressional mandate to account for the system's R&D in that manner. Bleeding Edge Tech systems cost $$$ to develop, and then when our Congressional geniuses cut the buy in half (or less) the R&D needs to be booked in some manner that covers it all. While the toilet seat, or hammer, or whatever, clearly DIDN'T cost that much R&D, Congress has dictated that it will be spread evenly over all. Hence a 1 million dollar toilet seat. Or hammer. Or whatever.


Sounds like a bunch of crap to me
By smackababy on 8/10/2009 10:59:24 AM , Rating: 5
So, the ISPs don't want to release information based on each house because it would show their advertized speeds are complete crap?

Thank God for lobbyists, we might have had a situation arise where companies are forced to provide a service they describe it as...




RE: Sounds like a bunch of crap to me
By AntiM on 8/10/2009 1:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt. They get a buttload of money for a mapping project, then make up some lame excuse as to why it can't be done in accordance with the plan, then keep the money while doing a half-assed job, and we end up paying $350 million with nothing of value to show for it.
Definitely the work of the lobbies.


By Tripmasta on 8/10/2009 2:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
You pretty much hit the nail on the head there! I love this country...

- Justin


Uhhh...
By Motoman on 8/10/2009 10:52:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
there is no way for consumers to know if the speeds that are actually promised are delivered by ISPs.


...do we really need to link in the umpteen-billion speed test sites that are readily available to everyone in the world? Just sayin'.




RE: Uhhh...
By FITCamaro on 8/10/09, Rating: 0
Not solving bandwidth limits
By DOOA on 8/10/2009 3:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
For a lot of us the problem is not speed, but bandwidth limit. Just surfing the news, downloading updates and a few uTube videos will put me over 5Gb which is my limit. To combat this I have to put a lid on most video content.
What good is fast internet if you cannot use it?




More corporate BS
By toyotabedzrock on 8/11/2009 1:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
They should be compelled by law to hand over the info on which house has a connection available. I know several places in the country where on long roads only the houses nearest the intersection are served broadband.




Electric
By toyotabedzrock on 8/11/2009 1:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
Would we permit this answer from an electric company?




doomed to repeat it
By MadMan007 on 8/12/2009 4:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
1996 Telecom Act all over again. The ISPs will get lots of money, not do jack squat or get what they have to do so watered down as to be meaningless, and pocket the money.

The system of legal big money dominance has so screwed up America in the last 30 years I'm not sure we can ever get things back right.




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki