backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by Regs.. on May 17 at 4:29 PM

FCC lays the ground work to dig the U.S. out of the broadband backwater

The U.S. is one of the most advanced and wealthy countries in the world, yet when it comes to broadband access in more rural areas of the country we lag well behind other nations. Citizens in the UK have access to better broadband speeds, as do other countries.

Here in America we are stuck with peak speeds for broadband in many areas that are but a fraction of the lowest speeds seen in other countries. This week the Australian government announced a sweeping plan that would see the investment of billions in government funds to build a nationwide fiber optic broadband network serving 90% of the homes in the country.

Wired reports that the U.S. government is now in talks to develop a national broadband plan. The FCC has been betting on the vacated analog wireless spectrum currently used by TV broadcast to deliver broadband to most homes in the country. The big issue with that plan is that the major winners, AT&T and Verizon, are notorious for strapping such low bandwidth caps on their offerings as to make them unusable to many.

Wired reports that the FCC has a year to survey the nation's internet infrastructure and recommend a plan either to start building a nationwide network or to leave things as they are. President Obama has a nationwide network in mind, as evidenced by the $7.2 billion that was allocated to extend broadband to underserved rural areas.

As often happens in the U.S. government, rather than action and progress the funds have been stuck in a debate over what “underserved and rural” actually defines. The AFP reports that the FCC is seeking input from industry, business, non-profits, and governments federal, state, and local. The different entities have until February 17, 2010 to report to Congress.

Among the aspects the plan is said to be considering are broadband supply and demand; quality and affordability; and problems, threats, or vulnerabilities to the proposed network. Also being examined is how broadband will affect civic participation, public safety, homeland security, community developments, health care delivery, energy independence, and education.

FCC Chairman Michael Copps said, "Today, we commence a national dialogue on how we as a nation can make high-speed broadband available, affordable and easily useable to citizens and businesses throughout the land. This Commission has never, I believe, received a more serious charge than the one to spearhead development of a national broadband plan."

The AFP reports that America trails Japan, Sweden, South Korea, France, Germany, and Canada in broadband quality and subscription rates per capita. One of the key elements under discussion is the speed of the network. Median speeds for broadband access in the U.S. are under 5 Mbps whereas median speeds in Japan are 63 Mbps and in South Korea it's 49 Mbps.

The FCC defines broadband today as connections offering at least 786 Kbps. However, groups such as the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) are seeking speeds on the network of between 10 Mbps and 50 Mbps.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Speeds we should have access to...
By PhoenixKnight on 4/9/2009 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 5
It helps even more if you have tons of money to hire lobbyists to offer incentives to your representatives.


RE: Speeds we should have access to...
By alifbaa on 4/9/2009 2:58:01 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, it really doesn't. I used to work at a senator's office, and I can tell you that when a block of people get motivated enough over an issue to call or especially write in, the office perks up and starts paying attention real fast.

The vast majority of issues, even serious ones, don't spur people into action. In those cases, the lobbyists are the only voices heard because they're the only ones speaking. Yes, they individually have more access to the leader than you or I do, but they only have about the same power that even as few as 10 people writing in have.

If we got a letter, we'd figure 100 or so people agreed with that person and were motivated by the issue but didn't bother to write. If 10 people wrote in to voice an opinion on a specific measure, it was a big deal. When the senator got his advice on how to vote from his chief of staff, he would ALWAYS get briefed on what the constituents had to say about it and how the vote would play back home with the voters. If there was a substantial polarity in the opinion, the lobbyists' views quickly transitioned from being the driving force to an influence.

Money certainly buys a candidate access to publicity, but only voters get him/her into office. As the previous poster said -- if you feel strongly about it -- write your leaders a letter and encourage your like-minded friends to do so as well.

On a side note, we had a policy that form letters got a form response while individual letters got an individual response. An individually written and mailed letter is the best, most powerful way for anyone to get their elected representative's attention.


By xanthyr on 4/10/2009 1:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that post. That has certainly motivated me to at least try to write my congressman.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














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