FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday characterized its
Congressionally mandated “national broadband plan” as a much-needed step
for keeping the United States competitive.
The proposal, which the agency sent to Congress on Tuesday, “is
necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness, and harness
the power of broadband to help address so many vital national issues,”
the agency chairman, Julius Genachowski, said in a statement.
The 376-page plan reflects the view that broadband Internet is becoming
the common medium of the United States, gradually displacing the
telephone and broadcast television. But many of the recommendations will
require Congressional action, and may take years to put in place.
Some proposals will probably face resistance from the telecommunication
giants, which over time may face new competition for customers. Already,
the broadcast television industry is resisting a proposal to auction off
some of its spectrum so that it can be redirected toward mobile Internet
technologies.
The plan broadly seeks a 90 percent broadband adoption rate in the
United States by 2020, up from roughly 65 percent. The reasons for being
unwired vary: some cannot access it at their homes, some cannot afford
it and some choose not to have it.
Recommendations include subsidies to extend broadband to rural areas now
without access, the development of a new universal set-top box that
would connect to the Internet and cable service and the formation of a
“digital literacy corps” to provide skills training.
The plan also includes a faster-Internet initiative that theoretically
would equip 100 million households with 100-megabit-a-second access by
the end of this decade. According to comScore, the average subscriber
now receives speeds of three to four megabits a second.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
In article <hnousq$4b1$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Jonz <no.one@ishome.com>
wrote:
> On 3/16/2010 2:19 PM, John Navas wrote:
> > F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
> >
> [snippy]
>
> John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.
Some years ago.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On Mar 16, 3:57*pm, Jonz <no....@ishome.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2010 2:19 PM, John Navas wrote:> F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
>
> * [snippy]
>
> John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.
>
> Jonz
I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it. Serves
me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 17/03/2010 14:43, seaweedsl wrote:
> On Mar 16, 3:57 pm, Jonz<no....@ishome.com> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2010 2:19 PM, John Navas wrote:> F.C.C. Says Adoption of New Broadband Plan Is Vital
>>
>> [snippy]
>>
>> John has finally found his niche - regurgitating old news.
>>
>> Jonz
>
>
>
> I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it. Serves
> me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
This from M.J.Copps applies to a lot of countries and not just the US.
"But an increase of technology does not by itself guarantee a more
informed citizenry. A 2009 study indicates that, as a country, we now
consume in excess of 1.3 trillion hours of media per year. Yet the
production and distribution of essential news and information content
has never been more in doubt. The same hyper-speculation and
consolidation that wreaked such havoc on so much of our economy began
early with media, and the destruction was compounded by the almost
complete dismantlement of public interest oversight of our broadcast
stations, decimating news, newsrooms and news media. A new Pew Research
Center report shows a 50 per cent decline in network news reporting
and editing capacity since the 1980s and a 30 per cent drop for
newspapers since 2000. The pink slips that have replaced pay stubs for
so many thousands of beat journalists and the evaporating state of
watchdog journalism have left us, to be frank, on a starvation diet when
it comes to nourishing our democratic dialogue. A serving of America’s
daily news and information is about 500 calories short of
a healthy meal. Opinion should feed on facts, not on more opinion—and
right now, neither our traditional nor our new media is supplying the
nourishment we need to maintain the health of the body politic. If we
don’t tread carefully we will have a society with plenty of fat-filled
chatter but not enough of the protein of facts, terabytes of opinion but
an empty cup of investigatory journalism to tell us what’s really going
on, information aplenty about celebrities and weather but a famine of
real local, national and international news. And this is not just about
the future—it’s about the present,too."
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296889A1.pdf>
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 17/03/2010 16:52, John Navas wrote:
> "US broadband seeks ISP speed stickers"
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/17/national_broadband_plan_one/>
Did you not read the plan?
<http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan-chapter-17-implementation-and-benchmarks.pdf>
"FCC Broadband Speed Tests Should Also Support Enforcement"
<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/191430/fcc_broadband_speed_tests_should_also_support_enfo rcement.html>
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 17/03/2010 17:20, John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:52:39 -0700, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> <l522q55a44mnbvn8orquile6d676ah40c5@navasgroup.com >:
>
>> "US broadband seeks ISP speed stickers"
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/17/national_broadband_plan_one/>
>
> "FCC Broadband Speed Tests Should Also Support Enforcement"
> <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/191430/fcc_broadband_speed_tests_should_also_support_enfo rcement.html>
I doubt they could enforce it with their present tools.
see the comments:-
<http://blog.broadband.gov/?entryId=243609>
There is an RFQ in progress for testing.
"Federal Communications Commission Request for Quotation for Residential
Fixed Broadband Services Testing and Measurement Solution."
<https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=cb712eb3ef384ebe25bfbf6b0a5dfa16>
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
seaweedsl <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it. Serves
>me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.
This is true, especially since the FCC's plan is back in the news as of a
couple days ago. For a country that brags about being first in everything,
we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet
infrastructure.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in
news:hnrec2$m5f$1@news.eternal-september.org:
> seaweedsl <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for
>>it. Serves me, more or less. Far more informative than the
>>spam on this group.
>
> This is true, especially since the FCC's plan is back in
> the news as of a couple days ago. For a country that brags
> about being first in everything, we're actually behind
> Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet
> infrastructure.
>
Croatia - 21,829 sq. miles - 4.492 million
Serbia - 34,116 sq. miles - 7.350 million
Czech - 49,007 sq. miles - 10.427 million
USA - 3,537,441 sq. miles - 281.421 million
There are 31 states that are larger than Czech,
39 states bigger than Serbia,
and 41 states bigger than Croatia.
I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than all
three of those countries combined.
If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia) it
shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by
broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that covered
nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 = 23,138 sq.
miles).
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
In article <Xns9D3EC322CDCE6thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.1 31>,
DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
> I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than all
> three of those countries combined.
So, are you saying that the US has more people than it can handle? By
that logic, we should have shortages of everything. Funny that we used
to lead the world in quality and quantity of telephone service *per
capita*.
Now, to justify our miserably inferior broadband availability (and on a
per-capita basis, it IS worse than most third-world countries), you
compare our infrastructure on an absolute basis with some of the poorest
nations on earth.
> If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia) it
> shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by
> broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that covered
> nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 = 23,138 sq.
> miles).
So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our problem?
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 3/17/2010 7:58 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<Xns9D3EC322CDCE6thisnthatroadrunnern@216.1 96.97.131>,
> DanS<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than all
>> three of those countries combined.
>
> So, are you saying that the US has more people than it can handle? By
> that logic, we should have shortages of everything. Funny that we used
> to lead the world in quality and quantity of telephone service *per
> capita*.
>
> Now, to justify our miserably inferior broadband availability (and on a
> per-capita basis, it IS worse than most third-world countries), you
> compare our infrastructure on an absolute basis with some of the poorest
> nations on earth.
>
>> If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia) it
>> shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by
>> broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that covered
>> nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 = 23,138 sq.
>> miles).
>
> So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our problem?
>
Density is the difference. Its easy to justify running fiber when the
line supports multiple households.
South Korea is usually used as a comparison. Its only 2/3rds the size
of California but has 4 times as many people per square mule. The
density in South Korea is slightly less than Santa Clara County.
20% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul and most people in
live in high rise apartment buildings.
Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing
multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no
wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
In article
<7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.southvall eyinternet>,
Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
> Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing
> multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no
> wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I
live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I
live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee.
If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business
services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.
Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 18/03/2010 06:13, John Higdon wrote:
> In article
> <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.southvall eyinternet>,
> Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>> Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing
>> multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no
>> wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
>
> That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I
> live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I
> live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee.
> If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business
> services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.
>
> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
>
On the 15th March asked for comment on the following:-
"COMMENT SOUGHT ON MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING
SECTION 271 ACCESS TO DARK FIBER FACILITIES AND LINE SHARING
PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED"
<http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0115/DA-10-94A1.txt>
Verizons comments include:-
"Checklist Item 4 does not include dark fiber loops because dark fiber
cannot transmit” anything — much less provide “transmission from [a]
central office to [a] customer’s premises,” as the statute specifies —
without the addition of electronics. See Verizon Comments 2-3; AT&T
Comments 2-3. Checklist Item 5 similarly does not require dark fiber
transport or dark fiber entrance facilities, because dark fiber cannot
“transport” anything without the attachment of electronics. 47 U.S.C. §
271(c)(2)(B)(v). Nor is dark fiber connected to “a wireline local
exchange carrier switch,” and therefore cannot provide “transport from
the trunk side” of such a switch, as the statute specifies."
"But dark fiber — which, by definition, is incapable of transmit[ting]”
or “transport[ing]” anything — is not a “service.” Therefore, the
requirement to provide transport “unbundled from . . . other services”
does not include dark fiber, which is a glass strand unbundled from all
services."
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020396213>
While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be
allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and
capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be
allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 18/03/2010 06:13, John Higdon wrote:
> In article
> <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.southvall eyinternet>,
> Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>> Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing
>> multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no
>> wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
>
> That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I
> live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I
> live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee.
> If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business
> services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.
>
> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
>
If you wish to check for wireless licences and spectrum allocation the
FCC have produced a "Spectrum Dashboard" which is in "beta" development.
"http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard"
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>Croatia - 21,829 sq. miles - 4.492 million
>Serbia - 34,116 sq. miles - 7.350 million
>Czech - 49,007 sq. miles - 10.427 million
>USA - 3,537,441 sq. miles - 281.421 million
The USA is also far richer than any of those other countries.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 3/17/2010 5:34 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> seaweedsl<seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've never had a problem with it, nor needed to harass for it. Serves
>> me, more or less. Far more informative than the spam on this group.
>
> This is true, especially since the FCC's plan is back in the news as of a
> couple days ago. For a country that brags about being first in everything,
> we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic in Internet
> infrastructure.
>
Last time I checked they were somewhat smaller and much more densly
populated countries.
And they don't have the interesting issues of extensive urban sprawl
where lots of folks decided they didn't want to have neighbors so they
moved "out to the country" building homes on widely spaced lots. I
really have no interest in paying for their lifestyle. If broadband
costs an extra $50/month because of the costs to service such properties
they need to pay for it.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote in
news:higgy-72F5F2.19580717032010@news.announcetech.com:
> In article
> <Xns9D3EC322CDCE6thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.1 31>,
> DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure we have far more broadband infrastructure than
>> all three of those countries combined.
>
> So, are you saying that the US has more people than it can
> handle? By that logic, we should have shortages of
> everything. Funny that we used to lead the world in quality
> and quantity of telephone service *per capita*.
No, I'm not saying that, at all.
> Now, to justify our miserably inferior broadband
> availability (and on a per-capita basis, it IS worse than
> most third-world countries), you compare our infrastructure
> on an absolute basis with some of the poorest nations on
> earth.
The three nations I mentioned, was only because someone else
named them.
Also, they are not some of the poorest nations on Earth..GDP-
wise anyway.
Serbia does show as the lowest of the 3 I mentioned, but even
that is at a > 50 percentile......meaning more than half the
countries of the world are considered 'poorer'.
Additionally, the 'absolute' comparison was nothing more than
a comment made agaisnt the original comment.....
"......we're actually behind Serbia, Croatia, and the Czech
Republic in Internet infrastructure."
Which is not detailed either. How are we behind ? What exactly
does that statement mean ? (Both rhetorical.)
>> If 'your' country was smaller than West Virginia (Croatia)
>> it shouldn't be hard to have nearly everything covered by
>> broadband. Hell, I deployed a wireless network that
>> covered nearly half the state of Iowa in 6 months (1/2 =
>> 23,138 sq. miles).
>
> So what's up with the rest of the country? What's our
> problem?
Money. If there is no money to be made, no one does anything.
Doesn't everything come down to money ? (Rhetorical.)
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
In article
<7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.southvall eyinternet>,
Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
> 20% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul and most people in
> live in high rise apartment buildings.
>
> Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing
> multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no
> wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
Amen!
You really have to see these tall, dense apartment blocks, running for
mile after mile all through the country, to appreciate the population
densities involved.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 3/18/2010 8:44 AM, AES wrote:
> In article<higgy-4B9801.23133217032010@news.announcetech.com>,
> John Higdon<higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>
>> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
>> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
>
> Sorry, it's absolutely nothing like the densities in South Korea and
> similar places.
Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less
than 6,000. San Francisco is less than 7,000. NYC is around 27,000.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
In article <bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
Bob <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be
> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and
> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be
> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.
There are two sides to this problem: Situations where companies (or
other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but
also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective
users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes.
We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local
trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system
to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away.
Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_
the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central
facility.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On 18/03/2010 15:53, AES wrote:
> In article<bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Bob<bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be
>> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and
>> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be
>> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.
>
> There are two sides to this problem: Situations where companies (or
> other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but
> also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective
> users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes.
>
> We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local
> trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system
> to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away.
>
> Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_
> the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central
> facility.
>
> Hmmm -- wonder why that's their policy?
"III. Even if the Checklist Permitted the Commission To Require Access
to Dark Fiber or Line Sharing, It Would Not Be in the Public Interest To
Do So.
AT&T also explained in its initial comments that, even if the Commission
could read the competitive checklist to require access to dark fiber or
line sharing, it should not do so. Mandatory unbundling provides a
powerful disincentive for competitive LECs to invest in and
deploy their own facilities, thereby undermining the goal of the Act to
“encourage the innovation and investment that come from facilities-based
competition.”
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020396197>
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:13:32 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com>
wrote:
>That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*?
There are also isolated areas in the middle of cities where there's no
broadband. They're easy to find. Just look on the rooftops for
HughesNet or Wild Blue satellite dishes. For example, right next to
UCSC, which has excellent connectivity, is the community of Cave Gulch
with about 40 residences straddling Empire Grade. The fiber for AT&T
goes up Empire grade. Comcast cable/fiber stops at the University.
So, there's no DSL and no cable. I know of several other communities
with similar isolated areas of no broadband[1]. My guess is that the
numbers are not huge, but still significant. Oddly, as the FCC keeps
waving the mantra of connectivity to RURAL areas, none of these
qualify as genuinely rural, and will therefore be served last.
It's most likely going to follow the model of rural electrification in
the 1950's. The government subsidized the power companies to provide
power to unprofitable rural areas. I expect the broadband plan to
degenerate into much the same thing. Whether that will provide more
or better service is debatable, but it will certainly add some taxes
to the existing services, that can be either stolen or redirected,
such as the FCC's Universal Service Fund, E-Rate, and 911 PSAP
funding.
[1] My favorite irony is that some of the major fiber runs in SCZ
County go through farm areas, or along the coast, that have no
broadband service. The DWDM fiber bundle goes right through these
areas (because Caltrans won't allow cable runs on the freeways).
<http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/UCSC-CENIC%2011-13-08.pdf>
<http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/att-map.html>
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
<On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:29:44 -0700, Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>Density is the difference. Its easy to justify running fiber when the
>line supports multiple households.
Tell that to those farmers that are leasing the right of way to AT&T
and Comcast, but can't get DSL or cable. See map at:
<http://noc.ucsc.edu/CCBC/att-map.html>
Some of the fiber run in the Moss Landing area has no DSL service. The
part that does has it via UCSC/UCMB which lease some of the fiber.
Same problem between Santa Cruz and Davenport. AT&T and Comcast fiber
go right by numerous homes and farms, but no service. Running the
fiber and providing RT (remote terminal) pedestals are quite
different.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
"John Higdon" <higgy@kome.com> wrote in message news:higgy-4B9801.23133217032010@news.announcetech.com...
> That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I
> live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I
> live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee.
> If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business
> services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.
>
> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
Even San Jose has nowhere near the population density of Seoul.
Federally managed SLA's (Service Level Agreements) for consumers?
I can't wait for the tin foil hat crowd to suggest that they add a
warning label to the sticker. "Exposure to RF might be hazardous to
your health". Bring on the ammendments. It probably won't happen,
but if it does, you probably won't recognize the final version.
Hmmm... they forgot about latency, MOS score, and suitability for
VoIP. Yet, that's the justification for switching the Universal
Service Fund from POTS service to data service.
Re: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:20:02 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>"FCC Broadband Speed Tests Should Also Support Enforcement"
><http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/191430/fcc_broadband_speed_tests_should_also_support_enfo rcement.html>
A non-speeding ticket for surfing too slow?
Actually, that poses an interesting problem. If the consumer doesn't
get their FCC mandated minimum allowable performance because of some
kind of upstream failure, can the consumers ISP pass the fines on to
the upstream providers?
FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid 
Linear Mode
