Government to Reveal Internet Policy on Tuesday

[cheepstuff]

as a citizen, i dont think i want the government involved in my internet. i think the market has and will handle it better than the government because the companies have to do well, otherwise they will fail; the government cannot fail and we cannot stop them once they control the internet.

 

[danimal_the_animal]

This is retarded.

Saying it will increase by 25% in 10 years???

The government is blowing smoke because the speed will increase anyhow due to better technology.

what we need is UPSPEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[frozenlead]

[citation][nom]cheepstuff[/nom] i think the market has and will handle it better than the government because the companies have to do well, otherwise they will fail; [/citation]

If you didn't notice, they have been doing well, and I still don't see fiber in my home, let alone a 10mbit connection. No, instead, we're getting stuck with data caps and throttling.

 

[rags_20]

High definition movies that take hours now will take minutes later? But then, as time goes on, the resolution and other improvements resulting in higher bitrates. (According to my understanding 3D will require twice the bitrate for same quality as it is basically made up of two streams) So in ten or fifteen years, probably a single movie will take up 100 GB. It will still take hours.

 

[nahdogg]

Forcing ISP's to increase speed ahead of market demand will result in higher prices for all of us. For which we can give a great big thanks to the FCC. Paying 25$ a month for 7mps service watch that go to 40$ after the goverment fixes the problem.

 

[climber]

Don't worry folks, the ISP's will be charging you through the nose for it, perhaps thats why they want to go slow, so they don't have to offer the really slow bandwidth customers access for almost free when compared to the 100Mbps crowd. It'll easily be $100/month for access at that bandwidth. But they certainly won't want to charge $7/month for 7Mbps, now will they? Since most users will not be able to take advantage of the higher speed because it's not available at their door yet, they'll be paying a rate similar to the 100Mbps crowd and there'll be an uproar.

 

[redplanet_returns]

as much as i'd love this potential huge speed increase, if combined with obama administration's planned 3-strike policy and secret ACTA meetings regarding it really has me worried.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

I read the full article in this mornings' Wall Street Journal. As the matter now stands it is pretty much wishful thinking. There is controversy within the FCC ovber the issue. Thats' why the board of commissioners never voted on the policy.

 

[methal]

Anytime the government uses the phrase "win win for everybody" i know they are full of BS.

 

[specialk90]

First off, does anyone else see the real reason behind this? In order to get 100Mb to everyone(or mostly everyone), they need to lay fiber everywhere. Who does this sort of work? UNIONS! Who does Obama bend over backwards for? UNIONS! Who will pay for this? Taxpayers. (you know how much those sign holders get paid on the side of road work - $45k-50k base salary for new hires)

Furthermore, let the gov't give you something for free, and now the gov't gets to tell you how to use it.

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

 

[terr281]

A personal example of why the government must get involved...

1. My house is about 50 miles from the closest city with a population of 500k+, and 10 miles from the closest city with a population of 50k+.
2. The only cable tv provider in my area has not upgraded their cable lines in the area for over 30 years. As a result, if you purchase cable from them, you only get ~40 channels... maximum. And, they cannot offer internet, phone, or anything else but regular resolution cable television.
3. A former mini-Bell, now part of AT&T, installed DSL in the area about 3 years ago. If you did not pre-order, you did not get it. (Their available connections ran out.) The maximum speed for the DSL was 3MB down/384 up.
4. When AT&T bought the mini-Bell, the government made AT&T agree to expand DSL coverage. As a result, this allowed one of my next door neighbours to actually get broadband. (And, the speeds changed to a maximum of 6MB down/512 up.)
5. However, they have... yet again... ran out of connections. As a result, another next door neighbour, who now wants broadband, cannot get it.
6. Further, AT&T has already up'ed the price of ALL of their DSL plans.

Inside the 500k+ population city, the only option for broadband is cable for large parts of the city. How do I know this? Many of my co-workers complain about the sole cable provider's horrible service everytime any weather event other than a "normal rain storm" occurs. And, the highest available speed is 10 MB down. (I don't know the up rate.)

As a result, I will be happy with the companies are required to actually spend some of their profits on giving those "not in the largest cities" decent broadband access.

 

[Guest]

About damn time. I can name about 10 third world countries that will blow us away on Internet speeds alone.

 

[Guest]

A free market would work if there was competition. Unfortunately these companies get exclusive rights to cities and you are stuck with just that one provider for service.

Prices will never get better, speeds/bandwidth will not increase if these companies have monopolies in these areas.

 

[nottheking]

I think that largely, major telecoms and ESPECIALLY cable companies are lying here, and are quaking in their boots; of the FCC actually takes action, they will HAVE to follow suit. After all, it was the FCC that had the power to end analog television, and usher in the era of digital-only television.

It's pretty sad; in the United States, Internet services lag badly behind many other countries... Not, of course, due to any degree of lack of technology, since the USA has been the progenitor of all higher-speed Internet technologies, but rather, due to major cable and telephone companies dragging their feet. They LIKE the cash cow they have now. They don't care about whether America succeeds or fails; they just care about the very next quarter's profit margin. So if they can continue gouging huge monthly fees for services that currently cost them next to nothing to provide, by all means they'll try to keep it.

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]You find for me the line in the constitution that allows the FCC to even exist[/citation]
Apparently you failed at US Government? It's right there, as one of the most well-known and famous parts of the US Consitution. It's Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, otherwise known as the "Commerce Clause." (that's right, the Constitution has things OTHER than the Bill of Rights)

(The Congress shall have power) "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

There you have it. Congress has the power to regulate Commerce. And the FCC is an agency created by an act of Congress to act in its name; specifically, it is granted purpose and mission by Title 47 of the United States Code. And with these powers, it is that all communications-related business in America basically operate at the FCC's, and in turn Congress', pleasure, and it's been this way for over 200 years.

 

[zak_mckraken]

[citation][nom]CTPAHHIK[/nom]I'm sorry, I think my english is really bad now. Planning to increase speed by 25% in ten years? So, if national average is 4Mbps now, then 25% increase would make it 5Mbps? Quite an achievement in 10 years.[/citation]
It's worst than that.

[...]increase Internet speeds by up to 25-percent within the next ten years.

"Up to" is the keyword here. They can increase the speed by 1% in the next 10 years and they'll achieve their goal.

 

[gnice3d]

Nice to see public officials from the most powerful nation on the planet can't do simple 3rd grade math.
A 25% increase on the 4 megabit average would bring us to 5 megabits.

redicki

 

[nonxcarbonx]

There's a pretty significant difference between 25% and 25x

 

[itadakimasu]

I hope this has some effect on businesses. At home I get 10/2 for $50/month.

At work, we pay over $1000 per month for our slow 3/3 connection... something is wrong there.

 

[falchard]

Actually the commerce clause does not allow the US government to open a business. Thats what this would be. It allows them to regulate business that happens across state lines. I don't think the US Government should be in any type of business as is evident from how their current attempts at being a business has turned out. Instead of competing they subsidize their own business with taxpayer money.

This is how this will end up, the US taxpayer is going to pay for the FCC to lay down thousands of miles of fiber optics. The real problem when it comes to internet infrastructure in the United States is the FCCs overbearance on the communication sector. They prevent many from going into business as an ISP provider. The patriot act regulations applied to communications is also difficult to monitor for.

 

[michaelahess]

It's not increasing speed, just bandwidth, way to inform properly Kevin.