Hey NY Times: Broadband Coverage Gaps Are Not 'Hooey' - Opinion: Sorry Mr. Hansell, DOCSIS 3.0 Is Not A Magic Bullet
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Hey NY Times: Broadband Coverage Gaps Are Not 'Hooey'
Opinion: Sorry Mr. Hansell, DOCSIS 3.0 Is Not A Magic Bullet
(old news - 03:00PM Thursday Jan 22 2009)
tags: dsl · prices · business · alternatives · bandwidth · Op/Ed · cable · consumers
Saul Hansell of the New York Times today editorializes that the nation doesn't really need a significant national broadband policy, because broadband coverage gaps are "hooey." Hansell, who we talked to personally for a piece largely lambasting FiOS upgrades last August, says significant investment in national infrastructure isn't really necessary. Why? DOCSIS 3.0 will very shortly be available to "19 out of 20 American homes" who'll soon see "Internet service that is faster than any available now anywhere in the world." Continues Hansell:
What is most significant about Docsis 3 is that it turns out to be quite inexpensive to upgrade existing cable systems to use it. As a result, Comcast and other cable systems are already deploying the technology rather quickly. In other words, with no government intervention, the country is going to have the infrastructure very soon to provide almost everyone with the fastest possible Internet service.
Which would be nice, were it actually true. It sounds like Hansell might be drinking a little too much cable industry insider kool-aid. While it's true that Comcast has promised to wire 100% of their markets with DOCSIS 3.0 by the end of 2010, they represent the pinnacle of DOCSIS 3.0 achievement. And that achievement comes with some caveats: namely that Comcast is charging users $140 or more for 50Mbps service with a 250GB/month cap -- and a fancy new throttling system that slightly cripples your connection should you actually choose to use it.

Meanwhile, most other cable operators are only planning to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "tactically" (read: not to poor, rural neighborhoods). Time Warner Cable have yet to announce a serious DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade timeline. Charter Communications will probably file for bankruptcy protection next week, and lacks the cash to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 -- just like countless smaller carriers across America. Not that DOCSIS 3.0 won't be a welcome upgrade, but Hansell's confidence in the technology as a sector cure all is poured on just a little bit thick:
The next generation of modems, using a technology called Docsis 3, allows several of those video channels to be combined to offer what ultimately can be Internet service as fast as 1 gigabit per second — 10 times faster than is offered in Japan, which generally is regarded as having the fastest broadband infrastructure.
While aided by geography, Japanese carriers already offer 1Gbps fiber connections for prices as low as ¥5,460 (US$51.40) per month, and are already working toward 10Gbps connections. The 160Mbps provided by initial flavors of DOCSIS 3.0 will of course be shared between multiple customers and their respective thirsts for HD content. 1Gbps cable service will eventually happen, but the fact is it's several years away -- while Japan is offering 1Gbps fiber to the home now. It's hard to see how that's "ten times faster" than Japanese broadband.

That's not to say Hansell's wrong about the industry evolving to faster speeds naturally without government involvement -- in some places. Many profitable markets will see significant competition between FiOS and DOCSIS 3.0 cable -- eventually. But many more markets will not -- particularly across rural America. Blue collar cities like Syracuse and Binghamton, NY -- just a few hours northwest of Mr. Hansell's employer, will likely never see full coverage from next-generation broadband. Many are lucky to see 3Mbps DSL or 5Mbps cable.

Rural broadband coverage gaps are not "hooey," DOCSIS 3.0 is not some mystical, magical bullet that makes a substantive national broadband plan unnecessary, and blind faith in carrier promises is precisely why we currently trail more than a dozen countries (latest OECD data) in broadband speed, availability, and price.

Related:
  1. Time Warner Cable GETS MORE EXTREME!!!
  2. Comcast DOC 3.0 In Augusta Sept. 2
  3. Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
  4. Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
  5. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
  6. FCC To Investigate Special Access Pricing
  7. Per-Byte Broadband Billing Is Neither Necessary Nor Inevitable
  8. Mandatory Smartphone Data Plans Seem Hypocritical
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
rob316 @ 22nd Jan 02:06PM:
Kool Aid

He is drinking the Cable Company Kool-Aid.
reply
jc100 @ 22nd Jan 02:10PM:
Re: Kool Aid

Bullshit sells. Once again. 99 percent of facts are made up...Slap these "facts" on a nice, well conjured report, and you have congressional testimony and works cited. Money sure buys good shovels.
reply
funchords @ 22nd Jan 02:20PM:
Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

"cable's high-speed Internet service is sitting in front of 92% of American households."
- Kyle McSlarrow, National Cable Television Association
»www.multichannel.com/article/162···head.php
interview date: January 12, 2009
published: January 18, 2009
If this is true, I'm surprised.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ...
reply
jmn1207 @ 22nd Jan 02:26PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

I think someone is pulling data off the sheet that lists an entire zip code area as having high-speed internet service if just one person has it.
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jan 02:27PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

I would guess those stats are culled from FCC data, which is about as reliable as the Dallas Cowboys come playoff time.
reply
Eat Me @ 22nd Jan 02:30PM:
NY Times, no surprise

You know, the all knowing NY times who think big cities like NYC are the center of the universe and everyone living outside of a big city is a dumb hick.
reply
jmn1207 @ 22nd Jan 02:43PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

There is always the NCTA database; however, trying to find an accurate number of total households in the US is challenging.

»www.ncta.com/Statistic/Statistic···ics.aspx

Edit: Ok, this source states that there are 128.2 million households.

»www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/07housing.html

The NCTA claims that 117.7 million homes are passed by cable internet. So, that is about 92%.
reply
voipdabbler @ 22nd Jan 02:46PM:
Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

We've allowed the debate about broadband to become a vocal slug fest with an "us" versus "them" mentality. Those with ready access (generally urbanites) looking down on and dismissing the needs of those communities that cannot get access. In large part, I blame federal regulators and their lack of a national policy (that would hopefully also keep carriers from selectively dumping less-populated markets). I'm not sure the new administration will be an improvement, their proposed broadband spending is minimal.

Unless we're willing to understand that the lack of a national policy and broader deployment will make our country as a whole less competitive, we'll continue to get sucker punched by US carriers. In the meantime, those nations willing to invest in countrywide deployment will overtake us economically, not just technologically.

Did the debate about other "utilities" sound like this one, with urbanites saying they should be the only areas served by electric companies?

Being a former urbanite who lived on the east coast most of my adult life, I have no tolerance for the divisive "us" vs. "them" rhetoric. It doesn't serve any of us.
reply
garmst @ 22nd Jan 02:53PM:
92% is not surprising or unreasonable

Cable in general has been in existence so long that the infrastructure (wiring) has had a long time to spread virtually everywhere. Adding 2-way and therefore Internet was just swapping in electronics.

The cable industry serves the poor neighborhoods because the poor CAN afford cable, and the cablecos want to sell. Some of my family members who are on welfare have faster cable Internet than I do (It hasn't helped them find a job....). Verizon is wiring FIOS in Buffalo which is a dying Northeast city, inner city areas included.

There is no need for a BB policy, between DSL, cable, FIOS, growing WiMax, Cellular Wireless you have to work hard to be out of Internet coverage.
reply
probboy @ 22nd Jan 02:55PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

I wouldn't out of hand dismiss that number. By covering large cities and their immediate suburbs, you can cover a large portion of the nation's population--it's the remaining 8% (or whatever) that's difficult to wire because it's spread out over a large (>50%) area of the country.

The most apt comparison is probably to Sprint's cellular network. Don't they claim to cover a very large portion of the nation's population (something like 260-280 million people out of 300 million or so) by only covering cities and freeways?

Again, it's the few remaining percentage of the population that's difficult to cover because it isn't economically feasible for anyone to do it.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jan 02:57PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Yep, though even some urban areas get lame internet. Max speed in Denver 17 Mbps on Qwest (20 mbps minus 15%) for dang expensive, with about 700k up. Comcast business cable is $90, 16/2. 8/2 is the highest end residential tier, $65. $60 for 6/1. Meh, no...

Problem: DOCSIS 3 isn't gonna get deployed in non-competitive areas, unless you've got a decent co-op-style cable company. Windjammer ain't it. Yeah...
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jan 02:59PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

You'd need to get out into the field to confirm anything. Some new digital technologies don't work at longer distances where previous homes passed worked fine, etc.

Before we spend billions or do anything -- we need to seriously map who has service -- and who does not.
reply
kevinm5 @ 22nd Jan 03:02PM:
Re: NY Times, no surprise

That's exactly how I read this. This is just some arrogant big city hot shot who thinks America doesn't extent past big cities.

We can barely get 50Mbps to cities let alone 1Gbps. By the time 50Mbps is affordable (~$50/mon) Japan or elsewhere will have >1Gbps. The guy has no idea what he's talking about.
reply
anon @ 22nd Jan 03:02PM:
Re: 92% is not surprising or unreasonable

said by garmst :

...between DSL, cable, FIOS, growing WiMax, Cellular Wireless you have to work hard to be out of Internet coverage.
Thats just the thing... to some of these people, Cellular Wireless isn't good enough. They want the 20Mbps cable or fibre at their doorstep. Doesn't matter to them that its just flat out not cost effective to wire these networks out in the sticks. Maybe WiMax and LTE will be the answer, but its going to be at least another 7-8 years before these networks are built out into the rural areas. These people are just going to have to be patient.
reply
dadkins @ 22nd Jan 03:03PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

"Utility"?
Broadband is not a utility - not yet at least.
As soon as it is recognized as a utility, then it will surely get treated as such.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
mrbueno @ 22nd Jan 03:06PM:
Hi! American consumer here..

I don't fully understand all these fancy bit and byte words you use. Nor do I care. While it may cost a company millions of dollars to deploy some kind of service, I am entitled to use all of it for the lowest price I can pull out of my head.

If someone tries to explain the cost of providing broadband services to me I'll call them a shill and point out the profit that these businesses are making. After all I am the only one that should matter. Forget all those people that invest in and work for the company. I got musics to "share" and it's my God given inalienable right to "share" music and video with up to 3.5 million of my closest friends.

Don't you dare say the only reason I use this much bandwidth is for illegitimate reasons, because I totally need 50Mbps with no caps to web browse, watch youtube, and send pics of my kids to grandma. By the way, how do you turn on this damn porno machine.
reply
voipdabbler @ 22nd Jan 03:12PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

said by dadkins :

"Utility"?
Broadband is not a utility - not yet at least.
As soon as it is recognized as a utility, then it will surely get treated as such.
I think we're on the cusp of the Internet being considered as a utility. (Electricity and phone service weren't considered essential either when first introduced.) With a baby bell (Verizon) talking about moving the majority of their phone service from switched circuits to VOIP, I think we're almost to the point of having to categorize the Internet as a utility, too. Perhaps, that's the best thing to happen to change the shape of the dialog on broadband policy in this country. (Even though I worry about the national security implications of moving so much of the operations of our critical infrastructures to the Internet, which is so easily susceptible to remote attack by foreign enemies; hopefully, our national broadband policy discussions in future will also cover the very important aspect of security policy.)
reply
wifi4milez @ 22nd Jan 03:15PM:
Syracuse?

quote:
Many profitable markets will see significant competition between FiOS and DOCSIS 3.0 cable -- eventually. But many more markets will not -- particularly across rural America. Blue collar cities like Syracuse and Binghamton, NY -- just a few hours northwest of Mr. Hansell's employer, will likely never see full coverage from next-generation broadband. Many are lucky to see 3Mbps DSL or 5Mbps cable.


Having lived in Syracuse for a few years, I can tell you that I was not aware of any significant portion of the city (proper) that couldnt get TWC, even as far back as 1997. Perhaps if we are talking about the rural areas around the city then that might be true (as it is in many rural areas! :p ), however (other than maybe a small, isolated pocket) I think everyone within the city limits has at least one broadband provider available to them today. While I cant speak for Binghamton, I would imagine its probably in a very similar situation. The funny thing is that Rochester NY was one of the first test markets for TWC's higher speed tiers (7Mbps and above), a good year before we were able to get them in NYC. The cable companies have a big footprint upstate, and in fact probably pass more customers than DSL. I spent a week this past summer up in very rural Phoenicia NY, so far off the path that there was no cell phone service for miles. There was no hope of DSL, however the house was equipped with a 7Mbps TWC cable connection with full VOD and HD for the television. This place had bears roaming around, yet I was able to surf quicker than I could in the heart of Manhattan (NYC). The argument that upstate is under-served isnt working for me, especially given my personal experiences up there.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности

reply
majortom1029 @ 22nd Jan 03:17PM:
UGh why does everybody forget about cablevision

Why does everybody forget about cablevision. we already have 305 speed with ports 8-0 and 25 opened up.

Cablevision is also working on upgrading to docsis 3 and pretty much lites up their whole area all at once.

Whats the rush with going to docsis 3 with cablevision when they already have 30/5 speeds?

Why is it when people bash the cable sector they convieniently leave out cablevision and when they say good things about the cable induustry they include them ?

Also fios is doing the same things with their only upgrading certain areas with fios and leaving the others out in the cold.
reply
jmn1207 @ 22nd Jan 03:23PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

said by Karl Bode :

Before we spend billions or do anything -- we need to seriously map who has service -- and who does not.
That would take a considerable amount of coordination and assistance from the cable/telco industries. The information coming from them would have to be audited to help ensure accuracy. And the end result of all their hard work would most certainly have a negative impact on their business and possibly get them into trouble after "exposing" their footprint, at least with regards to public opinion.

Any semi-legitimate map would have to survive the usual gauntlet of lobbyists lining the paths of our politicians' careers.

Here's to hope.
reply
espaeth @ 22nd Jan 03:30PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

said by Karl Bode :

Before we spend billions or do anything -- we need to seriously map who has service -- and who does not.
We have a Decennial Census coming up here shortly -- couldn't we just add a couple questions to that and kill 2 birds with one stone?

Sure, it's not going to be all that accurate, but it's not like any other sampling method is going to gain much ground on the accuracy front.
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jan 03:30PM:
Re: UGh why does everybody forget about cablevision

Whats the rush with going to docsis 3 with cablevision when they already have 30/5 speeds?
Interestingly, many of those 30Mbps customers seem to be downgrading to slower tiers because of mysterious packet loss (I've asked Cablevision to take a look).
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jan 03:31PM:
Re: Syracuse?

Having lived in Syracuse for a few years, I can tell you that I was not aware of any significant portion of the city (proper) that couldnt get TWC, even as far back as 1997.
I grew up in the area. I know Time Warner Cable does a good job getting services throughout the cities proper and many rural areas because of franchise obligations, but I also know many others only have a choice of one provider -- if anything at all.

But the argument isn't that they can't get first-gen broadband (and many rural areas still can't), but that they won't be seeing the next-gen upgrades Hansell seems to think are right around the corner. Highly unlikely that Binghamton will ever see FiOS. Neither city is going to be an immediate DOC 3.0 upgrade priority, either.

But Hansell tells us gigabit connections are right around the corner. In cities like that? Maybe by 2020.
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jan 03:33PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

We have a Decennial Census coming up here shortly -- couldn't we just add a couple questions to that and kill 2 birds with one stone?
I think that certainly should be part of the equation.
reply
anon @ 22nd Jan 03:36PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 22nd Jan 03:42PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
dadkins @ 22nd Jan 03:48PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Metered billing?
Unlimited use as long as you pay your bill?
Standardized speed for everyone everywhere?
What speed is to be the standard?

Don't think so...

Too many people will get their panties in a wad.
I welcome metered billing!
I don't see it happening anytine soon.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
IM1811 @ 22nd Jan 03:49PM:
Re: UGh why does everybody forget about cablevision

I was a Boost Customer from day 1 and that still is the problem
reply
Emiya @ 22nd Jan 03:51PM:
How the Times change!

Now that the dems are firmly in control the Times is looking for new crap to spew. Now these liberal rags need to find some sort of FUD to spin and it won't be to long before they really start turning on the people they supported the same way conservative media outlets started on the Republicans before the elections.
reply
cchhat01 @ 22nd Jan 03:53PM:
Yeah Yeah Yeah!!!

Okay I want to add my tidbit.

I agree with what many of us are saying: that Docsis 3 is not really the solution.

What is difficult in the United States is that there is such a vast **area** of land to run through to provide service. The cost/expenses to run fiber over this vast area is a huge burden. If cable companies can work together and decide to cut costs by wiring the nation in a joint venture, it all works to everyone's advantage: country gets wired quickly and everyone benefits in the long run.
Another thing that I think can work is government incentives (lower/fewer taxes, etc) for companies who to build infrastructure in rural areas.
Lastly, an option (and in a failing economy where we're out of a budget not the best recommendation) would be for govt to build such an infrastructure.

Just my 2 cents
--
Chirag's Website
reply
jay_rm @ 22nd Jan 03:53PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

said by iansltx :

Yep, though even some urban areas get lame internet. Max speed in Denver 17 Mbps on Qwest (20 mbps minus 15%) for dang expensive, with about 700k up. Comcast business cable is $90, 16/2. 8/2 is the highest end residential tier, $65. $60 for 6/1. Meh, no...
Lame internet = 6/1 slowest and 17 'available' ??

You're drinking the same KoolAid as the NYT. Get out of town and look at what the VAST majority of your own state geography has available.
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !'
reply
Eat Me @ 22nd Jan 03:56PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

said by dadkins :

"Utility"?
Broadband is not a utility - not yet at least.
As soon as it is recognized as a utility, then it will surely get treated as such.
The main media that carry broadband are utilities - telephone lines and cable TV lines. Broadband is just not yet considered an essential utility, but it is getting there.
reply
Eat Me @ 22nd Jan 04:09PM:
Re: UGh why does everybody forget about cablevision

said by Karl Bode :

Whats the rush with going to docsis 3 with cablevision when they already have 30/5 speeds?
Interestingly, many of those 30Mbps customers seem to be downgrading to slower tiers because of mysterious packet loss (I've asked Cablevision to take a look).
Wasn't that related to a DOCSIS3 upgrade?

When I had boost a few years ago it was fine.
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jan 04:13PM:
Re: UGh why does everybody forget about cablevision

Wasn't that related to a DOCSIS3 upgrade?
Not that I know of. Cablevision tells me they're looking into it.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jan 04:15PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

I'm talking about Denver, an urban area in Colorado.

Fastest Qwest has here is 5/896 (more like 4.2/700).

Which means no DOCSIS 3 for a long time, since DOCSIS 1.1 can keep up with FTTN ADSL2+ as long as Comcast is smart about things...

And yes, I know what it's like to have lousy broadband options. I just happen to live in town and don't want to be a glutton for punishment. Back home, 512k for $43/month.

Also, you can get service slower than 6/1...$40 per month for 1.5/896 (1.3/700) or $47 per month for 3-7/896 (2.5-6/700) through Qwest DSL.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jan 04:17PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Additionally I don't pretend that the future is rosy, or that we'll soon be faster than Japan on 'net access speeds. I'm not a shill for the cable/telcos and I'm just pointing out that large cities may also be limited in internet access (DOCSIS 3/FiOS/fiber-above-DSL-speed = not limited).
reply
anon @ 22nd Jan 04:19PM:
Japan ppfff

Of course Japan is all fiber, because they are smaller then the USA, Just the fiber Verizon have laid down in the USA could rewire Japan 5 time again LOL :p, plus too many greedy company will never see 1Gbps fiber connection for $51 here in the USA, it will be more like an arm and a leg to be able to get that type of connection for residential of course.
reply
anon @ 22nd Jan 04:19PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
quarkmachine @ 22nd Jan 04:25PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

said by Karl Bode :

I would guess those stats are culled from FCC data, which is about as reliable as the Dallas Cowboys come playoff time.
You know why Romo is so happy Prez Bush is back in Texas? He's no longer the biggest disappointment in the state...
--
"Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now."
reply
jmn1207 @ 22nd Jan 04:25PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

I'd be happy with a true metered billing system as well, not the overage penalty model that seems to be taking root.

They shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too. (whatever the hell that means)

If a more realistic minimum cost starting point was available, I'd be totally on board. If I'm away fishing in the Caribbean all month, I don't want to have to pay $50+ dollars. How about $10 or even $20. At least something that is a bit more fair to those that rarely use any internet resources.
reply
dadkins @ 22nd Jan 04:30PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

said by Eat Me :

said by dadkins :

"Utility"?
Broadband is not a utility - not yet at least.
As soon as it is recognized as a utility, then it will surely get treated as such.
The main media that carry broadband are utilities - telephone lines and cable TV lines. Broadband is just not yet considered an essential utility, but it is getting there.
Cable TV is not a utility.
Electricity and water are.
Utilities are widely available to households... sadly, cable is not available to many households - electricity usually is.

Broadband is getting there, but until it is universally(more or less) available, and standardized - well, we get to wait.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
dadkins @ 22nd Jan 04:33PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Absolutely!
Everyone gets the same ??mbps speed, charged a connection fee of $10 or $20, then $0.xx per GB used.
Bring it!

I kill Comcast at 30-35GB per month. :o
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
anon @ 22nd Jan 04:38PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
dynodb @ 22nd Jan 04:48PM:
How does DOCSIS 3.0 change anything?

It's great that cable providers are working on offering higher speeds with DOCSIS 3.0 and all, but what does that have to do with coverage gaps? Higher speeds don't mean much to those who don't have coverage at all.

However important broadband is, for the vast majority speeds higher than 5M or so are a luxury. A nice convienience to be sure, but if Johnny cant read it's not because he's stuck with a 1.5M or 5M broadband connection.
reply
voipdabbler @ 22nd Jan 04:57PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Well, if infrastructure of existing utilities, such as phone service, are moved to the Internet, it begins to drive the conversations in a different direction, because the access to broadband will become essential for utilization of the utility. You need adequate broadband for VOIP to work. I don't see people agreeing to do without phone and a majority of the under served areas lacking broadband also lack cellular to make it a viable alternative to the loss of landlines. (The last FCC-published data showed that only 150 of the 428 cellular Rural Service Areas had any type of cellular coverage available for local service--even though some unserved areas had towers that were available for roaming for customers of major carriers just passing through--figures.)

In a way, maybe Verizon's comments, which they immediately started back peddling from, will force regulators and politicians to begin seriously discussing a national broadband policy.
reply
Lazlow @ 22nd Jan 05:00PM:
Re: 92% is not surprising or unreasonable

How is this any different than the telephone was or electricity for that matter? At the time both of those technologies came in they were just luxuries not necessities. We need to support the internet in the same way that we supported those technologies.
reply
BillRoland @ 22nd Jan 05:09PM:
Most are missing the forest for the trees

Yeah ok, lets assume we wire up the whole country for fiber and give everyone 100Mbps symmetrical service. Now the problem none of you thought about? The nationwide backbones that backhaul all this traffic would have no hope of keeping up, not to mention that no site on earth is going to have the capacity to send you content at that speed (nor will they have much incentive to buy the capacity to do it). It may be hard to believe, but there is actually something called a "big picture" out there.

At what point does speed become overkill? Practically (that's the keyword, not theoretically or dreaming), what can a 100Mbps fiber connection give the average consumer that say, a 25Mbps cable or even DSL connection can't? They have no idea the difference from CNN loading in .5 seconds or 2.5 seconds. Its kind of like inventing a TV that displays colors and resolutions the human eye can't discern, what's the point?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
reply
ztmike @ 22nd Jan 05:10PM:
High Speed

»www.speedmatters.org/
reply
dadkins @ 22nd Jan 05:15PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Just because VZ decides to go VoIP, there is still many places that are not served by VZ.
Here, the POTS provider is AT&T(formerly SBC).

I haven't had POTS service for... 17 years? 18 years?
It takes more than simply switching voice to IP to make broadband a utility.

I look forward to some sort of standardization.
My outlets for electricity are right at 120V... what's yours?
I have 240V in the garage, how about you?
I have 16mbps internet... what's yours?

There are a few more things to get worked out still before broadband internet can be considered a utility.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
Eat Me @ 22nd Jan 05:19PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

said by dadkins :

Cable TV is not a utility.

Cable TV is a utility. It is regulated by the board of public utilities office of cable TV in this state.

»www.nj.gov/bpu/divisions/cable/

Cable TV also uses utility easements to run their infrastructure.

The NJ BPU also defines cable TV as a "critical service":

»www.nj.gov/bpu/about/index.html

"The Board of Public Utilities is a regulatory authority with a statutory mandate to ensure safe, adequate, and proper utility services at reasonable rates for customers in New Jersey. Accordingly, the NJBPU regulates critical services such as natural gas, electricity, water and telecommunications and cable television."

It is very much a utility.
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jan 05:29PM:
Re: Most are missing the forest for the trees

Well, Qwest's definition of next generation upstream is 896kbps. That's the fastest upstream speed they offer, or will offer, for some time unless they shift to VDSL or FTTH.

I think it's a while before we get to the part where we argue that we're getting so much speed -- we can't possibly use it. Though yeah, the 100Mbps metric is kind of just blather, and if that's your point -- I agree.
reply
jimbo48 @ 22nd Jan 05:37PM:
Open mouth insert foot

Comcast and its predecessor TCI "promised" all the bells and whistles in my area (SF bay ) and glibly raised rates for these upcoming improvements yet all we ever saw was a bigger Cable bill. Well Comcast has finally gotten around to offer HSI with PowerBoost for 42.95 per month. They define Power boost of 12MB/sec for
PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file. Wow 1-2 seconds of PowerBoost but ongoing speed is FAR FAR less in actuality-how about less than 4.0Mb down and 768kb up.
If this guy thinks Comcast is going to offer DOCIS 3.0 anytime soon in my area of the US (Several million people live in and around here). He has been drinking more than their kool-aid- maybe smokin' their stash as well. He probably sits in his uptown Manhattan high-rise (paid in part by the Cable industry for being their shill)and pontificates on conditions in the US of A of which he knows nothing about. It will be years before Comcast does anything because they're getting rich on the swill they already put out as HSI around here.
reply
majortom1029 @ 22nd Jan 05:44PM:
Re: UGh why does everybody forget about cablevision

The level 1 phone techs dont get told too much so dont expect them to know of things like docsis 3 upgrades.
reply
mrvid @ 22nd Jan 06:05PM:
FCC makes a good point, CDV over private net, its a phone co.

I think what the FCC is pondering on is, if its their own, then their a phone company, not an information service.

Best of my knowledge, "voip" like movies, etc. was an internet service, basically "data", since what was viewed, watched, talked or heard over was categorized as an informational data stream, it was all treated as the internet.

If C is now saying CDV is a private network, voip technology or not, its a phone company, thats the point I think the FCC is trying to make.

If I were C, I would advise the FCC that they will mix the voip with the rest & just leave the throttling to bittorrent, if I am correct and that was the initial plan, otherwise they could see regulation and surprise taxes added to their phone service.

Since the service is delivered over the internet, caps would now apply for their own voip service as well but they could just choose to waive the caps if customers take their CDV service.
reply
Lazlow @ 22nd Jan 06:46PM:
Re: Most are missing the forest for the trees

Think back to Gates quote of "who would ever need more than 640k?" Your statement will soon fall into that category.

For web browsing you are probably correct but the internet gets used of a lot of things and will (if allowed to) be used for many more things (some not even thought of yet) that will make use of those speeds. The backbones in Japan (and other countries) have not seemed to have had much difficulty in handling their customers having 100Mbps symmetrical service. Why should our backbone be unable to handle what theirs can?

As soon as a significant portion of the US has 100Mbps service, servers(or server farms) will appear that will be handle that kind of capacity. When the the Cord boat tail speedsters were first developed (first production car to do over 130mph?) there were no production tires that could handle the speed(why develop a tire that could handle speeds that no car could go?). It was not long after that tires could be purchase to handle the speed. 10GigE equipment has been around long enough that it is pretty well understood and there are faster technologies in development. As soon as there is a real need of those speeds(backbone), they will be rapidly available.
reply
aSic @ 22nd Jan 07:27PM:
Re: Japan ppfff

Thats one of the stupidest arguments I see tossed about every time this subject comes up.

If it really was all about geographical size and ROI, then cities like New York and Chicago would all be epicenters of blazing fast speed....as oh, they're SMALLER than the entire country of Japan. :uhh:

They all [Japan] have fiber because they realize the importance of the Internet in today's society, and the people of Japan refuse to be last...so the companies deliver and innovate.
reply
Corydon @ 22nd Jan 07:40PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

said by voipdabbler :

Did the debate about other "utilities" sound like this one, with urbanites saying they should be the only areas served by electric companies?
Well actually, yes. It took decades from when reliable electrical service was available in the major cities (more-or-less available from the turn of the century) to when it was reliably available everywhere (the Rural Electrification Agency and the Tennessee Valley Authority were part of Roosevelt's New Deal in the '30s).

And even then, there was considerable argument over whether electricity should be a government run and regulated "utility" or something run by private enterprise.
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!"
reply
I Use Dial @ 22nd Jan 08:06PM:
What someone in an 'urban area' might like to have...

I'd like to have blackberry bushes and pear trees grown next to my apartment for me to pick and eat at my leisure fresh, vine-ripened, organic fruit when its ripe. I'd like to have a picturesque river to raft on in the summer only 20 minutes from my apartment, and an alpine ski slope less than an hour. I'd like to have a federal law requiring that the police, fire, and ambulance sirens not be allowed to blast within 5 miles of my apartment more than once a week and never at 1 a.m. I'd like all roads and cars designed so that the large volume of traffic that flows on them does not do anything to increase the ambient noise of my domicile more than 10 dB.

And if I can't have these things, and I have to pay for people in 'rural areas' to some of the things that I have here, then I want them to have ALL of the things that I have here.
--
Time... beckoning me.
reply
voipdabbler @ 22nd Jan 08:37PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

said by dadkins :

Just because VZ decides to go VoIP, there is still many places that are not served by VZ.
Here, the POTS provider is AT&T(formerly SBC).

I haven't had POTS service for... 17 years? 18 years?
It takes more than simply switching voice to IP to make broadband a utility.

I look forward to some sort of standardization.
My outlets for electricity are right at 120V... what's yours?
I have 240V in the garage, how about you?
I have 16mbps internet... what's yours?

There are a few more things to get worked out still before broadband internet can be considered a utility.
Verizon's plans have much more significance because they are one of the baby bells created after the break up of the original AT&T monopoly. Verizon's plans, along with their sibling CLECs will have the greatest impact across the country because of the sheer size of the baby bells.

Whether you like it or not, the actions of the baby bells in moving from switched circuits to VOIP means that the politicians and regulators will be forced to address national broadband policy. Failure to do so runs the risk of areas being left with no telecommunications service, since many of the same areas lacking broadband have no cellular, period. And the fact you can look at a roaming map and say, gee I can get roaming service on my cellphone doesn't mean anything. Federal regulators have done a great disservice to the public by allowing carriers who've won spectrum to limit their service to roaming while denying local residents any coverage. Again, the last FCC-published data showed only 150 of 428 cellular Rural Service Areas had any cellular coverage. If federal regulators plan on allowing switched circuits to die off, they're going to have to develop a national broadband plan that will deliver broadband to all areas to retain current communications capabilities. They cannot afford to have vast areas of the country unserved by any form of telecommunications service and expect to win re-election. Verizon may regret their comments simply because it bumps the issue up the ladder more quickly, given their original statements about the timing on moving away from switched circuits (timing that's much sooner than many analysts had predicted).
reply
ashworth @ 22nd Jan 08:51PM:
Re: Kool Aid

Some cable hack obviously, knows nothing about alternate delivery methods and very short sided. DOCSIS 3.0 could be obsolete by 2010 or shortly therafter. Again a hack drinking kool-aid.
reply
dadkins @ 22nd Jan 09:00PM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Whether I like it or not is irrelevent.
VZ is not the end all be all of determining whether or not something happens.
Yes, VZ is one of the bigger fish in the baby bell pool, but SBC/AT&T is also a baby bell.

Just because one of the baby bells is doing this, doesn't mean they will be the deciding factor.
Maybe if they all did, it would be different and happen a bit quicker.

We shall have to wait and see, won't we? :)
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
decifal @ 22nd Jan 09:02PM:
19 outta 20 my

This is total bs... why is this person allowed to live?
reply
fatmanskinny @ 22nd Jan 09:07PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

said by Karl Bode :

I would guess those stats are culled from FCC data, which is about as reliable as the Dallas Cowboys come playoff time.
Ouch!
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil.
reply
DoctorDoom @ 22nd Jan 09:10PM:
Facts of life for rural BB

One factor that renders America fundamentally different from the countries cited is that the USofA has a helluva lot more rural area than those countries.

Time for some number-crunching.

• According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 01/23/09 at 02:01 GMT (EST+5) is 305,666,578. The area of the USofA is 9,631,420 sq km (3,718,712 sq mi). Therefore its population density is about 82 people per square mile.

• In 2000, 79.2% of the US population was in urban areas ( »www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm ). Thus 20.8% of the US population is spread out in 94.6% of the US that is classified as rural ( »www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12402 ).

• 3,718,712 x 94.6 = 3,517,902 square miles that are rural

• 305,666,578 x 20.8% = about 63,579,000 people in 94.6% of the US.

• The rural population density is thus about 18 people per square mile.

Since the 18/mi² are certain to be in families, reducing the number of potential customers, what incentive is there to hardwire that 94.6% of America for broadband?
reply
anon @ 22nd Jan 10:29PM:
Re: Syracuse?

FYI, While it is spotty coverage like everywhere else, Fios in available in the Syracuse area
reply
jimbo48 @ 22nd Jan 10:47PM:
Re: Facts of life for rural BB

The numbers may very well point out that a lot of people live in rural areas but those same peoplehave a vested interst in the very same infrastructure that the Cable companies use to string their wire. They have a vested interest in the poles sititing in publlic right of way that these cable companies use to hang their wire or bury their cables. Telling a lot of peole that because they don't live in a densely populated area means they don't get the same rightss and benefits of the urban dwellers is a bit hard to swallow. I guesss their taxes aren't as important and carry as much weight as those paid by the city dwellers.
Yes its financially impractical to hardwire the vast stretches of the United States but the utlity companies sucked it up and strung electrical, telephone wires were strung for telephones and no one went broke. What is happening here is maximizing profit by cherry-picking those areas that return the most money per dollar investment then telling the states, cities, counties that they can't afford to serve all the people but they want their subsidies, their right to access of public property their exclusive monolpoly contracts etc. If cable is NOT a utility then I say they have no right to public right of way because its not a necessity and they should pay for using public property. I ramble on so I'll shut up!
reply
KoolMoe @ 22nd Jan 10:52PM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

I do projects for the Census Bureau on occasion. They're the standard government bureaucracy. No way they'd get that question in by the Decennial.
However, the Census Bureau has several survey programs - the full person Decennial count is just the Big One. With the right inside ear, it's feasible that could be added to something like the ACS Survey.
I'll have to remember to ask about that ;)
KM
reply
kamm @ 23rd Jan 12:04AM:
Re: Kool Aid

Agreed; just another rent-a-journo paid industry mouthpiece or a fuckin' clueless loser who shouldn't be writing anything other than short police news just yet - back when I was a journalist wannabes like this Saul Hansell had been either booted immediately or sent to the backburner to give'em time to learn at least the basics properly.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]
reply
kamm @ 23rd Jan 12:06AM:
Re: 92% is not surprising or unreasonable

said by garmst :

Cable in general has been in existence so long that the infrastructure (wiring) has had a long time to spread virtually everywhere. Adding 2-way and therefore Internet was just swapping in electronics.

The cable industry serves the poor neighborhoods because the poor CAN afford cable, and the cablecos want to sell. Some of my family members who are on welfare have faster cable Internet than I do (It hasn't helped them find a job....). Verizon is wiring FIOS in Buffalo which is a dying Northeast city, inner city areas included.

There is no need for a BB policy, between DSL, cable, FIOS, growing WiMax, Cellular Wireless you have to work hard to be out of Internet coverage.
And that's EXACTLY what paid industry shills and totally rotten, corrupt cablecorpses keep spreading.

Thanks God, you guys LOST, BIG TIME - there WILL BE a national policy, it's OVER FOR YOUR MONOPOLIES, FOREVER PRICE-GOUGING and always shrinking bitrates (TV) and trasnfers (Internet).
--
said by bicker :

Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.

reply
Kearnstd @ 23rd Jan 12:29AM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

broadband isnt a utility, but my god if some guy cant load his emails from outlook he calls up the ISP and acts like someone who lots their gas and electric on a 1 degree day during a blizzard.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
anon @ 23rd Jan 01:11AM:
Real rural

I'm in Tennessee here, and I know of plenty of houses around here, by farmland usually, that don't even get cable tv service. No DSL, No Cable TV, No Cable internet. Dialup, cellphone (no 3G), and satellite are the only choices for internet access, and I think these are the people that are being left out, not people like me who are stuck with 10/1 mbit internet.

I personally can't think of an immediate use for 1Gbit internet at my home. An HD stream uses 10-20mbit, and that's good enough for me. I'm not certain what the future holds as far as data needs, and of course we all want faster internet, but I think government should only get involved to keep those very rural internet users from falling into an internet poverty or to prevent price gouging in areas with internet monopolies.
reply
Lazlow @ 23rd Jan 02:55AM:
Re: Tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

dadkins

You really think SBC/at&t is switching to Uverse for just tv and internet? It is not an "if" situation. It is a "when" situation.
reply
lvlorpheus @ 23rd Jan 03:10AM:
Re: 92% is not surprising or unreasonable

You may be right about Cellular Wireless not being good enough for some of the people and they may need to be patient. But, is it to much for those of us that are resonable to want a resonable pricing structure.

If I would of had Verizons EVDO instead of Alltels EVDO when Verizon first implemented there caps, my monthly bill with overages for the year would of been over $100,000 for the year. Mind you that is for less than 300 GB for the year. Less than a GB a day.

I think you would find most rural Americans are OK waiting for things to come in good time if they could just get a fair price on the services that are avalible to them.

Granted the above example was when Verizon charged $0.49 per MB over 5 GB and now they only charge $0.25 per MB over 5 GB. I still don't see how less than 300 GB of date is worth the price of a new home every 2 or 3 years. It kind of seems predatory to me if not criminal.
reply
Bob61571 @ 23rd Jan 06:57AM:
95% ?

Is Hansell saying that 95%(19 out of 20) of US homes have cable TV availability?

I seriously doubt that statistic.
reply
Number11 @ 23rd Jan 08:43AM:
Competition

The fundamental difference between the service offered where I live (Japan) and the US is that I live in an open market with competitors and you don't. Geography is irrelevant. I live in a suburban area not much different than a far suburb of Chicago or Washington DC. I'm over an a hour drive away from a city.

Me: I have a choice of four providers. One 1 Gig fiber, one 100Mbps fiber, one 40 Mbps DSL and one 20 Mbps cable provider. There are no bandwidth limits or caps and the cost is about the same as my water bill. I've had fiber 100Mbps fiber for about seven years with a solid infrastructure and have only had to reset a router one time. I have never had a problem, outage or slowdown. I've never needed to talk to anyone about a service problem.

You: Usually only have one available provider, operating under an exclusive franchise negotiated with your local or state feudal leaders. You are overcharged, under served, capped and lucky if your provider or infrastructure slows to a crawl only one or two days a week.

Three things will heal your situation: competition, competition, competition.
reply
fuziwuzi @ 23rd Jan 10:17AM:
Re: 92% is not surprising or unreasonable

said by garmst :

There is no need for a BB policy, between DSL, cable, FIOS, growing WiMax, Cellular Wireless you have to work hard to be out of Internet coverage.
You surely sound like someone in NYC who thinks he knows what the rest of the country is like. I know a lot of people that can't get cable, DSL, fios, nor even a reliable cellphone connection. Even when the cellphone does work, they just recently got a new tower in the county and of course there is no such thing as wimax or even 3G anything. I couldn't even get a EDGE connection when I was there. The most dialup can achieve is 24kbps on a good day.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking
reply
wilbilt @ 23rd Jan 10:25AM:
Re: 95% ?

said by Bob61571 :

Is Hansell saying that 95%(19 out of 20) of US homes have cable TV availability?

I seriously doubt that statistic.
I can accurately say that within a ten-mile radius of my home, there are zero homes with cable TV availability.
--
We were taking a vote when the ground came up and hit us.
reply
Karl Bode @ 23rd Jan 11:16AM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

If I remember correctly, the most recent mapping bill by Congress does put some mapping authority into both the hands of the GTO and the Census Bureau already....
reply
Jim_in_VA @ 23rd Jan 01:10PM:
Cable? ..so what

Just because you have a cable company serving you does not mean internet service. Comcast is in my county - TV only, NO internet service, and none on the horizon.
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/
reply
anon @ 23rd Jan 04:30PM:
Re: Kool Aid

This kind of Non News or Faux News is why I typically buy the NYT for the Science section on Tuesdays. And even that once fun and informative section and subject has become ever thinner on science scope and article substance. I expect the NYT Science section will shortly be folded into the Sports section. Then I won't buy the NYT at all.
reply
jandar @ 23rd Jan 04:42PM:
Re: 92% is not surprising or unreasonable

said by the_ticket :

said by garmst :

...between DSL, cable, FIOS, growing WiMax, Cellular Wireless you have to work hard to be out of Internet coverage.
Thats just the thing... to some of these people, Cellular Wireless isn't good enough. They want the 20Mbps cable or fibre at their doorstep. Doesn't matter to them that its just flat out not cost effective to wire these networks out in the sticks. Maybe WiMax and LTE will be the answer, but its going to be at least another 7-8 years before these networks are built out into the rural areas. These people are just going to have to be patient.
And to some, that Wireless is no faster than dialup speed for 4-5 times the cost.
reply
jandar @ 23rd Jan 04:53PM:
Re: 92% is not surprising or unreasonable

said by garmst :

Cable in general has been in existence so long that the infrastructure (wiring) has had a long time to spread virtually everywhere. Adding 2-way and therefore Internet was just swapping in electronics.

The cable industry serves the poor neighborhoods because the poor CAN afford cable, and the cablecos want to sell. Some of my family members who are on welfare have faster cable Internet than I do (It hasn't helped them find a job....). Verizon is wiring FIOS in Buffalo which is a dying Northeast city, inner city areas included.

There is no need for a BB policy, between DSL, cable, FIOS, growing WiMax, Cellular Wireless you have to work hard to be out of Internet coverage.
My mother lives inside the city of Jacksonville, FL (granted, the city limits is the county limits) and cannot get anything better than dialup.

Clearwire - which launched in Jacksonville has a huge black hole near her.
Comcast - down the road, they would pay through the teeth to extend the coax.
DSL - Only to the new million dollar ranch homes down the street from her. Her lines won't qualify for DSL.
3G - nope, not a tower within miles
EDGE - on a good day, 2 bars worth of signal.

There are about 30 people in her general area that have this issue. These are the people that are grossly overlooked. While we complain about 8mb only, they are STUCK on dialup.Its been this way for years.

Wireless providers/WiMAX/Cable/DSL compete in the same areas, they strive for business from the crowded neighborhoods. Why spend money on building a line for a few homes? They can take that same money and market it to more people and gain more income.

Sad to say, that is the way it goes. Its about profitability for the broadband companies.

Until there is some sort of provider for people like her, they will always be off of the broadband list.
reply
tim_k @ 24th Jan 07:51AM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

said by funchords :

"cable's high-speed Internet service is sitting in front of 92% of American households."
- Kyle McSlarrow, National Cable Television Association
»www.multichannel.com/article/162···head.php
interview date: January 12, 2009
published: January 18, 2009
If this is true, I'm surprised.
Well sure, I can see the cable companies line 100 yards down the road from my house. But will they run it to me? NO! But I guess that counts as "sitting in front of" my household.
--
RIP my babys Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07 & Beamer 7/24/08, Buttons, Buttons video, Beamer

reply
anon @ 24th Jan 09:56AM:
Re: Is is true that 92% of us can order Cable Internet?

Hey quark, I couldn't agree more. BTW, that intel-like avatar is awesome. good stuff.
reply
jc100 @ 24th Jan 05:29PM:
Re: Kool Aid

News is only as good as those who report it. There's no such thing as being non partisan when it comes to a story. You will see two people give two different accounts of the same events. Whether it be due to varied perception, personal bias, etc, it just happens. Unfortunately, being ill informed seems to be a major Achilles Heal to add insult to injury...
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC