FCC Seeks To Improve US Broadband Access 161
MojoKid writes "The US Federal Communications Commission
is working on a plan to solve the problem of nationwide access to high-speed Internet service. The three main issues the agency is tackling first are, figuring out how to improve availability, quality and affordability. Acting FCC Chairman Michael J.
Copps held a meeting this week where he asked the public to comment on the national broadband plan, which Congress has demanded be done by February. The public has 60 days to submit comments; the agency and members of the public will be able to reply to comments for an additional 30 days after that."
Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Next time you auction off spectrum that could be used for JUST THIS PURPOSE, stop setting the minimum bids at astronomical numbers. "Public benefit" doesn't necessarily mean "get as much money for the gov't as possible".
Some good 700 MHz spectrum, at cheap to nothing rates, would spur small businesses to be created to provide access at costs much more in line with what people can pay. You know, if the entry costs weren't more than the GDP of a 3rd World Nation it might spur some innovation.
Then reduce the bureaucracy and cost of getting a license to use that spectrum.
Idiots.
Monopolies (Score:5, Interesting)
Make it harder for companies to have monopolies or duopolies. This is the system that's in place in most areas of the nation outside big cities.
Other companies may technically have an opportunity to join in and provide service to the people, but in practice it's just not possible anymore.
A friend of mine used to work at an ISP in New Hampshire. His company sent letters to all of their customers basically saying "Please support the legislation that will limit Verizon's stranglehold on New Hampshire". The ISPs connection to the outside world (provided by Verizon, surprise-surprise) went down that night. Two days later, they got a Verizon employee on the phone who apparently wasn't "in on it", and he was like "Oh, how did this configuration get changed?" and turned their connection back on.
broadband (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixing the broadband issue is a last mile problem and just about the only method to address that at the moment
is through wireless. Now I am sure that the govt will step right up and give the big telecos a bunch of cash and
tell them to go forth and provide more broadband. Trouble is the big telecos do not provide last mile wireless coverage
mom and pop shops do. This is not a hard issue to fix if the money is placed in the right places.
I don' understand... (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought the Invisible Market Fairy was supposed to handle this??!?!
Isn't this how the internet began? Independant [aol.com], competing [wikipedia.org] companies [wikipedia.org] all competing to produce a cohesive, compatible online environment? Why is that model not working now?
Re:Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Next time you auction off spectrum that could be used for JUST THIS PURPOSE, stop setting the minimum bids at astronomical numbers. "Public benefit" doesn't necessarily mean "get as much money for the gov't as possible".
Some good 700 MHz spectrum, at cheap to nothing rates, would spur small businesses to be created to provide access at costs much more in line with what people can pay. You know, if the entry costs weren't more than the GDP of a 3rd World Nation it might spur some innovation.
Then reduce the bureaucracy and cost of getting a license to use that spectrum.
Idiots.
I think a big part of the problem is that right now, most people who have any choice at all have a choice between two monopolies: telco and cable. Your idea would provide that missing "third option". An agile competitor with minimal infrastructure costs, license costs, and other barriers to entry might just provide the innovation and options that are sorely missing from the monopolies.
I say that with the assumption that what you had in mind was WiMax or something like it. Although it would be yet another monopoly, this also makes me wonder what happened to the internet-over-powerlines idea. The above was my realistic response to you. What follows is what I'd like to see despite how unrealistic it may be.
What I'd really like to see is a more decentralized Internet. This is more like the mesh networks consisting of many low-power wireless connections that communicate with each other. On a truly decentralized Internet, it would be impossible for any single entity to force filtering, censorship, deep packet inspection, bandwidth caps, and the like on large numbers of people who do not want them. It would also be a truly "public benefit" as in owned and operated by Joe Public instead of owned and operated by large, centralized, political bureaucracies in Joe Public's name. Right now this may not be feasible or likely but it would be pleasing to see a step in that direction. Of course, I would not expect the FCC to encourage this idea at all, for it would reduce the amount of control they now enjoy, but that's why I call this unrealistic.
Just as an aside, isn't there currently a lot of dark fiber? If there is a large amount of it, does anyone know why it's not currently being used, or have an idea of what could be done with it?
Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Interesting)
Make it harder for companies to have monopolies or duopolies. This is the system that's in place in most areas of the nation outside big cities.
Seconded, and it's not even hard to do. Here's how:
Municipalize the last mile. Take it away from the telco monopolies. Sell access freely to anyone at fair rates as a municipal service, just like water service. Let people plug in any service they want on the other end of the wire. That might be AT&T, giving you phone and internet. It might be some local ISP just giving you DSL and IPTV service. Guaranteed, though, competition will explode overnight.
What, copper's not good enough? Quit waiting for some slow telco to deign to drag it in for you (years and years after we've already paid for it!). Drop some city funds to pull fiber, and start leasing access at fair rates, the same way you did for copper.
The cities that have already done this have *fantastic* service for minimal cost... Other than making a big telco monopoly hate them for the rest of time.
Re:Simple (Score:2, Interesting)