FCC Challenge: 1Gb Internet Service in Every State by 2015

57

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

milehighxr

I got a better idea, how about getting the pricing under control. This is BS that to get the $20 price from Century Link I have to add another $20 for a land line I don't want or need. Honestly it should be a higher priority to offer 50mbs service for something reasonable like $10/month to all households in US, that way at least my WiFi at home is useful since it will be only slightly faster than my internet connection. Right now I only have 7mbs available,a nd it's $45/month, what a crock...

avatar

jedisamurai

Any goals are better than no goals. And as for the big ISPs....don't do business with them!

I rejoiced when I gave Comcast the axe and switched to a small provider that's cheaper, higher speed, and has actual technical support.

When the infrastructure is there, new businesses will pick up the slack. That's the whole point.

avatar

Markitzero

The FCC has to battle the Big Internet Companies over the areas that they serve over them not wanting competition and them wanting to keep the broadband market inflated and high priced. The one thing that is going to have to be changed and undo the laws that big companies influenced.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

Will believe it when I see it, and it better be under $50 a month, as not everyone has the cash to spend $100 for 1GB.

avatar

Rift2

This will feed America's sedate lifestyle of streaming even more porn to warp reality and the imagination of the few that venture to actually go outside for a walk.

avatar

Opm2

And what is wrong with that? We can still invade countries from our armchairs. Look at drones!

Seriously, the guy who makes an mmo/video game that controls a factory will be mega rich.

avatar

Chronologist

I remember reading in other articles about this challenge that the goal isnt to have a 1gb/s service nationwide, but at the very least 1 city per state.

avatar

PCWolf

If a 50MB service costs just north of $80+, what the hell is 1GB service going to cost??? Better be $60 or less or no deal.

avatar

savage4naves

If Google Fiber comes to my city within my life time I will dance in the streets.

avatar

bldermike

You've got to be kidding me the FCC is challenging to have a 1 GB Internet Service in every state for the year 2015. What about just getting broadband to the rural areas where they can't get broadband? That's a challenge. Why doesn't the FCC put that out for a challenge? But knowing here again the people in the rural areas get left out but yet where they already have broadband they get even faster broadband. Great move FCC.

avatar

bldermike

Best part about this is I have five cell towers within a 7 mile radius from my house. The fiber optics that goes to the closest tower is 9/10 of a mile from my house, the tower is 1 1/4 miles as the crow flies and if I go out 10 miles I can add another 3 to 4 towers. But all I can get is wireless broadband 3G from Verizon at $50.00 a month with a 5 GB cap without going broke. They can expand their tower systems but they won't expand any DSL. Why can't Verizon just offer people that can only get wireless broadband comparable pricing that the people with DSL get? I expect it's just greed and the FCC lets them get away with it. The small amount of people that can only get wireless broadband shouldn't hurt their multi billion dollars of profit that they make quarterly. And I don't want to hear that it's gonna overload their system, not with fiber optics going to the towers.

avatar

Markitzero

I research this alot because I lived with my mom for alittle in a rural area and all I got was this: The companies don't see them getting back the profit that they would put into the infrastructure for the network. Were my mom lifes which is Phelan, CA even still today all Verizon offers is Dial-up and they said they will never be updating there central office for more DSL or higher so my mom is going through a company call WISPrenn which is a Small based Apple Valley, CA.

Alot of other people have to go through them since they are the only land based Wireless company in the area that offer stable broadband alot of time the only other option other then Satellite Internet through WildBlue or HugesNet which is worse then Dial-up at times and there is horrors from people that had that companies.

The company WISPrenn use 5Ghz Microwave signals for there connection to the radios.

avatar

Opm2

There is no profit in the rural areas. The FCC is just another arm of corporations.

avatar

johngerity

Wait, lemme guess, NOT APPLICABLE IN NYC right? You can't even get FiOS in Manhattan, and you guys are talking about putting 1Gb internet everywhere? YEAH RIGHT! Maybe in the form of 5G or whatever the next innovation in wireless is, but I don't expect Time Warner Cable or Verizon to give us New Yorkers anything but the finger.

avatar

whr4usa

that has much more to do with the NYC municipality's tax, regulatory environment and the geography/geology of the area than those companies purposefully crewing a massive potential consumer and marketshare base

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Instead of sending our kids to die in illegal foreign wars, our shit government could easily subsidize this tech. But they won't, because Comcast owns too many venal politicians, and we have to keep the military-industrial complex fat and happy.

avatar

MrHasselblad

Could not agree more!!

Yes, america does send it's children to die in illegal foreign wars. america has been doing exactly that for many decades.

But one really has to admire the fact that american blood was shed in places such as Iraq - and for nothing. Even today when the official military has left Iraq, that america now has a civilian military there, and that america still occupies Iraq.

The same america that likes to conveniently hide behind the Geneva Conventions whenever it finds it convenient. The same america that claims we are better than any terrosit organization; yet the united states federal government is in fact the terrorist. We hold many thousands of prisoners or war in our secret prisons all around the world - without any right whatsoever.

To conclude for now... america sending it's children to die in illegal foreign wars. A slight bit better than having them actually injured overseas and then not cared for properly by the Veterans Administration

avatar

whr4usa

illegal foreign wars - that's funny.

seriously though subsidies are ALWAYS BAD; they're inflationary and economic inefficient and encourage cronyism

the military industrial complex WANTS better broadband infrastructure idiot.

avatar

Opm2

Like the military wants to share it's broadband with private citizens. That is absolutely ignorant.

avatar

whr4usa

you're absolutely ignorant

of the course the military has dedicated backbones on base or between bases in some area where practical to do so but in most places it just isn't and so the military's backbone IS the whole region's backbone

this is the case in the metropolitan region where I live...as a result nomatter how bad the usage, storms or flooding ever gets our ISPs basically never go down...we only lose access when we lose power in the residential endpoints themselves

avatar

Opm2

Still doesn't change the fact they want that infrastructure for THEMSELVES not the public. Learn to read.

avatar

slibinz

Who's going to pay for this? The Federal Government is 16 Trillion dollars in debt, and most States are in the red as well.

avatar

whr4usa

+1

avatar

vrmlbasic

""American economic history teaches a clear lesson about infrastructure. If we build it, innovation will come...."

Who is "we"?

avatar

whr4usa

correct question

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

F*ck challenge. This needs to be a mandate just like Electrifying America was. I bet you we'd still have places without power if it wasn't pushed so hard.

avatar

whr4usa

electrifying america?

please tell me you are not giving a provision from the new deal credit for our electric power utilities nation-wide?

the only thing the government has ever done for north american electricity infrastructure was to make certain we used a different output configuration and billing and measuring methods than the rest of the world to ensure difficulty for future generations like ours especially for digital components . . .

avatar

Electrik

Hey, great.

Why should the ISP’s support this when the current antique infrastructure provides the reason for their idiotic caps and bundles?

I predict the taxpayers will build it and Comcast and Charter will profit from it.

avatar

goodtime

It's not gonna happen. Where I live I can only get 3g or sattelite. 4g would be great but data caps have rendered it useless. Why should I have to pay verizon $110 a month for 20GB monthly at ~6mb/s? while someone in the suburbs (5 minutes from me....I can see their neighborhood from a 2nd story window)can pay half that and get no data cap and twice the speed?

avatar

Peanut Fox

Why would you decide to move somewhere that has poor connectivity, then cry about it? I'm sure there's lots of things that influence your choice, but decent internet connection is at the top of my list when I look at places.

avatar

DeltaFIVEengineer

Maybe I'm the minority here but I generally tend to look at things like crime rate, population density, education system, and accessibility before internet bandwith comes to mind. I hope I wouldn't be so fickle as to pass up living in a fantastic neighborhood because I can't stream movies at 1080p.

avatar

whr4usa

education, density, crime, niceness of location can change over time

infrastructure doesn't; in general I agree with you, I'm simply pointing out your logic that we share leads me to classify bandwidth availability high on the list (also generally where there's excellent internet infrastructure available residentially it exists either because there's optimal or superior education, density, crime, healthcare and other services available or because those are being actively developed and encouraged - if I'm going to invest in a home and family I care a lot more about relative potential decades from now than current crime rate)

avatar

DeltaFIVEengineer

Infrastructure can crumble, just like everything else. Case in point, Verizon outfitted most of my town with fiber optic cable a couple of years ago and promised FIOS for everyone. The town gave in because we're fairly rural and assisted in the form of tax breaks and police coverage for their crews. Well, Verizon bailed halfway through and sold off the project to a very small, local telecom that has done absolutely nothing since they've owned it. All of that work has gone down the tubes since no one has any plans for it. Furthermore, the roads in my state are crumbling because there isn't any money to fix them. Also, The electrical grid is so outdated that I can't count how many times I lose power every year. All of these things are neglected with no one to fix them.

Your point about the relative future potential compared to the status quo is also flawed. Current, as well as historical conditions are good indicators of future status. The projects in downtown Baltimore arent going to likely be upscale neighborhoods in the next 20 years. However, the small farming town with restrictive commercial zoning laws will most likely be a small farming town in the foreseeable future.

Come to think of it, broadband wouldn't even make my top ten list when looking to buy a house.

avatar

Peanut Fox

How does infrastructure that never existed crumble? They never set it up, and that's dirty work on Verizon's part.

Providers have a habit of setting up shop in areas where there's obvious or potential growth. Your area has poor broadband and isn't exactly the best place to settle down. If you've got options for strong connectivity, move often than not, you're living in a nice area.

There's certainly a correlation between strong connectivity and an ideal place to live.

avatar

whr4usa

+1

avatar

Peanut Fox

No. It's a situation where it's to each his own. But for me bandwidth is high on my list of priories. If it's something that is up there in terms of "I want this service" then it's absurd to position yourself where you can't have it. If you love sailing wouldn't you make it a point to live in a coastal state versus say Nevada?

Living all in the United States coast to coast, there wasn't a place I couldn't get that didn't have great broadband, was a safe place to live, in an area I liked.

When you're talking about dropping large sums amounts of money for a home, or signing a long term lease, you owe it to yourself to be fickle. Why would you not? There are times when you have to make compromise (usually space often because of limited funds), but connectivity today? Nah. Where you live will impact you emotionally every day. Pick somewhere good.

avatar

whr4usa

+1

avatar

DeltaFIVEengineer

Broadband isn't a necessity for life, sorry to say. Neither is sailing. My children need good schools to go to and a home they can feel safe in. My family needs access to quality medical care, clean water, and sustainable, quality food sources. We need all of these things for a basic quality of life. Why would I sacrifice any of them to satisfy a hobby or vice?

avatar

whr4usa

if you consider education essential then you should also consider broadband essential (I hope this logic is obvious to you)

you don't need good schools if you've got common sense, good parents, internet access and the technology to make use of the information you absorb

I'd never argue broadband is ahead of shelter, water, food or clothing but broadband is pretty much a necessity for anything else on your list or mine

internet access allows you to start a business or educate yourself - it is not just some hobby!

avatar

goodtime

we've been living here long before internet. We farm so it's a bit impractical to move somewhere else just for internet isn't it?

avatar

Opm2

And then you people move into these areas and cry when your bandwidth is choked because too many people are using the same network.

Either way the problem is lack of infrastructure.

avatar

whr4usa

when you've high demand of something but low supply of it usually that means that something is wrong structurally with the system in which those factors exist; over-regulation and under-standardization both public and private, technical and legal, are the main culprits I suspect!

avatar

Opm2

More like greed and monopolization I suspect. Free market principles are bogus when there is one provider in town.

avatar

whr4usa

there's usually only a single provider in town because free market principles are ignored by government regulatory agencies

internet infrastructure was classified as a utility and utilities are allowed to be monopolies with state oversight even though internet access doesn't suffer from any of the same concerns as electricity or water

avatar

burntham77

Agreed. Non-tech folks might be ok with minimal bandwidth, but tech people like us (aka readers of Maximum PC) should always favor high bandwidth areas.

avatar

whr4usa

+1

which if you're smart doesn't necessarily have to be an urban center when you consider the number of college towns, military-industrial complexes and research-heavy area that parallel strategic fiberoptic ranges or inbetween major metropolitan area

avatar

supercourier

Great. Nothing that bandwidth caps and Deep Packet Inspection can't make bland and useless.

avatar

beta212

Until then my speed won't be able to saturate my wifi, not even close.

avatar

duncansil

Perhaps the place to start is with federal legislation to prevent incumbent ISPs from blocking municipal efforts. That alone would be the fastest way to wire up the country, but unfortunately would drain the campaign coffers at a quicker rate.

avatar

praetor_alpha

I can't see this working out much better than that time we said a zip code had high speed internet if just one house there did.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.