Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

[ElNono]

Users everywhere rave about gigabit service—Web pages pop onto your screen, videos stream all over the house, maps jump as you move—and this is before any Web company has implemented a specific service that takes advantage of gigabit speeds.

It's economically feasible too. The average access speed in the U.S. is now under 10 megabits per second and costs around $40-$60. Verizon FiOS charges $300 a month for 500 megabit service. Yet Google and others charge just $70 a month for a full gigabit connection, download and upload. VTel in Springfield, Vt., charges $35. Gigabit in Hong Kong was $26 way back in 2011.

So what's America's problem? Why aren't more than a handful of U.S. homes wired for gigabit? Sadly, last week's announcement of Comcast's CMCSA -1.37% $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable TWC -0.79% will set back fiber deployment and gigabit homes for a decade. Comcast's competition-limited future will reside in overcharging more than 30 million customers for bundled cable channels and a growing Internet access business that tops out at maybe 20 megabits per second. It's almost as if they are saying, "You want fiber? Eat some Raisin Bran."

...

So how does Google dig up streets and climb poles and run fiber directly to homes? Simple, they ask for and get concessions from cities—the most important being right-of-way easements and expedited permits and inspections. Kansas City was more than happy to oblige.

Well, not so fast. Last month a bill was introduced in the Kansas legislature, pushed by the Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association and presumably Time Warner Cable, to outlaw cities from selling cable and Internet services or even partnering with private service providers. Meanwhile, AT&T is slowing Google Fiber deployment in Austin by denying access to its utility poles. The incumbents' strategy seems to be kill the demon seed in its crib.

Gigabit is in demand. Many cities, like Louisville, Ky., have invited Google Fiber but been turned down. Google didn't like the terms. Even Mountain View, Calif., home of the Googleplex, reportedly declined to make the necessary concessions. Remember, most municipalities collect a kickback in the form of cable franchise fees (up to 5% of revenues) in exchange for the right of way. Hard to give that up. Citizens be damned.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304315004579381463769362886

[Wild Cobra]

I would suggest population density and regulations are part of the cost differences. It isn't all corporate profits. Still, if these corporations didn't get taxed, they could sell their product for less as well.

[z0sa]

-_- that's annoying as fuck to read, tbh. I want my gigabit connection on the cheap, much less not having it available at all.

[ElNono]

-_- that's annoying as fuck to read, tbh. I want my gigabit connection on the cheap, much less not having it available at all.

I figured there was going to be pushback once Google started offering quality service to consumers at reasonable prices... most of these monopolies/duopolies are scared shitless of actual competition...

[Wild Cobra]

What is the population density in the areas Google offer it? How does it compare to the average?

[Wild Cobra]

That $34.95 monthly for the gigabit service for Springfield is on top of what you already pay for fiber. What else isn't the article saying?

[ElNono]

What is the population density in the areas Google offer it? How does it compare to the average?

What is your argument exactly? It's not like the 3 cities or so where Google as rolled out service didn't have ISPs before. They did, they did not offer gigabit, and they charged 3-4 times as much for 1/10th the speed.

It's not that the other companies can't do the same. They just rather fight Google trying to pass laws and put roadblocks in the way than actually improving their service, infrastructure and competing. It has everything to do with protecting the old cash cow, customers be damned.

[ElNono]

That $34.95 monthly for the gigabit service for Springfield is on top of what you already pay for fiber. What else isn't the article saying?

Not anymore. You can just buy the gigabit package for $34.95. Phone service no longer required.

http://www.vermontel.com/internet

[Wild Cobra]

Not anymore. You can just buy the gigabit package for $34.95. Phone service no longer required.

http://www.vermontel.com/internet
Yes, same link I got the $34.95 from. The article says $35.

Please note:


Get blazing-fast speed from our broadband service with speeds up to 1Gbps over fiber and up to 24Mbps over DSL.

They do not say they furnish the fiber.

Care to prove me wrong?

[TDMVPDPOY]

whats the point of having a fast connection if the tv stations are streaming SD quality shit, not even full hd...

then u have the govt cracking down on piracy and shit online

lol the prices are rippoff...

[ElNono]

They do not say they furnish the fiber.

Care to prove me wrong?

Sure.

http://www.vermontel.com/broadband-stimulus/wireless-open-world/fiber-to-the-home-update-and-faqs


Why is VTel replacing its old copper system with fiber?

VTel operates one of the most rural telephone networks in America. For almost a decade, our DSL over copper -- with speeds up to 24 megabits per second -- has been among the fastest in North America. We like being the fastest. We love it. With the help of a USDA / RUS grant, we're boosting your Internet speeds to 1,000 megabits per second, with no monthly service charge increases.

...

Will my the bill for my services increase?
There will be no increase in your monthly services bill as a result of the upgrade. You may choose to add new video and new wireless services. We hope you will. But it's not necessary.

Will the construction cost me anything?
No. In most cases, there is no cost.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe they are paying for the fiber too. As on 10 months ago, 500 homes have the fiber.

http://www.vermontel.com/news/257-gige-for-all-35-per-month-for-gige-at-vermont-telephone-co

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Beat my post by seconds.

Good job!

[ElNono]

It's no available in all areas, but it does look like a company that's actually investing in infrastructure. I would love to see more companies like that, instead of companies trying to pay off legislatures to stop competition.

[Wild Cobra]

It's no available in all areas, but it does look like a company that's actually investing in infrastructure. I would love to see more companies like that, instead of companies trying to pay off legislatures to stop competition.

I agree, it would be great. That's quite an project they are doing.

[boutons_deux]

I would suggest population density and regulations are part of the cost differences. It isn't all corporate profits. Still, if these corporations didn't get taxed, they could sell their product for less as well.

It's ALL about Corporate-Americans screwing Human-Americans FOR PROFIT, BECAUSE THEY CAN. It's as American as the lie that "God Loves America Best"

the population density excuse is bullshit, since large US cities with dense, large residential populations are getting screwed just like sparse ex-urbia.

[Wild Cobra]

Blah blah blah, blah blah...

[DarrinS]

Compared to my phone modem circa 1993, it's pretty darn fast now.

[boutons_deux]

Darrin's impeccable right wing logic.

like the Austin cop saying arrested, brutalized jogging girls should be happy, grateful the cops didn't rape them

like right-wingers saying poor Americans aren't poor compared to beggars in Mumbai.

[boutons_deux]

"one of the most rural telephone networks in America"

VDSL 2.0 ain't gonna get 24/3 reliably in many cases, and esp not EVER due to physics of long copper lines.

ATT failed to deliver me 24/3, even with a bonded pair, and I'm inside Loop 410.

[DarrinS]

Darrin's impeccable right wing logic.

like the Austin cop saying arrested, brutalized jogging girls should be happy, grateful the cops didn't rape them

like right-wingers saying poor Americans aren't poor compared to beggars in Mumbai.



Yeah, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes


I simply stated that my cable modem + wifi are blazing fast compared to my early 90's dial-up connection.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes


I simply stated that my cable modem + wifi are blazing fast compared to my early 90's dial-up connection.

brilliant observation.

USA internet access is slow and expensive compared to other countries not screwed by a local network monopoly, and by a national oligopoly.

shittiest possible product for the the highest possible price

[pgardn]

I agree, it would be great. That's quite an project they are doing.

So we start by taking the side that good old American capitalism will solve all ills and the problem is not that some companies do their best to eliminate competition at the expense of the customer. Then it's ok because some companies see that better for the customer is better for them if they think long term.

You reflexively defended the elimination of competition. I learned something.

[DarrinS]

brilliant observation.

USA internet access is slow and expensive compared to other countries not screwed by a local network monopoly, and by a national oligopoly.

shittiest possible product for the the highest possible price


Meh, I guess it could be cheaper. How much speed do you think is required for streaming HD video? You don't need gigabit.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304315004579381463769362886

That bill is now dead.
www.cjonline.com/news/state/2014-02-05/wire-cut-senate-bill-banning-municipal-broadband-networks

[ChumpDumper]

With cable getting to gigabit is mostly a matter of updating user equipment and changing bandwidth allocation.getting rid of analog cable I s going to be one of the biggest deals for cable companies with all the necessary upgrades and education for legacy customers.

[ElNono]

That bill is now dead.
www.cjonline.com/news/state/2014-02-05/wire-cut-senate-bill-banning-municipal-broadband-networks

Thank you Teysha. I still expect the Comcast-TWC merger to create a larger strong-arming lobbying force against competition though, as the author points out.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yeah....you can bet on that. They only have to win once. We have to win every time.

[ElNono]

With cable getting to gigabit is mostly a matter of updating user equipment and changing bandwidth allocation.getting rid of analog cable I s going to be one of the biggest deals for cable companies with all the necessary upgrades and education for legacy customers.

Docsis 3.0 allows gigabit downstream, but maxes out at 256Mbit upstream, IIRC. There's also the problem with their backend, which already struggles providing the current sub 100Mbit speeds in a lot of areas. Fortunately, it appears that the arrival of Google fiber in Austin has made everyone else up their games. Would love to see more of that.

[vy65]

Thank you Teysha. I still expect the Comcast-TWC merger to create a larger strong-arming lobbying force against competition though, as the author points out.

I don't do antitrust, but it's hard for me to envision that merger going through when AT&T/TMobile didn't

[vy65]

Also, why is gigabit necessary? Not saying it's not, but my porn downloads pretty fast as it is. Is there something that's otherwise unavailable when you get to these really fast speeds or is it more of a convenience thing?

[boutons_deux]

The Consumer Experience

FTTH networks are now available to more than 15 percent of homes, and more than 9 million households across North America are now connected directly into high-speed, high-bandwidth fiber networks.

Thousands more connections being made every day.

As FTTH service providers continue their deployments and add customers, we are now getting a glimpse of what the new era of next-generation broadband will mean for the consumers who use them.

http://www.ftthcouncil.org/p/cm/ld/fid=55 (http://www.ftthcouncil.org/p/cm/ld/fid=55)

[ElNono]

I don't do antitrust, but it's hard for me to envision that merger going through when AT&T/TMobile didn't

I think Comcast is going to point straight to Google Fiber and AT&T to support the contention of a competitive market (despite we all know monopolies/duopolies are the ruling class right now).


Also, why is gigabit necessary? Not saying it's not, but my porn downloads pretty fast as it is. Is there something that's otherwise unavailable when you get to these really fast speeds or is it more of a convenience thing?

Unavailable, hard to tell. But it does expand the possibilities and reduces barrier to entry. It's akin to moving from a dirt road to a highway back in manufacturing-centric economy days.

[CosmicCowboy]

Also, why is gigabit necessary? Not saying it's not, but my porn downloads pretty fast as it is. Is there something that's otherwise unavailable when you get to these really fast speeds or is it more of a convenience thing?So we can ship more jobs overseas.

[vy65]

I think Comcast is going to point straight to Google Fiber and AT&T to support the contention of a competitive market (despite we all know monopolies/duopolies are the ruling class right now).

I think that's a loser. Google Fiber is in what, 3 cities? AT&T failed, and there was a bigger rival (Verizon) one of slightly less equivalent size (Sprint) and a whole bunch of competitively priced "local" service providers (Leap, MetroPCS, Cricket, etc..). And it still failed. I just don't see it happening with TWC/Comcast. But, I'm no expert so I could be wrong.


Unavailable, hard to tell. But it does expand the possibilities and reduces barrier to entry. It's akin to moving from a dirt road to a highway back in manufacturing-centric economy days.

Kind of a "if you build it, they will come" situation?

[vy65]

...

[scott]

Also, why is gigabit necessary? Not saying it's not, but my porn downloads pretty fast as it is. Is there something that's otherwise unavailable when you get to these really fast speeds or is it more of a convenience thing?

For Joe Consumer, it's definitely just a convenience thing, but in a commercial/institutional environment its a game changer. San Antonio and other cities are right to push hard for Google Fiber as a economic development catalyst. It's a huge draw for businesses looking for a place to call home, especially in the tech sector.

[vy65]

interesting, thanks

[ElNono]

Kind of a "if you build it, they will come" situation?

There's tangible issues right now. In this type of services/global economy, if your competition is in Singapore, paying 1/10th of the price for 20x the bandwidth, you're at a pretty big competitive disadvantage. Which triggers what scott pointed out: companies relocating to areas where the price/bandwidth makes them competitive again.

For consumers, it's hard to tell right now. Once you have the infrastructure there, you have fertile ground for innovation on high-bandwith/low-latency available to the masses. There are obvious convenience things like improved video/audio (without all the shitty compression), etc. But it wouldn't be out of the question to see new services or products that were no possible using old infrastructure.

[Wild Cobra]

So we start by taking the side that good old American capitalism will solve all ills and the problem is not that some companies do their best to eliminate competition at the expense of the customer. Then it's ok because some companies see that better for the customer is better for them if they think long term.

You reflexively defended the elimination of competition. I learned something.
If you don't like our system, move elsewhere.

[ElNono]

I think that's a loser. Google Fiber is in what, 3 cities? AT&T failed, and there was a bigger rival (Verizon) one of slightly less equivalent size (Sprint) and a whole bunch of competitively priced "local" service providers (Leap, MetroPCS, Cricket, etc..). And it still failed. I just don't see it happening with TWC/Comcast. But, I'm no expert so I could be wrong.

This is my main concern:


Yet don’t discount what may be Comcast’s greatest strength. Its wireless service is slow; its cable service lousy. But Comcast is wired politically. Its chief executive, Brian Roberts, has golfed with President Obama on Martha’s Vineyard. Its chief lobbyist, David L. Cohen, raised $1.2 million for the president in a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2011.

And Comcast is a poster child for Washington’s corrupting revolving door. One of its lead lobbyists — officially the senior vice president for government affairs of its subsidiary NBC Universal — is Meredith Attwell Baker. Appointed by Obama to hold a Republican seat on the FCC, she voted to approve Comcast’s takeover of NBC and then joined the newly merged company a mere four months later, after serving only two years of her five-year term.

The door revolves the other way, too. William Baer, who recently became head of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, represented General Electric and NBC Universal in their deal with Comcast. Maureen Ohlhausen, one of four sitting commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission, which is charged with enforcing antitrust laws, provided legal counsel to Comcast before assuming her post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-comcast-time-warner-doesnt-pass-the-smell-test/2014/02/18/4b00e120-9808-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html

[Wild Cobra]

Meh, I guess it could be cheaper. How much speed do you think is required for streaming HD video? You don't need gigabit.
I'm guessing about 4 megabit, but it depends on a few factors and I never checked. When I was at a hotel some years back for work, my room was limited to T1 (1.544mb). I could see the difference in my Netflix, but it wasn't too bad.

[ElNono]

Netflix recommends between 6Mbps-12Mbps for HD streams. 4k streams using HEVC will require 20Mbps-50Mbps speeds. This is for a single stream. If you're watching on two TVs and recoding a third show, then multiply that by 3. Add up any other internet activity you might be doing (ie: downloading something), and it adds up pretty quickly.

The biggest thing with FTTH is overcoming the copper limits. Even if Docsis 3.1 offer 1Gbps speeds, the cable runs have to be shorter, or compression has to be higher. With Fiber you can go up to 10Gbps or even 100Gbps without touching the fiber infrastructure, just changing the routers.

[Wild Cobra]

Wire is a problem. You can go several miles without a repeater on fiber. On wire, your signal diminishes with distance. Cable companies have pushed the bounds of what they can deliver. Most are at a limit.

Competition is what's needed. Let other players in a game. Where I'm at, I only have Comcast as an option. I'm far enough from telephone switch plant that it's too far for DSL. Fiber isn't here yet. I pay $66.95 a month for a 15 megabit service. I get 26 megabit ever time I check, but only guaranteed the 15.

[DarrinS]

Netflix recommends between 6Mbps-12Mbps for HD streams. 4k streams using HEVC will require 20Mbps-50Mbps speeds. This is for a single stream. If you're watching on two TVs and recoding a third show, then multiply that by 3. Add up any other internet activity you might be doing (ie: downloading something), and it adds up pretty quickly.

The biggest thing with FTTH is overcoming the copper limits. Even if Docsis 3.1 offer 1Gbps speeds, the cable runs have to be shorter, or compression has to be higher. With Fiber you can go up to 10Gbps or even 100Gbps without touching the fiber infrastructure, just changing the routers.


Good info, thanks.


I'm still using a cable modem that's about 6 years old and I have a 802.11n dual band router. I was contemplating upgrading both, but maybe the modem/router are not the bottleneck?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you don't like our system, move elsewhere.

So when we change it through the democratic process will you take your own advice?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wire is a problem. You can go several miles without a repeater on fiber. On wire, your signal diminishes with distance. Cable companies have pushed the bounds of what they can deliver. Most are at a limit.

Competition is what's needed. Let other players in a game. Where I'm at, I only have Comcast as an option. I'm far enough from telephone switch plant that it's too far for DSL. Fiber isn't here yet. I pay $66.95 a month for a 15 megabit service. I get 26 megabit ever time I check, but only guaranteed the 15.

Yeah because infrastructure startups of scale have a long history of efficacy in the US......

smh

[ElNono]

I'm still using a cable modem that's about 6 years old and I have a 802.11n dual band router. I was contemplating upgrading both, but maybe the modem/router are not the bottleneck?

Hard to tell, tbh... run a speed test and see what you're getting. cable modems rarely need to be upgraded unless you're going to higher tier.

[Wild Cobra]

Hard to tell, tbh... run a speed test and see what you're getting. cable modems rarely need to be upgraded unless you're going to higher tier.
Just the same, I bought my own. I forget how fast it will go, but I paid the extra money for a very fast one in case I wanted more, later.

[SnakeBoy]

This kind of stuff pisses me off, I'm sick of it. Fuck it, I'm moving to Cuba where these evil capitalists can't stop me from having super fast internet speed.

[Wild Cobra]

This kind of stuff pisses me off, I'm sick of it. Fuck it, I'm moving to Cuba where these evil capitalists can't stop me from having super fast internet speed.
Please...

Take Michael Moore with you!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This kind of stuff pisses me off, I'm sick of it. Fuck it, I'm moving to Cuba where these evil capitalists can't stop me from having super fast internet speed.


Please...

Take Michael Moore with you!

Binary thinking is indicative of a limited mind.

[SnakeBoy]

Binary thinking is indicative of a limited mind.

What does the inability to recognize sarcasm indicate?

[ElNono]

Cuba! Nazis!

[ElNono]

:lol I got you SnakeBoy

[McGusto55]

I fucken hate twc..my connetiion suck i pay for 40+ speeds dnt get it..its always turning off and on..i have to reset my modem everyday..

[pgardn]

If you don't like our system, move elsewhere.

I love our system but realize it's far from perfect. Boots and yourself are exactly the same. Except he appears to have a nervous system.

You move, monopoly guy...

[Wild Cobra]

I love our system but realize it's far from perfect. Boots and yourself are exactly the same. Except he appears to have a nervous system.

You move, monopoly guy...
Post #44:


Competition is what's needed.

[pgardn]

And so you are able to discern between competition that is used to get rid of a competitor, and competition that is good for consumers?
You started by looking for excuses for the slow speed. Then changed.
You knee jerked far right.

Has the president called on you for a Supreme Court appointment? Since it's so simple...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What does the inability to recognize sarcasm indicate?

I got the derision. The rest is just me not thinking you are funny. It's still binary thinking.

[Wild Cobra]

And so you are able to discern between competition that is used to get rid of a competitor, and competition that is good for consumers?
You started by looking for excuses for the slow speed. Then changed.
You knee jerked far right.

Has the president called on you for a Supreme Court appointment? Since it's so simple...

Oh just go fuck yourself.

You grandiose assumptions that you think you know me.

You are fucking pathetic.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol I got you SnakeBoy

I haven't mentioned Nazi's yet.

[SnakeBoy]

I got the derision. The rest is just me not thinking you are funny. It's still binary thinking.

No the rest is you thinking you are the smartest person on the planet. Little Hitler wannabe.

[pgardn]

Oh just go fuck yourself.

You grandiose assumptions that you think you know me.

You are fucking pathetic.

Dont post if you can't handle your childlike responses laid bare.

Oh, and this response was hurtful.
Ouch...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No the rest is you thinking you are the smartest person on the planet. Little Hitler wannabe.

Hardly. Me thinking that I am smarter than you or even most does not mean that I think that I am the smartest on the planet.

Nice invoking Hitler though Hitler did not try to rule via intellect. Another demonstration of poor critical thinking. Your still not funny and it was still binary logic.

Deal with it.

[SnakeBoy]

Hardly. Me thinking that I am smarter than you or even most does not mean that I think that I am the smartest on the planet.

Nice invoking Hitler though Hitler did not try to rule via intellect. Another demonstration of poor critical thinking. Your still not funny and it was still binary logic.

Deal with it.

http://www.homandavoodi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/a-serious-man-chalkboard.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We get that you are intimidated by academics. We get that you feel mentally inferior. It's okay.

It's still binary logic which indicates a limited intellect. That you have to dumb the world down into two possible outcomes to try and cope with the complexity is what it is.

Try a gif this time. Perhaps that might deflect better.

[SnakeBoy]

We get that you are intimidated by academics. We get that you feel mentally inferior. It's okay.

It's still binary logic which indicates a limited intellect. That you have to dumb the world down into two possible outcomes to try and cope with the complexity is what it is.

Try a gif this time. Perhaps that might deflect better.

We get that you are desperate for respect and attention on an internet forum and when you don't get it you fake it by having pretend conversations with your troll accounts. Still you are a fun way to kill time, always dependable, always predictable, and so much of it flies over your head without you ever having a clue.

[leemajors]

We get that you are desperate for respect and attention on an internet forum and when you don't get it you fake it by having pretend conversations with your troll accounts. Still you are a fun way to kill time, always dependable, always predictable, and so much of it flies over your head without you ever having a clue.

you're stealing sbm's shoddy material.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We get that you are desperate for respect and attention on an internet forum and when you don't get it you fake it by having pretend conversations with your troll accounts. Still you are a fun way to kill time, always dependable, always predictable, and so much of it flies over your head without you ever having a clue.

awesome. I now have troll accounts.

if I am indeed trolling then I am clearly winning.

[SnakeBoy]

awesome. I now have troll accounts.

if I am indeed trolling then I am clearly winning.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208535&highlight=fuzzy

[Wild Cobra]

Dont post if you can't handle your childlike responses laid bare.

Oh, and this response was hurtful.
Ouch...
I'm tired if idiots pretending my posts say different than what they do. It's pathetic, and I'm simply tired of dealing with the lowlifes like you that inhabit this forum.

[ElNono]

I haven't mentioned Nazi's yet.

can't wait, tbh... :corn:

[pgardn]

I'm tired if idiots pretending my posts say different than what they do. It's pathetic, and I'm simply tired of dealing with the lowlifes like you that inhabit this forum.

You started off defending the business practices that were thought to be non competitive.
Knee jerk. Making excuses for slow service. Read it, you wrote it.

[Wild Cobra]

You started off defending the business practices that were thought to be non competitive.
Knee jerk. Making excuses for slow service. Read it, you wrote it.
You assume the wrong intent. That is not my fault.

Are they excuses or possible reasons?

Then... your attack came after I said we need more competition. When you refuse to accept clarification, it is clear you have no intent to debate. It is clear you are a troll.

Take a good look at yourself.

[pgardn]

You assume the wrong intent. That is not my fault.

Are they excuses or possible reasons?

Then... your attack came after I said we need more competition. When you refuse to accept clarification, it is clear you have no intent to debate. It is clear you are a troll.

Take a good look at yourself.

After the prove me wrong...
It's how you started the argument, there must be a reason companies do what they do because the are inherently competitive. Whoops...
That's my observation. You don't need to be trolled. Witness the trucks and water tower in the middle of nowhere. You are seriously trying to explain that away as well. You don't even see your reflexive bias in what you post. And you think you are trolled... Just stick a kick me sign on your rear.

[Wild Cobra]

After the prove me wrong...

So? ElNono did just that about the same time I proved myself wrong. Did you see posts 12 and 13?



It's how you started the argument, there must be a reason companies do what they do because the are inherently competitive. Whoops...

Now you are lying about my words.

Why do I always see you as a chronic lair? Are you proud of that?



That's my observation. You don't need to be trolled. Witness the trucks and water tower in the middle of nowhere. You are seriously trying to explain that away as well. You don't even see your reflexive bias in what you post.
"Reflexive bias"... I would suggest it is your bias that makes you believe that. Why can't you see the intent of my words? Is your bias so strong you cannot see?

I know what I am doing. Like always, I point out views that are being ignored. If you wish to see that as bias, then I suggest you attempt to put a stop to the biased material I am showing an alternate reason to. Perhaps attack those linking the biased material and address the bias in threads to begin with or are you a hypocrite?


And you think you are trolled... Just stick a kick me sign on your rear.
Trolled is as good of word as any. Your actions are that of a grade school bully. Looking for a response to laugh at, or feel superior.

Are you proud of that? Is your self esteem so low, you have to attack others to feel better?

How about actually trying to discuss a topic instead of purposely pissing people off, or is that beneath you somehow?

[pgardn]

So? ElNono did just that about the same time I proved myself wrong. Did you see posts 12 and 13?


Now you are lying about my words.

Why do I always see you as a chronic lair? Are you proud of that?


"Reflexive bias"... I would suggest it is your bias that makes you believe that. Why can't you see the intent of my words? Is your bias so strong you cannot see?

I know what I am doing. Like always, I point out views that are being ignored. If you wish to see that as bias, then I suggest you attempt to put a stop to the biased material I am showing an alternate reason to. Perhaps attack those linking the biased material and address the bias in threads to begin with or are you a hypocrite?


Trolled is as good of word as any. Your actions are that of a grade school bully. Looking for a response to laugh at, or feel superior.

Are you proud of that? Is your self esteem so low, you have to attack others to feel better?

How about actually trying to discuss a topic instead of purposely pissing people off, or is that beneath you somehow?

Bully?

Really. OK.
Self esteem... I'm just waiting to fulfill another contract and was bored.

I am am obviously not the only one who misconstrues the intent of your words.
But I apologize. And you can still tell me to fuck myself. Tell the grade school bully to fuck himself...

I should lay of the other automaton as well. Sorry Boots, I apologize.

[TSA]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208535&highlight=fuzzy

:lol

You busted me. Yes I am also FuzzyLumpkins

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"Reflexive bias"... I would suggest it is your bias that makes you believe that. Why can't you see the intent of my words? Is your bias so strong you cannot see?

I know what I am doing. Like always, I point out views that are being ignored.

It's not 'like always.' That is the whole point of him saying your reflexive bias. When you hear something you don't like then you start making up stories to excuse or otherwise explain away what you do not want to hear. You take willful ignorance to the extreme.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

You busted me. Yes I am also FuzzyLumpkins

yeah pretty much :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

You busted me. Yes I am also FuzzyLumpkins

Damn, you are such a good actor. It's got to be hard to play someone that is....

Well, you know.

[DarrinS]

Ok, so I initially dismissed this. Now, I'm starting to worry.

I've been considering dropping my bundled TV/Internet/Phone package from TWC and just keep my "high speed" internet account, so I can get all my TV through my Roku w/ Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon prime video, etc. I'm embarrassed to say, I've been paying $245/mo for this bundle, and that was only after negotiating my bill down from $275/mo. From several articles I've read, the cable companies, having noticed this trend of people dropping their cable TV for streaming services, have started placing caps on data.

For example, Comcast has a 300Gb/mo limit in some markets (https://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-plans-expansion-data-plan/), after which, you have to pay $10 for each additional 50GB.


If this happens, I'd drop TWC entirely, but there's not really any good alternatives in my area. The best AT&T service in my area is 18Mbps.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, so I initially dismissed this. Now, I'm starting to worry.

I've been considering dropping my bundled TV/Internet/Phone package from TWC and just keep my "high speed" internet account, so I can get all my TV through my Roku w/ Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon prime video, etc. I'm embarrassed to say, I've been paying $245/mo for this bundle, and that was only after negotiating my bill down from $275/mo. From several articles I've read, the cable companies, having noticed this trend of people dropping their cable TV for streaming services, have started placing caps on data.

For example, Comcast has a 300Gb/mo limit in some markets (https://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-plans-expansion-data-plan/), after which, you have to pay $10 for each additional 50GB.


If this happens, I'd drop TWC entirely, but there's not really any good alternatives in my area. The best AT&T service in my area is 18Mbps.
What bundle do you have? That sounds really high.

[boutons_deux]

"dropping my bundled TV/Internet/Phone package from TWC and just keep my "high speed" internet account"

grandecom forces me to take their TV if I only want internet, just like I'm forced to pay for all the bundled shit channels I never watch.

I bet TWC is the same.

[ChumpDumper]

"dropping my bundled TV/Internet/Phone package from TWC and just keep my "high speed" internet account"

grandecom forces me to take their TV if I only want internet, just like I'm forced to pay for all the bundled shit channels I never watch.

I bet TWC is the same.


nah twc can go a la carte.

No data caps for twc yet. It will be interesting to see how the comcast/netflix deal will affect data caps with the use of netflix. Seems like that shouldn't count toward a cap logically, but this is cable we are talking about.

[DarrinS]

What bundle do you have? That sounds really high.


I have the TV plan with all the major movies channels (Showtime, HBO, Cinesex, Starz, etc.) and the highest bandwidth internet plan. I have 3 HD settop boxes with DVR ($10 ea. per month) and the cable modem is about $6/mo. I think I've paid them nearly $360 for the modem, so far. :depressed

[DarrinS]

Damn. Looks like I'm over paying about $100/mo.

https://www.gettimewarnercable.com/offers/?aa%5Btab%5D=offers_triple

[Wild Cobra]

"dropping my bundled TV/Internet/Phone package from TWC and just keep my "high speed" internet account"

grandecom forces me to take their TV if I only want internet, just like I'm forced to pay for all the bundled shit channels I never watch.

I bet TWC is the same.



In my case, the bundle saves you about 50% over the individual prices. I had the cable/internet/phone package and when I dropped the bundle service, Didn't drop the phone yet because two individual services were the same price as the bundle.It was about $130. The internet only was $50 +$6 modem. I bought my own modem, but the price increased back up and is now $66. This was some years back. Since the internet is now about 33% more, I assume the current bundle price in my area is about $175. This was with no premium channels.

I sure wish I had high speed internet competition to drop the price.

I thought about paying the $40(?) monthly to user my cell phone as a hotspot, but that thought dissipated very fast. I don't need to save money that bad, but I hate Comcast.

[Wild Cobra]

I have the TV plan with all the major movies channels (Showtime, HBO, Cinesex, Starz, etc.) and the highest bandwidth internet plan. I have 3 HD settop boxes with DVR ($10 ea. per month) and the cable modem is about $6/mo. I think I've paid them nearly $360 for the modem, so far. :depressed
LOL...

I good modem is less than half that price. Mine already paid for itself.

[Wild Cobra]

Damn. Looks like I'm over paying about $100/mo.

https://www.gettimewarnercable.com/offers/?aa%5Btab%5D=offers_triple

Don't you like that "for 12 month" deal where afterwards, they charge full price...

[DarrinS]

LOL...

I good modem is less than half that price. Mine already paid for itself.


I've actually paid over 4x the modem's value. :wow

[DarrinS]

Don't you like that "for 12 month" deal where afterwards, they charge full price...

Yeah, just noticed that. I'm surpised it's not in this font.

[Wild Cobra]

I've actually paid over 4x the modem's value. :wow

So get off your duff and buy one!

[ChumpDumper]

Damn. Looks like I'm over paying about $100/mo.

https://www.gettimewarnercable.com/offers/?aa%5Btab%5D=offers_triple
Yeah. Call them again and tell them you are going with att. Once you get to retention they will give you whatever deal they can to keep you. Have to do it every time your deal expires but worth it.

[Wild Cobra]

When I bought mine, I did 2 things. I selected one that would go much faster than I needed in case my available data rates went up. I think it does up to 250mbps. I also made sure it was "Comcast compatible." From there, it's just a phone call away to set it up. They need a number on the modem to complete the service.

[DarrinS]

Yeah. Call them again and tell them you are going with att. Once you get to retention they will give you whatever deal they can to keep you. Have to do it every time your deal expires but worth it.


It's worth a shot.

[baseline bum]

nah twc can go a la carte.


Time Warner pushes the bundles hard though. I have a friend who just got it and got so annoyed he finally yelled at the salesman "Can I just get the fucking internet?" after going in circles over and over again about not wanting the TV nor VOIP.

[ChumpDumper]

Time Warner pushes the bundles hard though. I have a friend who just got it and got so annoyed he finally yelled at the salesman "Can I just get the fucking internet?" after going in circles over and over again about not wanting the TV nor VOIP.Hm, didn't have a problem when I got internet only a couple years back. Guess I got the right rep.

[DarrinS]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Google-Fiber-would-give-SA-a-boost-5263223.php

[The Reckoning]

it's so these tech company guys can play online games at work

[boutons_deux]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Google-Fiber-would-give-SA-a-boost-5263223.php

"Over the next few months, Google will examine the city's infrastructure to get a better sense of how long it might take to install a fiber-optics network and what it might cost."

so Austin is many months away from build-out, and SA is probably years away.

Hoolyan should push for SA to build its own fiber network (probably would be blocked by TX Repugs as it was blocked in NC by TWC-owned Repugs).

[leemajors]

Darrin, get a Motorola Surfboard. It's waaaay better than the TW Docsis 3.0 equipment.

[DarrinS]

Darrin, get a Motorola Surfboard. It's waaaay better than the TW Docsis 3.0 equipment.

Thanks. That's the one I've been thinking about buying. It's about 10 months worth of my TWC modem rental fee, but like I said, I've already paid for that thing 4x over.

[ElNono]

Ok, so I initially dismissed this. Now, I'm starting to worry.

I've been considering dropping my bundled TV/Internet/Phone package from TWC and just keep my "high speed" internet account, so I can get all my TV through my Roku w/ Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon prime video, etc. I'm embarrassed to say, I've been paying $245/mo for this bundle, and that was only after negotiating my bill down from $275/mo. From several articles I've read, the cable companies, having noticed this trend of people dropping their cable TV for streaming services, have started placing caps on data.

For example, Comcast has a 300Gb/mo limit in some markets (https://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-plans-expansion-data-plan/), after which, you have to pay $10 for each additional 50GB.


If this happens, I'd drop TWC entirely, but there's not really any good alternatives in my area. The best AT&T service in my area is 18Mbps.

wow, you're getting ripped off... I have comcast and the 300GB (notice byte, not bit)/mo cap, and 1) they don't enforce it right now, 2) don't think I ever hit it. That's about 35+ bluray/XBox 360 games per mo.

[ElNono]

Thanks. That's the one I've been thinking about buying. It's about 10 months worth of my TWC modem rental fee, but like I said, I've already paid for that thing 4x over.

yeah, first thing I did when Comcast wanted to charge me $7/mo for a modem rental fee is go buy my own... sounds stupid, but you also pay taxes over that fee too...

[DarrinS]

wow, you're getting ripped off... I have comcast and the 300GB (notice byte, not bit)/mo cap, and 1) they don't enforce it right now, 2) don't think I ever hit it. That's about 35+ bluray/XBox 360 games per mo.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you pay per month? And do you have TV/Internet/VOIP bundle?

[ElNono]

If you don't mind me asking, what do you pay per month? And do you have TV/Internet/VOIP bundle?

I just looked at how much TV service costs these days.. wow... maybe you're not getting ripped off after all. I wouldn't pay that kind of money though. I can't disclose the arrangement I have for TV, but I've had all the movie channels for years and never watch them, tbh.

I only have internet service... IIRC, about $66/mo. Cell is my home phone too, and it's on a family plan (paid by the office).

You should check this out:
http://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-i-cut-my-time-warner-cable-bill-by.html

Also, perhaps consider a Roku. Preferences are different for different people, so it's difficult to recommend. But do try to cut down on the BS fees like modem rental.

[Th'Pusher]

"Over the next few months, Google will examine the city's infrastructure to get a better sense of how long it might take to install a fiber-optics network and what it might cost."

so Austin is many months away from build-out, and SA is probably years away.

Hoolyan should push for SA to build its own fiber network (probably would be blocked by TX Repugs as it was blocked in NC by TWC-owned Repugs).




Didn't San Antonio already build and own a fiber network through CPS?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/30/municipal_broadband_s_death_by_lobbyist_san_antoni o_has_the_fiber_they_should.html

[boutons_deux]

Didn't San Antonio already build and own a fiber network through CPS?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/30/municipal_broadband_s_death_by_lobbyist_san_antoni o_has_the_fiber_they_should.html

"but a Texas law prevents the city from using the network to give low-cost service to consumers." WTF?

(hint: ATT HQ is in Dallas, was in SA. Another hint: Southwest Airlines killed the Texas high-speed train network DAL-SAT-AUS-HOU)

Telcos have been almost 100% fiber for decades between their cabinets, connection nodes.

I know of one rural telco co-op (a socialist-supported enterprise floating on Universal Service $Ms from the distant epoch when govt actually put Human-Americans first) that has laid 100s of miles fiber, much of it still dark (fiber cable has many fibers, most of which remain dark).

[xrayzebra]

Didn't San Antonio already build and own a fiber network through CPS?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/30/municipal_broadband_s_death_by_lobbyist_san_antoni o_has_the_fiber_they_should.html


Yes, read the below link:


http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/S-A-forms-network-to-make-better-use-of-broadband-4275585.php

[xrayzebra]

I think more than likely Via Transit also has an extensive wi-fi network for there bus system. I have noticed their little antenna's all over, mounted on light standards.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, read the below link: http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/S-A-forms-network-to-make-better-use-of-broadband-4275585.php

"public universities, colleges and schools, hospitals and other local government entities"

a great list of orgs that will get fiber service, but no residences/business that will remain screwed by TWC/Grandecom with shitty service and shitty price.

SA will also not dare bothering the $200M/year it skims from centralized-energy CPS by offering an aggressive strategy (feed-in-tariffs, power-purchase agreements, FIT, PPA) for distributed-energy rooftop solar.

[Bill_Brasky]

Compared to my phone modem circa 1993, it's pretty darn fast now.

Yeah, well in 1993 you weren't downloading a TB of porn.

[AntiChrist]

I just looked at how much TV service costs these days.. wow... maybe you're not getting ripped off after all. I wouldn't pay that kind of money though. I can't disclose the arrangement I have for TV, but I've had all the movie channels for years and never watch them, tbh.

I only have internet service... IIRC, about $66/mo. Cell is my home phone too, and it's on a family plan (paid by the office).

You should check this out:
http://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-i-cut-my-time-warner-cable-bill-by.html

Also, perhaps consider a Roku. Preferences are different for different people, so it's difficult to recommend. But do try to cut down on the BS fees like modem rental.



I already have one Roku 3, but plan to buy two more. The TWC channel/app for the Roku is pretty darn good. Lot's of on-demand content, so no real need for a dedicated DVR. I'm going to order just basic TV package with HBO. And I'm going to return my 3 set-top cable boxes and cable modem. After all this, the only thing I'll be lacking is Fox Sports Southwest, which kinda sucks. I'm pretty sure the exclusion of this channel on the Roku app was deliberate by TWC.

[DarrinS]

^I keep on logging in with that dumbass troll account -- bad habit.

[DarrinS]

Right now, I have the Roku hard-wired to Ethernet. I need to make sure my wifi signal is strong enough in the other rooms.

[ChumpDumper]

I already have one Roku 3, but plan to buy two more. The TWC channel/app for the Roku is pretty darn good. Lot's of on-demand content, so no real need for a dedicated DVR. I'm going to order just basic TV package with HBO. And I'm going to return my 3 set-top cable boxes and cable modem. After all this, the only thing I'll be lacking is Fox Sports Southwest, which kinda sucks. I'm pretty sure the exclusion of this channel on the Roku app was deliberate by TWC.I think it might be deliberate by Fox. They have their own app like WatchESPN but it's currently only available for iOS.

[DarrinS]

I think it might be deliberate by Fox. They have their own app like WatchESPN but it's currently only available for iOS.

I've seen some websites that stream NBA games, e.g. NBA-stream.com, but I'm not sure they're trustworthy.

[DarrinS]

And I'd hate to invest in this setup, only to have Comcast come in and scrap everything.

[ChumpDumper]

I figure it's going to be a year before Comcast really has an effect on local TWC but yeah, there's no telling exactly how it would shake out.

The sites that stream NBA games work, but often have tons of popups and try to put suspicious programs on your computer. Gotta be careful.

I assume you would need one set top box or cable card with a digital tv subscription so you could get all the channels on TWCtv, but you can find that out when you call.

[ElNono]

Right now, I have the Roku hard-wired to Ethernet. I need to make sure my wifi signal is strong enough in the other rooms.

Or you could use one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704165

They do up to 500Mbps and have come down in price a lot.

As far as FOX, if you're only interested in the NBA, you could just purchase the NBA League Pass for the ROKU (http://www.nba.com/leaguepass/roku). You can even cheap out and only buy the 5 team package (breaks down to $5 a month, an option you don't get with cable).

[DarrinS]

Or you could use one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704165

They do up to 500Mbps and have come down in price a lot.

As far as FOX, if you're only interested in the NBA, you could just purchase the NBA League Pass for the ROKU (http://www.nba.com/leaguepass/roku). You can even cheap out and only buy the 5 team package (breaks down to $5 a month, an option you don't get with cable).

Thanks. Seems like there should be some kind of discount with the season half over.

[DarrinS]

As for the powerline adapters, I'm not sure how reliable they are.

[baseline bum]

Thanks. Seems like there should be some kind of discount with the season half over.

League Pass won't replace Fox Sports though if you're in the San Antonio/Austin area since they black out the local games I think.

[ElNono]

As for the powerline adapters, I'm not sure how reliable they are.

They seem to have good reviews, but you should do your due diligence and check reviews, etc. I personally prefer to run wire whenever possible, but it's an alternative.

[TeyshaBlue]

They seem to have good reviews, but you should do your due diligence and check reviews, etc. I personally prefer to run wire whenever possible, but it's an alternative.
lol Ludite.

[ElNono]

lol Ludite.

It's Luddite, tbh... GFY

[TeyshaBlue]

It's Luddite, tbh... GFY
:flipoff

[DarrinS]

League Pass won't replace Fox Sports though if you're in the San Antonio/Austin area since they black out the local games I think.

Damn. At least the playoffs will be here soon and the games should be on the local channels I can receive OTA.

[ChumpDumper]

It looks like Fox hasn't reached an agreement with TWC to carry the Fox Sports app yet. They took awhile with WatchESPN as well.

[DarrinS]

Anyone know if these can be used with TWC?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815706004

[ChumpDumper]

You can get cable cards from TWC, so probably.

I says it works with switched channels, but it's not clear if it fully supports 2-way cards. I don't know if you will get stuff like Navigator and On Demand through that.

[ElNono]

According to this video, it does support Time Warner (look at the included sheet):

fMQUV0EMg1o

Not sure how you hook that to a Roku though...

[DarrinS]

According to this video, it does support Time Warner (look at the included sheet):

fMQUV0EMg1o

Not sure how you hook that to a Roku though...


Lol, you can't even buy the damn CableCard, you have to lease it.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/content/twc/en/residential-home/support/faqs/faqs-tv/cablecard/can-i-purchase-a-cablecard-and.html


I already have a tv tuner card in my HTPC, so I'm just going to set up a PVR for local OTA channels. Someone has written a Roku channel for NextPVR, so at least I can record local tv and stream it.

Can't wait to take 30+ lbs of hardware back to TWC and dump it at the service counter.

[DarrinS]

You can get cable cards from TWC, so probably.

I says it works with switched channels, but it's not clear if it fully supports 2-way cards. I don't know if you will get stuff like Navigator and On Demand through that.


That device was a bit pricey and you actually have to lease the cable card.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, cable cards are finicky setups as well. Would rather have a box even if I had a card ready TV.

[ElNono]

Lol, you can't even buy the damn CableCard, you have to lease it.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/content/twc/en/residential-home/support/faqs/faqs-tv/cablecard/can-i-purchase-a-cablecard-and.html

It always been like that. You also probably need a Tuner Adapter to plug into the Ceton if TWC is using SDV (switched digital video).

Lastly, once you have the card, the TA and the device, you need to call them one more time to give them all the numbers and activate the whole thing. Sometimes they'll just send a tech to do all that for you.

Looks like TWC charges $2.50/mo for the CableCard:
http://forums.timewarnercable.com/t5/Equipment/CableCARD-FAQs/td-p/4750

Also looks like Ceton with TA is supported:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/support/topics/tv/cablecard.html

[ElNono]

Apparently, the TA is free from TWC:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=482263

[ElNono]

All that said, look around for reviews of other people using TWC CableCards with Tivo and the like... I've heard some horror stories with the whole tech...

EDIT: check the 2nd comment on this story:
http://stopthecap.com/2013/09/17/cable-company-hassles-make-life-difficult-for-newest-dvr-competitor-tivos-roamio/

ugh

[DarrinS]

I think I'll try going without any TWC hardware for a week and see if the family can survive the "horror" of no pause button, at least for live TWC content.

[boutons_deux]

Frustrated Cities Take High-Speed Internet Into Their Own Hands

College Station is right in the middle of Texas — a few hours by car from Austin, Dallas and Houston and home to Texas A&M, a major research university. But if you're in the market for high-speed Internet access, College Station can feel like the middle of nowhere.

"It's been pretty bleak. You get too far from the university, and it's nothing," says Andrew Duggleby, co-founder of Exosent Engineering, a company that designs and builds tanker trucks for the oil industry.

"We're doing three-dimensional computer-aided design, big 3-D models," he says. "So here we are, this super-advanced engineering company, with all these technologies — but then it can't get past the walls."

There is not high-speed Internet access in Exosent's part of College Station, Duggleby says. If he wants to show one of his 3-D models to a client for review, he has to copy the files onto a portable hard drive and put it in the mail.

James Benham, a city councilman in College Station, is worried that high-tech jobs are fleeing to Austin and other cities with faster and cheaper broadband. "We have lost countless companies to other towns because we cannot provide the level and cost of connectivity," Benham says.

Even in central Texas — not exactly a hotbed of activist government :lol — cities are thinking seriously about how to upgrade their broadband infrastructure.

"We have to deliver consistent electricity and water. I think we have to lump [connectivity] in with the critical infrastructure that we at least have an obligation to think about and plan for," Benham says. "The worst thing, I think, a city could do is sit back and do nothing and wait."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/03/04/285764961/frustrated-cities-take-high-speed-internet-into-their-own-hands?sc=17&f=1001

[boutons_deux]

"The reconstruction of New Orleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_New_Orleans) provided the impetus to build a metro-scale wireless broadband network to deliver free public Internet service alongside communications for government and emergency services. Bell South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_South) threatened the city with legal action[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] if the New Orleans municipal network continued to be run by the city. Consequently, the network was sold to a third-party company"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

... more evidence that USA is owned and operated by Corporate-Americans, not by Human-Americans.

" BellSouth has long waged war against any city wiring itself for broadband, but the battle has been particularly fierce in Louisiana.

The voter-approved community-fiber project in Lafayette (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/71161) still hasn't gotten off the ground because of constant BellSouth lawsuits. Recall the controversy (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/60756) when a BellSouth exec hinted they'd have to pull a 1,300 person local Cingular call-center if the city went forward with the project, something BellSouth also denied. BellSouth also lied to local voters via push-pollsters, as we've documented (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/63279).

As for the New Orleans mesh network, Meffert says he's not shutting it down, law nor not. "If I have to go to jail, I guess I will," he says. "We simply cannot turn off these few lifelines we have to our city and businesses."

BellSouth has been charging $70 (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,72916~mode=full~days=2000) for emergency Wimax service in the area if users don't subscribe to telephone service (otherwise $29.95)."

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/73020

[DarrinS]

All that said, look around for reviews of other people using TWC CableCards with Tivo and the like... I've heard some horror stories with the whole tech...

EDIT: check the 2nd comment on this story:
http://stopthecap.com/2013/09/17/cable-company-hassles-make-life-difficult-for-newest-dvr-competitor-tivos-roamio/

ugh



I broke down and bought a SiliconDust HDHomeRun PRIME, which has 3 TV tuners. People are actively working on getting this device to stream to the Roku. There is already one working solution, but it is for iOS only. I'll hack away at it until I get it to work from my Windows 7 HTPC.

[Winehole23]

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-twc-chart?src=soc_fcbks

[KL2]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230362&page=4&p=7267355#post7267355


thread titles are the same, ElNono=Boutons tbh

[boutons_deux]

US telecoms giants call on FCC to block cities' expansion of high-speed internet

USTelecom wants to block expansion of popular networks in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina

The US telecoms industry called on the Federal Communications Commission on Friday to block two cities’ plans to expand high-speed internet services to their residents.
USTelecom, which represents telecoms giants Verizon, AT&T and others, wants the FCC to block expansion of two popular municipally owned high-speed internet networks, one in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the other in Wilson, North Carolina.

“The success of public broadband is a mixed record, with numerous examples of failures,” USTelecom said in a blogpost (http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/fcc-has-no-standing-state-broadband-laws). “With state taxpayers on the financial hook when a municipal broadband network goes under, it is entirely reasonable for state legislatures to be cautious in limiting or even prohibiting that activity.”

Chattanooga (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/30/chattanooga-gig-high-speed-internet-tech-boom) has the largest high-speed internet service in the US, offering customers access to speeds of 1 gigabit per second – about 50 times faster than the US average. The service, provided by municipally owned EPB, has sparked a tech boom in the city and attracted international attention. EPB is now petitioning the FCC to expand its
territory. Comcast and other companies have previously sued unsuccessfully to stop EPB’s fibre optic roll out.

Wilson, a town of a little more than 49,000 people, launched Greenlight, its own service offering high-speed internet, after complaints about the cost and quality of Time Warner cable’s service. Time Warner lobbied the North Carolina senate to outlaw the service and similar municipal efforts.

USTelecom claims the FCC has no legal standing over the proposed expansions and does not have the power to preempt the North Carolina and Tennessee statutes that would prevent them.

“States have adopted a wide range of legislative approaches on how much authority they give local governments to build, own and operate broadband networks. Some states require an election or public hearings before a public project can move forward. Others ask for competitive bids, and still others put restrictions on the terms of service so the public entities bear the same regulatory burdens as private service providers,” said USTelecom.

“States are well within their rights to impose these restrictions, given the potential impact on taxpayers if public projects are not carefully planned and weighed against existing private investment.”

In January this year, the FCC issued the “Gigabit City Challenge”, calling on providers to offer gigabit service in at least one community in each state by 2015. The challenge has come amid intense lobbying from cable and telecoms firms to stop municipal rivals and new competitors including Google from building and expanding high speed networks.
In a statement EPB said: “Communities should have the right – at the local level – to determine their broadband futures.

“The private sector didn’t want to serve everyone, but public power companies like EPB were established to make sure that everyone had access to this critical infrastructure. ”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga

The telecoms mega-corps aren't lying, and smoking tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

[boutons_deux]

City-provided broadband widespread

More than 130 cities from Norwood, Massachusetts, to Clallam County, Washington, currently offer fiber or cable Internet connections to their communities, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a group that supports municipal broadband. The municipalities are mostly small to mid-sized cities that critics say large Internet providers avoid because the return on investment is too low.

Cities build broadband networks to support businesses, improve health care and education, and attract jobs (http://www.muninetworks.org/content/successes-and-failures), they say. About 89 cities offer gigabit speeds, a rate that can download (http://www.numion.com/calculators/time.html) a 4.5 gigabyte movie in 36 seconds. The same file takes an hour at 10 megabits per second. Slower DSL or dial-up connections, which are common in rural areas, would take many hours longer.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband

[boutons_deux]

Chattanooga's Gig: how one city's super-fast internet is driving a tech boom

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/30/chattanooga-gig-high-speed-internet-tech-boom

Repug TX is one of the many mostly red states where state law blocks taxpayer-owned municipal data networks.

[boutons_deux]

Sad states of affairs

Alabama: Municipal communications services must be self-sustaining, "thus impairing bundling and other common industry marketing practices." Municipalities cannot use "local taxes or other funds to pay for the start-up expenses that any capital-intensive project must pay until the project is constructed and revenues become sufficient to cover ongoing expenses and debt service."

Arkansas: Only municipalities that operate electric utilities may provide communications services, but they aren't allowed to provide "basic local exchange service," i.e. traditional phone service.

California: Public entities are generally allowed to provide communications services, but "Community Service Districts (http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/CSD.pdf)" may not if any private entity is willing to do so.

Colorado: Municipalities must hold a referendum before providing cable, telecommunications, or broadband service, unless the community is unserved.

Florida: Imposes special tax on municipal telecommunications service and a profitability requirement that makes it difficult to approve capital-intensive communications projects.

Louisiana: Municipalities must hold referendums before providing service and "impute to themselves various costs that a private provider might pay if it were providing comparable services."

Michigan: Municipalities must seek bids before providing telecom services and can move forward only if they receive fewer than three qualified bids.

Minnesota: 65 percent of voters must approve before municipalities can offer local exchange services or operate facilities that support communications services.

Missouri: Cities and towns can't sell telecom services or lease telecom facilities to private providers "except for services used for internal purposes; services for educational, emergency, and health care uses; and 'Internet-type' services."

Nebraska: Public broadband services are generally prohibited except when provided by power utilities. However, "public power utilities are permanently prohibited from providing such services on a retail basis, and they can sell or lease dark fiber on a wholesale basis only under severely limited conditions."

Nevada: Municipalities with at least 25,000 residents and counties with at least 50,000 residents may not provide telecommunications services.

North Carolina: "Numerous" requirements make it impractical to provide public communications services. "For example, public entities must comply with unspecified legal requirements, impute phantom costs into their rates, conduct a referendum before providing service, forego popular financing mechanisms, refrain from using typical industry pricing mechanisms, and make their commercially sensitive information available to their incumbent competitors."

Pennsylvania: Municipalities cannot sell broadband services if a "local telephone company" already provides broadband, even if the local telephone company charges outrageously high prices or offers poor quality service.

South Carolina: The state "requires governmental providers to comply with all legal requirements that would apply to private service providers, to impute phantom costs into their prices, including funds contributed to stimulus projects, taxes that unspecified private entities would incur, and other unspecified costs."

Tennessee: Municipalities that own electric utilities may provide telecom services "upon complying with various public disclosure, hearing, voting, and other requirements that a private provider would not have to meet. Municipalities that do not operate electric utilities can provide services only in 'historically unserved areas,' and only through joint ventures with the private sector."

Texas: The state "prohibits municipalities and municipal electric utilities from offering telecommunications services to the public either directly or indirectly through a private telecommunications provider."

Utah: Various procedural and accounting requirements imposed on municipalities would be "impossible for any provider of retail services to meet, whether public or private." Municipal providers that offer services at wholesale rather than retail are exempt from some of the requirements, "but experience has shown that a forced wholesale-only model is extremely difficult, or in some cases, impossible to make successful."

Virginia: Municipal electric utilities can offer phone and Internet services "provided that they do not subsidize services, that they impute private-sector costs into their rates, that they do not charge rates lower than the incumbents, and that [they] comply with numerous procedural, financing, reporting and other requirements that do not apply to the private sector." Other requirements make it nearly impossible for municipalities to offer cable service, except in Bristol, which was grandfathered.

Washington: The state "authorizes some municipalities to provide communications services but prohibits public utility districts (http://www.wpuda.org/) from providing communications services directly to customers."

Wisconsin: Cities and towns must "conduct a feasibility study and hold a public hearing prior to providing telecom, cable, or Internet services." Additionally, the state "prohibits 'subsidization' of most cable and telecom services and prescribes minimum prices for telecommunications services."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

[TDMVPDPOY]

down here the previous govt was going to provide ftth for 50-70billion

then the rich idiots party got into govt and change it to fttn which is basically more horseshit, its similar to cable...anyone on ur street or suburb connected to that node dictates ur speed during peak/off usage compared to ftth u have a single line to ur house which is better maximum speeds whatever u sign up for

so the govt privatised the telco that owns the infrastructure holding the country to ransom with the biggest monopoly, govt pays the privatised company 50b to access its infrastructure to install backpeddle previous infrastructure...but guess who owns the new and old infrastructure? lmao the same fkn privatised company....

[boutons_deux]

down here the previous govt was going to provide ftth for 50-70billion

then the rich idiots party got into govt and change it to fttn which is basically more horseshit, its similar to cable...anyone on ur street or suburb connected to that node dictates ur speed during peak/off usage compared to ftth u have a single line to ur house which is better maximum speeds whatever u sign up for

so the govt privatised the telco that owns the infrastructure holding the country to ransom with the biggest monopoly, govt pays the privatised company 50b to access its infrastructure to install backpeddle previous infrastructure...but guess who owns the new and old infrastructure? lmao the same fkn privatised company....

Conservatives everywhere FUCK THEIR CITIZENS while enriching/protecting corporations.

And the asshole Repugs here in ST and everywhere keep electing conservatives.

What's been happening in AU under conservatives will happen in USA when the Repugs add control of the Senate and WH to their control of the House and SCOTUS.

[boutons_deux]

BigCorp and their owned politicians keep Americans in a technological backwate

Study: Broadband Still Slower, More Expensive In U.S. Than In Europe, Asia


The Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation conducts a study every year comparing broadband speeds and prices nation- and world-wide. This year’s, which they released this week (http://www.newamerica.org/oti/the-cost-of-connectivity-2014/), is the third annual study.
Last year’s report (http://consumerist.com/2013/10/28/u-s-consumers-paying-more-getting-less-for-internet-than-europe-asia/) found that Americans were paying more for broadband access than our counterparts abroad, and getting worse service for it.

This year’s data paint a similar picture. Overall, our national average broadband speeds are still lower, and our prices higher, than what customers in similarly-sized cities in Europe and Asia get.

But in larger cities, where only big incumbent ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable operate, the picture is more dire. Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC all tie for 12th place on the list, with fiber connections of 500 Mbps. San Francisco, America’s high-tech hotbed, comes in near the bottom of the list with top speeds of 200 Mbps, just 20% of what consumers in Chattanooga can get.

American users aren’t just seeing slower service, though; even though prices have dropped since last year, we’re still paying significantly more for every gigabyte we get. Gigabit service in Chattanooga and Kansas City runs $70 per month, and in Lafayette it’s about $110. As compared to last year’s $1000 monthly fee, that’s great. But customers in Seoul, Hong Kong, and Tokyo — all cities with a high cost of living — are all paying between $30 and $40 USD for their connections.

Meanwhile, those 500 Mbps connections in New York and L.A. — literally half as fast — will run a subscriber a whopping $300 per month. American consumers are also paying more in other ways, for example, with high monthly modem rental fees.

So what’s keeping American broadband down? There seem to be two key factors: one, broadband is a government-sponsored or -subsidized utility in many other parts of the world.

Public or public/private partnerships for broadband are often very successful in the United States, as Lafayette, Chattanooga, and Kansas City show. But they’re very, very hard to get started. Not only do new ventures face logistical and financial hurdles (http://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor-to-comcast-is-basically-impossible/), but also legal ones. Incumbent ISPs, especially AT&T, have successfully sponsored or lobbied for state level laws that prohibit the construction or expansion (http://consumerist.com/2014/08/28/how-isps-compete-with-municipal-networks-lobbying-and-campaign-donations-that-block-them/) of municipal broadband projects.

The other major factor is related, and it’s competition. Or, more specifically, the complete lack of it (http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/fcc-chair-admits-there-is-nowhere-near-enough-broadband-competition/). In most U.S. cities (http://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/), customers seeking high-speed internet don’t really have a choice of what provider to go with. For connections faster than 25 Mbps, over 80% of us can go with, at most, one provider.

Big telecom companies are nominally expanding their gigabit fiber networks (http://consumerist.com/2014/08/22/two-big-reasons-cnn-money-is-only-half-right-about-gigabit-broadband-expansion/), but they aren’t there yet and it will be a long, slow slog before they are. And without competition, they aren’t really motivated to. Incumbent ISPs are more likely to pretend everything is great (http://consumerist.com/2014/09/23/comcast-keeps-claiming-competition-abounds-despite-mountains-of-evidence-from-planet-reality/) and rigging the rules in their favor (http://consumerist.com/2014/02/12/cable-lobby-continues-to-work-hard-to-make-sure-youre-stuck-with-their-crappy-broadband/) than they are actually to spend the time and money it takes to make wide-scale change.

http://consumerist.com/2014/10/31/study-broadband-still-slower-more-expensive-in-u-s-than-in-europe-asia/

and see above, eg, TX actually has a fucking LAW that prevents taxpayer-funded municipal networks (eg, city-owned CPS Energy) from using their fiber networks for residential/commercial Internet access.

[boutons_deux]

and here's all y'alls HATED "cheese eating surrender monkeys" do broadband in a "heavily socialized democracy":

"In metropolitan France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), intense competition between Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) service providers has led to the introduction of moderately-priced high speed ADSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSL) up to 28 Mbit/s (ATM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_Transfer_Mode)), VDSL2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL2) up to 100 Mbit/s, and FTTX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTTX) up to 1 Gbit/s for €29,90 per month. (less than US$40)

They often include other services such as unlimited free VoIP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_IP) telephone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone) communications to land lines, and digital television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_France

[ChumpDumper]

How many people truly need broadband over like 100mbps at this time, and how much should that be subsidized by the government?

[boutons_deux]

How many people truly need broadband over like 100mbps at this time, and how much should that be subsidized by the government?

How many people NEEDED, or even wanted, or even imagined, Internet, or cellphones, before they were available?

In another thread, we see SA city govt spending $Bs for the future of SA region's water while raising water rates by 15%+, with one of the main reasons being retaining/attracting businesses and jobs.

Why not spend $Bs for the San Antonio's future of high speed residential/commercial Internet? Information via Internet has progressed to be as "human right-y" as water.

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't answer the question.

What is even available that uses a full gigabit of bandwidth?

[ChumpDumper]

Why not spend $Bs for the San Antonio's future of high speed residential/commercial Internet? Information via Internet has progressed to be as "human right-y" as water.I think 3mbps for $20 a month really isn't really an impassable barrier.

Hell, a lot of people could just tether their phones to a computer if they feel too oppressed to pay for two ISPs.

[boutons_deux]

You didn't answer the question.

What is even available that uses a full gigabit of bandwidth?

my answer was that higher speeds will create "needs" (who "needed" a cellphone? who "needed" internet? before 1990) and opportunities (like getting video content from other that cable TV cartels)

[ChumpDumper]

my answer was that higher speeds will create "needs" (who "needed" a cellphone? who "needed" internet? before 1990) and opportunities (like getting video content from other that cable TV cartels)So your answer is no one really needs that kind of bandwidth, especially subsidized by the government.

Here in Austin, I will leave it to the four companies fighting each other to provide broadband here. Maybe the government could build a proper interchange in town for once. I want zero dollars here going to subsidizing broadband.

[boutons_deux]

So your answer is no one really needs that kind of bandwidth, especially subsidized by the government.

Here in Austin, I will leave it to the four companies fighting each other to provide broadband here. Maybe the government could build a proper interchange in town for once. I want zero dollars here going to subsidizing broadband.

TX gives about $20B/year to business.

Why not kill the law, (Repugs HATE laws and regulations and govt), preventing municipal fiber nets from residential/commercial access and sending some of that $20B into municipal networks?

[ChumpDumper]

TX gives about $20B/year to business.

Why not kill the law, (Repugs HATE laws and regulations and govt), preventing municipal fiber nets from residential/commercial access and sending some of that $20B into municipal networks?Why not put the money into actual infrastructure?

We have four companies competing to provide broadband here, and so will San Antonio.

There doesn't need to be municipal programs in either. I can see that in some areas where the companies wouldn't make any money providing broadband and people have to wait for their dialup porn, not otherwise.

[boutons_deux]

Why not put the money into actual infrastructure?

We have four companies competing to provide broadband here, and so will San Antonio.

There doesn't need to be municipal programs in either. I can see that in some areas where the companies wouldn't make any money providing broadband and people have to wait for their dialup porn, not otherwise.

fiber to residences/businesses IS "actual infrastructure"

[ChumpDumper]

fiber to residences/businesses IS "actual infrastructure"Yep, and three of the four companies here are doing that. And coax is still capable of delivering comparable speeds -- which I find kind of crazy.

In fact I think government already has a tool to force cable companies into providing faster speeds through their granting of monopolies and regulation thereof. Getting taxpayers to foot the bill for an entire fiber network is pretty dumb when a serviceable network already exists.

[boutons_deux]

Getting taxpayers to foot the bill for an entire fiber network is pretty dumb when a serviceable network already exists.

electricity buyers in SA have already "footed the bill" for CPS's fiber network.

[ChumpDumper]

electricity buyers in SA have already "footed the bill" for CPS's fiber network.Too bad. Google, ATT, Grande and TWC are all bringing high speed broadband there next year. You will not be able to complain about a lack of competition.

[boutons_deux]

Too bad. Google, ATT, Grande and TWC are all bringing high speed broadband there next year. You will not be able to complain about a lack of competition.

I were a gambler, I'd bet nobody will be offering me gigabit Internet for $50 in 2015, or in 2020.

btw, I live inside 410 and ATT can't deliver VDSL, 5 up / 25 down, even with bonding two lines.

[ChumpDumper]

I were a gambler, I'd bet nobody will be offering me gigabit Internet for $50 in 2015, or in 2020.If you can't afford $80, you aren't doing anything that requires gigabit.


btw, I live inside 410 and ATT can't deliver VDSL, 5 up / 25 down, even with bonding two lines.So buy from one of their competitors until they get fiber there.

[boutons_deux]

If you can't afford $80, you aren't doing anything that requires gigabit.

So buy from one of their competitors until they get fiber there.

Nobody will offer me gigagbit Internet for $80, or $100, in 2015, and very probably not in 2020.

I have grandecom 25/5 now, was looking to save money with ATT. no deal.

You're "nobody needs gigabit" is pure bullshit. why is it available in other countries and NOT in USA? because the govt allows cartels to screw customers with shittiest possible service for highest price.

and btw, same holds true for US vs other countries cellphones speeds and prices.

[ChumpDumper]

Nobody will offer me gigagbit Internet for $80, or $100, in 2015, and very probably not in 2020.

I have grandecom 25/5 now, was looking to save money with ATT. no deal.

You're "nobody needs gigabit" is pure bullshit. why is it available in other countries and NOT in USA? because the govt allows cartels to screw customers with shittiest possible service for highest price.

and btw, same holds true for US vs other countries cellphones speeds and prices.So what do you personally need gigabit for?

What do the people with gigabit already use it for?

[boutons_deux]

So what do you personally need gigabit for?

What do the people with gigabit already use it for?

I've cancelled my grandedom internet cable and now use a 14.4 modem like 20 years ago.

You'll have to ask people, or google, what users with gigabit internet use it for. I'd like to watch video in true, uninterruped, unpaused HD. and if 100M people had gigabit, I'm SURE there'd be a revolution in video delivery, and very probably an unbundling so I could pay only for what I watch and not for VHF, E!, MTA, Lifetime, Hallmark, disney, family, etc.

[TeyshaBlue]

Fuck dude...at least go 56k. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I've cancelled my grandedom internet cable and now use a 14.4 modem like 20 years ago. That's incredibly sad. There are several options out there to get wifi hotposts if nothing else.


You'll have to ask people, or google, what users with gigabit internet use it for. I'd like to watch video in true, uninterruped, unpaused HD. and if 100M people had gigabit, I'm SURE there'd be a revolution in video delivery, and very probably an unbundling so I could pay only for what I watch and not for VHF, E!, MTA, Lifetime, Hallmark, disney, family, etc.Unbundling is already happening.

Only about 50mbps is required to deliver blu-ray quality compressed 1080p, and the new codecs seem to be poised to deliver 4k at around the same bandwidth.

300mpbs is probably going to be in your neck of the woods next year, so you'll get a chance to see what you really need.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's incredibly sad. There are several options out there to get wifi hotposts if nothing else.

Unbundling is already happening.

Only about 50mbps is required to deliver blu-ray quality compressed 1080p, and the new codecs seem to be poised to deliver 4k at around the same bandwidth.

300mpbs is probably going to be in your neck of the woods next year, so you'll get a chance to see what you really need.

He's a communist sans violent revolution. He doesn't believe in the wait and see approach to market intervention. I question how much he believes in a mixed economy at all.

[ElNono]

Only about 50mbps is required to deliver blu-ray quality compressed 1080p, and the new codecs seem to be poised to deliver 4k at around the same bandwidth.

You actually need less than that for HD... per Neflix, about 5-12 for HD. 4k with the latest HEVC is in the 30-50 range.

The thing is, it's cumulative. 3 4k streams = 150 Mbps, plus whatever other internet usage you might have. This could be a typical usage on a middle-class home in 5-10 years.

Businesses do have better reasons for gigabit availability now. Remote backups, replication, video/photo asset transfers, etc. We're a small shop and we moved everything internally to gigabit a long time ago, the difference between a 50 min vs 5 min data transfer saves us time and money. We have 100/100 fiber service, and we do max it out here and there.

As scott mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a competitive factor too associated with knowing your infrastructure is future proof and at a competitive price.

[ChumpDumper]

You actually need less than that for HD... per Neflix, about 5-12 for HD. Sure, you can make it lossy -- that's why I used blu-ray as a standard. I assume people will get more sophisticated about things like bitrate soon enough.

I agree about the business side and remote backups. I can see that being a great driver to push fiber networks, but that would make a municipal system even more of a subsidy for big businesses.

[Wild Cobra]

Comparing to Netflix...

Netflix is OK, but that's it. If I'm going to stream 4K, we need much better than comparing to Netflix data rates, or I think its worthless.

[TDMVPDPOY]

You actually need less than that for HD... per Neflix, about 5-12 for HD. 4k with the latest HEVC is in the 30-50 range.

The thing is, it's cumulative. 3 4k streams = 150 Mbps, plus whatever other internet usage you might have. This could be a typical usage on a middle-class home in 5-10 years.

Businesses do have better reasons for gigabit availability now. Remote backups, replication, video/photo asset transfers, etc. We're a small shop and we moved everything internally to gigabit a long time ago, the difference between a 50 min vs 5 min data transfer saves us time and money. We have 100/100 fiber service, and we do max it out here and there.

As scott mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a competitive factor too associated with knowing your infrastructure is future proof and at a competitive price.

the dog of a **** who owns most of the media in america, is he streaming HD/4k content? or is it still watered down SD content? u know the same fkn dog that also owns media down here still wont upgrade his infrastructure to meet demand and continue to stream dumb down content to brainwashed the masses with low IQ shows, while everyone has switch to hd/4k tvs yet watchin sd content :(

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody will offer me gigagbit Internet for $80, or $100, in 2015, and very probably not in 2020.

I have grandecom 25/5 now, was looking to save money with ATT. no deal.

You're "nobody needs gigabit" is pure bullshit. why is it available in other countries and NOT in USA? because the govt allows cartels to screw customers with shittiest possible service for highest price.

and btw, same holds true for US vs other countries cellphones speeds and prices.

You are welcome to move to a different country.

[Wild Cobra]

It pains me to say this, but I agree with Chump on this issue. At least his latest posts.

[ElNono]

Sure, you can make it lossy -- that's why I used blu-ray as a standard. I assume people will get more sophisticated about things like bitrate soon enough.

I agree about the business side and remote backups. I can see that being a great driver to push fiber networks, but that would make a municipal system even more of a subsidy for big businesses.

It's just that at 1080p, the 'high quality' version is already 7.5kpbs video, 128kbps audio, that adds up to 8Mbps... You could go up to 320kbps audio for special content (ie: concerts) and that will put you at about 12Mbps... unlike DVDs, Superbit is basically unused in HD. That's top of the line for HD. Next jump up is 4k.

The reality is that broadcast HD is not even 1080p, it's either 720p or 1080i. While most shows are probably recorded at 1080p, you don't get to that quality until they release a bluray at the end of the season, if at all. That's why outside of movies, I don't see 4k really hitting it big for another 5-10 years. The cable infrastructure has problems dealing with HD as it is (horrible compression on a lot of channels), I don't think 4k has been broadcast OTA yet in the US, and fiber is really the only way you could keep the current model (4 gazillion TV channels + internet) running smoothly.

Obviously, I'm hoping we can see a shift on the current model, and more a la carte stuff, but not holding my breath on that seeing the cash cows that would need to die in the process.

[ChumpDumper]

It's just that at 1080p, the 'high quality' version is already 7.5kpbs video, 128kbps audio, that adds up to 8Mbps... You could go up to 320kbps audio for special content (ie: concerts) and that will put you at about 12Mbps... unlike DVDs, Superbit is basically unused in HD. That's top of the line for HD. Next jump up is 4k.Right, those are all lossy numbers. I guess it just depends on whether customers are going to care about resolution over bitrate in the future.


The reality is that broadcast HD is not even 1080p, it's either 720p or 1080i. While most shows are probably recorded at 1080p, you don't get to that quality until they release a bluray at the end of the season, if at all. That's why outside of movies, I don't see 4k really hitting it big for another 5-10 years. The cable infrastructure has problems dealing with HD as it is (horrible compression on a lot of channels), I don't think 4k has been broadcast OTA yet in the US, and fiber is really the only way you could keep the current model (4 gazillion TV channels + internet) running smoothly.I think cable will wring the most possible out of the coax infrastructire. The last arrows in the quiver are getting rid of all the analog signal, switched digital video and seeing what hardware makers can get out of docsis 3. Theoretically they say they can get a gigabit out of it. After that, a cable companies with hybrid systems can start building out fiber from their nodes to houses in urban centers while rural areas still get something decent.


Obviously, I'm hoping we can see a shift on the current model, and more a la carte stuff, but not holding my breath on that seeing the cash cows that would need to die in the process.It's funny because Google is offering the least choice of all when it comes to video content, but HBO seems to have gotten the ball rolling on stand alone services. It's going to be interesting if Comcast starts playing real hardball with its content

[ElNono]

Right, those are all lossy numbers. I guess it just depends on whether customers are going to care about resolution over bitrate in the future.

I don't think we'll ever see streams in non-lossy H264 or HEVC. It's simply a waste of bandwidth. Psychovisually, it's extremely hard to tell the difference at high bitrates, especially in the 1080p (H264) case, since the resolution is (relatively speaking) small. You can tell the difference both on motion and spatial compression from a 3kbps video to 5kbps video, but going from 7 to 20, it's almost negligible. The problem with lossless is that bandwidth really goes way up. HEVC for example, in lossless mode, can only compress the stream at about 7% on average. H264 has the same problem. It's very inefficient for distribution. As an archival format, it's probably ok.

Nowadays, iTunes streams the highest quality 1080p HD, and it's 5kbps tops (Netflix is at 4.5kbps tops). There's room for them to go to twice the bitrate, but past 7-8 kbps, don't expect to see much difference.


I think cable will wring the most possible out of the coax infrastructire. The last arrows in the quiver are getting rid of all the analog signal, switched digital video and seeing what hardware makers can get out of docsis 3. Theoretically they say they can get a gigabit out of it. After that, a cable companies with hybrid systems can start building out fiber from their nodes to houses in urban centers while rural areas still get something decent.

Docsis 3 can do a gigabit down IIRC (250 up), but the cable runs have to be a lot shorter. Switched video has really been their savior, because what they do is just stream the channels you're watching/recording instead of every channel. But that also means they have to upgrade their infrastructure, and a lot of times they only do it on major metros because somebody else is competing, otherwise they don't give a crap and stream super compressed shit.

I'm with you, they're going to fight till they drop dead to keep milking the copper lines, but that's what I like about fiber going mainstream, it will force them to eventually catch up and move on.


It's funny because Google is offering the least choice of all when it comes to video content, but HBO seems to have gotten the ball rolling on stand alone services. It's going to be interesting if Comcast starts playing real hardball with its content

It's coming, IMO. Netflix went mainstream, Hulu is there, Amazon with their Prime thing gives you a good deal for movies, iTunes, NBA League Pass is everywhere now, HBO is joining the competition... once NFL and a couple more channels start streaming, watch out.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if theres one **** of a human to blame, u know who to blame..fkn mutt owns alot of media shit

the same fkn mutt who wont beam HD content 1080, instead force to watch scaled down SD crap

this fkn clown doesnt want to upgrade infrastructure when everyone is buying hd/4k tvs

the same fkn mutt that doesnt want competition down here cause he wants to be the first to set it up for no competition then asking govt to regulate

[Winehole23]

underserved communities appeal to the FCC:


Tullahoma is just one battlefront in a nationwide war that the telecommunications giants are fighting against the spread of municipal broadband networks. For more than a decade, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. have spent millions of dollars to lobby state legislatures, influence state elections and buy research to try to stop the spread of public Internet services that often offer faster speeds at cheaper rates.


The companies have succeeded in getting laws passed in 20 states that ban or restrict municipalities from offering Internet to residents.


Now the fight has gone national. The Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C., is considering requests from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, to pre-empt state laws that block municipalities from building or expanding broadband networks, hindering economic growth, the cities argue.


If the FCC rules in favor of the cities, and the ruling survives any legal challenges, municipalities nationwide will be free to offer high-speed Internet to residents when they aren’t satisfied with the service provided by private telecommunications companies.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband

[Winehole23]

Obama to push the FCC to preempt laws that ban municipal broadband:

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7546865/obama-municipal-broadband-fcc

[Winehole23]

Chattanooga has been joined in recent years by a handful of other American cities that have experimented with municipally owned fiber-optic networks that offer the fastest Internet connections. Lafayette, La., and Bristol, Va., have also built gigabit networks. Google is building privately owned fiber systems in Kansas City, Kan.; Kansas City, Mo.; and Austin, Tex., and it recently bought a dormant fiber network in Provo, Utah.


The systems are the leading edge of a push for ever-faster Internet and telecommunications infrastructure in a country that badly lags much of the world in the speed and costs of Web connections. Telecommunications specialists say that if the United States does not keep its networks advancing with those in the rest of the world, innovation, business, education and a host of other pursuits could suffer.


Even so, few people, including many who support the systems, argue that everyone in the country now needs a one-gigabit home connection. Much of the public seems to agree. According to Federal Communications Commission statistics, of the households where service of at least 100 megabits per second was available (one-tenth as fast as a gigabit), only 0.12 percent subscribed at the end of 2012. In Chattanooga, one-third of the households and businesses that get electric power from EPB also subscribe to Internet service of at least 100 megabits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/technology/fast-internet-service-speeds-business-development-in-chattanooga.html?_r=0

[Winehole23]

Some specialists say the low subscriber and employment numbers are not surprising or significant, at least in the short term. “The search for statistical validation of these projects is not going to turn up anything meaningful,” said Blair Levin, executive director of Gig.U, a high-speed Internet project that includes more than three dozen American research universities. Mr. Levin cited “Solow’s paradox,” the 1987 observation by Robert M. Solow, a recipient of the Nobel in economic science who wrote that “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”


Such is the case with many new technologies, Mr. Levin said. No one is going to design products that can run only on a one-gigabit-per-second network if no such networks exist, he said. But put a few in place, he added, and soon the supply of applications will drive a growing demand for the faster connections.

same

[ChumpDumper]

So there's a bunch of countries that do have broadband infrastructure faster than that of the US.

What new higher speed services have those systems produced?

4K Netflix is assumed to require about 15Mbps. I'm trying to think of what would require more.

I agree the FCC should bump the definition of broadband up to at least 10Mbps if not more, and that kind of speed should be available everywhere -- through public means if private means aren't feasible -- but I don't get the super speed envy at this point.

[boutons_deux]

why did we bother up upgrade from 14.4 Kb/s to DSL and cable? As Bill Gates would say "14.4 Kb/sec is all anybody will every need"

why didn't we just stream youtube, hulu, movies, etc over 14.4 modems?

[cantthinkofanything]

why did we bother up upgrade from 14.4 Kb/s to DSL and cable? As Bill Gates would say "14.4 Kb/sec is all anybody will every need"

why didn't we just stream youtube, hulu, movies, etc over 14.4 modems?

http://sabdogcareco.webs.com/photos/Animals/Cat%20wit%20rubix%20cube%20thing.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

why did we bother up upgrade from 14.4 Kb/s to DSL and cable? As Bill Gates would say "14.4 Kb/sec is all anybody will every need"

why didn't we just stream youtube, hulu, movies, etc over 14.4 modems?Because we can't. I'm talking about a 10Mbps federal floor and that level or whatever higher floor local governments want to require. i would prefer everyone have the kinds of options we have in Austin.

I will ask you directly -- what services have other countries with better broadband developed that hasn't been done in the US?

You say we are so far behind -- what exactly are we missing?

[cantthinkofanything]

Because we can't. I'm talking about a 10Mbps federal floor and that level or whatever higher floor local governments want to require. i would prefer everyone have the kinds of options we have in Austin.

I will ask you directly -- what services have other countries with better broadband developed that hasn't been done in the US?

You say we are so far behind -- what exactly are we missing?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cA7g7VVEcDs/TgabAF16_FI/AAAAAAAAWTI/pAEGv_4OxBk/s1600/smart+asian.jpg

[boutons_deux]

google has some ideas, like "less compression" so higher quality video

https://fiber.google.com/about/

can you really be this stupid? 25 Mb/s down for $70/month or 1 Gb/s down for $70 or less? which would you choose.

[cantthinkofanything]

google has some ideas, like "less compression" so higher quality video

https://fiber.google.com/about/

can you really be this stupid? 25 Mb/s down for $70/month or 1 Gb/s down for $70 or less? which would you choose.

you're a victim of the decoy effect

Decoy effect is a very effective and powerful psychological technique that marketing companies use to take advantage of the loopholes in our brain. The decoy effect is the phenomenon whereby consumers will tend to have a specific change in preference between two options when also presented with a third option that is asymmetrically dominated.

So, Lets assume there’s a movie theatre selling popcorn.
Small……..$3.00
Large……..$7.00
Nearly, every person bought the small. When asked why, they said they felt $7 is tad too costly for a popcorn (http://all-funny.info/the-microwave-oven-was-invented-by-accident).
Now after employing decoy effect, a median size “medium” was introduced (its sole purpose being a tool for comparison – that is, a decoy)
Small……..$3.00
Medium…..$6.50
Large………$7.00
and these were the revised prices
http://all-funny.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/popcorn.jpg (http://all-funny.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/popcorn.jpg)
Now, everyone bought the large because they felt large is reasonable because it is only 50 cents more than the medium.
Now, this is how decoy effect works : it’s how marketers take advantage of comparison shoppers. They sell multiple products with features and prices that will steer you to the one they really want to sell you.
All you have to do is stroll through a grocery store to see this happen again and again with different sizes of products and different prices. “I can get 24 cookies for $3 or 48 cookies for $5… but look over there, that bag of cookies has 36 cookies for $4.50. This 48 cookie bag is a real bargain!”
If you notice keenly, they exploit this “comparison” loophole of our brain to sell the exact thing they want and what we don’t actually need.
Large pizzas, 1/2 kg flour, pen drives with extra storage.. They even use this technique for election campaigning.
Its really amazing how our brain can interpret differently if it just has a comparison medium. The decoy.

[ChumpDumper]

google has some ideas, like "less compression" so higher quality video

https://fiber.google.com/about/

can you really be this stupid? 25 Mb/s down for $70/month or 1 Gb/s down for $70 or less? which would you choose.Less compression than what?

AT&T?

That wouldn't be difficult.

Cable doesn't use internet bandwidth for video like Google and AT&T, so I don't know how the compression compares. I do know that Google limits the number of TV boxes that any one residence can use because of this, so it can't be super high.

I said I am completely fine with private competition. It's happening here in Austin.

[ElNono]

So there's a bunch of countries that do have broadband infrastructure faster than that of the US.

What new higher speed services have those systems produced?

4K Netflix is assumed to require about 15Mbps. I'm trying to think of what would require more.

I agree the FCC should bump the definition of broadband up to at least 10Mbps if not more, and that kind of speed should be available everywhere -- through public means if private means aren't feasible -- but I don't get the super speed envy at this point.

Business uses, and it's not just the Amazon of the world. For example, EHR/EMR system nowadays are mandated by government, and they can use a good chunk of bandwidth (including electronic scanning of documents, streaming, etc). The mandate is pretty new, and almost every doctor office has to comply. Back in the day, when only hospitals had to deal with this stuff, they would purchase a point-to-point OC3, but nowadays the demand is only gonna get higher since it applies to every practice, and the reality is that in a lot of places, the ISPs are working at capacity, with no intention of expanding because there's no competition, so no incentive for them to invest in the infrastructure (plus they rather sell a high bandwidth, custom point-to-point like in the past, even if it's old tech at this point).

These days, you can even include DICOM files from MRIs digitally, but they're pretty big and unless you have solid bandwidth, it's been prohibitive to upload and share. Hopefully, the advent of faster bandwidth at cheaper rates will now allow doctors to have access to such tests, be able to play with them first hand, and make better decisions. That's just one example (one that I'm fairly familiar with).

[Wild Cobra]

why did we bother up upgrade from 14.4 Kb/s to DSL and cable? As Bill Gates would say "14.4 Kb/sec is all anybody will every need"

why didn't we just stream youtube, hulu, movies, etc over 14.4 modems?

Yep. And who could ever need more than 64K memory?

[ChumpDumper]

Business uses, and it's not just the Amazon of the world. For example, EHR/EMR system nowadays are mandated by government, and they can use a good chunk of bandwidth (including electronic scanning of documents, streaming, etc). The mandate is pretty new, and almost every doctor office has to comply. Back in the day, when only hospitals had to deal with this stuff, they would purchase a point-to-point OC3, but nowadays the demand is only gonna get higher since it applies to every practice, and the reality is that in a lot of places, the ISPs are working at capacity, with no intention of expanding because there's no competition, so no incentive for them to invest in the infrastructure (plus they rather sell a high bandwidth, custom point-to-point like in the past, even if it's old tech at this point).

These days, you can even include DICOM files from MRIs digitally, but they're pretty big and unless you have solid bandwidth, it's been prohibitive to upload and share. Hopefully, the advent of faster bandwidth at cheaper rates will now allow doctors to have access to such tests, be able to play with them first hand, and make better decisions. That's just one example (one that I'm fairly familiar with).I'm talking more residential users, but I get your meaning. Truly universal broadband is going to revolutionize and completely disrupt the practice of medicine. And I continue to wonder why local governments just can't end the monopolies they granted to introduce competition in potentially profitable markets.

[ElNono]

I'm talking more residential users, but I get your meaning. Truly universal broadband is going to revolutionize and completely disrupt the practice of medicine. And I continue to wonder why local governments just can't end the monopolies they granted to introduce competition in potentially profitable markets.

yeah, a lot of stuff just isn't done right now because it's either cost-prohibitive or technology hasn't spread out enough yet (the latter largely in part thanks to such monopolies). Lots of cloud services are waiting in the wings and banking on the eventual infrastructure upgrade (for example, Adobe and it's Creative Cloud suite. I'm sure they would love to sell you cloud storage for your RAW images, but at current speeds it's impractical).

[spurraider21]

Yep. And who could ever need more than 64K memory?
:lol i remember when computer hard drives first hit 1 GB and that was considered monstrous/overkill

[boutons_deux]

Congress Lines Up FCC Commissioners-Turned-Lobbyists For Hearing To Say Why Congress’s Bad Net Neutrality Proposal Is Great

The first section of the bill starts out with the actual open internet rule. It specifies that, subject to reasonable network management, broadband providers:


may not block lawful content, applications, or services
may not prohibit the use of non-harmful devices
may not throttle lawful traffic by slectively slowing, speeding, degrading, or enhancing traffic based on source, destination, or content
may not engage in paid prioritization


That sounds like a lot of the FCC’s stated goals, but as analysts at Public Knowledge have pointed out (https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-expresses-strong-concerns-about-sen.-thunes-net-neutrality-discussion-draft), the proposal is written in such a way as to leave tons of loopholes for ISPs to engage in bad behavior in the future.

But the proposed draft bill then goes farther, and explicitly removes the authority of the FCC to regulate internet openness at all.

The text rigidly defines broadband as an information service, then forbids regulators from using either Section 706 or Title II of the Communications Act — the two options the FCC has before it — to regulate broadband.

And among the expert witnesses the House Commerce Committee is calling to testify on the best way to protect and promote an open internet are Michael Powell and Meredith Attwell Baker.

We have written about both before. Powell (son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell) was oncechairman of the FCC (http://consumerist.com/2013/10/24/former-fcc-chair-urges-cable-companies-to-hurry-up-implement-data-caps-and-usage-based-pricing/), the position currently held by Tom Wheeler. He is now the president and CEO of the NCTA, the trade and lobbying association that represents cable and telecom companies like Comcast and Verizon.

The NCTA this year has been very busy astroturfing (http://consumerist.com/2014/10/23/heres-the-latest-bit-of-astroturfing-from-the-cable-industry-about-broadband-speeds/) and publishing op-eds (http://consumerist.com/2014/06/06/op-eds-in-favor-of-cable-company-fckery-are-bought-paid-for-by-cable-industry/) about why we don’t need net neutrality. He’s also the one who admitted (http://consumerist.com/2013/01/18/cable-industry-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion/) that usage-based pricing and data caps aren’t about alleviating network congestion, but instead are about making more money.

Baker also once was an FCC commissioner. She was one of the four commissioners (of five) who voted in 2011 to allow Comcast to purchase NBCUniversal … after which she promptly accepted a cushy new job with the newly merged Comcast/NBCU (http://consumerist.com/2011/05/11/fcc-commissioner-approves-comcast-deal-leaves-fcc-to-go-work-for-comcast/).

Baker is no longer with Comcast. Instead, she took over as the president and CEO of the CTIA — the wireless industry’s answer to Powell’s NCTA. The CTIA has funded some of the same odious op-ed arguments (http://consumerist.com/2014/06/06/op-eds-in-favor-of-cable-company-fckery-are-bought-paid-for-by-cable-industry/) that its wired peer has engaged in this year.

http://consumerist.com/2015/01/16/congress-lines-up-fcc-commissioners-turned-lobbyists-for-hearing-to-say-why-congresss-bad-net-neutrality-proposal-is-great/

yawn, iow, all y'all's lovely Repug politicians intend to protect/enrich the industry and allow it to screw consumers, with consumers having NO RECOURSE or defense.

Pro-Business is ALWAYS anti-consumer, anti-employee.

[ElNono]

Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

Responding to the FCC's proposal to raise the definition of broadband from 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chair-broadband-must-be-25mbps-and-isps-are-failing-to-deliver/), the lobby group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_group) known as the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) wrote in an FCC filing Thursday (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001015613) that 25Mbps/3Mbps isn't necessary for ordinary people (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/no-need-for-speed-cable-industry-opposes-25mbps-broadband-definition/). The lobby alleges that hypothetical use cases offered for showing the need for 25Mbps/3Mbps "dramatically exaggerate the amount of bandwidth needed by the typical broadband user", referring to parties in favor of the increase like Netflix and Public Knowledge (https://www.publicknowledge.org/). Verizon, for its part, is also lobbying against a faster broadband definition. Much of its territory is still stuck on DSL which is far less capable of 25Mbps/3Mbps speeds than cable technology.

The FCC presently defines broadband as 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up, a definition that hasn't changed since 2010. By comparison, people in Sweden can pay about $40 a month for 100/100 mbps, choosing between more than a dozen competing providers (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/08/1543208/why-america-wont-match-swedens-cheap-fast-competitive-internet-services). The FCC is under mandate to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the commission must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition's speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws (http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/fcc-gets-its-chance-to-overturn-state-limits-on-broadband-competition/) that restrict municipal broadband projects.

[boutons_deux]

Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition
The FCC is under mandate to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the commission must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition's speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws (http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/fcc-gets-its-chance-to-overturn-state-limits-on-broadband-competition/) that restrict municipal broadband projects.

very cool move by FCC, and good omen for FCC deciding to move internet as regulated under Title II.

Good ol' BigCorp, especially monopoly or cartel, never met a customer it wouldn't screw with highest possible price for shittiest possible service.

One of the great advantages the establishment spewing that USA is The Greatest Country In The Universe, EVER!, is that the American sheeple blindly believe it, and don't bother to compare how better off other industrial countries are in so many ways.

[cantthinkofanything]

very cool move by FCC, and good omen for FCC deciding to move internet as regulated under Title II.

Good ol' BigCorp, especially monopoly or cartel, never met a customer it wouldn't screw with highest possible price for shittiest possible service.

One of the great advantages the establishment spewing that USA is The Greatest Country In The Universe, EVER!, is that the American sheeple blindly believe it, and don't bother to compare how better off other industrial countries are in so many ways.





http://sleepcity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/confused-girl1.jpg

[ElNono]

FCC Officially Approves Change In the Definition of Broadband

As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband (http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps) by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access. Currently, 6.3 percent of US households don't have access to broadband under the previous 4Mpbs/1Mbps threshold, while another 13.1 percent don't have access to broadband under the new 25Mbps downstream threshold.

[boutons_deux]

Internet under Title II is looking really good

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble Fiber

[cantthinkofanything]

Internet under Title II is looking really good

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble Fiber

http://www.drjoetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/confused-man.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Internet under Title II is looking really good

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble FiberThat was interesting. May have had doubts about the buildout. Fortunately I don't think ATT and Time Warner are going to change their plans to upgrade speeds in SA, so pretty much the entire city will have at least 300mbps available when they are done, with 1 gig from ATT and Grande where people can pay apparently.

[boutons_deux]

Decades Of Failed Promises From Verizon: It Promises Fiber To Get Tax Breaks... Then Never Delivers

A decade ago, we wrote about how Verizon had made an agreement in Pennsylvania in 1994 (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030718/1052250.shtml) that it would wire up the state with fiber optic cables to every home in exchange for tax breaks equalling $2.1 billion. In exchange for such a massive tax break, Verizon promised that all homes and businesses would have access to 45Mbps symmetrical fiber by 2015. By 2004, the deal was that 50% of all homes were supposed to have that. In reality, 0% did, and some people started asking for their money back (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040202/2136213.shtml). That never happened, and it appeared that Verizon learned a valuable lesson: it can flat out lie to governments, promise 100% fiber coverage in exchange for subsidies, then not deliver, and no one will do a damn thing about it.

Because here we are about a decade later, and basically the same damn thing has happened in New York City (http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4819790/verizon-fios-contract-new-york-city-deadline-nears-cant-get-internet). At least this time, Verizon actually had a fiber service to offer -- the well-known FiOS -- which it "promised" to cover 100% of NYC by 2014. Back when that was announced in 2008, Karl Bode at BroadbandReports correctly warned that you should take that promise with a large grain of salt (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Promises-100-NYC-FiOS-Coverage-By-2014-94001), both because of Verizon's past failures to live up to promises, as well as the loopholes hidden in the agreement.

It looks like he was right on both accounts. As the account (linked above) at the Verge notes, the language actually is that Verizon just needs to "pass all households," which is interpreted loosely:


There were a lot of caveats in the contract, however. Verizon is only required to "pass all households," a vague term that means the fiber need to extend "to a point from which the building can be connected to the network." Verizon is not obligated to make that connection, however. As a result, the company is now claiming around 75 percent accessibility, even though the number of New Yorkers who can actually sign up for FiOS is probably much lower. A study by public advocate Bill de Blasio concluded that just 51 percent (http://advocate.nyc.gov/verizon) of households in New York have fiber access. The city and Verizon dispute these figures (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130426/BLOGS04/130429895).

Verizon is blaming landlords, but as the Verge points out, when someone made a big stink on the radio recently about the lack of FiOS in his apartment, Verizon contacted him the very next day, and had service at his apartment within 3 weeks.

The simple fact is that Verizon has been trying its damnest to get out of the wired business altogether.

Back when Ivan Seidenberg was in charge, he made a giant bet (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030725/1524210.shtml) on fiber, which is why Verizon became such a national leader in broadband with FiOS -- a service that people really seem to love.

However, Wall Street has always hated it, because it's capital intensive, and Wall St. recognizes that without any real competition in the broadband space, Verizon can avoid investing in such infrastructure upgrades, and just swim in larger profits while America's broadband infrastructure suffers and falls further and further behind other countries. Once Seidenberg left, the beancounters quickly took over and looked for ways to stop all that investment (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100312/1855128547.shtml). Why invest in the future if there are no competitors to push you to do so?

The fact that Verizon had made this big deal with NYC? Well, Verizon knows it doesn't need to care because it doesn't appear that the NYC government cares at all. The most telling part of the article at the Verge is this tidbit:


The city seems satisfied with how Verizon has held up its end of the bargain. When asked whether Verizon had met its contract obligations, the mayor’s office first asked The Verge what Verizon had said, then referred us to DOITT [the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications], which actually has the contract. DOITT referred us to the mayor’s office. When told that the mayor wasn’t commenting, DOITT suggested we speak with Verizon. When pressed, a spokesperson said, "We just don’t have anything to add here."
Nice work, Verizon: you've fleeced yet another place.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml

:lol Yet another BigCorp given beelyuns in tax breaks and in exchange delivers NOTHING. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble Fiber

May still be hope

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2015/01/30/san-antonio-could-land-google-fiber-before-end-of.html

[boutons_deux]

May still be hope

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2015/01/30/san-antonio-could-land-google-fiber-before-end-of.html

I expect Grandecom's fiber now in San Marcos in some part of SA, and Google Fiber in Austin to be competitive, letting the cable operators be price leaders

https://fiber.google.com/cities/austin/plans/

[cantthinkofanything]

I expect Grandecom's fiber now in San Marcos in some part of SA, and Google Fiber in Austin to be competitive, letting the cable operators be price leaders

https://fiber.google.com/cities/austin/plans/




https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608033770317611769&pid=15.1&P=0

[boutons_deux]

Time Warner Cable's lavish plan to stop city-run Internet in Maine

With municipal broadband movements springing up all over the country, ISPs like Comcast (http://dailydot.com/tags/comcast) and Time Warner Cable (http://dailydot.com/tags/time-warner) face the first real existential threats since both established quasi-monopolies. To counter these threats, ISPs deploy the best weapon of all in American politics: money.

TWC had to say to the Maine lawmakers it brought to a one-night "Winter Policy Conference" last month.

The nation's second-largest cable and Internet provider paid for the hotels and lavish meals (http://pinetreewatchdog.org/time-warner-made-its-case-to-legislators-at-luxury-resort/) of the politicians who attended the conference, which was held in Cape Elizabeth. These lawmakers "were served steak dinners," according to the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting (MCPIR), "and some were put up for the night in rooms that retail for $205 to $355 per night."

TWC "designed this second biannual educational forum to help policymakers and others better understand some of the complex telecommunications issues confronting Maine and the nation." :lol aka LEGAL QUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION :lol


results of a deliberately skewed poll (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1522315-twc-report-final-1-26-14.html#document/p21/a201672):

The answers in the poll’s broadband section made it appear that a majority of the state’s taxpayers do not want to use public funds to support broadband expansion or to “subsidize public entities to compete with private businesses.”


http://www.dailydot.com/politics/time-warner-maine-municipal-broadband-bribery/

Maine's population if 1.3M, a serious threat to TWC, etc.

[boutons_deux]

AT&T Says It Will Match Google Fiber's Speed & Pricing, But Only If You Allow AT&T To Spy On You

After the press release (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/u-verse-with-att-gigapowersm-launches-today-in-cities-across-the-kansas-city-area-300036274.html) gets done insisting that AT&T "moved quickly to bring more competition to the Kansas City area" with a 1 Gbps offering for $70 a month, quadruple asterisked fine print explains that to actually get this $70 price point, you have to agree to opt-in to AT&T's "Gigapower Internet Preferences (https://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB421828&cv=803)" program:


"U-verse High Speed Internet 1Gbps: Internet speeds up to 1Gbps for $70 per month****, includes waiver of equipment, installation and activation fees, and a three year price guarantee...**** U-verse with AT&T GigaPower Premier offer is available with agreement from customer to participate in AT&T Internet Preferences. AT&T may use Web browsing information, like the search terms entered and the Web pages visited, to provide customers with relevant offers and ads tailored to their interests."

Assuming the company's Kansas City pricing mirrors its Austin pricing, if you choose to opt-out of this particular brand of snoopvertising, you'll need to pay $100 a month. That's right: even when faced with real price competition, AT&T can't help but be AT&T -- and try to charge users a $30 premium just to opt-out of a behavioral ad program. AT&T's Internet Preferences FAQ (https://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB421828&cv=803) can't be bothered to detail the technology used, though it's most likely deep packet inspection (you know, the kind of technology small companies like NebuAD and Phorm were absolutely destroyed for using (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/1346251910.shtml)).

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150216/10040130026/att-is-charging-gigapower-broadband-customers-30-premium-if-they-want-to-opt-out-snoopvertising.shtml

$400/year NOT to be deep-packet snooped by ATT

[ChumpDumper]

AT&T Says It Will Match Google Fiber's Speed & Pricing, But Only If You Allow AT&T To Spy On You

After the press release (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/u-verse-with-att-gigapowersm-launches-today-in-cities-across-the-kansas-city-area-300036274.html) gets done insisting that AT&T "moved quickly to bring more competition to the Kansas City area" with a 1 Gbps offering for $70 a month, quadruple asterisked fine print explains that to actually get this $70 price point, you have to agree to opt-in to AT&T's "Gigapower Internet Preferences (https://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB421828&cv=803)" program:


"U-verse High Speed Internet 1Gbps: Internet speeds up to 1Gbps for $70 per month****, includes waiver of equipment, installation and activation fees, and a three year price guarantee...**** U-verse with AT&T GigaPower Premier offer is available with agreement from customer to participate in AT&T Internet Preferences. AT&T may use Web browsing information, like the search terms entered and the Web pages visited, to provide customers with relevant offers and ads tailored to their interests."

Assuming the company's Kansas City pricing mirrors its Austin pricing, if you choose to opt-out of this particular brand of snoopvertising, you'll need to pay $100 a month. That's right: even when faced with real price competition, AT&T can't help but be AT&T -- and try to charge users a $30 premium just to opt-out of a behavioral ad program. AT&T's Internet Preferences FAQ (https://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB421828&cv=803) can't be bothered to detail the technology used, though it's most likely deep packet inspection (you know, the kind of technology small companies like NebuAD and Phorm were absolutely destroyed for using (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/1346251910.shtml)).

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150216/10040130026/att-is-charging-gigapower-broadband-customers-30-premium-if-they-want-to-opt-out-snoopvertising.shtml

$400/year NOT to be deep-packet snooped by ATT


Do you think Google -- an advertising company -- isn't collecting their users' data to customize advertising?

lol

[boutons_deux]

Do you think Google -- an advertising company -- isn't collecting their users' data to customize advertising?

lol

:lol Do you think you are smart?

Google's stuff is free, you can't opt out of Google reading ALL your gmail, chats, phone calls, Drive docs, etc, for any price.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Do you think your are smart?

Google's stuff is free, you can't opt out of Google reading ALL your gmail, chats, phone calls, Drive docs, etc, for any price.Google's internet service is free?

Are you sure about that?

[boutons_deux]

Google's internet service is free?

Are you sure about that?

dumbfuck, of course it's not free.

I'm referring to all the personal info Google (an advertising company) vacuums up from their FREE services to feed into their targeted ads, info that ATT fiber will vacuum up also if you don't pay them $30/month not to.

But I wouldn't trust any BigCorp's word on anything. BigCorp lies as much as CIA. Lying is fundamental to corporate culture.

Pay $30/month to ATT then just try to prove they aren't vacuuming your everything anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

dumbfuck, of course it's not free.

I'm referring to all the personal info Google (an advertising company) vacuums up from their FREE services to feed into their targeted ads, info that ATT fiber will vacuum up also if you don't pay them $30/month not to.Apples and oranges.

If you use Google as an ISP is there any way to opt out of the data collection you describe?


But I wouldn't trust any BigCorp's word on anything. BigCorp lies as much as CIA. Lying is fundamental to corporate culture.

Pay $30/month to ATT then just try to prove they aren't vacuuming your everything anyway.So who is your internet provider?

[boutons_deux]

"If you use Google as an ISP is there any way to opt out of the data collection"

I don't use Google as internet ACCESS provider, but I do use them for Drive, Gmail, Calendar, some chat

"So who is your internet provider?"

grandecom

[ChumpDumper]

"If you use Google as an ISP is there any way to opt out of the data collection"

I don't use Google as internet ACCESS provider, but I do use them for Drive, Gmail, Calendar, some chatBut this thread is about ISPs. If you use Google as an ISP is there any way to opt out of the data collection?

This is an answerable question.


grandecomWhat is their data collection policy?

[boutons_deux]

But this thread is about ISPs. If you use Google as an ISP is there any way to opt out of the data collection?

This is an answerable question.

What is their data collection policy?

I expect Google does deep-packet inspection for their fiber access customers, but I haven't seen it mentioned.

Perhaps ATT raising the issue, vacuumed for free vs. no-vacuum for $30, will cause exposure of Google's policy.

[ChumpDumper]

I expect Google does deep-packet inspection for their fiber access customers, but I haven't seen it mentioned.

Perhaps ATT raising the issue, vacuumed for free vs. no-vacuum for $30, will cause exposure of Google's policy.What is Grande's policy?

[boutons_deux]

What is Grande's policy?

I have no idea, and I bet they wouldn't tell me (truthfully) if I asked.

[ChumpDumper]

I have no idea, and I bet they wouldn't tell me (truthfully) if I asked.Are they a Big Corp?

[boutons_deux]

The state of city-run Internet

the Federal Communications Commission, nation’s top Internet regulator, will vote on whether to overturn a state law that prevents Tennessee cities that operate their own broadband networks from expanding to other towns.

Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, N.C. each filed petitions with the FCC challenging their states’ respective laws. There are almost 400 city-operated broadband networks nationwide. But their expansion is limited because 20 states (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15402/where-states-stand-municipal-broadband) currently restrict the ability of municipalities to offer or expand Internet service.

If the laws are struck down, Jones could look forward to homes and businesses in Manchester hooking into Tullahoma’s network, which is one of the fastest in the world. Tullahoma has been considering doing just that for years, but has been blocked.

Jones has a message for the five FCC commissioners who will vote on pre-empting the state laws.

“I would like for the officials there to actually come to a community such as ours and see what’s happening,” Jones said, tears in her eyes. “It seems like sometimes that we’re almost in a third-world country because we are isolated, we have no voice, … and the [FCC] needs to start getting us all the means we need to get our community to grow.”

The Center for Public Integrity first reported (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/07/24/15148/chattanooga-asks-fcc-help-spreading-broadband) on the requests in July. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler appears amenable to the requests.

Wheeler has repeatedly (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-house-oversight-hearing-testimony)said (http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/fccs-wheeler-wants-eliminate-municipal-broadband-barriers/2014-05-02) he would pre-empt state laws that ban or place barriers on cities that want to build or expand broadband networks if he were asked to do so.



President Obama weighed in on the issue last month in a speech in Cedar Falls, Iowa.\

“If there are state laws in place that prohibit or restrict these community-based broadband efforts,” Obama said, “we should do everything we can to push back against those old laws.”

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/18/16792/state-city-run-internet?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-0080d49b49-100106293&mc_cid=0080d49b49&mc_eid=3b8f64cce8


another case where "supply side" HIGH BARRIER to entry: politicians OWNED by BigISP

[ElNono]

Do you think Google -- an advertising company -- isn't collecting their users' data to customize advertising?

lol

To be fair, Google collects user data only while using Google's services. AT&T on the other hand, wants to collect your entire online activity (places you went to, links you clicked, stuff you bought, etc)...

I suspect they'll have a browser plugin or extension to do that, as HTTPS would preclude from sniffing on the connection.

[ChumpDumper]

To be fair, Google collects user data only while using Google's services. AT&T on the other hand, wants to collect your entire online activity (places you went to, links you clicked, stuff you bought, etc)...

I suspect they'll have a browser plugin or extension to do that, as HTTPS would preclude from sniffing on the connection.
That's a little naive I think. Google pretty much tracks what it wants while you are signed in. And when is one not signed in?

I'm fine with AT&T's being upfront about the whole thing. It's tough to compare services on price alone since Google could just subsidize the crap out of their service without feeling it. Guess I'll learn more when it comes to my neighborhood.

[ElNono]

That's a little naive I think. Google pretty much tracks what it wants while you are signed in. And when is one not signed in?

Actually, they track while you use their services. Signing in or not. Obviously, if an external page has google ads or double-click tracking (one of their companies), then you're obviously tracked too.

But if you actually go to a page without Google services on it (ie: Spurstalk*), then they don't track. Some companies take the time to go through your browsing history, etc, but Google doesn't do that.

I'm not sure what their policy is if you're using Chrome though.

* Spurstalk, while it has no ads, does have chartbeat.com tracking on the main page. I don't know if it's merely to catch usage metrics, or if they monetize.


I'm fine with AT&T's being upfront about the whole thing. It's tough to compare services on price alone since Google could just subsidize the crap out of their service without feeling it. Guess I'll learn more when it comes to my neighborhood.

I'm fine with it too, although I wouldn't personally take on the offer.

[boutons_deux]

"while you use their services"

.... includes google search, google chrome, google drive.

I use two RSS readers (not google). clicking on a link in the readers always goes through an intermediate link of "feedproxy. google.com", so the google tracking is deep and pervasive.

[Winehole23]

I use two RSS readersto spam us with

[boutons_deux]

to spam us with

I'm casting pearls before swine

[ElNono]

"while you use their services"

.... includes google search, google chrome, google drive.

I use two RSS readers (not google). clicking on a link in the readers always goes through an intermediate link of "feedproxy. google.com", so the google tracking is deep and pervasive.



That's how the reader author set it up... if it bothers you, you should go with a different reader.

[boutons_deux]

That's how the reader author set it up... if it bothers you, you should go with a different reader.

I use one reader on windows, and another brand reader on android. both do the same. I don't want host-based reader, only web based.

[Winehole23]

I'm casting pearls before swinetake that back. it's insulting to pigs.

[boutons_deux]

take that back. it's insulting to pigs.

y'all pigs ain't too smart, ingest the pearls, may inform y'all

[ElNono]

I use one reader on windows, and another brand reader on android. both do the same. I don't want host-based reader, only web based.

If you're using feedburner, you can disable the feedproxy links...

http://w3guy.com/change-feedburner-website-permalink/

Then again, feedburner is owned by Google, so it doesn't really matter, I guess.

[TeyshaBlue]

y'all pigs ain't too smart, ingest the pearls, may inform y'all

*enlightened progressive post*

[boutons_deux]

*enlightened progressive post*

TB :lol where ya been? thanks for stalkin me.

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol where ya been? thanks for mocking me.

Fify

[ElNono]

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

[boutons_deux]

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

Dems on FCC and Obama KICKIN ASS, while the Congressional Repugs kick each others' asses.

Let's hear the TX Repugs bitch, whine, moan, outrage about "states rights".

[ElNono]

Republicans in Congress already trying to overturn FCC’s latest votes

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today filed legislation to overturn the municipal broadband decision the Federal Communications Commission made earlier in the day.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/republicans-in-congress-already-trying-to-overturn-fccs-latest-votes/

[boutons_deux]

Republicans in Congress already trying to overturn FCC’s latest votes

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today filed legislation to overturn the municipal broadband decision the Federal Communications Commission made earlier in the day.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/republicans-in-congress-already-trying-to-overturn-fccs-latest-votes/

To fail in the Senate. At very last, it would be vetoed by Obama. Repugs grandstanding for the redneck base.

[Winehole23]

like so many other incumbent ISPs, Time Warner Cable has grown all-too comfortable with the lack of broadband competition it enjoys across most of its territory. Some markets are worse than others, usually not-coincidentally directly tied to the level of regulatory capture in a region. In the Carolinas, the company has worked tirelessly to protect its regional monopoly and duopoly, passing a bill in North Carolina (on the fourth try (https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/North-Carolinas-Broadband-Buffoonery-Gains-Attention-114186)) preventing towns and cities from improving regional broadband. Company execs have also downplayed the rise of gigabit broadband, proudly informing users they don't really want faster, cheaper services (https://www.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4036128/time-warner-cable-no-consumer-demand-for-fiber-gigabit-internet).


Now Time Warner Cable is facing the worst-case scenario for a government-pampered duopolist. One, the FCC has moved to pre-empt Time Warner Cable's protectionist law (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150226/07234230148/fccs-historic-day-voting-yes-net-neutrality-voting-no-protectionist-state-telecom-law.shtml) in North Carolina, arguing it hinders the deployment of broadband services in a reasonable and timely basis. Two, Google Fiber recently announced (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150127/10575429831/major-new-google-fiber-expansion-shines-massive-spotlight-lack-broadband-competition.shtml) it will be expanding $70, gigabit services (you know, the ones users don't need or want) into Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte sometime in the next year. The one-two punch of regulators thinking independently and increased competition has to be a nightmarish hellscape for company executives.


Time Warner Cable has of course responded by announcing it is increasing speeds in Charlotte and Raleigh six fold (to 300 Mbps) (https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/32c79o/with_google_fiber_coming_to_charlotte_twc_speeds/) at no additional charge sometime this summer:

"Starting this week, customers will receive communications from TWC outlining the first phase of the project as the company begins the process of creating a 100% digital network..."With ‘TWC Maxx,’ we’re essentially reinventing the TWC experience,” said Darrel Hegar, regional vice president of operations, Time Warner Cable. “We will boost Internet speeds for customers up to six times faster, add to our robust TWC WiFi, dramatically improve the TV product and set a high bar in our industry for differentiated, exceptional customer service."
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150413/08435930635/mere-threat-google-fiber-has-time-warner-cable-offering-speeds-six-times-faster-same-price.shtml

[ChumpDumper]

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150413/08435930635/mere-threat-google-fiber-has-time-warner-cable-offering-speeds-six-times-faster-same-price.shtmlYep, exactly what happened in Austin.

Funny thing is Google's merely considering San Antonio as a fiber market made TWC go ahead and increase internet speeds there.

[spursncowboys]

Time Warner
M0sAVtOt2wA

[boutons_deux]

TWC own enough NC Confederate Repugs!

and Repugs are bitching about donations to Clinton charity affecting Hillary policies? :lol :lol :lol :lol

North Carolina Sues FCC To Keep Limits On Municipal Broadband

It’s been a big year for North Carolina in terms of improving the Internet connections for many of its residents. Google Fiber will bring new options to multiple markets (http://consumerist.com/2015/01/27/google-expected-to-announce-google-fiber-expansion-to-atlanta-nashville-today/) in the state, and the FCC acted against a state law that limits municipal broadband providers from expanding their services (http://consumerist.com/2015/02/26/fcc-votes-to-allow-cities-to-expand-broadband-networks/).

But rather than acknowledge that maybe it shouldn’t let Time Warner Cable dictate state laws, North Carolina has sued the FCC.Last week, the state filed a petition [PDF (https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/265740458-nc-vs-fcc.pdf)] with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking review of the FCC order from February that allows the city of Wilson, NC, to expand its municipal broadband network outside of its home county.

Even though Wilson’s city-operated power company was selling service to six other counties, a 2011 state law, backed by Time Warner Cable, prohibited the city from offering its broadband service outside the county border. The city said it had been forced to deny multiple requests for service because of this law.

In February, the FCC voted to preempt that state law, and a similar one in Tennessee, saying that they were in conflict with the FCC’s statutory obligation to encourage the deployment of high-speed Internet connections.

The state’s petition alleges that the FCC “unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State’s political subdivisions,” that the Commission overstepped its authority, and that the order is “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

The FCC (or at least the three commissioners who voted in favor of this order) has maintained that federal law gives it the authority to intervene when a state or local statute inhibits the deployment of broadband.

Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/html/PLAW-104publ104.htm) states that all state agencies in charge of regulating telecommunications “shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans… by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”

That law also dictates that if the FCC finds that broadband is not being adequately deployed to all Americans, if shall take “immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”

http://consumerist.com/2015/05/18/north-carolina-sues-fcc-to-keep-limits-on-municipal-broadband/

[Winehole23]

public resource monopolies screw the public:


It raises the question of why prices for every major tech product and service have fallen, except cable and satellite television. The answer comes to us from Economics 101: it is a function of competition, of which there is very little in that industry. Add to that the cost in time and energy of switching providers; it's so aggravating to drop Comcast as your cable provider that a new service will spare you the pain and charge $5 (http://qz.com/517559/this-new-5-service-will-endure-the-hassle-of-canceling-comcast-for-you/) to do it for you.


As a nation we do a very poor job of managing competition and adopting the needed standards to improve market efficiency. Television services are just one example. Consider how inadequate mobile-phone service is in the U.S. versus Europe and much of Asia. Instead of assuming competition would create better coverage and connectivity, those regions mandated a minimum level of quality in exchange for leasing public airwaves. The same is true for Internet service: it's much more reliable, faster and cheaper overseas. Because we don't fully grasp the limits of competition and the profit motive, we end up with inferior services in technologies that the U.S. invented.


It seems impossible, however, to have a serious conversation about this as long as rich companies buy off elected officials who grant special tax breaks, dispensations and exemptions. You can pretty much name any intractable problem in the U.S. and you can trace it back to the money corrupting the political process.


Competition is a wonderful thing, making most of today's products and services better and cheaper. But where there are monopolies, especially those that entail use of public resources, minimum standards are needed.


The alternative is what we have: Expensive, slow Internet connections, costly cable TV with unresponsive customer service and perhaps the world’s worst mobile-phone networks.


There's no reason we should be satisfied with any of it.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-15/why-monopolies-don-t-give-you-nice-things