Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

[spurraider21]

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

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, 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 le 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, 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 and publishing op-eds about why we don’t need net neutrality. He’s also the one who admitted 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.

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 that its wired peer has engaged in this year.

http://consumerist.com/2015/01/16/co...osal-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, the lobby group known as the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) wrote in an FCC filing Thursday that 25Mbps/3Mbps isn't necessary for ordinary people. 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. 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. 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 compe ion and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws 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 compe ion and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws that restrict municipal broadband projects.

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

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

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

[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 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 le II is looking really good

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble Fiber

[cantthinkofanything]

Internet under le II is looking really good

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble Fiber

[ChumpDumper]

Internet under le II is looking really good

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble Fiber

That 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 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. 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. 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, 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 of households in New York have fiber access. The city and Verizon dispute these figures.

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 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 compe ion 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. Why invest in the future if there are no compe ors 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/20...delivers.shtml

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

[Th'Pusher]

btw, Google skipped San Antonio for Gooble Fiber

May still be hope

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...re-end-of.html

[boutons_deux]

May still be hope

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...re-end-of.html

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

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

[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 and Time Warner Cable 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 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." aka LEGAL QUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION


results of a deliberately skewed poll:

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 en ies to compete with private businesses.”

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/tim...dband-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 gets done insisting that AT&T "moved quickly to bring more compe ion 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" 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 compe ion, 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 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/blog/netneu...ertising.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 gets done insisting that AT&T "moved quickly to bring more compe ion 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" 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 compe ion, 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 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/blog/netneu...ertising.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

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]

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?

dumb , 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]

dumb , 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 chat

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.

grandecom

What 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.