Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC's New Broadband Plan Prioritizes Competition

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the plan-of-the-man dept.

The Internet 71

adeelarshad82 writes "The Federal Communications Commission has released an outline of what might be included in its upcoming national broadband plan, and encouraging competition was a top priority. The FCC statement said 'Competition drives innovation and provides consumer choice. Finding ways to better use existing assets, including Universal Service, rights-of-way, spectrum, and others, will be essential to the success of the plan. The limited government funding that is available for broadband would be best used when leveraged with the private sector.' The stimulus plan provided $7.2 billion in broadband grants and $350 million for a broadband mapping program, but also directed the FCC to deliver a national broadband plan to Congress by February 17, 2010."

cancel ×

71 comments

no (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30467830)

All i hear is TAX TAX TAX SPEND SPEND SPEND. Why should i pay for someone to be hooked up to the internet?

Re:no (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30467836)

Cause she might show you her tits?

Re:no (3, Insightful)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468022)

Wow, tax & spend? What is this 1992-2000 when the government was fiscally responsible?!?! In the new millenium, the government is all SPEND SPEND SPEND. You best check yo'self!

Re:no (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468258)

Oh don't you worry. The TAX TAX TAX part is coming. Just you wait!

Re:no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468762)

Too bad the CUT CUT CUT part will never come.

Also the real issue is the people who own the lines are the same ones who 'use' the lines. It needs to be 2 different companies. The company who owns the wires and rent them out to anyone. Then the ISPs compete on price and service. Then the company who owns the wires is insensitived to build better wires to sell higher service. The companies who sell the actual connections to the consumers are insensitived to sell at a competitive price. This will never happen like my first statement.

"incited" (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469906)

There's no "insensitived". It's "incited".

Re:"incited" (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30472370)

"has incentive"

Re:"incited" (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481426)

I prefer your construction but the OP meant "incentivized", a silly word much like "enthused".

Re:no (1)

csartanis (863147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473808)

As long as there is no barrier to anyone else laying lines, they could lay better lines and charge the ISPs less to use them.

Re:no Christmas sale, free shipping discounts .. (-1, Offtopic)

Edwards1984 (1702120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468320)

http://www.kkshoe.com/ [kkshoe.com] Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Buy now proposed a "Christmas gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar. Activities As of December 26 commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, kkshoe will provide service for you all, welcome to 1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes. 2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T- Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc. 3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc. 4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc.For details, please consult http://www.kkshoe.com/ [kkshoe.com]

Re:no (-1, Offtopic)

etrading76 (1702136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468380)

Hi,Christmas sale, there are exquisite gifts... Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Christmas sales, there are exquisite gift, here are the most fashionable and most noble gift, please come to order.For details, please consult: http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com] Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com] @@@@@@#####$&^%@#@

Right. (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30467850)

Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

--
BMO

Re:Right. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30467944)

Ideally to the necks of those responsible...

Re:Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30467982)

Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

--
BMO

Oh come on man! We need another financial bubble to get the economy going. What better way than to repeat the 90s. AND, it'll give those of us a chance to miss out on all the quick buck making a second time around because we don't have any connecitons.

Why do I have this urge to go and walk the streets muttering "bullshit! it's all bullshit!" to myself?

Re:Right. (2, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468000)

Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

Whoa, whoa, that sounds like socialism. We'll have none of that.

Re:Right. (3, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468078)

It's not socialism when giving money to a corporation. At least that's what I gather.

Re:Right. (4, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468226)

Indeed. That's usually seen as a step towards corporatism, which is the economic wing of fascism, which is usually considered as far right, the opposite of socialism, which is on the left. Or in the middle, if the term "socialism" is being used in the context of American politics.

Re:Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468330)

But the money involved is public.

Hence, corporate welfare [wikipedia.org] state. This has recently been called "socialism" by critics of TARP, etc. And I don't mean by the tea-partyers who call everything "socialism" before taking the time to understand it. I mean people on the US center-left have called it that.

Re:Right. (2)

bendodge (998616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469270)

I've got my own little theory about economic ideas being a circle. If you go far enough in any direction you'll get something totalitarian that doesn't work.

Re:Right. (0, Offtopic)

testadicazzo (567430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471214)

This is a badly moderated post. It's not informative, since everyone knows this by now. I'd moderate it funny and insightful, but not informative.

Re:Right. (1)

lucian1900 (1698922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485364)

I didn't. May have something to do with the fact that I'm not American.

Re:Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468382)

Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?

If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

Whoa, whoa, that sounds like socialism. We'll have none of that.

Are you local?

Re:Right. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468018)

If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

To enforce this, we should only give the money out AFTER the conditions are met. They've been proven untrustworthy, so don't give them anything until they give us something first. Also, that way, anyone can do it, not a single company that gets the contract. Whoever satisfies the requirements first gets paid.

Re:Right. (4, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468032)

Didn't we do this in the 90's? ... If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.

Right...give them more money but this time put *strings* on it.

How about the kind of strings where we send every board member and executive, of any of these companies at any time since we gave them the money *last time*, a notice that they can install what we've already paid for or face federal fraud charges?

Seriously, I'm not usually a litigious, pseudo-populist dickwad, but a lawsuit or some criminal charges seem completely reasonable here.

And for fuck sake don't give them *more* money, unless you're okay with literally *training them*, like suggestible little puppy dogs, to defraud taxpayers.

Re:Right. (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468350)

I have to agree, our current crop of company shills have no idea how to actually use the money we (through the government) make available to them unless we give them very specific instructions. Without those instructions, barring any loopholes, they just feather their nests.

An image of a rabid vulture sitting in a giant pile of down just ran through my mind... Disturbing, yet appropriate...

Re:Right. (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470222)

How about we just don't give them money this time?

Re:Right. (2, Insightful)

testadicazzo (567430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30471206)

I'm annoyed by the mantra:

Competition drives innovation and provides consumer choice. Finding ways to better use existing assets, including Universal Service, rights-of-way, spectrum, and others, will be essential to the success of the plan. The limited government funding that is available for broadband would be best used when leveraged with the private sector.'

Blech. Sometimes free markets and competition are the best way to accomplish a social goal. Sometimes they aren't. In particular, rural and poor neighbourhoods, which would profit most from broadband and are most poorly served under the current system, and I don't see shovelling money at providers doing much for that goal. I'd rather see that money used to address the most poorly served areas of the country, and provide some public competition to private provider plans.

How will Leiberman muck this one up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30467858)

Seriously. I'm just waiting on it.

Policies can only help competition so far (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30467896)

When you have an industry with high entry costs due to infrastructure needs, you are going to end up with only a few companies after the shakeout occurs. Therefore, any policy that is designed to enable consumer choice and universal access is only useful to create an environment where competition will briefly flourish before degrading to the same old 2 or 3 dominant companies own the entire market.

If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups. This would lower the entry costs and provide a balance to the giants who would normally run roughshod over the smaller guys.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (4, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30467934)

If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups.

Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468040)

If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups.

Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.

There is. But that didn't stop the government from handing out free money to the banks did it?

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468184)

Although it did keep the government from helping to keep the American car companies in America. Guess banks contibuted more money to presidential campaigns than Chrysler or GM did.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468440)

More like, you can afford to have the car industry collapse, but the country will be ruined if the financial system collapses

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469070)

but the country will be ruined if the financial system collapses

It already has collapsed. We just haven't realized it yet. Take a look at the deficits we are running and the amount of money the Fed is creating. Citi and Bank of America won't really matter much when the greenback winds up being shoved into wood [wordpress.com] stoves to heat our homes.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (3, Interesting)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469402)

This is a common misconception. If you look as the dollar and dollar-equivalents there are actually fewer in circulation now than there were in 2006. That is why the seemingly impossibly feat of running a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit can occur simultaneously with record low interest rates and nearly zero inflation.

The fetishistic fixation on inflation amuses me a little. Granted that past performance does usually indicate future performance but some pretty unique shit happened in 2000 through 2006-7. The government hasn't expanded the effective money supply...they just kept it from crashing through the floor. In the absence of massive deficits and "helicopter Ben" we would be virtually guaranteed Great Depression part II.

The problem isn't going to be inflation. The problem we're going to face is how much damage is being done to economic efficiency. A lot of entities that made bad decisions were supported out of necessity. In a Great Depression nearly every bank would have been swept away. Almost all the car companies would have gone under. "Real" Unemployment would probably have hit 30, 40, maybe even 50% given how much we depend on "services" now. That would have hurt. It would have hurt really badly but it also would have cleared the deck. There would be no Wall Street lobbyists left to push for favorable legislation--they would all be insolvent. Etc. Instead we have all the same people who fucked up still in the system trying to pick up where they left off.

That is where the danger is--not inflation.

Where do you get your data for M3? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469960)

Last I looked they stopped publishing it.

For that matter the data I see shows you to be mistaken. M1 up about 21% sense 96, M2 up about 24%.

Cite: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply [shadowstats.com]

Their guess for M3: up about 40%.

The real danger is having those same morons in charge when the printing presses get kicked into high gear.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468248)

Yet people on here complain about the big companies having too much control over the market - but then complain when other companies are going to be given a chance?

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468254)

Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.

Well why shouldn't he think it's a great idea - after all, it's what the government did with the auto industry.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

meowhous (1592411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468406)

I worked for one of those, but at least we were only bilking I mean milking private investors.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468442)

That's not exactly what happened. The government paid these companies debts on their behalf. Not because they felt like being nice to the company, but because their debt holders would have ended up in serious financial trouble. Cascading financial failure was a serious possibility. This is bad. The credit market is the biggest market in the world.

Meanwhile, a year later, the companies are paying the debt back. While not all the debt has been paid back, does it really make sense to keep complaining about a move that saved the rest of the financial system?

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30470156)

They are getting loans at fed window at 0% and paying gobernment back what a joke.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469080)

Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst.

Replace 'companies' with 'schools' and you've just described our public education system.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468024)

I have mod points and was going to mod your post, but I couldn't find the ones that said "idiot" or "silly".

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (2, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468092)

"you are going to end up with only a few companies after the shakeout occurs. "

Largely because the US has become conditioned to the idea that big companies are good. Globalization is a "good thing" and we want corporations large enough to compete on a global scale. "World class" is a benchmark we use to judge companies.

My telco serves 4 counties, I think - maybe a 5th. No one has ever heard of it. But, they are successful, in that they attract investors, and they show a profit every year. Rates are mostly competitive with the big companies. Like the big companies, they have a monopoly in their service area. I've come to like them, because I can talk to real people. And, if I ever feel the need to talk eyeball to eyeball with a service rep, it's a short drive over to Lewisville from my house.

You're right, of course, but it sucks, IMHO

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (2, Insightful)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468800)

How long till your telco is bought out by one of the big ones and becomes the local monopoly with horrible rates and service?

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469788)

If they're anything like my cable co, never.

My cable co has been here longer than I've been alive, they serve 3 counties, provide the highest level of service i've ever had, anywhere i've ever lived. their rates are among the most reasonable i've ever encountered, and i've come to know several people, on all levels of the company, on a personal level.

Over 30 years, they're not going anywhere. They turn a decent profit every quarter, are constantly expanding their service offerings, increasing broadband speeds, adding more digital and (non-overcompressed) HD, and still offer a decent analog selection.

I don't think my county would let them sell, even if they sold their networks in the other two counties they service in Ohio; they just have too good of an offering and do a decent amount of good in the community.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (2, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473520)

Fair question, I suppose. I really can't answer that. I can tell you, Walnut Hill was here when my father in law's parents had their first telephone installed. Things were kinda wild back in those days - three miles from the Oklahoma border, the various tribes would have a few people go off the reservations, Arkinda was a booming border town with killings every other weekend, an occasional bank robbery, so on and so forth. The big companies provided telephone service to Texarkana, but couldn't see the point in buying all the wire necessary to put in lines to Foreman, Wallace, Arkinda, Winthrop, and other backwoods little holes in the wall, scattered along the rail lines.

So, some relatively wealthy people got together, sold some bonds, and came up with the money necessary to start stringing wire, and buy a few switchboards.

They haven't sold out YET!! And, from what I understand, AT&T and Ma Bell tried really, really hard to get this market several times.

That situation reminds me of something - what could that be? Oh yeah - that infamous last freaking mile that the big telcos are so incapable of providing to rural America. Same deal. They won't invest in the country, they just want the tax breaks, the monopolies, and your money. I can't see people around here approving of a big telco buying away what they are used to.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (3, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468240)

Or just do what a government is supposed to do - build things like infrastructure, which are too big and expensive to be undertaken efficiently by multiple competing private interests.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469204)

Or just do what a government is supposed to do - build things like infrastructure, which are too big and expensive to be undertaken efficiently by multiple competing private interests.

Because if there's anything government is known for it's efficiency.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (2, Insightful)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469804)

If they stuck to what they're supposed to be doing, and quit doing all this extra shit that's really not in anyone's interest, they'd be pretty fucking efficient.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30470918)

Have you ever had a major problem with your water supply? How fast was it fixed? I'm willing to bet the government provides this utility. As it should be with roads, power, and net access and all critical infrastructure. Let the government lay the tubes and have it managed by a nonprofit organisation. This should include the last mile. This organisation should put excess income into a pot for future maintainance and upgrades. Have ISP's lease the bandwith and sell it to end users. Users can freely switch provides based on price and service level withouth worrying if wether the ISP operates in the area.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468654)

IMO, If they want to truly encourage competition, they need to separate content providers from access providers. That will free up access providers to do what they should be doing best. Competing for business at the lowest rate possible. It would also remove some of the political bullshit and insane antics that new entry's in the market have to go through just to be able to drop a single line.

Re:Policies can only help competition so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30472464)

The only way everyone wins is if the government controls the infrastructure and the individual companies just lease it as resellers - that way services to remote areas can be secured and one one or two massive corporations can have an effective monopoly in any area because someone smaller, faster and more efficient can always come along and eat their pie.

According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enough.. (4, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468104)

Their president has said, [publicknowledge.org] "Nothing in the outline presented this morning would increase competition. Reforming universal service and supporting municipal networks are worthwhile goals, but they would do nothing to reverse the slide caused by eight years of misbegotten telecommunications policies that have crippled most meaningful broadband competition for consumers. There was no discussion of opening telecommunications networks to competitors. There was no discussion of structural separations of carriers into wholesale and retail components. These are the factors that Harvard’s Berkman Center told the FCC in a study a mere two months ago were the reasons other countries have surpassed ours – they are using policies we discarded."

Re:According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enoug (2)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468238)

And of course it was only the evil Republicans that kept broadband out of the hands of their largest supporters in the rural parts of America where even the cable companies fear to tread for lack of money making ventures. If the govt. wants broadband everywhere, then they need to pony up the money and build the damn lines themselves. The phone companies have consistently shown that they will not do it, no matter how much money we send their way. Now that's a stimulus package I could support, one where real American will be put to real work to help spread broadband everywhere. Stop giving my tax money to people that only want a profit. I pay them enough money every month for broadband and cell phones. I don't need to give them money out of my tax money too.

Re:According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enoug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468504)

why -1

Re:According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enoug (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468906)

Well, who was it that demanded less regulation and fewer measures of oversight to the telecoms? I don't seem to recall deregulation of the telecoms as a huge Democratic cause in the last decade. The largest cause of that sort of problem has been the conglomeration of telecoms into ones which only cover areas of the country which are profit rich and to do so in the most minimal fashion possible.

What you're forgetting is that these same rural voters go crazy for corporatism and for the misguided deregulation that leads them to not have decent access to quality broadband at reasonable prices.

Re:According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enoug (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469208)

I don't seem to recall deregulation of the telecoms as a huge Democratic cause in the last decade.

That's funny because it was a Democratic President that signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law as I recall.......

Re:According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enoug (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469452)

Oh no, that wouldn't be possible. The dems are spending us into oblivion, but they have all the answers for saving America.

Re:According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enoug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30494676)

I don't seem to recall deregulation of the telecoms as a huge Democratic cause in the last decade.

That's funny because it was a Democratic President that signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law as I recall.......

Clinton signing it doesn't mean that it was an important issue for him, most likely you can say he either didn't disagree with it or his signature was part of some larger political compromise. He certainly didn't make deregulating the telecommunications industry a major part of his campaigning or other political rhetoric.

Re:According to Public Knowledge, this isn't enoug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469202)

The president of wha....oh, the publication you're quoting. Hmmm. Er, ummmm.... yeah, nope. Not impressed.

Does this (1)

jaryd (1702090) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468164)

remind anyone of a bailout?

Competitors...?! (1)

scorpivs (1408651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468192)

I'd like to see private individuals -- the everyday people who share their wi-fi with their neighborhood -- included among those qualifying for these government-funded 'subsidies.'

Oops.

Fixed that for ya.

CLECs need lines (1)

TopSpin (753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468208)

It's very simple: open the lines back up to CLECs. They've been hurt by being shut out for the last decade, but they're still around. They'd be happy to pick up where they left off and resume reselling lines successfully.

Dumping money on politically important municipalities for "wireless", or something, isn't competition. Competing carriers is competition.

Re:CLECs need lines (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30479662)

Not sure how it worked elsewhere, but in Illinois it was very simple. The state mandated the prices that could be charged for lines. Didn't matter that the cost of maintaining the equipment and lines was several times the rate mandated by the state.

Ameritech, before being bought by SBC had a very simple policy. Since they could not afford to have the lines used at that rate, there were no possibilities of installing third-party equipment. None. Therefore the lines were never utilized at below-oost rates.

I believe this was the situation in most states. The CLECs could either get a below-cost rate or nothing, so mostly they got nothing. The various regulations that enabled this nonsense were finally repealed and everyone got on with business.

I am sure we can return to an environment where the ILEC has to provide services to other companies below cost. What is needed is sufficient regulation to ensure that there is no cost-shifting, that there is a minimum number of customers that must be served through this and there are no fees that can be charged to offset the loss. This will force the ILECs out of business pretty quickly. And under those terms, nobody is going to want to pick it up.

Gigaom has a better article (4, Informative)

jonsmirl (114798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468210)

FCC Takes on Cable But Not Carriers With National Broadband Plan [gigaom.com]

The actual presentation from the meeting is included in the article.

I am anxiously awaiting for this to be approved: "Mandate a home gateway device. Require MVPDs to provide a small, low-cost device whose functionality is to bridge the proprietary MVPD network elements (conditional access, tuning & reception functions) to common, open standard, widely used in home communications interfaces; enables a retail navigation device to operate on all MVPD platforms."

I'm hoping that means unencrypted channel streams in-house over Ethernet.

Re:Gigaom has a better article (2)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468400)

What this means is that Comcast has bought the FCC along with NBC/Universal and, in Hollywood style, they're going to put on a show for us while they steal our money.

Screw Comcast and screw the US gov.

Hopeless (1)

g0dsp33d (849253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468806)

I really want this to work out. Unfortunately with the US government, this is an investment opportunity for tube manufacturing and installation.

ta30 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469838)

lizard - In ot'her as WideOpen, but many find it

National Broadband Plan (1)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474804)

What we need is a National Broadband Plan.

We are going to put the U.S. Government in the ISP business to foster competition by those greedy and money grubbing private ISPs.

The way it works is, the U.S. Government cuts all broadband traffic down to 80 Kbps and then expand the U.S Government broadband bandwidth to 160 Kbps or more.

ISPs can only offer 160 Kbps or more bandwidth, if their broadband plans meet certain government criteria. However, unlike the current health care reform bill(s) floating around, the ISPs are authorized to A) disconnect anyone even suspected of illegal file sharing or any other reason, as they see fit, B) cut of any and all access to such hate sites as "www.usconstitution.net" and any other sites the current Administration deems "objectionable" and finally, C) dramatically raise prices to help cover the onerous regulation and reporting requirements that result form the National Broadband Plan. The procedures for determining who gets put onto the "No Net List" are classified and by statute are not subject to FOIA laws.

Oh, and your excise and any other taxes related to accessing the Internat are all being increased 100 percent, across the boards, to help pay for the program. Yeah, we know, sucks to be you, huh?

Remember, this is helping our children, you money grubbing capitalist pigs!

Oh, Wonderful Private Sector... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476384)

... is there anything you can't do?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...