US Broadband Map Won’t Require ISP Revenue or Speed Data

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
One of the items in the US economic stimulus package is to make broadband service more widely available. The first part of that plan is to map out the current broadband availability but ISPs initially opposed the mapping. The clarification of the rules should help speed up the mapping process, though watchdog groups aren’t happy about this development.

Companies do not want to share the specific data because they do not want their competitors to see it. But failing to make it public allows the companies to advertise -- and charge for -- something that they often cannot deliver, said Joel Kelsey, a telecom policy analyst at Consumers Union, a watchdog group.
Click to expand...
 
I don't see a problem with these companies needing to show actual data. Maybe showing that the delivered speed is not matching up with advertised speed will allow a portion of the stimulus to be spent on backbone infrastructure, which could help provide faster speed for everyone.

I'd like to see services like Verizon FiOS spread out more than just Urban area's and this package may just help do that.
 
Watchdog groups are serious business. Why should these PRIVATE companies be forced to give out private information? They aren't obliged to offer internet everywhere in the United States...

Oh, I forgot about some extensions of basic rights in the constitution...

Amendment XXVIII
The right of the people to watch free broadcast television shall be guaranteed and not be violated.....

NEW ONE!

Amendment XXIX
The right of the people to have broadband internet access shall be guaranteed and not violated.....
 
On the stimulus, apparently most ISPs that have initially signed on haven't come back with good news. Really we might have mapped out a couple territories we'd consider expanding in but this sorta violates our rights by forcing us to be involved in it. They need to reach out to citigovs who need broadband expansion. This particular piece of the of the package seems silly and unnecessary personally, but I live in the heart of my city and don't much care if the shoeless rural welfare kings of my state get broadband. Go cats! or whatever the %^&* that means.
 
xdivenx said:
Watchdog groups are serious business. Why should these PRIVATE companies be forced to give out private information? They aren't obliged to offer internet everywhere in the United States...

Oh, I forgot about some extensions of basic rights in the constitution...

Amendment XXVIII
The right of the people to watch free broadcast television shall be guaranteed and not be violated.....

NEW ONE!

Amendment XXIX
The right of the people to have broadband internet access shall be guaranteed and not violated.....
Click to expand...


You do have a point, but since the data is being hid primarily so the ISPs can engage in fraudulent advertising, and to dissuade competition, I have no issue forcing this data out of them.

I have no privacy why should the ISP's.
 
GORANKAR said:
You do have a point, but since the data is being hid primarily so the ISPs can engage in fraudulent advertising, and to dissuade competition, I have no issue forcing this data out of them.

I have no privacy why should the ISP's.
Click to expand...

Whos fraudulently advertising?
 
GORANKAR said:
You do have a point, but since the data is being hid primarily so the ISPs can engage in fraudulent advertising, and to dissuade competition, I have no issue forcing this data out of them.

I have no privacy why should the ISP's.
Click to expand...

So a watchdog group claiming that they COULD advertise something they can't deliver translates in your mind into "They're obviously doing this and the only reason they want these industries secrets kept secret is so they can continue to commit fraud."?
 
Nemesis999 said:
So a watchdog group claiming that they COULD advertise something they can't deliver translates in your mind into "They're obviously doing this and the only reason they want these industries secrets kept secret is so they can continue to commit fraud."?
Click to expand...
I am happy with my advertised Verizon 3Mb service connecting at 3.3Mb. I am not however happy that I've never once, ever seen my download speed top 340KBps. It should top out around 420. It's never been close and I live 1/2 mile from the distribution center.
 
bigdogchris said:
I am happy with my advertised Verizon 3Mb service connecting at 3.3Mb. I am not however happy that I've never once, ever seen my download speed top 340KBps. It should top out around 420. It's never been close and I live 1/2 mile from the distribution center.
Click to expand...

340KB/s * 8 = 2720Kb/s + Overhead = 3Mbit.
 
piscian18 said:
Whos fraudulently advertising?
Click to expand...

Nemesis999 said:
So a watchdog group claiming that they COULD advertise something they can't deliver translates in your mind into "They're obviously doing this and the only reason they want these industries secrets kept secret is so they can continue to commit fraud."?
Click to expand...


I almost never reached the advertised speed of my particular service. Not on speedtest.net, or a torrent or, direct download, on either my current cablevision or the att&t dsl I used to have.

That some ISPs were fraudulent advertising speeds or at least being rather "liberal" with their claims was in my head a while b4 some watchdog group brought this up. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that this was the norm outside of Tuesday at 2am on a school day.
 
piscian18 said:
On the stimulus, apparently most ISPs that have initially signed on haven't come back with good news. Really we might have mapped out a couple territories we'd consider expanding in but this sorta violates our rights by forcing us to be involved in it. They need to reach out to citigovs who need broadband expansion. This particular piece of the of the package seems silly and unnecessary personally, but I live in the heart of my city and don't much care if the shoeless rural welfare kings of my state get broadband. Go cats! or whatever the %^&* that means.
Click to expand...

Dude, are you serious? There's no cable or DSL available at my parents' house here; does that make them, "shoeless rural welfare kings?" Rather, I think it makes them, "able to afford a decent piece of land." :rolleyes:

But that's okay; in two weeks I'm off to UVA, where they have 100Mbit down, 20Mbit up, and 5ms ping to Google. FIVE FREAKING MILLISECONDS! :D :D
 
Oddly enough I've always gotten advertised speeds from comcast (actually better sometimes) until recently... usually get 4-5mb upload on speedtests, and a consistent 2mb everywhere else, now I'm just getting 1mb up on speedtests and everywhere else... we're paying for 2. =/
 
xdivenx said:
Watchdog groups are serious business. Why should these PRIVATE companies be forced to give out private information? They aren't obliged to offer internet everywhere in the United States..
Click to expand...

I do believe that the freedom of information act covers any project that was built using federal funds or had federal backing. The Fed gave tons of money to Bell, AT&T, etc. over the last few decades to build infrastructure.
 
piscian18 said:
On the stimulus, apparently most ISPs that have initially signed on haven't come back with good news. Really we might have mapped out a couple territories we'd consider expanding in but this sorta violates our rights by forcing us to be involved in it. They need to reach out to citigovs who need broadband expansion. This particular piece of the of the package seems silly and unnecessary personally, but I live in the heart of my city and don't much care if the shoeless rural welfare kings of my state get broadband. Go cats! or whatever the %^&* that means.
Click to expand...

It really has very little to do with whether you live in an urban or a rural area. I live in a rural area and Verizon blanketed this area with fiber optic cabling 10 years ago. Yet we still have no FIOS available here.

Basically it comes down to a business decision on Verizon's part. They have a huge stockpile of old copper cabling and they aren't about to roll out the fiber optic usage until they use up their old cabling stockpiles.

My source? The independent contracting company that installed the fiber 10 years ago.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Dude, are you serious? There's no cable or DSL available at my parents' house here; does that make them, "shoeless rural welfare kings?" Rather, I think it makes them, "able to afford a decent piece of land." :rolleyes:

But that's okay; in two weeks I'm off to UVA, where they have 100Mbit down, 20Mbit up, and 5ms ping to Google. FIVE FREAKING MILLISECONDS! :D :D
Click to expand...

Sorry home state rant. I live in the only real city in my entire state which is best known for whiskey, horse shoes and signs like this on every damn building in the whole state.

Back on topic. the federal government needs to contact the local governments and see what contracts are out there. It was explained to me the other day by the bosses that its typically city to city on what ISP's are setup where. If we want to move into charter or Time Warner's territories we have to go through a negotiation process with the local Gov's.
 
xdivenx said:
Why should these PRIVATE companies be forced to give out private information?
Click to expand...

Because those private ISPs are interfering with other private ISPs' competitive capabilities (i.e. making it illegal/impossible for a rival company to compete in a certain area through the use of lobbying and lawsuits) and, most important of all, public infrastructure (i.e.suing the city).
 
Oh yeah, not to mention the public funding that was just pocketed last time with 0 improvements. Your government wants the public to benefit via faster internet access, and it needs ways to ensure that private businesses are doing what they promise with those public funds. (i.e. benefiting the public, not themselves) A return for an investment, if you will.
 
xdivenx said:
Watchdog groups are serious business. Why should these PRIVATE companies be forced to give out private information? They aren't obliged to offer internet everywhere in the United States...
Click to expand...

If they want government money or assistance with deploying broadband, they damn well better give the information If tax money is getting spent, I want it being spent where it counts. Not frittered away for huge bonuses for underperforming executives, or wasted on infrastructure in areas that don't need it.
 
Nemesis999 said:
340KB/s * 8 = 2720Kb/s + Overhead = 3Mbit.
Click to expand...

Overhead? BS. There is no overhead because it isn't a hardware limit, it's a software limit. The connection is capable of much higher speeds than 3Mbit, but is capped in software to 3Mbit. There is no overhead coming into the equation here.

I have 22mbit Comcast and I get 22mbit 99% of the time when.. uh.. perusing discussions on USENET.
 
NKDietrich said:
Overhead? BS. There is no overhead because it isn't a hardware limit, it's a software limit. The connection is capable of much higher speeds than 3Mbit, but is capped in software to 3Mbit. There is no overhead coming into the equation here.
Click to expand...

Win @ Ignorance?

Come back when you have a clue what the fuck you're talking about.
 
AVT said:
Note that his connection is 3.3, not 3. That's approx. 600kbps overhead. Seems quite large to me.
Click to expand...

No, he said it is 3Mbit and "connects" at 3.3MBit. There is no reason to believe the hardware wouldn't be limiting the connection to 3MBit is is pretty much always true.
 
Simple....no data disclosure, then you (the ISP) get throttled to get no more than the speed you get now if the ISP gets hooked up to a faster pipe above them.

Either help, or shut up when those that did help are now providing better services than you.
 
I think there will probably be some overhead because the ISP is probably advertising raw line throughput, whereas data sent via internet protocol has to be encapsulated in packets with additional metadata (which also gets sent along with the actual data).
 
ChairmanMiau said:
Because those private ISPs are interfering with other private ISPs' competitive capabilities (i.e. making it illegal/impossible for a rival company to compete in a certain area through the use of lobbying and lawsuits) and, most important of all, public infrastructure (i.e.suing the city).
Click to expand...

QQ This isn't Europe IMO.
 
xdivenx said:
Watchdog groups are serious business. Why should these PRIVATE companies be forced to give out private information? They aren't obliged to offer internet everywhere in the United States...
Click to expand...
Maybe because these PRIVATE companies were given PUBLIC money and PUBLIC lands in order to expand their infrastructure to make it available to all.

I mean hell I can look out the window and see a big honkin' ugly fucking telephone pole outside, property of the telephone company, leased out to other municipalities (cable, power, etc) and for whatever it's worth I don't recall the city ever getting compensated for that plot of land that they (the phone company) owns.

I'm not saying they don't spend a ton of their own money as well, but if they got tax dollar one, or tax break one, then they need to be more transparent about how they're going to go about expanding the infrastructure
 
If you don't want the government or the people involved in your business, don't take their tax money.
 
NKDietrich said:
Overhead? BS. There is no overhead because it isn't a hardware limit, it's a software limit. The connection is capable of much higher speeds than 3Mbit, but is capped in software to 3Mbit. There is no overhead coming into the equation here.
Click to expand...

DSL has more overhead than cable. PPPoE has 15% overhead, normally.
 
ChairmanMiau said:
Oh yeah, not to mention the public funding that was just pocketed last time with 0 improvements. Your government wants the public to benefit via faster internet access, and it needs ways to ensure that private businesses are doing what they promise with those public funds. (i.e. benefiting the public, not themselves) A return for an investment, if you will.
Click to expand...

QFT. Nice post.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Good one. Go read what the fuck overhead is and come back when you've got a clue.
Click to expand...

Okay. While I go read up on that, I'll go download some more stuff at precisely the advertised speed Comcast provides me. I'm sure glad I don't lose 5 mbits of my advertised speed to "overhead".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top