This (http://www.latimes.com/technology/sns-ap-us-tec-internet-rules,0,6955319.story) bothers me more than a bit. Its one case, but still feels like a pretty lame setback over this issue. I'm wondering what kind of precedent this will set for other providers like Comcast that want to push their own services.

Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom" to regulate without explicit legal authority.


Thats likely the key phrase and from a legal stand point i can see the court ruling as the correct one.

With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision.


Thats what we really need is for congress to get involved in re-regulating the industry for the purpose of keeping net neutrality in force.
although i do hope they institute some sort of usage standards to help keep the asshats of the world from abusing it.

That's the catch...everyone wants the line between them and the asshats, but who decides who the asshats are and where the line is?

This pisses me off, i dont have broadband in my area (stuck on dial up for 11 years) and likely never will if those damn corporations get there way. I live about a half mile from a town that has cable within the towns limits, it stops short my house by a stinking quarter mile. The cable company and the phone company (Verizon) in this area wont install cable my way unless i pay 30k or 5k if everyone down the road chipped in (which isnt gonna happen). They pretty much said sorry, but your not worth the effort or money, move to an area that already has it.
When i heard the FCC wanted to extend highspeed broadband out for most the country, i was jumping for joy. I could finally say screw you to those companys. Should have figured this would happen. I hope the FCC gets the power to do it.

That's the catch...everyone wants the line between them and the asshats, but who decides who the asshats are and where the line is?

The people taking 2010 money to deliver 1995 results are the asshats. Regardless of how you feel about Federal government, this is exactly what you need a FCC organ for -- to prevent large private organizations from taking advantage of the public with impunity.

it stops short my house by a stinking quarter mile.
While i can feel your pain i have to call BS on that. at roughly 1250 ft. if the potential for 4 customers existed they would have built it 30 years ago.
If 30K was the qoute for a 1250 ft. build was what they told you most likely have a pretty frakked up build situation. it really comes down to ROI. if the ROI is not there for the company they wont do it.

Go to your bank and ask for a 30K$ loan for a new car with zero down, no closing costs, zero interest and 85$ a months payments max and see how far ya get.

And that is why we need the FCC to step in and force the issue. There goal is to get 90% of the country with highspeed broadband connections within the next 10 years. They need to start now in order to follow through with that plan. I dont give a flying fuck what these corporations think or say, if the government needs to step in over there heads and get it done once and for all, then so be it.

Same boat while at home, Alla. In Sequim the house is about 1 mile or so from a cable or dsl connection. So TV has to be sat and internet is either sat or 3G or cruddy ole dial up. Perhaps 4G might roll out over there but all of those services have very low bandwith cap. The cell providers probably will fill in eventually in rural areas as long as there is cell coverage but if you live in the sticks don't hold your breath on getting fibre or regular cable anytime soon. Other countries have also set a few precedents. The UK just struck down a measure to extend fibre to rural areas due to part of the measure having a tax to pay for it.

Yeah, it drives me nuts seeing other countries like japan, south Korea and Europe etc.. with better highspeed access for most all there citzens. Here in the states were lucky to see 50% or 60% of the entire country with it, they should have been wiring everyone up 10 years ago.
Were falling behind the rest of the world, its time to push ahead of all those that want the status quo, mainly these damn corporations who want to keep there strangle hold on everything for profit, even if the country falls backwards or bankrupts.

Actually broadband is widely available in the nations population centers and Billions have been spent by those evil corporations to accomadate the infrastructure. docsis 3.0 is available in alot of areas but yes it costs alot more than your 12MGB tier because those modems are not cheap to buy. neither am I btw. keep in mind a company like Comcast spends up to 500$ on a modem and then charges you 5$ a month in rent. I dont see that as gouging. do you?

I had more but damn its 2 am and I need sleep.

The ruling was just that the FCC can't enforce net neutrality on ISPs under their current classification. If need be, the FCC can designate them a more regulated industry, like voice providers, and impose neutrality.

I wouldn't worry about this. Do worry about bullshit preemptive legislation like McCain was pushing last year though. If they tie the FCC's hands, we might actually be in trouble.

Your right, thats why im hoping the FCC goes over there heads and impose it. That McCain bill bullshit i agree is much more troubling. I really hope he loses his seat in nov so we dont have to worry about that travesty ever passing.

Actually broadband is widely available in the nations population centers

If I leave a roughly 2 mile radius near downtown in a population center of nearly 2 million, I drop to the same data rate I was getting in 2001, from the fastest rate that is still only about 20 Mbit. All of the major communication providers receive subsidies beyond their costs and profits to do this work. And they are failing, hard.

When small towns and universities can rig up their own high speed wide-area fiber networks for less than the cost of a major utility THAT DOES THAT AS THEIR BUSINESS, you know something is rotten. Especially when they then get sued by the people with state licensed monopolies to serve them.

Your right, thats why im hoping the FCC goes over there heads and impose it. That McCain bill bullshit i agree is much more troubling. I really hope he loses his seat in nov so we dont have to worry about that travesty ever passing.

It has nothing to do specifically with McCain, other than him being the figurehead behind it. The guys that paid him to champion it will pay someone else next.

It has nothing to do specifically with McCain, other than him being the figurehead behind it. The guys that paid him to champion it will pay someone else next.

This brings up a scary parallel to where I'm gonna make a fortune while we all get fucked this summer. We are expecting record amounts of money to be spent on campaigns (including campaign videos) since the recent supreme court ruling (http://ayonae.com/corporations-are-people-according-to-scotus-spending-is-free-speech-t12802.html) that will pump billions of dollars into our election this year. They will be able to literally buy the election results they want to stack the deck in their favor.

This brings up a scary parallel to where I'm gonna make a fortune while we all get fucked this summer. We are expecting record amounts of money to be spent on campaigns (including campaign videos) since the recent supreme court ruling (http://ayonae.com/corporations-are-people-according-to-scotus-spending-is-free-speech-t12802.html) that will pump billions of dollars into our election this year. They will be able to literally buy the election results they want to stack the deck in their favor.

Not wanting to derail, but along those campaign lines it was interesting to many that when Michelle Bachman and the RNC hosted Sarah Palin for a campaign fund raiser in Minnesota the other day it was NOT held in the 6th District that Bachman represents, but in an area more conducive to getting more money. For $10,000 you could get a moment with Sarah and have your picture taken! :rolleyes:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/04/net-neutrality-fcc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/comcast-finds-winning-is_b_530755.html

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-next-for-network-neutrality.html

So the only thing left for the FCC to do, is reclassify broadband back to what it use to be before 2002 when the FCC made the mistake of classifying it to what we have now.
Comcast probally bite off more then they can chew with winning this fight.

So the only thing left for the FCC to do, is reclassify broadband back to what it use to be before 2002 when the FCC made the mistake of classifying it to what we have now.


That would be fine as a stop gap measure if the persue a regulation policy that broady prohibits any sort of content or ip restricting but does establish some sort of standard to deal with bandwidth hogging.

Say you go out to a all you can eat restraunt tonight. it's somewhat crowded but everyone is bieng reasonable and taking a full plate with average helpings and the pans are always at least half full and fresh.
Then all of a sudden theres no food left because hey look that family of six all weighing over 400 pounds came in and are filling up 3 and 4 plates a shot all piled so high it's spilling all over the place. management tells you "Sorry, federal regulations state that we cannot refuse service or limit helping sizes. you'll just have to be happy with scrapings from the bottom pans"

There's absolutely nothing in any FCC statements or public goals that requires anyone to operate at a loss, so that's a total strawman. You're talking about something that is completely different from everyone else.

Say you go out to a all you can eat restraunt tonight. it's somewhat crowded but everyone is bieng reasonable and taking a full plate with average helpings and the pans are always at least half full and fresh.
Then all of a sudden theres no food left because hey look that family of six all weighing over 400 pounds came in and are filling up 3 and 4 plates a shot all piled so high it's spilling all over the place. management tells you "Sorry, federal regulations state that we cannot refuse service or limit helping sizes. you'll just have to be happy with scrapings from the bottom pans"

So, all you can eat, unless you want to eat more than someone's arbitrary, subjective definition of what enough is? No thanks. If the ISPs want people to only have a certain number of plates full, they're absolutely free to dictate that (and almost certainly will soon enough, regardless of neutrality).

That whole situation is orthogonal to net neutrality anyway. Net neutrality would in no way impede ISPs from capping bandwidth usage or even throttling certain protocols across the board. You can understand net neutrality as easy as this:

If NBC buys Comcast, they could throttle Comcast users' access to YouTube to dialup speeds, while giving full speed access to Hulu. Extrapolate to the web as a whole. We could kiss innovation and entrepreneurship on the web goodbye.

Comcast bought NBC, btw.

Yeah, that. Same difference for this illustration.

Even worse, really, since not only did it already happen ... but why else would the largest cable provider in the country buy a failing broadcast corporation other than to do exactly what you describe?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/11/governments-broadband-inv_n_533198.html

If The cable and phone companys think those rural areas arnt worth giving broadband to. Well, it looks like the government is gonna step in and install it without there help and upgrade the existing broadband/fiber optic to faster speeds and more bandwidth.
Competition is good, there gonna have to step up to the plate and compete for those customers, by actually lowering there prices and giving better services or go the way of the dinosaurs.
I just hope michigan is gettin in on this. I cant even imagine what 100mb-10gigs per sec speeds would be like. I have lived with 5kb per sec downloads the last 11 years on dial up. lol

Even worse, really, since not only did it already happen ... but why else would the largest cable provider in the country buy a failing broadcast corporation other than to do exactly what you describe?

Ummm, why exactly was Ma Bell broken up by the government? Oh yeah, something about monopoly and competition.............Comcast is attempting to become the Ma Bell of broadband and cable.

(Although many would argue it has already taken on that persona)

If NBC buys Comcast, they could throttle Comcast users' access to YouTube to dialup speeds, while giving full speed access to Hulu. Extrapolate to the web as a whole. We could kiss innovation and entrepreneurship on the web goodbye.

Exactly! I agree 100% and would fully support legislation to prevent this. sorry if you miss read my stand on this.

But the whole argument in the courts was not over anything to do with content restrictions but was over thier limiting specific IP/CMAC users.

Speaking of the speed: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/1gbps-symmetric-fiber-us26-in-hong-kong.ars

1,000 megabit down and up, for less than I pay for 18 megabit down and 1.5 megabit up.

It's not just megacities like HK, it's everywhere that says F the comm companies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8618507.stm

40 Mbit is better than the best you can buy in most major cities in the US.

I dont understand the logic of the Comm Companies, why are they limiting this country to lower standards then the rest of the world. In terms of speed and access. Wouldnt they want to be the best out there?
Or is it they can do what ever they want with less and more expensive services, since theres not much competition between them?

http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/

I cant wait to see what Google is up to, they are coming out with there own highspeed broadband service thats suppose to be tons faster and cheaper then the best of what the Comm Companies offer. I hope they do, we really need tons more competition to break the Big Comm Companies stranglehold on things here. It would be nice to get everyone wired up across the country with highspeeds that are affordable.

It's pretty simple. They aren't out to provide service to you. They're ought to sell your advertising value to people with advertising money, and get you to pay as much as possible for it.

Asian megacities are easy to provide cheap ultra highspeed service for. Take 15-30 million people and shove them into the footprint slightly larger than that of most US suburban shopping malls and the sky is the limit. There just isn't that much infrastructure to build and maintain to service a vast customer base. Plus in asia for the most part there is no suburbs. You have ultra-density and then you cross a DMZ of sorts into complete rural. Its all about cramming as many people in as little space as possible to provide vast efficiency.

The USA doesn't have that ability. Plus our country is huge compared to Hong Kong, or Singapore or any other city state you want to mention which has the ability to be a whole geopolitical/ economic entity while occupying virtually no land area. We planned around cars and sprawl so there is the issue of infrastructure to not only build but also maintain is a HUGE problem and our comms have chosen to just plain not address it for the time being. We just don't have the demographics and urban design models in place for anything that efficient. People are so ready to peg all of this on the corporate overlords and the greed of the evil demons in suits who scheme up cunning new ways to line their pockets while keeping progress in check. Its both. Greed has a big factor, as the Comms angle to usurp conventional television while at the same time keeping conventional TV profitable. Our piss poor layout of our cities and towns is also a huge player as well too. One or the other would not be inpediment enough. Both combined and this is what we have. You can also throw in the growing demand for censorship and DRM in the mix too.

Plus I have to add: it could be worse. Yes, we don't have the blazing speed of Seoul or Singapore etc. We also don't have the vast censorship as well as bandwith throttling of China. Perhaps China is the new global model though. Beats me. I know for a fact you all don't take my opinions on most of your IT crusades too seriously but just had to throw that out there. =P

The land-area argument is a dinosaur-myth that refuses to die. It may sound truthy, but it's a red herring.

Over 80% of the US population lives in a metropolitan area, and most of those people already have fibre within a few miles. That's why it's feasible for these neighborhoods to chip in and just build it themselves (until the telecom/cable companies sue them out of it).

The idea that the utility companies in one of the richest, most technologically advanced countries in the world can't manage to run fibre a few miles and still turn a profit is absurd beyond belief.

And that 80% already has access to broadband the MSO's are improving the services still and will always do so within the confines of reasonable investment. Verizons is in the midst of the FTTP build but it's to early to tell if it's going to end up profitable or not but they like the large MSO coax providers are doing this in high population areas.
It's a simple principle of homes passed per mile if that number falls too low it's simply not worth the investment for them.

Keep in mind companies like Comcast have spent billions to expand thier bandwidth and enable reverse pathing. right now the are in a recouping mode and thier investments are going to the end points of the architecture. 15 years ago dial-up and for a lucky few DSL were it.

Then those companies shouldnt mind if the FCC were to go ahead and expand broadband to cover alot more of the country that doesn't have it, (since those companies think rural areas arnt worth squat to them). Also, to upgrade existing broadband to higher speeds and more bandwidth.

And that 80% already has access to broadband the MSO's are improving the services still and will always do so within the confines of reasonable investment. Verizons is in the midst of the FTTP build but it's to early to tell if it's going to end up profitable or not but they like the large MSO coax providers are doing this in high population areas.
It's a simple principle of homes passed per mile if that number falls too low it's simply not worth the investment for them.

Keep in mind companies like Comcast have spent billions to expand thier bandwidth and enable reverse pathing. right now the are in a recouping mode and thier investments are going to the end points of the architecture. 15 years ago dial-up and for a lucky few DSL were it.

Then why is it that our densest, most-wealthy areas (think Manhattan) are lucky to have access to 10% of what's available in SK, at 5-10x the price? The density/landmass argument sounds truthy, but falls apart when you compare what our ISPs are doing to what's happening in most other developed countries.

These interwebnets are fast becoming (have become?) as essential to our economy as railways, interstates, mail, and traditional telecom were in the past. We need to stop making excuses and dicking around while the rest of the world blows past us.

There are great technologies, like telepresence, that would help our businesses cut costs and work more effectively, but they aren't viable en masse here due to our backwater infrastructure.

Then those companies shouldnt mind if the FCC were to go ahead and expand broadband to cover alot more of the country that doesn't have it, (since those companies think rural areas arnt worth squat to them).

Nope, they wouldnt at all as long they are going to get help from the FCC (the Feds) to defray the costs of doing so in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. take the timeframe of profitability from say 10 to 15 years down to 2 to 3 years and you'll change the attitude to enthusiastic. compare it to other business. it's like bitching that wal-mart wont build a super center in your town of a population of 275. betcha Mickey D's will thumb thier noses at you to.(although thats probably a good thing) instead you'll have to deal with the local guy who runs the five and time and the local guy who runs his grandpas drive in burger joint.

I'm all for Obama's initiative to expand broadband. but thats what it going take is goverment subsidies i really hope it happens because thats money for me.

I could care less about Wal mart or Micky Ds, thats just crap you dont need. Highspeed access is now and the future, its becoming a must have in this world these days. Jobs, business, seeing your Doctor etc... You cant stream audio or video on dial up, downloading and uploading anything over 150 MB is not even possible, my isp drops me after 8 hours. And 150 MBs is about 8 hours of downloading.

I can feel your pain and dont disagree with you. but i can first hand tell you the difficulties and expenses involved. San was correct when he pointed out Manhatten as the most densest area in the US population wise. it's also probably the most expensive per foot place to do any sort of construction of any sort.

Allamar, sounds as if you live in the sticks a bit ehh? for all the perks that come with we city folks dont get enjoy also come with drawbacks when it comes to modern tech.

We have come a long way in the last 10 years. first step was to rectify the enequities in the infrastructure that was vintage 70's stuff. a large part of the problem has been that past generations never forsaw the information age revolution and never built anything with an eye to the future in respect to all this Star Trek type things we take for granted today. they do build for an eye to future now.

My take on it ... if getting the super-high-speed-internet to Allamar's house was probably going to be profitable, someone would do it. They see the costs involved with the installation and maintenance not nearly as beneficial as having him as a customer. Unlike food and health care, the internet is a bit of a luxury item - you don't need it. When running my business, I won't do a shoot if there isn't some profit or other incentive for me (like pro bono for charity, good relations with a client, good PR, etc.).

There are perks for living in the middle of bumblefuck (I assume, at least, hell - maybe there aren't) and there are drawbacks ... this is the latter. You can enjoy your house that is 3x the size of mine for probably the same cost and lack of traffic, I'll enjoy my tiny townhouse with 17 mb/s HDTV and 15 mb/s internet porn after sitting on the beltway for an hour.

That is where the FCC steps in, there is funding for more broadband connections in the stimulus bill that was passed. There plan is to wire up 90% of the country by 2020.
Which of course i would fall into that, since i live not even a quarter mile from one town and 5 miles from the next, all they got to do is connect through each town. And no, its not out in the sticks, theres about 16 houses within a mile down this road and over 30 houses down this road to the next town alone. They can do it, even if its got to be the government that does it.
Blowing taxpayers money out the window for needless wars and bailouts for banks and shit, but god help us, if we want to pay for broadband for all or healthcare for all.
I think the taxes i pay is worth spending in those areas.

My take on it ... if getting the super-high-speed-internet to Allamar's house was probably going to be profitable, someone would do it.

You're making two erroneous assumptions, first that we are operating some sort of free market economy easily open to competition, and second that all desirable things are profitable. There is a reason we haven't had predominately private roads , universities, etc.

Is a luxory utility really comparable to roads? One is paid for out of pocket by those who choose to use it, one is paid through our local and federal taxes.

And its not the difference between none and some, but good and better. Most people don't need more than dialup, and there is always satellite and other options available.

Satellite? Dont make me laugh, its worse then dialup and is tons more expensive. Of course, It is the only other option here, there are no other options besides those two (i looked everywhere). I use satellite for Dish TV (the only way to watch cable TV, everyone in this area has either Dish or Direct satellite TV).

Forgive the cliche, but I still fail to see why that's "our" problem. You have access to the internet, you just want better access but don't want to pay for it and don't want to move for it. My mom and step dad use the internet every day on dialup in their small town in New Jersey and probably don't even notice it being "slow", I'd imagine most users are quite content with dialup.

To be able to have my company, my profession, and my internet I choose to live in a suburban community. I can guarantee you if it wasn't possible to get high speed internet here, I wouldn't have moved here. With that, I have to pay crazy high taxes and deal with traffic and sometimes fight over a parking space.

Do I think everyone should have access to the internet, and if not the government should step in? Yes
Do I think everyone should have access to roads, and universities? Sure
But should everyone have access to the fastest internet on the taxpayers dime, despite them choosing to live in the middle of bumblefuck, USA? Newp
Just like how you wouldn't expect the government to find me a job making 6 figures producing for television outside of a major metropolitan area. They could (should) help find me employment, but certainly not what I deem necessary.

I got mine, f' yall!

But its hardly like that. Its more like:
I don't have a big boat, so the government should give me a boat because I want it. Sure, I have a canoe - but that's hardly fast enough for me since all the waterways here are small and have no current. I could get a fast boat at an affordable cost if I moved, but I don't want to do that, instead the government better give me a big one and dredge all the rivers out so I can move as fast as people elsewhere.

At $30 / month for Fios, and I'm sure a large chunk of that costs actually goes to keeping Verizon operating and its not all pure profit, I am pretty sure they figure running the lines to Allamar's house won't make them a profit in any reasonable time frame - else why wouldn't they do it? You don't have an answer for that. They spend millions on advertising trying to attract new subscribers, not discouraging them.

If it was a case of profit, they could raise his area's rates. What they instead offered was a deal so overpriced as to guarantee they wouldn't be asked. You're the one trying to insert some kind of fifth grade understanding of economics into a situation that has no relation to it, then backing it up with ridiculous strawmen about government handouts.

The cable and phone companies know they have a lock on the market. They have no motivation to do it when it's merely profitable, they're extorting us for it to be insanely profitable. Which is why once they bother running lines in an area, they want everyone to use them, that's pure additional profit at that point. Which is why any place that tries seems to be able to deliver better service, now, cheaper than they offer.

Why don't you blow your mind and compare how the comm companies operate compared to the power companies or the water companies or the gas companies. I'll give you a hint why they are all able to deliver service to everyone at reasonable rates while insuring that the private providers are all making above operating costs. It's because the Public Utility Commissions (big bad gubmint!) can come down on their contracted providers like the four horsemen.

WTF, who said anything about getting free internet??
All i been saying is i want access to the best connections, so i can then PAY for it like anyone else. Even your connections shouldnt be that expensive or that slow, compared to the rest of the world.
I dont even understand your objections, crying about tax payer money, im a tax payer to. Id like to see my Tax dollars put to good use by hooking everyone up to the best.
You might like your taxes wasted in wars or bailouts or other shit like bridges to nowhere, they waste em for shit like that all the time. So why bitch about something that would be a benefit to millions around the country.

Yes, but you need electricity and water. You can even argue you need internet. But you can't argue you need internet so COMCASTIC that it horribly offends the Slowskies. Maybe the government should give everyone HBO next?

I am not saying they should be allowed to have monopolies, nor price gouge, nor slow our YouTube connection while allowing us to browse Hulu fast ... but I don't think they should be forced to serve customers they can't afford to serve and/or don't want to serve when other companies are already serving them and are quite happy to do so.

More points than I can address in a single reply (but i'm Mc Lovin this thread keep it coming)
Al, feel free to check my math i could be horribly wrong. but....
8.76 miles @ the assumed industry cost* of $10,000$ per mile = $52,500
Divided amongst 46 homes = a per home cost of $1141 per home.
Lets assume your sweet huckleberry and buy into all three lines of business (we all know you are =) ) @ at $120.00 a month it would take 9.5 months for them to break even on the construction side alone.
That doesnt even take into account the cost of labor and materials to connect your home.
The truth be told heres how the reality of it will fold out.
1/3 rd older folks, dont really use that new fangled internet thing, had the phone line and number for 30-40 years not intesested and happy with the sat system.
1/3 rd locked into sat contract wise may switch later. use thier cell's exclusively. intrigued by the internet thing but need to think about it.
1/3 rd "bout frakking time jack me in!!"

*that was the standard a few years ago and is probably a bit higher these days.

So, conservatively (1/3 buying $120/mo), that pays for itself in 29 months. Who wouldn't invest in an asset that pays for itself in residuals in less than three years, and doubles the investment in less than five years? Bernie Madoff didn't even promise returns that good/quick!

In reality, it should play out a lot better than that too. The first 1/3 will be locked in, without another high-speed choice; no one's going back to dialup once they've had even 768k broadband. Meanwhile, the first third's neighbors will be compelled to pick it up too once they've seen what they're missing.

Its gonna happen eventually, if you like it or not.

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/8-availability/#r8-6

The FCC plan is a universal plan to connect everyone to highspeed broadband. This is what i want to see made reality, im sure the 14 million other folks would agree.
Ill take 4 Mbps downloads any day, over my 5kbps dial up crap. Dial up will one day become like 8 tracks and cassette tapes, a thing of the past.


Moving and progressing the country forward together is what we should be doing. Instead of the, i got mine and leave the rest behind mentality some seem to have.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297402A1.pdf