FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps 353
An anonymous reader writes On Wednesday at a hearing in front of the US House Committee on Small Business, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stated that for ISPs to be eligible for government broadband subsidies, they would have to deliver speeds of at least 10 Mbps. Said Wheeler: "What we are saying is we can't make the mistake of spending the people's money, which is what Universal Service is, to continue to subsidize something that's subpar." He further indicated that he would remedy the situation by the end of 2014. The broadband subsidies are collected through bill surcharges paid for by phone customers.
I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Interesting)
But for once, I like something said by the FCC. Granted, jury is still out if this will go through or not, but I'm loving this push.
Wasn't one way that Broadband penetration was improved previously just by lowering what the definition of broadband was?
Re: (Score:3)
Overselling Bandwidth (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be happy if those fuckers just stopped overselling their bandwidth. I pay for the bandwidth but many times I get squat because everyone else is on the neighborhood cable loop. If the sell it, they need to be able to support it 24/7. This airline approach is bullshit.
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans shouldn't subsidize internet service, period. What needs to be done is break the monopolies and allow competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't we subsidize internet service, at least for people that otherwise couldn't afford it?
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
because we dont care about them. also... because we are essentially just giving internet companies subsidies. this doesnt actually mean that the end user is recieving ANY of this discount.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me put a finer point on that. Whenever you subside a product you
Take money away from the average person (Boo!)
Give some fraction of the subsidy to the buyer (In this case, poor people. Yeah!)
The rest goes to the buyer (In this case, A large monopoly that does not it. Boo!)
The way subsidizes are structured matters. I suspect that under this plan the monopoly will grab the majority of the benifit. In higher education, g
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because for a person born and raised in America to be unable to afford Internet service (as well as a phone, vehicle, decent shelter, and food) is a shame. Millions of immigrants here — legal and even illegal ones — manage to not only do well for themselves, they are also able to support extended families back home [cbo.gov]. That's despite the culture shock, not knowing the predominant language very well, and — in many cases — dubious legal status.
But if you feel like continuing the failed "War on Poverty" [dailysignal.com] for another fifty years — go ahead. Just don't force me at gunpoint (via the IRS, that is) to join you.
Re: (Score:3)
Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people really don't feel like busting ass every waking moment of their lives? And that maybe in "the greatest nation in the world" we could actually afford to ensure they get Internet access (not to mention a phone, vehicle, decent shelter, and food)?
No, that would be horrible. That would mean people get to not work their asses off. What a shame that would be, right? I mean, who would pay for it? Clea
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Explain to me why we still need as large a percentage of our population working as we had 600 years ago? Are all these productivity gains a myth? Does technology not actually enable us to do more with less?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you familiar at all with serfdom? A serf in the middle ages did not have it better then modern migrant workers.
I never said otherwise. I was saying that a serf in the middle ages had it more or less equally good as modern migrant workers.
Could you be specific about what migrant workers you are talking about. I doubt there is any place in this world where migrant workers are taking advantage technology to improve their efficiency and do not have modern amenities like cell phones.
The kind that lack a legal right to work, work for illegally low wages, have little to no wealth, and pick fruits and vegeables on industrial farms that were tilled, sowed, and irrigated using modern technology. I suppose you might say that while agriculture overall has benefited from tremendous gains in efficiency, this one part of it hasn't, and therefore migrant workers shouldn't
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:4, Informative)
Neah, I'm a USSR-raised atheist, thank you very much.
The cost of the "War on Poverty", since Lyndon Johnson first waged it 50 years ago, is 22 trillion of 2012-vintage dollars [dailysignal.com]. That's more than all of the Republic's actual (as in military) wars cost combined. I don't think, the hundreds of billionaires could shoulder that kind of expense. They'd need help from thousands of millionaires — and millions of the rest of us. And even that would be insufficient — you'd need to borrow money from abroad...
But whoever wants to help others work less than their spending requires, is welcome to do it. My objection is to spending tax-monies (you know, the funds collected at gunpoint) on it. For it is not only stupid, it is also un-Constitutional — according to an educated opinion of one of the document's very authors [goodreads.com]:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Says the person that can easily afford internet access and all the perks that come with it. In other words, "fuck you; got mine."
Re: (Score:3)
I earned it by being lucky, being born middle class, having a college education and finding a good job. If internet is a luxury then your point has more validity. But internet rapidly becoming an essential service. Shouting at the bums to get a job never actually solved any problems.
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
How's that internet-free job search going for you? You know - the one where you can at best get online when you can get to a library between working two jobs to pay your bills and trying to get enough sleep to continue to function effectively. Dialup meanwhile is generally going to be not much cheaper after you factor in the cost of getting an otherwise useless phone line: we live in the age where a cell-phone is practically required for normal social interactions.
And seriously - if we're giving handouts to the poor, the kind that give them a better chance to stop being poor are first on my list. Poor people are a drain on the economy, and our economic system is currently tilted strongly against those trying to climb out of poverty. Giving them equal communication capabilities is probably one of the cheapest and most effective ways we can help reduce poverty without directly confronting the wealthy powers that have tilted the board in their own favor.
Now sure, you could argue that broadband is hardly required in order to do such a thing, but if we're subsidizing *something*, this is an excellent opportunity to apply some non-regulatory leverage to the ISPs who have thus far lobbied their way to a pretty posh deal on that front. A government subsidy can represent a massive economic opportunity, and unless deliberately hamstrung(such as Medicare being prohibitted from negotiating lower drug prices like every other insurance provider does) puts the government in a position to be able to economically incentivize socially responsible corporate behavior such as providing quality, socially valuable goods and services with less economic waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as my libertarian side wants to agree with you, I can't help but notice the positive effects of rural electrification and phone service. Damn you, history and pragmatism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are pros and cons to living anywhere. Cities have great access to all sorts of good and services but can be expensive. Rural areas are much cheaper but have difficult access. Suburban areas are a compromise.
Why tax those that live in high cost cities to pay to provide services to rural areas. Isn't the cheap cost of living in a rural area a natural subside?
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but at the same time, paying for an internet line to be run to your house can actually cost more than your house in rural areas... Note: The price of the work, and for the final service, is often determined by the monopoly carrier for your area.
My grandfather was quoted $4000 to run a coax cable 500 feet to the street (which was up and running) to his home. His only other option was 36k dial up (too far north, and too many trees, for satellite). He's retired now (has been for decades), and while he lives comfortably in his home on his retirement, he can't afford an extra "luxury" expense like this.
Recently, my co-worker was quoted $60,000 to get internet brought to his rural community... per home... and required 2 dozen people within a 3-mile radius to sign a 3-year contract and agree to also pay that 'set up fee'. Their other option? Satellite (which has a 25GB download limit). The area is sanctioned monopoly.
Now, if you are ALSO living in a rural area where the average ~5 yr experience IT/programming/database job is $45-55,000, spending $60,000 for internet is a bit ridiculous... and not offset by your 'city wages in a rural area'
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe you should consider living somewhere else than if you want a career in IT. Through all of history the characteristics and features of a geographic location have dictated the type of economic activity that goes on there.
Ever wonder why big cities tended to be near rivers or coasts ( at least prior the development of the automobile? ) there is a reason!
Wonder why all those orange groves get planted in Florida and not Maine?
I do IT consulting work mostly from home, but hop a plane about one a month currently. I am looking to live to more rural area myself because I am hiker and it would be nice to near on of the big State or National parks, but I have made it perfectly clear to my real estate agent that I can't look at properties unless they have good high speed internet service available at the location (by good I mean 800Kbps up down or better low latency; which is enough to remote into virtual servers where you do your real work from at the corporate offices).
You just don't always get to have it both ways! If you want to work in Information technology you probably have to stick close to where certain infrastructure is, and there are good economic reasons for where that is and isn't. You probably should consider another career path or maybe moving.
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, I am not so sure I agree with what you have just written. Isn't the very industry of Information Technology based upon the predicate of a solution in response to a requirement?
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you should consider living somewhere else than if you want a career in IT.
A fair point, but I think you should consider something as well: food security.
If a rural place is so backward and so lonely that no one wants to be a farmer, what do you think that will do to food production? Not to mention the simple distastefulness of having barefoot poverty within the US. Sometimes market efficiency has to take a back seat to other priorities.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of our food comes from huge factory farms.
I'm not disputing that. But these farms do not exist in a vacuum. They need to have infrastructure and skilled (as well as the unskilled that you mentioned) labor. Farms need to have mechanics, electricians, plumbers, doctors, lawyers, roads, etc. Rural life sucks in a lot of ways - take away electricity and telecommunications and you've made it really suck. As you insinuate, most sane people won't live like that. And some people will stay and live like mountain people. If you think it is good for our democ
Re: (Score:3)
Obesity is a poverty disease.
So is starvation, and I know which one I choose.
Ban corn syrup. Ban ethanol. Reduce corn production. These are tax subsidised scams that actively harm us.
Ban ban ban. Two sides of the same coin. You can't complain about other people's choice of market manipulation and then suggest substituting for your own. It doesn't work that way. If you are pro regulation and you don't like the regulation that results - well, tough shit... that's what happens when you give the powerful more power.
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should consider living somewhere else than if you want a career in IT. Through all of history the characteristics and features of a geographic location have dictated the type of economic activity that goes on there.
Ever wonder why big cities tended to be near rivers or coasts ( at least prior the development of the automobile? ) there is a reason!
Wonder why all those orange groves get planted in Florida and not Maine?
I don't think the point is that the orange groves are in Florida. The point is that you can eat Florida oranges pretty much anywhere in the country if you want them, and there's no good reason not to have broadband everywhere as well. As you said, we didn't stay by the water, we made cars and moved on. I guarantee that you are literally surrounded by things that, at some point in history, would have been unavailable to you because of geography. Thankfully, technology has been steadily overcoming geographic location pretty much since there were such things as technology and geographic location. Now we need to overcome are the gatekeepers and monopolists holding back a service that is vital to our society.
Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For your grandfather, would he have been allowed to install it himself the final 500 feet and if so what would have the telco cost been to establish the connection?
For the rural community, what sort of housing density are we talking about?
One thing that I would like to see it community networks that are then leased out to ISPs, with non-exclusive agreements. I would hope that in this scenario the ISPs and telco could not argue unfair competition and therefore be unable to block this.
Re: (Score:3)
A couple of years ago, I asked Comcast to quote for installing Internet service to my office in the middle of Silicon Valley. Their quote: $99/month and an installation fee of $200,000. Yes, that's right: $200,000 to install an Internet connection in the middle of Silicon Valley. We declined.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cities only work due to their hinterland, obviously one isn't going to see coal mines downtown and whatnot. Even the basics, such as asphalt and concrete, need aggregate which means blasting and quarries. Food is another huge import. Rural areas in the modern world also need cities, they provide a large local market and drive services and development. It's an interplay, they are codependant constructs.
Rural subsidies ensure these inputs exist at reasonable rates. Rural areas often subside things like mass t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are misunderstanding the market that exists in areas served / subsidized by these funds.. Rural markets that lack infrastructure currently.
e.g. there is no competition to encourage .. in areas where it is high cost - low return, most companies won't take on the expense themselves with no possibility of payback.
Currently for these customers, the only option available is cellular data access, at high prices for comparatively small amounts of data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Link (Score:2)
Don't know why, but link provided isn't functional. This is a working link: http://arstechnica.com/busines... [arstechnica.com]" - onproton [slashdot.org] (3434437)
Re: (Score:2)
Also: att-says-10mbps-is-too-fast-for-broadband-4mbps-is-enough [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
this is because over half of ATT's internet service plans are below 10Mbps and they charge like 30$ for them per month
Re: (Score:2)
"Video calls? You need a good upload link if you're going to make that work, or the quality is so crappy it won't be workable."
Please. I've been running Camfrog Video Chats on a 5/1 line for almost a decade without a problem. That's dozens of video cams up at once, with frame rates so fluid deaf people can sign over video chat and be understood perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that upload needs to be considered, but 10mb is a great starting point for basic broadband service.
well, duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
in urban europe 24mbps is considered subpar; what you yanks have, is frightenly slow.
Re: (Score:2)
in urban europe 24mbps is considered subpar; what you yanks have, is frightenly slow.
24 Mb/s is pretty good for most any everyday household use, assuming it has consistently low latency and no packet loss.
The real question you should ask your ISP is: what's the network like when the weekend Netflix streaming surges kick in? Or: is my friday night deathmatch going to lag terribly? Of course if you ask that of their sales people you'll get blank stares and answers along the lines of "Netflix and games work great".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:well, duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
That really is not a fair comparison. How many states has the "up to par" connection? Compare the states to europian countries, not usa as a whole to a europian country. Or compare usa to whole europe or EU atleast. So you can't say USA is much bigger than a single europian country, so you have a lot more work to do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
what like china or russia that also wipe the floor with US infrastructure?
Re:well, duh? (Score:4, Informative)
the building of infrastructure isnt the problem. with the exception of rural areas, everywhere in the US already has fiber optic cable capable of getting gigabit speeds. the issue we have is that each ISP has its own little area with no competition.. why would they charge 70$ per month for gigabit(like google) when they can charge 50$ a month for 20Mbit
Re:well, duh? (Score:4, Informative)
"everywhere in the US already has fiber optic cable capable of getting gigabit speeds"
If you define "has" as "has within a mile," then you're absolutely correct. If you define it as "has passing the home," then definitely not.
Re: (Score:2)
So like these companies have to actually string a cable for a few hundred yards and pay for that investment over time based on gaining $50 every 100 feet of run length of a cable that costs $5 and maybe $1000 to install?
Wow, that sounds like a reasonable capital investment -- how ever will they be able to sit back and charge tolls without any expense at all?
Re:well, duh? (Score:5, Informative)
The EU is much less lenient on monopolies.
We have (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but Europe doesn't have IDIOTS who believe all the garbage that comes from Libertarian think tanks or PR stories paid for by the companies we try and regulate.
New York should be SUPER CHEAP AND FAST based on an apples to apples comparison -- except for that aforementioned ingredient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA you can;
1 ) Charge more and provide less and complain that there's too many people.
2 ) Charge more and provide less and complain that there's too few people.
3 ) Charge more and provide less and complain that clients are too far apart -- ignoring the fact that you NEVER paid for the $500 billion in infrastructure in the first place and have not yet used all it's capacity.
4) Charge more and provide less and say any damn thing you want because we've got some weird ass cheerleaders who have been ween
No more subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point, the various big ISPs have taken so much taxpayer money, and provided so little in return, that I'd say we should stop providing them with any subsidies, and still require the same level of buildout. They can take the balance out of their execs' bonuses from next quarter—which should be enough to cover a fair amount of infrastructure.
Dan Aris
Re:No more subsidies (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't we fine them and jail the executives for fraud on not delivering promised product instead? Might put a kick in the pants.
I'm tired of punishments consisting of not paying the corporate robbers any more money but getting to keep all they made so far.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't we fine them and jail the executives for fraud on not delivering promised product instead?
No, prison is for dangerous people. They can use asset forfeiture, RICO, and other laws to control this behavior. And we should demand that their corporate charter be revoked. Problem solved, except maybe for the prison industry you all seem to want to feed.
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, the various big ISPs have taken so much taxpayer money, and provided so little in return, that I'd say we should stop providing them with any subsidies, and still require the same level of buildout. They can take the balance out of their execs' bonuses from next quarter—which should be enough to cover a fair amount of infrastructure.
Dan Aris
I believe that he is referring to the Universal Service Fund (correct me if I'm wrong) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
If that's the case, these are fees the Telcos are required to pay to the feds, who then turn around and redistribute to "Target" customers. Generally the poor or Rural customers. For example, Lifeline (which AT&T hilariously advertises as their own charity) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
So, to call this a "Bailout" or subside is kind of misleading. The telco industry charges more to
Re:No more subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still learning this law stuff, but aren't they are private corporations providing what is essentially a non-essential luxury product? Unless someone proves they are doing something illegal, the government doesn't have any grounds to require any buildout at all. Subsidies are actually good for the consumer in the sense that they are how the government can influence things like buildout and quality service. That is, assuming the ISPs don't just take the money and run. Again.
Well, first off, they fall under the FCC's jurisdiction as telecommunications companies of one stripe or another. So there's a certain amount of power to regulate them there.
Second of all, as you so astutely note, giving them federal funds with strings attached means they are sort of required to abide by the terms of those strings, and from what I understand (though I haven't researched this in-depth), they have, in fact, taken government money to do certain things that they have signally failed to do, which means there ought to at least be some sort of penalty until they do. Money might work—say, 10% of their gross income the first year they fail to comply, increasing to 20% the second year, 30% the third, until they either do their damn jobs or simply bleed to death.
Thirdly, there is a strong argument to be made (whether you agree with it or not; I happen to) that internet service is, at this point, no longer a "non-essential luxury product," but a basic service along the lines of telephone and power. As such, it should be regulated much more strictly than it has been to date. Ideally, the company that owns the physical hardware (the lines going to your house, for instance) should either be government-owned, or should at least be forbidden from actually providing any more than the hardware—they should have to lease the lines at one price to all comers in the ISP market, and have no "value-add services" of their own. That would remove the incentive for them to do anything with their money but invest it in better infrastructure.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the speed you need depends on what you want/need to do with it.
1mbps is more than enough for browsing the web, filling in government forms, doing your banking, keeping in touch by email, posting on slashdot and so-on, it should even be just about enough for low resoloution youtube videos. Dialup is no longer really sufficient, the modern web has become too bloated.
Much as I like fast internet I think bringing people stuck on dialup onto some form of DSL is probablly a better use of subsidies than
The most logical explanation for this... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, alternatively, the envelope got so big it doesn't fit Wheeler's mailbox anymore.
AT&T and Verizon, always pushing for a quicker response to client needs, are installing a larger mailbox at this very moment.
10Mbps is still slow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, given that the Fed's main purpose these days seems to be to inflate bubbles, I'd be happier if they chose a fiber rollout to everyone as their target bubble instead of current targets of banks & house values. At least at the end of the day my quality of life might improve in a small way, and our infrastructure would get a boost.
Similarly, I would have been happier if the Fed has decided to funnel all that money into our physical transport infrastructure.
The devil is in the details though. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re:10Mbps is still slow (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically everything is doable at 10Mbps. It's an acceptable minimum standard. We'd all like to see more, but at least they're setting the bar someplace livable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Minimum standard for what? 2014? Per individual? Per family? Per household? Per block? Per neighborhood?
Please try to keep up.
1. Standards change. 10Mbps might be an acceptable minimum today, but it certainly won't be in 2024, let alone 2054.
1. Standards change.
The devil is in the details.
So is the wankery of your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Or put the bar at something innovative, like 10 mbps symmetric.
Americans shoudln't subsidize internet service (Score:2)
... at all.
Re: (Score:2)
... at all.
Sooo .. all the people out in the countryside with the subsidized phone, water electricity service should just suck it up in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And they should get off open-ended subsidies (transfers from other taxpayers).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And they should get off open-ended subsidies (transfers from other taxpayers).
While you are at it .. why not just get them all to move to the cities where all the important infrastructure, jobs and money are?
Re: (Score:2)
"why not just get them all to move"
Sorry, I'm not a dictator.
Re: (Score:3)
"why not just get them all to move"
Sorry, I'm not a dictator.
But you would condemn them to sub-standard living just for the reason of residing outside of a large metropolitan area.
Re: (Score:2)
"But you would condemn them to sub-standard living"
No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
"sub-standard living" -- that's begging the question
Re: (Score:3)
No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
And in doing you are implying that market conditions should dictate the availability of such services in rural areas. However the cost of such services is increased by the fact that they are being provided in rural areas compared with more densely populated areas. In addition the effect of this cost is exacerbated by depressed earnings in rural areas compared with metropolitan earnings. Thus by removing all subsidies you are reducing the ability of people in rural areas to enjoy the same levels of servic
Re: (Score:2)
"... Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. ..."
I suggest bearing a little more humbleness as to your predictions about areas' and peoples' economic judgements. If someone could precisely judge the degree of "cost exacerbation" or "enjoyment" of millions of people, that person would be a gajillionaire, not just a commenter. It is simply not for you to judge whether people in rural areas enjoy themselves as much as your urban peers, or should want to spend their money in ways
Re: (Score:3)
And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.
Except that there are benefits to society as a whole by having these people live in rural areas.
Re: (Score:2)
" benefits to society as a whole "
Quantify, specify.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an argument to be made that if that's true then the value they can charge for providing that benefit and use the proceeds to pay for things.
Re: (Score:2)
" benefits to society as a whole "
Quantify, specify.
You like to eat don't you?
Re: (Score:3)
What about roads? Schools? Sewage? Water?
There are some items that are critical to modern society functioning properly. It is a larger benefit to society to implement them efficiently, at a state wide or national scale, then it is to allow pockets of "haves" and "have nots"
Otherwise what we would have is pockets of civilization (e.g. Cities) and everyone else would be living like the amish.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait... (Score:2)
Your hard-earned money is confiscated then given to ISP's, and you still have to pay through the nose for a heaping, steaming pile of manure of throttled, fourth-world internet service? WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
It this country, we have an expectation that phone service will just work everywhere, that you can turn on your tap and get drinkable water, that you can turn on the lights and they'll always work and that you can get on the road and drive anywhere. Out west, no
Good or Bad News? (Score:2)
So does this mean that I'll get faster, better service?
OR
Does this mean that I'll lose the service I now have?
OR
Will the price skyrocket?
One of those three. I live in a rural area, as does much of the country. We have a big country. This is not some piddling small urbanesque country like they have in Europe with short distances. The USA has vast distances between homes and businesses in the rural areas.
Basically what I hear him saying is he only wants to subsidize the urbanites and to hell with the rural fo
Re: (Score:2)
How Does this Effect Rural? (Score:2)
We do not get anywhere close to that, so are all of our substitutes going to disappear and half the country go dark?
Re: (Score:3)
They might have to use the piles of cash they get to actually upgrade them. We have paid to connect every rural home with fiber several times over. Instead they foisted off outdated slow gear on them and used the fund to pay for it.
Sure their might be some places in the US that are more than the 130ish km allowed by standard optics, it's not like we don't know how to stick a DWDM light pump on a pole for those are are to far.
Re: (Score:2)
For the sake of perspective...... (Score:3)
Add another 0. (Score:2)
Should not subsidize monopolies! (Score:2)
As long as we're being socialist - (Score:4, Insightful)
can we address data caps too? Who cares if we have 100 MB access if we're capped a 1 GB?
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix offers 4k for streaming for Breaking bad, Ghostbusters, and Smurfs 2. Who bought their 4K TV to watch SMURFS 2?!?!?!?!
http://variety.com/2014/digita... [variety.com]