If Big Cable gets its way the new era of competition will come to an end. Cable is funding the push to take spectrum away from 5G by giving it to Wi-Fi. Hasn't Bode covered that?
See this article on the growth of 5G FWA: https://reconanalytics.com/congress-stands-in-the-way-of-broadband-competition/
"5G fixed wireless access (FWA) is transforming how Americans are accessing the internet. In less than three years, 7.9 million customers signed up with FWA as their preferred internet solution. Recon Analytics interviewed more than 40,000 home internet customers in the first 12 weeks of the year and the results are clear: FWA customers are happier with their service than with service through any other technology. The only thing standing in the way of greater success is more capacity, which is why mobile operators are clamoring for more licensed full-power spectrum."
While BestNetTech whines, the broadband market is getting a makeover.
This is essentially a duplicate of Bode's analyses of the Genachowski and Wheeler NN orders. As such, it is an opportunity to check the predictions that Big Tech's NN lobby has made over the years.
The most hilarious comment concerns the "exploitative market rates only made possible by monopolization and corruption." We happen to be in the midst of the greatest explosion of competition for broadband service in history, thanks to 5G FWA, LEO, and even CBRS. Unlike the pseudo-competition in Europe where multiple resellers peddle the exact same service, we in the US enjoy facilities-based competition. Broadband speeds are rising and prices are falling.
Hence, technology has exposed the emptiness of NN monopoly claims. The same thing happened with voice following the '96 Telecom Act that was supposed to open the voice market by opening up access to the POTS wire plant. It was predictable, IOW.
Big Tech's NN advocates are now struggling for a rationale, so they fall back on the cute little horror stories about the wickedness of blocking, throttling, and "paid prioritization" that they've over-worked since 2005.
NN advocates have always failed to appreciate the fact that network quality has more than one dimension. It therefore can't be measured or provided simply by increasing bandwidth, their fundamental belief.
At this point, people who genuinely care about robust competition and genuine support for the full panoply of applications, current and emerging, have moved on from NN.
One important issue is fighting Big Tech's campaign to assign mid-band spectrum to Wi-Fi instead of full power 5G. Wi-Fi is less like a network than an alternative to 20 foot Ethernet cables. Wi-Fi can thrive on millimeter wave frequencies that are challenging for 5G.
The smart people are on this issue, or AI, privacy, or poor people subsidies. But others beat dead horses because human weakness.
Bode may not be good at grammar*, but he's got the profanities down. Trouble is, the standard for outrage is much higher than it was back in the days of DSL Reports. Today we get video outrage all over ex-Twitter and Rumble, so mere words just don't stoke the passions as they used to. I think the Mr. McBodeface needs to try harder and do better. The definition of broadband is simply cosmetic.
*First sentence contradicts itself: "For decades, the FCC has maintained an arguably pathetic definition of “broadband,” allowing the telecom industry to under-deliver substandard access." Doesn't a pathetic definition make it harder to under-deliver?
Which kind of magic fiber wire shall the government install, old fashioned solid core or state of the art hollow core? As far as I can tell, all government owned fiber networks in the US are essentially obsolete.
And how responsive will the Government Fiber Lords be to requests for backhaul from cell sites? What about smart cities that want fiber to the traffic light? And what about security on shared access lambdas?
There are a lot of open issues with the speedy withdrawal of private capital from the broadband market. We may need to do a bit more planning before we withdraw lest the broadband market descends into chaos.
Consumer Reports had a good reputation when it was all about testing toasters and fridges, but their foray into public policy hasn't gone well. They've got a huge campaign around promoting organic food, not really consumer friendly or good for the planet.
This article doesn't fill me with confidence in the author's expertise. The fact that he fails to mention mobile broadband suggests it's merely ice skating over the issue.
Masnick tries to make the word "Official" in the title of Georgia's Official Annotated Code do more work than it can do. The Georgia codes themselves have always been devoid of copyright protection, as they should be.
But a book of annotated codes is very different from a book of codes because the annotations contain opinions, summaries, and interpretations of legal cases that are no more "official" than the sources they draw upon. As the Supreme Court notes: "Georgia and JUSTICE GINSBURG emphasize that the annotations do not purport to provide authoritative explanationsof the law and largely summarize other materials, such as judicial decisions and law review articles."
Works of this nature are copyright protected regardless of who pays for them to be created. Hence, the 4 dissenting justices (Thomas, Alito, Ginsburg, and Breyer) are right and the majority is wrong. The authorship standard is the only possible leg the majorty opinion has to stand on.
Critics of the FCC Broadband Deployment Report don't seem to understand its purpose. Congress ordered the FCC to issue regular reports on the deployment of advanced networks, not on their use or on the nature of the broadband market or how much subscriptions cost or how many homes have computers or any number of other fascinating questions.
Hence, the question the FCC has been asked by Congress is quite different from the one that Bodey and Rosenworcel wish it had been asked.
Is broadband being extended into unserved areas at a reasonable and timely rate, yes or no?
Are existing networks being regularly upgraded to higher speeds, yes or no?
The answer to the relevant questions is yes, and has been yes for decades.
The questions that come up relative to subscription rates is whether Congress should fund programs to increase the Lifeline subsidy or other programs along the lines of Comcast's Internet Essentials. If encouraging more people to buy Internet subscriptions is something Congress cares about, all it has to do is say so and write some checks. I don't think any ISP in America would be disinterested in signing up more subscribers to subsidized plans.
Another day, another fake news post from BestNetTech's resident hypochondriac.
American broadband is excellent compared to the rest of the world, as every credible study and report from Speedtest by Ookla and Akamai has shown for at least the past decade.
Getting wired broadband to rural areas is a global problem that we don't do any worse than anybody else does. Rural broadband isn't a competition problem, it's a subsidy problem. If it were easy to solve, Tom Wheeler and Julius Genachowski would have fixed it in their 8 years heading the Obama FCC.
Chairman Pai has addressed this issue much more aggressively than his predecessors, and he deserves some praise for that.
Fail again, AC.
Broadband adds and drops by technology. User experience with FWA in abnormal weather. Fail again, AC.
Big Cable is up to its old tricks
If Big Cable gets its way the new era of competition will come to an end. Cable is funding the push to take spectrum away from 5G by giving it to Wi-Fi. Hasn't Bode covered that?
5G FWA is the customer satisfaction leader
See this article on the growth of 5G FWA: https://reconanalytics.com/congress-stands-in-the-way-of-broadband-competition/ "5G fixed wireless access (FWA) is transforming how Americans are accessing the internet. In less than three years, 7.9 million customers signed up with FWA as their preferred internet solution. Recon Analytics interviewed more than 40,000 home internet customers in the first 12 weeks of the year and the results are clear: FWA customers are happier with their service than with service through any other technology. The only thing standing in the way of greater success is more capacity, which is why mobile operators are clamoring for more licensed full-power spectrum." While BestNetTech whines, the broadband market is getting a makeover.
Companies are competing to be your ISP.
eom
This column didn't age well
This is essentially a duplicate of Bode's analyses of the Genachowski and Wheeler NN orders. As such, it is an opportunity to check the predictions that Big Tech's NN lobby has made over the years. The most hilarious comment concerns the "exploitative market rates only made possible by monopolization and corruption." We happen to be in the midst of the greatest explosion of competition for broadband service in history, thanks to 5G FWA, LEO, and even CBRS. Unlike the pseudo-competition in Europe where multiple resellers peddle the exact same service, we in the US enjoy facilities-based competition. Broadband speeds are rising and prices are falling. Hence, technology has exposed the emptiness of NN monopoly claims. The same thing happened with voice following the '96 Telecom Act that was supposed to open the voice market by opening up access to the POTS wire plant. It was predictable, IOW. Big Tech's NN advocates are now struggling for a rationale, so they fall back on the cute little horror stories about the wickedness of blocking, throttling, and "paid prioritization" that they've over-worked since 2005. NN advocates have always failed to appreciate the fact that network quality has more than one dimension. It therefore can't be measured or provided simply by increasing bandwidth, their fundamental belief. At this point, people who genuinely care about robust competition and genuine support for the full panoply of applications, current and emerging, have moved on from NN. One important issue is fighting Big Tech's campaign to assign mid-band spectrum to Wi-Fi instead of full power 5G. Wi-Fi is less like a network than an alternative to 20 foot Ethernet cables. Wi-Fi can thrive on millimeter wave frequencies that are challenging for 5G. The smart people are on this issue, or AI, privacy, or poor people subsidies. But others beat dead horses because human weakness.
I love the outrage posts
Bode may not be good at grammar*, but he's got the profanities down. Trouble is, the standard for outrage is much higher than it was back in the days of DSL Reports. Today we get video outrage all over ex-Twitter and Rumble, so mere words just don't stoke the passions as they used to. I think the Mr. McBodeface needs to try harder and do better. The definition of broadband is simply cosmetic. *First sentence contradicts itself: "For decades, the FCC has maintained an arguably pathetic definition of “broadband,” allowing the telecom industry to under-deliver substandard access." Doesn't a pathetic definition make it harder to under-deliver?
Re: Re:
Benton touted this ancient study the day I commented on it.
Re:
According to Speedtest, Starlink is faster than the open access networks in UK, France, and Germany. Oops!
Hollow core or solid core?
Which kind of magic fiber wire shall the government install, old fashioned solid core or state of the art hollow core? As far as I can tell, all government owned fiber networks in the US are essentially obsolete.
And how responsive will the Government Fiber Lords be to requests for backhaul from cell sites? What about smart cities that want fiber to the traffic light? And what about security on shared access lambdas?
There are a lot of open issues with the speedy withdrawal of private capital from the broadband market. We may need to do a bit more planning before we withdraw lest the broadband market descends into chaos.
Petty attack
How sad that BestNetTech has fallen so low.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bill text has been online for twenty years.
Not the most thoughtful piece I've read about broadband
Consumer Reports had a good reputation when it was all about testing toasters and fridges, but their foray into public policy hasn't gone well. They've got a huge campaign around promoting organic food, not really consumer friendly or good for the planet.
This article doesn't fill me with confidence in the author's expertise. The fact that he fails to mention mobile broadband suggests it's merely ice skating over the issue.
Masnick misunderstands law
Masnick tries to make the word "Official" in the title of Georgia's Official Annotated Code do more work than it can do. The Georgia codes themselves have always been devoid of copyright protection, as they should be.
But a book of annotated codes is very different from a book of codes because the annotations contain opinions, summaries, and interpretations of legal cases that are no more "official" than the sources they draw upon. As the Supreme Court notes: "Georgia and JUSTICE GINSBURG emphasize that the annotations do not purport to provide authoritative explanationsof the law and largely summarize other materials, such as judicial decisions and law review articles."
Works of this nature are copyright protected regardless of who pays for them to be created. Hence, the 4 dissenting justices (Thomas, Alito, Ginsburg, and Breyer) are right and the majority is wrong. The authorship standard is the only possible leg the majorty opinion has to stand on.
This is a deployment report, not a happiness report.
Critics of the FCC Broadband Deployment Report don't seem to understand its purpose. Congress ordered the FCC to issue regular reports on the deployment of advanced networks, not on their use or on the nature of the broadband market or how much subscriptions cost or how many homes have computers or any number of other fascinating questions.
Hence, the question the FCC has been asked by Congress is quite different from the one that Bodey and Rosenworcel wish it had been asked.
Is broadband being extended into unserved areas at a reasonable and timely rate, yes or no?
Are existing networks being regularly upgraded to higher speeds, yes or no?
The answer to the relevant questions is yes, and has been yes for decades.
The questions that come up relative to subscription rates is whether Congress should fund programs to increase the Lifeline subsidy or other programs along the lines of Comcast's Internet Essentials. If encouraging more people to buy Internet subscriptions is something Congress cares about, all it has to do is say so and write some checks. I don't think any ISP in America would be disinterested in signing up more subscribers to subsidized plans.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fake comment
What relevance does the construct "people with a functioning brain" have for a Bodey comment thread? [This is gonna be choice.]
Fake comment
I didn't write that, Bode did.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More fake news from Bodey McBodeface
You said what you said.
Re: Re: Re: Re: More fake news from Bodey McBodeface
When people say things like "my anecdote trumps your data" offering more data is fruitless. This isn't my first visit to TD.
Re: Re: More fake news from Bodey McBodeface
More fake news from Bodey McBodeface
Another day, another fake news post from BestNetTech's resident hypochondriac.
American broadband is excellent compared to the rest of the world, as every credible study and report from Speedtest by Ookla and Akamai has shown for at least the past decade.
Getting wired broadband to rural areas is a global problem that we don't do any worse than anybody else does. Rural broadband isn't a competition problem, it's a subsidy problem. If it were easy to solve, Tom Wheeler and Julius Genachowski would have fixed it in their 8 years heading the Obama FCC.
Chairman Pai has addressed this issue much more aggressively than his predecessors, and he deserves some praise for that.
McBodeface is a fool.