FCC determining US IPs don't have to provide hardline?

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I doubt it depends on anything, if its wireless it will be horrendous for latency sensitive stuff. Top it off with the fact that in most(if not all) cases the latency will be inconsistent which worsens the situation even more.

 

We have some pretty intense 5G mobile internet here in Aus. Latency as low as 20ms and consistent.  It is possible, but it depends on network quality and number of users.

[Nowak]

I recently had a Comcast outage while I was doing college work involving remotely-hosted virtual machines. I tethered through my phone to continue working.

 

I have a 6GB shared Verizon data plan. I burned through half of that in an hour. Keep in mind that Verizon charges $15 to our bill for every gigabyte I or anyone else on the plan goes over the 6GB limit. Had I continued working, our next bill would have been wicked expensive.

 

I definitely don't need landline internet. Not at all. Fuck you, Ajit Pai. This is gonna accomplish nothing but cripple internet for a lot of Americans, especially those in rural parts of the country, somewhere - surprise, surprise! - Ajit Pai never lived in.

[HalGameGuru]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

But will it be enough in 10 years?  And if isps dont have to maintain a physical connection what happens if mobile technology doesn't turn out to be good enough?

Will dial up and satellite be enough in ten years? I don't think anyone is expecting development to stop after the initial push. The cell companies don't want to support old hardware either. 4g and 5g will HAVE to be pushed out as older networks WILL be deprecated. 10/1 is the minimum to qualify, its not the only service, and no one expects them to hit that and never improve. Higher speeds should actually be EASIER for mobile in rural areas as subscriber saturation is less likely and signal will be better. 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Will dial up and satellite be enough in ten years? I don't think anyone is expecting development to stop after the initial push. The cell companies don't want to support old hardware either. 4g and 5g will HAVE to be pushed out as older networks WILL be deprecated. 10/1 is the minimum to qualify, its not the only service, and no one expects them to hit that and never improve. Higher speeds should actually be EASIER for mobile in rural areas as subscriber saturation is less likely and signal will be better. 

 

The article suggests that ISP's have an excuse not to lay or maintain physical connections.  If for what ever reason mobile/wireless internet can't keep pace with network requirements (becasue there are no guarantees it will, while you'd have to be very naive to think fibre isn't a better choice), then a whole lot of Americans will find themselves in the dark ages again.    This is not a good move, setting a minimum standard might be, but giving ISP's a way to avoid maintain or upgrading a physical network is fraught with danger.    

[JAKEBAB]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

We have some pretty intense 5G mobile internet here in Aus. Latency as low as 20ms and consistent.  It is possible, but it depends on network quality and number of users.

Source? I'm unaware of any 5G commercial products in Aus.

[Donut417]

Just now, JAKEBAB said:

Source? I'm unaware of any 5G commercial products in Aus.

On top of the fact I havent even heard that the standard had been ratified. 

[handymanshandle]

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[HalGameGuru]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

The article suggests that ISP's have an excuse not to lay or maintain physical connections.  If for what ever reason mobile/wireless internet can't keep pace with network requirements (becasue there are no guarantees it will, while you'd have to be very naive to think fibre isn't a better choice), then a whole lot of Americans will find themselves in the dark ages again.    This is not a good move, setting a minimum standard might be, but giving ISP's a way to avoid maintain or upgrading a physical network is fraught with danger.    

Mobile providers still have to have internet backbone. Fiber is great, with the new technologies recently developed it is viable, it wasn't for many years, for rural use. But, fiber isn't a panacea and there are other options, like microwave and laser. If mobile providers can't keep pace the FCC can put their foot down again, this is not a set it and forget it statute. This is revisited, often. 10/1 may not be blazing fast, but it's better than dial up, and in ten years dial up will still suck and 10/1 will still be better

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

Source? I'm unaware of any 5G commercial products in Aus.

All the reports leading up to going commercial were claiming it was 5g, turns out it's just fucking fast 4g.

At any rate my point still stands.

 

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/09/telstra-just-tested-a-5g-mobile-network-1000-times-faster-than-the-nbn/

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/telstra-just-launched-a-mobile-network-10-times-faster-than-the-nbn-2017-1

 

 

On the anecdotal side:

A friend of mine was telling me Telstra messed up a network order for one of his clients so they gave him a wireless router to use in the interim.   He reckoned the thing makes most NBN connections look like shit.   

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Mobile providers still have to have internet backbone. Fiber is great, with the new technologies recently developed it is viable, it wasn't for many years, for rural use. But, fiber isn't a panacea and there are other options, like microwave and laser. If mobile providers can't keep pace the FCC can put their foot down again, this is not a set it and forget it statute. This is revisited, often. 10/1 may not be blazing fast, but it's better than dial up, and in ten years dial up will still suck and 10/1 will still be better

 

Internet backbone is great to the towers, but if it doesn't go the premise it is useless in the event that mobile can't keep pace.   If that happens and there is no infrastructure in place what's going to happen?  You'll have to wait a couple of years while telco's and the FCC argue over who is responsible for fixing up the physical network infrastructure? you can bet your arse that will happen.  They were already given money to improve the network once and they didn't, now you're happy with them being given permission to stop maintaining or even installing the best technology currently available? 

[XenosTech]

Here I only have 2 ISP's to choose from before it was like 6 but one company didn't like that all the newer companies were putting down fibre backbone before them so they started buying up all those companies til there were only 3 companies total left. A few years ago 2 of those 3 companies merged and left us with only 2 options and these are the prices we pay now.

Divide all pricing by 2 and you get the USD equivalent

[MasterChromatica]

On 8/9/2017 at 1:57 PM, WMGroomAK said:

But in the land of Pai, you don't need more than 4 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up...  I mean, why would you even want to stream any video at above 240p?  /S  

 

Can we PLEASE get someone running the FCC that is forward thinking in regards to technology and connectivity?

Elon Mf Musk Please

[PLME888]

I just love how the US is fucked.

 

Meanwhile at home: 500 mbit/s unlimited fiber for 60 euros per month and 20GB 4G mobile for 28 euros per month...

 

I'm from The Netherlands

[jagdtigger]

7 hours ago, XenosTech said:

Here I only have 2 ISP's to choose from before it was like 6 but one company didn't like that all the newer companies were putting down fibre backbone before them so they started buying up all those companies til there were only 3 companies total left. A few years ago 2 of those 3 companies merged and left us with only 2 options and these are the prices we pay now.Divide all pricing by 2 and you get the USD equivalent

Spoiler

 

 

Thats pretty expensive, we have a 100/10 plan and pay roughly 32,70 USD for it...

[XenosTech]

29 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Thats pretty expensive, we have a 100/10 plan and pay roughly 32,70 USD for it...

It is pretty expensive... 4 years ago were pay $30 USD for 6Mbps and before that is was the same price for 2Mbps

[HalGameGuru]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Internet backbone is great to the towers, but if it doesn't go the premise it is useless in the event that mobile can't keep pace.   If that happens and there is no infrastructure in place what's going to happen?  You'll have to wait a couple of years while telco's and the FCC argue over who is responsible for fixing up the physical network infrastructure? you can bet your arse that will happen.  They were already given money to improve the network once and they didn't, now you're happy with them being given permission to stop maintaining or even installing the best technology currently available? 

This is talking about rural areas, if the subscriber base grows you think mobile won't add capacity to sell to that larger user base? You think if AT&T doesn't Verizon won't swoop in? Internet backbone doesn't go to the premise NOW. It goes to your ISP  who then pushes to nodes and then to you. Most people have a half dozen hops on their ISP's network before they ever hit backbone. 

 

No I think the entire system is stupid. I think if we didn't have a regulatory system dictated by the established firms and administered by a corruptible state we would have coverage for all based simply on competition and open markets. But we do have this garbage system, and it is going to take time and effort to get the corporatist behemoth to do anything productive.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

This is talking about rural areas, if the subscriber base grows you think mobile won't add capacity to sell to that larger user base? You think if AT&T doesn't Verizon won't swoop in? Internet backbone doesn't go to the premise NOW. It goes to your ISP  who then pushes to nodes and then to you. Most people have a half dozen hops on their ISP's network before they ever hit backbone. 

 

No I think the entire system is stupid. I think if we didn't have a regulatory system dictated by the established firms and administered by a corruptible state we would have coverage for all based simply on competition and open markets. But we do have this garbage system, and it is going to take time and effort to get the corporatist behemoth to do anything productive.

Im not talking about mobile companies not adding capacity, im talking about the moronic move that excuses them from running fibre or maintaining landlines.  Because if mobile tech can't keep up with demand then you have nothing.  

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Im not talking about mobile companies not adding capacity, im talking about the moronic move that excuses them from running fibre or maintaining landlines.  Because if mobile tech can't keep up with demand then you have nothing.  

When that happens they will modify the guaranteed minimum to 1 b/s...

[HalGameGuru]

Just now, mr moose said:

Im not talking about mobile companies not adding capacity, im talking about the moronic move that excuses them from running fibre or maintaining landlines.  Because if mobile tech can't keep up with demand then you have nothing.  

If demand grows they will add capacity. The whole reason this is a thing is because there is so little demand in those regions. Landlines give you no improvement if they over subscribe. Ask anyone in a growing area whose internet collapses every evening. And that's not even in rural areas. Current mobile networks are already capable of faster access and easier dissemination to masses of subscribers than hardline. And that will only get better with 5G. And 4g/5g will be all that is available soon enough as spectrum get's deprecated. I'd prefer fiber to the house too. But that is a pricey endeavor until repeater-less fiber is more established. And even fiber to the node with copper after is no better than mobile in most places with adequate capacity.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

When that happens they will modify the guaranteed minimum to 1 b/s...

well, in ten years time and your mobile can barely keep up due to network congestion and physical limitations from EM interference,  they can increase the minimum to what ever they want.  Then you only have to wait for them to argue over who is responsible for fixing the issue with either no or outdated landlines and insufficient radio spectrum to serve the community.

7 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

If demand grows they will add capacity. The whole reason this is a thing is because there is so little demand in those regions. Landlines give you no improvement if they over subscribe. Ask anyone in a growing area whose internet collapses every evening. And that's not even in rural areas. Current mobile networks are already capable of faster access and easier dissemination to masses of subscribers than hardline. And that will only get better with 5G. And 4g/5g will be all that is available soon enough as spectrum get's deprecated. I'd prefer fiber to the house too. But that is a pricey endeavor until repeater-less fiber is more established. And even fiber to the node with copper after is no better than mobile in most places with adequate capacity.

I'm well aware of mobile tech.  But you are ignoring the possibility that adding mobile capacity may not be an option.  We don't know where the limits of wireless is yet.  Every time I  ask what happens if mobile tech fails you, keep saying "they'll just add more"  which is not an answer, its like saying if the roads become to congested and it's taking people too long to get to work we'll just add more cars.  Allowing companies to ignore land lines is setting up for failure.  We know fibre to the premise can serve more people faster connections simultaneously.  Again we don't know the limits of wireless suffice to say it doesn't look anywhere near as promising as fibre.  

 

Really not sure why you are defending what is clearly money motivated and doesn't consider future requirements.  

[HalGameGuru]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

well, in ten years time and your mobile can barely keep up due to network congestion and physical limitations from EM interference,  they can increase the minimum to what ever they want.  Then you only have to wait for them to argue over who is responsible for fixing the issue with either no or outdated landlines and insufficient radio spectrum to serve the community.

I'm well aware of mobile tech.  But you are ignoring the possibility that adding mobile capacity may not be an option.  We don't know where the limits of wireless is yet.  Every time I  ask what happens if mobile tech fails you, keep saying "they'll just add more"  which is not an answer, its like saying if the roads become to congested and it's taking people too long to get to work we'll just add more cars.  Allowing companies to ignore land lines is setting up for failure.  We know fibre to the premise can serve more people faster connections simultaneously.  Again we don't know the limits of wireless suffice to say it doesn't look anywhere near as promising as fibre.  

 

Really not sure why you are defending what is clearly money motivated and doesn't consider future requirements.  

It can only do that NOW because there is so much dark fiber, what happens when you can't add more capacity? Your argument goes both ways. And its harder to push new fiber than it is to push new towers. Even hardline operators are looking at dropping hardline to the home, dropping copper and fiber from the node for millimeter band wireless from node to pole. And mobile operators have more than just cellular signal to work with, to be fair so do hardline providers, but they prefer trunking off of established backbone.

 

You're never gonna get a company to invest in fiber lines that will handle a million subscribers for an area that only has 10000 people in it. And if that area balloons to a half a million in a few years mobile will be there faster than hardline providers. And it's likely when hardline DOES get there they are building off of wireless tech, not old fashioned backbone and nodes. Fiber is an awesome thing, but its speed has limits, until the new techs actually make it into the hands of those doing the installing.

 

And wireless is ALREADY competitive with the speed of CURRENT fiber. And will be getting faster. Like I said, I would LOVE for fiber to be everywhere, I hope that repeaterless fiber and millimeter wave make higher speed pushes direct to home cheaper and easier. But I do not see mobile providers as a hindrance to this, nor do i see making mobile a legitimate home broadband provider a problem. They are already doing it, and capably I might add, in many urban areas. They just now finally have government sanction to compete for that infrastructure provision in rural areas.

 

And while I dislike the government being involved anywhere, this at least is an attempt to fix some of the earlier garbage they set into motion.

 

It is easier, cheaper, and faster to add support for ten thousand new subscribers to a mobile network than it is with hardline. And hardline will still have to compete, so they will have to get their act together either way to keep mobile from stealing their customer base. Especially as more people cut the cable and drop old school landline phones and TV. If they want all their services over IP and mobile is providing the best access, without trying to lump in TV or landline, they are going to make massive inroads. And I look forward to another facet of competition.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

It can only do that NOW because there is so much dark fiber, what happens when you can't add more capacity? Your argument goes both ways. And its harder to push new fiber than it is to push new towers. Even hardline operators are looking at dropping hardline to the home, dropping copper and fiber from the node for millimeter band wireless from node to pole. And mobile operators have more than just cellular signal to work with, to be fair so do hardline providers, but they prefer trunking off of established backbone.

 

You're never gonna get a company to invest in fiber lines that will handle a million subscribers for an area that only has 10000 people in it. And if that area balloons to a half a million in a few years mobile will be there faster than hardline providers. And it's likely when hardline DOES get there they are building off of wireless tech, not old fashioned backbone and nodes. Fiber is an awesome thing, but its speed has limits, until the new techs actually make it into the hands of those doing the installing.

 

And wireless is ALREADY competitive with the speed of CURRENT fiber. And will be getting faster. Like I said, I would LOVE for fiber to be everywhere, I hope that repeaterless fiber and millimeter wave make higher speed pushes direct to home cheaper and easier. But I do not see mobile providers as a hindrance to this, nor do i see making mobile a legitimate home broadband provider a problem. They are already doing it, and capably I might add, in many urban areas. They just now finally have government sanction to compete for that infrastructure provision in rural areas.

 

And while I dislike the government being involved anywhere, this at least is an attempt to fix some of the earlier garbage they set into motion.

 

It is easier, cheaper, and faster to add support for ten thousand new subscribers to a mobile network than it is with hardline. And hardline will still have to compete, so they will have to get their act together either way to keep mobile from stealing their customer base. Especially as more people cut the cable and drop old school landline phones and TV. If they want all their services over IP and mobile is providing the best access, without trying to lump in TV or landline, they are going to make massive inroads. And I look forward to another facet of competition.

Still waiting for you to address the first question.   What happens if mobile technology can't service the population due to it's own physical limitations?

[Guest]

I feel sorry for the US people who have to deal with crappy internet. 5mbps up from 1mbps isnt much of a change in terms of internet speeds. The FCC must have some lazy candidates who dont care about internet speeds, and more, their customers.

[RGProductions]

On 8/9/2017 at 1:20 PM, ErickS89 said:

Time to pack the bags and head north to Canada!

If I can't have a hard connection, I'm moving plain and simple.  

Fuckin aye

[HalGameGuru]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Still waiting for you to address the first question.   What happens if mobile technology can't service the population due to it's own physical limitations?

You haven't given a reason as to why it couldn't. the whole reason this is a problem is because there are so few people per sq. mi. in these areas. Is it lack of capacity or lack of consumers that is keeping the tech from saturating these markets? What happens when local ISPs can't handle now? They add more capacity or competitors move in. (assuming the government hasn't regulated or cronied market actors out of the equation) If there are so many people involved that mobile has trouble that would be plenty enough for hardline to profit from capital investment. With or without the government subsidization. I'm still not sure which "limitations" you think mobile has that hardline doesn't? Aside from NOT needing expensive hardline infrastructure between every point of the grid?