“FCC chairman Julius Genachowski at a conference today launched an effort to boost the speed of Internet access in the US to 100Mbps and higher,” Electronista reports.
“Dubbed 100 Squared, it would provide at least 100Mbps access to 100 million homes in the US. The official didn’t give a timetable for the rollout but hoped it would boost adoption of broadband from 65 percent today to 90 percent,” Electronista reports.
MacDailyNews Note: Actually, the “Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, NARUC Conference, February 16, 2010” documentation states that this is one of the goals under a “2020 vision,” so it’s 100Mbps Internet access in 100 million U.S. homes by the year 2020. Unless they meant “20/20 vision,” in which case all bets are off.
Electronista continues, “The ongoing National Broadband Plan is expected to help out and, among other plans, would gradually repurpose the Universal Service Fund from phone lines to Internet connections. Genachowski also warned that the US shouldn’t stop at the symbolic 100Mbps and pointed to the Google Fiber project’s 1Gbps as an example of what could be done by a motivated private company.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Comparing average Internet access speeds of countries with significantly different land areas, not to mention topography, is folly. The U.S., for example, covers 3,790,000 square miles. Singapore, for another example, is 274 square miles. Guess which one is far easier to cover and has faster average Internet access speeds?
Well at least it’s a better target that our ‘glorious leader’s’, the clueless Priminister Gordon Brown who has set a 2MB download target speed for every uk household by 2015. Twat as we say here.
Guess it would depend on how many of our senators and congressmen have stakes in communication companies….. god knows it doesn’t matter whether it benefits americans….
This is just another example of a democratic party handout!
We all know the government shouldn’t get involved. The private sector has done a fantastic job!!!
Oh, please! This is not something for the Republicans *or* the Democrats to do. Their job is simply to minimize the regulatory burdens that make it unprofitable to go for this market.
It would help too if they got rid of the bogus fees and charges that are hindering this industry. These always come to mind when folks talk of lowering taxes, but they’re never addressed. My own phone bill includes:
– DC Universal Service Trust Fund
– DC Public Rights-of-Way Use Fee
– DC Gross Receipts Tax Surcharge
– DC E911/311 Fee
– DC Federal Universal Service Fund Surcharge
– Federal Excise Tax
– Federal Subscriber Line Charge
@Ed, do you mean 2 Megabytes (~20 meg broadband) or 2 Megabits (2 Meg broadband). Either way not as good as the 100 meg proposed here. But I have Virgin Medias 50 meg broadband and downloading at around 5-6 Megabytes per second is pretty sweet although I wish we had speeds closer to those in the east where some get 1 gig broadband for under a tenner! jammy gits.
It’s always easy to spend someone elses money for your pipe-dream ideas.
@ Milney…………Ed is refering to 2 meg broadband which our current gov is hoping to put into every uk household and to help pay for it every uk household with a phone lone (regardless of whether or not they actually have Internet connection) is to have a small form of taxation applied to their phone bill to help pay for it.
@Cowboy – yeah thank goodness the Republican party never does any political favors for its benefactors! *eyeroll*
Yeah, the US private sector has done a great job on boradband access – so great, in fact, that the US lags behind half the industrializaed world in quality of broadband access. Japan, Australia, Sweden, Norway, etc. pwn us.
The glory of the “free market”! Why provide better services when you can just charge more for the crap service you provide now! Instant profit!
Two points (neither intended as partisan)
1. The private telco sector has been heavily subsidized by the public sector (under both democratic and republican admins).
2. While it is nice to have decent (albeit expensive) broadband in the US, relative to the countries that lead in broadband speed/cost, the USA is significantly behind.
It is maddening how broadband access is so scattershot. We live less than a 1/4 mile from where comcast has their service already. When we inquired about how much it would cost to get a line to us, they said $30,000! Anyone who thinks that’s a realistic cost and not just plain gouging in the extreme has their head up their arse. Satellite is a joke with the latency and extremely low “heavy use” limit. We paid for high-end business service, and would STILL get our service cut off if we downloaded over 100MB in one day (try updating about 5 computers when a Mac OS update comes through). We’re too far to get DSL or SDSL service, and ended up paying for a T1 line (about $325 per month).
The private market is great, but this is just nonsense, especially the comcast thing. We are a straight shot from their existing lines, on flat, level land with power and telephone poles they can hook up to (like they do down the street already). There’s no possible way cable costs a major buyer like Comcast $21.50 per linear foot, even with installation costs (it would take about 6 hours at most to lay that cable and get it here, and into the building).
And they have an exclusive service contract in our area. Seems if they get that, they should have to SERVICE the whole area.
Hollow political statement. Problem with broadband in the country is less speed and more one of access. If you live in the country, there just isn’t incentive to get you 2 MBS much less 100. We have cable, I’m satisfied with the speed- but at our summer place in the country- fat chance getting anything but dialup. LIkewise- most folks I know who are on the sidelines would be more enticed be decreased cost than increased speed. When I can download a HD movie to my Apple TV and start watching 30 seconds after I start the download, what does that extra speed do for me?
100 Mbps ten years from now will seem like peanuts to most of us. The stated goal should be MUCH higher. 1 Gbps or more.
Koreans will be twice as fast by the time the USA gets to that speed. They’re much faster right now.
@OctoberMac
I agree the target should be 1 Gb/s. The 100 Mb/s target exhibits either gross ignorance of the technology involved or continued collusion with the service providers. Gigabit Ethernet optics are no more expensive then 100 Mb/s optics and the switching costs aren’t much more. If we’re going to run fiber to every home, GigE is the logical thing to light it with. If we’re not aiming for fiber to every home, then it looks like we’re going let the providers keep a lock on their local loop with no unbundling etc.
One more project our Federal Government cannot afford!
– 12.5 trillion and climbing in national debt
– 100 trillion we will own entitlements
– Goverment Health Care (who knows how much this will cost)
….
President Obama, STOP YOUR SPENDING AND LET PRIVATE INDUSTRY BUILD THE INTERNET!!!!!!
Read Gov Chris Christie state speech (see link below)
http://www.app.com/article/20100211/NEWS/100211042
WMD
If information is the future and the internet is the Information Superhighway, we need to figure out if we, as a country, want to try to compete with a national highway system or a bunch of country roads. Where would the manufacturing economy have gotten without the interstate highway and national highway systems?
Of course, one could ask, where would we be if every mile of highway in the US was a toll road? Time for a national system now.
Korea
Area- 85,020 sq mi
Population Density- 850.7/sq mi
Total Popuation- 73,000,000
United States
Area- 3,794,101 sq mi
Population Density- 83/sq mi
Total Population- 308,692,000
Japan
Area- 145,925
Population Density- 873.9/sq mi
Total Population- 127,470,000
France
Area- 260,558 sq mi
Population Density- 299/sq mi
Total Population- 65,447,374
Just some facts
@ Mid west Mac lmfao you are so right they will join together and block it sayin we should leave that market alone as well the private corps know what they are doing and will put faster Internet if they deem necessary. If verizon can make millions charging ppl 29.95 a month for “high speed” 7.1 mbps y would they ever invest in faster speeds , ohhhh yes because ppl would juss swith to another damn company charging the same crap cuz u know we the ppl have that mandating power to mandate companies to wake up and catch up with the rest of the world.
@wmd … before you start typing in all caps again, you might want to come to a better understanding of the role of deficit spending in the context of an economic crisis.
How much are you will to pay for the internet to beat all internets speeds in other countries?
Because anyone can build it. That is not the problem. However, will the people in that area be willing to pay for it? If not, then the government can then tax everyone and build it. But, how much tax money are you willing to pay out of your salary or when you purchase? Plus, the government must borrow the money and pay interest back on it.
All is mute unless you are willing to pay for it and everyone around you.
If you really want that service, contact ATT and they can build the service to you. Here is the catch, you have to pay the cost to bring it to YOUR door.
Any takers?
@ Cowboy and wmd
Thanks. I just had a good laugh after reading your posts. You both reminded me of that Carlin quote about the average person and stupidity.
@QuestionIS – Should we only build roads to communities that can “pay for it”? What about clean drinking water? Or electricity?
Actually electricity is an important example that so many free-market evangelists always forget about. The Rural Electrification program was an important component of FDR’s New Deal. Set up power lines to remote poor rural areas that no “sensible” power corporation would bother with because there wasn’t enough money in it. More tax-and-spend socialism right?
But what were its effects? In impoverished areas small amounts of electricity can free large amounts of human time and labor. Time that used to be spent carrying water or fuel, or washing clothes by hand, can now be occupied by more productive, wealth-producing work. Electric powered wells for clean water can prevent many water borne diseases, reducing health care costs. Refrigeration increases the time food can be stored, potentially reducing hunger and lowering family food expenses.
And don’t forget that this also opened up a HUGE new market for the American appliance industry! Many thousands of people who would never have bothered with them were now potential customers for refrigerators, washers & dryers, electric lights, radios, etc. How many good middle class jobs were created servicing that new market?
Instead we hear the tired old cliche “let the market do it”. Well the “market” would have told these regions of the country to screw themselves because there wasn’t enough short-term profit to serve them. And today we’d have huge regions of America that would be little more than 3rd world countries. Government investment has a definite role to play in bettering the lives of the mass population.
Also as far as getting AT&T;to “build it to your door”, excuse me but AT&T;and Verizon and the rest have gotten TONS of tax exemptions, monopoly access, and other benefits in EXCHANGE FOR PROMISES TO BUILD OUT BROADBAND. As so often happens, they take the goodies and don’t fulfill their obligations. If these corporations would just fulfill the promises THEY’VE ALREADY MADE, we wouldn’t be 15th in broadband access in the world.
I’m more than happy to have my tax money go toward building out broadband. How many more budding computer scientists or creative uses for computers will we find when kids behind the digital divide can access the tech? How much wealth will be created by opening up the possibility of tech jobs not just to those lucky enough to live where providers feel they can profit. Hell, give me back all my tax money that has gone to Halliburton and Blackwater, which produce nothing but death, and hand it over for public broadband buildout NOW!
@Rheinhard,
I certainly agree about the part with Halliburton and Blackwater. Two completely incompetent corporations that have profited hugely on garbage product. While I do believe in free markets, I do think there should be consequences for corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater other than more and more contracts.
If we’re going to use taxpayer money for the public, certainly broadband is a better use than endless war and death.
To the idiots posting irrelevant information about the population densities of various countries (especially “Square Miles”): please put things into proper context:
70%+ of the US population live in urban areas. These areas have population densities higher than 500 people per square mile.
This 200+ million urban population market is about twice as big as Japan, and about three times as big as Korea.
It is also about twice the density and more than three times the total poppulation of all of France.
Japan and Korea already have access to 100Mbs+ internet speeds for most of the populations. Japan is already rolling out 1Gbs to the home speeds.
The private industry in the US has lagged far behind the developed world in rolling out widely available high speed (100Mbs+) internet service. The reality is that most areas do not have enough competition in private industry in the US.
100Mbs+ all-you-can-eat internet services in Japan and Korea are highly competitive, and generally cost around 40 to 60 US dollars per month. The governments in both countries, via appropriate policy making decisions, incentivized private industry to build out high speed infrastructures.
It should be noted that in the late 1990s, Japan lagged far behind the US in the availability of high speed internet (at the time it was ADSL).
Competition from the public sector may be what US private industry requires to get it off its ass and build an infrastructure that is proper and good for a country that is supposed to be an economic superpower.
Right Wing rhetoric and excuses for not building a proper infrastructure in the USA has gone on far, far too long.
Yea. Now all the global warming people have blame for the corporations. As you stated that it is actually the fault of the US goverment. But why are they blaming the corporations if they pushed the use of mass power and transportation.
You are right though, we should allow the government to decide what is best. I see how our now total dependence on fossil fuel was brought to us courtesy of the federal government.
Thanks for clearing that up!!!