FCC Broadband reclassification plans

arstechnica.com...

Well, we don't have Net Neutrality coming quite yet, that's still on the backburner. Instead what we've got coming up is a plan to solve the issue for ISP's that many areas of the US don't have what's considered broadband internet service.

To understand why this is an issue, you need to go back to what happened when the networks were built. Without giving a long drawn out explanation, in essence the US government built a fiber optic network across the US and then gave it to the ISP's for free (or more accurately, we paid them to take it) with the understaning that they would maintain and upgrade the network, resulting in faster internet speeds over time.

The problem is that the ISP's didn't upgrade the network. So as content has started to require more and more bandwidth, the network can't keep up. The big content type at issue here is streaming video, because streaming video completely breaks the old model of overselling bandwidth (which was a reasonable tactic when data needs were only a burst rather than continuous). The ISP's have tried several strategies in order to fight this growing need for streaming content over the years:
They have tried data caps which have been very unpopular. Back in 2008 I think it was, a compromise bill was authored by the FCC which would mainstream data caps for wireless networks but maintain the current provisions for wired networks. This is why ISP's try to push data plans so much these days. They can charge you $70 for a 5GB data plan on your phone where as a 5GB plan on a wired network would get them laughed at.

They have tried promoting mobile service. In most areas of the world, wifi hotspots are cheap and accessible. In the US, free public wifi is rare... instead people have to use data, and even worse use their phone as a hot spot for their additional devices.

Additionally, they have used the tactic of reclassifying broadband. The ISP's have a legal obligation to provide broadband service anywhere in the US, essentially it's a minimum quality that they're not allowed to go under if they want to use the marketing terms high speed, broadband, etc... Three times now that I'm aware of, the ISP's have successfully pushed for redefining the term broadband. Originally it was set as 10 down/1 up in the early 2000's, and over time it was increased. Twice on wired networks, and once on mobile networks these terms were redefined to lower goals. You may remember the hubub over 4g when it was released. 4G was the result of one of these redefinitions... it was simply the already existing speeds, with 4G redefined from the actual tech specs to what was currently in place as a marketing gimmick.

The current requirement is that a service plan offers 25 down and 3 up (coincidentally enough, my own ISP plan doesn't offer this), but the FCC's plan is to lower standards and go back to 10 down/1 up to define broadband. The reason for this, is that it allows the ISP's to avoid any more legally mandated upgrades to their networks which means the US's already very bad internet service will get worse.

Unlike the Net Neutrality debate, this one will almost certainly pass along party lines. This plan is basically removing any reason for ISP's to upgrade their networks, since we don't have actual competition to force the issue.

a reply to: Aazadan
I have always wondered about that. In fact I have asked the question a many times with no real answer.

I live in rural Florida. I can stand in my yard and I can see the Verizon cell tower less than 5 miles from me. Yet I can't get a signal.

In the mean time, they were showing videos of refugees in the middle of the desert getting cell service, and charging their phones with solar devices in the middle of nowhere.

Verizon, Sprint nor AT&T can give me a satisfactory answer for why that is.

I Run a WISP that uses LTE.


4G was not already there nor was it a gimmick. It uses OFDM and MIMO along with other new tech that allows it to be much faster than 3G.

LTE (Long Term Evolution) Is just that, the tweaking of those new goodies to make it even better. Laying over the old foundations.

I have about 200 + customers and we are growing every day. There is more demand than I feel I can even keep up with at times as Satellite and DSL both die off.

It is too expensive to build copper networks anymore and much cheaper to simply run to a tower, then re broadcast using back hauls to other towers, that signal which you are feeding at the head end. I was a tower climber and used to climb towers to hang and then configure the radios on the ground. We built a 15k customer strong WISP using 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz technology as well as some private frequency stuff from Motorola, Radwin, Dragonwave. Etc.

The new spectrum coming online in the 600 Mhz range is going to change the way you communicate forever. We are starting to use UHF/VHF frequencies which deliver data very well and over incredible distances compared to Band 4 class 1700 Mhz frequencies which push a lot of data very fast but have limited range.

God even writing this was a turn on. I love my company.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Because your phone has no capability of reach back to the tower nor does seeing a tower mean the Sector on it or Sectors are facing you. You need to as well be aware that some towers have a power output limit set by the powers that be so they do not over saturate an area with radiation/signal and step on the toes of other providers or signals etc.

5 Miles is a really long way for a phone to get data off of if it is not a 700 Mhz band you are connected to. It's also not wise to continue to try and get a signal this way as the reason any phone turns 110 degrees in your hand is because it is working that much harder to stay connected to the tower.

Cell phones are not a good way to capture internet - not because of the data - but because they are a last resort of communication - your life line. You will destroy it over time trying to use it as a hot spot. The internals will eventually melt.

originally posted by: SR1TX
4G was not already there nor was it a gimmick. It uses OFDM and MIMO along with other new tech that allows it to be much faster than 3G.

4G standards were written at gigabit connections in low mobility, and 100 megabit in high mobility. What was branded 4G ended up being much slower than that. The ISP's simply wanted a new name for upgrades they had put in place, so they redefined the tech standard to meet existing capabilities.

The new spectrum coming online in the 600 Mhz range is going to change the way you communicate forever. We are starting to use UHF/VHF frequencies which deliver data very well and over incredible distances compared to Band 4 class 1700 Mhz frequencies which push a lot of data very fast but have limited range.

Is this the whitefi stuff? (I think that name has been retired). I remember that was supposed to be online a decade ago, but for reasons I don't know, it got held up in building the standard. There were a lot of plans going around after the retiring of the TV whitespace frequencies to use dark fiber in the ground, run it to cell towers, and provide wireless service over those whitespace frequencies.

With cell service though, in particular with data caps, it's going to have only limited benefit to consumers. Especially when you consider that the hardware is being built to stream in higher resolution these days, which in turn means more bandwidth.

a reply to: Aazadan

What are you talking about....


Gigabit???? That is 5G. I think you have been reading way wrong things or you are misconstruing something you have read and trying to relate it to this. A standard is just what the industry agrees to as the set basis. It has nothing to do with the speed of anything. Even Wi-Fi has incredibly "Theoretical" speeds and when put in a lab and not the real world, can have very amazing results with speed.

The fight to go to lower spectrum has nothing to do with the speed in which they are tying to implement it and everything to do with the fact that those TV stations still in use that broadcast over those same slices of the spectrum are/were in operation and do not have to give up anything to anyone except when the right offer is made for it. Sort of like there is no "Imminent domain" over wireless spectrum.

originally posted by: SR1TX
Gigabit???? That is 5G. I think you have been reading way wrong things or you are misconstruing something you have read and trying to relate it to this. A standard is just what the industry agrees to as the set basis. It has nothing to do with the speed of anything. Even Wi-Fi has incredibly "Theoretical" speeds and when put in a lab and not the real world, can have very amazing results with speed.

The old 4G specs were redefined as 5G while they repurposed the name 4G for what already existed as a marketing term.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for posting this. Extractive capitalism at it's best.

Verizon and CableAmerica are the only 2 providers in my town, both advertise "broadband" access, both offer 10 up/1 down. And there are still areas where the only option is 56k dial-up, as unbelievable as that is. Does that mean we'll never get anything faster?

originally posted by: riiver
Verizon and CableAmerica are the only 2 providers in my town, both advertise "broadband" access, both offer 10 up/1 down. And there are still areas where the only option is 56k dial-up, as unbelievable as that is. Does that mean we'll never get anything faster?

Not never, but not for a long time. The ISP's don't really want to lay more cable, so eventually you'll get faster when they can offer wireless, and then hit you with wireless data caps too.

a reply to: riiver

Private Message me and we can figure that out.

a reply to: riiver
That is what I am saying.

How can there still be places in the United States of America where you can't get cell phone or internet services, unless is is deliberately set up that way?

a reply to: Aazadan

For the fiber / cable providers it is simply cost.

You can't spend 200k to run fiber and or coax plant in rural area that would only service 5 houses!

If all 5 houses decided to use your service, it would take around 50 years to even come close to breaking even on the initial plant costs. It would cost them money to do so.

a reply to: infolurker
To be fair to the optics and cable companies, when I first moved out here in the woods, I had to pay for my telephone and my electric poles. I expected to pay for the hook up, I was kind of surprised I had to buy my own poles.

I am pretty sure none of us can afford, or are willing to pay for the installation of optics or cable at those rates.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Yeah, I am on a crappy 1.5 meg point to point wireless system myself with satellite TV.

It really sucks but it would cost 100k to run fiber out here.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Aazadan

For the fiber / cable providers it is simply cost.

You can't spend 200k to run fiber and or coax plant in rural area that would only service 5 houses!

If all 5 houses decided to use your service, it would take around 50 years to even come close to breaking even on the initial plant costs. It would cost them money to do so.

I'm aware of the costs involved. Most areas of the US, especially areas that are more rural simply don't have the population density. The phone cabling system is actually collapsing in many areas, and soon cell service will be the only thing that's left. Wireless really is the only path forward in many areas.

I'm not against that in itself, we should build the infrastructure that makes sense, and wired networks don't make sense in many areas. My complaint about wireless has to do with the current laws involving it, and the FCC making bad deals and sacrificing consumer protections. The only light at the end of the tunnel, is that with the lower barrier to entry on wireless service we might actually see ISP competition at some point.

This goes back to that dream that internet was free for all.

Until the network companies came around to profit from services that were not needed until now because now they control the internet.

Interestingly they sell scams and we buy them like good old sheep.

I got and increase in services because supposedly the service got better.

Nothing but a scam I still get the same crappy service but cost me more.

And is not going to get any better no matter how much we pay the profit makers.

originally posted by: marg6043
This goes back to that dream that internet was free for all.

Until the network companies came around to profit from services that were not needed until now because now they control the internet.

Interestingly they sell scams and we buy them like good old sheep.

I got and increase in services because supposedly the service got better.

Nothing but a scam I still get the same crappy service but cost me more.

And is not going to get any better no matter how much we pay the profit makers.

You might be interested in this.

newnetworks.com...

Basically. In the late 90's the US struck a deal with the ISP's and taxed everyone on average $2000 for the deal. We gave them a $200 billion grant to build networks that would by 2006 have 45 MB bidirectional connections to every single home in the US regardless of population density.

The ISP's took the money to build this network, then refused to build it. The US then paid up to build another, worse network and then gave that one to the ISP's while letting them keep the money from the previous one.

Basically, they want to do the same thing all over again, and have the US give them billions, or possibly even trillions at this point to build a network, and then to not build it.

a reply to: Aazadan

Greedy bastards and we the tax payer are F anyway by them.

Waste and abuse.