1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

FCC wants all 50 states to have gigabit internet by 2015

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by intradox, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. intradox

    intradox Well-Known Member

    Article : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414493,00.asp

    For American members, what are your thoughts on the charimans challaenge that every state have a gigabit community by 2015?

    For non-American members, is your government pushing gigabit internet in your communities?

    I think if we can roll out gigabit internet to the largest communities around America we can begin developing more demanding applications that require high data speeds for it to be practical (cloud computing, server-side gaming, 4k video, distance learning, etc.). With the ever increasing number of devices connected tot he web, I think a gigabit backbone would really help our economy and the internet market here stateside.

    I have a 75Mb/s up/down connection which I know is not bad but would kill for a gigabit one.

    Would love to hear everyone's thoughts/opinions.
     
  2. Brad L

    Brad L Well-Known Member

    Who is paying for it?
     
    Lucas likes this.
  3. intradox

    intradox Well-Known Member

    I think it's more on a local/municipal level. FCC is just providing resources on how to go about moving over to fibre.
     
  4. Brandon Sheley

    Brandon Sheley Well-Known Member

    That's awesome!
    We tried to get google to pump that into Topeka. Kansas City won so we like to think we helped a little. (y)
     
    Dodgeboard and intradox like this.
  5. Jason

    Jason Well-Known Member

    I'm skeptical much will come from this. There isn't much competition when it comes to broadband access in the U.S. (mostly because they're legal monopolies), which is mostly what drives companies to invest the amount of money required to make things such as this happen.

    Carriers and ISPs got $200 billion in taxpayer dollars about a decade ago to fund fiber to the door of most U.S. residents. That money was put to other use. So, the FCC Chairman is essentially begging them to do what they promised.

    What we really need is a change in agreements and laws that allow other companies to more easily move into this space, and that prohibit municipalities from drafting exclusivity contracts. Then you'll start seeing carriers and ISPs scramble to upgrade their offerings.
     
  6. RickM

    RickM Well-Known Member

    Makes my 120meg look pretty pathetic :p

    In seriousnss though. It wont make a scrap of difference to loading speeds in the real world. No servers really have that kind of connectivity to give to ONE connection. 100mbps is the sweet spot, anything above that only really helps for data transfers over multiple streams.

    That being said, I'd still kill for a gigabit connection! :D
     
  7. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    It could have the opposite effect as well. Companies are loath to spend expansion dollars on infrastructure unless they can see an immediate return for the investment. And the broadband providers really don't want you to have all that juicy bandwidth to watch Netflix. They want you to spend money on THEIR offerings, which is why you see companies like AT&T implement draconian caps on usage.

    Until Congress gives the FCC some real teeth to enforce the rules, don't expect to see any real improvement in the US. And as long as the lobbyists are allowed to funnel all sorts of cash into the pockets of our elected officials, there will continue to be a reluctance on Capitol Hill to do some real good when it comes to broadband providers.
     
  8. Teapot

    Teapot Well-Known Member

    8Mbit internets here... if the sun's shining and the little old boy in the exchange has had his coffee that morning :D Needless to say, gigabit internets would make a pretty big difference to me.

    The problem for me is that I live a) in a very, very rural area of the country and b) in England, where our internet is only really any good in the big cities (Leeds, London, Manchester, basically). Our phone lines are also owned by BT, who are very unlikely to upgrade them out here unless they absolutely have to (government breathing down their necks, for example). We were pretty much one of the last populated areas in the country to get broadband back in the day, and they've never made it any faster since - simply because it's not nearly as profitable as getting fibre into Leeds (or another cable-accessible area), because they have a monopoly here... and the lines are forty years old.
     
  9. RickM

    RickM Well-Known Member

    Yup I know what you mean there. My uncle and aunt live just above Guilford in a pretty remote area. They are stuck on BT with around 1Mbit. Slow as hell. They can only get Virgin if they and the other 2 houses next door pay for it to be brought through from the nearest town (and they were told the cost would be over £50,000).

    We really only got decent speed internet in St Albans (Hertfordshire) in the last year or so. 3 years ago we struggled to get above 5Mbit, but Virgin did a big upgrade and now we're one of the most unsubscribed areas in the country, so get pretty decent constant speeds.
     
  10. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    I could not have said it better myself.

    There are actually laws on the books; back in Massachusetts which make it illegal (Yes, I'm using that word correctly) for cities or towns to negotiate with other providers while in contract with the current provider. All those contracts also prohibit 3rd parties.

    The ISP's (Internet Service Providers) have a monopoly here. If you have Charter Internet for cable, you're stuck with Charter Internet unless you move. Because while "technically" the city and town will "re-evaluate" their agreement once every 5 years... Many of those contracts state they must be always current or they have the right to disconnect the whole town.
     
  11. morpheus

    morpheus Member

    This sounds awesome and I would love to see that happen where I live. I'm still stuck with a 1 megabit connection and it never gets that high period. I've been fighting with my provider for them to upgrade my area since they just got the last mile grant last year I'd hoped to see some activity of them at least trying to upgrade my area but they refuse to do it! So maybe this will be good news for me maybe not. My connection is so horrible it's made me think about moving to a different location lol.
     
  12. Sim

    Sim Well-Known Member

    Australia is in the process of building our National Broadband Network (NBN), a government funded (but ultimately self-sustaining user-paid) universally available broadband network. This will replace our old and run-down copper network so all telephony and internet services will be provided to residential and business customers via fibre.

    Approximately 93% of the population will be serviced by 100/40Mbps (and Gigabit capable) Fibre-to-the-Premesis (FTTP aka FTTH).

    A further 5% in regional areas will be serviced by fixed-wireless (LTE), initially at 12/1Mbps, but expected to be upgraded as the LTE technology evolves.

    The remainder of the population in remote areas will be serviced by 12/1Mbps satellite links.

    They plan to start building the fibre network in the area I'm living in later this year, with service availability some time in 2014.

    I currently get 16/2Mbps ADSL2+ over our copper lines, which is not bad, but I'm looking forward to 100Mbps soon and then gigabit down the track - especially given that I will be able to relocate almost anywhere and be guaranteed the same network performance, where ADSL technology varies hugely depending on the quality and length of the copper between you and the exchange.

    PS. when I write 100/40 I mean 100Mbps download speed, 40Mbps upload speed. The network is technically capable of symmetrical speeds, but that would be a business-grade service and priced accordingly.
     
    intradox likes this.

Share This Page