Should the Internet be Free?

Recommend (1) Comments (0)

The data cited by the author reiterates information that even the FCC has declared to be

In March, 2008, the FCC issued a report and order in response to their own 2007 notice of proposed rulemaking.  As the FCC itself stated ,[1] "In April of 2007, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Data Gathering Notice”) in which we questioned whether the information collected by Form 477 provides a sufficiently complete and accurate picture of broadband deployment, particularly with regard to deployment and adoption in rural areas, and the increasing use of wireless broadband and VoIP applications."

Likewise, the FCC updated it's legal definition of "broadband" so that it was no longer 200 kbps in one direction, which as a ludicrously low speed level that allowed people to make massively exaggerated claims of "broadband connectivity."  For example, statements that "satellite broadband is available to anyone living in the lower 48" ignores both the fact that their speeds are often quite low (most struggle to provide even a half-meg of upload speed and are often less than that) and the problem that because a satellite is fairly distant (being in orbit in space) their is both latency and jitter in communications (not a problem for e-mail, perhaps, but a far greater problem for live streaming media).

The author's claim, "From February 2004 to April 2008, the average monthly broadband bill in the U.S. declined by about 8%, while speeds increased dramatically" is like comparing a three-legged dog to it's own race times and deciding to enter them in a Greyhound dog race.  No one in their right mind would look at these marginal improvements and bet money on the three-legged dog.  One needs to look at how the United States has fared compared to other industrial nations -- when we do, the results are rather stunning :[2][3][4]