Initial reports of bandwidth bragging by Verizon and Comcast from Broadband Reports.com states, "Ars Technica ...reminds you that AT&T and Qwest are nowhere to be found amidst the bandwidth bragging." This was after exploring Verizon's response to Comcast's DOCSIS 3.0 trials, as they could ultimately offer speeds up to 400 Mbps to consumers. Although the previously mentioned speed of 400 Mbps won't be available anytime soon.
For more information check out their report at Broadband Reports.com.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wilson Firefighters use fiber optic network to train
Posted in wilsonfiber on the April 26th, 2007
"Ever tried to be two places at one time? We all do and we know it’s impossible. For Wilson’s Firefighters, though, the city’s fiber optic network makes it possible to do just that - virtually.
Wilson Fire/Rescue Services has one of the best ratings in the state. To maintain their high standards and keep response times fast, Firefighters need to stay in their stations. Since the city’s fiber backbone was installed in early 2006, Firefighters have begun doing more remote training from several facilities.
Using the city’s fiber optic network, Firefighters can stay in their station while interacting with an instructor in another building through clean video. The fiber allows the training to be more interactive because it’s faster and clearer than the old technology.
Our Firefighters can keep response times fast while keeping their training level high. As a homeowner in Wilson, I’m grateful they can use this new technology to protect all of us."
"Ever tried to be two places at one time? We all do and we know it’s impossible. For Wilson’s Firefighters, though, the city’s fiber optic network makes it possible to do just that - virtually.
Wilson Fire/Rescue Services has one of the best ratings in the state. To maintain their high standards and keep response times fast, Firefighters need to stay in their stations. Since the city’s fiber backbone was installed in early 2006, Firefighters have begun doing more remote training from several facilities.
Using the city’s fiber optic network, Firefighters can stay in their station while interacting with an instructor in another building through clean video. The fiber allows the training to be more interactive because it’s faster and clearer than the old technology.
Our Firefighters can keep response times fast while keeping their training level high. As a homeowner in Wilson, I’m grateful they can use this new technology to protect all of us."
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Internet Policy That Works For Both Sides
After reading Tim Wu's, "The Broadband Debate: A User's Guide" which appears in the "Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law", I realized several points I'd like to share.
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=557330
"The telecommunication industry has a recent track record of terrible judgment and even outright fraud." On the other hand, those in favor of deregulation and supporters of net neutrality who are divided along many issues, share a common belief in innovation as the basis of economic growth.
Can both sides surrender to common idealized models of either government or powerful private entities? Or will we all come to the realization that both government and the private sector have an unhappy record of blocking the new in favor of the old, and that such tendencies are likely to continue?
As FCC Commissioner Michael Copps puts it: “From its inception, the Internet was designed, as those present during the course of it creation will tell you, to prevent government or a corporation or anyone else from controlling it. It was designed to defeat discrimination against users, ideas and technologies.”
But what would happen if both those who are against regulation and proponents of an open internet remember their common dedication to a single principle: free and unmediated market entry? Could it be that by turning to such a point of consensus that reconciliation of a mutually beneficial communications policy could begin?
Neither those opposing regulation nor those supporting an open internet should have reason to oppose network neutrality rules that create rights for users to use the applications or equipment of their choice. But at the same time create rights of operators to enter the application market, free of government hindrance; therefore, limited network neutrality rules should be attractive to both sides.
For more information visit http://www.speedmatters.org
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=557330
"The telecommunication industry has a recent track record of terrible judgment and even outright fraud." On the other hand, those in favor of deregulation and supporters of net neutrality who are divided along many issues, share a common belief in innovation as the basis of economic growth.
Can both sides surrender to common idealized models of either government or powerful private entities? Or will we all come to the realization that both government and the private sector have an unhappy record of blocking the new in favor of the old, and that such tendencies are likely to continue?
As FCC Commissioner Michael Copps puts it: “From its inception, the Internet was designed, as those present during the course of it creation will tell you, to prevent government or a corporation or anyone else from controlling it. It was designed to defeat discrimination against users, ideas and technologies.”
But what would happen if both those who are against regulation and proponents of an open internet remember their common dedication to a single principle: free and unmediated market entry? Could it be that by turning to such a point of consensus that reconciliation of a mutually beneficial communications policy could begin?
Neither those opposing regulation nor those supporting an open internet should have reason to oppose network neutrality rules that create rights for users to use the applications or equipment of their choice. But at the same time create rights of operators to enter the application market, free of government hindrance; therefore, limited network neutrality rules should be attractive to both sides.
For more information visit http://www.speedmatters.org
Saturday, April 7, 2007
The U.S. Needs A Cohesive National Strategy
"Peter Morici, an economist and a business professor at the University of Maryland, agreed the regulatory environment in the United States needs to be improved. He cited as an example how U.S. communications companies face stifling layers of federal and state regulations." “But he also said the network providers need to get the Internet infrastructure to operate faster instead of worrying about protecting their businesses from competitors.”
“We haven’t gone backward, we’re just not moving forward,” said Morici. “We haven’t adequately built out our competitive technologies, and other countries are moving ahead. Unfortunately, it’s in the hands of cable and telecom companies. They’re not always forward-looking companies.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/29/BUG41OTHE71.DTL&a amp;type=tech
Almost every other developed country has a cohesive and comprehensive national strategy to stimulate the deployment of high speed broadband by establishing specific goals and policies. In the U.S. there isn’t a systematic or organized plan. The U.S. should develop a systematic plan, because the current policy vacuum threatens America’s ability to maintain leadership in high technology and applications.
The United States, which topped the World Economic Forum’s “networked readiness index” in 2006, slipped to seventh. The study, out Wednesday, largely blamed increased political and corporate interference in the judicial system.
http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8O58PMG0.html
How can the U.S. remain competitive with other economies that have already adopted policies that facilitate job growth, business advancement, and individual achievement through access to information and markets?
www.speedmatters.org.
“We haven’t gone backward, we’re just not moving forward,” said Morici. “We haven’t adequately built out our competitive technologies, and other countries are moving ahead. Unfortunately, it’s in the hands of cable and telecom companies. They’re not always forward-looking companies.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/29/BUG41OTHE71.DTL&a amp;type=tech
Almost every other developed country has a cohesive and comprehensive national strategy to stimulate the deployment of high speed broadband by establishing specific goals and policies. In the U.S. there isn’t a systematic or organized plan. The U.S. should develop a systematic plan, because the current policy vacuum threatens America’s ability to maintain leadership in high technology and applications.
The United States, which topped the World Economic Forum’s “networked readiness index” in 2006, slipped to seventh. The study, out Wednesday, largely blamed increased political and corporate interference in the judicial system.
http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8O58PMG0.html
How can the U.S. remain competitive with other economies that have already adopted policies that facilitate job growth, business advancement, and individual achievement through access to information and markets?
www.speedmatters.org.
Fighting Back Against Verizon's Sneak Attack on Virginia
Posted by Speed Matters team April 3, 2007
Virginia's communications consumers are at risk of losing one of their most important protections. The Communications Workers of America are standing up to try and stop this corporate attack on consumer rights.
We reported a few weeks ago about SB1143, a dangerous bill moving through the Virginia legislature. Thanks to intense lobbying from Verizon, the legislature approved a bill that would revoke the State Corporation Commission's ability to scrutinize mergers in the telephone industry. The SCC's traditional role is to examine the sale or transfer of telephone companies, and ensure that the transaction is in the public interest, for customers and employees alike. The recently-passed bill would eliminate that oversight, leaving companies like Verizon less accountable to Virginians.
This week, Gov. Tim Kaine vetoed the bill, setting up another legislative battle. The CWA is actively organizing members and supporters to help sustain the veto. Chris Lane, president of Local 2201, praised the efforts of the bill’s opponents, who encouraged Kaine’s veto and raised awareness about the bill in communities across the state. Said Lane:
"We're not taking any chances and will be working hard through next week, but our success so far in stopping this sneak attack by Verizon is all that workers here are talking about."
Government oversight is essential to ensuring that the vital telecommunications industry is responsive, fair, and serving the needs of Virginia’s citizens. Verizon and its allies tried to sneak this bill through, but Gov. Kaine deserves credit for standing up against it. As Gov. Kaine noted:
"Access to telephone service continues to be vital for residents across the Commonwealth, and it is imperative that we act reasonably to ensure that this access is not diminished."
Here’s CWA’S radio ad on this important issue.
If you live in Virginia, contact your state legislators, and tell them they need to stand with Virginia's consumers and workers, not with lobbyists. Virginia needs them to uphold Gov. Kaine's veto.
Links
CWA: Fighting Back Against Verizon's Sneak Attack
SpeedMatters: Verizon's Virginia Sneak Attack
Virginia's communications consumers are at risk of losing one of their most important protections. The Communications Workers of America are standing up to try and stop this corporate attack on consumer rights.
We reported a few weeks ago about SB1143, a dangerous bill moving through the Virginia legislature. Thanks to intense lobbying from Verizon, the legislature approved a bill that would revoke the State Corporation Commission's ability to scrutinize mergers in the telephone industry. The SCC's traditional role is to examine the sale or transfer of telephone companies, and ensure that the transaction is in the public interest, for customers and employees alike. The recently-passed bill would eliminate that oversight, leaving companies like Verizon less accountable to Virginians.
This week, Gov. Tim Kaine vetoed the bill, setting up another legislative battle. The CWA is actively organizing members and supporters to help sustain the veto. Chris Lane, president of Local 2201, praised the efforts of the bill’s opponents, who encouraged Kaine’s veto and raised awareness about the bill in communities across the state. Said Lane:
"We're not taking any chances and will be working hard through next week, but our success so far in stopping this sneak attack by Verizon is all that workers here are talking about."
Government oversight is essential to ensuring that the vital telecommunications industry is responsive, fair, and serving the needs of Virginia’s citizens. Verizon and its allies tried to sneak this bill through, but Gov. Kaine deserves credit for standing up against it. As Gov. Kaine noted:
"Access to telephone service continues to be vital for residents across the Commonwealth, and it is imperative that we act reasonably to ensure that this access is not diminished."
Here’s CWA’S radio ad on this important issue.
If you live in Virginia, contact your state legislators, and tell them they need to stand with Virginia's consumers and workers, not with lobbyists. Virginia needs them to uphold Gov. Kaine's veto.
Links
CWA: Fighting Back Against Verizon's Sneak Attack
SpeedMatters: Verizon's Virginia Sneak Attack
Monday, March 19, 2007
How Can We Expect to Compete Globally Without High Speed Internet
With the current speed at which our internet services are being delivered to us today, I don’t believe Telcos can expect to compete globally without some serious upgrades. What we need is a national policy that will ensure consumers have access to high-speed internet services that are affordable, fast, reliable, and don’t exclude rural areas or moderate income Americans who may be left behind if we don’t act now.
Students in higher income urban areas will be able to take advantage of Verizon's plan to build FIOS, while shedding its rural lines. Students in high income urban areas should not have an unfair advantage over students where only dial up is available and cable services don’t reach. Many students today are utilizing internet connections to view streaming video and two-way internet applications where the quality of the transmission and how long the transmission takes is essential to their success in the classroom.
AT&T plans to build U-Verse to 50% of households and connect rural areas with wireless technologies. It’s time to support universal, affordable high-speed networks to every American household, regardless of income or where people live or work. If you haven’t tested your internet speed, go to the Speed Matters website and take the speed test to see if you’re actually receiving a high-speed internet connection that matches that of your state or local area.
I was surprised to find out how slow my DSL speed was. DSL is often too slow for many applications and the Telcos need to build high-speed networks to compete with cable’s triple play bundle. If you want more information on “why speed matters”, check out CWA’s website at http://www.speedmatters.org/why/ to find out more.
If you’re still not convinced, read about Kentucky's "Prescription for Innovation." Then ask yourself the following questions: Are consumers entitled to an open internet which allows them to go where they want when they want? Are students all over the country, especially rural areas entitled to high-speed internet access? Should patients in rural areas have to travel hundred of miles to urban hospitals just to receive the proper diagnosis of their illness? Do you define high-speed as 200 kilobits per second (kbps) downstream, when the top speed generally available in Japan is 51 mbps?
Students in higher income urban areas will be able to take advantage of Verizon's plan to build FIOS, while shedding its rural lines. Students in high income urban areas should not have an unfair advantage over students where only dial up is available and cable services don’t reach. Many students today are utilizing internet connections to view streaming video and two-way internet applications where the quality of the transmission and how long the transmission takes is essential to their success in the classroom.
AT&T plans to build U-Verse to 50% of households and connect rural areas with wireless technologies. It’s time to support universal, affordable high-speed networks to every American household, regardless of income or where people live or work. If you haven’t tested your internet speed, go to the Speed Matters website and take the speed test to see if you’re actually receiving a high-speed internet connection that matches that of your state or local area.
I was surprised to find out how slow my DSL speed was. DSL is often too slow for many applications and the Telcos need to build high-speed networks to compete with cable’s triple play bundle. If you want more information on “why speed matters”, check out CWA’s website at http://www.speedmatters.org/why/ to find out more.
If you’re still not convinced, read about Kentucky's "Prescription for Innovation." Then ask yourself the following questions: Are consumers entitled to an open internet which allows them to go where they want when they want? Are students all over the country, especially rural areas entitled to high-speed internet access? Should patients in rural areas have to travel hundred of miles to urban hospitals just to receive the proper diagnosis of their illness? Do you define high-speed as 200 kilobits per second (kbps) downstream, when the top speed generally available in Japan is 51 mbps?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Why We Must Act Now
taken from Speed Matters principles
The telecommunications industry is at a critical juncture. The emergence of a new telecommunications system—one based on high speed interactive networks designed for voice, data, and video communications—opens up tremendous opportunities for improving the quality of our economic, civic, and personal lives.
We are falling behind because the United States is the only industrialized country without a national policy to promote high speed broadband. Instead, we have relied on a hodge-podge of fragmented government programs and uneven private sector responses to changing markets.
It is now time for the United States to adopt a comprehensive national high speed broadband policy to ensure that we all benefit from the telecommunications and information revolution. Throughout our history we have been able to benefit from major technological advances because we adopted national policies to ensure the widespread and equitable deployment of those technologies. In the 19th century we adopted policies to develop canals and a national railroad system. In the 20th century we instituted policies to develop national telephone and highway systems.
In the 21st century, we need to have a national high speed broadband policy.
The telecommunications industry is at a critical juncture. The emergence of a new telecommunications system—one based on high speed interactive networks designed for voice, data, and video communications—opens up tremendous opportunities for improving the quality of our economic, civic, and personal lives.
We are falling behind because the United States is the only industrialized country without a national policy to promote high speed broadband. Instead, we have relied on a hodge-podge of fragmented government programs and uneven private sector responses to changing markets.
It is now time for the United States to adopt a comprehensive national high speed broadband policy to ensure that we all benefit from the telecommunications and information revolution. Throughout our history we have been able to benefit from major technological advances because we adopted national policies to ensure the widespread and equitable deployment of those technologies. In the 19th century we adopted policies to develop canals and a national railroad system. In the 20th century we instituted policies to develop national telephone and highway systems.
In the 21st century, we need to have a national high speed broadband policy.
Speed Matters: Five Key Principles
taken from Speed Matters principles
Speed and Universality Matter for Internet Access.
High-tech innovation, job growth, telemedicine, distance learning, rural development, public safety and e-government require truly high speed, universal networks.
The U.S. “High Speed” Definition is Too Slow.
The FCC defines “high speed” as 200 kilobits per second (kbps) downstream. Government policies should immediately set “high speed” definition at 2 megabits per second (mbps) downstream, 1 upstream.
A National "High Speed Internet for All" Policy is Critical
The U.S. must adopt policies for universal access and set deployment timetables: 10 mbps down, 1 mbps up by 2010, with new benchmarks set for succeeding years.
The U.S. Must Preserve an Open Internet
High speed, high capacity networks will eliminate bandwidth scarcity and will promote an open Internet. Consumers are entitled to an open Internet allowing them to go where they want when they want. Nothing should be done to degrade or block access to any websites. Reserving proprietary video bandwidth is essential to finance the build-out of high speed networks.
Consumer and Worker Protections Must Be Safeguarded
Public policies should support growth of good, career jobs as a key to providing quality service. Government should require public reporting of deployment, actual speed and price.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
