The New York Times has weighed in on the FCC plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21sun1.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21sun1.html?hp
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
FCC Broadband editorial
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this pathetic excuse for an editorial.
"High-speed Internet is on its way to replacing the telephone as the nation’s primary means of communication."
That quote would be laughable until you stop and consider that virtually every person above the age of 12 has at least a cell phone and a goodly percentage of us still have landlines as well. And I'm pretty sure the number of text messages exceeds the number of non-spam emails by a fairly wide margin. The "phone" may not resemble the POTS we remember from our youth but it is still pervasive and unlikely to surrender its leading position any time soon.
This editorial, as with others written in the same vein, compares broadband penetration in the USA to those of much smaller countries. Pointless.
And what about speed? The basic usage for non-business Internet access today is communication (email, social networking, etc.). You can do that quite nicely at normal DSL speeds. 8Mbs and above is useful for viewing videos and file sharing but "the poor, the elderly and other vulnerable groups" generally do not use the Internet for those purposes if they use the Internet at all.
This editorial appears to be yet another attempt to "sell" major infrastructure improvements for select corporate advantage. If Hollywood wants another channel to sell movies let them finance the expansion. I do not see an upside to my financing these improvements through my tax dollars.
If Congress and/or the FCC is truly interested in improving our existing capabilities have them look seriously at reducing the amount of spam currently clogging the networks or making the Internet virus and bot-proof.
"High-speed Internet is on its way to replacing the telephone as the nation’s primary means of communication."
That quote would be laughable until you stop and consider that virtually every person above the age of 12 has at least a cell phone and a goodly percentage of us still have landlines as well. And I'm pretty sure the number of text messages exceeds the number of non-spam emails by a fairly wide margin. The "phone" may not resemble the POTS we remember from our youth but it is still pervasive and unlikely to surrender its leading position any time soon.
This editorial, as with others written in the same vein, compares broadband penetration in the USA to those of much smaller countries. Pointless.
And what about speed? The basic usage for non-business Internet access today is communication (email, social networking, etc.). You can do that quite nicely at normal DSL speeds. 8Mbs and above is useful for viewing videos and file sharing but "the poor, the elderly and other vulnerable groups" generally do not use the Internet for those purposes if they use the Internet at all.
This editorial appears to be yet another attempt to "sell" major infrastructure improvements for select corporate advantage. If Hollywood wants another channel to sell movies let them finance the expansion. I do not see an upside to my financing these improvements through my tax dollars.
If Congress and/or the FCC is truly interested in improving our existing capabilities have them look seriously at reducing the amount of spam currently clogging the networks or making the Internet virus and bot-proof.
landtuna said:
I don't think Hollywood or any copyright holders see the internet as something to increase revenue. I think they'd all tell you they make more money selling hard goods like DVDs. Downloads are killing the content industry right now, from music, movies, news, and anything else.
The industries that will benefit are cable and telecom. So far, they've been held as common carriers, staying out of the content business. But the Comcast-NBC deal changes that. It will open the door to further consolidation between platforms and content.
- Status