Follow this blog:
RSS

The Morning Briefing: Broadband services

By | June 14, 2012, 9:48 PM PDT

“The Morning Briefing” is SmartPlanet’s daily roundup of must-reads from the web. This morning we’re reading about broadband services and acquisition.

1.) Obama’s ‘U.S.-Ignite’ broadband plan ignites nothing. Internet access in the U.S. is lousy. So the Obama administration yesterday announced “U.S. Ignite,” which is supposedly a strategy to make the Internet 100 times faster by developing a one-gigabit network backbone between cities and universities.

2.) U.S. probe of Comcast, broadband giants echoes ‘net neutrality’ battles. The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a “wide-ranging” investigation into whether cable, satellite and telecom providers are stifling fast-growing internet video services like Netflix, according to multiple reports.

3.) IBM: Fast broadband to rake in $1 trillion for Australia by 2050. Productivity and revenue gains to come from faster broadband speeds, according to new report.

4.) Obama order targets cost of broadband deployment. U.S. President Barack Obama will sign an executive order Thursday intended to make it less expensive for broadband providers to install lines and equipment on federal lands and also federal roads.

5.) Openet raises $21M to manage your mobile data traffic. Openet has bagged $21 million in new funding in a Series D round that includes $16 million in new equity and $5 million in debt. The vendor makes a mobile network element that most people have never heard of.

Image credit: Flickr

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Charlie Osborne

About Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Contributing Editor

Charlie Osborne is a freelance journalist and graphic designer based in London. In addition to SmartPlanet, she also writes the iGeneration column for business technology website ZDNet. She holds degrees in medical anthropology from the University of Kent.

Follow her on Twitter.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
8
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
What about stiffling consumers?
Net neutrality? What a joke. I would just be happy to get the DSL service speed and connectivity advertised by ATT - which they have failed miserably at for the past five years. Every time it clouds up (almost every day here in Vero Beach, FL) up, or rains their service goes down - and or becomes extremely slow and or intermittent for hours. There techs tell me it's because ATT won't maintain and upgrade their landlines and they can't solve the problem until that's done. Complained to my congressional rep. only to find out one of his largest campaign contributors - was ATT and no surprise nothing happened. Just like congress - the FCC is the hand maiden to big money. Until we get money out of governing - the avg. consumer is and will be regularly abused (screwed) at the convenience of companies like ATT with zero recourse.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
15th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
You are complaining to the wrong person.
Complaining to your congressperson is silly. They don't have much to do with your local service, nor should they. They don't care for a reason.

Who you need to complain to is the local agency (usually city or county) that grants the franchise for AT&T to operate in your jurisdiction.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 15th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
A few observations.
The U.S. Ignite plan does nothing to address the number 1 problem with US broadband access speed. The poor quality of the last mile of service. (which is likely dduggerbiocepts AT&T problem) If offered, a cable provider is different hardware that may give a better result. In most areas the backbone is fine.

If by stifling Internet video services you mean billing appropriately by usage, or throttling usage based on how much you pay, I am all for it.

The current Internet access usage / billing scheme is unsustainable. To deny it is to be one of the narcissistic mob taking over the US who feel self entitled to anything for free or dirt cheap.

The current Internet model is like saying everyone in town can have access to municipal water at the same price regardless of usage.

This guy can pay $100 a month to shower once a day. The neighbor to the left of him waters a 4 acre lawn for $100 while the guy to his right runs a 100 acre water park. All that clean water for only $100 a month.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 15th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
Absolutely.
The "all you can eat" model is a marketing gimmick that was designed to draw people in and get them hooked; it's not sustainable for broadband any more than it would be for any other home or business utility like electricity, gas or water.

The cellular industry, where bandwidth is currently most finite is just now kicking the habit. Consumers are not pleased. It's going to be difficult to get a generation of consumers who have grown up used to "all you can eat" to pay by usage. It's the same kind of problem we face with health care; where generations of people just assume that it's something that an employer provides as a "benefit" for working for them instead of a service that is both finite and expensive.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Hi Charlie,
What I would like to know and understand is why Sattelite Internet providers are limited to how much data a customer can download a day, while cable and DSL customers are unlimited and sometimes for less money..

My data download cap was just changed from 350 Mb to 400Mb/day, which is nothing to write home about. Any information you can provide would certainly be welcome....

Thanks...
TW
Posted by T-Wrench
17th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
Because their available bandwidth is quite limited...
...as a given satellite can only handle a finite amount of data, which has to be divided up between programming and Internet data. It's much easier for cable & telco companies to add more bandwidth.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
18th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Hi John,
Thanks for the reply. If what you say is true, and the satellite companies can only handle so much data, then I'm definetly paying way to much.

My niece, which I gave her land to build on, on the backside of my property, has DSL, and pays $25.00 (US)/month less than I do for unlimited.

DSL ends 1 mile from my house NE, and 150' from my house SW. Talk about being frustrated! But at least the Satellite is much faster than dial-up, and that's the only advantage!

Again, thanks for the reply!

TW
Posted by T-Wrench
19th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
Sorry about that.
Yes, the shortcoming of DSL is your distance from the central office. I usually find cable superior, but it's rarely available outside of dense population centers. Fiber is still a dream for most, even in urban areas. WiMax & cellular-based systems are more widely available, but are also expensive and are now throttling and charging for more data. And as you've discovered, satellite is the provider of last resort when none-of-the-above is available.

Perhaps you can rig some sort of wifi bridge between your house and your niece.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jun
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!