The Official Blog of the FCC National Broadband Plan. Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=138385#comment-143548 2010-02-03T18:38:19Z 2010-02-03T18:38:19Z

I am glad to see that someone at the FCC actually understands the difference between wired and wireless networks. While ex-Googlelite Andrew McLaughlin wants Chariman Genachowski and President Obama to treat wireless the same as wireline networks, one only has to go to New York or San Francisco and see what happens when smart phone users consume almost 1GB of data per month. This is not an AT&T or VZW issue, nor is it a technology issue - its the simple fact that there is only so much spectrum that a wireless network can deploy in a given area. We pay for the electricity, water, and fuel we actually use. Why do we have "unlimited" use plans for wireless data? If we don't manage the use of wireless spectrum, either through tiered pricing models or forms of network management (i.e Bit-Torrent curbs) we will end up with slow, congested, wireless networks.

Guest 2010-02-03T18:38:19Z Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=127090#comment-143036 2010-02-03T16:03:29Z 2010-02-03T16:03:29Z

The one thing that hit the nail on the head is the user agreement statistic although I suspect the number is more like 98%. I don't know about creating another layer of control or a privacy czar but it might be good to regulate user agreements so that they read more like the HUD statement that you get when you buy a house. If there is a basic english translation for all the fine print and legal stuff we would all be more informed.

Guest 2010-02-03T16:03:29Z Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=111153#comment-140699 2010-02-02T15:53:05Z 2010-02-02T15:53:05Z

It seems that not enough marketing is going on to let consumers know how renewable energy, such as solar and wind power can really benefit them as far as saving money and helping our environment. Many people know we have pollution and such but how many realizes the incentives that are available from the government and the grid. People will use their broadband and if they are able to see at any given time what their energy stats are and how much or less energy is being used, more and more people will be aware of what&#039;s really going on. And too, they would probably be more pronged to seek out even more information about how to save money by decreasing the usage or changing their energy sources. After all, knowledge is the key. Why don&#039;t we start with our government buildings in implementing solar and wind power? <br/>www.makingenergy.info

Guest 2010-02-02T15:53:05Z Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=138385#comment-140418 2010-02-02T14:22:28Z 2010-02-02T14:22:28Z

Interesting! I wonder what your motive really is considering your outside or should I say inside interests in technologies that compete with Apple. You&#039;re actually comparing the infrastructure of dialup in the 90&#039;s to the 3G networks of ATT&amp;T and Version not to mention many others trying to get their foot in the door. Obstructionists and sabotage have no place on the FCC!

Guest 2010-02-02T14:22:28Z Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=10679#comment-139637 2010-02-01T22:40:58Z 2010-02-01T22:40:58Z

http://www.google.com/

Guest 2010-02-01T22:40:58Z Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=138385#comment-138863 2010-02-01T18:18:08Z 2010-02-01T18:18:08Z

The last thing customers want to hear is problems with provider&#039;s networks. This will give them greater leverage to hike up their rates even further. Maybe they should cool it and not have every commercial be about how great and fast their network is when it isn&#039;t.

Guest 2010-02-01T18:18:08Z Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=127090#comment-136904 2010-01-31T06:16:07Z 2010-01-31T06:16:07Z

It would have been nice for you to pull out quotes you&#039;d like to highlight rather than the start of the speech. :-) I&#039;m sure there are some juicy talking points in there.

Guest 2010-01-31T06:16:07Z Guest http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=127090#comment-133415 2010-01-29T00:58:19Z 2010-01-29T00:58:19Z

I believe that most, if not all, businesses on the internet as well as those who deal with off the internet, have taken what I call the “Opt-Out” position to person’s personal information. It should be the other way around; people should “Opt-In” to these situations. There are a huge number of businesses that make money selling your personal information. And this is all without your knowledge or permission. Even the credit rating services sell you name and address information, not just your rating. Maybe there should be a law an Opt-In law.

Guest 2010-01-29T00:58:19Z Brett Glass http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=101173#comment-120030 2010-01-25T20:31:33Z 2010-01-25T20:31:33Z

Unfortunately, Phil, allowing the broadcasters to sublicense or auction off their spectrum could create &#034;winners and losers&#034; too. Large cellular providers would sweep in and snatch up the spectrum so as to foreclose competition, then do nothing with it -- preventing the public from receiving new and competitive services. (Remember the DoJ&#039;s recent filing, in which it noted that the foreclosure value of spectrum is often far greater than its utility value?) A regime in which this &#034;beachfront&#034; spectrum could be shared via cognitive radios and spectrum etiquettes would be far preferable.<br/><br/>I operate a small wireless ISP which -- under the current auction regime -- does not have any prospect of getting the slightest shred of licensed spectrum to call its own. I and my colleagues could be wonderful competitors -- if only we were able to access this artificially scarce resource on which large corporations have cornered the market. What&#039;s more, because we have the lowest deployment cost per customer of any technology in rural areas (including satellite, if you count the cost of the customer equipment), we can reach more unserved and underserved areas -- more economically -- than anyone. Please review my presentation from the &#034;wireless&#034; Broadband Plan workshop and include the notion of making this spectrum available on a nonexclusively licensed basis -- subject to the use of cognitive radios and spectrum etiquettes such as 802.11y -- part of the Broadband Plan.

Brett Glass 2010-01-25T20:31:33Z Brett Glass http://blog.broadband.gov:80/blog/index.jsp?entryId=119280#comment-119958 2010-01-25T20:14:33Z 2010-01-25T20:14:33Z

Blair, you&#039;re right. And as many minority organizations have stated, the issue in DC which poses the greatest danger to minority inclusion on the Internet is the proposed &#034;network neutrality&#034; regulation now being discussed there at the FCC. As noted in the article at<br/><br/>http://www.blackweb20.com/2010/01/18/minority-groups-ask-fcc-for-digital-equal-opportunity-in-broadband-plan/<br/><br/>the proposed regulations -- which are being pushed by large corporations, primarily Google -- would widen the digital divide by increasing the cost of broadband service, lowering its quality, discouraging deployment, discouraging investment, and harming competition. (My own ISP is one small but growing competitor which is reaching out to unserved areas and would be harmed by such rules. See my filing at http://www.brettglass.com/nprmcomment.pdf -- it&#039;s also in the docket, though it is buried under the massive pile of identical form letters from corporate lobbying groups -- for an explanation of why.)<br/><br/>What can the FCC do? As mentioned in my filing, the best things it can do are promote competition and mandate transparency, but not micromanage Internet service providers, attempt to dictate their business models, or frighten away their potential investors with the prospect of excessive regulation. Please make these recommendations part of the Broadband Plan.

Brett Glass 2010-01-25T20:14:33Z