$/MB: Pay per bit----Coming Soon?!

There was a very interesting article written by Leslie Cauley, for USA Today.

The question of whether paying per bit, ppb, will work is up to the consumers in as much as they may or may not go for the plan. Americans have been sold so well on the idea that Internet access is unlimited to download amounts or content (except the illegal content). What is the benefit for consumers of going to ppb? At the moment it is just chitchat, but what improvements would consumers obtain?

For my own part, I am not too worried about ppb. However, I do not know how much data I transmit on my connection. Three computers and a roommate, may create more traffic than I believe. However, I would want to see incredible strides in download speeds and network uptime in exchange for ppb. That is just for starters though. As talk increases about switching to this business model, further discussion would need to be had concerning the requirements that consumers would place on ISPs.

FTTH in the US

The FTTHCouncil of North America recently released a report on the status of FTTH in North America. One of the biggest surprises was that Verizon accounts for a very large percentage of FTTH.

So the troubling question is, why is Verizon the only provider building out their network in any perceptable amount? Surely other service providers are building out their systems. If you know of any please post.

The Google Policy Blog has voiced concern over the "artificially low cap" in place on H-1B visas.

Since Google is unable to find qualified Americans for the jobs. Then why doesn't Google start voicing a concern over education in the US? Instead of simply looking elsewhere, Google can be part of the overall solution to its own problem of insufficient staff.

As Google has noted in their post the H-1B visa holder contribute to the economy. Why not let Americans contribute to the American economy, instead of relying on foreign nationals to support the American economy.

I would be interested to known what the salary of an American vs a H-1B visa holder is at Google. Given that both employees have the same job/job description and time with the company. There have been some accusations that the pay for one is lower than the other. If Google would like to volunteer this information in order to dispel this notion that Google wants to higher H-1B visa workers because they can be paid less than Americans.

Broadband Census

The website is attempting to inventory the broadband status of the country. By providing some information and performing a speedtest you can help to inventory broadband deployment in you area.

Broadbandcensus.com

AT&T Samples cable modems

AT&T sampled the advertised vs the realised download speeds in a market. John Stankey discusses this at the following audio/slide presentation.

Thanks to Cynthia Brumfield for calling attention to this presentation

Wouldn't it be nice?

As I read the reports from varying blogs about the recent FCC meeting at Harvard, I tend to become jealous. Of the recent past, most important policy matters and open hearings take place on either one of the coasts. Rarely does the government solicit input from the rest of the country. You know the "fly over" states.

This comes to my mind after reading the reports that Comcast paid for people to attend the FCC meeting. Yes, I agree completely that paying for a person to attend a government policy event is akin to voter fraud. However, at least someone got to attend the meeting while the rest of us are left out. Out in the middle of the nation.

The point that I am attempting to pice together is that policy meetings such as these should not have limits to those that may attend. If a room fills, move to another facility. The University of Oklahoma has learned this lesson really well, when a visitor such as Al Gore and his global warming speech come to campus. The other real question to ask is why did the FCC only have one meeting? Why were there only a limited number of people allowed?

I am not convinced Comcast destroyed the democratic process of this meeting, I was not there and have not seen the proverbial smoking gun. Maybe the FCC destroyed the democratic process by excluding those that showed up at Harvard or those of us who live in the rest of the nation. Maybe the FCC should go to the people in more than one instance.