×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Verizon and New Jersey Agree 4G Service Equivalent to Broadband Internet

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the buying-regulators-for-fun-and-profit dept.

Communications 155

An anonymous reader writes with news that Verizon and New Jersey regulators have reached a deal releasing Verizon from their obligation to have brought 45Mbps broadband to all NJ residents by 2010. Instead, 4G wireless service is considered sufficient. From the article: "2010 came and went and a number of rural parts of the state are still living with dial-up or subpar DSL. And even though the original deal was made in the days of modems and CompuServe, its crafters had the foresight to define broadband as 45Mbps, which is actually higher than many Verizon broadband customers receive today. ... In spite of that, and the thousands of legitimate complaints from actual New Jersey residents, the BPU voted unanimously yesterday to approve a deal with Verizon ... According to the Bergen Record, Verizon will no longer be obligated to provide broadband to residents if they have access to broadband service from cable TV providers or wireless 4G service. ... Residents who happen to live in areas not served by cable or wireless broadband can petition Verizon for service, but can only get broadband if at least 35 people in a single census tract each agree to sign contracts for a minimum of one year and pay $100 deposits."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not! (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 7 months ago | (#46835293)

Only the dictatorship of the proletariat can stop this thievery as imperialist capitalism decays and threatens to drag all of humankind into the grave with it.

Re:Not! (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 7 months ago | (#46835543)

Can you give that to me in a car analogy?

Re:Not! (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46836003)

We're all going to end up driving Lada while they drive Mercedes.

Re:Not! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46836199)

Don't feed it.

So how long (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about 7 months ago | (#46835313)

So how long until the BPU commissioners get their nice cushy jobs as lobbyists for Verizon or a Verizon supported trade group?

Re:So how long (-1, Troll)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46835929)

"So how long until the BPU commissioners get their nice cushy jobs as lobbyists for Verizon or a Verizon supported trade group?"

More importantly, how many times can someone see this happen and still cling to the absurd belief that government regulation leads to anything other than regulatory capture.

Re:So how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836041)

So it's pointless to regulate businesses because they'll just take over the regulatory agencies...got it.

Re:So how long (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 7 months ago | (#46836777)

Absolutely. Don't bother regulating because then these businesses can make their evil ways canonized into law. Far better to let them just run rogue.

Re:So how long (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 7 months ago | (#46837319)

Why try to stop evil? Just let it do what it wants. If you try to stop it, it fights back..... So there's no point. It's far better to just let evil get REALLY evil.

  • 1. Let business do whatever they want.
  • 2. They go rogue and start abusing everyone.
  • 3. ??
  • 4. It magically fixes itself!

I'm seeing ?? as either the pipe dream of Revolutionary Patriots or the Invisible Hand of the Free Market. Both of which are imaginary.... But ok. Y'all just sit back and let the liberals try to fix everything that conservatives let happen to our country... It must be so hard to just be against everything and have no ideas.

Note. Democrats are, for the most part, not that liberal. There are a few exceptions.

overprice wireless (2)

p51d007 (656414) | about 7 months ago | (#46835339)

So, ma & pa down on the farm, are suppose to pay for overprice 4G service? Might as well give up trying to watch netflix, amazon or do anything useful!

Re:overprice wireless (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 7 months ago | (#46836685)

So, ma & pa down on the farm, are suppose to pay for overprice 4G service?
Might as well give up trying to watch netflix, amazon or do anything useful!

There is some (relatively) good news on the rural front... there's enough competition among Sat providers to give Verizon and such a very hard incentive to drop their costs. Even though most sat providers (Dish, HughesNet, etc) only provide around 7-10Mbps, they've started bringing down the prices just to keep ahead of the competition (for example, not even a year ago, it used to cost around $100+/mo just to get a 5Mbps connection from HughesNet with a ridiculously low bandwidth cap. - own it's dropped to $60/mo for 10Mbps and no cap, $45/mo for the same from Dish ($30/mo if you already have their TV service), etc.

Now consider that in the some rural areas, *if you could get DSL*, you would pay a mint to get DSL installed plus $70/mo for 3Mbps from CenturyStink. If you were really lucky, you could get cable Internet (but you had to live in a small-to-mid-sized town to get that). The only advantage DSL had was that you could game on it, but that was about it.

I suspect that as more players get into the rural broadband game, the costs will drop even more while services go up... Sat/wireless ISP service is one of the few places where you can get a decent deal, and since there's no monopoly, they have to compete.

As for Verizon? I just saw their rural 4G offerings/plans, and quite frankly, Verizon can go eat a dick - 4G and Sat are almost equally laggy for gaming, so no advantage there. Maybe someday they'll figure out that they can't run the same scam as they do in the smartphone arena, but that day isn't today.

Turn-based gaming (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46836755)

The only advantage DSL had was that you could game on it, but that was about it. [...] 4G and Sat are almost equally laggy for gaming

A high-latency connection works fine for games so long as they're turn-based instead of twitch-based. Moving also works, though I grant its impracticality for many.

Metered billing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835341)

They'll find a way to charge you more. They always will.

Democracy at work (1, Insightful)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | about 7 months ago | (#46835361)

People get the government that they voted for. If they are upset, they need to regard and blame their neighbours.

Re:Democracy at work (5, Insightful)

organgtool (966989) | about 7 months ago | (#46835597)

I'm getting really tired of this shitty argument. We currently have a system in which rich people and corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to all political candidates, essentially buying them all out and you insist that the problem is with the voters. When every candidate is bought, there is no one left representing US! Stop acting like there is always a perfect candidate and somehow we pick the wrong one 100% of the time.

Re:Democracy at work (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835627)

I'm getting really tired of this shitty argument. We currently have a system in which rich people and corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to all political candidates, essentially buying them all out and you insist that the problem is with the voters. When every candidate is bought, there is no one left representing US! Stop acting like there is always a perfect candidate and somehow we pick the wrong one 100% of the time.

Hey, don't leave out the public employee unions. They buy pols, too.

Re:Democracy at work (1)

chaboud (231590) | about 7 months ago | (#46837261)

Technically, those unions are generally corporations.

Re:Democracy at work (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46835687)

Everyone has the government they deserve. This is apparently the government that New Jersey residents deserve.

Re:Democracy at work (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | about 7 months ago | (#46835803)

I *do* insist that the problem is with the voters. If the voters were that irate about the politicians, they'd vote them out. Even if the new ones were just as bad, the voters would express their ire by voting them out, too.

Political donations don't buy votes. No politician is going to risk going to jail for taking bribes.

What political donations buy is the election of candidates who are sympathetic to you without having to be paid. They can't give money directly to the candidates anyway. The unlimited funds go to "uncoordinated" separate groups who spend it not on limousines and fact-finding tours to tropical islands but on campaign ads.

That's the point of connection. They're not buying the politicians. They're buying the voters. And they're buying them not with money, but with whatever tools of mental manipulation the ad-makers can dream up. They spend the money to blanket the airwaves.

All the voters have to do is to think, question whether the ads are telling the truth, and wonder why if they can form an objective picture from two biased, manipulated sets of mutually contradictory ads. That doesn't seem like a lot to ask, but the fact that the incumbents are repeatedly returned to office is a strong clue that they're not.

Maybe it would be futile and ineffective to keep turfing out politicians in favor of new ones. But it's not an experiment the voters have tried. If they did, maybe the politicians would change the way they operate; I don't know. I do know that your picture of how the process works is deeply flawed, and most voters seem equally uninterested in actually learning how it does work.

Your outrage at the politicians is too easy. They're doing what the voters tell them to do. If the voters are doing what the money is telling them to do, don't tell it to the politicians, or to me. Tell it to them. If you can figure out how to get them to listen, I'm all for it.

Re:Democracy at work (5, Insightful)

profplump (309017) | about 7 months ago | (#46836349)

SCOTUS just told us that it's only a bribe if you can prove quid-pro-quo. Which essentially means bribes *are* legal.

Besides that, the idea that "buying a politician" and "buying an election" are separate is absurd. If you want to call them independent contractors feel free, but the flow of money and control are unaffected by such labels.

Chris Dodd confessed to quid pro quo (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46836845)

But didn't MPAA head Chris Dodd fess up to quid pro quo in 2012 [techdirt.com] ?

Re:Chris Dodd confessed to quid pro quo (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 7 months ago | (#46837533)

Yeah, but that's OK, he's a Democrat.

Gingrich House (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46837619)

Now I get it. The MPAA is trying to bring back the heyday of the Gingrich House when things like the No Electronic Theft Act, Copyright Term Extension Act, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act enjoyed wide enough bipartisan support to pass with voice vote.

Re:Democracy at work (2)

Ichijo (607641) | about 7 months ago | (#46835861)

If you don't know why our current system tends to favor only two viable candidates [wikipedia.org] , then you are part of the reason that, in your words, "there is no one left representing US!"

Re:Democracy at work (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 months ago | (#46836251)

And what do you suggest knowing about it can accomplish? The number of politicians who are the ones to benefit from the broken system barely even constitute statistical noise.

This bullshit about it being the voters' fault is because morons DON'T understand Duverger's law and still cling to the delusion that everything would be unicorn farts and fairy semen if everyone would just "catch on" and vote for fringe 3rd parties.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Hen Housing Project still just gets to choose from two choices for the Vulpine HOA.

Approval voting (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46836951)

Remove the limit of one vote per seat, and the resulting system is called approval voting [wikipedia.org] . It appears to have fewer opportunities for insincere strategic voting than plurality. But does it have a counterpart to Duverger's law?

Voters are absolutely to blame ... (3, Insightful)

drnb (2434720) | about 7 months ago | (#46836231)

I'm getting really tired of this shitty argument. We currently have a system in which rich people and corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to all political candidates, essentially buying them all out and you insist that the problem is with the voters. When every candidate is bought, there is no one left representing US! Stop acting like there is always a perfect candidate and somehow we pick the wrong one 100% of the time.

If anyone has a shitty argument it is you. Votes are politics true currency, money is just a tool to influence voters in order to get their *vote*.

A 1% has *one* vote. A 99% has *one* vote. The 99% have the power but they squander it, to believe otherwise is to be a denier of reality like climate deniers, to let politics blind oneself to reality.

Look at the two most powerful lobbying groups in the country, the AARP and the NRA. They have so much power not because of political campaign contribution but because ***their members show up on election day*** highly motivated to vote based on a single issue. Their opponents often fail to understand this, think it is simply political contributions, and in the NRA case raise huge amounts of money for anti-gun groups and then fail and fail again.

Politicians value votes beyond all other things. It is votes that put them into office and keep them in office. The secondary nature of money is easily illustrated. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by Bloomberg will convince NRA member to vote in favor of restricting guns. No amount of money spent on TV and web ads by the Koch brothers will convince Occupy Wall Street members to vote against banking restrictions. Only the ignorant or ambivalent voter is persuaded.

To deny that the real issue is the ignorant/ambivalent voter is to doom one's efforts at reform. Only when the 99% insists on politicians representing their interests, and voting out those who do not, will politicians change their behavior. Reelections communicates to politicians that their actions are OK with voters.

Voters *are* communicating to politicians that it is OK to cash in. Until *voters" say otherwise nothing will change. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Re:Democracy at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836449)

We currently have a system in which rich people and corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to all political candidates, essentially buying them all out and you insist that the problem is with the voters.

The Supreme Court has allowed that and, guess what? Voters voted in people like George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush who appointed the Justices that passed those decisions down. No one put a gun to our heads and said, "vote for these ass clowns who you know damned well want to allow this sort of behavior".

sounds great (1)

dlt074 (548126) | about 7 months ago | (#46835367)

sign me up. i can get more than that many neighbors to agree to those terms. alas, we don't even have that option. we'd pay many times more for the chance.

it's all relative.

Re:sounds great (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46835503)

sign me up. i can get more than that many neighbors to agree to those terms. alas, we don't even have that option. we'd pay many times more for the chance.

Sure thing... they'll be happy to install a 4G tower in your area.

By the way, the fee for going over the 250 Megabyte data cap has been increased to $25 per Kilobyte of data transferred.

Re:sounds great (3, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46836031)

By the way, the fee for going over the 250 Megabyte data cap has been increased to $25 per Kilobyte of data transferred.

You call that an increase?

Signed,
Canadian cellphone providers.

We are tools (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about 7 months ago | (#46835395)

1. Deregulate
2. ...
3. Profit!

the old customer vs consumer confusion again (2)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 7 months ago | (#46835435)

Customers, have the responsibility to know what they want and be willing to shop somewhere else.
Consumers open wide and ingest whatever is shoved down there throats.
Then of course there is New Jersey. I can't help you with that.

Re:the old customer vs consumer confusion again (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about 7 months ago | (#46835653)

In case you haven't been keeping up with the times, internet access is becoming one of those "basic necessities," and can't really be fairly represented by your simplistic argument.

I'd like to charge you $100 per mile to drive on my roads. Oh, you can't afford that? Well just wait until the next election cycle and you can change the laws. By that time you won't have a job to commute to anymore, but at least you will have proven yourself a non-consumer.

Re:the old customer vs consumer confusion again (1)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 7 months ago | (#46835709)

'd like to charge you $100 per mile to drive on my roads.

Who are you, Dow Constantine?

How? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835449)

If you have a contract that says you need to install fiber/cable, how the fuck is NOT installing fiber/cable fraud?

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835545)

I mean NOT fraud. This is fraud, plain and simple. The amount of evil is unbelievable.

Re:How? (4, Funny)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 7 months ago | (#46835553)

They are altering the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.

Re:How? (0)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46835621)

verizon has FIOS in the civilized parts of NJ
i've been out to Sussex and some other hick parts of NJ and all i can say is if you want to live that far out, you take the good with the bad

no one is dumb enough to spend $100,000 to run fiber to your one home for $50 a month in revenues

Re:How? (4, Informative)

quetwo (1203948) | about 7 months ago | (#46835719)

Except you, the taxpayer already paid that amount to Verizon to run fiber/HSI to your house back in the 90's and 00's. Verizon already cashed the check a long time ago -- they just didn't provide the service.

Re: How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836615)

Except it's not just rural NJ. I live in Princeton and many communities here never got FIOS as promised.

Re:How? (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | about 7 months ago | (#46835761)

They did not specify the medium in the original contract. They merely specified 45mbit as broadband.. which they weaseled out of by a technicality since LTE does support that speed... but at a cost.

Re:How? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 7 months ago | (#46836123)

LTE isn't broadband though, unless they're providing an in house router for it instead of getting a phone service and tethering to that.

Re:How? (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 7 months ago | (#46836243)

You mean like that [verizonwireless.com] ?

30 GB cap (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46837131)

From that page: $120 per month for one-eighth of the cap that people used to deride Comcast for having

Re:30 GB cap (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 7 months ago | (#46837415)

I don't disagree with that argument at all - the problem with LTE in general is that there is at least some notion of scarcity and the cost is prohibitive if you want it to serve as an alternative to regular broadband. Nonetheless, the problem is *not* that you have to get a phone service and tether to it.

Re:30 GB cap (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 7 months ago | (#46837419)

Cost is prohibitive *and* bandwidth caps are ridiculous.

Welcome to the NEW Jersey... (1)

Onuma (947856) | about 7 months ago | (#46835457)

...now with more corruption!

Re:Welcome to the NEW Jersey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835575)

Verizon made the same empty promises in PA.

Re:Welcome to the NEW Jersey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835695)

/EVEN/ more...? What is this? Virginia?

Re:Welcome to the NEW Jersey... (1)

Onuma (947856) | about 7 months ago | (#46836261)

And to think...I moved from NJ to VA several years back. -_-

in this thread (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 months ago | (#46835459)

will be a bunch of cynical comments about this being just the way it is

but there are countries like canada and the nordic countries that, while not perfect, do a much better job of keeping money out of politics than the usa

cynicism is common, but i don't like it because people use it to think they have to lie down and accept this sort of legalized corruption

in many ways, i think the cynicism is worse than the malicious corporations. because there's always people who are robbing you in this world. you have defend yourself and fight them. but what can you say about people who roll over and take the abuse?

we don't have to accept it

and we start by changing the lame cynical attitudes out there

that might be you

that might mean speaking up when you hear cynicism and people snickering or nodding in agreement with it

for speaking up and say wallowing in mindless cynicism is a form of accepting the abuse and is part of the problem, you may get ridiculed and flak for that. but think about what kind of mindset is mocking you, and take it as a point of pride

we have to be the solution here. all of us. i didn't say it was easy. but i and many others are not going to continue to accept this, and i would hope more people would join us

start by losing the cynicism

You might wanna look a little better at Canada (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 7 months ago | (#46835641)

It isn't quite as good as people think with regards to money and politics, and certainly not with regards to the Internet. Canada's 'net speeds vs costs do not compare all that well to the US's.

Canada is a very nice (if cold) country that I visit every summer (I'm a dual citizen) but it isn't the utopia some Americans seem to think it is.

Re:You might wanna look a little better at Canada (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835729)

You may have noticed that American's who rarely leave the country for more than a week at a time on vacation if at all think a lot of countries have all the answers.

Re:You might wanna look a little better at Canada (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 months ago | (#46836389)

or perhaps canada is actually doing a much better job of controlling corruption

It does seem to be the case (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 7 months ago | (#46837073)

I like Canada a lot, have a lot of relatives there (hence the Canadian citizenship). I wouldn't mind living there, other than the cold.

However what with all that, I understand some of the downsides. There are things which aren't as good there as in the US (Internet is one of them in general, cellphone service another). There are some that are better. There are others that are kinda a wash, in that the problems are different than the problems in the US.

I find that people who have never been there, only been there only briefly, have a much rosier opinion of the situation in Canada than I do, or than my family that lives there does.

Re:You might wanna look a little better at Canada (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 months ago | (#46835733)

i don't think canada is a utopia

i specifically said "canada and the nordic countries that, while not perfect, do a much better job"

every country has problems. and there is corruption in canada. but canada is doing a much better job of keeping corruption in check than the usa. we can demand better, we do not have to accept the lame status quo in the usa og basically legalized corruption such as with 2010 citizens united when the supremes basically betrayed the american people to corporations and plutocrats

doesn't mean i think we can defeat corruption forever. doesn't mean i think it will be easy. but we can, and should, get money out of politics to the best of our ability. and certainly not roll over and accept it and say "well, that's just the way it is." no, it's not just the way it is

Re:You might wanna look a little better at Canada (1)

phorm (591458) | about 7 months ago | (#46836731)

It somewhat depends on where in Canada you live. Although the costs are going up in the West lately, at least you are getting decent speed/service for it.

Re:You might wanna look a little better at Canada (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 7 months ago | (#46837655)

That's true, for only $80 a month I occasionally get this good of a connection

[dialing]
atz
OK
ATDT604-xxx-xxxx
CONNECT 28800 V42bis

of course I could be another 60 kms further west without being in the ocean.

Re:in this thread (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46835751)

will be a bunch of cynical comments about this being just the way it is

It IS the way it is. Better get used to it.

but there are countries like canada and the nordic countries that, while not perfect, do a much better job of keeping money out of politics than the usa

The USA is not a Scandinavian country. Saying "we should be more like Norway" makes as much sense here as it would to go to Somalia, Afghanistan, Mexico, or Zimbabwe, and tell them "you just need to be like Norway!".

cynicism is common, but i don't like it because people use it to think they have to lie down and accept this sort of legalized corruption

What are you going to do about it, huh? Vote for someone else? You could try the loud protest route, but look how that worked out for the OWS demonstrators. The cops in this country are violent and brutal, and are more than happy to do the dirty work of their corporate masters.

we don't have to accept it
and we start by changing the lame cynical attitudes out there

I'll bet some Romans said this too. Look how things turned out for them.

that might mean speaking up

  In case you haven't noticed, people have been speaking up. It hasn't made much difference. The systemic problems in this country are much too far gone to fix things at this point, just like things were too far gone in Rome by the 400s.

Re:in this thread (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 months ago | (#46836403)

when i describe a pathetic attitude, it helps not to respond by exactly fitting the pathetic description

Re:in this thread (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46837437)

Hey, if you want to live in fantasy land, don't let me stop you. I like to watch Star Trek TNG and fantasize about living in a world where everyone is hyper-competent and there's no greedy sociopaths running things, but I'm under no illusions that such a thing is actually possible, since it's never been achieved before in 8,000 years of human civilization.

Re:in this thread (1)

profplump (309017) | about 7 months ago | (#46836531)

And so your solution is to do nothing? And you expect people to agree with you?

Re:in this thread (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46837449)

You can do what the smart people in Germany did around 1935. Remember, there were some people who tried to change things there; it didn't go well for them (I seem to remember guillotines being used for dissenters).

Re:in this thread (1)

schnell (163007) | about 7 months ago | (#46837597)

You could try the loud protest route, but look how that worked out for the OWS demonstrators.

The OWS protestors accomplished nothing because THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY WANTED. They were just protesting against bad things, with no common agenda on how to fix it or what they wanted instead. Christ, they even had to have public meetings (at least in NYC) to decide if they as a group wanted to buy sleeping bags, and even then it took hours because they wanted consensus and some douchebag would always sidetrack the conversation into whether sleeping bags were exploiting the Earth and they should knit their own out of free trade organic non-GMO dandelion roots.

Loud, ORGANIZED protests have a good history of working in this country. See the civil rights movement, anti-nuclear power (for better or worse), anti-US involvement in Vietnam and others. So maybe that's a viable way to go here. Loud protests about what people don't like with no specific agenda or proposals on what they DO want? How can any sane person expect that would achieve anything?

Re:in this thread (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 7 months ago | (#46836211)

start by losing the cynicism

At some point you have to accept that you are living in the last days of Rome, and nothing is going to turn it around. The USA will be burned to the ground, economically, by the uber rich, and they will not leave a scrap of meat on the carcass. The barbarians are already at the gates. It's over. It's time to start planning what comes after. It's the rebuilding that will be exciting.

Re:in this thread (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 7 months ago | (#46836415)

so you want to be the poster child of exactly the sort of loser i am describing?

Re:in this thread (1)

profplump (309017) | about 7 months ago | (#46836553)

Your point appears to be "it can't be changed, so start planning for change".

NJ seems to be regularly in the news these days (1)

blackjackshellac (849713) | about 7 months ago | (#46835465)

For all the wrong reasons. Spread your cheeks NJ.

Verizon using the Vader Playbook (1)

Eristone (146133) | about 7 months ago | (#46835489)

And New Jersey, I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Give Back The Money (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835501)

Verizon was given a shit load of cash in tax breaks, rate hikes, etc in return for providing 45Mb broadband to all state residents.

Re:Give Back The Money (4, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 7 months ago | (#46835635)

Verizon was given a shit load of cash in tax breaks, rate hikes, etc in return for providing 45Mb broadband to all state residents.

I'm sure they'll ship that money back at 4G speed...

When will Verizon deliver TRUE 4g (LTE Advanced)? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835517)

Not one single Cellular network in the United States offers TRUE 4g.

What they offer is relabeled, bastardized 3g+ (4G LTE is an enhanced 3G - long term evolution standard, it is not by definition 4g)

Look at the specs.

Verizon isn't out of the woods just yet, they actually have to bring in TRUE 4G first.

Good on New Jersey for forcing them to upgrade their networks :)

Re:When will Verizon deliver TRUE 4g (LTE Advanced (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835683)

nerds bitching over acronyms and being pedantic over naming are tiring

Re:When will Verizon deliver TRUE 4g (LTE Advanced (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835809)

Idiot. Different acronyms mean different things, ie contractual obligations. Not like they will actually be held to it, but your anonymous cohort brings up a good point.

45 Mbps? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 7 months ago | (#46835537)

Since when has the definition of broadband been so high in the US. Last I knew it was still officially classified as anything faster than ISDN. Got 1Mbps down on your DSL link? Enjoy that sweet broadband citizen.

It seems most likely that such an impossibly high target (for US infrastructure) was purposely snuck in by industry lobbyists to make it more likely to be waived in the future.

Re:45 Mbps? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835721)

it was a number pulled out of someone's ass back in the dark ages when telcos were scamming billions from taxpayers to 'build out infrastructure'... the 45mbit nationwide infrastructure never saw the light of day... and neither did the billions and billions of dollars--once the telcos got their hands on it that is. the 'deals' themselves for the fast internet and the 2007-10 or whatever deadline? mostly forgotten about or forgave, as in this instance.

Re:45 Mbps? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 7 months ago | (#46835753)

Since when has the definition of broadband been so high in the US. Last I knew it was still officially classified as anything faster than ISDN. Got 1Mbps down on your DSL link? Enjoy that sweet broadband citizen.

It seems most likely that such an impossibly high target (for US infrastructure) was purposely snuck in by industry lobbyists to make it more likely to be waived in the future.

10 mbps hahahahahahah.
We pay for 7 where i live and maybe get 4mbps when it is "fast" around like 1-4 am the rest of the day it is usually around 3-2.5mbps.
Our options consist of centurylink dsl or centurylink with bundle with cable. Cell signal is neither fast nor reliable (3g if the weather is good if its bad... one bar if you sit in the window sill). oh and dial up. fuck the tellaco's

Re:45 Mbps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836001)

Got 1Mbps down on your DSL link? Enjoy that sweet broadband citizen.

10 mbps hahahahahahah.

He never said 10 dumb ass.

"eh, it's good enough" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835639)

No, it's not, screw you guys.

That's Very Realistic (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 7 months ago | (#46835661)

If Verizon Wireless is the only option for broadband in your area, I would hate to see the bill for a family of four that uses Netflix. How about downloading a 13GB patch [google.com] for a single game? Can these people send their bills to the state for reimbursement?

Re:That's Very Realistic (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 7 months ago | (#46835915)

Consider it part of the cost of living away from civilization.

"If you love nature, stay away from it." --Henry David Thoreau

Re:That's Very Realistic (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 7 months ago | (#46836997)

In part I share that sentiment. That is, right up to the point that the innocents that don't get choice where their parents force them to live are affected. If you choose to live on the fringes of the grid, that's your problem. If your kids suffer from lack of opportunity because you force them to live on the fringes of the grid, you're a douche bag.

Setting all that aside however, we have a company that was given all manner of financial benefits in exchange for their obligation to provide 45Mbps broadband. They failed to deliver and now are being given a free pass instead of being forced to return the money. That's complete and utter bullsh*t.

Mission Accomplished! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835681)

4 years late, still not done. Mission Accomplished!

A different viewpoint (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 7 months ago | (#46835699)

I just.got.a.Virgin.Mobile Samsung S3 that gets 4G, and yes, it is comparable to WiFi speeds. It is much faster than 3G, maybe 10X?? And.since right.now I don't need WiFi for my laptop as much, this will work (for my current needs).

Verizon doesn't offer 45Mbps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835713)

Sorry but no. While it may be true in some places in Canada, the LTE bandwidth and latency can meet or beat the landline cable company, every LTE access place in the US I tried was in the low 10Mbps range.

If nobody in that census tract plays online games, they may not even care. However because the data capping aspects are different between landline and wireless (basically landline caps is pure greed, while wireless has actual technical reasons) one is not guaranteed LTE speed even when connected at LTE.

That said, I have to wonder why no internet service co-op's have sprung up. It seems like anyone not in a 50 story condo is getting substandard internet because the cable companies don't want to run fiber to every unit, and the phone companies don't want to run fiber to the building to begin with.

So... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 7 months ago | (#46835717)

So I guess Verizon isn't going to give back all the money New Jersey residents handed them in order to build out broadband.....time to litigate.

What good is 45Mbps... (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#46835737)

What good is 45Mbps when you hit your monthly cap in just under 12 minutes, and then get charged $1.50 per minute of full-rate data after that?

When compared to AT&T, Verizon wired, Comcast, and TW, the cost for wireless "broadband" (even capped at 250GB/mo) is astronomincal, running over $1000 per month.

Technically, it is (3, Interesting)

Guspaz (556486) | about 7 months ago | (#46835819)

There's no technical reason that good LTE coverage isn't going to give you a broadband experience. I've got 50/10 meg VDSL2, and three-bar LTE coverage provides similar downstream and way more upstream.

The problem, then, isn't the technology itself. The problem is the 1GB data cap and $15/GB overage fees. My VDSL2 connection comes with 300GB of data, on an LTE connection that'd cost me $4,500 a month. At those prices, even if LTE is capable of acting as broadband, you can't use it as such.

Re:Technically, it is (3, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about 7 months ago | (#46836095)

There's no technical reason that good LTE coverage isn't going to give you a broadband experience. I've got 50/10 meg VDSL2, and three-bar LTE coverage provides similar downstream and way more upstream.

The problem, then, isn't the technology itself. The problem is the 1GB data cap and $15/GB overage fees. My VDSL2 connection comes with 300GB of data, on an LTE connection that'd cost me $4,500 a month. At those prices, even if LTE is capable of acting as broadband, you can't use it as such.

Well, there is one Technical reason -- the same reason that limits every wireless protocol -- there is a limited amount of frequency spectrum available to wireless signals, which puts a cap on the aggregate bandwidth available. Multiple sectors and channels can help, but it's still not the same as wireless -- just like how 300Mbit 802.11n Wifi in the office doesn't give everyone the same quality of service as 100mbit wired connections -- it's great when only a few people are using the Wifi, but when everyone tries to use the fileserver at once, they all have to share the same bandwidth.

Wired infrastructure is also aggregated and shared on the back end, but there are fewer limitations on available bandwidth since the fiber backhaul has a lot more capacity than the limited RF bandwidth available to carriers. Increasing LTE capacity often means installing a new cell site so each site serves fewer users, which can take years from planning to implementation. In comparison, adding additional wired backhaul capacity is often as easy as lighting up another fiber strand (or using faster transceivers).

Re:Technically, it is (1)

profplump (309017) | about 7 months ago | (#46836617)

But they aren't using wireless for the backhaul, they're using it for the last mile. And they're doing it because it's cheaper and quicker to install than improved wireline connections.

So if they want to use wireless to meet this obligation they should be held to the same standard as if they had met it with wireline service.

Re:Technically, it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836771)

But but but but the last mile is 1000 customers. So you have a giant 45Mbps hub where each customer gets 45kbps pie. Wireless is limited by physics called *bandwidth*. And there is no way around it.

With wired network, each wire how a given amount of bandwidth. You want more? Add another wire. You max our your connection? Theoretically, you are not affecting the wire that goes to your neightbour.

Wireless is dead for dense installation precisely because of the last mile problem. I have no idea why people don't understand these basics.

Re:Technically, it is (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 7 months ago | (#46837015)

But they aren't using wireless for the backhaul, they're using it for the last mile. And they're doing it because it's cheaper and quicker to install than improved wireline connections.

So if they want to use wireless to meet this obligation they should be held to the same standard as if they had met it with wireline service.

My point is that wired gives dedicated bandwidth to the aggregation point. With wireles the bandwidth is shared, so the more users that use it, the more it degrades. I thought that was clear when I made the analogy with Wifi.

Oh, but in many rural areas they *do* use point-to-point wireless for the backhaul. Since it's point-to-point, it's not subject to the same sharing constraints, but it's not the same as a hardwired fiber connection.

NJ broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835951)

This is no surprise given desire of BUTT-KISSER CHRISTIE and the other robber baons to please the plutocrats and swindlers above all. Consider moving to Kansas City or Chattanooga to get much better service!

Verizon and New Jersey Agree 4G Service Equivalent (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46836045)

And it's only 100 times more expensive.

Why was my post deleted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836469)

I put a link to what Christie said about this. He is the most powerful man in the state, so I don't understand why you people think you have the right to try to censor him. He is on our side on this so fucking him over like this is rude. Fuck you deletionists. You ruined Wikipedia and now you're attacking another site.

Re:Why was my post deleted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836597)

I put a link to what Christie said about this. He is the most powerful man in the state, so I don't understand why you people think you have the right to try to censor him. He is on our side on this so fucking him over like this is rude. Fuck you deletionists. You ruined Wikipedia and now you're attacking another site.

Posts on Slashdot are never deleted.

Not really 45Mbps (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 7 months ago | (#46836517)

And even though the original deal was made in the days of modems and CompuServe, its crafters had the foresight to define broadband as 45Mbps

Not really. If you read what Verizon agreed to it was "up to 45 Mbps". Which obviously means nothing. If you can watch video they met their obligation. I don't think the agreement mentions anything about a cap either.

This is freaking ridiculous. (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 7 months ago | (#46837215)

We need a universal service directive similar to the one that was in place for landline POTS telephones.

The Internet has become as essential today as telephone service was before it. Why shouldn't it be subject to the same rules?

And no, an expensive cellular data plan with a low cap is NOT an adequate substitute. If the providers want to argue that wireless service will suffice, then they need to make it compete on price and data volume with wired services.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?