Minimum Broadband Speed Set at 768 Kbps Down/200 Kbps Up

this is all a conspiracy by the RIAA and the rest of the MAFIAA to reduce filesharing ;)
 
Having used 768K/128K DSL for many years (just got 15/5 FIOS this month, woot!), I can say 768K really isn't enough for streamed video. Youtube videos generally do not load faster than they play, which means "buffering" all throughout the video. 768K translates to 80-90k/sec.
 
bigdogchris said:
This is a retarded response.

You guys are pretty much forgetting that basically any area in the US that is currently in a 'good' range for broadband, already has it. This bill is intended to expand broadband into more rural locations and if you have half a brain you know that the further you get away, the lower the connection speed max can be. This speed required is barely faster than what is maximum available to me with Verizon DSL and I'm only 3/4 mile away from the hub. I can only imagine the exponential cost it would require to get people several miles away from the hub anything faster than this. Fuck, if they did that, then you guys would bitch about the government blowing money on unrealistic speed requirements for far off locations. Some people are never happy.

People in the boonies would kill for 768k down. Anything is better than dial-up.
Click to expand...

Very well said, sir! This is the best response I've ever read here... People like you make it worth it for me to sift through useless drivel to find this little gem.

At last! Someone that understands that this is not for the city and city people's benefit! Thank you!
 
wolfen22 said:
Pretty much. I guess I'm lucky to have FIOS in my area. I couldn't imagine living with 768 down.
Click to expand...

I have 768/128 DSL so I guess I technically don't have broadband.

It's okay though. I get my 25M/15M FIOS tomorrow :D
 
PWMK2 said:
While 768 kbps down isn't the best, trust me, alot of people are getting far worse.
Click to expand...

My uncle lives in rural kentucky, he pays 50$ a month and can barley watch a youtube video. 100kb tops
 
I'd be suffering if I still had my first DSL speed back in 2004, 1.5mbps/896. I"ve been spoiled with 15mbps/1mbps cable the last few years. I can't wait to move somewhere that has FIOS
 
Here for 1.5 down and 256k up it is a whopping $69.99 a month, another $15 for a regular dsl modem or $20 for the wireless a month. Plus the $35 a month for the phone bill.

You can buy the modem for a $120 but you don't get a warranty like you do if you rent it. So i you buy it and the next day it gets zapped by lightning you are out of the cash.

Also add another $50 for them to come run the line and hook it up. Then you got yourself a nice bill for the first month. And like they said welcome to the country. I for one honestly wished they would monitor businesses like this that know they are over charging because they are the only one in the area.

As they say if you don't like the price then do with out and have nothing or get dsl for $25 a month from them. They are winning all the way around. Oh they also offer t.v. also so you can save a little if you get the whole package though.
 
Gods i hate this no dang edit button here. This is corrected in my next post......

As they say if you don't like the price then do with out and have nothing or get dail-up for $25 a month from them. They are winning all the way around. Oh they also offer t.v. also so you can save a little if you get the whole package though.
 
How is 768Kbps equal to 4 times the speed of 56Kbps dial-up ?

In any event, the old definition of "broadband" was 256Kbps , so this is far better than what could have been pushed off as "broadband"

This is obviously going to go for places that are exceptionally remote.
 
Wow.

Tested my dad's Blackberry with the Tether app the other day. He was getting 1400/300 I think. It's a damn cell phone better than their standard!
 
IIRC this definition of broadband has been in existence a while now. I recall taking a class on telco regulation back in 2005 and this is what the FCC called broadband back then.

Seeing that it is a government agency, we all know how slow they are in updating.
 
Jeezus, I'm glad some of you neanderthals weren't alive in the 1930s when the government was doing rural electrification. We probably would still have parts of the country without relaible electric power. :rolleyes:

This thread just reinforces the essence of libertarianism / conservatism can be summed up as:

"As long as I've got mine, screw everyon else."
 
qdemn7 said:
Jeezus, I'm glad some of you neanderthals weren't alive in the 1930s when the government was doing rural electrification. We probably would still have parts of the country without relaible electric power. :rolleyes:

This thread just reinforces the essence of libertarianism / conservatism can be summed up as:

"As long as I've got mine, screw everyon else."
Click to expand...

Nice straw man:rolleyes:, Government shouldn't be in the business of setting caps/ minimums in the first damn place, THATS, the conservative. libertarian view point.
 
wolfen22 said:
The problem with the good ol' USA is that our country is TOO DAMN BIG

Our infrastructure blows anus because everything is so spread out. Hell, most of our major cities don't even have decent public transportation. And as you can see, our internet speeds suck.
Click to expand...

How is size a problem here? Each states handles things differently. They may do it under the American flag, but that flag has little to do with infrastructure per state.

Standards are low not because the country is big, but because companies simply don't wanna invest the money. I hate to say this, but I'm glad that NJ has the option for FIOS and Cable. That healthy competition has problem incredible prices with amazing service and performance. That 768 Kbps Down/200 Kbps Up is a joke when compared to my option of having Optimum Online or FIOS.

From what I understand is that some states are denying or making it very difficult to allow Verizon's FIOS service in their area. I would imagine that some sort of lobbying is occurring in some states or areas.
 
bigdogchris said:
My first broadband was 400k d 128k u. It was a HUGE increase over dial up. I then upgraded to 3Mb d 768k u and outside of raw download speed, I didn't notice a difference.

This minimal requirement is still going to be a very nice solution for those who are getting the service added. The money is supposed to go for areas without broadband or those who have poor service.
Click to expand...

So was mine, however back then the web was mostly text and bulletin boards and extremely simple games that were designed to run on 56k. Todays internet however is a completely different animal and 768k today is really more on part with running 9600 baud back when 56k was standard.

Deluded said:
Very well said, sir! This is the best response I've ever read here... People like you make it worth it for me to sift through useless drivel to find this little gem.

At last! Someone that understands that this is not for the city and city people's benefit! Thank you!
Click to expand...

Then that makes you pretty dense. Because the only ones that would find this acceptable have extremely low standards because they flatly do not know any better. Please reference my comment above on what 768k is on par with today. Basically what you guys are saying is, that is ok because they are too ignorant to know they could get better. That is a supremely arrogant stance to maintain and I find it unbelievable there are still people that incredibly self centered.

This bill is a joke and nothing less then an insult to the intelligence of anyone living in rural america. They are basically saying "Oh it is just a bunch of rednecks, farmers and trailer trash out there. What could they possibly need the internet to be fast for?"
 
Dekoth said:
Basically what you guys are saying is, that is ok because they are too ignorant to know they could get better. That is a supremely arrogant stance to maintain and I find it unbelievable there are still people that incredibly self centered.

This bill is a joke and nothing less then an insult to the intelligence of anyone living in rural america. They are basically saying "Oh it is just a bunch of rednecks, farmers and trailer trash out there. What could they possibly need the internet to be fast for?"
Click to expand...

If that's the max speed they have available, they're on DSL, and extended range DSL at that. Their other options would be dial up or cable. The other option would be to spend a few hundred thousand dollars to short the loop (more dslams, install a CO maybe) in order to make 30-50 bucks a month to literally less than a dozen people. That's just fucking retarded.
 
I could not live with with those kind of speeds. I really hope this isn't going to change the landscape of broadband package prices. I hear Concast throttle all their customers down as we speak..
 
pigwalk said:
If that's the max speed they have available, they're on DSL, and extended range DSL at that. Their other options would be dial up or cable. The other option would be to spend a few hundred thousand dollars to short the loop (more dslams, install a CO maybe) in order to make 30-50 bucks a month to literally less than a dozen people. That's just fucking retarded.
Click to expand...

Related cost is the problem of the Telco's, not me. Now I don't agree with the government funding this, however I think the bar has been set deplorably low. There are many other ways they could have approached this as far as how to force these crappy little monopolistic companies to upgrade their network. Either way the point remains, 768k is laughable and insulting.
 
Deluded said:
Very well said, sir! This is the best response I've ever read here... People like you make it worth it for me to sift through useless drivel to find this little gem.

At last! Someone that understands that this is not for the city and city people's benefit! Thank you!
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm tired of hearing how all those people in Europe have 10mbit connections. To put things into perspective, some of the larger stakes where I grew up are about as big in area as a large city.

95% of the people out in the boonies are the laborers, farm hands, service-sector, truck drivers, and civil employees who basically got left behind with their AOL dial up when people switched from e-mail to Facebook and Youtube. Yea, they could move to the city, but somebody has to feed America (were talking both food, energy, and industry)

In my case, we went from dial-up, to getting laughed at for asking about DSL, to satellite, until finally bucking down any paying $500 for a T-1.

I guess it's just nice that people in the flyover states finally get something from the government (other than a missile silo).
 
Dekoth said:
Related cost is the problem of the Telco's, not me. Now I don't agree with the government funding this, however I think the bar has been set deplorably low. There are many other ways they could have approached this as far as how to force these crappy little monopolistic companies to upgrade their network. Either way the point remains, 768k is laughable and insulting.
Click to expand...

768k or Dialup or Sattelite? Take your pic.

If the telco's not going to get a return on their investment, then they're not going to drop the money to get you service. (if gov funds are involved, that's a different story)
 
GishForever said:
And of course everyone thinks the only solution to our problems is government legislation... This country will continue to go down the tubes with that attitude.
Click to expand...

The telecoms use government supplied and funded infrastructure.IE this is perfectly acceptable.
 
pigwalk said:
768k or Dialup or Sattelite? Take your pic.

If the telco's not going to get a return on their investment, then they're not going to drop the money to get you service. (if gov funds are involved, that's a different story)
Click to expand...

Exactly, and as a result of gov funds being involved there is no excuse for the bar being set this low. However the primary reason why the telco's are not going to drop the money is simple. They have Zero competition, why should they bother? And since this bill managed to not address that major problem, all they are going to do now is the bare minimum upgrades. For those not in the know, there is no fiber laying necessary to pull 768k speeds. That speed can be reached on quality copper phone lines, so in reality they are at worst looking at replacing a few phone lines while raking in government money.

I worked for years in a business that had me dealing with telcos on a daily basis. The amount of greed those companies push because of they uncontested control is truely astounding.
 
As someone who grew up on dialup all the way up to 2005 (upgraded when I went off to college) I'd say a lot of you take your internet speeds for granted. You narrowly see the only ones benefiting from this are the 'dumb hick rednecks living out in the sticks', but fail to notice that this will branch off to create things that everyone will benefit from. Online commerce being one, education being the other major benefit.

I for one think the internet is one of mans greatest achievements: all of the worlds information is literally at your fingertips. Why would you be against spreading this to everyone in America? In the days of Web 2.0, 56k is no longer "good enough." Bringing high speed to the boonies would provide folks not only with a source of entertainment, but educate them in the areas of literacy and grammar. Which is something your topical hick disparately needs!

We all benefit by broadening the nations collective minds. Lets stop the bullshit and internet the land so we can get to work on making the US awesome again!
 
wolfen22 said:
The problem with the good ol' USA is that our country is TOO DAMN BIG

Our infrastructure blows anus because everything is so spread out. Hell, most of our major cities don't even have decent public transportation. And as you can see, our internet speeds suck.
Click to expand...

I propose we divvy up the country among us [H]'ers to make it smaller and manageable.

I have dibs on the former New England colony.
 
Dekoth said:
For those not in the know, there is no fiber laying necessary to pull 768k speeds. That speed can be reached on quality copper phone lines, so in reality they are at worst looking at replacing a few phone lines while raking in government money.
Click to expand...

http://www.broadbandusa.gov/ has interesting details. Do a search, and see for yourself that many of these grant requests are for middle-mile fiber.

And, for what it's worth, my brother's place in a very rural area was just notified it will eventually have access to 8/1.5mb broadband thanks to this stimulus. Previously you're only high-speed choice was several hundred dollars to Ma-Bell for a T1, unless you happened to live in-town.

If you're against this because of government spending, fine, I'm not a Keynesian either.
 
wolfen22 said:
Pretty much. I guess I'm lucky to have FIOS in my area. I couldn't imagine living with 768 down.

Oh well, more tax money down the toilet.
Click to expand...

I have, and it sucks collasal a**. Just made it to 3mb in my area, which is just above acceptable for me
 
This is to slow.

The ISP's are complaining here about the definition the goverment here set.
1536/512 as minimum

I didnt know you could even get that, the lowest option i see is 4 mbit.
all isp's i know of have that as a minimum, for ADSL its soon just four options left soon.
4-8-16-25 mbit.

However i dont care about download, i would be happy with 10 mbit if i had 100 mbit upload, thats what i use mostly.
 
ah.... 56k is dial up. 768 is 13.6x dial up speed. Duh. And it will work fine for VOIP. How many people do video conferencing anyhow? Not the farmers that are going to buy this service you can be sure.
 
anyone want to hit the dsl providers with pitchforks and torches? i feel it is them that is responsible for this low ass speed. ITS 2010 768/200 would be ok in 2000 now its time for 2/1 to be the speed of the country.
 
maxius said:
anyone want to hit the dsl providers with pitchforks and torches? i feel it is them that is responsible for this low ass speed. ITS 2010 768/200 would be ok in 2000 now its time for 2/1 to be the speed of the country.
Click to expand...

This is a MINIMUM for rural areas. DSL cannot get there because of the physical limitations of the line. Most of these connections are going to be wireless links. WiMax only has a speed of 16mbps TOTAL at a base station- so 20 people on a bsu at the same time downloading a movie receive roughly 768k. The sad truth is that this is not a guaranteed speed, so the providers will oversell roughly 400-500% the actual bandwidth available meaning- at 5:30PM everything gets REALLY slow.
 
If they were to get decent cell phone coverage in the rural areas then they could achieve decent broadband speeds wirelessly. Where my parents live they have a type of line-of-site wireless using Motorola Canopy that provides sub par broadband for such a rural area. Unfortunately, my parents live too far away from the tower to qualify for the service. There are fiber lines strung all over the major highways of the area so installing a few towers would be more economical than running a line to every home down the gravel roads. At the same time they would provide more cellphone coverage to the area (I have to stand up on the couch in a certain spot to send/receive text messages).
 
evilsofa said:
Having used 768K/128K DSL for many years (just got 15/5 FIOS this month, woot!), I can say 768K really isn't enough for streamed video. Youtube videos generally do not load faster than they play, which means "buffering" all throughout the video. 768K translates to 80-90k/sec.
Click to expand...

you're absolutly correct.

I'm stuck on 768K dsl for the time being and it's painfully slow :( Youtube isn't "too" bad, but HD movies are out of the question.

can't wait to get into my new place
 
R4CK3R said:
As someone who grew up on dialup all the way up to 2005 (upgraded when I went off to college) I'd say a lot of you take your internet speeds for granted. You narrowly see the only ones benefiting from this are the 'dumb hick rednecks living out in the sticks', but fail to notice that this will branch off to create things that everyone will benefit from. Online commerce being one, education being the other major benefit.

I for one think the internet is one of mans greatest achievements: all of the worlds information is literally at your fingertips. Why would you be against spreading this to everyone in America? In the days of Web 2.0, 56k is no longer "good enough." Bringing high speed to the boonies would provide folks not only with a source of entertainment, but educate them in the areas of literacy and grammar. Which is something your topical hick disparately needs!

We all benefit by broadening the nations collective minds. Lets stop the bullshit and internet the land so we can get to work on making the US awesome again!
Click to expand...

We are the ones arguing that 768 minimum is not good enough and that it should be higher, and we are the ones being narrow minded? How the hell did that even logically compute in your head? We are the ones saying they should be able to get better then that, you are arguing that all the "Dumb hick rednecks" need is 768...Seriously I wonder if some of you actually think before you post, or if you just smash your face against the keyboard randomly.
 
I guess you missed the posts stating "I have broadband, fuck everyone else wanting to use MY tax dollars!" If you took offense to my post because you thought I was attacking you for thinking 768 was not good enough I apologize, but that was not at all the point I was stressing. Honestly, I'm not sure how it even logically computes in your head that that was offensive?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I know data transfer speeds tend to decrease as you get further away from the hub. A 768 minimum would only affect the people furthest out while everyone in between enjoys something significantly faster.

If you think the stimulus should go toward making your already broadband connection even faster then I can't sympathize with you. There are other people out there who have far less (sometimes nothing). If you think it's ludicrous to pay taxes to build up the data network infrastructure of the country because it doesn't directly benefit you then I don't see a reason to pay taxes to fix roads and such because I don't drive a car.
 
R4CK3R said:
I have to stand up on the couch in a certain spot to send/receive text messages
Click to expand...

I know the feeling. I have to go stand outside under the utility pole at my brother's place. Not fun at all.

R4CK3R said:
There are fiber lines strung all over the major highways of the area so installing a few towers would be more economical than running a line to every home down the gravel roads. At the same time they would provide more cellphone coverage to the area.
Click to expand...

From my understanding at town hall meetings, that's basically the point, except it's not for cellular service. I know I'd be pissed if big brother said, sorry pal, we're only going to let you get broadband internet at back-breaking cell-phone prices.

Unlike stringing copper/fiber all over the place, wireless is economical, but like real estate, it is only finite. There are simply only so many "air-waves" to go around. Hence, once you start increasing the number of people with access, you lower the maximum bandwidth. Thus, over subscription isn't just for revenue, as with urbal DSL/cable, but also because of nature of the method. I'm guessing that the bar was set "so-low" to allow these little rural broadband and Wireless providers to string more middle-fiber and install new towers, so they could serve more people. If it was set much higher, fewer people would get access. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell the FEDs that I have X amount of bandwidth available, any Y amount of subscribers I'd like to connect.

I really wish I kept the notice mailed to us by our provider so I could upload it for all to see. It explained everything, including how those close to proposed towers will receive up to 8/1.5mb connections, but the farther away you are the slower the connection. I'm sure if it were really Comcast/TW/et. all, serving the rural areas it would be easy to be pissed. But, at least here, it's a small little outfit owned by a local family, who has never done anything other than try to provide a good service.

I'm close enough to town that my internet is great. We don't have to worry about complicated TOS agreements, bad service, arbitrary throttling, or long down-times if something goes wrong. When I asked it if was kosher to host my own ftp server, I was told (paraphrased) "As long as you are fair to others, we wont have a problem." Try getting an answer like that from Time Warner.

Farther down the road, it's just not feasible to provide service, as the ROI would be dozens of years. And, compared to places with ZERO internet options, it's better than nothing.
 
R4CK3R said:
If you think it's ludicrous to pay taxes to build up the data network infrastructure of the country because it doesn't directly benefit you then I don't see a reason to pay taxes to fix roads and such because I don't drive a car.
Click to expand...
Wow, terrific statement, I wish I had said that. :)
 
i'm in the Bay Area and that's already 5 times faster than the max DSL in my area!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top