FCC: Should We Raise The Minimum Broadband Speed Definition

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The short answer is "yes." The long answer is also "yes."

In a notice of inquiry issued today, the FCC formally asked whether the agency should increase the minimum standard definition from the current mark of 4 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. Reports emerged last month indicating the agency was considering a minimum speed definition of at least 10 Mbps.
Click to expand...
 
I still remember going from mind spring dialup internet to Charter, i was a real late comer because i couldn't afford it and started out at like 20 or 40mbps. I was blown the fuck away.
 
Go big or go home. Make it 1 Gb/s!

If you want to have a decent streaming connection, they should make it 25 Mb/s. 10 Mb/s is too low.
 
how about we fix the need for 2.1 million people to have to pay AOL for dial up still
 
Wow, I currently have the minimum definition of broadband for my upstream? My TWC is 15 down, 1 up.
 
Seems more of a political thing if it is just the FCC making the definition ... we should work with one of the worldwide bodies or align to an international standard definition so that it is easier to compare the worldwide internet performance (and how the USA compares to other international regions)
 
kattana said:
how about we fix the need for 2.1 million people to have to pay AOL for dial up still
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's really embarrassing that such a powerhouse such as America has people that the only internet available in their region is 14.4k dial up.
 
15 Down / 5 Up should be the minimum for now. Then Bump it to 20 down / 7.5 up in 3 years from now.
 
Mandating this won't magically improve your service.

superficially, seems good. Deeper answer it kills alternate technologies. DSL isn't at this level often.

If cable is offering you service that shitty, they probably don't have a competitor and they'll just drop broadband from their advertising and not improve service.

If DSL is a competitor, they'll not be able to advertise broadband and cable will beat them up in commercials. DSL is perfectly fine for grandma but she's the most likely to be influenced by the marketing term.
 
Short anser this is about giving Cable a marketing edge and nothing to do with improving service.
 
Whats funny is that my parents house that I am living in now only has comcast and verizon as internet providers. Comcast has great speeds, verizon however maxes out at 1.5 down .7 up. By the current definition verizon dsl wouldnt even count as broadband. My new house I found out has fiber from a local company 250mbs for the same price I am paying for comcasts 50mbs.
 
As long as that definition means they have to give that minimum all the time for all data. I know it will just be a marketing pitch for cable to lord over the DSL competitors in their areas but as long as they have to meet that minimum than it means we can at least count on a certain level of service. Even if its not what most people think they are paying for, its still better than the minimum they are allowed to give right now.
 
10/2 based upon current reasonable expectations for modern sites. This handles a single HD stream as long as buffering/latency isn't stupid. This should be "evolved" over time based upon what is needed.
 
cageymaru said:
Exactly. It's really embarrassing that such a powerhouse such as America has people that the only internet available in their region is 14.4k dial up.
Click to expand...

And what should be do about it? Make everyone pay another $10-$20 a month so a few people who don't want/need it can get high speed internet?

We know someone who lives in a very rural area in Northern California. Not only do the not have broadband available, there is no cell service and dialup is a toll call (as is almost every call). Even if broadband was available I doubt they would spend the extra money for it.
 
Arcticfox04 said:
15 Down / 5 Up should be the minimum for now. Then Bump it to 20 down / 7.5 up in 3 years from now.
Click to expand...

I currently have Cox with 25 down. Regular price is $62/month.

I'd be happy with half the speed (12) if there was a significantly lower price, but the only slower option is 5, for $48. That's just low enough that streaming would be a problem, and the $14 savings isn't worth the huge drop in speed.

The only other option where I live is DSL at 1.5 which is just too slow.
 
Maybe I'm spoiled with FIOS and I didn't RTFA but some of you have low standards. Make it 1 gig up and down. Fuck these companies. They are filthy rich.
 
Project_Nightmare said:
If you want to have a decent streaming connection, they should make it 25 Mb/s. 10 Mb/s is too low.
Click to expand...

I was fine with 10Mb. Fine, but not great. 25Mb makes me happy, though! :) We can have multiple streams, and good quality.

I think 10Mb should be minimum for "broadband", and that's what providers should shoot for as a minimum. Didn't the government give ISP's billions of dollars to update their networks to bring faster speeds to consumers? Should hold them accountable for it not happening. There should be a clause for government handouts to ISP's that there are no caps and a 10Mb speed minimum.
 
25 down / 3 up should be the minimum IMO. The upstream is where they really screw you, and it limits functionality, such as viewing your home surveillance system remotely.
 
I'd want to know exactly what effect this will have.

I know many who are still stuck on traditional DSL, at about 6Mbps down, 1Mbps up or so.

My question is, if this no longer qualifies as broadband, what happens to these people? I doubt they will magically be offered faster internet. Will it cause existing subsidies to go away, to where these users won't have any viable internet option at all anymore?
 
GotNoRice said:
I'd want to know exactly what effect this will have.
Click to expand...
Localities that enter into "broadband" contracts with local monopolies will at least get halfway decent speed.

Companies also won't be able to advertise offering broadband service, if they are delivering slow as shit DSL speeds.
 
Long term I don't think it will matter one way or another. It seems fairly obvious that DSL is going to go away because it won't be able to compete with coax or fiber in speed or distance. The two biggest carriers are going wireless and going to compete that way. Even satellite would able to still be considered broadband at 10/1. The main problem is price. It's hard to find a sub $30 a month option for internet for those who want internet access but hardly use it. I would rather see some type of option that could get internet to more people for less money than worry about the specifics if 4 or 10 is fast enough. 4mbit is still enough to surf with a computer, but if it costs $80 a month for that option then it really doesn't matter since it's not affordable for the people who would be buying it.
 
nutzo said:
And what should be do about it? Make everyone pay another $10-$20 a month so a few people who don't want/need it can get high speed internet?

We know someone who lives in a very rural area in Northern California. Not only do the not have broadband available, there is no cell service and dialup is a toll call (as is almost every call). Even if broadband was available I doubt they would spend the extra money for it.
Click to expand...

At one time I thought it was outrageous that rural areas could not get high-speed internet access, which in the modern world is really a necessity to be effective in many parts of life. But after having lived among rural people for a long time as a kid because parents moved out of the local metro area, I really see now that we should not spend a penny to help improve rural areas. They are very anti-infrastructure of any kind, very antisocial (besides that "fake" kind of social), and forcefully resist any attempt to change/improve their local communities as a whole at all.

Although not all, the vast majority of rural residents are rural by choice, not due to poverty as it is claimed sometimes. They do not want to be a part of society/civilization, and we should not spend one cent providing them benefits of what society/civilization produces.
 
GearChoices said:
At one time I thought it was outrageous that rural areas could not get high-speed internet access, which in the modern world is really a necessity to be effective in many parts of life. But after having lived among rural people for a long time as a kid because parents moved out of the local metro area, I really see now that we should not spend a penny to help improve rural areas. They are very anti-infrastructure of any kind, very antisocial (besides that "fake" kind of social), and forcefully resist any attempt to change/improve their local communities as a whole at all.

Although not all, the vast majority of rural residents are rural by choice, not due to poverty as it is claimed sometimes. They do not want to be a part of society/civilization, and we should not spend one cent providing them benefits of what society/civilization produces.
Click to expand...

I think if you told the country folks that their power, water, and road maintenance was gone...they'd argue about all of that. Remember, the only reason anyone outside the city limit has power is due to FDR and the Rural Electrification Act.
 
100/10
Set the bar high and make the maximum a company can charge for a non-broadband connection $10 a month.
Set 100/10 prices at maximum $50 a month.
Allow bundling for reduced prices but not base prices.

We win!
 
Yeah this sounds great and all but what about getting a decent connection to people that live between towns. Hell Charter is 4200 feet away and has talked for YEARS about expanding the network. We even offered to pay to get it run the rest of the way but nope..
 
SGA76 said:
100/10
Set the bar high and make the maximum a company can charge for a non-broadband connection $10 a month.
Set 100/10 prices at maximum $50 a month.
Allow bundling for reduced prices but not base prices.

We win!
Click to expand...

And I want a unicorn, and a castle, and a big fluffy bed, and peace on earth....
 
Skripka said:
And I want a unicorn, and a castle, and a big fluffy bed, and peace on earth....
Click to expand...

Screw peace on earth...
The news networks would go out of buisness!
Waterbeds are funner than big fluffy beds...
And do you REALLY want a horse that can run you through first time you piss it off?
I'd take the castle, but it'd have to have big walls and a moat, you know, in case of zombie apocalypse.
 
cageymaru said:
Exactly. It's really embarrassing that such a powerhouse such as America has people that the only internet available in their region is 14.4k dial up.
Click to expand...

I disagree. America is huge. Its totally unrealistic to expect the entire landmass to be covered by all this stuff.
 
Cali3350 said:
I disagree. America is huge. Its totally unrealistic to expect the entire landmass to be covered by all this stuff.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If we got our shit together and actually started investing in our own country, instead of bombing stone age countries into the...pre-stone age(?!)...and rebuilding them again, we could saturate the entire country without a problem.
 
SGA76 said:
Screw peace on earth...
The news networks would go out of buisness!
Waterbeds are funner than big fluffy beds...
And do you REALLY want a horse that can run you through first time you piss it off?
I'd take the castle, but it'd have to have big walls and a moat, you know, in case of zombie apocalypse.
Click to expand...

Make sure that moat is so deep that they can never pile up enough to just climb over. I mean just like at the moat in the Zelda OoT. That thing would get filled up so quick it wouldnt matter.
 
///AMG said:
Make sure that moat is so deep that they can never pile up enough to just climb over. I mean just like at the moat in the Zelda OoT. That thing would get filled up so quick it wouldnt matter.
Click to expand...

Napalm moat for the win!
Nothing gets through, winter heating bills are almost nonexistent and you get that great cooked bacon smell year round!
 
Project_Nightmare said:
Go big or go home. Make it 1 Gb/s!

If you want to have a decent streaming connection, they should make it 25 Mb/s. 10 Mb/s is too low.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

And yes, I can't believe people are still using dial-up in this day. Everyone should have fast internet, it isn't like the ISPs are rich anyway... :rolleyes:
 
I am not going to quote everyone, but for those talking about DSL. You are all wrong about speeds.

ADSL2+ can do 24Mbps down, 3.3Mbps up (based on the standard itself) in the real world. you will get about 20Mbps / 2.5Mbps.

of course that is before you start to have lose of signal due to distance.

VDSL2+ will give you about 60Mbps / 30Mbps

So you will get this new definition without issue on anything not running ADSL1.

That said as others stated this change won't effect much on the customer side. This is all just marketing for the most part. you can't call your service high speed broadband unless you meet that requirement. Which I know places now that are 100% fiber that can't meet the 4/1 requirement to call their service broadband so it doesn't matter.
 
I wonder if this would actually have the intended effect of increasing speeds, or if it would just result in a smaller percentage of Americans having "broadband" service. :p

How about instead of defining a speed for "broadband" do the following:

1.) Nullify all local cable/internet monopolies
2.) Change laws to prevent community internet bans.
3.) Require any non-community internet provider extend service to the entirety of every county they operate in, and not just pick and choose the wealthy neighborhoods.
4.) Legally require decoupling of internet and TV services such that it is actually economically feasible to get an internet only plan. Require service fees be split between the two based on the percent cost of providing each. Still allow bundling discounts, but no more than 5% per service.
5.) Make any internet service a common carrier.
6.) Require any non-wireless service providing access to the internet be at least 15Mbps down, 5mbps up.

It's time to break up some trusts!
 
Zarathustra[H];1041016557 said:
I wonder if this would actually have the intended effect of increasing speeds, or if it would just result in a smaller percentage of Americans having "broadband" service. :p

How about instead of defining a speed for "broadband" do the following:

1.) Nullify all local cable/internet monopolies
2.) Change laws to prevent community internet bans.
3.) Require any non-community internet provider extend service to the entirety of every county they operate in, and not just pick and choose the wealthy neighborhoods.
4.) Legally require decoupling of internet and TV services such that it is actually economically feasible to get an internet only plan. Require service fees be split between the two based on the percent cost of providing each. Still allow bundling discounts, but no more than 5% per service.
5.) Make any internet service a common carrier.
6.) Require any non-wireless service providing access to the internet be at least 15Mbps down, 5mbps up.

It's time to break up some trusts!
Click to expand...

For the most part... no it won't change anything. For cable companies and any other non regulated ISP. They would just have to not refer to their service as broadband if not at those speeds.

For any regulated company, if they are currently getting funds from the government from any of their various program they already have to be putting in fiber so that won't change. That just leaves what kinds of speeds they would offer. So again they wouldn't be able to call anything below that broadband. For anyone not getting money from any of the programs. you still have to be able to say that you offer broadband for an area when reporting to NECA and other bodies. In that case you just need to be able to provide it to a customer within a reasonable amount of time for the request if one would ask for it.... reasonable amount of time is whatever time frame you want to make up for the request. So if you say it will take you 175 years then 175 years is a reasonable time frame.

So the short answer is no, this will not change the speed to your house. This is only the definition of a marketing term and nothing more.
 
Exavior said:
I am not going to quote everyone, but for those talking about DSL. You are all wrong about speeds.

ADSL2+ can do 24Mbps down, 3.3Mbps up (based on the standard itself) in the real world. you will get about 20Mbps / 2.5Mbps.

of course that is before you start to have lose of signal due to distance.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem.
I'm in the middle of a decent sized, modern city, yet because I'm toward the end of the street, 3mbps down is all they say they can provide due to the distance.
Only other option is Cox. My main complaint about Cox is the price. It goes up every year, and is about double what I paid for when I started.

Meanwhile, I have Cox business at the office (they have fiber into the building). Every 2 years the price goes down. Instead we usually increase the speed for a slight bump in price, since the business has been growing.
 
puz-6-660x439.jpg
 
Then there was that whole $200 billion thing from the government that was supposed to give us 45mbps in the 90s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top