FCC May Vote Next Month on Change to Broadband Definition

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,554
The FCC may vote next month on a proposed change to the definition of landline broadband that lowers the threshold from 25/4 to 10/1Mbps down/up speeds. The 25/4 definition was established in 2015. Also, they may be considering counting cellular data speeds that meet the 10/1 definition as a subsitute for the landline definition. This means if you get cellular data and it meets the established threshold then you will be considered to have broadband available.

Even if the FCC doesn’t lower the landline definition of broadband, adding cellular broadband into the test will mean that millions of homes would now be considered to have adequate broadband. That is a significant change, because by law, the FCC is mandated to work towards bringing broadband to any parts of the US that don’t have it. In effect, by a definition change the FCC will have done away with a lot of the digital divide. And if they lower the definition of landline broadband they will categorize even more homes as having adequate broadband.
 
Now this is the one people should be interested in, not that fake net neutrality crap. Personally I wish they would bump it to 30x10
 
Montu said:
The FCC may vote next month on a proposed change to the definition of landline broadband that lowers the threshold from 25/4 to 10/1Mbps down/up speeds. The 25/4 definition was established in 2015. Also, they may be considering counting cellular data speeds that meet the 10/1 definition as a subsitute for the landline definition. This means if you get cellular data and it meets the established threshold then you will be considered to have broadband available.

Even if the FCC doesn’t lower the landline definition of broadband, adding cellular broadband into the test will mean that millions of homes would now be considered to have adequate broadband. That is a significant change, because by law, the FCC is mandated to work towards bringing broadband to any parts of the US that don’t have it. In effect, by a definition change the FCC will have done away with a lot of the digital divide. And if they lower the definition of landline broadband they will categorize even more homes as having adequate broadband.
Click to expand...


Conversely, regulations and laws that rely on the definition of broadband will apply to a greater range of service providers meaning a more universal application of said laws and regulations.

And in the face of this, will it matter as much?
"We will improve America’s digital infrastructure by deploying a secure 5G Internet capability nationwide," the White House plan, released Monday (Dec. 18), said.
Click to expand...
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/white-house-secure-5g-national-priority/170743
 
Way to move the goal posts. But I will still be under the new def. 3down/ .05 up during non-peak and 22GB cap. But no worries I can go to the local library if I need faster, what fun.
 
Another example of the decay of infrastructure of "flyover land" anything not on the east or west coasts that isn't a major metro area isn't important.

whatever happened to IP over powerline? it would not qualify as broadband, but at least It would get internet access to the most rural areas of the country.
 
They also need to consider pricing.
What good is having fast cell phone data if it costs you $500/month?

What they really need to do is change the definition for having access to broadband to having 2 or more providers available with at least 10/1Mbps down/up speeds, have at least a 250GB cap, and for less then $99/month.

Under that definition, I don't have broadband since there is only one provider (Cable), and I can't even get slow DSL. Cell phone data would have a cap or cost way too much.
At the rate Cable internet prices are increasing, even that might end up over $99 in a next few years.
 
motomonkey said:
Another example of the decay of infrastructure of "flyover land" anything not on the east or west coasts that isn't a major metro area isn't important.

whatever happened to IP over powerline? it would not qualify as broadband, but at least It would get internet access to the most rural areas of the country.
Click to expand...
They (being my Rural Electric coop) say it doesn't work very well, too many interruptions and interference. It can work especially I gather over short distances, but the electrical system just wasn't designed with data transfer in mind.
 
I saw an earlier discussion about this on reddit that seems interesting:
*tl;dr: This is part of a five step process to turn broadband data in the US into the monetization platform cable had. This is due to cord cutting. Source : multiple contacts in the industry including myself to an extent *

Edit: Step 3 is happening way sooner than expected. Check out the video in another reddit thread and let me know if you notice anything interesting about the language used at the end

Most people are missing the bigger picture here, and it's not about slowing speeds across the board.

The real goal here is to get all data under one umbrella, then impose data caps (extremely low ones), then use the repeal of Net Neutrality to push cable-like packages for things like Netflix and Twitch to have those sites avoid counting against the cap.

The push to get all mobile and otherwise non-broadband data classified as broadband is to assure that any data you use on any device counts against a cap.

The slow and imminent death of cable is the cause of this. The reason ISPs didn't start down this path earlier was because cord cutting wasn't nearly as prevalent five years ago, and companies still didn't have a clear cut path to monetizing the internet.

So, this is just the next step. Look for language about caps to come up after midterms, and for aggressive bills to be pushed through allowing very low data caps nationwide.

You will also see some sort of push to completely remove the possibility of start up ISPs. This will take form in an infrastructure bill severely limiting access to poles and underground junctions by new companies without direct permission from the existing ISPs that have cable on those poles.

Step 1: repealing Net Neutrality. This allows them to offer packages that don't count against a data cap.

Step 2: push to classify all data under one umbrella, so all data counts against said cap.

Step 3: eliminate the possibility of local ISP startups by making access to infrastructure either impossible, unreasonably expensive, or take far too much time for a new company to feasibly compete. Edit: To clarify, and to take from another post that I wrote before I saw the new video trying to propagate against local startup/municipal ISPs:

As to the infrastructure side start looking for ads and bills being pushed to "focus on local safety and security" and to "improve infrastructure and roads", these are ways to pass things that don't let upstarts near the junctions, poles, and do the required splicing to actually get access to the existing network.

Step 4: implement data caps. This will be the time where aggressive shilling will take place on the form of "everyone is using so much internet we have to. You can't just let these people take your internet!"

Step 5: this is the end game that we are talking about when NN got thrown out. Majority of plans will have a 10-20 GB data plan monthly. Going over will be extremely expensive. Packages will be offered for different websites to not count against that cap. This is where you can expect to pay over 100$ a month for just internet for the same speeds you have now for unlimited access to only certain sites. Torrenting will clearly be hit extremely hard here.

Source: Have family who work in the industry and also work for an electrical contractor who does work for some ISPs, the plans are starting to get out.

edit: Clarified the infrastructure part as its actually immediately relevant due to another post on the front page as we speak.
Click to expand...
 
JackNSally said:
So will landline broadband get cellulars data limits? Or will cellular lose data limits?
Click to expand...

This doesn't have anything at all to do with data limits. It's about which types of internet connection services qualify as being called broadband.

This classification does two things, it means some existing service types that didn't qualify as broadband now do. Those who are concerned with the availability of broadband rightly see this as a move to tell them that what they have is good enough and nobody has to work to get them something better. But it also means that those same service providers who provide slower types of access now must meat the same regulatory requirements as the big boys.

If you keep in mind that Trump just put a new requirement on the Federal Government and specifically the FCC to support and push a nationwide rollout of 5G cellular.
 
lcpiper said:
This doesn't have anything at all to do with data limits. It's about which types of internet connection services qualify as being called broadband.

This classification does two things, it means some existing service types that didn't qualify as broadband now do. Those who are concerned with the availability of broadband rightly see this as a move to tell them that what they have is good enough and nobody has to work to get them something better. But it also means that those same service providers who provide slower types of access now must meat the same regulatory requirements as the big boys.

If you keep in mind that Trump just put a new requirement on the Federal Government and specifically the FCC to support and push a nationwide rollout of 5G cellular.
Click to expand...

So both will have limits. Got it.
 
nutzo said:
They also need to consider pricing.
What good is having fast cell phone data if it costs you $500/month?

What they really need to do is change the definition for having access to broadband to having 2 or more providers available with at least 10/1Mbps down/up speeds, have at least a 250GB cap, and for less then $99/month.

Under that definition, I don't have broadband since there is only one provider (Cable), and I can't even get slow DSL. Cell phone data would have a cap or cost way too much.
At the rate Cable internet prices are increasing, even that might end up over $99 in a next few years.
Click to expand...

The FCC has been under the requirement to push broadband out to areas of the country that don't have it for several years now. How much new ground was covered that way? Did people all over the country magically get access to high speed internet?

Out of those people who can't get broadband, how many were getting service from providers who didn't have to adhere to federal regulations that apply to broadband service providers because these service providers don't meet the definition? How many were getting over by staying under the broadband speed limit?

This definition doesn't just work one way, it works multiple ways. When you pair it with a new and separate requirement to specifically deploy 5G nationwide, then the earlier broadband effort put on the FCC sort of becomes moot. The 5G requirement is actually better than the old broadband service requirement.

Now for the details, the devil is always in the details.... what is the actual requirement to meet the "nationwide" part of this 5G roll out? Is it a population density thing, what? This is something that I don't know yet, maybe one of you have seen something, maybe it hasn't been determined yet.
 
Vaulter98c said:
Now this is the one people should be interested in, not that fake net neutrality crap. Personally I wish they would bump it to 30x10
Click to expand...


Why, by pure definition broadband has nothing to do with throughput.

This is made up politicking garbage. Who cares.
 
What difference does it make if your service is defined as broadband or not? Calling it broadband/not broadband doesn't change the actual speed of your service.

And whee! Good news for me I guess. My service just jumped from 1/10th broadband to 1/4 broadband - all for only $53/mo!
 
Verge said:
Why, by pure definition broadband has nothing to do with throughput.

This is made up politicking garbage. Who cares.
Click to expand...

The people who will now not get improved chances at real first world connectivity because they are "already served by broadband".
 
Dullard said:
What difference does it make if your service is defined as broadband or not? Calling it broadband/not broadband doesn't change the actual speed of your service.

And whee! Good news for me I guess. My service just jumped from 1/10th broadband to 1/4 broadband - all for only $53/mo!
Click to expand...
Because it was a goal to improve service to those numbers, now the goal may be drastically reduced.
 
Vaulter98c said:
Now this is the one people should be interested in, not that fake net neutrality crap. Personally I wish they would bump it to 30x10
Click to expand...

I don't see where this is terribly relevant. So what if they don't meet "broadband" definitions? They will just call it something else (like "high speed internet" or some other term) and keep selling the same thing.
 
That being said, it is pretty clear that the current regime at the FCC is taking their 3-2 majority as an opportunity to as quickly as possible screw over consumers and line the pockets of the ISP/telecom industry as much as they can. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
 
Lower that bar!

This is like the auto manufacturers redefining what a "car" is so they can skirt MGP regs.
 
This screws those rural voters that voted for Trump in droves the hardest because companies won't bother to extend decent fiber in those areas now. He's giving them a thorough assfucking as thanks for the votes.
 
What does this do other than change a number? Oh yeah, nothing. This won't magically increase speeds for anyone. It is a classification. When they bumped the numbers in 2015 it didn't allow a friend of mine who can't get DSL, even though his neighbor 1/4 down the road can, to magically get the service. AT&T just didn't want to expand for one customer and there weren't and never will be anymore potential customers past him.

Seems like people just want to freak out about everything these days. Don't worry, there will be something else for you to shake your fists in anger at in a few days.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Where are all the people who were defending NN repeal now?
Click to expand...

Yea, where the fuck are those guys? :D

Oh yea, three posts much closer to the top hiding in plain fucking sight ........ :p

The one nobody seems to be in a hurry to talk to.
 
LostManHere said:
This is pretty blatant. Jesus.

"What you got now is fine! Now eat your gruel!"
Click to expand...


Sure, it's much more important that we have 100's of high paid bureaucrats back in Washington making up numbers that will never be implemented in the real world.
 
lcpiper said:
Yea, where the fuck are those guys? :D

Oh yea, three posts much closer to the top hiding in plain fucking sight ........ :p

The one nobody seems to be in a hurry to talk to.
Click to expand...

Sorry that post was on the face so dumb that I assumed it was a troll.

Are you seriously arguing that cellular service should be considered broadband? Have you lived under a rock the past decade while cell providers have gone out of their way to fuck people over?
 
Dullard said:
What difference does it make if your service is defined as broadband or not? Calling it broadband/not broadband doesn't change the actual speed of your service.

And whee! Good news for me I guess. My service just jumped from 1/10th broadband to 1/4 broadband - all for only $53/mo!
Click to expand...

Because 'broadband' is better! (itsa thing called marketing)

and because your getting advance broadband infrastructure we're gonna have to raise your bill.
 
Spaceninja said:
What does this do other than change a number? Oh yeah, nothing. This won't magically increase speeds for anyone. It is a classification. When they bumped the numbers in 2015 it didn't allow a friend of mine who can't get DSL, even though his neighbor 1/4 down the road can, to magically get the service. AT&T just didn't want to expand for one customer and there weren't and never will be anymore potential customers past him.

Seems like people just want to freak out about everything these days. Don't worry, there will be something else for you to shake your fists in anger at in a few days.
Click to expand...

The issue as others have said is in regulations and $$$. Companies that got tax dollars to upgrade their service to "broadband" speeds might not have to do anything now, or smaller companies that didn't have regulations since their service wasn't "broadband" will now have them etc.

It also modifies those % access to broadband numbers that make the US look like its behind everything else... things like that.
 
Is this under the banner of: Make America great again ?

Why not suggest to start with dailup modems just declare them fast enough and America has a flourishing 21st century :)

everyone has broadband then :)

otherweeb said:
Because 'broadband' is better! (itsa thing called marketing)

and because your getting advance broadband infrastructure we're gonna have to raise your bill.
Click to expand...

Well in America it is going the way of the dodo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top