Speedier Broadband Standards? Pai’s FCC Says 25Mbps Is Fast Enough

Bigbacon said:
but I don't think waiting hours for a game is part of what they care about in the speed that they say is adequate. Again, for most things it is enough. Too many of you are atypical users I think and don't realize that a lot of people just don't care that much. Can they get email? Can they watch a video? can they get to facebook? you can do all that on 25mb many times over at the same time.

I download tons of stuff and updates and you know what, I'm not raging in my chair because I had to wait 4 hours vs 1. Its the internet, i can find any number of things to do while I wait.

Again, I can play a game, download something, do work, and have my wife be watching hulu or something on 25mb and it all works just fine. we can both stream something at one time no problem.
Click to expand...

But why not try to get the best possible?

I have 300mpbs, unlimited and symmetric, for 50€/month. Why would I settle for anything less? 5 years ago I had 20mbps and no, it wasn't enough.
 
prava said:
But why not try to get the best possible?

I have 300mpbs, unlimited and symmetric, for 50€/month. Why would I settle for anything less? 5 years ago I had 20mbps and no, it wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

There is nothing you guys are going to post that will sway him. Bigbacon is obviously happy with his connection and it meets his needs. For the rest of us it would be too slow but to each his own.
 
25Mbps for broadband is more than enough, home networks don't need more.
4g of 75Mbps is not enough for a single phone those NEED 1.4Gbps so you need 5g.
Sounds legit.
 
Stoicz said:
Do you know how much Comcast made in profits during Q2 in 2017? $3.2 billion. The ISP's are simply hoarding their cash so they can continue to merge together, rather then invest in actual services because why would they? When they lack competition, there's no reason to do so.
Click to expand...
And if it was practical and efficient to upgrade service in the are a competitor would come in and do it.

Google Fiber is most likely done due to the difficulties they’ve encountered (i.e. it’s not cost efficient) and they plan to switch over to wireless tech instead.

I never know if I should laugh or rage at those that complain companies are making profits.
 
Mut1ny said:
I just don't get the numbers and pricing depending on area.

AT&T in one area can give you Gigabit for $80 a month but in the next state over or even a different town in the same state you can only get 25mb for $65 a month. Like, what??? I get them not being able to get Gigabit but why are they charging anything near that for that speed?

Internet pricing and speeds are something I just don't get in this country...
Click to expand...

No competition.

And certain states make it very, very hard to step up to the plate even if you wanted to. And they continue to get voted in. So you get stuck with shit instead of a beautiful battle of one-upmanship.
 
Stoicz said:
Do you know how much Comcast made in profits during Q2 in 2017? $3.2 billion.
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant.

If the best reasons people can offer for disagreeing with the Feds defining "broadband" as 25+Mbps is "ISPs are greedy," "I can't download my games fast enough," and "I need to stream four HD [pron] channels at once," then there is no legitimate reason to disagree with the FCC's decision.

And three years ago, when the FCC adopted the 25Mbps criteria, most of the losers disagreeing with it now didn't. Like so much of the whining that goes on today, the true 'reasoning' of these losers is "I have a borderline-psychotic hatred of Donald Trump and therefore everything he and his appointees do is wrong."
 
prava said:
5 years ago I had 20mbps and no, it wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
Why not? You lived with it, clearly, so why wasn't it enough?

And if you say "games downloaded too slow" or "my ping times made me noncompetitive in video game X" I'm just going to ridicule you.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Why not? You lived with it, clearly, so why wasn't it enough?

And if you say "games downloaded too slow" or "my ping times made me noncompetitive in video game X" I'm just going to ridicule you.
Click to expand...

He is probably like me once you get use to a faster connection you don't want to go back.

I'm sure most people here were also comfortable using 17' CRT running 1024x768 back in the day... but why the hell would you go back to that now?
 
prava said:
But why not try to get the best possible?
Click to expand...
Is your home the best possible?
Your car? Your refrigerator? Your mattress? Your clothing?

If not, why not try to get the best possible?

It couldn't be that you have a finite amount of money and other things you prioritize higher, could it?

Well, here's some perspective for you: people aren't dieing from having "only" 25 Mbps internet connections.
But there's a lot of other things they are dieing of, and maybe those should be a higher priority.

Upgrading the terrestrial internet infrastructure from 25 to 100 Mbps won't be free.
Couldn't that money be better spent elsewhere?
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
He is probably like me once you get use to a faster connection you don't want to go back.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why he considered 20Mbps "not enough." I run 250Mbps myself, and I wouldn't want to go back to the 1.5Mbps DSL that was my only option when I lived in the boonies, but back then, 1.4Mbps was enough.

And I run my PC with a 32" 4K GSync monitor surrounded by four 1440p monitors, driven by a GTX1080 and a GTX 1060. No, I wouldn't want to go back to just three monitors, or even to when it was a 27" 1440p monitor surrounded by four 1080p monitors. But that doesn't mean my old multi-monitors setups weren't enough. It means I've spoiled myself.

But this is about government standards. Should the government determine that, for example, all cars should offer Porsche-like handling and Tesla roadster like acceleration? Because once you've experienced those, you don't want to go back?
 
pcgeekesq said:
That doesn't explain why he considered 20Mbps "not enough." I run 250Mbps myself, and I wouldn't want to go back to the 1.5Mbps DSL that was my only option when I lived in the boonies, but back then, 1.4Mbps was enough.

But this is about government standards. Should the government determine that, for example, all cars should offer Porsche-like handling and Tesla roadster like acceleration? Because once you've experienced those, you don't want to go back?
Click to expand...

On the government aspect of it you have a point.
 
Too many people telling me what I NEED.

When games are breaking 80gb in size I NEED faster bandwidth.

I am not content with waiting several hours and putting my house on standstill while it downloads.

When Comcast sees it fit they MAGICALLY increase to 1gigabit speeds so dont give me the horse crap about what they CAN and CANT do.

Google was going to move into portland Oregon and over night Comcast went from 100mb or 125 with blast+ to 1000....... Its just a lack of competition and a lot of people settling for the crap speeds and service they get.
 
viper1152012 said:
Too many people telling me what I NEED.

When games are breaking 80gb in size I NEED faster bandwidth.

I am not content with waiting several hours and putting my house on standstill while it downloads.

When Comcast sees it fit they MAGICALLY increase to 1gigabit speeds so dont give me the horse crap about what they CAN and CANT do.

Google was going to move into portland Oregon and over night Comcast went from 100mb or 125 with blast+ to 1000....... Its just a lack of competition and a lot of people settling for the crap speeds and service they get.
Click to expand...

Good point.

even the Call of duty black ops beta that is out this weekend free to play and is broken by the way.

Was a 25GB download.

on my 500Mbps connection it was done in a few mins.
 
Last edited:
pcgeekesq said:
Why not? You lived with it, clearly, so why wasn't it enough?

And if you say "games downloaded too slow" or "my ping times made me noncompetitive in video game X" I'm just going to ridicule you.
Click to expand...

I lived with it becaues I didn't have an alternative. Two people using youtube will make a third one have lag spikes whilst gaming. You should know that ping has nothing to do with bandwidth, BTW.

Also, having slow downloads forces you to have the computer on for many hours at a time, which isn't ideal. A 20mbps connection, dling at its max rated speed (2.5MB/s) will need a ton of time to download a 40GB game.

pcgeekesq said:
Upgrading the terrestrial internet infrastructure from 25 to 100 Mbps won't be free.
Couldn't that money be better spent elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Upgrading the terrestrial internet infrastructure is a matter of having competing ISPS over the same area, which is something that isn't happening in the USA, which is the reason the country is so behind in terms of speed. Heck, no land-lines here have any sort of download caps of any kind.


pcgeekesq said:
That doesn't explain why he considered 20Mbps "not enough." I run 250Mbps myself, and I wouldn't want to go back to the 1.5Mbps DSL that was my only option when I lived in the boonies, but back then, 1.4Mbps was enough.

But this is about government standards. Should the government determine that, for example, all cars should offer Porsche-like handling and Tesla roadster like acceleration? Because once you've experienced those, you don't want to go back?
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for a a Superpower such as the USA to have possibly the worst internet connections the western world have to offer. And the only explanation is lack of competition between ISP's.
 
pcgeekesq said:
That doesn't explain why he considered 20Mbps "not enough." I run 250Mbps myself, and I wouldn't want to go back to the 1.5Mbps DSL that was my only option when I lived in the boonies, but back then, 1.4Mbps was enough.

And I run my PC with a 32" 4K GSync monitor surrounded by four 1440p monitors, driven by a GTX1080 and a GTX 1060. No, I wouldn't want to go back to just three monitors, or even to when it was a 27" 1440p monitor surrounded by four 1080p monitors. But that doesn't mean my old multi-monitors setups weren't enough. It means I've spoiled myself.

But this is about government standards. Should the government determine that, for example, all cars should offer Porsche-like handling and Tesla roadster like acceleration? Because once you've experienced those, you don't want to go back?
Click to expand...
The 25/5 is not some verbiage somewhere.. i think it directly affects funding and important shit like that. Also, i hope that would be the actual delivered minimum speed, and not some....: down to 2.5/.5 up to 25/5 or some crap like that qualifies.
I agree 25/5 , if delivered truly.. is a lot of speed.. right now i intentionally pay for 12/3 something like that, and get about 10/2 which is sad (and should not be , as i am offered up to 50in the options) but whatever.. even then, its good workable speed, even fot netflix and shit.. 25/5 truly delivered, is a good definition... I think the truly delivered is the issue
 
Most people seem to be focusing on download speed. But with so many content creators streaming and uploading video 1.5mbps - 3mbps upload is paltry. What's needed is an equal upload and download rate baseline 25/25.. a consistent 25, not a '25/25 but it's throttled at peak times so it's 10/2'.

There are of course many other things that require better upload speeds for day to day use, practically everyone on a desktop PC has a use for higher uploads. It really is much harder for startup home business to get off the ground with such a piffling small upload speed.

Hows about some equality: #uploadsmattertoo , #freemarketuploads ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
pcgeekesq said:
That doesn't explain why he considered 20Mbps "not enough." I run 250Mbps myself, and I wouldn't want to go back to the 1.5Mbps DSL that was my only option when I lived in the boonies, but back then, 1.4Mbps was enough.

And I run my PC with a 32" 4K GSync monitor surrounded by four 1440p monitors, driven by a GTX1080 and a GTX 1060. No, I wouldn't want to go back to just three monitors, or even to when it was a 27" 1440p monitor surrounded by four 1080p monitors. But that doesn't mean my old multi-monitors setups weren't enough. It means I've spoiled myself.

But this is about government standards. Should the government determine that, for example, all cars should offer Porsche-like handling and Tesla roadster like acceleration? Because once you've experienced those, you don't want to go back?
Click to expand...

Goddamn are you a fucking shill or what???
 
I firmly believe Pai is a piece of shit and the worst thing to happen to the internet for years. However I think some of you need to stop knee jerking a moment and realize in this instance he is right. The 25/3 standard only refers to what should be "Defined as the minimum speed of Broadband". That is a perfectly fine standard for what constitutes the minimum definition for broadband. That speed is absolutely fine for what 90% of people want to do. You can stream in high definition, you can game you can access content quickly. This speed only limits the number of devices that can accomplish those tasks at once. That isn't what the minimum definition of broadband is about.

TLDR: There is plenty of legitimate shit to hate this guy over. This isn't one of them.
 
What's really funny about this thread is all the people blaming Trump. something like 36 people liked the picture on the first page while others go about how this is what Trump brought us.

The guy was appointed in 2012.

seems like either some people have broken logic circuits or they don't understand the concept of time.
 
LOL!

Threads l
Cmdrmonkey said:
There are still a lot of rural areas where your options are like 1.5M DSL, laggy/slow/overpriced satellite, or a 4G hotspot.
Click to expand...

That's all that this is about.

Taking areas that have NO broadband and bringing that up to a more modern system. The FCC has established that 25Mbps should be the minimum to be considered broadband. What does a company have to offer to be considered broadband and receive .gov help in rolling it out.

It seems as if many posters here are seeing this as something an imposed max speed limit or as an aim point and freaking out with stupid and pointless memes.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Like so much of the whining that goes on today, the true 'reasoning' of these losers is "I have a borderline-psychotic hatred of Donald Trump and therefore everything he and his appointees do is wrong."
Click to expand...


Jtal said:
What's really funny about this thread is all the people blaming Trump. something like 36 people liked the picture on the first page while others go about how this is what Trump brought us.

The guy was appointed in 2012.

seems like either some people have broken logic circuits or they don't understand the concept of time.
Click to expand...


hey Hey HEY NOW! Stop with those damned facts of yours, they don't like to hear those you know.


To be fair though he was appointed commissioner in 2012..........by Obama. LUL
Appointed to Chairman by Trump last year.

It's just so damned weird how things look when you have the whole story instead of blind uninformed outrage because someone on TV said you should be. Neat.
 
atreidesgoldenpath said:
I’m shocked at those proclaiming 25 is fast enough. What is this, LimpForum?
Click to expand...

Jtal said:
Taking areas that have NO broadband and bringing that up to a more modern system. The FCC has established that 25Mbps should be the minimum to be considered broadband. What does a company have to offer to be considered broadband and receive .gov help in rolling it out.

It seems as if many posters here are seeing this as something an imposed max speed limit or as an aim point and freaking out with stupid and pointless memes.
Click to expand...
 
If you think 25 Mbps / 3 Mbps is bad, up untill 2015 it was 4 Mbps / 1 Mbps. :arghh:

I do think 100 Mbps is overkill for a minimum at present. Especially since there are large pockets of under served regions nationwide. Still with the rise of the streaming generation of cord cutters and 5G cellular on the horizon, I don't foresee 25 Mbps sticking around for much longer.

FYI: I was happy on 25 Mbps but cable company's lowest plan bumped was bumped to 50 Mbps a few years ago (in addition to stealth raising the price). :mad:
 
pcgeekesq said:
Other people need food and clean water.
Clearly, you don't understand English. Not the English adults use anyway.
You just know baby-talk: everything a baby wants, it thinks it needs.
Click to expand...
You reasoning is silly, though. We don't need 99% of the things we have in the 21st century, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them or want to have them.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
Good point.
even the Call of duty black ops beta that is out this weekend free to play and is broken by the way.
Was a 25GB download.
on my 500Mbps connection it was done in a few mins.
Click to expand...
You want government policy to be determined by your compulsive desire to download games quickly.
Not meaning to be rude, but: go to hell.
 
Meeho said:
You reasoning is silly, though. We don't need 99% of the things we have in the 21st century, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them or want to have them.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have them or want them. Feel free to go get all the toys you want, on your own dime. That's the American way.
But when you want government policy to be driven by your desire for things you don't need, by games even, then you're acting like an infant.
 
pcgeekesq said:
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have them or want them. Feel free to go get all the toys you want, on your own dime. That's the American way.
But when you want government policy to be driven by your desire for things you don't need, by games even, then you're acting like an infant.
Click to expand...
25/5 for the next several years is somewhat behind the times. In a couple of years it will be impossible to stream two HQ streams at that speed.

Also, wasn't it one of the bigger USA ISPs that was blocking municipal Internet infrastructure from being built and leased or something?
 
DarthBeavis said:
I am not too concerned because I got mine ;)
Slow intrawebs are for poor people
Click to expand...
This is how it should be. You want better download speeds? Get a job, you damn hippie socialist.

As others have said, the problem with internet speeds in the US isn't the FCC's definition of broadband, it's the government-sanctioned local monopolies that ISPs bribe politicians to give them.
 
Last edited:
pcgeekesq said:
Other people need food and clean water.
Clearly, you don't understand English. Not the English adults use anyway.
You just know baby-talk: everything a baby wants, it thinks it needs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point and being a troll.
 
My brother is a great example, he works from home editing commercials and only goes to the office when its required.
He saves gas, and wear and tear on his car, hours a week in traffic, avoiding tolls and you know how?

1gigabit connection up/down.
 
jamesgalb said:
How did these idiots conflate a "100mbps minimum standard" with "reaching more people"? They have nothing to do with each other.

For all the 'outraged' people. It was your pro-NN companies that ended up being the censor queens, and let me know when the first death from no-NN takes place. Clueless sheep just parroting what they hear.
Click to expand...
It's tied to subsidy money. With Broadband defined at such a low value, companies can say that 3G or DSL is "broadband", and thus not be required to build out their infrastructure at all. With the definition of broadband set to 100mbps or higher, companies actually have to deploy somewhat new infrastructure, and stop relying on the copper lines we paid them to run in the 50's, if they want to suck off the government tit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top