ISPs Mad That FCC Wants Faster Broadband Deployment

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The FCC has determined that broadband still isn’t reaching the whole country, and the broadband industry is upset they may have to address that.

The FCC says its conclusion is easily backed up by data. Since the latest data shows 10 percent of Americans live in areas where they can't buy home Internet service at broadband speeds, it's clear that broadband isn't being deployed to all Americans as the law requires, the commission says. The problem is even worse in rural areas and tribal lands, where about 40 percent lack access.
 
I think they need to redefine broadband to a 2016 levels and go for 100Mbps bi-directional. Then what percentage of Americans live in areas where the can't buy home broadband? Broadband is a moving target and ISPs are doing a terrible job of hitting it.
 
I moved from Seattle, WA (Where I had 1GB Fiber up/down for $79.95 a month) to Annapolis, MD (Where I have Verizon Fios 50mb up/down) Ugh....believe me....I notice the speeds.
 
I moved from Seattle, WA (Where I had 1GB Fiber up/down for $79.95 a month) to Annapolis, MD (Where I have Verizon Fios 50mb up/down) Ugh....believe me....I notice the speeds.

$69.95 a month for Verizon i forgot to add.
 
AT&T claimed that "the FCC keeps moving the goal posts on their definition of broadband, apparently so they can continue to justify intervening in obviously competitive markets."
Awwwww poor AT&T is upset because it was happy stringing along customers with 3Mbps ADSL lines for a couple decades and only fairly recently upgraded to ADSL lines that are closer to the home to increase the speed.
 
I think they need to redefine broadband to a 2016 levels and go for 100Mbps bi-directional. Then what percentage of Americans live in areas where the can't buy home broadband? Broadband is a moving target and ISPs are doing a terrible job of hitting it.

It was just under a year ago that the FCC redefined "Broadband" to mean "25mbps down / 3mbps up". Before that point, it was 4mbps down / 1mpbs up, so the FCC is moving in the right direction, just at a snails pace.

I fully agree with you though, it should be at least 100mbps up/down as the minimum standard that ISPs strive to deploy.
 
Should be based on where you live. If you are in a hard to reach place then they should shoot for 25U/25D but in areas that are more built out with higher populations they should shoot for at least 100U/100D.
 
Should be based on where you live. If you are in a hard to reach place then they should shoot for 25U/25D but in areas that are more built out with higher populations they should shoot for at least 100U/100D.

Then ISP's will start fudging the meaning of "hard to reach" just to provide as little 100/100 as possible.
 
It was just under a year ago that the FCC redefined "Broadband" to mean "25mbps down / 3mbps up". Before that point, it was 4mbps down / 1mpbs up, so the FCC is moving in the right direction, just at a snails pace.

I fully agree with you though, it should be at least 100mbps up/down as the minimum standard that ISPs strive to deploy.

That's too high to put as the floor. I've got 200/20 (because TWC upgraded me from 50/5 for free) and it rarely makes a difference. Hell, 50 was more than I needed 99.9% of the time.

IMNSHO, 25 is broadband. 3mbps is a bit stingy. I'd argue that 8 mbps should be the min.
Doesn't mean I'm not for symmetric connections, but you don't need that for basic broadband.
 
It was just under a year ago that the FCC redefined "Broadband" to mean "25mbps down / 3mbps up". Before that point, it was 4mbps down / 1mpbs up, so the FCC is moving in the right direction, just at a snails pace.

I fully agree with you though, it should be at least 100mbps up/down as the minimum standard that ISPs strive to deploy.

The problem is that you guys don't understand what that means. Yes they changed the definition of broadband to mean 25/3 however that doesn't mean that you have to get 25/3. That means that you can't market using the word broadband unless you offer that.

You can still only offer 0.5 Mbps down and nothing faster and be fine. So that change there doesn't mean jack shit for you or anyone else.
 
plus they can advertise an area as "served" even though there are no available ports, I have had this happen to some friends, they move into an area and AT&T tells them there is service, then when they try to sign up, sorry no ports on your RT, no broadband for you!
 
plus they can advertise an area as "served" even though there are no available ports, I have had this happen to some friends, they move into an area and AT&T tells them there is service, then when they try to sign up, sorry no ports on your RT, no broadband for you!

There is something called a census track, all you need is 1 person to be able to get a certain speed to claim it is serviced. So correct they don't actually need to have it for everyone, for everyone else you just need to be able to get them the service in a reasonable time frame, with you getting to say what reasonable is. Could be 50 years as long as you say that is what you feel is reasonable.
 
I'm lucky I can get 6 down 4 up.

Over the holidays my ISP couldn't keep up. they offer 25 50 100 mbps plans. I couldn't even get websites to load.

All this bandwidth mandate crap is cute, my expectations are more realistic. My ISP might be able to do 100 mbps but certainly not even to half of the users half of the time.
 
Would mean they have to improve their 40+ year old infrastructure = spending money = less money for bonuses for executives = no fucking way they're doing that.
 
I think they need to redefine broadband to a 2016 levels and go for 100Mbps bi-directional. Then what percentage of Americans live in areas where the can't buy home broadband? Broadband is a moving target and ISPs are doing a terrible job of hitting it.

That's fine and dandy for ppl that actually would use it, but many Americans simply don't care about it. 5 mpbs would be more than enough for many millions of Americans.

My sister has 10 mpbs, no complaints. Barely use it anyways. When I'm over using it, I complain about how slow it is all the time, as I'm use to my 100 mbps and I'm always using it. Hell, most of my home town is like they. Internet simply isn't a high priority. Just fast enough for Facebook, Craigslist, and email.
 
It was just under a year ago that the FCC redefined "Broadband" to mean "25mbps down / 3mbps up". Before that point, it was 4mbps down / 1mpbs up, so the FCC is moving in the right direction, just at a snails pace.

I fully agree with you though, it should be at least 100mbps up/down as the minimum standard that ISPs strive to deploy.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing the broadband definition for the required deployment which is probably a frozen definition with a marketing definition.
 
Despite being an IT professional I've lived in a rural area my entire life. In 30+ years NOTHING has been done to bring broadband to my area. It's so bad I've simply dubbed the area the Bermuda triangle of technology. My township has a population of 2400 folks. I'm two miles from residents in a neighboring township who have Comcast. I'm also 2 miles short from Frontier's ability to provide reliable DSL. I've published infrastructure initiatives to both companies - both of which fell on deaf ears. My township has tried to bend their ear - again nothing.

Yet if you lookup this area on broadband.gov you'll see all sorts of alleged ISPs who provide service and that's simply untrue. Hell some of the websites listed for these companies aren't even valid. Then you have the small time WISPs they're nice for filling some of the niche areas - but again I'm about a mile short of their service for whatever reason. But they're not even coming close to deploying 25/3 service. Their max tops out at 5/1.

So yeah I think the big boys need to stfu and roll out more infrastructure. I believe the telcos needs to address this issue like they did the telephone system in the 20s. But this time it needs to be coast to coast fiber. They can't cry about cost either because Comcast and Frontier alike have operating revenues in the billions not to mention also accepted 100s of millions of dollars from Broadband initiative grants.
 
They can't cry about cost either because Comcast and Frontier alike have operating revenues in the billions not to mention also accepted 100s of millions of dollars from Broadband initiative grants.

And those 100s of millions can't even upgrade an averaged sized city. Chattanooga city set up their own gig fiber isp. $300 mil and that only covered 50k ppl.

What I think they should do is local government intervention. Locals can vote to work with local ISPs to build up their network and increase taxes to pay for it. Then the local ISP will rent the lines or have a payment plan to slowly buy the new network infrastructure. If the locals vote no, then the ISP will upgrade/expand when they see fit.

Really that's the only way I can see an ISP ever expanding as quickly as the FCC wants.
 
Back
Top