| As Far As I'm Concerned The definition should be 10Mbps/10Mbps with a sub 100ms Latency.
The upload giving by providers right now is shameful.
The 1.5Mbps requirement is just a kick in the pants for DSL providers. |
|
| Hardly anyone would have broadband, with no reasonable way of getting it. What good would that do? The point is to have achievable thresholds. No telco would be able to provide that, even with Annex M, unless they have fiber or VDSL. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to buzz_4_20
.. and what will your definition, or THEIRS do? Nothing, Nada, zip. The providers will still call it high-speed internet,because when compared to dial-up, it is.
How does anyone expect these companies to invest heavily into boosting speeds? Especially the MSOs when both legal and illegal video downloading is eating at their profits?
Who do I blame? Judge Harold H. Greene, because if we still had a regulated monopoly, and universal service, the state of internet service in this country would be 100X's better. |
|
Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| reply to silbaco
said by silbaco:Hardly anyone would have broadband, with no reasonable way of getting it. What good would that do? The point is to have achievable thresholds. No telco would be able to provide that, even with Annex M, unless they have fiber or VDSL.
I still don't see how that would change anything, the service I have isn't "Broadband" under the current definition, but it still exists.
I don't understand what the issue with setting goals higher, with the advancement of video and such that are getting more data hungry 3mbps doesn't seem as broad as it used to.
As far as latency is concerned I think it should me mentioned at the very least, it can often be more important than just raw speed. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to buzz_4_20
10/10 is nice...until you realize that that rules out anyone in an area served by a cable provider other than Comcast or Cablevision, pretty much...or served by short-loop VDSL2 by CenturyLink, or fiber by most providers. At that point you aren't giving money to rural areas to get them into this century anymore; you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category.
Don't get me wrong. I want 10 Mbps up. But CAF isn't the way to get me there (i'm in an apartment complex in Austin, TX for gosh sakes).
In contrast, 6M down, 1.5M up can be deployed via either single-pair Annex M or pair-bonded Annex A ADSL2+. The latter can cover a LOT of territory if things are set up correctly. 6/1.5 is also within reach for many wireless technologies. And cable providers have been able to hit 6/1.5 on 100% of their plant for years. That said, far from being an already-surpassed goal, plenty of areas nonetheless can't get 6/1.5 service, and would greatly benefit from having it; with that speed, you can watch HD Netflix and do tuff like online backup without tearing your hair out.
Put another way, let's get most of the US to a reliable 6/1.5. Then worry about the next step (12/3 anyone?). |
|
| If the ACA was in charge of setting MPG standards we'd still have 5MPG max cars. The FCC wants to raise the bar to spur progress yet the ACA wants to keep status quo so they can keep raping and pillaging the rural cable markets they represent MSO's of. |
|
| Pricing and speeds It needs to be changed regardless I don't understand how other countries have adsl that is faster in both downstream and uploads yet we can't do that in the us? Also they need to work on the pricing of broadband this is getting crazy! |
|
 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| reply to iansltx
Re: As Far As I'm Concerned quote:
...you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category.
And this should be the goal. Shame on a massive scale with strong media bashing of the industry could push the providers to make the needed upgrades. It is NEVER a bad thing to reach for a higher goal...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
| reply to iansltx
If we're going to raise the bar and get some innovation or progress, why put it just out reach. Or within reach of already deployed technologies all we get is people stretching that extra inch to be within the definition, and progress slowly inches forward.
Why not strive for progress and to be better than the baseline. |
|
| reply to jmad980
There are some companies that strive to make sure all their subscribers have real broadband or compare their services to what is classified as broadband. If the definition of broadband is too high, they will stop taking the FCC seriously. |
|
Spiral JPJohn PaulPremium
join:2011-10-28
Nevada City, CA | California already has this threshold In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission set a 6 Mbps download / 1.5 Mbps upload definition of "broadband" in order for providers to receive 60% funding for new project deployment from the California Advanced Services Fund. That effectively made DSL-only areas in the state, eligible for funding. Not sure what the cable providers are whining about, since the funds would go into rural areas that they don't currently serve and have no plans to serve. Now the trade off, in California at least, was that AT&T and Verizon are "claiming" that their 4g/LTE networks provide those speeds in rural areas. Right. |
|
|
|
 tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA | Good point. |
|
| reply to nitros22
Re: Pricing and speeds said by nitros22:It needs to be changed regardless I don't understand how other countries have adsl that is faster in both downstream and uploads yet we can't do that in the us? Also they need to work on the pricing of broadband this is getting crazy!
Other countries have shorter loop lengths. This has two effects. First, shorter loop lengths mean higher speeds, as you stay on the left side of the DSL dropoff curve. Second, shorter loop lengths mean less wire to maintain, which means lower costs.
Other countries also have newer networks. The French network dates mostly from the 1970s, when the government spent heavily to renew the telephone infrastructure. France went from having some of the worst telephones in Europe to having some of the best. Today, they can easily push 24 Mbps DSL over the telephone lines in small towns, because the wiring is very good.
(Around the same time, they also rolled out Minitel, began their high-speed rail system, converted their electricity grid to 80% nuclear power. The French believe in infrastructure spending.) |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to iansltx
Re: As Far As I'm Concerned said by iansltx:In contrast, 6M down, 1.5M up can be deployed via either single-pair Annex M or pair-bonded Annex A ADSL2+. The latter can cover a LOT of territory if things are set up correctly. 6/1.5 is also within reach for many wireless technologies. And cable providers have been able to hit 6/1.5 on 100% of their plant for years. That said, far from being an already-surpassed goal, plenty of areas nonetheless can't get 6/1.5 service, and would greatly benefit from having it; with that speed, you can watch HD Netflix and do tuff like online backup without tearing your hair out.
Put another way, let's get most of the US to a reliable 6/1.5. Then worry about the next step (12/3 anyone?). The new American motto: "Good Enough!" |
|
| reply to tanzam75
Re: Pricing and speeds Thanks for the info that's interesting. Here is what I don't get Verizon spent the right money for fios and it's paying off. AT&T completely did a crap job and went with Fttc don't get me wrong I love my uverse but I worked for them and know what customers deal with why the hell can't they invest the money to do it right if they want to be ahead same as Verizon now stopping their expansion it's just stupid if u ask me. |
|
| the real reason If it weren't for private investors, a lot of the profit could be instead deflected into upgrades, instead of swelling already wealthy coffers with more money in the form of dividends and stock options.
If a company in the black can't afford to upgrade services for customers, they are spending too much money on themselves. How else would they still be in business (ie, losing money all the time) unless someone is using it as a tax write-off?
There is no honest reason for any company not to want to compete with other companies, unless it's all about collusion and price fixing/gouging. |
|
| I guess I don't have broadband then PTD.net in partnership with Service Electric Cablevision only provides me with 1mbps upstream in my 12/1 double play (phone & Internet). 1 Mbps is 500k short of the proposed new broadband served definition.
Thing is that they are more than able to provide more upstream. I have 3 bonded upstream channels, but they artificially rate limit the upload to 1mbps! Why limit it so much when the technology is not limiting it? |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to Probitas
Re: the real reason In theory, it's not unreasonable to give tax credits to cable companies who already provide broadband, that are competing with recipients of government cash.
Giving that money to cable co's means less to spend in places where it's needed, though. |
|
| reply to nitros22
Re: Pricing and speeds U-verse can suck it. I've got U-verse in a new neighborhood with FTTP, and the fastest AT&T can offer me is 18/1.5. I have to believe it's all marketing so they can tell everyone that U-verse is a fiber connection, not a mixture of FTTP and fancy DSL.
--
Ali
Check Point Certified Security Expert |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
Re: As Far As I'm Concerned said by ITALIAN926:Judge Harold H. Greene, because if we still had a regulated monopoly, and universal service, the state of internet service in this country would be 100X's better. You are just so damn entertaining sometimes! |
|
