Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18354915 en Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:42:20 EDT Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:42:20 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18361307 bolivian : well verizon fios is 5/2 so this will be consider broadband too bad i don't have it ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18361307 Sat, 19 May 2007 13:22:47 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18357559 openbox9 : No, I said that all of the people whining about telcos will be able to do the same for cablecos without prejudice.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18357559 Fri, 18 May 2007 18:20:32 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18357547 openbox9 :
said by firephoto See Profile :

Yes they do need to define it and do it properly because the government gives out loans and grants for broadband deployment and guess what
That's another issue that should be addressed...the government shouldn't be handing out loans/grants for broadband deployment.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18357547 Fri, 18 May 2007 18:18:12 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356641 Ahrenl : It sounds like you're saying telco's don't manipulate and purchase legislation? Do you seriously think that? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356641 Fri, 18 May 2007 15:08:41 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356499 fiberguy : I personally think it's time to stop comparing "broadband" or "High-speed internet" to dial up anyway...

The people behind the marketing have gotten stale. Since every commercial talks about how much faster their connection is to dial up, you'd think their biggest competition IS dial up.. now a days, phone goes after cable, and cable after phone. Very slooooowsky are they starting to compare themselves to each other.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356499 Fri, 18 May 2007 14:40:56 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356444 nixen :
said by lesopp See Profile :

It has nothing to do with commerce, which existed before there was a definition, it continued to exist with the current lame definition and it will continue to exist regardless of any congressional definition. Once they set the definition it will likely never change and 20 years from now there will be more political battles. Moving this into the realm of the IETF would depoliticize it.
Which is why I gave a formula-based definition as an example.

I disagree that it not in their charter. Here's their mission statement:
said by lesopp See Profile :

The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.
However, nowhere in the above-quoted charter do they mention policy. They attempt to keep things as tech-oriented and neutral as any standards body is likely to succeed in doing. Taking on policy automatically invalidates neutrality.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356444 Fri, 18 May 2007 14:30:00 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356083 lesopp : I'm skeptical of anything defined by politicians, however, if the definition were authored by the scientific and engineering community I would feel differently.

It is not that I think 2/1 is unfair, rather I think it is arbitrary. Is there a engineering basis for 2/1, I would like a to know why not more or why not less.

It has nothing to do with commerce, which existed before there was a definition, it continued to exist with the current lame definition and it will continue to exist regardless of any congressional definition. Once they set the definition it will likely never change and 20 years from now there will be more political battles. Moving this into the realm of the IETF would depoliticize it.

I disagree that it not in their charter. Here's their mission statement:
The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18356083 Fri, 18 May 2007 13:17:27 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355699 firephoto :
said by openbox9 See Profile :

Then defining "broadband" is unneeded legislation. Less government is the way we be moving towards, not more bureaucracy.
Yes they do need to define it and do it properly because the government gives out loans and grants for broadband deployment and guess what? they don't have to buy faster equipment so they don't and offer the super fast 512 package that is TEN TIMES faster than dialup.
--
Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355699 Fri, 18 May 2007 12:04:48 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355533 nixen :
said by lesopp See Profile :

I'd feel more comfortable if the IETF or some such technical group defined broadband.

Given their track records over the past 30 years any congressional definition, of how fast something should be or how efficient something should be, lacks creditability.
Ok... So, you would turn over rule-making for domestic commerce to an international body that neither has that in their charter nor would likely want such responsibility.

At any rate, what would you consider to be a "fair" measurement of what broadband is? Would "1% of prevailing long-haul network technologies" be fair?
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355533 Fri, 18 May 2007 11:31:52 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355365 lesopp : I'd feel more comfortable if the IETF or some such technical group defined broadband.

Given their track records over the past 30 years any congressional definition, of how fast something should be or how efficient something should be, lacks creditability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355365 Fri, 18 May 2007 10:54:46 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355078 nixen :
said by openbox9 See Profile :

Then defining "broadband" is unneeded legislation. Less government is the way we be moving towards, not more bureaucracy.
You're right. There should be no reason for the government to define standards for what a given product may be advertised as. A "beef" hotdog should be allowed to be comprised of goat rather than cow muscle.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355078 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:56:29 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355031 openbox9 : Then defining "broadband" is unneeded legislation. Less government is the way we be moving towards, not more bureaucracy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355031 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:49:04 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355019 openbox9 : But now all of the whiners out there complaining about telcos manipulating and purchasing legislation to gain the upper-hand will have to change their tune towards the cablecos if a law of this nature passes.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355019 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:47:10 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355017 nixen :
said by openbox9 See Profile :

You can define the service however you'd like (you don't need a law to do this) so long as providers aren't mandated to provide said service.
Providers are not mandated to provide the service. All it does is limits them on what they can legally call something that they sell.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18355017 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:46:10 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354994 MrMoody :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Obviously the cable companies are backing this because they feel they get an advantage over the telcos and wireless companies in the advertising game, if they can say that their service is broadband and the others aren't.
I've got no problem with that. Survival of the fittest. It is possible to run 1mb up on DSL to all but the extreme fringe. I don't give a rat's behind whether a cableco, a telco or a powerco gets it here.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354994 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:41:39 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354981 openbox9 : You can define the service however you'd like (you don't need a law to do this) so long as providers aren't mandated to provide said service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354981 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:38:21 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354947 nixen :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

A law that would mandate better data collection of broadband penetration makes sense. But changing the law to label anything below 2/1 mbps speeds as not broadband is not productive. What would that accomplish? Will it make 3g/4g wireless providers suddenly up their upload speeds to something their infrastructure can't currently support. And all the locations, especially rural, where distance make 768 kbps DSL a good deal would no longer be broadband?
It's a reflection of he relative nature of broadband. Given that the carriage capacity of the Internet has not remained static (e.g., when I first started using it, "the backbone" - NSFNet - was operating at sub-T1 speeds), it makes little sense for the definition of broadband to remain static.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354947 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:31:10 EDT Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354915 ColorBASIC : Or they would simply call their service "high speed internet" instead of broadband.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354915 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:23:09 EDT Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354905 TKJunkMail : A law that would mandate better data collection of broadband penetration makes sense. But changing the law to label anything below 2/1 mbps speeds as not broadband is not productive. What would that accomplish? Will it make 3g/4g wireless providers suddenly up their upload speeds to something their infrastructure can't currently support. And all the locations, especially rural, where distance make 768 kbps DSL a good deal would no longer be broadband?

Obviously the cable companies are backing this because they feel they get an advantage over the telcos and wireless companies in the advertising game, if they can say that their service is broadband and the others aren't.

Anyway, the 2/1 part of the bill will never make it in to law.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18354905 Fri, 18 May 2007 09:21:15 EDT