nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't
said by 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? 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. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | 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. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by 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. 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. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Then defining "broadband" is unneeded legislation. Less government is the way we be moving towards, not more bureaucracy. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by openbox9 :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. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| 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. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by 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. 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. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :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" |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to nixen
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. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by lesopp :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 :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. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to firephoto
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..." |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto :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. |
|
bolivian
join:2007-05-01
Martinsburg, WV | reply to nixen
well verizon fios is 5/2 so this will be consider broadband too bad i don't have it |
|
