200kbps Officially No Longer Qualifies As 'Broadband' > Not enough

Not enough

Why? Latency from where to where? First hop? Your ISP's peering point? Too many variables that are out of the control of the ISPs.

reply to insomniac84
They need to encourage build-outs in locations that a large percentage of Americans go too. I understand that we can not expect a service provider to build-out a rural network in a county that has a low population density year around. But in a rural county, like the one I live in that has around a million tourists a year, the argument that rural areas are not profitable is pretty weak. Here is a link if any of you are interested.

»www.eurekaspringschamber.com/eco···ment.asp

I know many of you will say I should move if I want broadband, but why should so many people 1/300th of the population of this Country not be able to get the benefits broadband build-outs offer while they are on vacation.
There are large towns in this country that will not see a million people go through them in years much less every year that have more miles of built-out broadband. There are ways to get a return on the investment where I live with remote WiFi login locations. Beaver Dam Site Park which is the fifth busiest Corps of Engineers Park in the United States and 2 miles from my home is just 1 such location.

forgot this link

»www.arkansas-outdoor-adventures.···2007.htm

reply to openbox9
I'd start with the fist hop. Because that is in essence what the minimum bandwidth requirement is checking. The connection between you and the ISP. Dialup and satellite have ridiculous first hop latencies and therefore are not broadband.

So, why should latency be considered in the definition of broadband? I personally believe that tying the definition of broadband to an arbitrary number is pointless in the first place, but I'm curious why you believe latency needs to be in the mix.

Well high delay means you cannot do anything real time. Such as VoIP, Video conference, play games, remote desktop, etc. Considering online gaming is big and VoIP is getting big, it's stands to reason that someone signing up for broadband expects to be able to do those things over their connection. It does not make sense to set a minimum speed and not set a maximum latency. Both are equally important. Would you really want to call a service with 15mbit download speeds and 1000ms latency broadband? With a 1000ms latency all that connection is going to be good for is torrents, which a lot of companies don't even want you using.

VoIP and VTC are fine even with a relatively significant latency. FPS definitely will be impacted by latency. Remote desktop can be more challenging with larger latencies. I don't think it makes sense to define broadband relative to bandwidth so therefore I don't think it makes sense to define maximum latency as part of broadband. Also, ICMP is typically relegated to the bottom of priority so it's challenging to obtain a fair assessment of latency anyway. I just don't see the relevance or benefit.

You admit that remote desktop and gaming are effected, but then say you don't see the relevance or the benefit. Why?

I don't see the relevance in arbitrarily defining broadband when it's only a definition and has minimal impact on the marketplace. The FCC's definition of broadband only serves to fuel debates in environments like DSLR.

No it ensures areas without broadband are actually going to get it instead of getting some quasi-braodband service that isn't good enough to do the things one normally wants to do on a broadband connection. Right now the metric is 768kbps download, so a cable company offering 768kbps download via a cable modem and 56kbps upload via dial-up would be considered broadband? I in 2002 my cousin had a service like that. I am not sure if such a service is still around, but if it is, I wouldn't want it being called broadband. It about setting minimum standards so those areas without broadband aren't labeled as having it before they actually do.

How does the FCC defining the word "broadband" ensure service to under served markets?

That's not what I care about. I really could care less how they use the definition. All I care about is that if they are going to define it, they take into account download, upload, and latency. As all three of those matter when it comes to the services people want to use on broadband. Who knows what will end up using the definition to define their service, but at the very least when people hear the term broadband that should mean they can play games or use their VoIP.