 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
 ·Charter
| About Time! But still not good enough. 200kbps is a joke.
So is whether or not at least one person in a ZIP CODE has at least 200kbps.
However, I still think there needs to be more standards:
- Minimum 3GB/day cap equivalent (90GB/mo).
- Maximum latency, either first hop or second hop.
- Minimum upload speed, say 192Kbit/s or 256kbps.
- Minimum download should be 1Mbps, if not higher.
- Maximum $/Mb, adjustable for inflation. A good number would be $34/Mb. So 3Mbps down could cost $100/mo. and still count. Price maximum must be satisfied with no longer than a 1yr. contract.
- Limits must be without line bonding. Test downloads and uploads by using a single file and a single chunk.
This way, it will exclude options that to me, are clearly NOT broadband or otherwise fail, such as:
- Satellite (latency too high)
- Dial-Up (this is what we wanted to ditch)
- ISDN (though it didn't count even before)
- T1, T3, and higher (costs too much)
- OC3 and higher (costs too much)
- Most Mobile Phone Internet (5GB/mo. cap is a joke; latency sometimes high).
One more thing is to test availability. Oftentimes, people won't buy the fastest speed available. |
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | This is a silly argument- it seems like you just want to redefine "broadband" higher and higher until you can say that no one anywhere has access to broadband...
What does that do for you? Most of the stuff you're talking about seems more that you want government regulation to require such features- defining "broadband" means nothing when companies can just call it something else... Comcast's VOIP service isn't POTS, so they can't call it "Phone" service, but how does it really matter that they call it "Digital Voice" instead? |
