FCC: Please Define Broadband > Re-defined broadband

Re-defined broadband

reply to mrkevin
I too chafe at calling high speed "broadband" as well as 8P8C Structured wiring connector RJ-45. But some battles just ain't worth fighting.

/tom

reply to Romney2012
Why does a minimum threshold need to be defined for "high speed" connections? I often ask the "who cares what the definition is". Bragging rights? Handing out federal loans/grants? Who cares about a throughput definition today that will be out of date tomorrow? If we really want to develop an enduring infrastructure in this country, why don't we define a common architecture/infrastructure, that's modular and easily upgradeable, then entice current (or new) providers to build the network and migrate their services to the infrastructure?

And yes, I just dropped the "national infrastructure" turd in the punchbowl. I think the concept has merit and should be defined before we worthlessly define "broadband" as x Mbps.

That's why I suggest defining a scalable, robust, and common infrastructure, not throughput. People around this forum like to trot out the interstate highway system when a national infrastructure comes up for discussion. I don't believe a roadway is defined as two lanes, or three, four, etc. While planning the highway system takes into account the number of lanes required (bandwidth) given current and projected traffic patterns, it also lays out common standards and guidelines for expansion of additional lanes and new roads. Please convince me of a good purpose of defining throughput in a "broadband" definition.

reply to Romney2012
Allowing slower services like copper and wireless to arbitrarily define what "broadband" means to them would result in a disincentive to invest in faster technologies and the deception of consumers who think they're getting the same "high-speed" as their friends.

reply to openbox9
So that they can't advertise providing "broadband" without actually providing "broadband"?

And that would be about the last reason that I think we should waste time trying to define something. If we stop trying to define it, then it won't matter how it's advertised. Besides, most advertisements that I see are for "high speed internet access, at up to xx mbps".

reply to sonicmerlin
No it wouldn't. For those who actually care how much bandwidth they have, they'll be educated enough to know that "there's is better than their friend's". For the others, it really isn't a concern of there's.

reply to Romney2012

reply to Romney2012
I do think that HSI or HSIA (High Speed Internet Access) is a better term for it. The problem with "High Speed" is that it is such a relative term. I had an old USR 14.4k dialup modem, which was "High Speed Technology". To some extent I think the use of "Broadband" to refer to a fast internet connection got its legs because we needed something even faster and more unique than "high speed".
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.

reply to Romney2012
I'd either like massive changes in these local monopoly laws for TV, phone and networks in general, so that it's easy and there are little to no barriers to entry beyond the physical build out cost, or in exchange for monopolies and franchise agreements, the compaines are regulated to within an inch of their existance.

If I can't change providers because there is exactly one provider available, and I can't start my own company to compete because of local franchise agreements and a total inability to get right of ways then I should be able to get my government to make sure I'm not getting screwed.
--
Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3