 neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL | reply to chimera
Re: my response. I do agree that ISPs need to be more transparent. It is hard to define something that will become policy when so much is unknown.
Pretty much I have a feeling the definition for "broadband" is still going to be considered much lower in standards then we would like to see. I mean it is 2009 and some how I feel we are going to see what some of us in 1999 didn't consider acceptable.
My biggest concern is that some how they are going to define it so satellite providers are still considered broadband. Maybe I am bias for having to have been on satellite "broadband" before, but there is no way anything about satellite internet fits the definition.
You might have mentioned people getting too hung up about latency, but if there is no requirement at all in that respect it opens the door to companies that have no business being called broadband providers access to federal broadband dollars.
Latency is also very hard to explain to people, and I have a feeling that satellite providers would use the argument, 2000ms is only 2 secs. Do you think a extra two seconds to access your email is really that bad? |
|
|
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| I'm of the opinion that wired and wireless broadband should be held to different standards which is a nice way to prevent satellite providers from arguing that the entire world is properly served by our current setup.
As for the issue of latency, this is a tricky issue and to be honest it's tricky enough to make it so I don't want it included as part of any standard. Often times users see high latency when there are routing issues on a network which is a sign of failing equipment or bad design, but in other situations it's based on how the technology works or geographic limitations. When your latency is extremely high it is still possible to perform most business functions provided your packet loss remains low, and when we get down to it that's more important than gaming (yes I game).
The only common businesses applications that get hit by high latency is VoIP (which requires low latency for a proper chat) and web browsing, which is only effected by extremely high latency. Personally I wouldn't have a problem hosting a file server for hundred plus megabyte files on a connection that had enough bandwidth and low packet loss even if it had 10,000ms latency.
The real trick with latency that you have to think: What takes more time: getting your request there and back or having the content delivered.
For a site like Google.com that's 16KB it can be downloaded in 128ms on a 1Mbps connection so latency is your limiting factor. When downloading a 1GB movie from amazon bandwidth is your limiting factor so a little extra latency isn't that bad. |
|
1 edit | Open, untainted, everyone should get at least 1Mbps/200Kbps. unless its illegal activity (ie: sale of drugs, music server allowing illegal access of, say, music, viral site); everything on the net should not be blocked or slowed in any way and this should be a condition of being a provider. Everyone should get at least 1Mbps/200Kbps. |
|
