 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to Romney2012
Re: Re-defined broadband said by Romney2012: Maybe start calling it "High Speed Connectivity" said by Romney2012:All other things being discussed here(latency, reliability, etc) should not be part of deciding if something is "high speed" or not. I disagree. For many applications latency and packet loss are as important if not more important then raw speed. I use the analogy of a truck full of DVDs going from Point A to Point B. When it finally arrives it has tremendous speed (aka broadband) but so much latency as to make it unusable for most applications.
Reliability is a squishy topic. Current best effort residential service means ISP has no obligation to actually deliver what they market. The trick will be to provide straight forward metrics that provide reasonable service level agreement at a cost customer and ISP are willing to pay.
/tom |
|
|
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | said by tschmidt:[For many applications latency and packet loss are as important if not more important then raw speed. That is true. But that shouldn't come in to play when defining what is broadband and what isn't. Unless you subscribe to the theory that the FCC MUST be involved in regulating ALL ASPECTS of what ISPs are offering. I say they should butt out. Others want the gov't to manage & regulate everything at a detailed level.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| said by Romney2012: I say they should butt out. Others want the gov't to manage & regulate everything at a detailed level. I'm sensitive to that argument. But if the goal is to create Federal broadband policy we need to define what is meant by broadband. If we are not able to agree on what broadband means any policy decisions based on a flawed premise are nonsense.
/tom
|
|
jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | 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 |
|
 mrkevinKnowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.Premium
join:2007-08-07
Aurora, ME
1 edit | said by jp10558:I should be able to get my government to make sure I'm not getting screwed. I think the operative word is "should"
Good luck with that.
--
An army of sheep led by a lion, will always defeat an army of lions led by a sheep. |
|
