 OCZThe Former Pocket
join:2009-05-15
Saint Paul, MN | I would be happy with 1500/500 In my opinion, 5mbps is too big of a stretch for where we are today. But then again, 768/200 is too old for us today. I think 1500/500 is a good start for now, then we can keep building off of that when things really start to get going.
That's just my 2 cents. |
|
| said by OCZ:In my opinion, 5mbps is too big of a stretch for where we are today. But then again, 768/200 is too old for us today. I think 1500/500 is a good start for now, then we can keep building off of that when things really start to get going. That's just my 2 cents. Don't take this the wrong way, but lowering the standards is not the way to get things done. If you want proof, look at our educational system. |
|
| reply to OCZ
said by OCZ:I think 1500/500 is a good start for now, then we can keep building off of that when things really start to get going. That's just my 2 cents. Worth 2 cents? maybe. I dont think that raising the bar sergically above the current line is the way to go. I think that 5/5 is actually an attainable, workable, and realistic goal. Someone could have easily went the 100mb/100mb route and I doubt it would have been attainable or feasible in the short term.
What the industry proposed is preposterous. How will a broadband plan (note: it is meant to change and guide the market to a more sustainable future) work if we do absolutely nothing??? Keep the definition the same? Come on, thats even worse than suggesting 100/100 connections! Its downright insulting.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| reply to OCZ
said by OCZ:In my opinion, 5mbps is too big of a stretch for where we are today. But then again, 768/200 is too old for us today. I think 1500/500 is a good start for now, then we can keep building off of that when things really start to get going. That's just my 2 cents. the problem is, upload is a serious issue for DSL right now, and it isn't able to go above 1 megabit, once you factor in overhead and loss.
are you going to "define away" broadband for a good portion of DSL users? Seems counter-productive. |
|
| No, but I guess if they can't provide the service of broadband as defined by 5mbps symmetrical then they aren't actually providing broadband. Don't lower the standards or try to make a standard definition so that you can accommodate a lackluster industry or 2. Make it as high as possible and let the companies bring themselves to it.
I would rather have 1% of the country covered in broadband (defined as 45mbps symmetrical like the telco's stated in 1996), than to have 100% coverage if it was defined as 32kbps. |
|
| reply to Fox McCloud
said by Fox McCloud:are you going to "define away" broadband for a good portion of DSL users? Seems counter-productive. You heard it hear folks, lets just forget about any upgrades to broadband whatsoever and stick with gen1 for the duration of eternity. Don't set that bar too high now, you might step on someone's foot.
So your alternative is: keep what we got forever? Just because some companies use technologies with issues does not mean we should keep the bar low so they can poke along. Fiber is available to everyone. You keep up or get out... isn't that what business is about? Somehow it seems like much of the telecom industry has forgotten that.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
binded2
join:2009-08-11
Providence, RI | reply to Fox McCloud
your a ass for thinking like that what it would really mean is that dsl is no longer broadband by the def. is what it would mean
dsl is going away there just making it last longer by trying to still call it broadband
and the guy up a lil ways what right i think it should be a simple and easy 5/5 to call it broadband
and i dont mean "UPTO 5/5" which gives them so much wiggle room that they will still be able to call dsl and dialup broadband by that def. alone LOL
dsl needs to become what dialup has already became
they need to define it as "MIN 5/5 up to what ever the hell they wanta call it" and when they advertise there service they need to put the "MIN" and not there max speeds
there all ready trying to push metered billing
upping the max speed and lowering caps
get with the fucking program they are blind siding every one nickle and diming every one with the blessing of are gov with gressed hands and lined pockets |
|
| said by binded2:dsl needs to become what dialup has already became um, no. There's a great amount of people that will never be able to get anything else. Currently, VDSL2 is the ultimate limit of DSL tech right now...sure there's newer technologies that will be coming, but, for now VDSL2 is the limit. Even then, it'll only benefit those who are extremely close to the DSLAM; once you're out a little ways, it equals ADSL2+ in your definition, which is only able to deliver a max if 24 megabits down and 1 megabit up, without being bonded.
Personally, I wish there wasn't any particular definition of broadband or "high speed"; it just sets a lowest common denominator for telco and cableco to cling to. |
|
dailuPremium
join:2003-12-03
Mystic, CT | reply to PapaMidnight
Papa....well said. |
|
