| reply to buzz_4_20
Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Hardly anyone would have broadband, with no reasonable way of getting it. What good would that do? The point is to have achievable thresholds. No telco would be able to provide that, even with Annex M, unless they have fiber or VDSL. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| said by silbaco:Hardly anyone would have broadband, with no reasonable way of getting it. What good would that do? The point is to have achievable thresholds. No telco would be able to provide that, even with Annex M, unless they have fiber or VDSL.
I still don't see how that would change anything, the service I have isn't "Broadband" under the current definition, but it still exists.
I don't understand what the issue with setting goals higher, with the advancement of video and such that are getting more data hungry 3mbps doesn't seem as broad as it used to.
As far as latency is concerned I think it should me mentioned at the very least, it can often be more important than just raw speed. |
|
| There are some companies that strive to make sure all their subscribers have real broadband or compare their services to what is classified as broadband. If the definition of broadband is too high, they will stop taking the FCC seriously. |
|
| reply to silbaco
Everyone SHOULD have fiber. THAT is the point. It's blatantly obvious we're near the threshold of what we're ever going to get out of copper - it's not going to scale into the future. If an ISP takes subsidies they should be forced to use it for fiber or nothing. Fiber means 1gbit is a reality by simply upgrading hardware. More copper means we'll be continuing to waste money on aging infrastructure for the foreseeable future and will continue to fall farther and farther behind nations we're competing with in the global economy. |
|
