MrMoodyFree range slave Premium Member join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC Netgear CM500 Asus RT-AC68
2 edits |
MrMoody
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:15 am
CensusFigures, as soon as I post in the Morning Links thread.
They should use the 2010 Census to map it precisely.
Also, the proposed definition is 1Mb minimum up! Go Dems! Under this definition I don't have broadband available, in fact I don't think there's (residential) 1Mb upload available anywhere in this whole semi-suburban county of about 150,000. | |
|
| bi0tech join:2003-06-19 Cockeysville, MD 1 edit |
Re: Census"The bill would establish in law that "high-speed" access means "transmission at speeds allowing the user to download not less than 2 megabits per second and upload not less than 1 megabit per second.
Heh, the cable industry supporting that statement? Somehow I doubt it. 1mbps upstream would clearly cause 'total protonic reversal' along with Brian Roberts head exploding. | |
|
| | |
Re: CensusNo , it would not.
They are Comcastic ! They have upload "powerboost" which give a bump to over 1 mbit !
Good try though, they could use wording to fit into the high speed access grouping. | |
|
| | | bi0tech join:2003-06-19 Cockeysville, MD |
bi0tech
Member
2007-May-18 10:39 am
Re: CensusI would think not. The entire concept here is to report accurately (or at least moreso than currently) what is available.
Who really has a 1mbps upstream from Comcast? Around these parts, I have yet to see any Comcast connection pull a 1mbps upstream result from a speed test. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Censussaid by bi0tech:I would think not. The entire concept here is to report accurately (or at least moreso than currently) what is available. Who really has a 1mbps upstream from Comcast? Around these parts, I have yet to see any Comcast connection pull a 1mbps upstream result from a speed test. i have comcast that's the 6/384 tier with powerboost | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: CensusI am comcastic also! Same $55 8/384 speeds. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to BosstonesOwn
Yea.. I know how "Comcastic" IS the cable industry...
However, this is supposed to be a good thing... haven't gotten all the way down through the rants yet, but this shows that people will bitch because they want something done, and when something is trying to be done, they will bitch about it too.
.. me thinks people just like to bitch and fester. | |
|
| | Michieru2zzz zzz zzz Premium Member join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL |
to bi0tech
Well since ADSL can only max out at 768 I somehow could see this bill wipe out the entire "broadband penetration" map to a mere dots on a U.S map.
Under this bill it would say I am not receiving broadband as my connection at home is 1500/768.
The telco's will fight it tooth and nail. | |
|
| | | |
bomber991anon
Anon
2007-May-18 2:33 pm
Re: CensusHell I have Road Runner, I get 6Mbps down and only 350Kbps up, so I guess I don't get broadband anymore either. | |
|
| | | dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
to Michieru2
said by Michieru2:Well since ADSL can only max out at 768 I somehow could see this bill wipe out the entire "broadband penetration" map to a mere dots on a U.S map. Incorrect- ADSL maxes at 1024k up, though not all providers provision to the full rate. Qwest used to, but for technical reasons went to 896k. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:21 am
Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tA law that would mandate better data collection of broadband penetration makes sense. But changing the law to label anything below 2/1 mbps speeds as not broadband is not productive. What would that accomplish? Will it make 3g/4g wireless providers suddenly up their upload speeds to something their infrastructure can't currently support. And all the locations, especially rural, where distance make 768 kbps DSL a good deal would no longer be broadband?
Obviously the cable companies are backing this because they feel they get an advantage over the telcos and wireless companies in the advertising game, if they can say that their service is broadband and the others aren't.
Anyway, the 2/1 part of the bill will never make it in to law. | |
|
| ColorBASIC8-bit Fun Premium Member join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA |
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tOr they would simply call their service "high speed internet" instead of broadband. | |
|
| nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen to FFH5
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:31 am
to FFH5
said by FFH5:A law that would mandate better data collection of broadband penetration makes sense. But changing the law to label anything below 2/1 mbps speeds as not broadband is not productive. What would that accomplish? Will it make 3g/4g wireless providers suddenly up their upload speeds to something their infrastructure can't currently support. And all the locations, especially rural, where distance make 768 kbps DSL a good deal would no longer be broadband? It's a reflection of he relative nature of broadband. Given that the carriage capacity of the Internet has not remained static (e.g., when I first started using it, "the backbone" - NSFNet - was operating at sub-T1 speeds), it makes little sense for the definition of broadband to remain static. | |
|
| | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:38 am
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tYou can define the service however you'd like (you don't need a law to do this) so long as providers aren't mandated to provide said service. | |
|
| | | nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:46 am
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tsaid by openbox9:You can define the service however you'd like (you don't need a law to do this) so long as providers aren't mandated to provide said service. Providers are not mandated to provide the service. All it does is limits them on what they can legally call something that they sell. | |
|
| | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144
1 recommendation |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:49 am
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tThen defining "broadband" is unneeded legislation. Less government is the way we be moving towards, not more bureaucracy. | |
|
| | | | | nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
1 recommendation |
nixen
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:56 am
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tsaid by openbox9:Then defining "broadband" is unneeded legislation. Less government is the way we be moving towards, not more bureaucracy. You're right. There should be no reason for the government to define standards for what a given product may be advertised as. A "beef" hotdog should be allowed to be comprised of goat rather than cow muscle. | |
|
| | | | | | lesopp join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL |
lesopp
Member
2007-May-18 10:54 am
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tI'd feel more comfortable if the IETF or some such technical group defined broadband.
Given their track records over the past 30 years any congressional definition, of how fast something should be or how efficient something should be, lacks creditability. | |
|
| | | | | | | nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2007-May-18 11:31 am
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tsaid by lesopp:I'd feel more comfortable if the IETF or some such technical group defined broadband. Given their track records over the past 30 years any congressional definition, of how fast something should be or how efficient something should be, lacks creditability. Ok... So, you would turn over rule-making for domestic commerce to an international body that neither has that in their charter nor would likely want such responsibility. At any rate, what would you consider to be a "fair" measurement of what broadband is? Would "1% of prevailing long-haul network technologies" be fair? | |
|
| | | | | | | | lesopp join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL |
lesopp
Member
2007-May-18 1:17 pm
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tI'm skeptical of anything defined by politicians, however, if the definition were authored by the scientific and engineering community I would feel differently.
It is not that I think 2/1 is unfair, rather I think it is arbitrary. Is there a engineering basis for 2/1, I would like a to know why not more or why not less.
It has nothing to do with commerce, which existed before there was a definition, it continued to exist with the current lame definition and it will continue to exist regardless of any congressional definition. Once they set the definition it will likely never change and 20 years from now there will be more political battles. Moving this into the realm of the IETF would depoliticize it.
I disagree that it not in their charter. Here's their mission statement: The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2007-May-18 2:30 pm
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tsaid by lesopp:It has nothing to do with commerce, which existed before there was a definition, it continued to exist with the current lame definition and it will continue to exist regardless of any congressional definition. Once they set the definition it will likely never change and 20 years from now there will be more political battles. Moving this into the realm of the IETF would depoliticize it. Which is why I gave a formula-based definition as an example. I disagree that it not in their charter. Here's their mission statement: said by lesopp:The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. However, nowhere in the above-quoted charter do they mention policy. They attempt to keep things as tech-oriented and neutral as any standards body is likely to succeed in doing. Taking on policy automatically invalidates neutrality. | |
|
| | | | | firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Then defining "broadband" is unneeded legislation. Less government is the way we be moving towards, not more bureaucracy. Yes they do need to define it and do it properly because the government gives out loans and grants for broadband deployment and guess what? they don't have to buy faster equipment so they don't and offer the super fast 512 package that is TEN TIMES faster than dialup. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tI personally think it's time to stop comparing "broadband" or "High-speed internet" to dial up anyway...
The people behind the marketing have gotten stale. Since every commercial talks about how much faster their connection is to dial up, you'd think their biggest competition IS dial up.. now a days, phone goes after cable, and cable after phone. Very slooooowsky are they starting to compare themselves to each other. | |
|
| | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to firephoto
said by firephoto:Yes they do need to define it and do it properly because the government gives out loans and grants for broadband deployment and guess what That's another issue that should be addressed...the government shouldn't be handing out loans/grants for broadband deployment. | |
|
| | | | |
to nixen
well verizon fios is 5/2 so this will be consider broadband too bad i don't have it | |
|
| MrMoodyFree range slave Premium Member join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC Netgear CM500 Asus RT-AC68
|
to FFH5
said by FFH5:Obviously the cable companies are backing this because they feel they get an advantage over the telcos and wireless companies in the advertising game, if they can say that their service is broadband and the others aren't. I've got no problem with that. Survival of the fittest. It is possible to run 1mb up on DSL to all but the extreme fringe. I don't give a rat's behind whether a cableco, a telco or a powerco gets it here. | |
|
| | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:47 am
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tBut now all of the whiners out there complaining about telcos manipulating and purchasing legislation to gain the upper-hand will have to change their tune towards the cablecos if a law of this nature passes. | |
|
| | | Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA |
Ahrenl
Member
2007-May-18 3:08 pm
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tIt sounds like you're saying telco's don't manipulate and purchase legislation? Do you seriously think that? | |
|
| | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-May-18 6:20 pm
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn'tNo, I said that all of the people whining about telcos will be able to do the same for cablecos without prejudice. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-May-18 9:35 am
InterestingI find myself thinking this is a good idea, at least with regard to throwing out the "one house in a ZIP code" BS. There has to be a catch to this. | |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2007-May-18 9:35 am
nice strategy, cablecos i like their thinking on this issue. screw telcos by making broadband above a set mark that is ABOVE telcos current standard and lite offerings.
| |
|
| ••••••••••••••• |
|
Mapping should be a cake!Just establish a rule that ISP provider should report available speeds per addr. Is not a big deal. After all, they already have this information, otherwise they would not sell it to you. If I wanted HSI from cable or teleco they asked for my addr to verify availability. Use the same info and make a national db and use whatever mapping service to fill in the data. | |
|
| •••• |
|
While they are at it:They might want to look into QoS requirements for cablecos. I know that around here, in Eastern PA, there are some loops so oversold that a 56K modem would be faster at high traffic times.
Sauce for the goose and all that. | |
|
| |
Re: While they are at it:Oh hell no. They'll never allow that. The next step is having to report capping activity and suspension of accounts for actually using the bandwidth they're (over)reporting to the FCC.
I find this very amusing. The NCTA asked for and got preferential treatment five years ago when their offerings were reclassified as "information services" and deregulated. Now that everyone else's has been similarly deregulated they're trying to re-regulate the scorekeeping and refereeing of the game, as well as create new barriers to entry.
Let's say all NBA players have to be seven feet tall or taller, and only three pointers count. | |
|
| | Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA |
Ahrenl
Member
2007-May-18 4:25 pm
Re: While they are at it:Umm, I think a more apt analogy would be "Let's say all NBA players have to be seven feel tall or taller in order for their stats to count as power forwards (or whatever the tall guys are, I hate basketball)".
It's not like they're saying that services under 2/1 will actually be regulated in anyway. They're just trying to get a decent definition of broadband. IMO if you're going to go that far with upload though, you might as well next level the download too. Why not make it 10/1? or 5/5? {shrug} | |
|
Michieru2zzz zzz zzz Premium Member join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL |
Michieru2
Premium Member
2007-May-18 11:21 am
.Anyone got a link to read this bill? | |
|
| |
More on mapping and speedThe map itself would not change the definition. The key to the map is that we do not know what speeds are available everywhere, at what cost and to how many people. How can we develop a plan without it? Some of the proposals for the bill were presented by Larry Cohen, President of the Communications Workers of America. The full text of his statement is at » www.speedmatters.org as well as policy and mapping proposals. | |
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2007-May-18 12:05 pm
but I thoughtThe definition was 256kbps, not 200???
Oh well. I say it would be a good move, but it'd surely peeve the phone people who sell 1.5Mbps.
ANY bump in definition should help right? | |
|
| |
Re: but I thoughtsaid by amungus:ANY bump in definition should help right? Why? Help what? If you didn't want to know where high speed services were available, it would help that- not sure what else it would help, though. | |
|
|
Alaskan
Anon
2007-May-18 12:42 pm
The -real-reasonY'all are complete off base here on -why- the cable industry is so keen to change the definition of broadband access.
Take a look at the Calea laws. You'll find that they only apply to broadband connected customers.
Therefore, if you change the definition of broadband to be something that you don't supply, you don't have to implement.
Say, wot? | |
|
|
siouxmoux
Anon
2007-May-18 1:44 pm
Well if this New Bill Pass,It will be a blow to ATT MarkingWell if this New Bill Passes, It will be a blow to ATT current Marking plans for their Low Speeds DSL tiers.
Their new Revised DSL Ads should state. The all new ATT has the lowest price for speed of 56k 2.0. just 14.95 for 786k! | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Well if this New Bill Pass,It will be a blow to ATT Markingsaid by siouxmoux :
Well if this New Bill Passes, It will be a blow to ATT current Marking plans for their Low Speeds DSL tiers.
Their new Revised DSL Ads should state. The all new ATT has the lowest price for speed of 56k 2.0. just 14.95 for 786k! Glad someone is getting it.. Yes, AT&T will hurt the most, at this time at least. (Technically Verizon too!) Oddly enough, not so much Qwest... well, at least on the upload side. So far they are the closes to the proposed upload requirements - my 1.5/1, which is supposed to be 1.5/896 trains at 1536 / 960 and does achieve about 870 on the upload with the overhead. The only thing that does get me about this proposal is that the cable industry still haven't done much to increase the upload as well. So, what I see happening is if the NCTA DOES get it's way, you will quickly see cable pushing uploads speeds up higher in order to have a good marketing campaign against Telco who will be left struggling for years to come to meet the proposed standards. This would give legal permission for cable to slam telephone for not being "broadband".. | |
|
|
Doesn't matter what is definedDoesn't matter who or how it's defined. They'll screw it up. What gets me is the speed they advertise. My connection with Verizon is 1.5 megabit down and 384 kilobit up. When I had insightbb I had a 3 megabit down and 384 kilobit up. Now who is the idiot that decided to define the speeds in bits?
My web browser reads in bytes, Most of the other programs reads in bytes. The bit thing was a way to throw people for a loop I guess. It doesn't matter how broadband is defined cause dsl has a big limitation.
Oh yeah dsl says it's better then cable.NOT. I am barely in range for the 1.5/384 package. I live in a trailer park that provides it's own cable so I can't get the 10/1 package from insightbb that covers the area around me. Definition is not going to help someone get a faster connection. | |
|
| cghh join:2001-01-15 Milpitas, CA |
cghh
Member
2007-May-20 9:23 pm
Re: Doesn't matter what is definedsaid by XknightHawkX: Now who is the idiot that decided to define the speeds in bits? The entire communications industry by convention always uses bits to express data rates, since that is what is sent down the "wire": the data is sent one bit after another down the transmission medium. Computer memories are organized around chunks called "bytes", so that is what is used in that context. And years ago, there were machines that didn't use 8-bit bytes. The CDC 6000 series in the '70s used a 60-bit word. DEC PDP-10 systems used 36-bit words. | |
|
tpower join:2001-03-28 Snellville, GA |
tpower
Member
2007-May-18 5:08 pm
The Telcos Could Compete "IF" They upgradedThe telcos could compete using copper if they would upgrade the DSLAMS. But profit at the expense of innovation will always win in America. That is why America is not even on the top ten countries for broadband. The American way in the last 10 years- legislate instead of innovate. VDSL2: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL2ITU-T G.993.2 (VDSL2) is an enhancement to G.993.1 (VDSL) that permits the transmission of asymmetric and symmetric (Full-Duplex) aggregate data rates up to 200 Mbit/s on twisted pairs using a bandwidth up to 30 MHz. LR-VDSL2 enabled systems are capable of supporting speeds of around 1-4 Mbit/s (downstream) over distances of 4 to 5 km, gradually increasing the bit rate up to symmetric 100 Mbit/s as loop-length shortens. ADSL2+ » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSL2%2BADSL2+ extends the capability of basic ADSL by doubling the number of downstream bits. The data rates can be as high as 24 Mbit/s downstream and 1 Mbit/s upstream depending on the distance from the DSLAM to the customer's home. ADSL2+ is capable of doubling the frequency band of typical ADSL connections from 1.1 MHz to 2.2 MHz. This doubles the downstream data rates of the previous ADSL2 standard of up to 12 Mbit/s, but like the previous standards will degrade from its peak bitrate after a certain distance. ITU G.992.5 Annex M (ADSL 2 Annex M) The main difference between this specification and ITU G.992.5 (ADSL2+) is that the upstream/downstream frequency split has been shifted from 138kHz up to 276kHz, allowing upstream bandwidth to be increased from 1 Mbit/s to 3.5 Mbit/s. | |
|
|
moreIMO, should be 4mbit down and 1.5mbit up.
Having to remote into peoples machines all the time, upload speeds really need some improvement. | |
|
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2007-May-18 6:39 pm
Damn RightDamn Right | |
|
|
aalel
Anon
2007-May-18 9:54 pm
Easy solution!56k = Dial-up Under 768Kb/sec = Not quite broadband Under 2Mb = Narrow Band Over 2Mb = Broad band Over 20Mb = Really wide band Over 50Mb = REALLY WIDE BAND | |
|
PashuneCaps stifle innovation Premium Member join:2006-04-14 Gautier, MS |
Pashune
Premium Member
2007-May-18 10:04 pm
Fudge cakes..D: I don't have broadband, AGAIN?!
1.5 mbps downstream and 256 kbps up is the max I can get on DSL =/ | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2007-May-18 10:58 pm
How about 2mbps BOTH WAYS!Upload and download. | |
|
bohn join:2006-05-30 Scarborough, ON |
bohn
Member
2007-May-20 5:36 pm
In Canada anything faster than 56K is considered broadbandMaybe in 3010 in Canada but for now and the years to come anything faster than 56K is considered broadband. | |
|
|
|