Consumers, Industry Differ Wildly On Broadband Definition Consumer group wants the bar set high. Cable industry? Not so much. Earlier this month the FCC announced they were looking for help defining broadband, given they can't craft a national broadband plan without a concrete definition. For most of the last decade broadband was defined as anything faster than 200kbps, the FCC only recently upgrading that definition to 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream. Consumer advocate group Free Press today proclaimed that the FCC should set the bar as high as possible. In their letter to the FCC (pdf), the consumer group defines that high bar as at least a symmetrical 5 Mbps with low latency: ...at a minimum, broadband should be defined as a symmetrical telecommunications service that can reasonably deliver (at all times, including peak-use times) to each end-user of a connection, 5 megabits per second (Mbps) of bandwidth (in both the down and upstream directions), at latencies low enough to enable high-quality real time voice and video two-way communications. In contrast, the cable industry's primary lobbying apparatus the NCTA says they'd prefer if the definition of broadband remains the same. In their filing, the lobbying group says not only should the definition remain 768 kbps/200 kbps, but the FCC should stick to defining broadband by the speed advertised -- not the speed actually delivered: ...the Commission should continue to look at maximum advertised speed rather than some measure of "actual" speed. In the Notice, the Commission observes that advertised speeds "generally differ from actual rates, are not uniformly measured, and have different constraints over different technologies." Most ISPs like a lower bar, as it helped the FCC provide rosy reports on the quality of U.S. broadband, which in turn kept government from the revenue-eating task of trying to improve competition. Many phone companies have preferred definitions that are even lower than the cable industry's minimal metric, as a significant number lack the resources (or willpower) to upgrade most of their customers to next-generation service.
|
 T4K join:2002-03-13 Roach, MO | Low latency satellite? I'd like to see that. | |
|  |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 | Re: Low latency satellite? said by T4K:I'd like to see that. Too bad it's impossible | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Low latency satellite? said by DrModem:said by T4K:I'd like to see that. Too bad it's impossible How about using LEO's for lower latency satellite?
It won't match a wired connection but it will be better than current sats. | |
|  |  |  |  lesopp join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Low latency satellite? That would reduce latency but since it would require many more satellites increase the cost. Think of it in terms of replacing a couple of geosynchronous satellites with an array similar in design and orbital mechanics to GPS satellites. | |
|
 |  |  | | Perfectly possible.
We just need to force the government to take faster-than-light communications technology out of hiding and into the public domain.
You know they have it. It was stolen from the space-craft studied at Area 51, years ago.
Obama has it in his Blackberry. I read about it on the internet. | |
|  |  |  |  wow @minetfiber.net | Re: Low latency satellite? Is that for real? | |
|
 |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by T4K:I'd like to see that. Well when you can increase the speed of light let us know. | |
|
 OCZThe Former Pocket join:2009-05-15 Saint Paul, MN Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
| 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. | |
|  |  | | Re: I would be happy with 1500/500 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. | |
|  |  |  dailuPremium join:2003-12-03 Mystic, CT | Re: I would be happy with 1500/500 Papa....well said. | |
|
 |  | | 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 | |
|  |  | | 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. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: I would be happy with 1500/500 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. | |
|  |  |  | | 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 | 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 | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: I would be happy with 1500/500
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. | |
|
 iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Here's the thing DOCSIS 1.1 can't do symmetric 5 Mbps. Anything longer than about 2500 feet on DSL can't do 5 Mbps symmetric. I don't even think WiMAX can do 5 Mbps symmetric.
While I'd love a 5 Mbps symmetric connection, that would mean that only the top tiers of cable service (or top two tiers in the case of Comcast and Cablevision) in DOCSIS 3 areas can get that kind of service. And any provider that has fiber, plus some that have wireless (not WiMAX based).
Call me a corporate communist, but that's setting the bar too high at this point. Once we can get low-latency 3 Mbps down, 768k up service to 95% of the US via at least two methods of broadband service, then we can work on 5 Mbps symmetric. | |
|  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: Here's the thing 5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. The FCC will NEVER adopt what Free Press wants. | |
|  |  |  CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO | Re: Here's the thing Which makes it odd that cable is opposing it. The ads practically write themselves (assuming they'd be willing to offer something like 12/5 instead of 12/2 as their flagship service) -- "Religion allows people who would otherwise be arguing about whether the Death Star could beat a Borg Cube to have a place of respect within society." | |
|  |  |  |  RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY | Re: Here's the thing said by Corydon:Which makes it odd that cable is opposing it. The ads practically write themselves (assuming they'd be willing to offer something like 12/5 instead of 12/2 as their flagship service) If you check the specs again, even if they offer 12/5 they do not meet the specs. The specs are 5/5 to EACH CUSTOMER 24/7. IOW: You can only have 5 customers per cable node since the specs are asking for DEDICATED Bandwidth and a DOCSIS 2 modem can only handle 5 Full-Speed users per node at 7/5 (the cap is 38/27). | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ | Re: Here's the thing generally this would only be used for fixed wimax (if at all). the reason speeds are being offered like that is because people are slow on the uptake for the product. its just left over spectral bandwidth. once those channels become congested, you won't see those speeds. why do you think that most of the wimax companies have defined "typical" and "peak" bandwidths?
q. -- "...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  me1212 join:2008-11-20 Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Here's the thing Yeah but it can do them, it may only be 3 or so m when everyone gets one is, but when everyone is not something close to like 5-ish may be possible. Plus there is a reason the ISPs say "up to". | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ | Re: Here's the thing said by me1212:Yeah but it can do them, it may only be 3 or so m when everyone gets one is, but when everyone is not something close to like 5-ish may be possible. Plus there is a reason the ISPs say "up to". its all about cya. additionally, wimax has yet to prove itself if it will be the panacea for our bandwidth needs. sure, they've deployed in 14 markets (with the additional "go-lives" today), but most have been in urban or slightly suburban markets (wichita falls, tx i believe has a population of ~100k). the issue with wimax (or any wireless protocol) is that you have to have the adequate backhaul to support your user base. in the rural locales, this means running t1s to the pop or (in rare instances if there is a fiber ring around) tapping the existing fiber plant and running a ds3 or something similar. a lot of the urban markets have the ability for microwave backhaul - but in rural, mountainous areas (such as where i grew up), there are only one or two paths for microwave backhauls and most of them are pretty used up.
as much as anyone wants to say that wimax/lte will solve the nation's bandwidth problem in the last mile, i am incredibly skeptical. you can provide the spectrum to the user over that last "wireless mile", but can you effectively manage the demand and oversubscription ratios to effectively plan for the backhaul? long story short, i'm less than confident....
q. -- "...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Here's the thing Even 8xT1s aren't going to give you enough bandwidth to run a high-quality WiMAX setup. You either need fiber or wireless backhauls. Which won't be practical for awhile in some situations, which in turn means that we won't see WiMAX from Clear in those locations. WiMAX isn't a panacea but as a consumer electronics "4G" solution and as a fixed solution in markets that are a notch above out-in-the-sticks rural, it's promising. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ | Re: Here's the thing said by iansltx:Even 8xT1s aren't going to give you enough bandwidth to run a high-quality WiMAX setup. You either need fiber or wireless backhauls. Which won't be practical for awhile in some situations, which in turn means that we won't see WiMAX from Clear in those locations. WiMAX isn't a panacea but as a consumer electronics "4G" solution and as a fixed solution in markets that are a notch above out-in-the-sticks rural, it's promising. it helps. there is no doubt. but then you run into the issue of who is going to deploy this? if you need a high speed quality backhaul, who is going to give it to you at that price? the ilecs have indie-access pricing and because of the access-rules, a clec's price is going to include the markup that the ilec charges them.
as much as i absolutely hate SuperWISP 's constant shilling, i understand his plight. i feel that he is exaggerating numbers to make his situation seem worse than it really is, but there are some serious gaps in our broadband policies. we have allowed the ilecs to effectively dictate what will be installed where. sure, they have built out the network, but when you receive a gift of the last mile from the government, you are able to spend your incoming revenues in other places. indie providers don't have this luxury. as such, whether or not an ilec is deploying the next-gen technology, they still dictate what goes where. even if you try to use a well placed microwave downlink in a metro area into a carrier-neutral meet-me facility where the cost per megabit is marginal when you downlink the traffic, you still have to worry about the microwave backhaul getting it there. have you priced that gear lately? from there, you have the tower rental, microwave installation, and then spectrum licenses in each of the municipalities that you plan on running to. its cost prohibitive.
finally, if we leave out the "very rural" areas, who is going to be fixing them up? i grew up in a *very* rural part of arizona in one of the poorest counties in the country (mostly because of the percentage of native american reservation within our county). frontier brought dsl there in 2001, but a full citywide deployment wasn't finalized until 2003. the highest speed you can get is 1/128 over copper that is mostly 40-60 years old. without a serious push and revamp, these areas will continue to be left behind.
q. -- "...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Here's the thing Remember, cablecos are rooting for Clear. So they'll help with Clear bandwidth.
Also, SuperWISP isn't exaggerating as far as I can tell. Things get expensive when you're buying bandwidth from the only game in town.
Lastly, if you can get 3G in an area, you can get 4G in that area. Just takes a bit of doing... | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ | Re: Here's the thing said by iansltx:Remember, cablecos are rooting for Clear. So they'll help with Clear bandwidth. only if you are in a market served by timewarner, comcast, or brighthouse. additionally, there are some locations within the footprint that *aren't* served by those providers. my office is one. smack dab in the middle of a cox neighborhood. all we could get is a set of t1s from qwest. granted, the msos could front the connectivity and wire the premise up, but thats a large cost. is this to say that you will only find clear in an area where those companies are located? takes out a rather large chunk of the country.
Also, SuperWISP isn't exaggerating as far as I can tell. Things get expensive when you're buying bandwidth from the only game in town.
i'm not doubting the cost of what he is purchasing. this is why i am for reforming some of our carrier access laws and would like to see some investigation into wholesale pricing of bandwidth outside of metro areas. i do think that he is stretching the truth when it comes to customer pricing, as any good isp will know how to effectively estimate and manage oversubscription ratios in the customer base. some of his posts are a little sensationalistic, in my opinion. however, that is neither here nor there.
Lastly, if you can get 3G in an area, you can get 4G in that area. Just takes a bit of doing...
i find that to be a stretch. as i said, i grew up in a very rural area. vzw and sprint both have a (marginal) 3g signal in that location. however, i know where the towers are that they are broadcasting from, and you *aren't* getting fiber there without a hell of a cost. if you want to backhaul it over microwave, you've got to forge a new path and then pay for the gear. again, 4g has to be effectively fed with bandwidth for it to really be 4g. otherwise, its 3g under a different name and more false promises.
q. -- "...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Here's the thing About the coverage deal, I think that cablecos would be more friendly to Clear than to, say, Verizon or AT&T's LTE backhaul projects. But you're right...the fact that Clear is already is in a lot of Suddenlink markets is an interesting one.
Also, since we're talking about wireless here Clear can put a tower within a cableco's coverage area, or on one within their coverage area, and serve places that can't get cable. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Here's the thing WTH is this? A reasonable, rational conversation with sensationalistic partisan pandering and angry retorts?
This is not allowed!
Heh. | |
|
 |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Some wireless can do 5 Mbps up...it's just a bit spendy. Nothing compared with fiber though. | |
|  |  |  | | said by ThrowDemsOut:5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. Hi, I'm VDSL. Nice to meet you. | |
|  |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| I noticed that a lot of places don't call it broadband--- they say "High Speed Internet Service" etc
Personally, I'd love symmetrical 5/5. I don't see it happening.
I do think though that we should push for more upstream. I'm thinking 1.5/1.5 and up would be a decent standard to set. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  |  |  | | said by ThrowDemsOut:5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. So be it. If they can't deliver the defined speed, then they shouldn't be allowed to call it broadband. Just call it internet connection and let it be what it is. However, that does not mean we should define it so that we can say we are x% broadband covered.
I like the definition the telco's came up with over a decade ago. 45 symmetrical with the ability to carry high quality two way video communications. Let's keep that as the standard to define broadband and come up with a new definition for anything less. Like maybe mediocreband or duopolyband or extortionband. | |
|
 |  |  |  Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO | Docsis 1.X spec is 38Mbps down, 9Mbps up (both shared).
Since the cost differential between D1 and D3 is only $100/customer to upgrade(see Cablevision front page a few months back) the initial cost installation(nothing to a running system) of D1 vs D3 is essentially non existent.
Fios and Uverse are both very capable of sustaining 5/5. | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Here's the thing UVerse can't do 5/5 with current profils, unless they've turned on U12. In which case it's only doable at less than 2500 feet or something like that.
On DOCSIS 1.1 I've never seen above about 3 Mbps on the upstream, even with uncapped PowerBoost. DOCSIS 2 on the other hand can sustain 5/5 speeds easily, however I'd be willing to bet that the majority of subscribers jumping for current high-end cable tiers are doing so for the upload rather than the download. I for one would be perfectly fine with a 12/5 connection, but am at 22/5 (50/10 right now for testing but will downgrade once my Backblaze backup completes) because with Comcast there is no such thing.
Okay, actually I'd love a 25 or 35 Mbps symmetric connection, but I'll either need fiber or a channel bonded upstream for that. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Here's the thing Niiiiice. Had no idea the tech was that speedy on the upstream. I thought 0.5 was the best you could get on mobility, with 1.5-2 Mbps on fixed/nomadic applications. | |
|  |  |  |  me1212 join:2008-11-20 Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Here's the thing said by iansltx:Niiiiice. Had no idea the tech was that speedy on the upstream. I thought 0.5 was the best you could get on mobility, with 1.5-2 Mbps on fixed/nomadic applications. Clear just has it(the UL) capped. And IIRC, one 7(may have been 5, I forget) up was on the same tower as a .5 from clear, but the 7 was sprint who has not capped the UL.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Here's the thing Mhm. Wonder if Comcast caps the upload. Might be a big reason to get the Sprint package. Honestly, $80 a month for that kind of speed doesn't sound all that bad... | |
|
 |  Ligtel join:2005-12-07 Ligonier, IN | Yes, WiMAX can do 5mb symmetric. Doing it here now. Just like LTE, it just depends on how wide of a channel you are using. With a 2.75mhz channel, nope. With 5mhz or more, sure. | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Here's the thing THx for the info. | |
|
 |  binded2 join:2009-08-11 Providence, RI | this is a plan for the future you dumd ass. you want to build a network thats only able to do 3 and 786 WTH is wrong with you
this is not only about just right now what is broadband but what the future is what your saying is hell lets just built a network around what we have now cus dsl is shit and we still want to call it broadband when its really the new dial-up but lets not tell every one thats has dsl that there paying high prices for it and getting crap for the service
where not just talking about what broadband is to be called now but what it will be in 10-15-20 even 30 years from now
what you perpose is that we build a network that we need to upgrade 5 6 times like the cable has had to do a few times now just to get to docsis 3 now
build it one time and the cost for upgrades in the future will be less
god i cant get over how stupid some people are just so that they can call some thing broadband right now in this year and time | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Here's the thing You're forgetting that if broadband is defined too highly, companies will simply call their HSI service something else ("high speed internet" for example) and go on with their day.
I'd like a 5 Mbps symmetric connection everywhere I am, but AT&T isn't going to give it to me. I'd much rather have a 3/768 connection OTOH than have a 5 Mbps symmetric tier that doesn't exist at my location, if you get what I'm getting at.
Does setting a low standard mean that companies will stick to that low standard to the exclusion of everything else? Absolutely not! If that was the case you'd see 768/200 internet everywhere and nothing much higher. In reality, a decent baseline provides a common enominator for a provider's "Economy" tier in most cases, with additional tiers building from there. For example, Verizon and Comcast have 1024/384 for their economy tier (higher than 768/200 by the way), yet both go up to 50 Mbps on downloads in their flagship areas (DOCSIS 3 for Comcast, FiOS for Verizon). Qwest's baseline DSL is now 1.5 Mbps down, 896k up (okay, not really, but about 86% of that). Their highest VDSL2 tier is 40/20.
One last thing: even now, calling something broadband isn't going to make companies rise to the occasion. AT&T DSL starts at 768/128, as does Time Warner Cable. CenturyTel has a 512k tier. WildBlue and HughesNet have starter tiers below 768/200... | |
|
 |  BloodRosesAeolus, your daughter flies.Premium join:2003-03-17 Louisville, KY | said by iansltx:While I'd love a 5 Mbps symmetric connection, that would mean that only the top tiers of cable service (or top two tiers in the case of Comcast and Cablevision) in DOCSIS 3 areas can get that kind of service. And any provider that has fiber, plus some that have wireless (not WiMAX based). This doesn't really tell us how high the standard is, it's actually a reflection of how poor the service is in this country. Personally I define broadband as anything higher than a practical analogue line can provide. Which in basic terms means, OC1 (51.84Mbps) or higher. -- Faerie Blessings, Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.net | |
|  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Here's the thing Last I checked ISDN was digital (64k) and fiber is analog (technicalities; light isn't any more digital than electrical pulses).
Despite the fact that broadband sucks in the US, redefining terms isn;t going to help much, if at all. Competition will however, as will subsidies to companies who provide a certain service level to areas that don't have that level already. | |
|
 |  | | said by iansltx:DOCSIS 1.1 can't do symmetric 5 Mbps. Anything longer than about 2500 feet on DSL can't do 5 Mbps symmetric. I don't even think WiMAX can do 5 Mbps symmetric. Actually I think 1.1 could barely squeeze out 5 sem. DOCSIS 2 for sure (which is what most cable cos are at, at the moment), and it would be a cheesy walk-in-the-park for DOCSIS 3 to achieve.
As for DSL, yes they would need to put more RTs... but isn't that what most DSL cos are already in the process of doing anyway considering a larger portion of their POTS customers were too far from a CO/RT to begin with?
As for wireless it may not really be a competitor for a few years yet until the tech catches up.
said by iansltx:Call me a corporate communist, but that's setting the bar too high at this point. Once we can get low-latency 3 Mbps down, 768k up service to 95% of the US via at least two methods of broadband service, then we can work on 5 Mbps symmetric. Call me a progressive, but setting the bar at it's lowest is not going to help us become leaders of anything in the world. Technology least of all. So when many other countries are rolling out 1gb/s service you will think it is time for us to move the bar to 5mbs/1mbs service? --
- "Techie" Jim | |
|  |  |  See 6 replies to this post |
 DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 | Well If The Industry Had Thier Way...
...We'd still be on 3600 baud dialup modems, paying per minute online. | |
|  |  chimera join:2009-06-09 Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Well If The Industry Had Thier Way... True, but some middle ground is required in this. Obviously the industries standard is a joke (as is the idea of still accepting advertised speeds vs actual), but I'm still curious how anyone can think that asking for 5Mbps symetric is a good idea for how to define broadband.
I can think of a few folks in the industry that might not mind a definition like that. Suddenly the entire country, including major cities would count as under served. Then all of this money could go to back bone providers who are the only folks capable of providing the new definition of broadband without having to worry about the new rules on network neutrality that come with the funds. | |
|  |  neowulf join:2000-10-20 Port Orange, FL | To me this brings up the very notation of how a true free market worked for dialup to one up the last innovation at every turn. The pay per minute didn't last long once a few players entered the scene and competition got fierce. While limited to 56k, the limit was reached quite fast in terms of how fast current technology can reach the limits but are seldom provided, again because of the amount of service providers you could get with dialup.
Just think, if you could pick whatever broadband provider in the entire nation what that would do for the consumer, if there was such competition I doubt the discussion on how to define broadband would exist at all as the market would pretty much define it self. So yes of course the industry as of now would love to keep us in our duopoly setting. The be lucky you get broadband at all situation which has come only benefits the provider. It works for them, and it works for their investors. The consumer is left with no options. In turn pay more to receive less. | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium join:2001-06-25 Sacramento, CA kudos:1 | Broadband Definition It should be a simple 10m/10m (a now old Ethernet standard speed)
There is no reason we, the people, should have to settle for the Broadband Definition being any lower.. ISP's can always play catch-up to meet the min "broadband" speed if needed. | |
|  T4K join:2002-03-13 Roach, MO | Use the cell towers I mean if we can't accomplish ... Low latency satellite which is impossible according to many people. Why can't we get more cell sites up? Running fiber to cell sites should be cheaper than running copper to cell sites. Isn't LTE around the corner? | |
|  |  me1212 join:2008-11-20 Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Use the cell towers Wimax is here now and can do like 7 up and 16 down, why wait for LTE? | |
|  |  | | said by T4K:I mean if we can't accomplish ... Low latency satellite which is impossible according to many people. Not impossible, improbable; in that the technology to actually achieve low latency satellite connections at higher speeds is possible, but what company actually wants to spend to increase user benefit? | |
|  |  |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 | Re: Use the cell towers said by PapaMidnight:said by T4K:I mean if we can't accomplish ... Low latency satellite which is impossible according to many people. Not impossible, improbable; in that the technology to actually achieve low latency satellite connections at higher speeds is possible, but what company actually wants to spend to increase user benefit? Uh, what technology exists that can accelerate radio signals to hyper-light speeds? | |
|  |  |  |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Reston, VA | Re: Use the cell towers Not all satellites have to be in geostationary orbits. We could have an array of communications satellites in a much lower orbit. It's just not a practical solution at this time.
Not too long ago there were plans, backed by Microsoft, to invest in a satellite constellation composed of nearly 1000 low Earth orbit satellites for internet services.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic
| |
|
 DavidI have a son- d3Premium,VIP join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL kudos:68 Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·Google Voice
| I agree. said by iansltx:Call me a corporate communist, but that's setting the bar too high at this point. Once we can get low-latency 3 Mbps down, 768k up service to 95% of the US via at least two methods of broadband service, then we can work on 5 Mbps symmetric. said by Duramax08:I agree, Its way to high for something reasonable. I would say 1.5 mbps up and down should be something to aim at. But anything faster then dial up is broadband for me. said by ThrowDemsOut:5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. The FCC will NEVER adopt what Free Press wants. I agree with all you guys, it's about 1/2 the reason (I think) we don't sell a 192-384/128-384 profile anymore. I still get about 1-2 a week that wished they could just try a 768/384 tier. Nope- Can't sync at the crossbox or just too far for reliable service. -- If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
| |
|  Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| broadband so as long as they advertise something fast... despite never delivering that speed to anyone. It would still be broadband?
So if they JUST BARELY get a sync on DSL using interleaved. Then somehow that's acceptable to be sold as a HIGHSPEED BROADBAND. Is this 1995 still?
As for the consumer though. 5mbit is decent. Would probably hurt the providers pretty badly though; and symmetrical? Erm... nobody really needs more then 1mbit upload... Making it symmetrical would make it arguable that since they dont sync at 5mbit upload... You would need some extremely high quality service running there. COs being very close.
How about broadband being simply...
-t-1/ds-1 line? 1.544mbit down + up. -a % of reliability/uptime(we provide you 100mbit 12 seconds out of the day. Then it's UP TO 128kbit) -a maximum latency so as to rule out interleaved dsl. -Service of X days relative to the cap. (currently they tend to provide about 12 hours of service per month with their caps. generally speaking) -net neutral | |
|  |  | | Re: broadband said by munky99999:so as long as they advertise something fast... despite never delivering that speed to anyone. It would still be broadband? I think they addressed that quite clearly:
...at a minimum, broadband should be defined as a symmetrical telecommunications service that can reasonably deliver (at all times, including peak-use times) to each end-user of a connection, 5 megabits per second (Mbps) of bandwidth (in both the down and upstream directions), at latencies low enough to enable high-quality real time voice and video two-way communications. | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| Re: broadband said by PapaMidnight:said by munky99999:so as long as they advertise something fast... despite never delivering that speed to anyone. It would still be broadband? I think they addressed that quite clearly: ...at a minimum, broadband should be defined as a symmetrical telecommunications service that can reasonably deliver (at all times, including peak-use times) to each end-user of a connection, 5 megabits per second (Mbps) of bandwidth (in both the down and upstream directions), at latencies low enough to enable high-quality real time voice and video two-way communications. The point I was making was that the industry's definition wasnt taking it into account. | |
|
 | | Washington Monumenting Sorry Free Press, I like you and all, but symmetrical 5Mbps? Even 5 Mbps down is really pushing it.
All this talk of measuring broadband in terms of BPS is really bugging me. Why are we defining it in such a meaningless term? What we should do is determine the activities that people want to use the internet for, how much of it they want to do at once, determine how much bandwidth that requires, and set the bar there.
For example, one rule of thumb might be the ability to watch a single HD-quality video via realtime streaming without rebuffering. Or figure out the average number of networked computers in a home and the most those computers might want to do over the Internet at once.
I don't think setting the bar in terms of Mbps makes any sense at all. It assumes too much about the valid uses of an Internet connection as well as what uses will occur in the future. It's only a matter of time before the number of IP-based networked devices increases and we will be having this argument all over again. | |
|  |  | | Re: Washington Monumenting said by romulusnr:Sorry Free Press, I like you and all, but symmetrical 5Mbps? Even 5 Mbps down is really pushing it. That's a rather small thought process, no personal insult intended. | |
|  |  Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO | romulusnr
The problem with you method is in the end it always goes back to Mbps. Who gets to decide what a "a single HD-quality video" is? 720p, 1080p , other? Some will define it as full HD quality (27Mbps). | |
|  |  | | RTFA.
Free Press's letter to the FCC is pretty clear here -- under current law, Congress defines broadband as, "as having the capacity to transmit data to enable a subscriber to the service to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video.
Free Press said, OK, assuming h.264 720p video, that is about a minimum of 5mbps -- if you must put a bps tag on it. But they said it should be evolving, and always tied to what applications can be used.
What people here are overlooking is, the FCC asked how to define broadband for the purpose of the national broadband "plan." Plan being something you shoot for in the future. This has nothing to do with the current stimulus, which IIRC, Free Press said anything above 768k should qualify to be considered for stimulus funding, if nothing else was possible. | |
|
 kaila join:2000-10-11 Lincolnshire, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Moving target.......... While a reasonable argument can be made that 5/5 is too high currently, at what point will that argument fade away- next year, two years, five, ten......
This should be a moving target. And lets face it, demand isn't going to flatten or fall, and if the FCC can set a definition that might push a provider or three, so be it. This industry's an oligopoly at best and most customers won't have anywhere else to go, so not meeting the broadband standard isn't going to cost any provider their business. -- Jeff Howe Jeff's Blog - »www.jeffhowe.net | |
|  CheesePremium join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL kudos:1 | Reasonable? 1/1, 2/2,3/3...
Why not start a wee bit lower and it might have a better chance? | |
|  |  | | Re: Reasonable? said by Cheese:1/1, 2/2,3/3... Why not start a wee bit lower and it might have a better chance? DSL providers would still fight you tooth and nail over 1/1. Most can't even break 768kbps in current speeds. | |
|
 | | 5/5 is a good start Many in this thread aren't thinking ahead. It needs to be at least 5/5 up/down, because our speed demand will continue to increase (and increase at an increasing rate). To stream full HD video, which is where the industry is headed (and should head), symmetric 5/5 is going to be a bottleneck speed in 5 years.
If you don't set the bar high, these ISP assholes will never move forward. Would we have fuel efficient cars is we set the target for 12/15mpg street/highway?
Do it now, and do it right. And then reassess the definition every 24 months, because it has to rise over time.
14.4k used to be fast. | |
|  ShadowMastrMaster Of All Shadows join:2001-09-01 Fort Pierce, FL | Fastest ATT DSl I've got the fastest DSL I can get from ATT, it's 6 down but only 512 up..... so I wouldn't be considered broadband at even 1.5/1.5??? The upload really is pretty piss poor, but since it's vanilla DSL, what can we do?? -- Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster | |
|  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | If 5/5 considered broadband Then I guess my 20/2 connection ISN'T broadband? Come one that's stupid. I DO in fact have broadband. I'm sorry for all the uploaders feelings and all but it's not THAT important as download. Hell most DSL can't even do 1 mbps up so I guess DSL will never be broadband either. If 5/5 is the minimum for broadband I say less than 5%-10% of Americans have access to broadband | |
|  |  | | Re: If 5/5 considered broadband said by BF69:Then I guess my 20/2 connection ISN'T broadband? Come one that's stupid. I DO in fact have broadband. I'm sorry for all the uploaders feelings and all but it's not THAT important as download. Hell most DSL can't even do 1 mbps up so I guess DSL will never be broadband either. If 5/5 is the minimum for broadband I say less than 5%-10% of Americans have access to broadband Which...actually speaks volumes about the state of broadband in America. | |
|
 Core0000Premium join:2008-05-04 Somerset, KY Reviews:
·New Wave Communi..
| Clear Goals and Broadband "In contrast, the cable industry's primary lobbying apparatus the NCTA says they'd prefer if the definition of broadband remains the same. In their filing, the lobbying group says not only should the definition remain 768 kbps/200 kbps, but the FCC should stick to defining broadband by the speed advertised -- not the speed actually delivered:"
I think that is a wishy washy shitty attitude to have. Have a clear goal and aim for it. Don't go oh.. here's a bar.. but we'll probably hit five points below it.
And the 5/5 sounds great.. But I think a 1/1MBps, low latency connection is probably more realistic. And a good place to start.
This is just my perspective on it though. | |
|  | | Advertised speed versus actual speeds Advertised speed versus actual speeds.
There are some ISP's out there that advertise 'Up To' speeds. But really get ticked when the customer threatens to pay for 'Up To' their actual speeds.
From England. A code of conduct for ISP's. Think of it as truth in advertising.
»www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/copbb/copbb/
Definitions of Speed
15. It is useful to distinguish between different definitions of speed that are used in the Code.
1. headline or advertised speed - This is the speed that ISPs use to describe the packages that they offer to consumers. They are often described as up to speeds but these are often only a guide as to the speed an ISP can provide and at what price. 2. access line speed - This refers to the maximum speed of the data connection between the broadband modem and the local exchange or cable head end. This constitutes the maximum speed a consumer will be able to experience. 3. actual throughput speed - This is the actual speed that a consumer experiences at a particular time when they are connected to the internet. This figure is often dependent on factors such as the ISPs network, its traffic shaping and management policy, the number of subscribers sharing the network at the same time and the number of people accessing a particular website. 4. average throughput speed This is an average of actual throughput speed for each different broadband product offered by an ISP.
1st Principle: Training
23. The ISPs must use their best endeavours to procure that all of their representatives (including all of their officers and employees and any agents or sub-contractors) involved in selling or promoting their broadband services are trained appropriately and that they have sufficient understanding of the products and services they are promoting and selling.
2nd Principle: Information at point of sale
26. It is an essential cornerstone of the Code that consumers can make informed decisions and choices about the type of service they are likely to receive upon and after entering into any service contracts with the ISPs.
27. To achieve this Principle in action, the ISPs must use their best endeavours to procure that all of their representatives (including all of their officers and employees and any agents or sub-contractors) take the following steps to ensure that accurate and meaningful information on broadband speeds is provided to all consumers before they enter into any agreement.
# Provide all consumers within the sales process, with information on their estimated access line speed, regardless of whether this is conducted over the phone, in a retail shop or through the ISPs website. # Provide a facility on their website so that consumers can find out, in a clear and easily accessible manner, what their estimated access line speed is. ISPs should ensure that access line speed information is given due prominence on the line checker speed results webpage (this is the page on which a consumers access line speed estimate is generated following the input of a consumers postcode and/or landline number). For example, ISPs should underline or embolden the estimated figure.
3rd Principle: Accuracy of information on access line speed provided by ISPs
28. Another important principle of the Code is that the information initially provided by the ISPs to consumers remains as accurate as possible. -- Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion. | |
|  3 edits | "Consumer" group wants prices to be out of consumers' reach Let's see here. I'm an ISP in Laramie, Wyoming, where the wholesale price of bandwidth -- even if you buy an OC-3, which is a large pipe -- is $100 per Mbps per month. (Don't believe me? Go ahead and price it yourself. Use the address of City Hall, which is right in the middle of town; it's 406 Ivinson Avenue, Laramie, Wyoming, 82070.) So, Free Press wants to set the wholesale price of enough bandwidth to qualify as a "broadband" connection at $500 per month. And that's not including the ISP's overhead and expenses.
That's far beyond what consumers will be willing to pay, so -- suddenly -- no one will be able to afford "broadband."
Some "consumer group." (We already know that they are an astroturf organization doing the bidding of Google, a corporation which cares not a bit about consumers; this just verifies it.) | |
|  |  See 9 replies to this post | |
 | | How many gigabytes? Something I don't see mentioned here, how many gigabytes? What's the point of having 10 times the speed if it merely burns through your monthly quota 10 times as fast? Shouldn't the AMOUNT OF DATA be part of the definition as well? | |
|  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA | I think "Broadband" should be 100/100 But I guess 5/5 is at least a start!
(Ha, you thought I was going to gratuitously post my speedtest results again, didn't you?)
 | |
|  | | HSI -- T1 or faster; HSI2 - 10Mbs or faster The old definition of broadband was basically faster than ISDN. The new definition should be T1 or faster. The label broadband for Internet speeds should just be done away with and use the acronym HSI for High Speed Internet. When it's time to set the next tier -- maybe Ethernet speed or faster (10Mbs) -- make it HSI2 or something.
I'm just afraid that when the internet providers actually provide us with these higher speeds that they'll be charging by the byte -- especially if they end up doing it via wireless. Or if they charge a flat rate -- it'll be with a very low cap making the high speeds worthless.
The fundamental problem is that they don't want to provide service at all for a very large portion of rural America because it's seen as nonprofitable. Only a government mandate with very stiff fines for noncompliance will change this. Or the government will simply have to become an ISP and wire these areas independent of the existing providers. Current ISP competition just means providing better and better service to the most populated areas and ignoring everybody else. I don't really see anything changing in the near future to correct this. At best, the problem will be better defined at the costs of millions of dollars and years of research rather than actually developing the infrastructure. | |
|
 | |
|
|