Major ISPs Seek To Lower Broadband Definition 426
denobug sends word that major internet service providers in the US are seeking to redefine the term 'Broadband' to mean a much lower speed than in other developed nations. In recent filings with the FCC, Comcast and AT&T both came out in support of a reduced minimum speed. 'AT&T said regulators should keep in mind that not all applications like voice over internet protocol (VoIP) or streaming video, that require faster speeds, are necessarily needed by unserved Americans.' On the other hand, Verizon argued to maintain the status quo, saying that 'It would be disruptive and introduce confusion if the commission were to now create a new and different definition.' A public interest group called Free Press also filed comments with the FCC, recommending that the bar should be set significantly higher, and evolve in a way that corresponds with technological improvements.
The status quo (Score:5, Interesting)
What I got from reading my Verizon DSL service agreement was that they were making no warranty at all concerning the actual throughput on my line, regardless of the advertised speed. And they wonder why I don't want to subscribe to FIOS, which seems to have the same disclaimer. It would be interesting to know if other countries' ISPs commit to provide the advertised throughput.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I got from reading my Verizon DSL service agreement was that they were making no warranty at all concerning the actual throughput on my line, regardless of the advertised speed.
How is that different from any other ISP that does the exact same thing? If you want guarantees on your throughput you're going to have to shell out for a dedicated line.
Re:The status quo (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. It's not reasonable to expect an ISP to guarantee a certain speed if the line is shared (as if the case with cable and DSLAMs). I have Verizon DSL and except when a truck ran into the switching station and turned it into scrap (knocking out phone service), they've provided exactly what I pay for, so no complaints here.
As for Europe versus United States, making comparisons of tiny EU states (poland, slovak) versus a continent-spanning federation makes little sense. The USA is *big*. It took me 4 days to drive from Boston to Seattle... and another 5 days to go from California back to Boston. And in-between there's a whole lot of nothing. Here are the stats when you compare large federations versus large federations:
Russian Federation 7 Megabits per secomd
E.U., U.S. 6 Mbit/s
Canada, Australia 5
Brazil, China 2
Mexico 1 Mbit/s
And if you prefer to look on a state-by-state basis of the EU, US, and Canada then you get:
1 Sweden 11 Mbit/s
2 Delaware 10
3 Washington 9
4 Netherlands,Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts 8
5 Virginia,New York,Colorado,Connecticut,Arizona, Germany, British Columbia 7 Mbit/s
Re:The status quo (Score:4, Informative)
>>>I have a max of 10MB on my line, and my neighbor has a max of 5MB, do we assume that the average speed is 7.5MB, even though the ISP might only have 12MB total
>>>
No. A lot of studies do exactly what you suggest - work with the *advertized* speeds. But the place where I got my stats, speedtest.net, uses ACTUAL speeds from a wide range of tests all around the world
.
>>>how many speeds are there in Arizona to add up?
I have no idea for that specific state, but worldwide the site says "over twenty million tests taken every month", so that would be about 1/2 billion connections tested over the last two years. The top continents are:
Europe 6.4 Mbit/s
N.America 6.1
Australia 4.8
Asia 4.3
S.America 2
Africa 1.1
Contrary to what is often said, the North American continent is not "falling behind". In fact the updated U.S. stats now read 6.8 Mbit/s and therefore higher than Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The users of speedtest.net choose to use the service, so it's a self-selecting sample. This is not a good thing if you're looking for a scientifically rigorous study.
Grandma won't be running speedtest on her 56k: she already knows that it's slow.
Re:The status quo (Score:4, Insightful)
thanks for the informative article. maybe next you could link a source for the much-disputed numbers you posted?
Re:The status quo (Score:4, Informative)
When I was on cable, it varied drastically depending on the time of day I was downloading. I have never had more consistent service speeds than I have on FIOS.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Last Result:
Download Speed: 26139 kbps (3267.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 9534 kbps (1191.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, cable used to be like that, too. Just wait till the rest of us get connected and then we'll all know what it's really like.
Ask about "CIR" (Committed Information Rate) (Score:5, Funny)
When I subscribed back in 1999, Verizon only offered 768k down/128k up, and the CIR was 16 Kbps bidirectional. That's right -- they promised that my connection would be at least almost half as fast as a 33.6K modem. Except, of course, when it wasn't working.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You are clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "guaranteed" bandwidth on the internet. ALL bandwidth is shared, somewhere.
Your ISP does NOT have 40 megabits of bandwidth for every user. Do you know how much you would be paying if they did? Your connection would be hundres of dollars a month, not $60 or less.
If you want to bitch about the price of bandwidth, bitch to the big telcos that own most of the fiber in the US, and charge exorbitant fees to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
(Norway here)I haven't really read the fine print myself. I know many guarantee the throughput within their own network, but not beyond, for obvious reasons. But it doesn't seem to be much of an issue where I live.
I've been a customer of most of the major ISPs over the years, and I have yet to experience getting anything less than the promised throughput. There's also no throttling/shaping and no traffic limits.
I'm currently on 30/30 fibre and quite happy (they offer 50/50, 100/100 and 1000/1000 as well, th
Re: (Score:3)
It would be interesting to know if other countries' ISPs commit to provide the advertised throughput.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Verizon (I subscribe to their DSL service because it was available before Comcast was in my area and I like Comcast even less than Verizon which is the only other choice), but I can understand where they are coming from with regard to guaranteed speeds. The problem in the United States is that lawyers are sue happy and if Verizon failed to meet the promised speed 100% of the time then some enterprising attorney would file a class action la
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The status quo (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that you see the words "unlimited broadband" as a sequential progression of syllables. Remember that the Internet is based on TCP/IP, where packets may arrive in a different sequence than they were sent, and the stack reassembles them. Verbiage that comes from ISPs is, logically enough, similarly delivered.
But you are receiving them as a user, and therefore using UDP, not TCP. What is not clear to you, then, is the order in which the syllables were sent, so it's understandably difficult to reassemble them into their correct sequence.
I sent a resend request and re-received the syllables using TCP. The original transmission only had one syllable out of place, surprisingly. Anyway, I reassembled the syllables back into their intended sequence for you, which is as follows: "limited unbroadband".
I hope this helps...
Re:The status quo (Score:5, Interesting)
I pay approximately 17 USD a month for an unlimited 10/10 Mbit/s up/downstream (upgrade to 100/10 for 33 USD a month). I don't even think there is any provider selling limited broadband in Sweden.
As an answer to grandparent, yes I regularly reach topspeed but I guess it would be harder if you have a high bandwidth connection.
Re:The status quo (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of "broadband" is that it does support streaming audio and video.
If they want to offer some kind of medium-band fast surfing speed, then call it that. Don't try to lie about it.
How about "not quite so-broadband"? Or "grampa-band"?
Politicians love to do this kind of crap, though. Want to divert federal money for the Great Lakes to your precious little local lake? Fine, just get Congress to declare your late a Great Lake For The Purpose of This Bill.
People who make carrot jelly upset you stupidly legally defined jelly to be made with fruit? Fine! Don't get rid of the definition as over-intrusive actions of the government. Rather, just redefine carrots as fruit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...and encryption technology as munitions, for that matter.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I pay approximately 17 USD a month for an unlimited 10/10 Mbit/s up/downstream (upgrade to 100/10 for 33 USD a month) [in Sweden]. As an answer to grandparent, yes I regularly reach topspeed but I guess it would be harder if you have a high bandwidth connection.
Meanwhile I have a smokin' 720Kbps down/320Kbps up "broadband" DSL line for something like $70 USD per month (including static IP). And the ISP's here Stateside want to redefine broadband to even lower data rates. U.S. ISP's consistently sets low standards and then fail to meet even them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How much are the unlimited plans, and for what speeds?
I personally have no complaints where I live in the US. I spend 30 dollars (21 Euros) a month (requires TV service at this rate) for an unlimited cable connection. I consistently get 8 Mbps down (1000 kB/sec) and ~800 kbps up (100 kB/sec). This is enough for any sort of VOIP or online video. My pings to major servers are always under 30 ms.
The upload is a bit slow, but I'm fine with that. 800 kbps is enough to send out a decent streaming video, and that'
Re: (Score:2)
Since your comment is still rated as insightful, I'll jump on the "you're full of crap" bandwagon; hopefully someone will correct your moderation. I had cable internet in Germany in 2006 and 2007. I had slightly higher speed compared to what I have now in the US for slightly less cost (even after converting currencies), and I had no bandwidth cap.
Re:The status quo (Score:4, Informative)
I'm living in Tokyo at the moment, and my (rather cheap) apartment comes with broadband (fibre) bundled as part of the rent. I just did a speed test and I'm getting 52mbit down, 10mbit up. Absolutely no monthly limits.
Pretty much every apartment I looked at when picking this place had broadband (often fibre) bundled in to the rent cost, and all would be unlimited data.
Re:The status quo (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlimited? Comcast yells if you download/upload too much in one month.
Not if you're on one of their Business plans. I have 6 mbit/1 mbit service through them for $59/month. Sounds pricey, but get this:
NO bandwidth caps, NO bittorrent filtering or any bullshit like that. "Customer service" in India is for the plebs; YOU as a business customer are treated like royalty. I called them up and expressed my interest in opening up an account for my (very) small business. The business account manager came over to my place the next day with a salesman. They were both genuinely friendly guys who walked me through all their plans and options and rates and answered every question I had. When I agreed to sign up they took care of the paperwork for me; I didn't have to do shit but sign my name a few times. The manager then gave me his business card with his cell phone number on it and said if I ever had any problems with the service to give him a call.
The ONE time I thought my service went down I gave him a ring. Told him my address and he remembered right away who I was. I described my problem and he jumped right on it. An engineer (a real one who actually knew his shit) called me up a few minutes later and had me check some stuff; turned out my damn Linksys router was causing the problem and the cable was fine. I apologized for wasting his time since I'm a communications technician and should have caught that, but he said "no problem" and seemed genuinely glad to help.
All that and I haven't even mentioned the performance. 700-800kb/sec download speeds are the norm and I've hit 900-1000 kb/sec on numerous occasions. Never measured the upstream but I'm sure it's just as good. I'm very pleased with the service. I don't have a static IP as I don't really need one, but could get 15 of them for a nominal fee ($5-10/month.) There are of course no prohibitions against running servers. I can also upgrade to 16 down/2 up for an additional $30/month but again I don't really see the need.
Say what you want about Comcast residential service, but the business service is world class. If every company treated their customers like this the world would be a much happier place.
If you can't rise to the competition ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
sounds like our education system.
Re:If you can't rise to the competition ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What competition?
Re:If you can't rise to the competition ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Broadband is technology not speed (Score:2, Informative)
When will these people stop trying to change definitions. Broadband is a technology not a speed. All DSL is broadband, but ethernet and (most) cable is not even though they can offer higher speeds than ADSL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And irrelevant to what we're talking about, which is consumer high-speed internet offerings that have commonly become known as "broadband". I.e., it's a different meaning to the technical term, deal with it.
Surely the job of any US government "internet quango" would be to mandate a continual year-on-year improvement in "broadband speeds", in terms of urban, extra-urban, and rural locations.
I.e., right now you could have: 10/2 for urban, 5/1 for extra-urban, and 2/0.2 for rural. In two years time that could
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia defines its speed as
In data communications
Broadband in data can refer to broadband networks or broadband Internet and may have the same meaning as above, so that data transmission over a fiber optic cable would be referred to as broadband as compared to a telephone modem operating at 56,000 bits per second.
But then again, I come from the internet, me and my good buddy Wik over there aren't very reliable sources.
Re: (Score:2)
56,000 bits per second.
Wouldn't that be 57,344 bits per second?
Though of course good luck to you if you expect to get that much with a dial-up modem....
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no.
Modems are/were rated in actual bits in decimal with no base-2/base-10 shenanigans. So 56k was actually 56000... Or more then likely you actually got 44000.
Examining the fossil (Score:2)
56,000 bits per second.
Wouldn't that be 57,344 bits per second?
For historical reasons related to UART architecture, the serial connection between the modem and the PC usually divides evenly into 115,200 bps, such as 57,600 bps. But in v.90 and v.92, the connection to the other modem is based on the 8,000 Hz sample rate of a digital phone line, usually anywhere from 40 kbps (Fs * 5 bits/sample) to 50.6 kbps (Fs * 6 1/3 bits/sample). Modems usually run the PC link faster than the analog link to allow use of LZW-based V.42bis compression over the wire. 57,344 is 56*1024,
Re: (Score:2)
Broadband is any system that uses multiple frequencies to allow more than one connection over the same line.
56k modems, or even 9600 baud modems do this, so they are broadband technologies. Ethernet doesn't and as a result, it is generally a lot faster.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, you're seriously confused. EVERY signaling system uses multiple frequencies at the same time.
Look up the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling theorem. It establishes that any signal over a single channel is limited by the width of the band that signal can transmit. In particular, you can send less than half as many samples per second as the channel is wide, in hertz.
Telephone modems do NOT use multiple connections. They use a single channel, about as wide as the voice frequencies. DSL does better, pushing th
Thanks at&t... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lies, Damn Lies, and... (Score:5, Insightful)
These distortions of statistics are already used by the government to great effect in other areas, such as unemployment and GDP, and the public eat it up.
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not in the FCC's interest. It doesn't have an interest in that respect. People know if they are getting fast and affordable internet access or not and that is what make's the FCC's folks look good to the people. The question is how interested are the FCC commissioners in looking good to "the people" versus those who can help them personally.
It is in the interests of some ISPs the ones who can't or don't want to compete on bandwidth. They may make it in the interest of certain elected representatives to support them via campaign contributions. Those representatives might try to make it in the interests of certain FCC members via future career enticements or rewards or they may play with the FCC's budget or charter. ISPs might even attempt to offer inducements like a lucrative career in lobbying or PR for the compliant commissioner.
So as a member of "the people" we have to do what we can to make it in the interests of our elected representatives to see that we get world class internet access at affordable prices. Also, let us not forget that there are a lot of businesses that benefit from ubiquitous high speed internet access. They should do some lobbying too. We have a convergence of interests.
So what's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
I used to limp along with a standard 28.8K modem; but now with my US Robotics 56K V.92 broadband-enhanced supermodem, I cruise along the Information Superhighway at a blazing 56Kbps! Thanks Comcast!
Re: (Score:2)
Tell them to put a sock in it. (Score:5, Insightful)
NANOG comments... (Score:3, Insightful)
There was just recently a large discussion about this topic on NANOG. The mailing list archive where the thread begins can be found here: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg20241.html [merit.edu]
Gee, I wonder why Verizon would think that consumers don't need VOIP? Perhaps competition has something to do with it...
Who cares ... (Score:2)
not unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the agribusinesses trying to change the definition of "organic" so they can cash in on the trend.
Whatever happened to actually making a good product and letting quality do the heavy lifting on the marketing end? I know sometimes a company is left selling a shit sandwich but it seems like these companies go out of their way to turn their products and services into a shit sandwich before they sell them. It's like these companies are all run by secret coprophages and they're spreading the love.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like "organic" farmers changing the meaning or organic. Organic means carbon based and has no bearing on how you grow something.
All crops are organic.
128kb (Score:2)
I think for CALEA ('lawful intercept', aka warrant-backed-spying of your traffic, at least in the US), calls broadband anything > 128kbps broadband (or there abouts.. it reminded me of something like shotgunned ISDN lines). The difference being anything less then that they can just get a run-of-the-mill telephone wire tap from the local Bell.
I'm sorta wondering how any definition the FCC passes will get abused in the future. This should be fun to watch.
Lowest Price is Highest Quality? (Score:5, Interesting)
What ever happened to quality? What ever happened to people, and companies, recognising that lower cost came at the expense of higher quality? What ever happened to production and purchasing being an optimisation problem with price, quality, speed and other factors thrown into the mix?
All I see nowadays is price, price, price. Price is everything. All encompassing, all considering and the sole and only consideration in nigh every walk of life. Companies are gouging their businesses in order to save pennies whilst their products stagnate or regress. Consumers care not for long term value or even short term utility as price is the first and last arbiter in their purchase decisions.
ISPs in the US seek to redefine broadband because they want their packages to be treated like commodities; like wheat and coffee beans. You don't care where the bean comes from, they're all the same. So you buy the cheapest one. If all internet connection packages are "broadband", can you guess what people are going to do? ISPs aren't the only industry that wants to do this, or indeed that is doing it.
Is anyone nowadays interesting in something more than getting, or providing, the cheapest deal. Is there room left nowadays for an ISP that seeks to provide the fastest and widest piplines for people that are willing to pay that much extra. I know I would be. But is that how our society works anymore? Did it ever work like that? Is there simply no room for companies that don't cater to misers? Should we really be blaming the ISPs here, or should we be blaming ourselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really moving toward Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)?
Re: (Score:2)
Answers.
>> All I see nowadays is price, price, price. Price is everything. All encompassing, all considering and the sole and only consideration in nigh every walk of life. Companies are gouging their businesses in order to save pennies whilst their products stagnate or regress. Consumers care not for long term value or even short term utility as price is the first and last arbiter in their purchase decisions.
What brand toothbrush do you own? Did you seek recommendations from other before buying it? A
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't Blame Reaganomics for this. Blame short sighted greed, where next reporting cycle is all that matters and long term performance is ignored.
If you look at the .COM bubble, the Housing Bubble, the Credit Bubble, and all the other bubbles, the whole thing was based on the next reporting cycle, and not core values and needs.
And most of those occurred under Bush and Clinton. And does anyone remember the fantastic job Carter did with the economy /sarcasm.
Sorry, but real economics is about improving products
Wired did an article on this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
We've already done a great job at butchering the term anyway. Most usage doesn't correspond with reality.
(if you can't complain about this kind of stuff on a website billing itself as "news for nerds", where can you complain?)
But it just goes to show that carriers feel no need to compete. Most of us have no ability to choose the products we want from them, and with Uncle Sam's help, they can keep us from seeing how lame they really are.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(...assuming you can quantify the dynamic range and the associated bit depth of the signal)
My suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)
My suggestion to the FCC was for symmetrical bandwidth to be included in the definition. You can't really have cloud-based services, if you can't effectively move data to the cloud.
I'd personally also like to see a 10Mb/s lower bound. This is 2009 after all, and the telecoms have already been paid for 45Mb/s symmetrical bandwidth to everyone.
Re:My suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
The telecoms were given $200B in financial incentives in the 1990s to provide symmetrical 45Mb/s bandwidth and universal service. Read this [newnetworks.com], or at PBS [pbs.org]. Or just Google it yourself.
Best broadband ever! (Score:4, Funny)
http://images.wolfgangsvault.com/images/catalog/detail/RS375-RS.jpg [wolfgangsvault.com]
VoIP and broadband (Score:3, Interesting)
AT&T said regulators should keep in mind that not all applications like voice over internet protocol (VoIP) or streaming video, that require faster speeds,
So AT&T says that VoIP requires "faster speeds". Even using G.711 (i.e., uncompressed toll-quality), and including the overhead of the other layers, VoIP requires only ~120kbps. The thing about VoIP is not that it requires high speed, but that it requires low latency.
Once upon a time the string "AT&T" stood for some kind of technical excellence. So, for that matter, did the string "FCC". Now I just want to go hide in a cave while they play their various spin games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T? GFY. (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T said regulators should keep in mind that not all applications like voice over internet protocol (VoIP) or streaming video, that require faster speeds, are necessarily needed by unserved Americans.
My mom, who lives less than a mile from a local telco's central office, can't get DSL because they don't care to install broadband-capable equipment in her neighborhood. She's just an ignorant rube who doesn't need all that fancy stuff, unlike the AT&T CEO who undoubtedly needs YouTube to download the daily neurosurgery lessons that fill his Renaissance mind, and who needs Skype to talk to his kids who can't afford telephone service.
Know what? Very, very few people need broadband to their house. However, I bet many people want to fully participate in modern society, but are missing the Internet revolution altogether because it's painful over dialup. To hell with Comcast and AT&T for presuming the right to decide which of their customers need certain services, largely basing such decisions on the customers' zip codes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes installing broadband capable equipment in the neighborhood is a lot more expensive and complex than it may seem.
I'm not a telco master, but I have a legitimately acquired SWB CO badge. I know exactly how expensive and complex it is. For the record, I'm guessing that her physical connection is pretty decent, judging by the fact that I can get a 53K dialup connection from her house. You don't normally max out a 56K modem over a pair gain.
Technical issues aside, my first complaint is that they didn't give infrastructure issues as the problem, but are claiming that there's not a need for this expansion. My second complai
"Fasterizer" (Score:5, Insightful)
An ISP in our area is advertising their Internet connection speed by claiming it is "Fasterizer". They hope that term will confuse the clueless into thinking that their .V92 or tier 1 DSL service is as fast as my 10Mb/s cable connection.
21st Century business is all about three things: lying, stealing and bribing Congress with campaign contributions to make those actions legal. I suspect that they are redefining decades old terms & understandings simply so they can justify a large increase it their rate structure for the same old service.
Fifteen years ago the cable and telcos bribed Congress into outlawing local communities from filling in the service gap the private sector was ignoring: a high speecd fiber optic internet connection that would be a public utility. After recieving $200M from Congress to "finish the job", they promptly pocketed the money and forgot the rest. Congress failed to include a non-performance penalty, so they had nothing to lose by just stealing the money. Had the telcos & cable companies had any ethics the average US internet connection would be 20Mb/s or more and costing less than $30/month. Can't build any multi-million dollar luxury homes in the Bahamas at those rates.
Re: (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:2)
In related news, 8th graders petitioned their principal to drop math from the list of required classes, complaining that "it's hard" and would cause an extra 3 hours of homework per week.
Note that if an actual free market for broadband existed, we would have true competition, allowing customers to choose the provider that provided the best pricing, speed, and feature set. It could be as easy as allowing municipalities to maintain large bundles of fiber through a city, exactly the same way they do with road
America has challenges these days (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody could expect us to keep up in education or communications with the prime movers of the Technology Universe, Japan and South Korea. It's just not realistic. We should be happy that our roads are paved and are children is learning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:America has challenges these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, America... whee. Moving into a Dark Age faster every year on every front and in every sector.
You guys have the world's most fucked up regulation of the private sector, largely because of the long-term failure of your political class. You can see this over and over; both the current healthcare problems and the "broadband" provision debacle are instances of the wider problem. Given that, is it any wonder that you're getting screwed over by your private sector's modern-day robber barons? And I suspect that fixing the problems will be a very painful process. But that's what happens when politics ends up in hoc to one very specific special interest group; the already rich and powerful. (By comparison, here in the UK we have a different problem: the bureaucracy is too powerful and too metropolitan.)
Interestingly, your current Administration looks to be the most inclined to fix these problems for a long time (at least since the Carter era, and possibly longer; I'm not that good on US domestic history that far back). Pity that Congress doesn't look to be aligned here, so things are unlikely to move much.
News in comparison (Score:5, Informative)
They've also changed the minimum package from 2 to 5mbit, bumped up the non-fibre/vdsl package to 15mbit and drastically increased the minimum guaranteed bandwidth to 1mbit for the 5mbit connection and to 5mbit for the 15mbit connection.
Personally, I pay 50 EUR / mo for IPTV and 33mbit VDSL. I do not consider anything below 8mbit "broadband" these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, we have internet infrastructure that is 20+ years old, that is "good enough" for most people. There is little incentive to roll out better broadband (though this is changing, as the use of bandwidth has changed).
Yes, your speeds are good. This is largely because T-online (and Deutsche Telecom, their majority owners) were feeling the pressure from other ISPs in 2002-2004. Com
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Cologne, Germany, you can a get 100 Mb/s down and 10 Mb/s up FTTH DSL flat with a phone flat for 35€. With no connection fee, and the first three months are free too.
It's because it's their own fiber and network, so they don't have to pay the last mile etc.
I think that density is a major factor for new companies, and as this area here is one of the most dense in the Europe [wikipedia.org], it seems to work. (They're here since 1994 now.)
They are a company that is owned by the city. So you can call it "socialis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that's the same BS argument trotted out and destroyed every 5 mins. Fine, go by population density - why do major urban areas (NYC, LA etc) still have sucky internet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NYC has great internet.
Definition is irrelevant. (Score:2)
Whether broadband is defined as greater than 128 kpbs or 128 Gpbs makes little difference (ok, neglecting subsidies and such). Broadband is just a marketing term like low sodium or fuel efficient. It's the actual throughput of the service that counts. For example, I'd take 100 mpbs labeled as "slow" over 2 mbps broadband any day.
What is really needed is competition with a solid metric to compare services. For a metric, it should be something like the minimum throughput for 99% of customers 95% of the ti
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, for my applications latency is a larger concern. I could get by with a low latency 128kbps link, but a high latency one like Hughesnet would be useless. But that isn't something thats really talked about in marketing materials much.
We don't need no stinkin' infrastructure (Score:2, Interesting)
This allows the !@#$%&'s to scale back the amount of infrastructure they need to build out to serve their customers, while still charging everyone exorbitant prices for simple text messages and keep on making a killing for their shareholders. ??? Profit!
F'em.
New business model: (Score:2)
Create a new ISP with a *guaranteed* minimum bandwidth!
Offer it to *everyone*.
But detail everywhere and exactly, where the money you would have to pay to get it, would go!
Everything. Which material, which work, external contractors, taxes, etc.
You have that data in your business's database anyway. It's easily automatable.
Nearly everything of that ISP would be automated anyway. And client-owned too, in a way.
If you live in the swamp seas of east-ass-hicksville or Gaylord, KS, you will then have the choice to
That sickens me (Score:2)
Once again we see businesses seeking not to improve their quality of products and services, but to merely boost the appearance of the quality of their products and services by changing definitions.
We see it happening in food. We see it happening in data storage. We have been seeing this in ISPs already with their deceptive and even fraudulent use of the word "unlimited" to describe usage.
Isn't it about time we reign this behavior in with tighter laws regarding deceptive practices such as these? What does
More info (Score:5, Interesting)
Comcast wants the FCC to match OCED in defining broadband at 256kbps download. The FCC has previously defined broadband at 200kbps in either direction; in March 2009 they voted to change the lower limit to 768kbps and call the lowest tier "basic broadband". 200kbps to 768kbps is supposed to be called "first generation data". http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9898118-7.html [cnet.com]
The rollout of the new definition does not seem to be going well, as recent FCC documents are continuing to use old definitions. From september 2009: http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf [fcc.gov]
Wouldn't it have been easier. . . (Score:2)
To create a new term for the higher speed (768+), than to *re-define* an older term. Over the years, the only real definition I can come up with for how 'broadband' has been *used*, is, basically, anything faster than 56k dialup. If you want a 'marketing name' for something that meets specific technical values, why not come up with a new name, and start applying the new definition to the new name? That would be less confusing and more useful, IMHO.
No Need (Score:2)
I believe there is already a term for slow, crappy internet service. It's Comcastic!
Re:How small is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
BROADband?
The term's already been redefined. Breadth - despite popular misconception - has little or no direct bearing on network speed.
Sometimes unreliable, the Wikipedia entry on the term "Broadband" is fairly enlightening on the topic - particularly in defining both the term, and its various relative contexts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband [wikipedia.org]
Re:How small is it? (Score:5, Informative)
The term's already been redefined. Breadth - despite popular misconception - has little or no direct bearing on network speed.
You're confused. The term comes from the mathematical and engineering field called "Information Theory". The key result is called the "Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem", which relates the amount of information a certain amount of spectrum (band width) can carry.
Guess what: 2.4GHz signals can only carry so much information. DSL signals are band limited (that is, there is an upper bound on the frequencies at which DSL modems operate). So are cable modems.
Your link explains this much, so I am not sure why you're confused.
Comcast (Score:5, Interesting)
In most of New Mexico, comcast sells "high speed internet" as 6Mb/sec and above. they also sell 1Mb/sec internet. The funny thing is, that betwwen 6pm and 12pm, no one gets even 1Mb/sec sustained. So basically the term means " would you like to pay double for no extra speed?". Redefining it down makes sense to me since that is how it is now,
Re:How small is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
But he's right in spirit. True that larger frequency bands give you more of a particular type of capacity to work with (though it is definitely not the only factor that determines data rate, much less information rate), but broadband the way it's used today is just a marketing or political term. It probably sounds just technical enough to seem modern and hip while being generic enough that providers can throw it around at will. It might as well not mean anything at all now, which I guess is why they seem to be trying to attach some particular data rate to it. You could replace it with "fastiness" and have just as much technical relevance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2.4GHz signals can only carry so much information.
Says who? Seriously read up on what makes something broadband vs. what isn't. Hint: it has nothing to do with the frequency you are on...
I'll explain: The big advantage with using bandwidth around 13cm (where wifi devices live) is there is way more of it where as the lower in frequency you go there is far less. Example - the *entire* HF spectrum (30 mhz to 2 mhz) is only 28 MHz, where is the 13cm band alone is more than 150 MHz wide. Its the same reason they moved all the TV stations in the USA to UHF. They
Oh so I have it wrong then??? (Score:3, Funny)
I thought it was a group of overweight instrumentalists.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. That would be The Fat Boys. We're talking about *broadband.*
You know, like The Go-Gos.
Re:How small is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greetings and Salutations.
If we do nothing but whine about it, there will be no reason for the FCC to NOT bow to the desires of their corporate overlords. So...below is a quote of the comment I just sent to the FCC via their comment page:
http://esupport.fcc.gov/askfccapp/extapp/submitMsg.action?dept_id=bband
If the bureaucrats are slashdotted with comments against this, it MAY be enough to not only halt this foolish move, but, get them to RAISE the definition of broadband speed to something "reasonable".
I often wonder why it is that so many other countries can get much faster broadband speeds, at MUCH lower costs than Americans? It could not be because of corporations striving to such as much money out of our pockets for the shareholders, instead of trying to provide the best service possible at the lowest cost now could it?
regards
Dave Mundt
Greetings and Salutations.
I see that there is a push by some broadband providers to LOWER the definition to 1/3 of its current minimum, from 768 mb/s to 256 mb/s. I have to strongly urge that this action NOT be taken, but, rather, that the minimum broadband speed either be left alone, or, preferably raised to 1500 mb/s.
While it may be to the economic advantage of some of these companies to drop the lower limit, there is no benefit and several likely costs and downsides for the consumer. For example:
1) By lowering the minimum speed, it will allow the providers to change their rate structure, increasing the cost for "higher" broadband speeds - so what is an already high cost today will simply increase, likely causing many Americans to have to downgrade their service.
2) Over the past several years the Internet has changed radically in the content available to the browser. It has gone from websites being mainly unadorned text with a few, small pictures, to websites that are very content heavy with much hidden control information sent to the browser, allowing font changes, large images, animations, and other content-rich presentations.
3) The types of content available to the browser have also changed radically in the past few years. Such services as streaming audio and/or video, voice over IP, etc, have made the Internet a much more useful tool for the consumer. However, these technologies will not work at any acceptable level if the minimum broadband speed is dropped below its current levels.
4) Since consumer grade broadband service in the United States is, typically, a "best effort" service offered by the providers, even today there are many cases where the consumer is paying for 1500 mb/s service, but, in reality is receiving much slower speeds, sometimes as low as the 256 mb/s speed that the providers are pushing for. I am sure that, if this lower limit is allowed, then, consumers will quickly see their "broadband" speeds dropping down to the 50 mb/s area, which is no better than the dial-up speeds available with standard modems from the 1980s.
For these and other reasons, I would strongly urge the FCC to refuse to drop the lower communication rates defining broadband, and, instead, would urge that they be raised to the suggested 1500 mb/s.
respectfully
Dave Mundt
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you move instead of whining that nobody wants to serve your unprofitable market? Or do you think that the Government should take MY money and give it to someone else so YOU can have broadband?
Move to civilization or enjoy the benefits (fresh air, open skies, ability to play with firearms in the backyard, etc) of living where you currently are and deal with the fact that everything in life is a trade-off.
Re: (Score:2)