

why60loss

Premium Member

join:2012-09-20 1 recommendation why60loss Premium Member Eat that Time warner cable The 57.99 "standard internet" tier is no longer broadband in many markets so eat that one TWC.



Oh and eat it all the crappy DSL providers as well.



swintec

Premium Member

join:2003-12-19

Alfred, ME 1 recommendation swintec Premium Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable said by why60loss: The 57.99 "standard internet" tier is no longer broadband in many markets so eat that one TWC. of course it is broadband. Broadband is a technology. Dial up was narrow band. Cable / dsl / etc is broadband. I dont really know why the ISPs would care one way or the other what the FCC says on this matter. Not like it stops the ISPs from offering whatever speed packages they want.



why60loss

Premium Member

join:2012-09-20 why60loss Premium Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable said by swintec: said by why60loss: The 57.99 "standard internet" tier is no longer broadband in many markets so eat that one TWC. of course it is broadband. Broadband is a technology. Dial up was narrow band. Cable / dsl / etc is broadband. I dont really know why the ISPs would care one way or the other what the FCC says on this matter. Not like it stops the ISPs from offering whatever speed packages they want.



I really think they should have said what could be classified as "high speed internet" than Broadband because the latter is a technology and the former is a term many ISP's use to sell internet packages to customer's. Well the customers seem to care, as even though I am for the Comcast buy out of Time warner cable. Customers are filling the FCC's mail box with complaints seem to point out many customers care about standards on the internet.I really think they should have said what could be classified as "high speed internet" than Broadband because the latter is a technology and the former is a term many ISP's use to sell internet packages to customer's.



buddahbless

join:2005-03-21

Premium buddahbless Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable I agree with you on that point. The FCC should have stated that anything under 25/4 should not be called or promoted as... High speed, Fast, blazing, Fiber , or, broadband. it should all be called for marketing and classification reasons Basic internet.



With that said... Sadly ATT would just change the name of Uverse to Basic ATT Internet and keep business and high prices going as usual.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest Anon Re: Eat that Time warner cable U-Verse is a solid brand name- the same as FiOS or Spectrum or Xfinity. They mean nothing.



As for the FCC having the power to decide what a company can promote- that is a little out of their creation and authority. That is the FTC- which again, needs to stay out of businesses.

wispalord

join:2007-09-20

Farmington, MO wispalord to swintec

Member to swintec

it will because if they do not meet the standards they will not get the same tax breaks and government money there used to so yes this is a big deal



swintec

Premium Member

join:2003-12-19

Alfred, ME swintec Premium Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable said by wispalord: it will because if they do not meet the standards they will not get the same tax breaks and government money there used to so yes this is a big deal What sort of subsidies do the cable companies get? Plus, the phone companies seem to be pushing to dump their wireline services anyway and letting them rot. Do they really care?



AC

@clearwire-wmx.net AC to swintec

Anon to swintec

Subsidies



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ ·Verizon FiOS

(Software) pfSense

Asus RT-AC68

Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to swintec

Member to swintec

they care for many reasons.

people who don't meet the speeds don't want to be called out for their slow speeds

The other providers who offer these speeds don't want their pathetic dsl "competitors" to not count as competitors, it shows how non competitive the market is now that so many users aren't counted in broadband competition studies.



I'm looking squarely at the comcast / Time warner merger.



swintec

Premium Member

join:2003-12-19

Alfred, ME swintec Premium Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable said by MovieLover76: people who don't meet the speeds don't want to be called out for their slow speeds said by MovieLover76: it shows how non competitive the market is now that so many users aren't counted in broadband competition studies. Something tells me they really wont care. You either sign up with them or...you dont have internet.You needed the FCC to pull arbitrary numbers out of their ass to show you lack of competition? I could have told you that back when the numbers were set at less than 1 MBit.

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26

Springfield, MO TheRogueX Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable said by swintec: You either sign up with them or...you dont have internet. And the fact that those are your only choices (crap internet or nothing) highlights EXACTLY what this was meant to highlight - a lack of real competition.



swintec

Premium Member

join:2003-12-19

Alfred, ME 1 recommendation swintec Premium Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable said by TheRogueX: said by swintec: You either sign up with them or...you dont have internet. And the fact that those are your only choices (crap internet or nothing) highlights EXACTLY what this was meant to highlight - a lack of real competition. Didnt we know that even years ago?



rebus9

join:2002-03-26

Tampa Bay rebus9 to swintec

Member to swintec

said by swintec: of course it is broadband. Broadband is a technology. Dial up was narrow band. Cable / dsl / etc is broadband.



I totally agree with the FCC that 25/3 should be the minimum to be considered broadband.



3 Mbps is about as useful today, as dialup was 15 years ago.



You could surf the internet on dialup in 1999, but it was painful. Today you can surf at 3 Mbps but it's painful and via dialup is nearly impossible.



So our definition of narrowband has to change/adapt over time. If a connection cannot handle the tasks of the typical "connected" home running games, Netflix, etc., then it should NOT be considered broad band. Dialiup was narrowband not because of the technology, but because of bandwidth. Put in perspective, a T-1 was considered "really fast" when everyone was on dialup.I totally agree with the FCC that 25/3 should be the minimum to be consideredband.3 Mbps is about as useful today, as dialup was 15 years ago.You could surf the internet on dialup in 1999, but it was painful. Today you can surf at 3 Mbps but it's painful and via dialup is nearly impossible.So our definition ofband has to change/adapt over time. If a connection cannot handle the tasks of the typical "connected" home running games, Netflix, etc., then it should NOT be consideredband.



swintec

Premium Member

join:2003-12-19

Alfred, ME swintec Premium Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable said by rebus9: Dialiup was narrowband not because of the technology, but because of bandwidth.



I realize the ISP craze of the 90s shredded the actual meaning of the word to add their own twist but when you get down to it, the technical, underlying meaning does not change. Sure it is, yes the speed is slow, but that is because of a 4 kilohertz wide telephone line (narrowband). DSL, Cable, etc are broadband because the technology they use send it over multiple channels. You could have a DOCSIS 3 cable modem capped at dial up speeds in the config and it is still broadband in the technical sense.I realize the ISP craze of the 90s shredded the actual meaning of the word to add their own twist but when you get down to it, the technical, underlying meaning does not change.

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26

Springfield, MO TheRogueX Member Re: Eat that Time warner cable The 'technical, underlying meaning' is not what regular people know. The FCC is using the layman's definition, not the technical definition.



mickal

@bhn.net mickal to why60loss

Anon to why60loss

Re: 4Mbps or 3Mbps which one is it??? Article Subject needs to be fixed Thread Title says: 4Mbps upload and FCC news says 3Mbps upload. Which one is it?



Unbundled

But When ? ?

Premium Member

join:2010-09-13

Irving, TX Unbundled to why60loss

Premium Member to why60loss

Re: Eat that Time warner cable Their "lawyers" will figure out what to call "it". Doublespeak "is" Their Business !!



neill6705

join:2014-08-09 neill6705 Member What does this do exactly? So as long as they're offering 10mbps or more, they are still subsidized then? Does this do anything besides change the percent of Americans that have access to "broadband"?



Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? It makes the percentages more honest. 25mbps is a realistic minimum for the rest of this decade, unfortunately the ILECs and some Podunk cable companies fail to even meet that minimum in a majority of their territory.

pandora

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Outland 5 recommendations pandora Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? I think 25/3 is reasonable, but also think the FCC should define user connections to Internet as unmeasured / uncapped. If my ISP says I can get 100MB down, I should be able to do so all month long without any complaint.



AnonDude

@charter.com AnonDude Anon Re: What does this do exactly? said by pandora: I think 25/3 is reasonable, but also think the FCC should define user connections to Internet as unmeasured / uncapped. If my ISP says I can get 100MB down, I should be able to do so all month long without any complaint. And if everyone in your area tried to do that your connection would be slower than molasses in January IF you could get a working connection at all. A freeway might have a 60 MPH speed limit but guess what during rush hour no one is going 60 MPH. Your logic would be building 20 lanes so everyone could go 60 MPH all the time. Instead of just realizing there are sometimes you can't go 60 MPH and that the limit is just that the upper limit .

pandora

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Outland 2 recommendations pandora Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? said by AnonDude : said by pandora: I think 25/3 is reasonable, but also think the FCC should define user connections to Internet as unmeasured / uncapped. If my ISP says I can get 100MB down, I should be able to do so all month long without any complaint. And if everyone in your area tried to do that your connection would be slower than molasses in January IF you could get a working connection at all. A freeway might have a 60 MPH speed limit but guess what during rush hour no one is going 60 MPH. Your logic would be building 20 lanes so everyone could go 60 MPH all the time. Instead of just realizing there are sometimes you can't go 60 MPH and that the limit is just that the upper limit . Then ISP's should sell internet connections they guarantee speed on.

ndwbr

join:2003-07-10

Atlanta, GA ndwbr Member Re: What does this do exactly? Actually this analogy is flawed because the highway doesn't have an automated system that slows down cars when traffic becomes congested. TCP/IP does. Just because I should be able to use my crappy 6mbps DSL connection non-stop for 30 days (resulting in about 15 terabytes of data downloaded) does't mean I'm going to - but that's far more than the unreasonable monthly cap of 250 gb which is less than 2% of that 15 terabytes!

elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 to pandora

Member to pandora

I know the nature of docsis today or xsl makes the upload biased, but 4 Mbps SUCKS if you are using any cloud service, and if anything those are becoming the norm. Between my cloud drives, VPN, and crashplan I send a few hundred gig off prem every month. Do that with a 25/4 and that would never happen.



.

So I would argue that TWC in my area w/ 50/5 (top speed) (not a maxx) is beyond pathetic for cloud services even though it would be considered "broadband" under the new definition and certainly will not take us through the end of the decade.



And I know its possible because my parents had VDSL from TS at 25/10 for a little over $40 (CAD).

devolved

join:2012-07-11

Rapid City, SD devolved to pandora

Member to pandora

Since when is it the FCC's business to tell an ISP how it's supposed to run it's day to day operation?

AmericanMan

Premium Member

join:2013-12-28

united state 2 recommendations AmericanMan Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? Since those same ISPs got all up in the government's business by using their pocket Congressfolk to write laws keeping them profitable.



The way I see it, the ISPs started this fight, and (hopefully) the FCC intends to finish it.

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26

Springfield, MO TheRogueX to devolved

Member to devolved

The FCC is a regulator. That's what regulators do. Otherwise corporations do whatever they want, and that hurts competition and customers.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest Anon Re: What does this do exactly? No the FCC is not a regulator of the Internet. They never were. The Courts decided that the Internet is NOT a communications service and told the FCC they could not regulate the Internet. The FCC can try and regulate the Internet all they want but in the end will fail when you have all of these businesses starting to close up shop because they can't afford all the new requirements and fees/taxes the FCC plans on adding to them when they think they can turn the ISP industry into a utility. I know several that will close due to that. And those are small mom and pop shops that have under 10,000 customers with no other options.



The FCC also can't regulate the ISP industry as a utility since Congress has stated that the Internet can NOT be taxed- which is what the FCC is trying to do.

Mele20

Premium Member

join:2001-06-05

Hilo, HI Mele20 Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? said by KennyWest : The FCC also can't regulate the ISP industry as a utility since Congress has stated that the Internet can NOT be taxed



Of course, the FCC, if they have the guts, can regulate ISPs as a utility and while they are at it cell phones should also be regulated. Quit spouting crap. Your above claim is just one example. Internet has ALWAYS been taxed in the state of Hawaii.Of course, the FCC, if they have the guts, can regulate ISPs as a utility and while they are at it cell phones should also be regulated.



Red IT

@comcast.net Red IT to devolved

Anon to devolved

said by devolved: Since when is it the FCC's business to tell an ISP how it's supposed to run it's day to day operation? First of all because the ISPs are receiving government subsidies as well as using a government subsidized internet infrastructure. And second, like many companies, the industry is corrupt, and will take advantage of whatever they can to make a profit with low overhead while screwing the customer.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest Anon Re: What does this do exactly? What government money paid for the Internet backbone??? I don't see where Comcast nor TWC got any money to build their backbone. I don't see where RCN got any $$$ for their's either or even Charter or Cox, or Suddenlink. and 3rd- the FCC is corrupt as well. With your "Public Knowledge" and other "great consumer related groups" paying them off to get what they want as well. The customer is also free to be like every other small business owner- and create their own last mile network.



Camaro

Question everything

Premium Member

join:2008-04-05

Westfield, MA Camaro to pandora

Premium Member to pandora

said by pandora: Then ISP's should sell internet connections they guarantee speed on.



»www.connectutilities.com ··· 571.html Never going happen, ever. The amount of overhead alone to maintain a constant bare minimum speed 24/7 would probably jack our rates through the roof. Read the fine print my friend.



Cthen

Premium Member

join:2004-08-01

Detroit, MI Cthen to pandora

Premium Member to pandora

said by pandora: said by AnonDude : said by pandora: I think 25/3 is reasonable, but also think the FCC should define user connections to Internet as unmeasured / uncapped. If my ISP says I can get 100MB down, I should be able to do so all month long without any complaint. And if everyone in your area tried to do that your connection would be slower than molasses in January IF you could get a working connection at all. A freeway might have a 60 MPH speed limit but guess what during rush hour no one is going 60 MPH. Your logic would be building 20 lanes so everyone could go 60 MPH all the time. Instead of just realizing there are sometimes you can't go 60 MPH and that the limit is just that the upper limit . Then ISP's should sell internet connections they guarantee speed on. Why do all that when they have no consequences? Then again, what ISP do you know that sells connections based on that? Just because someone thinks they should doesn't mean they will. Again, there is no consequences to them for not doing so.



Killa200

Premium Member

join:2005-12-02

TN Killa200 to pandora

Premium Member to pandora

Most of them do, and news flash, the cost post Meg for dedicated is more than most consumers can afford, much less tell

tolerate.



Want 100mbit down all day, every day garunteed with no slow downs? Get a DIA circuit.

pandora

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Outland pandora Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? said by Killa200: Most of them do, and news flash, the cost post Meg for dedicated is more than most consumers can afford, much less tell

tolerate.



Want 100mbit down all day, every day garunteed with no slow downs? Get a DIA circuit. OR don't advertise a 100 mbit connection that isn't really allowed to be fully used.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest to pandora

Anon to pandora

They do, while the data is on THEIR network. They can not control each other's networks. And if you want a full SLA- then don't be cheap and pay for it.

pandora

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Outland pandora Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? said by KennyWest : They do, while the data is on THEIR network. They can not control each other's networks. And if you want a full SLA- then don't be cheap and pay for it. OR we could require honest speeds, measured by maximum sustainable rate per month in addition to burst speed. Focus has been on maximum burst, not on sustainable. I suspect our government could suggest both speeds be listed on any contract to inform consumers.



ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ ·Comcast XFINITY

3 recommendations ArrayList to AnonDude

Premium Member to AnonDude

said by AnonDude : And if everyone in your area tried to do that your connection would be slower than molasses in January That's not the customers problem. That would be the ISPs problem. They are overselling service.

mikesco8

join:2006-02-17

Southwick, MA 1 edit 2 recommendations mikesco8 Member Re: What does this do exactly? So you want the ISP to only offer you service based on a worst case scenario of all of the homes connected to a node downloading at max speed? I think you are being a little unrealistic. I would rather them allow me a faster max connection speed when others are not using it.

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? While the old systems have been made obsolete mainly because of streaming video the price would go through the roof if the system was built as if anybody was running full speed 24/7. The system should be designed to handle the load at the busiest time plus a little buffer. When that buffer is being hit on a regular basis then add more capacity.

mikesco8

join:2006-02-17

Southwick, MA mikesco8 to AnonDude

Member to AnonDude

I agree with you on some level, if during peak times there was some congestion that slowed things down, it would be understandable, but generally there does not seem to be a congestion problem and providers only seem to want to impose caps because of concern over their video market being competed against or due to trying to bring in additional revenue.

belldude

join:2000-04-26

Wichita, KS belldude to AnonDude

Member to AnonDude

My neighbor was getting his internet through cable because they talked about how much faster they are than DSL. Once he had it he found out he could only get close to the advertised speeds at 2 am or so. When your internet provider has you sharing your internet speed with everyone else in your neighborhood that has the same package, your speed is going to be substantially slower. That is exactly what cable companies do. The slower speeds most a getting through cable providers is due to the bandwidth being shared. DSL is not.



Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 18.2 1.6

Simba7 Member Re: What does this do exactly? said by belldude: That is exactly what cable companies do. The slower speeds most a getting through cable providers is due to the bandwidth being shared. DSL is not.



It gets worse at the head end if their backbone sucks. Truthfully, it all gets shared at the DSLAM or Node. If they're congested, it doesn't matter.It gets worse at the head end if their backbone sucks.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest to belldude

Anon to belldude

Talk about a true Bell Employee eh? All Internet is shared, FYI.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 to AnonDude

Member to AnonDude

You proposed an impossible hypothetical. Even the highest end "dedicated" bandwidth is not truly dedicated. They just make sure that the links never get congested.



Kind of like saying that we obviously need more police because if every person in the USA decided to start fighting each other all at the same time, we wouldn't have enough force to stop everyone.



It won't happen, it will always be a small subset at any given moment, and sometimes primarily the same people, but it doesn't matter because the average is low.



anonomeX

@comcast.net anonomeX to AnonDude

Anon to AnonDude

And if a freeway worked the same way as the Internet with cars and trucks functioning just like packets, then wishes would be horses. Networks just don't work the same way streets and highways do.



"100mbps? Why, I couldn't have been going more than 30mbps, Officer!" (Luckily, you didn't even need 20mbps to do what you were trying to do, so you never even noticed, not without doing a speed test.)

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26

Springfield, MO TheRogueX Member Re: What does this do exactly? Man, I WISH freeways worked like the internet! Traffic would be much better regulated.



neill6705

join:2014-08-09 neill6705 to AnonDude

Member to AnonDude

So what if everyone tries and blow through their caps at once? The network will still be congested, that's what. Caps don't do anything besides generate additional revenue for people who go over. If a network is experiencing network congestion, you either need to offer lower speeds to everyone or upgrade your infrastructure.



Also, your metaphor doesn't make any sense. If everyone went 60mph, there wouldn't be any congestion. It's the slow people causing the congestion.



cork1958

Cork

Premium Member

join:2000-02-26 cork1958 to AnonDude

Premium Member to AnonDude

said by AnonDude : And if everyone in your area tried to do that your connection would be slower than molasses in January IF you could get a working connection at all. A freeway might have a 60 MPH speed limit but guess what during rush hour no one is going 60 MPH. Your logic would be building 20 lanes so everyone could go 60 MPH all the time. Instead of just realizing there are sometimes you can't go 60 MPH and that the limit is just that the upper limit .



For a change, you may be right, BF69! Holy crap!For a change, you may be right, BF69!



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ ·Verizon FiOS

(Software) pfSense

Asus RT-AC68

Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to pandora

Member to pandora

they should address caps without a doubt, though I think their is an upper limit that does count as abuse, extremely heavy users need to be able to be reigned in, but that's is better accomplished by congestion based throttling of the heaviest users.

Renthal

join:2005-10-16

West Lafayette, IN Renthal to pandora

Member to pandora

said by pandora:

I think 25/3 is reasonable, but also think the FCC should define user connections to Internet as unmeasured / uncapped. If my ISP says I can get 100MB down, I should be able to do so all month long without any complaint.



You can...it's called a dedicated Internet connection and you will pay significantly more than you do now, not to mention the build out cost to get it to your premises.

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29

Arcadia, FL firedrakes to pandora

Member to pandora

lmao. fcc finale did some thing right.



SysOp

join:2001-04-18

Atlanta, GA SysOp to pandora

Member to pandora

...If my ISP says I can get 100MB down, I should be able to do so all month long...



Great news, you can!



It's just not free.



Signed,

The Entire Internet



Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 18.2 1.6

1 edit Simba7 Member Re: What does this do exactly? said by SysOp: It's just not free.



Signed,

The Entire Internet No one is saying that. No one has ever said that. We just don't want to get screwed over.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest to pandora

Anon to pandora

You still are getting 100MB download. And the FCC has no poower to regulate the Internet. And this new definition is nothing but all steam and smoke. Nobody in the actual industry that has an ISP pays any attention to the FCC as they know they can haul the FCC into court with a few other ISPs and get what they decided on tossed out just like everything else. The FCC is for Communications. NOT Information.

pandora

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Outland pandora Premium Member Re: What does this do exactly? said by KennyWest : You still are getting 100MB download. And the FCC has no poower to regulate the Internet. And this new definition is nothing but all steam and smoke. Nobody in the actual industry that has an ISP pays any attention to the FCC as they know they can haul the FCC into court with a few other ISPs and get what they decided on tossed out just like everything else. The FCC is for Communications. NOT Information.



Also we need to talk about not just raw speed, but caps. a 1 MB cap makes 25/3 Mbs meaningless imo. ISP's are granted an effective duopoly, then proceed to take what they can from users. DSL is the worst offender, but even average cable speeds and caps are ludicrous imo. When Thune tries to pass a bill which would give the FCC some authority, but deny the FCC tax authority, it's merrily denounced by Karl and his followers on this forum. The only support is for a reclassification which wouldn't solve most ISP abuses but would expose users to a slew of new taxes. It's not good imo.Also we need to talk about not just raw speed, but caps. a 1 MB cap makes 25/3 Mbs meaningless imo. ISP's are granted an effective duopoly, then proceed to take what they can from users. DSL is the worst offender, but even average cable speeds and caps are ludicrous imo.



OpTiC

Premium Member

join:2014-03-08

West Covina, CA OpTiC to pandora

Premium Member to pandora

Still have broadband 200/20



BronsCon

join:2003-10-24

Fairfield, CA BronsCon to pandora

Member to pandora

said by pandora: I think 25/3 is reasonable, but also think the FCC should define user connections to Internet as unmeasured / uncapped. If my ISP says I can get 100MB down, I should be able to do so all month long without any complaint.



Here's my math:

25mb / 8b = 3.125MB

60sec * 5 = 300sec

3.125 * 300 = 937.5MB



Basically, that would be a cap of 270GB per day at 25mbps. This is the physical limit, 25mbps * 60sec * 60min * 24hr / 8bits / 1000MB = 270GB. The 100GB cap from the ISP would be a "burst" cap, essentially 100GB of transmission in excess of 25mbps.



To expand on this, the FCC could mandate a minimum cap, something like 5GB for every mbps of burst capacity. For example, a 30mbps connection would have 5mbps of burst capacity and, thus, a 25GB cap while a 100mbps connection would have 75mbps of burst capacity, giving it a 375GB cap. Of course, the ISPs can always offer larger caps, be we know most won't.



Keeping in mind that the cap is only for data in excess of 25mbps across 5 minutes, so not the entire data stream over that time, just the portion in excess of 973.5MB for that 5 minute period, that means that every user would have an unmetered 25mbps (or the speed they're sold, if loser than 25mbps, which would not be broadband) connection with burst capacity. This is essentially what every mjor datacenter in the world does, and you don't see many complaints from *their* customers. Because it's a fair system.



Of course, that means the ISPs would have to build out infrastructure to ensure that each user can attain the at least the speed they're sold (or 25mbps) at all times, with bandwidth available for new customers and bursting. Essentially, speeds sold below 25mbps would become minimums and speeds sold in excess of 25mbps would be 25mbps connections with limited burst capacity up to the speed sold.



We'd be establishing a minimum acceptable speed on every line sold, something the industry *does not* want but desperately needs. Also, invalidate service contracts where the ISP isn't delivering the purchased minimum, and don't allow service contracts to lock a user into a specific burst allotment; if you opt for 25mbps or greater, you should be able to switch tiers at will, so long as you stay above that level (allowing you to drop to a 25mbps tier within your contract would be permissible, just not mandated). This is to prevent ISPs from selling a 100mbps burst service on a network only capable of providing, say, 50mbps, and contractually locking you into that tier by saying "well, you're getting the minimum". Mandate that tier switching should available be an automated, no questions asked, process, so customers can use the website, app, or AVR to switch tiers and avoid being hassled by customer service reps who have quotas to meet (I'm glaring at you right now, Comcast).



Grandfather existing services out of the "sold speed is a minimum" clause and we've eliminated 99% of consumer ISP complaints while still allowing speeds 25mbps to be sold, all without requiring price hikes. A 6mbps service, for example, would simply be relabeled as "1.5mbps (burstable to 6mbps)" and sold for the same rice; if the user wants a minimum, they buy that.



And remember, the ISPs can always offer *more* if they want. There wold be nothing stopping them from selling a 50mbps, 100mbps, or even faster, minimum. The market wouldn't change, really, but the marketing would become more honest. I think some hybrid of the two situations would be the most fair and sustainable. Take 5 minute averages, meter bandwidth used in excess of the FCC's definition of broadband, don't meter bandwidth used within that definition. That way, a 100GB cap would equate to 100GB of usage in excess of 937.5MB per 5 minute interval, a number that would follow the FCC's definition of broadband as the minimum speed increases or decreases over the coming years. When you reach that cap, you get throttled, just like most ISPs do today, except that you only get throttled down to the FCC's definition of broadband, not to some arbitrary and marginally useable speed that barely allows the ISP to say "hey, your line is connected and working, the speeds we sell you are *maximums*, not minimums".Here's my math:25mb / 8b = 3.125MB60sec * 5 = 300sec3.125 * 300 = 937.5MBBasically, that would be a cap of 270GB per day at 25mbps. This is the physical limit, 25mbps * 60sec * 60min * 24hr / 8bits / 1000MB = 270GB. The 100GB cap from the ISP would be a "burst" cap, essentially 100GB of transmission in excess of 25mbps.To expand on this, the FCC could mandate a minimum cap, something like 5GB for every mbps of burst capacity. For example, a 30mbps connection would have 5mbps of burst capacity and, thus, a 25GB cap while a 100mbps connection would have 75mbps of burst capacity, giving it a 375GB cap. Of course, the ISPs can always offer larger caps, be we know most won't.Keeping in mind that the cap is only for data in excess of 25mbps across 5 minutes, so not the entire data stream over that time, just the portion in excess of 973.5MB for that 5 minute period, that means that every user would have an unmetered 25mbps (or the speed they're sold, if loser than 25mbps, which would not be broadband) connection with burst capacity. This is essentially what every mjor datacenter in the world does, and you don't see many complaints from *their* customers. Because it's a fair system.Of course, that means the ISPs would have to build out infrastructure to ensure that each user can attain the at least the speed they're sold (or 25mbps) at all times, with bandwidth available for new customers and bursting. Essentially, speeds sold below 25mbps would become minimums and speeds sold in excess of 25mbps would be 25mbps connections with limited burst capacity up to the speed sold.We'd be establishing a minimum acceptable speed on every line sold, something the industry *does not* want but desperately needs. Also, invalidate service contracts where the ISP isn't delivering the purchased minimum, and don't allow service contracts to lock a user into a specific burst allotment; if you opt for 25mbps or greater, you should be able to switch tiers at will, so long as you stay above that level (allowing you to drop to a 25mbps tier within your contract would be permissible, just not mandated). This is to prevent ISPs from selling a 100mbps burst service on a network only capable of providing, say, 50mbps, and contractually locking you into that tier by saying "well, you're getting the minimum". Mandate that tier switching should available be an automated, no questions asked, process, so customers can use the website, app, or AVR to switch tiers and avoid being hassled by customer service reps who have quotas to meet (I'm glaring at you right now, Comcast).Grandfather existing services out of the "sold speed is a minimum" clause and we've eliminated 99% of consumer ISP complaints while still allowing speeds 25mbps to be sold, all without requiring price hikes. A 6mbps service, for example, would simply be relabeled as "1.5mbps (burstable to 6mbps)" and sold for the same rice; if the user wants a minimum, they buy that.And remember, the ISPs can always offer *more* if they want. There wold be nothing stopping them from selling a 50mbps, 100mbps, or even faster, minimum. The market wouldn't change, really, but the marketing would become more honest.

cmos100

join:2004-08-24

Lafayette, LA cmos100 to pandora

Member to pandora

If everyone had a dedicated fiber that might work, when you have a few hundred people sharing a node with 450 meg of downstream simple math shows that won't work, unless you want a guaranteed speed of 1.5 meg down.



ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ ArrayList to Zenit

Premium Member to Zenit

said by Zenit: 25mbps is a realistic minimum for the rest of this decade, Seriously?

masterbinky

join:2011-01-06

Carlsbad, NM masterbinky to neill6705

Member to neill6705

Besides being able to state that less than 25% of American households have the option of two broadband providers? That's kind of a big deal when the ISPs will be legally wrong saying much different in their statements when trying to hinder competition they saying is thriving.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to neill6705

Member to neill6705

said by neill6705: So as long as they're offering 10mbps or more, they are still subsidized then? Does this do anything besides change the percent of Americans that have access to "broadband"? From here on out every single major news organization will recite the same factoid over and over again: over 50% of Americans have only one choice of broadband provider. That may create the political pressure in the future for the government to act to solve the problem.



CableWins

@comcast.net CableWins to neill6705

Anon to neill6705

said by neill6705: So as long as they're offering 10mbps or more, they are still subsidized then? Does this do anything besides change the percent of Americans that have access to "broadband"? All it does is speed up how fast Verizon & AT&T abandon copper plant and DSL offerings. Cable may complain a little because they hate the FCC and regulation, but it will cement cable's control of last mile high speed wireline broadband in the US.

shmerl

join:2013-10-21 930.5 953.2

shmerl Member About teleportation quote: "Some people believe that we are on a path to interplanetary teleportation. Should we include the estimated bandwidth for that as well?," asked the troubled Commissioner. I don't mind teleportation. As soon as it will work, information with speeds faster than light will also work, so you'll get your instant Internet on Mars. I see no issues with it.



However until then, let's use what we already have instead of outdated technologies. I don't mind teleportation. As soon as it will work, information with speeds faster than light will also work, so you'll get your instant Internet on Mars. I see no issues with it.However until then, let's use what we already have instead of outdated technologies.

masterbinky

join:2011-01-06

Carlsbad, NM masterbinky Member Re: About teleportation Mind teleportation is the hardest part. On the other hand I do have a pair of devices that sends/recieves data instantaneously, the hard part is knowing from what time it's being sent from and receiving multiple messages at once. Honestly it looks an awful lot like noise, but I'm sure it's just that this is super popular in the future.

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26

Springfield, MO TheRogueX Member Re: About teleportation Eh, I'd rather not be digitized, sent as a stream of data, and rebuilt on the other side. Give me a point-to-point wormhole generator any day.



DarkenMoon

Premium Member

join:2013-11-14

Lebanon, IL DarkenMoon Premium Member Well Charter is barely broadband now. With their whole 4 mbps upload speed.



Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 18.2 1.6

Simba7 Member Re: Well Charter is barely broadband now. said by DarkenMoon: With their whole 4 mbps upload speed. Ya, tell me about it. We went from a 30/5 to a 30/4 (when Charter took over) to a 60/4. They could've at least bumped our upstream a bit.

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29

Eustis, FL Mr Matt Member Who pays? Right now I have 10 Down 768K up as backup at a pretty good price in a land Line LD Broadband bundle. I just spoke with a representative at CenturyLink and about another matter and was offered 20 MBps down and ? up using bonded pairs. It appears they cannot offer higher speeds at my location. To get 20 Down I have to purchase a new modem and pay for a house call. Will the new definition of broadband require CenturyLink to upgrade my Broadband service an if so who pays.



kenn10

join:2003-09-10

Kennesaw, GA 3 edits kenn10 Member Broadband Definition? Hmmmm.



AT&T Uverse is 24 meg down in most areas at its fastest.

Fairpoint....snicker

Frontier DSL is barely 6 MB in most areas.

Satellite Broadband is barely in the running at all.

4G LTE cannot sustain those speeds in many areas.



Looks like the Cable Companies, Google, and ILECs with Fiber-to-the-home are the only ones who have "broadband" now.



Perhaps they should modify the Federal funding for "broadband" so that the money can only be used in under served markets with fewer than two providers and the funding must be used exclusively to provide broadband service in those markets. We already know it is not profitable to provide broadband in rural and sparsely populated areas and the cost of satellite or mobile data service is too high for most.



I'm sure my Comcast bill will go up (again) next month as the only "Broadband" provider in my area.

mikesco8

join:2006-02-17

Southwick, MA mikesco8 Member Re: Broadband Definition? I am sure some will increase their speeds to meet the new definition. However you can bet that while Comcast and the other cable providers where against this since it exposes their lack of competition, I am sure you are right that they will be advertising their service as the only Broadband in town.

masterbinky

join:2011-01-06

Carlsbad, NM masterbinky Member Up to 25Mbps broadband! I wonder how this is going to play out when the footprint of what's physically possible (which is what they like to use instead use the real data) broadband internet service is significantly smaller than the internet service they can provide. Will they just say you can get internet up to broadband [dependent on location] in their advertisements?

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin Member Well Done I'm pretty darn pleased with Wheeler. I wonder if it's possible to appoint him to a 2nd term as FCC head? At the very least we need a Democrat to win the next presidential election so we don't suffer some horrible creature like Republican Ajit Pai as the FCC chief.



DeathK

Premium Member

join:2002-06-16

Cincinnati, OH DeathK Premium Member Waiting for the upgrade So my 10/2 FTTH connection is no longer considered broadband. I wonder how long it will take Cincinnati Bell to man up and increase their speeds accordingly?

bcltoys

join:2008-07-21 bcltoys Member Verizon and AT&T ? Do both Verizon and AT&T use subsities to keep their DSL lines up and running. If so that will just force their hands faster to dump DSL.

Craiger

join:2012-07-05

Chesterfield, MO Craiger Member When Will This Start? Does this mean all ISP's plans will have to start at 25 MBPS? If so I wonder how much that will cost and when will it start?



The Engineer

@scansafe.net The Engineer Anon Nobody markets "broadband" I have "AT&T Uverse High Speed Internet". I believe Comcast also markets their product as "Fast Internet", not "broadband".



If nobody is marketing their product as "broadband" (Google "Broadband" and see what ads you get) what's the big deal one way or the other?

big_e

join:2011-03-05 big_e Member 100 Mbps ethernet is about 20 years old The 25 Mbps ethernet broadband standard only uses about a quarter of the capacity of that. 10 Mbps ethernet dates back to the 1980s. A majority DSL subscribers can't even saturate that technology either. Setting a national broadband standard that can now finally saturate a network technology commonly used the LANs of the late 1980's really isn't much of a Star Trek moment.



bockbock

@hcs.net bockbock Anon Re: 100 Mbps ethernet is about 20 years old You are referring to 10/100 ethernet LANs. 100 mbps etherhet aka "Fast Ethernet", will not me "saturated" by a national broadband standard for quite a while. At least not in this country.



tschmidt

MVM

join:2000-11-12

Milford, NH ·Hollis Hosting

·FirstLight Fiber

·Republic Wireless

tschmidt to big_e

MVM to big_e

said by big_e: LANs of the late 1980's really isn't much of a Star Trek moment.



I think on balance gradually increasing the definition of broadband is reasonable.



/tom First-mile access speed is pretty much a chicken and egg phenomena. Until a substantial portion of the population has access to higher speed there is no economic justification for content providers to optimize for the higher speed.I think on balance gradually increasing the definition of broadband is reasonable./tom



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Uverse only 18 mbps So I will no longer have broadband on uverse with only 18 mbps and with actual speeds of 10 mbps.

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23

Mineral Wells, TX Cobra11M Member Suddenlink suddenlinks 15mbps down and 1.5 up is no longer defined as broadband also LOL, they will just call it something else



Mike

Mod

join:2000-09-17

Pittsburgh, PA Mike Mod Does it really matter? Let's see 100mbps is now broadband.



What's the big deal? Marketing monkey wrench?



PW091

@qwest.net PW091 Anon Nothing Has Changed for Consumers Problem from where I sit is that even with these new definitions is that of the two broadband provider choices I have in my area, to get these new definitions I would have to go with Comcast.



Great that there's now target, but that target isn't a requirement.

I can't go to my provider and say they owe me and increased 1 mbps upload and 1 mbps download for the same price.



This whole definition isn't about consumers, it's about politics and leverage over providers which to date hasn't worked well for consumers. I don't see how this will help lower bills and/or increase speeds.



From my view, nothing has changed for consumers...

Kuro

join:2014-10-01 Kuro Member Should go after the term High Speed Internet This is a good first step. What needs to be done now is define High Speed Internet.

mikesco8

join:2006-02-17

Southwick, MA mikesco8 Member Re: Should go after the term High Speed Internet I think what the providers market it as to consumers is inconsequential, this is more about what claims they make as to market saturation and competition. This ruling addresses that.

Kuro

join:2014-10-01 Kuro Member Re: Should go after the term High Speed Internet Like mentioned else where Broadband isn't what is sold but High Speed Internet which has a definition of greater than 64 K but less than 25 M. Kind of a large gap that I think should be addressed.



nointernetye

@myvzw.com nointernetye Anon broadband 5 miles outside of second largest city in Indiana, Fort Wayne, and I still can't get access to DSL, let alone broadband. What about us people? Will there ever be non satellite options?

NefCanuck

join:2007-06-26

Mississauga, ON NefCanuck Member The Definition of Broadband is changed by the FCC and ? What does that actually do I don't see anything in the FCC announcement that they are going to force providers to change what they call the service (they could call it "powered by unicorn farts and fairy dust" it is what it is)



Even if the FCC sought to stop companies calling what they deliver "Something other than Broadband" how exactly does this benefits the consumer?



Unless the FCC can use this to withhold funds to providers who refuse to upgrade or they spend money to create and alternative broadband provider in areas that don't have service that meets this definition what d o you have?



Lipstick, meet pig...



NefCanuck