

buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME 1 recommendation buzz_4_20 Member As Far As I'm Concerned The definition should be 10Mbps/10Mbps with a sub 100ms Latency.



The upload giving by providers right now is shameful.



The 1.5Mbps requirement is just a kick in the pants for DSL providers.

silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Hardly anyone would have broadband, with no reasonable way of getting it. What good would that do? The point is to have achievable thresholds. No telco would be able to provide that, even with Annex M, unless they have fiber or VDSL.



Heh213

join:2012-06-16 Heh213 Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned said by silbaco: Hardly anyone would have broadband, with no reasonable way of getting it. What good would that do? The point is to have achievable thresholds. No telco would be able to provide that, even with Annex M, unless they have fiber or VDSL.





I don't understand what the issue with setting goals higher, with the advancement of video and such that are getting more data hungry 3mbps doesn't seem as broad as it used to.



As far as latency is concerned I think it should me mentioned at the very least, it can often be more important than just raw speed. I still don't see how that would change anything, the service I have isn't "Broadband" under the current definition, but it still exists.I don't understand what the issue with setting goals higher, with the advancement of video and such that are getting more data hungry 3mbps doesn't seem as broad as it used to.As far as latency is concerned I think it should me mentioned at the very least, it can often be more important than just raw speed.

silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned There are some companies that strive to make sure all their subscribers have real broadband or compare their services to what is classified as broadband. If the definition of broadband is too high, they will stop taking the FCC seriously.

TCS

join:2013-03-26 TCS to silbaco

Member to silbaco

Everyone SHOULD have fiber. THAT is the point. It's blatantly obvious we're near the threshold of what we're ever going to get out of copper - it's not going to scale into the future. If an ISP takes subsidies they should be forced to use it for fiber or nothing. Fiber means 1gbit is a reality by simply upgrading hardware. More copper means we'll be continuing to waste money on aging infrastructure for the foreseeable future and will continue to fall farther and farther behind nations we're competing with in the global economy.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16 1 edit ITALIAN926 to buzz_4_20

Member to buzz_4_20

.. and what will your definition, or THEIRS do? Nothing, Nada, zip. The providers will still call it high-speed internet,because when compared to dial-up, it is.



How does anyone expect these companies to invest heavily into boosting speeds? Especially the MSOs when both legal and illegal video downloading is eating at their profits?



Who do I blame? Judge Harold H. Greene, because if we still had a regulated monopoly, and universal service, the state of internet service in this country would be 100X's better.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 1 recommendation Skippy25 Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned said by ITALIAN926: Judge Harold H. Greene, because if we still had a regulated monopoly, and universal service, the state of internet service in this country would be 100X's better. You are just so damn entertaining sometimes!



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned It would be 1Mb service and cost $500/mo.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16 ITALIAN926 Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Obviously you OR him cant seem to remember what REGULATED means. Obviously competition has done such a wonderful job, that we deal with this predicament, and headlines on a regular basis.



And I hate to break it to you, but this will NEVER change as long as the major internet providers also provide TV.



We once had the greatest, innovative telecommunications network in the world. Then came along Reagan and Judge Greene, and turned it to crap. $500 a month, yea ok. When were you born 1985?



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Yeah because monopoly means lower prices, lack of competition means lower prices and better service. Wow, proof crack doesn't smoke itself. Remember what telephone service used to cost? Remember what airline tickets used to cost? Sky high thanks to monopoly. Unlike you I remember 1985 and what competition brought. Lower prices, better service.



Go take a microeconomics class sport.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

NormanS to ITALIAN926

MVM to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926: Then came along Reagan and Judge Greene, and turned it to crap. $500 a month, yea ok. When were you born 1985?

It wasn't Judge Greene's fault that the original AT&T decided to consent to being broken up in exchange for being allowed access to markets forbidden under regulation. AT&T had the legal staff to fend off the breakup if they had wanted to.



WhyADuck

Premium Member

join:2003-03-05 WhyADuck to ITALIAN926

Premium Member to ITALIAN926

I was born in the 50's. No way in hell would I want the old AT&T back. I figure you probably owned AT&T stock, were very rich so you didn't have to worry about long distance costs or else could make long distance calls on someone else's dime, and lived in an urban or suburban area where AT&T service was fairly reliable. And for whatever reason, you somehow escaped the experience of AT&T billing you for calls you never made and then basically calling you a liar when you tried to get them taken off your bill. Maybe not all those, but probably most of them.



The breakup of AT&T was the best thing that ever happened to America. In fact I daresay that had AT&T not been broken up, the Internet as you know it would not exist, because the old AT&T would never have allowed people to connect modems to their phone lines unless AT&T was renting them out at some astronomical monthly charge. The only thing a customer could own and legally connect was the old acoustic model where you placed the phone handset inside foam cups, and those struggled to hold a 300 baud connection! I can't think of a company I have ever hated more than AT&T, and that's why it so shocked me when SBC bought the AT&T brand from the then-bankrupt original AT&T. Talk about a tarnished brand, at least with many people of my generation.



The only somewhat good thing you can say about them is that there was a time when AT&T labs was on the cutting edge of science. But I guess when you are gouging all your customers with exorbitant long distance charges and monthly phone rental fees (where the phone was paid for in about six months but the rent went on forever), and even charging extra for things like longer line cords or phones in attractive colors rather than basic black, you can afford to fritter some of that away on research and development. Of course they patented everything they developed, so that raked in even more money for them.



There is a reason people fled from AT&T like rats from a sinking ship when they finally had the chance, and actually realized they could (unfortunately, a lot of older people never really understood that they had choices). If you really think we were better off with the old AT&T, I'd get your affairs in order because it sounds like maybe you are pole-vaulting into senility!



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16 1 edit ITALIAN926 Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Youre right, AT&T took this country out of the technological stone-age by inventing the transistor, but the internet never wouldve existed down the road. sigh

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Don't forget Unix, the laser, and the C programming language.... all three of which are critical underpinnings of the modern internet.



Alas, the days of companies throwing money into R&D like AT&T did with Bell Labs are over. Bell Labs got money for bragging rights as much as for practical technology that could advance AT&T's bottom line.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX ·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation iansltx to buzz_4_20

Member to buzz_4_20

10/10 is nice...until you realize that that rules out anyone in an area served by a cable provider other than Comcast or Cablevision, pretty much...or served by short-loop VDSL2 by CenturyLink, or fiber by most providers. At that point you aren't giving money to rural areas to get them into this century anymore; you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category.



Don't get me wrong. I want 10 Mbps up. But CAF isn't the way to get me there (i'm in an apartment complex in Austin, TX for gosh sakes).



In contrast, 6M down, 1.5M up can be deployed via either single-pair Annex M or pair-bonded Annex A ADSL2+. The latter can cover a LOT of territory if things are set up correctly. 6/1.5 is also within reach for many wireless technologies. And cable providers have been able to hit 6/1.5 on 100% of their plant for years. That said, far from being an already-surpassed goal, plenty of areas nonetheless can't get 6/1.5 service, and would greatly benefit from having it; with that speed, you can watch HD Netflix and do tuff like online backup without tearing your hair out.



Put another way, let's get most of the US to a reliable 6/1.5. Then worry about the next step (12/3 anyone?).



coldmoon

Premium Member

join:2002-02-04

Fulton, NY coldmoon Premium Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned quote: ...you're putting half the US (maybe more) in the "not good enough" category. And this should be the goal. Shame on a massive scale with strong media bashing of the industry could push the providers to make the needed upgrades. It is NEVER a bad thing to reach for a higher goal... And this should be the goal. Shame on a massive scale with strong media bashing of the industry could push the providers to make the needed upgrades. It is NEVER a bad thing to reach for a higher goal...

iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX iansltx Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Except when you've got more urgent goals to spend taxpayer money on. Like getting everyone up to 6/1.5. We're talking about CAF here, not naming and shaming everyone other than FiOS and Comcast.

bt

join:2009-02-26

canada bt to coldmoon

Member to coldmoon

said by coldmoon: And this should be the goal. Shame on a massive scale with strong media bashing of the industry could push the providers to make the needed upgrades. It is NEVER a bad thing to reach for a higher goal...

The flaw here is you're assuming cable cos and telcos can feel shame.



buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME (Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition

Ruckus R310

buzz_4_20 to iansltx

Member to iansltx

If we're going to raise the bar and get some innovation or progress, why put it just out reach. Or within reach of already deployed technologies all we get is people stretching that extra inch to be within the definition, and progress slowly inches forward.



Why not strive for progress and to be better than the baseline.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX ·Time Warner Cable

iansltx Member Re: As Far As I'm Concerned Because it's better to make actual progress toward an incremental goal than to just sit there and have nothing happen. Telcos, who have phone lines everywhere, can't do 10/10 without being cost-prohibitive in many areas (they can't even do 10/10 in town in many places).

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul to iansltx

Member to iansltx

said by iansltx: In contrast, 6M down, 1.5M up can be deployed via either single-pair Annex M or pair-bonded Annex A ADSL2+. The latter can cover a LOT of territory if things are set up correctly. 6/1.5 is also within reach for many wireless technologies. And cable providers have been able to hit 6/1.5 on 100% of their plant for years. That said, far from being an already-surpassed goal, plenty of areas nonetheless can't get 6/1.5 service, and would greatly benefit from having it; with that speed, you can watch HD Netflix and do tuff like online backup without tearing your hair out.



Put another way, let's get most of the US to a reliable 6/1.5. Then worry about the next step (12/3 anyone?). The new American motto: "Good Enough!"

davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman to buzz_4_20

Premium Member to buzz_4_20

The situation would not be so bad if the telcos had upgraded their networks to use ADSL to its full potential of 8 Mbps down and 1Mbps up to every location that had POTS. The adding of the capability of ADSL2 and ADSL2+ would have been not so difficult after that. I know several people who would be happy, at least for several years, to have those ADSL speeds with no caps and reliable service.



OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27

Columbus, OH 1 recommendation OSUGoose Member If the ACA was in charge of setting MPG standards we'd still have 5MPG max cars. The FCC wants to raise the bar to spur progress yet the ACA wants to keep status quo so they can keep raping and pillaging the rural cable markets they represent MSO's of.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: If the ACA It is a pretty simple concept yet enough people seem to even rationalize having the bar set so low and not making any real progress.

nitros22

join:2004-11-03

Chicago, IL 1 recommendation nitros22 Member Pricing and speeds It needs to be changed regardless I don't understand how other countries have adsl that is faster in both downstream and uploads yet we can't do that in the us? Also they need to work on the pricing of broadband this is getting crazy!

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19 tanzam75 Member Re: Pricing and speeds said by nitros22: It needs to be changed regardless I don't understand how other countries have adsl that is faster in both downstream and uploads yet we can't do that in the us? Also they need to work on the pricing of broadband this is getting crazy!





Other countries also have newer networks. The French network dates mostly from the 1970s, when the government spent heavily to renew the telephone infrastructure. France went from having some of the worst telephones in Europe to having some of the best. Today, they can easily push 24 Mbps DSL over the telephone lines in small towns, because the wiring is very good.



(Around the same time, they also rolled out Minitel, began their high-speed rail system, converted their electricity grid to 80% nuclear power. The French believe in infrastructure spending.) Other countries have shorter loop lengths. This has two effects. First, shorter loop lengths mean higher speeds, as you stay on the left side of the DSL dropoff curve. Second, shorter loop lengths mean less wire to maintain, which means lower costs.Other countries also have newer networks. The French network dates mostly from the 1970s, when the government spent heavily to renew the telephone infrastructure. France went from having some of the worst telephones in Europe to having some of the best. Today, they can easily push 24 Mbps DSL over the telephone lines in small towns, because the wiring is very good.(Around the same time, they also rolled out Minitel, began their high-speed rail system, converted their electricity grid to 80% nuclear power. The French believe in infrastructure spending.)

nitros22

join:2004-11-03

Chicago, IL nitros22 Member Re: Pricing and speeds Thanks for the info that's interesting. Here is what I don't get Verizon spent the right money for fios and it's paying off. AT&T completely did a crap job and went with Fttc don't get me wrong I love my uverse but I worked for them and know what customers deal with why the hell can't they invest the money to do it right if they want to be ahead same as Verizon now stopping their expansion it's just stupid if u ask me.

i2Fuzzy

join:2009-02-25

Garland, TX i2Fuzzy Member Re: Pricing and speeds U-verse can suck it. I've got U-verse in a new neighborhood with FTTP, and the fastest AT&T can offer me is 18/1.5. I have to believe it's all marketing so they can tell everyone that U-verse is a fiber connection, not a mixture of FTTP and fancy DSL.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Pricing and speeds It is probably not the fastest they can offer you, it is the fastest they will offer you.

nitros22

join:2004-11-03

Chicago, IL nitros22 to i2Fuzzy

Member to i2Fuzzy

Yeah when I was working there I couldn't believe the Fttp customers got shafted in speed that just sucks I was pissed for our customers

silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco to i2Fuzzy

Premium Member to i2Fuzzy

A lot of fttp customers can now get 24/3 supposedly.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

NormanS to i2Fuzzy

MVM to i2Fuzzy

said by i2Fuzzy: U-verse can suck it. I've got U-verse in a new neighborhood with FTTP, and the fastest AT&T can offer me is 18/1.5. I have to believe it's all marketing so they can tell everyone that U-verse is a fiber connection, not a mixture of FTTP and fancy DSL.

AFAIK, AT&T FTTP is BPON fiber, not DSL. I believe they cap FTTP down to their FTTH speeds to avoid consumers ragging on them to deploy even more FTTP.

i2Fuzzy

join:2009-02-25

Garland, TX i2Fuzzy Member Re: Pricing and speeds I was referring to the copper customers as fancy DSL. Your belief about shafting us FTTP customers is exactly what I mean. It's ridiculous to have a full fiber connection and only able to get 18/1.5. I had to upload a 9.3 GB file the other day, and it took 20 hours. Ridiculous!

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to nitros22

Member to nitros22

Quick and short answer: There is no true competition in broadband.



You either have Cable which provides much better speeds or you have xDSL which provides much less speed in a vast majority of the country.



Wireless doesnt count, sorry you wisp shills, it just sucks and is hampered by bad caps and price.

bekfe10

join:2010-01-18

Dover, DE bekfe10 to nitros22

Member to nitros22

Because VZ and AT&T are walking away from DSL so that they can get FIOS down people's throat for an arm and a leg. It is all a monopoly game and they have good lobbyists to take care of their business everywhere.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

NormanS MVM Re: Pricing and speeds said by bekfe10: Because VZ and AT&T are walking away from DSL so that they can get FIOS down people's throat ...





FiOS© is a Verizon branded service delivered over FTTP. AT&T does not offer FiOS© anywhere. They do offer FTTP to ~5% of their customer base.FiOS© is a Verizon branded service delivered over FTTP.

Spiral JP

John Paul

Premium Member

join:2011-10-28

Nevada City, CA Spiral JP Premium Member California already has this threshold In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission set a 6 Mbps download / 1.5 Mbps upload definition of "broadband" in order for providers to receive 60% funding for new project deployment from the California Advanced Services Fund. That effectively made DSL-only areas in the state, eligible for funding. Not sure what the cable providers are whining about, since the funds would go into rural areas that they don't currently serve and have no plans to serve. Now the trade off, in California at least, was that AT&T and Verizon are "claiming" that their 4g/LTE networks provide those speeds in rural areas. Right.



toby

Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13

Seattle, WA toby Member Re: California already has this threshold Good point.



Probitas

@teksavvy.com Probitas Anon the real reason If it weren't for private investors, a lot of the profit could be instead deflected into upgrades, instead of swelling already wealthy coffers with more money in the form of dividends and stock options.



If a company in the black can't afford to upgrade services for customers, they are spending too much money on themselves. How else would they still be in business (ie, losing money all the time) unless someone is using it as a tax write-off?



There is no honest reason for any company not to want to compete with other companies, unless it's all about collusion and price fixing/gouging.

axus

join:2001-06-18

Washington, DC axus Member Re: the real reason In theory, it's not unreasonable to give tax credits to cable companies who already provide broadband, that are competing with recipients of government cash.



Giving that money to cable co's means less to spend in places where it's needed, though.



cypherstream

MVM

join:2004-12-02

Reading, PA cypherstream MVM I guess I don't have broadband then PTD.net in partnership with Service Electric Cablevision only provides me with 1mbps upstream in my 12/1 double play (phone & Internet). 1 Mbps is 500k short of the proposed new broadband served definition.



Thing is that they are more than able to provide more upstream. I have 3 bonded upstream channels, but they artificially rate limit the upload to 1mbps! Why limit it so much when the technology is not limiting it?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: I guess I don't have broadband then Being that it cost them virtually no more to give you line speed both ways (lets so 25/25mb) compared to limiting you to 12/1 none of it makes any sense. They simply create the marketing illusion that faster is worth more, thus they charge you more as you perceive it to be "worth" the cost.



kevinds

Premium Member

join:2003-05-01

Calgary, AB kevinds to cypherstream

Premium Member to cypherstream

Greed?



jtl999

join:2012-11-24

Vancouver BC jtl999 Member My definition 10/1 Good enough for HD video plus overhead.



Rural Rat

@qwest.net Rural Rat Anon What about the rest of us? What is needed is some sort of incentive (be it carrot or stick) to get broadband of any kind rolled out to rural America.



I live about 50 miles from the center of a major city, and about 20 miles or so from the nearest fully-served suburb. In that nearby suburb there are plenty of choices - cable, DSL, and WISP for fixed, plus "Wireless broadband" (cellular 3g/4g). I can get 20Mb on my cellphone in town. Out here, though, there's practically nothing. There's one small neighborhood where the phone company actually offers DSL - at a top speed of 1.5/.75 Mbit unless it's down. There's a small mom-and-pop WISP (actually based in another town about 100 miles away) that offers 1/.5 when it works. Outages are frequent and often last for days. One time, I kid you not, I called regarding an outage and was told that a radio on one of the towers took a lightning hit (understandable - it happens) and the technician's wife was having a baby so it wouldn't even be looked at for at least three days - that's how tiny this company is.



For mobile connectivity, on T-mobile there's only Edge, and it is either oversold or has undersized backhaul since all I can get out of it is about 30K (Edge should be able to do over 100K). Sprint has spotty coverage, but with an antenna and amplifier, I can get EVDO, but of course everyone knows Sprint's 3G is pitifully slow, usually under 500k (oversold?) unless you catch it at 3 or 4am. ATT is also edge-only out here, and the Verizon is EVDO but slower than Sprint.



That leaves the only option for real broadband in the boonies to be satellite. At least ViaSat's Exede actually offers decent speed if you are in one of the beams, but there is still the high cost, low allowances, and high ping times to endure.



When is more attention going to be paid to getting convenient and affordable broadband roled out to the rural markets? Perhaps instead of simply auctioning off spectrum to the highest bidder, dole it out contingent upon a carrier being required to use a portion of that spectrum to provide affordable rural broadband service.



wi flash

@wi.net wi flash Anon why subsidize any of these corporations? Small WIPS and Cable Cos spent their own money to deliver service. Yes there maybe service problems especially in hard to service areas; but at least they aren't feeding off of government welfare. Every rural line is subsidized by the taxpayers now. Why should these profitable companies be allowed to bleed us taxpayers dry?

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member time keeps on slippin... into the future... 2013 is slipping by..



50/50 should be definition by 2014. This would put AT&T and some other not to be mentioned names under water (and caught LYING and breaking promises-- some of which were legal documented merger/consolidation/divestature conditions-- to this date UNENFORCED!!!).. Let's not forget Telco & Cablecos got MILLIONS of dollars in subsidies from several states to not only keep their monopolies but on the promise that they would bring lower rates the faster service to the consumer... what a load of crap that ended up being..

decifal

join:2007-03-10

Bon Aqua, TN decifal Member like I like the latency requirement of 100ms and less.. Instantly rules out the ever so hated satellite coverage rule they all love to use during any mergers/drug deals with the government...



Forest_GS

@mindspring.com Forest_GS Anon excuses... Look at what google is doing with gigabit connections. If a new player can do that, why can't TWC or Comcast? The answer is pure greed.

ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02

San Jose, CA ConstantineM Member So, AT&T U-verse FTTP barely makes the broadband definition? The 6Mbps/1.5Mbps being the lowest "broadband" for legal purposes. I don't know what to think about it.



I used to have AT&T U-verse FTTP/FTTU in a brand-new apartment complex, which is easily capable of 75/35 speeds like those on Verizon FiOS, but instead AT&T tops it out at 18/1.5. Yes, 1.5. Yes, same as the "broadband" definition in these bills. And they still top FTTP to 18/1.5 in this day, 24/3 is only for FTTN/VDSL2.



Now, I'm by no means saying that 1.5Mbps is too high a standard, and that broadband should be defined lower, but, seriously, if you have roughly 50% of the US population that can hardly pass the 1.5Mbps upload broadband mark, and supposedly huge investments by AT&T move us so little ahead, then what's the whole point of the ordeal?



All these companies will take all this money, and give everyone 6/1.5 broadband. Who the hell needs 6/1.5? There should be provisions in these articles for real upgrades, for 100/100 @ 100$/mo, not for upgrading from under 6/1.5 to just barely over 6/1.5.



Heck, broadband should be defined at more like 20/10, and upgrades to affordable 1000/1000 is what should be getting the stimulus.

rconaway8

join:2005-11-10

Phoenix, AZ 1 edit rconaway8 Member Time to let the free-market take over and cut the subsidies



»www.muniwireless.com/201 ··· -worlds/ Actually, wireless technologies are improving so fast that the cable versus DSL argument may become moot. We have been delivering 10Mbps unlimited for the last year for as little as $18 per month in a suburban area. We are planning on 15Mbps by September but theoretically could do 20Mbps today if we needed to. Within a year, we will have the capacity to do 100Mbps to a house. Keep in mind that a truck roll to a house cost less than $250 in time and materials.