• Lower that bar!, GOP senators complain about broadband definition
    31 replies, posted
[quote] A year after the Federal Communications Commission changed the definition of broadband Internet to include only faster speeds, Republicans in Congress are still mad about the decision. Using the new broadband minimum speed of 25Mbps download and 3Mbps upload, the FCC's annual review of deployment this month said that broadband isn't being offered to about 34 million Americans. ISPs immediately criticized that assessment; yesterday their friends in Congress piled on. Six Republican Senators—Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Roger Wicker (R-Mich.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)—outlined their concerns in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler yesterday. (The Hill reported on the letter and posted a copy.) "We are concerned that this arbitrary 25/3 Mbps benchmark fails to accurately capture what most Americans consider broadband... Looking at the market for broadband applications, we are aware of few applications that require download speeds of 25Mbps," the senators wrote. "Netflix, for example, recommends a download speed of 5Mbps to receive high-definition streaming video, and Amazon recommends a speed of 3.5Mbps. In addition, according to the FCC's own data, the majority of Americans who can purchase 25Mbps service choose not to." GOP senators also pointed out that the FCC only requires Internet providers to supply 10Mbps/1Mbps speeds when they apply for government subsidies to boost Internet access in rural areas. The lower standard benefits ISPs, but Republican senators argued that the FCC shouldn't have a different definition of broadband for rural communities. "While we welcome any increase in broadband penetration in rural America, we would remind you that the FCC is tasked with implementing policies and procedures that advance universal service—ensuring that Americans have access to comparable service at comparable rates," the senators wrote. [url]http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/gop-senators-want-lower-internet-speeds-to-qualify-as-broadband/[/url] [/quote] well im not suprised but they're really being petty when they bring up government subsidies to build out internet and how they're using a lower threshold, i guess the FCC should raise those too, after all they've pointed it out well i'm not
the kicker is that "10 Mbps" is still code for "actually 3 Mbps on a good day and you'll never be able to get it fixed"
Oh ISPs, quit whining.
now while I agree the definition of broadband shouldn't be different depending on where you live (rural vs not rural), 5 mbps is not enough. that estimate from netflix is for one person streaming netflix, what if multiple people in a household stream? what about any sort of gaming, including even console or casual play? and of course the advent of 4k is mainly held back by internet speeds in the US. The lobbying is strong in this one, there really is no legitimate reason to roll back our definition of internet to a past era.
[QUOTE=da space core;49584811]now while I agree the definition of broadband shouldn't be different depending on where you live (rural vs not rural), 5 mbps is not enough. that estimate from netflix is for one person streaming netflix, what if multiple people in a household stream? what about any sort of gaming, including even console or casual play? and of course the advent of 4k is mainly held back by internet speeds in the US. The lobbying is strong in this one, there really is no legitimate reason to roll back our definition of internet to a past era.[/QUOTE] these are also the people who probably would sign onto a bill to change the laws of physics, don't understand how encryption works fundamentally, or even understand that snow doesn't disprove global warming
[QUOTE=da space core;49584811]now while I agree the definition of broadband shouldn't be different depending on where you live (rural vs not rural),[/QUOTE] It's harder to provide quality, faster internet connections to rural areas. The difference in definition (i.e. lower speeds in rural areas) allow providers to access subsidies for building connections in areas they could not provide the faster speeds at a reasonable cost, and thus would not otherwise build them. The definition makes a lot of sense. By providing a more accessible incentive to build a network its more likely that people in rural areas will not be left without an internet connection.
[quote]FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said people could wait to enjoy 4K television for a few more years, and warned that increasing standards could lead us down a slippery slope toward a definition of broadband that supported "interplanetary teleportation."[/quote]
[QUOTE=hogofwar;49584855][/QUOTE] To be fair, we do have Quantum Teleportation in the works that allows for wireless and instant information transfer.
If I lived in the US, I would be complaining about the definition as well; it's way too low for what's supposed to be the most advanced economy on Earth.
People complaining about a definition for broadband that is too "high", days after I get an email from my ISP saying they will upgrade my speed by 50% (and when testing the speed, it's actually what they said it would be).
[QUOTE=Luni;49584804]the kicker is that "10 Mbps" is still code for "actually 3 Mbps on a good day and you'll never be able to get it fixed"[/QUOTE] That usually is by design, and only makes sense. When you're connecting 10 users with a single fiber, and sell each user a 10Mbps line, you won't spec the fiber connection for 100Mbps. It will never happen that all 10 users use their connection 100%, and thus speccing it to handle 100Mbps is a waste of ressources.
[QUOTE=Reshy;49584947]To be fair, we do have Quantum Teleportation in the works that allows for wireless and instant information transfer.[/QUOTE] Instant data transfer is impossible, so I assume you mean closer to c than you get in fibre optics?
25mbps sounds fucking magical to me. On a good day, I can cap my download speed at .97 mbps, and upload usually caps at .05mbps.
There is no such thing as "too fast" when it comes to Internet speeds. The only reason congressmen say so is because they're told to do so by their lobbyists, which ignores the people that Congress is supposed to represent.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585030]Instant data transfer is impossible, so I assume you mean closer to c than you get in fibre optics?[/QUOTE] Look up quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation. We don't have a way to use it for practical communication.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49584958]If I lived in the US, I would be complaining about the definition as well; it's way too low for what's supposed to be the most advanced economy on Earth.[/QUOTE] but america is exceptional, so much so that we can't look at what anybody else does, because we're always better!
[QUOTE=AJ10017;49585359]Look up quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation. We don't have a way to use it for practical communication.[/QUOTE] Don't know about that, this March I'm gonna follow a course about exactly that [QUOTE=Course description]Quantum entanglement is the basic ressource for the future quantum relays or repeaters. The objective of this course is to acquire a thorough understanding of this concept from the theoretical definition to the practical implementation of entangled photons states, using non linear optics and to see how it can be used in various quantum communications devices.[/QUOTE]
The FCC redefined the term 'broadband' not because the country needs 25Mbps [I]right now[/I], but because America will need it soon. To be honest, 25Mbps is where it should already be right now, except for the last decade of the ISP monopoly holding back everyone so they can milk the machine for all it's got. If it were up to me I'd legalize setting fire to lobbyists.
[QUOTE=AJ10017;49585359]Look up quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation. We don't have a way to use it for practical communication.[/QUOTE] I know what quantum entanglement is, but it can't be used for faster than light communications because you can't transfer information faster than light, at least according to everything we know about physics right now.
Quantum entanglement does not violate causality because we have no way of influencing the outcome of the observation, and if we cannot change the observation no information is being transferred between the two particles faster than c. If we discover a way of controlling quantum entanglement, all sorts of things about our understanding of the universe break.
[QUOTE=DrDevil;49585026]That usually is by design, and only makes sense. When you're connecting 10 users with a single fiber, and sell each user a 10Mbps line, you won't spec the fiber connection for 100Mbps. It will never happen that all 10 users use their connection 100%, and thus speccing it to handle 100Mbps is a waste of ressources.[/QUOTE] It's by design but it's also a scummy tactic, if you sell me 10 of something I should expect the full 10, no matter what my neighbor is doing on the 10 you sold him
[QUOTE=zakedodead;49586245]It's by design but it's also a scummy tactic, if you sell me 10 of something I should expect the full 10, no matter what my neighbor is doing on the 10 you sold him[/QUOTE] How is it scummy? It's the only sensible thing to do. It's also the reason why they say that you get UP to 10mbps when you buy 10mbps. In germany for example they only have to guarantee half of the speed you actually buy. This is normal, just deal with it and expect the internet to be a bit slower on evening because everybody wants to use the line just the same way you want to.
Honestly at this point I've given up on seeing any real change in the ISPs, I will never see anything beyond 'slightly better than dial-up'. I truly feel the only real solution left is to use force as all other solutions have failed. If it gets any worse, collateral damage is acceptable.
[QUOTE=DrDevil;49586308]How is it scummy? It's the only sensible thing to do. It's also the reason why they say that you get UP to 10mbps when you buy 10mbps. In germany for example they only have to guarantee half of the speed you actually buy. This is normal, just deal with it and expect the internet to be a bit slower on evening because everybody wants to use the line just the same way you want to.[/QUOTE] The only sensible thing to do is to sell the honest product actually, there's like no other industry you would accept this shit from.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;49587009]The only sensible thing to do is to sell the honest product actually, there's like no other industry you would accept this shit from.[/QUOTE] There are tons of industries, if not all of them, that do this exact same thing. Take miles per gallon when buying a car. It's basically never what they say because it's "up to" that number. With that said, I've actually never a problem getting the full speed I pay for. At the moment I'm getting about 10% over my plan.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49587127]There are tons of industries, if not all of them, that do this exact same thing. Take miles per gallon when buying a car. It's basically never what they say because it's "up to" that number. With that said, I've actually never a problem getting the full speed I pay for. At the moment I'm getting about 10% over my plan.[/QUOTE] That's a poor comparison though because MPG is affected not only by conditions the manufacturer has control over (the vehicle's design and production quality) but also road conditions. An ISP knows how much bandwidth they have available to an area and they know how much bandwidth they have sold; it is purely their decision to oversell their lines. A better comparison is hosting providers for servers that host virtualized servers for several different people with a single physical server. And you know what, the provides that oversell are considered shit and avoided if you actually care about getting good service, because in that market consumers have a range of choices. Really, the problem with ISPs, at least in a lot of places in the US, is the lack of competition due to the high cost of providing infrastructure, which is why it needs to be regulated as a basic necessity in the same way power is. But you know, power is a great example of another basic necessity (undoubtedly far more important than internet mind) that is slowly going to shit, with infrastructure failures and an inability to service peak demand in some areas being increasingly common. I don't think many people would say brownouts should be acceptable as a daily occurrence at peak usage times, so why would it be for the internet?
IMO, one of the biggest problems is the general ignorance of the userbase. Most people I talk to wouldn't know if 10Mb/s was fast or slow, they wouldn't know what kind of speeds are needed for streaming, they wouldn't know what's a good deal and what isn't, etc. So they pay their bill and accept the excuses given by ISPs. There's a huge difference in how they treat you when you call up as an obviously knowledgeable person and when you call up having no idea what you're talking about. It's similar to a used car lot.
Seeing as how the entire world's revolving around the internet's function, I really don't see why there isn't an international organization for this. I believe the danish government financially supports our internet's development to the point where we've got public 500/500 Mbps compared to 4 Mbps across a 10 year span, but that's still only if you wanna fork over $100/month for the smallest package. Is there no way that a "use as much as you can" ISP could function? I mean hell with today's hardware one could cover an entire town in 100/100 Mbps connections using just a single 42U rack and a ton of fiber. It'd probably be cheaper to do than having to hire customer service for all the angry calls. An organization that could step in and lay down something more convenient is something I'd honestly pay $20/month just for knowing it existed and did good.
[QUOTE=DrDevil;49586308]How is it scummy? It's the only sensible thing to do. It's also the reason why they say that you get UP to 10mbps when you buy 10mbps. In germany for example they only have to guarantee half of the speed you actually buy. This is normal, just deal with it and expect the internet to be a bit slower on evening because everybody wants to use the line just the same way you want to.[/QUOTE] i sell you a car right, i say to you "it will go up to 150 mph!" then you find out that under the right circomstances you may reach 150 mph, but 99% of the time it won't, you'd go and get your money back
[QUOTE=Sableye;49587495]i sell you a car right, i say to you "it will go up to 150 mph!" then you find out that under the right circomstances you may reach 150 mph, but 99% of the time it won't, you'd go and get your money back[/QUOTE] It's more like if they sold you the car and also sold me the car
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.