OH SHIT, SON! The FCC just redefined broadband to be 25Mbps and up. ISPs pissed as hell, Republicans - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47035259]Broadband as in wide bandwidth? No, you mean high data transmission speed. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Bandwidth.svg/542px-Bandwidth.svg.png[/IMG] This is bandwidth. It has nothing to do with your Internet speed. This is important. You are using the word wrong. [sp]Also, not being on fiber-optics since the early 2000's LOL[/sp][/QUOTE] Bandwidth [B][I]Broad[/I][/B]band, meaning "generally wide or spread across" bandwidths. You're actually just not understanding the term. As a computer science student, I can tell you this is legit term and has been forever. [QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47035442]But that still paints a false picture. There is no "width" in data transmission, only speed. Regardless of your connection, only one bit is sent at a time.[/QUOTE] What? The width is the range of frequencies.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;47036372]Nothing will change, it won't get faster, companies will just start saying stuff like "high speed internet" instead of "fast broadband internet".[/QUOTE] If that's the case, why are some of the ISP's bitching so much?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47036401]If that's the case, why are some of the ISP's bitching so much?[/QUOTE] Because they can. The average consumer will still refer to anything above dial up as "broadband" though, the same way that people refer to any tablet as an ipad.

[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47036177][img]http://ecomputernotes.com/images/Synchronous-Transmission.jpg[/img] This is what digital transmission looks like. The pipe analogy is misleading, because twice the "bandwith" doesn't mean more data is sent "at once" (like in a bigger water pipe), it's just the same bitstream being sent twice as fast.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand what an analogy is. Go back to your Ikea™ cave.

won't the dipshits at the ISP's just jack up the prices now?

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;47036915]won't the dipshits at the ISP's just jack up the prices now?[/QUOTE] Probably, and then they'll be giving the FCC all the more justification to slap them with Title II classification and implement price controls -- which the FCC will be fully entitled to do if it votes to reclassify them as service providers instead of content providers, which could occur as soon as the end of February. Besides, they jack prices up anyway, with or without FCC interference.

As nice as this sounds, the reality is I'll probably still be stuck with 1.5(1.3-ish in reality) Mbits down / 367 Kbits up for the foreseeable future. There is 0 incentive for AT&T to expand any in this area and as it is, no one else is allowed in my area.

[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47036177][img]http://ecomputernotes.com/images/Synchronous-Transmission.jpg[/img] This is what digital transmission looks like. The pipe analogy is misleading, because twice the "bandwith" doesn't mean more data is sent "at once" (like in a bigger water pipe), it's just the same bitstream being sent twice as fast.[/QUOTE] Even with wider pipe, not all water arrives at same time.

Haha get fucked ISP's and give me 25mbps upload speed

-snip

"only a tiny fraction of people use their service this way" And I suppose that means it's OK to screw them over?

[QUOTE=hydrated;47035657]the slowest speed my ISP still sells is 50 mbps anyway. there are still people on slower plans but if you buy a new plan today then it's 50 mbps or faster[/QUOTE] You don't see the problem, but it's still there. Object permanence. [editline]29th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47035442]But that still paints a false picture. There is no "width" in data transmission, only speed. Regardless of your connection, only one bit is sent at a time.[/QUOTE] You're literally arguing over the definition of bandwidth. What do you want us to do, send Webster an angry letter or something? [editline]29th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyberuben;47036023]You don't know what they are doing with your data, so I wouldn't say that. I for a fact think that it's very dangerous that Google is going to become bigger and bigger offering more and more services. If they keep going like this, it'll end up as a company that does virtually everything. Read the book 'The Circle' by Dave Eggers I am really not one of those people that care about Facebook changing their ToS that they can use your photos, in fact, I don't really care if Google has a lot of information about me, I've got nothing to hide, but, I still think it's dangerous if they keep growing.[/QUOTE] Google doesn't have [I]shit[/I] on Sony. Sony makes TVs, computers, game consoles, cameras, they own rights to music, and they even make fucking movies. Companies can be ubiquitous and still not pose too much of a threat.

Good on the FCC. Now let's just hope that it will stay this way and not make another U-turn. [QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47036257]Ultimately though, "bandwith" isn't being measured hertz, it's being measured in bits per second - transmission speed.[/QUOTE] Do you realise that you are only arguing semantics? Nobody cares about a literary definition.

[QUOTE=nagachief;47036982]As nice as this sounds, the reality is I'll probably still be stuck with 1.5(1.3-ish in reality) Mbits down / 367 Kbits up for the foreseeable future. There is 0 incentive for AT&T to expand any in this area and as it is, no one else is allowed in my area.[/QUOTE] Ayup. Sounds like you have the same tier of ATT DSL I have, in which case...yaeh. Neither of us is gonna see a speed hike, they'll just rename it and keep gouging the living fuck out of us for what amounts to shit-tier internet. Happily, once the FCC reclassifies them, we can just petition the FCC to kick them in the nuts over it. If enough of us do that...

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;47037104]You don't see the problem, but it's still there. Object permanence. [editline]29th January 2015[/editline] You're literally arguing over the definition of bandwidth. What do you want us to do, send Webster an angry letter or something? [editline]29th January 2015[/editline] Google doesn't have [I]shit[/I] on Sony. Sony makes TVs, computers, game consoles, cameras, they own rights to music, and they even make fucking movies. Companies can be ubiquitous and still not pose too much of a threat.[/QUOTE] Where am I talking about Sony? I'm saying that Google wants to be a mobile operator, ISP, creates devices, has a browser, has the most used OS on phones, has their own OS for on laptops, the list goes on. All I'm saying is that it's probably not good to have a company have share in all areas of business. No, they don't make TVs, but they do have Chromecast. They don't own the rights to music but they have YouTube where a lot of people upload their music, they don't have camera's but hardware like the Google Glass are definitely going to be used by a lot. All these things Google does pretty much puts them in a monopoly position, like, I wouldn't be surprised if they stored everything a certain user did. If they ever had the plan to go malicious, they have the tools to, because they have so many roots in society. Again, I'm not caring about them having my information or anything, but I'm saying that it's a potential threat and people don't really realise it. I'm serious, read the book I was talking about, I did, and I think it's quite a big eye opener. No tin foil hats, it's pretty much where reality is going right now.

[QUOTE=QUILTBAG;47035894]So what is your suggestion then? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious as to how people want to prevent monopolies.[/QUOTE] Offer the major ISP companies a cash payout up front from the federal government to upgrade the internet infrastructure significantly. They will accept the cash and then, as they have in the past, not actually follow through. Then we nationalize every fucking inch of any ISP that took the cash and allow ISP's to utilize the infrastructure for a relatively small fee or even nothing provided they update and maintain the network.

[QUOTE=Cyberuben;47037305]Where am I talking about Sony? I'm saying that Google wants to be a mobile operator, ISP, creates devices, has a browser, has the most used OS on phones, has their own OS for on laptops, the list goes on. All I'm saying is that it's probably not good to have a company have share in all areas of business. No, they don't make TVs, but they do have Chromecast. They don't own the rights to music but they have YouTube where a lot of people upload their music, they don't have camera's but hardware like the Google Glass are definitely going to be used by a lot. All these things Google does pretty much puts them in a monopoly position, like, I wouldn't be surprised if they stored everything a certain user did. If they ever had the plan to go malicious, they have the tools to, because they have so many roots in society. Again, I'm not caring about them having my information or anything, but I'm saying that it's a potential threat and people don't really realise it. I'm serious, read the book I was talking about, I did, and I think it's quite a big eye opener. No tin foil hats, it's pretty much where reality is going right now.[/QUOTE] Sorry if I came off a bit standoffish. I know what you mean with the whole "Google is collecting information from people and could potentially turn evil with it" thing, I was just pointing out that big doesn't always equal bad.

We should petition to give him a raise, just as positive reinforcement for him and all the other congressional shills. Obviously it won't match what they're receiving from lobbies and under the table stuff, but we should think of something to help encourage this "actually listening to what the people want" stuff.

[QUOTE=willer;47037612]We should petition to give him a raise, just as positive reinforcement for him and all the other congressional shills. Obviously it won't match what they're receiving from lobbies and under the table stuff, but we should think of something to help encourage this "actually listening to what the people want" stuff.[/QUOTE] Hell, why not just make a "give this magnificent bastard some money" kickstarter? It's the 21st century, we can take this into our own hands.

the republicunts with their times warner bribe money lmao

[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;47035382]Never. The very nature of how networks are implemented does not make this possible.[/QUOTE] Could you care to explain this more? I have studied networking, but still don't see what you meant by this. Sure limits in speed makes sense, but the amount of data? Why exactly? Here in Sweden, as you all know. We don't have any data limits on our non-mobile internet. Some might have some weird exceptions, like internet you get for free in a dorm. But those limits are usually very high. So, that is why I am curious to what you meant. Of course all networks has a max amount of data that can go through them at a time, but that doesn't regulate how much data is actually transferred, just the speed of said transfer. Though if a company has a weak back end, I can understand that they would want to restrict users' internet speed so there is less load, while they can get more money from people wanting to go over their data limit. About that, I would rather say that's nothing to do with the networks but rather the companies themselves that are the cause. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;47035466]I really hope Canada takes a good slice of that cake too. Our internet speeds are absolutely terrible compared to the rest of the 1st world countries.[/QUOTE] Especially on the upload side of things, where the DL/UL ratios are garbage. Most of the major Canuck ISPs adopting 3 as a minimum would be a great start in comparison to the .5 up I have with Shaw (with 15-20 the other way).

BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

[QUOTE=Levelog;47035391]On one hand this is great for anyone that cannot get 25mbps and needs it. On the other hand, this is fucking awful for any smaller or rural ISP. They will no longer be getting any gov't money like the big guys do because their infrastructure cannot support it, but they offer actual reasonable prices, or capless slow connections where only 4g 2gb limited connections would be offered otherwise. All these small ones will go out of business, and the giants will be all that is left. It's awesome, but it's not all good. The big ISP's have the capability in most areas to comply without any problem, so [B]this benefits the big guys in the long run.[/B][/QUOTE] We have a telecommunications co-op that's installing giga-bit connections in our small town of 50K~, and a company they own in a nearby town with only 20K~ is putting it in there as well. A town west of here that's even smaller still has fiber run to it. Here in New Mexico we have Albuquerque and Santa Fe, two cities which house almost half of this state's total population, and MY town is the first in the state to have 1Gbps internet, up AND down, for $75 a month. It's amazing what ISPs can do with those subsidies when they actually use it to improve their infrastructure like they're supposed to, ain't it? [editline]29th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47036257]Ultimately though, "bandwith" isn't being measured hertz, it's being measured in bits per second - transmission speed.[/QUOTE] Jesus roller-blading Christ, you're STILL going on about this. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47035685]So, this just changes the definition of "Broadband"? Can't they just invent a new marketing term for their expensive, shitty, slow internet access?[/QUOTE] "Browse the web with our pretty fast Not-Dialup internet service plan!"

Finally my country's government does something that makes me happy!

[QUOTE=Scot;47035302]Maybe a single person doesn't need 25mbps but a family of ~4 all using the internet at the same time certainly do. It's impossible for me to do anything on the internet when I'm at home (5mbps) without my brother bitching that he's trying to play LoL.[/QUOTE] You're in luck, I had 1.5mbps internet with a family of 3. We had buffering youtube videos most of the time.

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;47037892]You're in luck, I had 1.5mbps internet with a family of 3. We had buffering youtube videos most of the time.[/QUOTE] Same here, back when I lived outside of town. And the best part? It was wireless. I don't mean wireless as in "wireless router", I mean wireless as in "my modem is a cancer-inducing black box that talks to a tower 4+ miles away and is not a fan at all of wind (dust), heavy rain, snow, flocks of birds, clouds, or the after-school rush".

To be fair, with Comcast's bandwidth cap, you can only really use 980.6kb/s constant for each billing period*. You get 300GiB transfer each month, breaking that down is almost 1Mb/s constant use, you could also figure out peak and stuff. *This means almost nothing in actuality, most internet connections in DCs are based off 95th, or a flat XXXXMb/s connection with a cap of 5TB or something, so comparisons like this are extremely vague. Even the best fiber connections around here have a 1TiB "soft cap", so that's 4Mb/s constant, not a ton better. Traffic is expensive yo.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;47038789]To be fair, with Comcast's bandwidth cap, you can only really use 980.6kb/s constant for each billing period*. You get 300GiB transfer each month, breaking that down is almost 1Mb/s constant use, you could also figure out peak and stuff. *This means almost nothing in actuality, most internet connections in DCs are based off 95th, or a flat XXXXMb/s connection with a cap of 5TB or something, so comparisons like this are extremely vague. Even the best fiber connections around here have a 1TiB "soft cap", so that's 4Mb/s constant, not a ton better. Traffic is expensive yo.[/QUOTE] Yeah that shit's ridiculous. I had to switch to an ISP with worst customer service because they had no data caps.

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;47037892]You're in luck, I had 1.5mbps internet with a family of 3. We had buffering youtube videos most of the time.[/QUOTE] This is the main problem that I don't think has been mentioned. They're saying that you need 25mbps for ONE device streaming ONE video but that completely ignores the fact that the average family has probably 5+ devices online at any one time. I remember we used to pay $80/m for 25mbps back when I lived with my parents and if my mom was watching a YouTube video on her laptop then my ping in games would rise to 900+. [quote] the average number of devices per US Internet household has grown from 5.3 devices just three months ago to 5.7 today[/quote] [url]http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/03/18/npd-us-homes-now-hold-over-500m-internet-connected-devices-with-apps-at-an-average-of-5-7-per-household/[/url]