Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Would Make Carriers Publish 4G Data Speeds

Posted by samzenpus on from the show-me-the-numbers dept.

GovTechGuy writes "A new bill from Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) would force wireless carriers to provide consumers with information on the minimum data speeds for their 4G networks at both the point of sale as well as on all billing materials. The bill would also task the FCC with compiling a Consumer Reports-style comparison of the 4G data speeds at the top ten wireless carriers so customers can view a side-by-side comparison."

15 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. What about latency? by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With AT&T's 3G, the latency is so bad that it feels far slower than the speed would imply. I think just publishing the speed is only a small part of the overall picture.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:What about latency? by rcpitt · · Score: 3, Interesting
      While you're talking about latency - take a look at Bufferbloat and the stuff pertaining to wireless networks in general and cell-data in particular.

      Much of today's cell tower equipment is installed with no queue management turned on - and 100% retry "forever" (or at least a long period of time, longer than the 2 seconds it takes TCP/IP sessions to decide a packet didn't get there and resend, causing cascading congestion) and loads of buffer space to the point where latency is measured in 10s of seconds in some cases.

      A carrier that actually takes advantage of the queue management built into the edge equipment can make their network faster and "feel" faster, and cut down on the actual amount of data they carry - but many (most?) don't have a clue.

      For those interested in diving deeper - take a look at the Bufferbloat mail list and for want of a better one, this post by Jonathan Morton that speaks of 3G

      --
      Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
      and didn't get it
  2. Easy Peasy by BBF_BBF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's completely useless, the minimum GUARANTEED transfer speed will the same for all carriers: 0 bits per second

    Stupid non-technical congresswoman doesn't realize that wireless connections can have dead spots, so claiming any more than 0 would be fraud. :rolleyes:

    1. Re:Easy Peasy by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2

      Psst, no company ever posts a minimum MPG on a car. None of them. Ever.

      They post averages. Those are useful. Maximum 4g speed for the phone would also be good because some phone companies (AT&T) label several phones 4g, even though some of them use slower protocols than others.

      The congresswoman is not reasonable. She doesn't understand the minimum, which she asked for, is useless.

      Average for an area would be good. Maximum would also be good to publish. Minimum is useless.

    2. Re:Easy Peasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anna Eshoo is probably more technically competent than you are legally competent.

      If you actually look at the proposed legislation, it defines minimum speed at follows:

      "The guaranteed minimum transmit and receive data rates for Internet protocol packets to and from on-network hosts for the service, expressed in megabits per second. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a minimum data rate is not guaranteed unless it is available for a percentage of the time in a calendar month to be established by the Commission."

      As you can see, the bill is only talking about rates for hosts on the network. If you are in a dead spot, you are not connected to the network and do not figure into the calculations.

  3. Explain this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why shouldn't this be regulated under the category of "fair business practice?"
    In California, some businesses are already certified through uniform weights and measurement requirements for their products.
    (bottom line, let the customer make an informed and accurate/measurable decision based on validated information, instead of hype)

    I'm sure the telco trolls will throw every lame excuse they can muster to discredit the intent of the proposed legislation.

  4. I'd rather see by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 2

    I'd rather see them have to include the bandwidth cap on the plan, paired with how much use at max speed per day this allows you. People should be able to see that 2GB = 64 MB / day = however quick that phone/4G plan can suck down 64MB

  5. Re:Area? by psiclops · · Score: 2

    And? Are you saying these companies don't have that info? Please...

    Yes they do, as does everyone, i'll tell you know, the minmum speed for all of them is 0.

    GP was correct in that the speed you actually recieve will be anywhere between there and their maximum speed depending on your device and coverage.

    --
    i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
  6. ok... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Sounds great! Why aren't WIRED carriers included?

  7. Re:Area? by i_b_don · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So fucking what?

    Do we also pay for listing the octane quantity on the sides of gas stations? Do we also pay for the calorie labels on the sides of food? The reporting of fuel economy of cars before you buy them? I'll take that cost any-day.

    I can't believe anyone would bitch and moan about this. This is an awesome idea. This is what regulation should be, forcing clear and equal reporting of information about a product so the customer can make the best informed decision possible.

    The only sad thing about this bill is that brilliance like this doesn't occur more often in politics.

    This is a great idea!

    d

    --
    all language nazi's will burne in heil!
  8. Re:Area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe anyone would bitch and moan about this. This is an awesome idea.

    it is any awesome idea but it's also not practical. speeds / latency vary by the tens of feet in cities, and depends on the weather, and how many trucks are parked around you. seriously, any sort of guarantee would be meaningless.

    don't get me wrong, of course service is completely sub par for many americans, but writing such a bill isn't going to magically quadruple the deployed mobile broadband hardware to a state where such a guarantee will mean something.

  9. Are there 10 carriers left? by krishkrish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are there 10 carriers left in a given market?

    If they would have not allowed the mega mergers no body would need such list. Competition would have made sure that they beat each other,

  10. Re:Area? by sjames · · Score: 2

    If there's not a government "hardship" for them to charge for, they'll just say there is anyway, so we might as well get something for it./

    If they weren't such rapacious lying weasels, they wouldn't have to deal with stuff like this.

  11. With current caps by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    You can exceed your limit on most any 'tiered' data plan pretty easily now, so does speed ratings really matter all that much?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  12. Re:Area? by jrumney · · Score: 2

    My guess is that what the politicians are really interested in is the contention rate - or the maximum download speed you can expect with a perfect signal at the busiest time of day. Minimum download speed is uninteresting, it not only depends on your distance from towers and the device you are using, but network congestion everywhere between you and your destination, so the only valid value that could be advertised is zero.