Slashdot Mirror
Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition
WheezyJoe writes Responding to the FCC's proposal to raise the definition of broadband from 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream to 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up, the lobby group known as the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) wrote in an FCC filing Thursday that 25Mbps/3Mbps isn't necessary for ordinary people. The lobby alleges that hypothetical use cases offered for showing the need for 25Mbps/3Mbps "dramatically exaggerate the amount of bandwidth needed by the typical broadband user", referring to parties in favor of the increase like Netflix and Public Knowledge. Verizon, for its part, is also lobbying against a faster broadband definition. Much of its territory is still stuck on DSL which is far less capable of 25Mbps/3Mbps speeds than cable technology.
The FCC presently defines broadband as 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up, a definition that hasn't changed since 2010. By comparison, people in Sweden can pay about $40 a month for 100/100 mbps, choosing between more than a dozen competing providers. The FCC is under mandate to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the commission must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition's speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws that restrict municipal broadband projects.
The FCC presently defines broadband as 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up, a definition that hasn't changed since 2010. By comparison, people in Sweden can pay about $40 a month for 100/100 mbps, choosing between more than a dozen competing providers. The FCC is under mandate to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the commission must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition's speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws that restrict municipal broadband projects.
Yes, 10gbps internet package
Not 1gbps, but 10gbps
http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
And America is still talking about 25mbps?
Ever since the Google Fiber roll out came here, Time Warner has been scrambling to lay down fiber. Their trucks and construction efforts are everywhere now. They are doing this without raising prices... because they can't in the face of competition. Time Warner could have rolled out Fiber over a decade ago, but why spare the expense when there is no competition? With Google coming out of left field, there is now market competition. That's it right there. We don't need an FCC mandate that explicitly defines broadband, we need mandates that create competition.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
25/3 is barely adequate now. It'll be pathetic in a few years when streaming 4k is the norm. And what's with the turtlesque uplink speeds? How are we supposed to "cloud" our lives at 3 megs?
There are some technical reasons that the telecom monopoly lobbying groups REALLY don't want broadband to be defined at high speeds. It rules out a wide range of very cheap technologies which can be used to claim that they do provide broadband. At 25/3 you need to offer at least ADSL2+M (ADSL2 won't cut it), DOCSIS systems will be severely limited in the number of subscribers, GPRS is out (you need to move to HSPA) and so on. Setting a very low limit for what is broadband is a perfect way to polish the numbers and make it look like good service is provided at very reasonable prices. We have sold refurbished telecommunication equipment to the US, which was no longer considered competitive in the northern European market, but was state of the art for many parts of the US.
While it is certainly nice to have a place to unload old equipment I don't think it is in the best interest of the USA to play catch up on infrastructure just to help a few telcom companies to keep their profit margins high...
This is a series of companies telling us that we don't need the best in the world, all the while we have our government leaders telling us that we are the best in the world.
Friedman talked about how our inter connectivity by the internet has pushed globalization to the forefront, and the US has lead because of this. Now that other countries are taking queue from the US, should our broadband providers become lax and accept the status quo, or should we demand to keep growing? I for one feel that we as a nation should demand more of our companies in order to promote growth, and if they feel the need to stop that growth, then they should be displaced. We have already started by cutting cables to the cable television companies because that no longer fits our needs. If we start to see markets stagnate, then we should have a right to ask them to keep growing. The internet has been key to the global dominance of the United States. Why prohibit our growth. Broadband providers companies, why do you hate America?
Place something witty here
Yeah, here in freaking Iceland most people have 50 or 100 Mbps fiber for a lot cheaper than that. And not just in the capitol region, it even runs out to Vestfirðir now where the largest city is under 3k people.
It makes no sense whatsoever that a hunk of rock just under the arctic circle, 3 1/2 hours plane flight to the nearest land mass with any sort of half-decent manufacturing infrastructure, consisting often unstable ground constantly bombarded by intense winds, ice, landslides, avalanches, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, etc, with the world's 2nd or 3rd lowest population density and heavy taxes on all imported goods, can do this while the US can't. What the heck, America? You've got half of the world's servers sitting right there, why the heck can't you manage to connect people to them?
Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
Well, they did manage to get POTS to everywhere.
At least, in Europe, coverage of at least 95% or more of the population are standard for licensing requirements even for mobile operators. Don't fulfill, and your billions in licensing fees go away and you loose your right to operate the network.
Nothing wrong in this, beyond that the operators don't like it.
You are a victim of American captive consumer mentality. Cable companies could all vanish tomorrow, and we'd still have broadband internet. It is not a factor of if you want cable, it is a factor of if you want broadband internet. Cable companies have made it that choice so low information people would support them (much like you do).
Cable TV will not exist in 10 years with any luck, thanks to the internet. Unfortunately, the cable industry would rather rip your internet away from you and forcefeed you their paid and advertised captive programming, and you are giving them just the ammo they need to do that.
Competition and/or expanding access would go alot further to bettering the internet than increasing the broadband definition.
Yes, but the FCC can't really do that even if they want to, not by themselves. Raising the definition of 'broadband' (heh heh) is something they can do, hilariously enough.
The fastest upload speed I can get is 768k so I guess by the FCC's definition I'm not
on broadband. Even this is not a huge problem. The only reason I wish I could do faster uploads is so that I can do online backups
but that's probably a niche market.
I don't think it is. Think about all the Android phone users who have backup turned on, but only on Wi-Fi. They're out shooting videos and taking pictures on their phones, and then these files are getting the cloud backup treatment. I think people are going to get used to this sort of thing in general if they get a chance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wrong, we can stream Netflix in 30-50mbps in Sweden. If you have the connection and equipment you get UHD for titles where available.
Good for you.
I'm in a major metropolitan area (Chicago) and the best I can do is a 6mbit/0.5mbit DSL connection AT&T.
And, worse, I couldn't call AT&T tomorrow because my current plan is grandfathered in at that speed!
They've artificially limited connection speed in my area to 3mbit/384kbit.
My only other choice is to get a DSL line from the company that controls my landlord's cable system. A crappy fly-by-night Satellite/DSL reseller called Suite Solutions.
The problem there? As mentioned, they're a reseller. So they're selling me the same shitty 3/384 connection and charging more.
The shitiest part? We HAD Comcast here, and our landlords tossed them out because the kickbacks to them weren't large enough.
You know it's pretty fucking bad when you're pining for Comcast, one of the worst companies in the world.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!