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.
and be grateful we let you buy it, consumer unit #15684132!
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I am not sure that this group of people has any business telling me what I need or don't need.
In the U.S. at least cable needs real competition in the broadband market. This is where the main oposition to growth is. We shouldn't be listening to them about anything at all.
It's too bad we live in a country almost entirely run by lobbyists...
The entrenched operators will spend whatever it takes to protect their monopolies; especially since bandwidth will be the real valuable commodity, not cable channels, as more services begin to offer content separate from a cable subscription. If real competition was introduced they will lose a lot of money and want to prevent that at all costs. The fear Google and local authorities who threaten their monopoly; and want to avoid any federal rules or laws that overturn local actions because it's easier (read cheaper) to influence local politicians than national ones.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Yes, 10gbps internet package
Not 1gbps, but 10gbps
http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
And America is still talking about 25mbps?
Seriously, these guys are total fart blossoms.
I cannot believe the things they are able to say out loud with a straight face.
25Mbps/3Mbps is barely even usable.
Every time I visit my folks in the US, who have 25Mbps/3Mbps I find it unbearably slow. They pay like 80bucks a month for that ridiculous "broadband" connection. 80Bucks!
Meanwhile, I may 48€ per month for 150/25Mbps. That includes TV and phone too.
Seriously, how the fuck can you guys stand it? Especially when ever tech company is pushing their stupid cloud services. How are going to use a cloud service with your ridiculous dialup speeds?
How are you going to watch HD Netflix? Let alone 4K. Forget about it.
Historically, things always get much, much worse before the 99% freaks out. Very seldom do the ruling class give up any power and improve the situation for the masses to relieve the pressure pot.
Just like the 99%, they also repeat the same mistakes over and over.
The state or state sanctioned telephone company is incentivized to offer better service and is severely penalized if they do not meet those requirements and/or the hardware wiring side is partially decoupled from the services side. In sweden most of these networks are municipal networks that provide fiber to the premises for a low monthly cost because a municipality can easily facilitate a long term non profit oriented recovery time for the expense of wiring everything. Then basically any provider who wants to offer service can using their lines, they just have to pay for their own uplinks and billing system.
We could achieve some of that model here in the states by decoupling the lines from the service, then regulating them like electrical or water utilities so that there is a base amount paid and a certain low but steady profit margin built in. It would also help tremendously if the state and local legislatures had the power or will to actually enforce the agreements set.
I'd love to see how fast Verizon could actually implement fiber in PA if they were told to get the ball moving or we foreclose on the lines that we paid for. 2.1 billion + 20 years of interest should be interesting clawback if they had the political will to enforce it.
What I find utterly insufferable about this 'argument'(if it rises to a level where you can call it that) is how badly it misses the point:
Netflix and a few friends say that 25/3 is needed because a household might be streaming multiple things while running a cloud backup and doing some skyping or something. Verizon et al. say that such usage is atypical, and therefore everyone can take the status quo and like it.
In both cases, the most important bit is being ignored: new uses for bandwidth are not going to emerge(or are going to be academic and deep-pocketed-corporate curiosities) unless there is at least some prospect of bandwidth being available. Does 'today's typical use case' need 25/3? Probably not; because it was developed under the constraints of a market where 25/3 is markedly above average, so anyone developing products and services is condemning themselves to a niche if they require very high bandwidth, especially upstream.
If just doing what you did last year, forever, was good enough, 'broadband' would still involve an acoustic coupler. Chicken/egg.
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...
"Normal cable companies don't need $100/month for Internet, consumer lobby says.
"The consumer lobby is opposed to a cable industry plan to keep sub-standard Internet server at or above $100/month. Cable companies do just fine with lower rates, the Internet Consumer Association wrote on SlashDot this morning. It wasn't that long ago that Internet access was available for one-fifth the rate, and the cost burden to the cable companies to provide service continues to drop as the Internet access piggy-backs on existing cable infrastructure, especially in the face of cable company promotion of so-called 'triple-play' products: television, telephone, and Internet.
"Notably, no party provides any justification for adopting increased tarriffs for providing service. All the companies provide bogus justifications for charges for service that go well beyond the 'current' and regular' amounts that were in place during the dial-up and DSL days."
(I wonder how the NCTA would respond to such an article, were one such as this parody were ever to appear in print)
1. The FCC should establish a "moving definition". Identify a set of peer countries and define U.S. "broadband" relative to some measure of those countries' broadband capability. Maybe "broadband" is "just faster than the slowest peer nation". Or maybe it's "the median among all peer nations". Etc. Revise the standard yearly according to the moving definition.
2. To what extent is Sweden's network access made cheaper by way of public subsidy? The amount of the subsidy should be included in the "price", even if it's less visible.
3. Not everybody streams HD video. If you don't stream HD video then 25/3 is more than adequate. I watch TV shows from Hulu on my laptop over a 6 Mbps DSL connection.
We all have a right to lobby Congress.
The trouble is, most of us do not have the money to hire professionals who have direct access to Congress people because they are ex-Congressmen or know people.
If you or I tried to see a Congressmen, assuming we could even get past security (terrorism yadda yadda yadda), we would get the assistant to the secretary of the assistant to the intern of the Congressmen's assistant. Upon which, we would be told some sort of canned speech about how the Congressmen takes everyone's point of view into consideration and will do what's best for all of his constituents - or some such bullshit.
You need money or some sort of grassroots movement that also gets votes.
See, that's where the Teaparty is an example of an effeective grassroots movement. They riled up a bunch of angry white old people and THEY VOTE.
Occupy Wall Street riled up some young people who DO NOT VOTE.
That is why Tea Party rallies do not get harassed by cops.
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
Oh, yes the "UG, why need sharp stone? Dull stone kills deer also, easier to make." argument.
If you don't want to be at a severe competitive disadvantage you need good telecommunication infrastructure. Wireless bandwidth is, for physical reasons, severely hampered, which means that fixed lines is the only way to provide it.
When it comes to the population density, you should note that Sweden has a considerably lower population density than most of the American states, yet much better telecommunication infrastructure. Northern Sweden has a population density of about 4 people per square km, yet good access to telecommunication services. It may cost a bit to roll out, but the alternative of being left behind technologically is much more expensive.
"...odds are much of the broadband infrastructure was either paid for or heavily subsidized with tax money."
Which is exactly how it was built in the US, too. The difference is that in Sweden, the government owns what it paid for and leases bandwidth to competing ISPs. The US government, after handing over billions in taxpayer money, simply handed the keys over to the monopolists and said "have fun, and oh by the way thanks for all of those campaign contributions!"
1200 baud should be enough for anyone.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
But according to the Heritage Foundation, Sweden isn't all that socialist because they have far less regulation. They just have higher taxes and poorer people. Granted, that was a manipulation of statistics, but I found the entire article rather hilarious.
I am trying to find this, but haven't had the luck.
Place something witty here
That just raises another issue - why are you services and utilities so unreliable in the US? Here in Iceland we get hurricane-force winds several times a year on average - I've had gusts over Cat 5 on my land. Winter isn't incredibly cold but is super wet (all precipitation forms), windy, and lasts a long time. Up at higher altitudes you get stuff like this (yes, those are guy wires... somewhere in that mass). I lived in the US for a long time and had an average of maybe two power outages a year from downed lines and such - sometimes lasting for long periods of time. I've never once had a power outage here that was anything more than a blown breaker in my place.
It's really amazing what you all put up with - your infrastructure standards are really low.
Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
The relevant law that the FCC is supposed to be carrying out is more specific than the general term "broadband". Rural areas tend to have slower connections, of course, and the FCC is supposed to measure which areas have usable service and which don't. The law says the FCC is supposed to measure whether areas have an option which:
enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice,
data, graphics, and video telecommunications
Voice: Broadcast AM radio is 25 Khz, which very roughly correlates to 25 Kbps. Copper phone lines (POTS) are 52 Kbps max. So most nay internet connection allows for "high-quality voice", given correct settings in the software.
Data: Faster is always better, but Google or Slashdot will load in 2 seconds on a 4 Mbps connection.
Graphics: Facebook recommends uploading at 1200x600 for "full size" display. Such an image will load full size in 1-2 seconds on a 512 Kbps connection.
Video: Netflix 1080p is 3 Mbps.
So it would seem that the standard the law requires them to use ends up meaning about 3-4 Mbps.
We'd all like faster internet, obviously. Te FCC isn't deciding how fast internet should be. It's deciding how fast is required to "enable high quality voice, data, graphics, and video". 1080p is high-quality video, and that's 3 Mbps.
Fine to have good bandwidth from an ISP hub (DSLAM or DOCSIS server) but what guarantees it is available?
I have noticed that during the Internet rush hours (mostly evenings 4-10pm, especially Sunday) that many providers underprovision their upward links. (I'm not hitting loaded servers.) I have only a 6/1 and often I cannot get 3/0.5 .
This will be a very local thing and depends on how much the ISP has [over]sold and your neighbors usage (both cable and DSL). YMMV.
Sometimes it's hilarious listening to those demanding changes in Federal, national standards in the US, who've clearly never travelled outside the coasts and/or packed, urban dorm living..
Here's the problem with that argument: even in cities where population is, most Americans still have crappy internet by modern standards. That's why you don't get to apply the "America is huge" argument to speeds, only to coverage. It's not surprising that many people who live in the sticks can't get cable or DSL, that happens because America is huge and our population is actually relatively distributed. But it is surprising that so many people who live in densely-packed regions still can't get even 25 Mbps, let alone the vastly higher speeds now available for a reasonable price in many nations which did not invent the internet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can pay $70.00/month for 1Gbps symmetric fiber...
I! Tego Arcana Dei.
It's amusing how the telecoms can, when addressing consumers, really stress how important and amazing it is to have legitimately high bandwidth (e.g. Comcast telling me that I need at least 50 mbits downstream if more than one person lives in my home) and yet, when addressing regulators, say that most people don't need more than 4 mbits. Not surprising, but amusing. Do they think that regulators don't see their ads?
The whole point is not that you get 50 bajillion exabits a picosecond to a single connection.
It's so your connection can accommodate multiple high-speed connections simultaneously.
You can pull down your Netflix movie while your son is watching YouTube, your daughter is downloading her courseware for next semester and your wife is downloading a new copy of Office she bought from the Microsoft store. All without interfering with one another.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Then explain why public transport in US cities (and outlying areas) can be so horrific, then? You can't claim "we so biiig!" when talking about cities, as they are directly comparable to those in Europe...
I used to have 15 Mbps, and downgraded to 6 Mbps to save money. Never noticed the difference. 3 Mbps would probably be fine too -- plenty good enough for 360p video. Not everybody wants HD. On the other hand, I do feel a huge difference compared to the 1 Mbps my parents have (can't really watch video with that). So I'd define broadband as being ~3 Mbps+.
Some consumers, of course, may benefit from more. Call it broadband HD or broadband+ or something. It's important not to obscure the more important distinction between those stuck on connections too slow for the modern internet and those with broadband.
This space intentionally left blank