Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Officially Approves Change In the Definition of Broadband

Posted by timothy on from the seven-with-one-blow dept.

halfEvilTech writes As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of U.S. households without broadband access. Currently, 6.3 percent of U.S. households don't have access to broadband under the previous 4Mpbs/1Mbps threshold, while another 13.1 percent don't have access to broadband under the new 25Mbps downstream threshold.

59 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. What are the practical results of this? by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are the practical results of this?

    1. Re:What are the practical results of this? by zlives · · Score: 4, Interesting

      verizon can no longer milk the broadband tax incentive cow to quite the degree that it was.

    2. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Subsidies for deploying "broadband" to rural areas (like mine) are going to be yanked since they actually have to have some actual bandwidth now.

    3. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ISPs can no longer use false advertisement to try and trick ill-informed consumers (ie. grandma) into paying for garbage.

      Hopefully, the result would be that these companies would strive to do better to please their customers. Realistically, the result will be that these companies still know they own a government-sanctioned monopoly over their area(s) and make you pay for shitty service or get no service at all.

    4. Re:What are the practical results of this? by alen · · Score: 2

      Steam is faster along with xbox downloads. itunes and google play is hit and miss. some apps download fast others are like watching trees grow. same with streaming video on netflix and vudu. on vudu i've noticed older content is SLOW and cuts out a lot of times, most likely because it's not on a CDN

      not much considering that your speed is mostly dependent on the CDN that your content is being hosted on and it's relation to you.

    5. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope - instead it'll milk the (soon to be announced) 'broadband improvement initiative' tax incentive cow for all that's worth.

      Silly rabbit, corporate tax loopholes can be found wherever your lobbyists can dig them. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:What are the practical results of this? by firewrought · · Score: 2

      ISPs can no longer use false advertisement to try and trick ill-informed consumers (ie. grandma) into paying for garbage.

      Easily solved:

      BUY NOW!! Super-fast-ultra-speed internet** is available in your area!!

      **Up to 1Mbps or beyond!
      (And oh yeah, we'll still hijack DNS NXDomain responses, throttle Netflix/bittorrent, keep connectivity records, and spy on your traffic w/o a warrant.)

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    7. Re:What are the practical results of this? by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want them to be forced to provide you with high-speed Internet, then you need to support government regulation. This is the result of less regulation; they attempt to pick-and-choose to whom they provide service to maximize profit.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:What are the practical results of this? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instead of mindless cynicism, don't resign to it, and don't joke about it. Campaign to stop it.

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    9. Re:What are the practical results of this? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is why common carrier status should come in. Not providing good Internet to rural areas basically allows local providers to choose who wins and who loses when it comes to business. There are few businesses that can operate without good Internet connections now, and that number is sure to decrease.

    10. Re:What are the practical results of this? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you going to accomplish? Both parties in this country are bought and paid for by corporate interests so there's no way to change the status quo until that duopoly is broken up. And good luck getting Joe Sixpack to think beyond the bumper sticker slogans provided to him by the talking heads in the media (who are in the same pockets as the politicians).

    11. Re:What are the practical results of this? by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I can toss in $100. That and your $100 ought to totally destroy the $890,000,000 the Koch brothers have announced they are tossing in to the ring this election cycle. Though the money that large PACs like Verizon belongs to will match the Koch brothers, then our $200 will be hard pressed to compete.

    12. Re:What are the practical results of this? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are more than two parties. The trick is that you have to care about them at the local level first in order for them to become relevant at the national level later.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:What are the practical results of this? by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the propaganda network is very effective. A family member posted a false quote from Elizabeth Warren he got from FoxNews facebook page.
      I pointed out that this quote is false, she never said it. Ever. It is a quote from Joseph Stalin.
      All the Fox fans jumped on board swearing it is real, that Snopes is lying, and they heard her say it themselves.
      The quote remains false, yet this pack will go to the polls thinking one candidate is Stalin because Fox told them so.

    14. Re:What are the practical results of this? by nobuddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do the Libertarian crowd always claim that letting the already established huge companies have free reign will result in a more free market? It is mind boggling how utterly and willfully ignorant these folks are.

    15. Re:What are the practical results of this? by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative
      why does everyone always talk about the koch brothers when the facts are the dems get just as much money from their rich friends and their rich friends PACs?? Hell this past year, liberal PACs brought in even more money than the conservative PACs! http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

      In a reversal from 2012, liberal billionaires top the list of biggest super PAC donors with a little more than two weeks to go before Election Day. Three of the top five givers lean Democrat, while the king of unlimited money mountain — environmental crusader Tom Steyer of California — is lapping the competition, a Sunlight analysis finds.

      also note, neither kochs make the top 10 donor list

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    16. Re:What are the practical results of this? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Guess what, you're that Joe Sixpack. They've successfully convinced you that it's not worth the effort of trying.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    17. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Holi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Investors money my ass. Do you know how much tax payer money has been given to the telecoms for the very purpose of implementing broadband nationwide? We've already paid them and so far got very little in return. You want to keep government out of it then be prepared to keep paying more and getting less.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    18. Re:What are the practical results of this? by TWX · · Score: 2

      Why would anyone build-out Internet access to rural places at a loss if they weren't either provided with incentives or required to do so? The subsidy thing (ie, incentives) isn't working as well as it should, and I don't see ANY companies interested in doing it without mandates or incentives.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    19. Re:What are the practical results of this? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are two parties. Plus a few fringe groups that have no power and no way to leverage themselves into political power. You're kidding yourself if you think you can break through the corporate/media/political duopoly/oligarchy that is in power. All they have to do is keep the unwashed masses foaming at the mouth over social issues and they won't notice that they're being completely screwed over by the system. Hell, most people couldn't name their local representatives. Forget them doing enough research to see how their representatives actually vote on their behalf. The only thing the average person cares about is what their representatives tell them during the very well financed campaign. Just take a side (for or against) on gun control, abortion, and gay marriage and your constituency will either line up for you or against you (depending on the district). The average voter doesn't have any time to pay attention to 3rd parties (who are usually extremeists or way out past the outfield bleachers anyway). They care more about making sure the "wrong" candidate doesn't get elected by voting for the "lesser of two evils", not realizing that they're voting for someone who doesn't give two shits about them.

    20. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because thats how Republicans/Democrats crush third party political parties. They turn the message into one-line soundbites to lose the nuance and make them sound like absolute idiots.

      The Libertarian crowd claim that free reign will result in a more free market because they also bring up the fact that in most areas large companies have a monopoly BY LAW. You LITERALLY cannot compete in some areas because its ILLEGAL TO DO SO. THAT is what the Libertarian crowd tries to bring up. Big companies, small companies, wtf does it matter when the GOVERNMENT won't let them compete in the first place?

    21. Re:What are the practical results of this? by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      she just sounds like a crazy hippy whenever i hear her talk.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    22. Re:What are the practical results of this? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fully believe that this did (or at least could) happen in modern America.

      But sadly, the right doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of loony behavior. They tend to be more vocal and rabid right now but the left has it's share of BS flowing from their talking heads. Though to be fair, right now the only thing the left has to do to rally the troops is to point out how crazy the right is right now. There's plenty of material to work with.

      What I wouldn't give for a quality centrist party that's willing to compromise and work out policy that meets somewhere in the middle rather than having notthing but weird fringe parties who are way off to the edge in one extreme or another.

    23. Re:What are the practical results of this? by ganjadude · · Score: 2
      A guy named Tom Steyer should be the new most hated donor out there for how much hes spending on the election http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...

      Billionaire hedge fund operator and “green” energy magnate Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to help Democratic candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline and who favor “green” energy over fossil fuels. Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline. Go here, here, here, here, here and here for more information about how Steyer uses his political donations and consequent connections to enhance his already vast fortune.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    24. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Nite_Hawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My reading of the orignal author's point is that indvidiually most of us can buy very little influence with our contributions (Maybe $100 or so each), while extremely wealthy folks like the Koch Brothers can buy extraordinary influence with theirs. You're reply enitrely ignores that point and instead focuses on making this partisan (both sides do it! Liberals are even worse! etc). Ultimatly none of that matters in the long run. The important point is that a very small number of people in the world hold tremendous influence over the direction of the planet, and that power is becoming more and more concentrated (the top 0.01%'s share of the world's wealth has quadrupled in the last quarter century). Regardless if you think those folks are on your side of a particular issue, the truth is that ultimately they are all on their own side.

      This isn't a Conservative vs. Liberal issue, this is a society vs top 0.01% issue.

    25. Re:What are the practical results of this? by BaronAaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is only so much space on the utility polls and under the streets. The number of companies who are allowed to run network cable has to be limited. It's the same with electric, gas, and phone line. I don't see why people don't understand this. It's government enforced monopoly because it's the only practical way to do it.

      With common carrier regulation the companies that have the right to use PUBLIC lands for profit must lease their lines to other companies at a fair market value.

      The real solution to all of this is the government should build the infrastructure using tax dollars and then lease it to private companies. If I was Bush/Obama in 2008 during the economic crisis I would have used the bail out money to build a nationwide Internet service. Would have hired a lot of people for quite a few years and we'd be better off as a nation for it.

    26. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 2

      My area (30 minutes outside one of the 100 largest cities in the US) has two choices for wired internet:
      Time Warner Cable @ ~$50/month for 20/1 bandwidth (and massive throttling at times)
      Verizon DSL @ ~$45/month for 1.5m/512k bandwidth

      Time Warner increased speeds 3 years ago, but Verizon hasn't bothered to ever increase their speeds. However they do now offer 3G service in my area (woo) which offers fairly similar cellular speeds, though service is spotty and it's easy for your house to not get reception.

      I suggested 2 years ago though my community get together to create an alternative because business was leaving due to lack of connectivity. We had spent years complaining, but even that large city near us has few non-business connectivity options beyond those I listed above (though they have 4G cellular service). They just say "look even the big city doesn't have good options, these things take time!" When we tried to create a third option, both companies stood in our way by sending representatives to the city council and 'explaining' how our plan would hurt them ever rolling out increased service for us. The council turned us down. Without the help of city council we simply cannot roll our own option (cannot use any public land at all or even private land without individual consent). So we simply cannot roll out a third option. All of that is without the fact that in every other area I've heard of if we did start to lay lines got sued by the incumbents.

      They care about money and only money. Talking to them gets you nowhere because they no you only have them as options...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    27. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with "The dems raise as much money as republicans" is that, either way, the election becomes about the issues that moneyed donors care about - and almost nothing else. I believe Obama raised more money through smaller donations than Romney did, but even if not - he didn't appoint the Citizen's United faction to the SCOTUS.

      Money in politics is a problem - whether it favors one side or not. And it sure seems like the right wing of the SCOTUS thinks it favors their side - because political money is bribery as much as it's speech. And one-person-one-vote democracy doesn't work with one billionaire $100 million worth of speech vs 1 normal voter, 10 bucks.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    28. Re:What are the practical results of this? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      Both parties in this country are bought and paid for by corporate interests so there's no way to change the status quo

      Why do people always say this? Although both parties receive contributions from whoever wants to contribute, they most definitely don't behave the same. This FCC decision is a prime example: the two Republicans voted lock-step with the cable lobby, but the three Democrats had the balls to stand against it to at least try to drag the United States into the future. So, thank you, Democrats, thank you, particularly for calling out the industry's lobbying bullshit, testifying that 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up is just plenty, while at the same time telling consumers that same speed sucks and that we all should pay premium (not available in all areas) because ’25/25 is best for one to three devices at the same time, great for surfing, e-mail, online shopping and social networking, streaming two HD videos simultaneously. 50/50 is best for three to five devices at the same time, more speed for families or individuals with multiple Internet devices, stream up to five HD videos simultaneously.’

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    29. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only I had mod points...

      The closest any third party has come to a presidential election was Ross Perot, in 1993. He had a very well-oiled hype machine and a shitload of money, which is why he got as far as he did. Even after he began stumbling and his campaign imploded (hard), he still got 13% of the vote... pretty impressive by most standards of the modern era.

      On lower levels, Bernie Sanders (nominally a member of the Socialist party, but caucuses with the Democrats 99% of the time) is the only national candidate period to have made a national office since what, the 1950's?

      It's going to take a radical change in attitudes, a really rotten national situation overall, and an even more radical amount of disgust with the current system before folks wander off to vote for a third party. Even when some ideological icon does run on his own (e.g. Ralph Nader), you will see the immediate (and dishearteningly effective) rallying cry of the threatened major party (in Nader's case, the Democrat party immediately started screaming "OMG you'll split the vote and then they will win!")

      It'll take a lot to get a third party off the ground. Not impossible, but it'll take a lot to happen nonetheless.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    30. Re:What are the practical results of this? by MetricT · · Score: 2

      I'm lean moderately libertarian, but understand what a natural monopoly is. It's not libbys per se, more a Tea Party thing.

      Some people are so seduced by the simplicity, the elegance, of an ideology, that they never pause to consider whether it is actually *correct*. They don't want to let annoying things like facts mar the beauty of their True Beliefs.

      Having tried to teach them a few things, I have learned the hard way that they are paranoid, ignorant, and completely reject any information that doesn't conform to their beliefs.

      "97% of scientists believe man-made global warming is right."

      "See, it's not unanimous!!!!"

      "If 97% of doctors told you the mole on your cheek was malignant, wouldn't you get it removed?"

      "You're a liberal elitist."

      They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. As far as I can tell, they are mentally-challenged Terminators.

    31. Re:What are the practical results of this? by topology · · Score: 2

      Things would be more fluid if we changed our voting system. Instead of "pick 1 out of many" we should have approval voting or a ranked voting system. Pick 1 out of many always converges to a 2 party system when people vote out of fear that another party will get elected. Those that fear Republican rule vote Democrat. Those that fear Democrat rule vote Republican.

      Approval voting is the clearest method to understand. You vote "yeah/nay" on each option and the winner is the one with the greatest yeahs. This allows people to broaden their support of alternate parties while still getting to cast their fear-based vote. This is the only way that I see for the alternate parties to emerge without some significant scandal causing one of the current parties to implode.

    32. Re:What are the practical results of this? by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

      You know.... I'm politically active. I've spent time in my capital, which is a not insignificant drive away. I have my reps as contacts in my phone. I've spent a lot of time talking to my local state reps. I've seen the lobbyists walking around.

      The thing that gets to me is how LITTLE people talk to our reps. They WANT to hear from people. Everyone seems to have YOUR attitude, and frankly... All the problems that this country has are YOUR fault. To quote a famous man "All that evil needs to succeed are for good people to do nothing.".

      All day long, they talk to lobbyists. They don't get bribed, at least not outright. They do get paid for access... Lobbyists leave some money in the jar, and they'll get to sit down with the rep and say their peace. That pressure on our reps is constant, and the only thing that can counter is is for people to become politically active.

      Shit, it's not like there are a lack of problems to poke. If you really can't see any fixes for our political messes, get your ass off the couch and go fix one of the OTHER problems. I myself, and trying to get money out of politics. I sure could use the help. But you're just standing there, looking like a smug and useless asshole.

      I get it. I used to feel like you do. THAT'S HOW THEY WANT YOU TO FEEL so you don't DO anything. It's surprisingly easy to make the world a better place. You don't have to march in the streets for hours every week... You could simply vote with your dollar and try to buy only goods that are ethically made. It's not even that hard these days....

      So. Please. Come help us help YOU. :D

    33. Re:What are the practical results of this? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      How do you propose unions help workers without getting political? Scott Walker, NCLB, ALEC, Wal-Mart, right-to-be-fired laws, privatization, NAFTA...and that's off the top of my head. All political issues.

  2. Still not good enough. by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Swedes and South Koreans laugh at our puny attempts to catch up.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Still not good enough. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is true those countries are more compact, making economies of scale easier, BUT even well-populated areas of the US still have limited, unreliable, and gimmick-heavy choices. I'm one. Thus, population density is not the full reason. We are doing something wrong in the US.

      It looks and smells like oligopoly-based crony-capitalism controlling the strings, but you are welcome to present alternative explanations.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Still not good enough. by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ask these questions:

      How much competition is allowed for providing Internet access in any given US locale?

      Why can we not have municipalities plant/string and own the local fiber/cable/POTS lines, then rent them out to competing ISPs for residential access purposes (see also Utah's UTOPIA initiative)?

      Find the answers to those questions, and you'll find the root cause of the non-logistics problems that broadband faces in the US.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Still not good enough. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      It looks and smells like oligopoly-based crony-capitalism controlling the strings...

      All brought on by voters that won't kick out corrupt politicians. *We built this city.* Now we have to live with it or fix it. The choice is ours.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Still not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the things we're doing wrong, as has been discussed to death on Slashdot, is municipalities striking exclusive deals with a single cable and internet provider, preventing any competition from entering the market. Franchise fees are another example of what we're doing wrong; they're often prohibitively expensive and are effectively the same as an exclusive agreement. Other places limit access to utility poles to their one chosen, favored provider.

      Competition works. Lower prices, better products, happier consumers.

    5. Re:Still not good enough. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      What conservatives often fail to grasp is that "less government" and "more competition" are sometimes at odds. We need referees to enforce a competitive environment. It's too easy for big co's to buy away competition. We want them using their resources to make better & cheaper mousetraps, not to keep out other mousetrap makers.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Still not good enough. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you vote for people who promise to fight for your "freedom" by blocking "burdensome government regulations" that might someday prevent you from throttling off your customers once you form that telecommunications monopoly you've been dreaming of ever since your mom sent you to school wearing bread bags on your feet, then yeah, it is your fault.

    7. Re:Still not good enough. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      It really is due to municipalities and states in the US. South Korea is so far ahead because there's a bunch of choices - 4 major ISPs, plus 2 of their major cell operators are both rolling out LTE-A at 300mbps, which is entirely a viable option instead of the land-based ISPs. In the US, the federal government hasn't rectified the problem that states and local governments are causing with their exclusivity deals and blocks against municipal broadband, but it's not entering into those agreements for the locals either. The federal government is allowing the problem to persist, at least to some degree - I don't know how well they'd be able to argue for striking down local laws like this, even if there was a will to do it. Net neutrality is much easier for the federal government to get involved in than how states deploy the infrastructure.

    8. Re:Still not good enough. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or, you can realize that Broadband is as simple as building out a new Fiber infrastructure, replacing Cable, using the model I've suggested.

      Municipalities build out the infrastructure using one time Bond money, building a CO-LO facility and auction space to CONTENT and INTERNET providers. All last mile connections terminate in the CO-LO and a network technician processes connection requests from customers, "I want Time-Warner" or "I want Comcast", or "I want Google", who then patches customer to provider.

      The cable is not owned by any single vendor, and there is competition for customers individually. No need for any regulation, and market forces will lower costs to the end user. AND things like the Comcast/Netflix argument simply disappears.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Still not good enough. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Why do you think that being for expansion in one area means you're for expansion in all areas? Clearly, government needs to do more to promote competition in the ISP business, and just as clearly, government is overreaching with the TSA and spy agencies, which need to be more limited. It's no so simple to say "fuck big government" or "let's expand government", either of which is such an extraordinary simplification of the fact that it blows me away that people take either side seriously.

      BTW, people will hate the IRS regardless as to whether they grow, shrink, or just stay the same size, so they're pretty much irrelevant to whether you hate the size of government as long as it exists. Don't; forget, the early history of the US was rife with infighting over taxes.

    10. Re:Still not good enough. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      Is Google Fiber even allowed access to the utility poles used by AT&T and Comcast? I remember AT&T arguing successfully last year that Google is not legally "a telecom or cable provider" and preventing it from hanging fiber on the existing pole infrastructure.

  3. U-verse by darrellg1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AT&T is soooooo screwed.

  4. aw sum by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Now when I say my peak rates are less than 25% of broadband speed, maybe I can get some sympathy

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Re:That doesn't sound bad by zlives · · Score: 4, Informative

    problem is typically there is only one provider offering this, cable, utilities have been sitting on their asses enjoying govt subsidies at 4 mb/download without working to improve the speed. there is no competition in US, the home of the free market.

  6. What has the world come to ... by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... when the 3c509 is no longer considered broadband.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
  7. Re:That doesn't sound bad by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    One of the problems is that if ONE customer in the area gets broadband speeds, the whole area is classified as having broadband.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  8. US Robotics 56K by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 5, Funny

    This morning I had broadband. Now I don't. Thanks Obama!

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    1. Re:US Robotics 56K by andydouble07 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you like your broadband, you can keep it.

  9. Re:"Broadband" is a stupid name by Strider- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Broadband is a description of the technology, not of bandwidth.

    Well, to be pedantic, "Broadband" and "Bandwidth" are descriptors for how much spectrum a given signal occupies, and has very little to do with throughput. 802.11b occupies 6MHz of bandwidth to carry 11Mbps, while a QAM256 carrier on cable sends 36Mbps using 6MHz channels. Both of these are broadband, and both have the same bandwidth, but they have significantly different throughputs.

    The correct term would really be data rate, or throughput, or something along those lines.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  10. Re:That doesn't sound bad by Orestesx · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, if I get this right, 80% of the US Americans have at least 25MB/s download.

    No. 80% of Americans HAVE ACCCESS TO 25 Mb download. As in they have the option to subscribe to. They may not be able to afford it, or they may choose not to subscribe, or they may be choosing to subscribe to a lower tier.

  11. Re:Doesn't suddenly make your DSL faster by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't legislate technology.

    Ever read the National Electric Code ?

  12. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    What on earth does anyone need 25Mbps for

    Replace "25Mbps" with "640kb" and maybe you'll see why that was a stupid thing to say.

  13. you're a well populated area? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 3, Funny

    even well-populated areas of the US still have limited, unreliable, and gimmick-heavy choices. I'm one.

    you are?

  14. Does it pass the test? by KlomDark · · Score: 2

    It's not truly "high speed internet" until it can pass this test:

    http://messagebase.net/Home/Re...

  15. Re:That doesn't sound bad by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2

    Yes. I have the option to buy a 25BM/s line. The price is ridiculously high, however.

    Residents in my neighborhood shouldn't be considered as having broadband since just about no one pays that much for internet (except my one neighbor who works in IT from home, and he deducts it as a business expense).

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.