Slashdot Mirror
FCC Plan To Lower Broadband Standards Is Met With 'Mobile Only Challenge' (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Broadband consumer advocates have launched a "Mobile Only Challenge" to show U.S. regulators that cellular data should not be considered an adequate replacement for home Internet service. The awareness campaign comes as the Federal Communications Commission is considering a change to the standard it uses to judge whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. While FCC Chairman Ajit Pai hasn't released his final plan yet, the FCC may soon declare that America's broadband deployment problem is solved as long as everyone has access to either fast home Internet or cellular Internet service with download speeds of at least 10Mbps. That would be a change from current FCC policy, which says that everyone should have access to both mobile data and fast home Internet services such as fiber or cable.
"The FCC wants to lower broadband standards," organizers of the Mobile Only Challenge say on the campaign's website. "Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK." The Mobile Only Challenge was organized by Public Knowledge, Next Century Cities, New America's Open Technology Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), and other groups. Participants are encouraged to share their experiences using the #MobileOnly hashtag.
"The FCC wants to lower broadband standards," organizers of the Mobile Only Challenge say on the campaign's website. "Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK." The Mobile Only Challenge was organized by Public Knowledge, Next Century Cities, New America's Open Technology Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), and other groups. Participants are encouraged to share their experiences using the #MobileOnly hashtag.
Ummm, 10Mbps internet service isn't exactly slow. That's faster than my crappy AT&T DSL and I can still stream Netflix, etc. just fine even with another user in the home on the internet.
"The FCC wants to lower broadband standards,"
STANDARDS!! Not the speed. The standards will be lowered, as in having only Mobile available in an area will be considered serviced with high speed.
I'd live with fairly reliable 10M LTE for the near term. Some of my rural relatives would dance a jig if they could get it.
The problem comes in with reliability, pricing, and caps. 10/2 cable for $35 a month with effectively no use cap is a very, very different thing from 10/2 LTE for $80 a month that shuts you off at 20 GB (i.e., 4.5 hours of use per month). If you just focus on the 10/2, you are intentionally being blind to the real difference.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK."
And when the world doesn't come crashing to a halt, these synapse-starved activists will just prove the point that mobile is a perfectly viable alternative in most areas.
Funny, just last year, the standard to be met was 25 down / 3 up, and now it's going to be 10 down / 1 up. Sounds like 'down' rather than up to me, Mr. Fake News.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2678482-2016-BPR-Fact-Sheet.html
You have a point provided that mobile (cellular) high speed service has similar pricing and usage limits as broadband (cable) service. That is normally not the case however; cellular service is typically more expensive and capped at lower usage than cable.
People hate Ajit Pai for being a dishonest (and pompous) PRICK selling out the internet we all use for political payola for the GOP from Comcast/At*t. The cash giveaways by both ($1000, a pittance for working-class pauper drones) announced immediately as the GOP-advertised corporate tax giveaway was passed, THAT OUGHT TO TELL YOU WHO IS COORDINATING WITH WHOM AND WHY, HERE.
Gin hate, lol? People just want the internet to work the way it always has, unimpeded by toll lanes and arbitrary castle walls. You're an apologist counterpuncher for anything Bobbied. When do you get your brown shirt?
Perhaps I'm a simpleton, but isn't high-speed service, regardless of the means by which it is transmitted (copper, fiber, radio, whatever), still high speed service?
Depend on your definition of "service", do you include usage caps in that?
My household uses about 200GB/month of data.
I can useually get 10 - 20mbit/sec from LTE so it's good enough for streaming but at the same level of usage, I'd hit my 5GB usage cap after the first day.
So yeah, I'd have high speed service for one day, and 128kbit/second for the 29 days after that.
That's not what the article summary says, and that's not what anybody in these comments is claiming, so perhaps you should like work on your reading comprehension before calling other people gullible.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
It seems to me that the FCC has been lowering its standards ever since Ajit took over control. Nothing new here.
While I suspect it's true that most people use mobile devices primarily, I would love to see figures on how much they use on an LTE service versus over WiFi hotspots. My guess is that the data transfer distribution skews heavily towards WiFi.
I know very few people who constantly use their LTE data.
First, we propose to maintain the current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) for fixed broadband, and we also seek comment about other potential benchmarks.
We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10 Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced telecommunications capability?
25 mbps is for fixed broadband. This 10 mbps limit is for mobile broadband.
Nothing is getting lowered.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Heaven forbid anyone should reply with, like, actual facts...
From 2016 we have:
REF: FCC Fact Sheet: 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Chairman’s Draft, https://assets.documentcloud.o...
From 2017 under Ajit Pai we have:
REF: FCC THIRTEENTH SECTION 7 06 REPORT NOTICE OF INQUIRY, http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
Maybe I'm blind but I don't see anything in the second document about changing the benchmark speeds for fixed broadband services.
... when last year's FCC said it would be 25mbps, per Wheeler's 2016 draft progress report
That's for fixed broadband, it's the mobile broadband definition that is changing (though I haven't yet been able to find out what the current mobile speed is defined as). If you look at the actual FCC document, it clearly states that the fixed broadband definition should remain the same (at 25 down / 3 up)
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-re...
For 2015, 2016 and 2017, the speed of 25/1 is what they used as the definition of Broadband. The proposal is to lower this to 10/1 so that most cellular providers will meet the definition.
Try again next time.
That's not what the article summary says, and that's not what anybody in these comments is claiming
It's literally the article title, it's in the summary, and its on the activist website linked from the summary. I dunno how you missed it.
Yes, those people are gullible. They swallowed the fake news that standards are being lowered and are pushing that narrative themselves.
It is a false statement as that is not what is happening.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Yep. The Republicans are pushing this so that their crony ISP buddies don't have to build the "broadband" infrastructure that they promised to, and that they charged their customers for.
They are not proposing lowering the limit to 10/1. FIXED broadband will remain defined as 25/3. They are proposing changing the MOBILE broadband limits to 10/1.
In your 2016 doc, there was no defined limit for mobile broadband :
but finds that the current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile service.
AKA : they are actually RAISING the limit from none to 10.
How can you people link these documents and not even bother to read them ? Astounding.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Why bring second device on vacation or pay for hotel WiFi? E-mail, Photos, Netflix (which T-mobile currently includes), everything else works great. Can set up a hotspot if I need bigger screen/keyboard/etc. Using 1GB of data for 3 hours of emails/tweets seems insane, I had 500MB data pass stretch for a week on vacation. Sure, there is some convenience to faster/higher limit home WiFi, but we are talking about a costly government mandate here. Why prop up dying technology when gigabit LTE is around the corner? Also mandate is often for poor areas, and the poor can ill afford two plans and forced cable TV bundling by broadband companies. If you are living on modest means, best to stick to cell plan which you need anyway and make it stretch for all Internet needs.
And if they certify that mobile only is sufficient for the home, then the requirement of 25/3 becomes 10/1, because if you have 10/1 by mobile only, then all's fine.
It's a really bad shell game they're trying to play, and there's no amount of turd polishing you can do to sell it better, except to the ignorant.
Anything that pleases the president's ego is great, and if you can achieve it by merely redefining words, then it's even better. The FCC will make the USA great again without actually having to do anything!
So if I have a "fixed" connection that is 10/1--which would not be considered broadband--and this goes through, I now am considered to have broadband.
Sounds like the time I got AT&T upgraded me (for free!) from 3G to 4G. My connection wasn't any faster, but it now said "4G" on my phone instead of 3G.
And if they certify that mobile only is sufficient for the home, then the requirement of 25/3 becomes 10/1, because if you have 10/1 by mobile only, then all's fine.
It still won't change your cable/DSL/Fiber service. I don't think you understand quite what this applies to and what it'll change in your life.
AKA : nothing will change. Except people trying to sell MOBILE broadband will have to give you 10/1 service to call it mobile broadband.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Previous requirement for home internet was 25/3, because home internet meant fixed broadband.
Now the FCC wants to say that if you have Mobile of 10/1, even if you don't have 25/3, that is sufficient for home internet.
So you're arguing it's an increase because 10/1 is more than nothing, and those of us with common sense are arguing that 10/1 is less than 25/3, but with this new proposed rule change, 10/1 will now be considered 'acceptable', which previously required at least 25/3. You're arguing that because the method of delivery is changing, the new lower standard is not the same standard as the old standard, which is turd polishing.
Stop turd polishing.
The reason ISPs want 10/1 to be recognized as "broadband" is so they can ignore customers who don't have access to 25/3 fixed broadband while still claiming that they're being adequately served. While they're not changing the definition of fixed broadband, they are effectively lowering the standard by arguing that a mobile connection is a viable way to access the internet.
From Comcast's filing with the FCC:
Leaving aside that the 25/3 Mbps benchmark is an arbitrary cut-off as explained below, any factually-based analysis of the marketplace demonstrates that Americans already have access to a growing number of offerings over varied transmission media, including fixed wireless, satellite, and mobile wireless, which are increasingly capable of very fast speeds. More importantly, Dr. Evans’ analysis ignores the fact that speeds lower than 25/3 Mbps can and do meet the needs of many consumers. As Dr. Christian Dippon explains, “[f]or many people, 10 Mbps service, or even 3 Mbps, is more than adequate.”
They are explicitly stating that 10mbps down is "more than adequate" for consumers, and even go a step further by trying to argue that 3mbps down is somehow good enough. This is in direct response to the current 25/3 threshold for fixed broadband, which according to their own filing is only available to 76% of Americans as of mid-2016. If 10/1 is considered broadband, they can claim 100% broadband coverage.
The real gullible people are the ones who think that anything a big ISP says can be taken at face value. They're experts at playing mind games, and if you think standards aren't being lowered here, you're the one getting played.
25 mbps is for fixed broadband. This 10 mbps limit is for mobile broadband.
Nothing is getting lowered.
Nothing gets lowered except your data cap, and hence the utility of having broadband. No one on mobile uses bandwidth the same way as we use fixed bandwidth, because it is an order of magnitude more expensive. Even mobile plans that are "unlimited" have a soft cap that will see you throttled after a few tens of GB compared with hundreds for a typical cable cap.
They are explicitly stating that 10mbps down is "more than adequate" for consumers, and even go a step further by trying to argue that 3mbps down is somehow good enough
I'm pretty sure that's not what even your quote says. Different people = different needs.
If 10/1 is considered broadband, they can claim 100% broadband coverage.
Only from MOBILE sources. Not FIXED sources. You'll never have 100% FIXED broadband coverage. It's just unfeasible in some areas, for economic and geographical reasons.
So having a set standard of 10/1 for MOBILE is a step up, not down.
So yes, you're gullible here when you try to claim the FCC are attempting to lower the standard. They are not.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
"It still won't change your cable/DSL/Fiber service. I don't think you understand quite what this applies to and what it'll change in your life."
It will change the report to reflect that far fewer people do not have access to 'high speed internet'. So you move the goalpost, call it a touchdown, declare victory, and stop pushing ISPs to make REAL broadband internet available in rural or underserved areas.
"AKA : nothing will change."
Exactly. That's the point. The point is to make the report claim there's no problem, so nothing NEEDS to be changed. It would be like saying "Hey, we have lead level standards that are X(and aren't being met by many places, but now we're going to get our water from a different source, so the new higher lead level of Y that we're going to allow from this new source is now acceptable. Lead problem in the water SOLVED BIGLY!"
You don't seem to understand that what the FCC is doing is accepting 10/1 wireless links as a acceptable alternative to fixed line 25/3 broadband. This allows companies to access grants and bid on projects meant to bring broadband to rural and under-served areas. You think anyone will be laying cable now that they can get away with a much cheaper alternative? I'm afraid you sir are the gullible one
Now the FCC wants to say that if you have Mobile of 10/1, even if you don't have 25/3, that is sufficient for home internet.
Quote the document where it adds mobile broadband as somehow sufficient for the home where it wasn't in prior years ?
Because until then, you're just part of the FUD brigade.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
What you people aren't told and don't research for yourselves is that MOBILE and FIXED deployments are followed seperately by the FCC.
The 2015 had seperate deployment maps for FIXED vs MOBILE. There's a reason there are 2 categorisations.
This allows companies to access grants and bid on projects meant to bring broadband to rural and under-served areas.
VS companies not bidding on the projets at all ? I don't see the downside. Unless you're against rural areas having access to at the very least mobile broadband ? Why are you so mean to rural areas ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
I live in a major metropolitan area and I dream about 10Mbps speeds on my LTE4 phone. The tower congestion is the rate limiting factor here. If I want good LTE performance, I just need to drive to a rural area where I have a clear shot to the tower and just a few other users. This isn't hyperbole. I get better LTE performance (order of magnitude) off the coast of NJ or rural PA than I do in Washington, DC.
Build more towers damn it!
We aren't as Net backwards as you. I use anywhere from 300-600GB at home. And no, nothing illegal. I use cellular a lot too, up to ~4GB per month.
Maybe one of these decades the US will realize how piss poor the last mile is here compared to equivalent countries.
The broadband deployment definition was already pretty bad here and now it's no longer laughing matter, it's just sad.
What we need to do is have both the FCC and Congress limited to 10Mbps for over a month! Wouldn't that be a riot if Russian/Ukranian/Saba hackers switched the BGP map for both FCC and Congress's carriers during that same period? I'm only dreaming of course...
My household uses an average of 800GB a month. If I cut ever get around to cutting the cable, that will go up.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
Currently I am paying for (& seem to be actually be getting it!) 150Mbps. Capped at 1 terabyte, bastards. We've come close but not gone over, yet. I do not see cell service replacing it this year. Maybe in the future.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
I'm in Canada, where the government also wants everyone connected with broadband, ideally 50/10 connection but 5/1 in very rural areas and 3/1 in the far north. I'm rural, using dial-up until last Nov. Now on a fixed wireless 4G plan, which is probably partially government subsidized. My usage cap is 250 GBs a month (it would be 10 GB for the same price if I lived in town for the same $85 a month) and the 10-15/1-2 connection is plenty good enough for now, especially after suffering on dial-up for 20 odd years.
Biggest problem I see is the over charges are high. Be much better if they just throttled it down to 64-128 kbs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Seems to me, the potential problem is low caps. If a couple of Windows updates maxes out your cap for the month, you still don't really have broadband.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That's how it is working in Canada, if you are considered remote rural with no other choices, as I am, I get a 250GB cap for the same price as a 10GB cap in town. This is what is called fixed mobile, using a hub rather then tethering. The phone number isn't even currently activated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
"Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK."
To prove what? To accomplish what? How will the [FCC | ISP | Anyone] know what you did? How exactly does this influence the FCCs decision?
This will be even less effective than Hashtag Activisim, like #BringBackOurGIrls - at least with hashtag activism you can see how many people support you.
Ken
That would be perfect, even with a somewhat lower cap of 100 GB it would be plenty for lots of people. That's a really great solution to help rural users.
She also has a hub (the mobile hotspot) that technically has a phone number but is not usable as such (cannot make calls, does not support SMS).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They didn't care about public sentiment on neutrality, they're certainly not going to care about broadband.
They are redefining what counts as broadband, they aren't putting an upper limit on performance.
Ken
Fire Island, NY is a sand barrier island near NYC. It is covered with vacation homes, and is a nice place to spend a weekend on a beach. When a hurricane took out the existing wireline phone network, Verizon worked very hard to replace it with a cellular network. Same thing here. No messy union employees. No real estate issues. Just a tower put up by contract monkeys.
I got her a T-Mobile hotspot, and after that she was about to get a good 5-10MB/s, almost all the time. That meant she could actually watch HD Netflix. That meant she could download photos in a reasonable time. It was a terrific replacement for infrastructure that was going to take many years to get better.
Wait, you mean 10 Mb/sec is actually a real-world useful bandwidth rate? The way folks here are reacting you'd think this was slower than dial-up!
Ken
Once again they are going to improve broadband coverage in USA by redefining the broadband.
It's a meaningless metric, are you seriously arguing that 10 Mb/sec is an intolerable connection speed?
If the FCC declared "Broadband" to be 10 Gb/sec, would it make your home connection any faster? Why does defining it at 10 Mb/sec somehow impact your life in any meaningful way?
Ken
How about a few facts?
Fixed Broadband definition (p. 6):
14. We seek comment on the appropriate benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications
capability. Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed
benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? For example, the most recent Internet Access
Services Report finds that 59 percent of residential fixed connections equal or exceed such speed.34
Should we consider modifying the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark? Those proposing different speed
benchmarks should specify and provide justifications for their proposed alternatives. We also seek
comment on whether there are other sources or data points we should consider.
Mobile Broadband Definition (p. 7):
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark.37 Our consideration
of whether and how to set a speed benchmark will be informed by assessing the mobile broadband
services and speeds that are available to consumers today, as well as evidence regarding what services
consumers are choosing today, and what might be available in the near future. We ask commenters to
address these factors in their comments. Should the Commission set a mobile speed benchmark, and if
so, what it should be? We anticipate that any speed benchmark we set would be lower than the 25
Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark adopted for fixed broadband services, given differing capabilities of mobile
broadband. We ask commenters to discuss this choice.38 We seek comment on how use cases,
engineering studies, and any other relevant empirical data should inform a mobile speed benchmark in
terms of both the downlink and the uplink speed.
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10
Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced
telecommunications capability? How should we appropriately consider edge speed in setting a mobile
speed benchmark? As discussed below, in setting any mobile speed benchmark, how should we take into
account the important issues of reliability/consistency of service and latency in the mobile broadband
environment? Would it be more practical to use deployment of various air interface technologies (e.g.,
LTE) as a proxy for speed benchmarks? In this case, could we maintain a technology-neutral evaluation
but rely on deployment of technologies we understand to typically be used to provide mobile advanced
telecommunications capability?
Ken
If you can't meet the standard, then just lower the standards! Who knew it would be so easy to provide broadband speeds to everyone?
Quick - What is the current definition for mobile broadband at the FCC?
Answer - Trick question, it has no current definition, they are proposing the first definition of mobile broadband ever - your anger at the Trump Administration has forced you to invent reasons to maintain your anger at them. You literally have no idea what you are upset about, you just saw a bunch of villagers yelling and waving protest signs and it looked like fun so you decided to join in.
Click here, read the actual FCC document - if you are in a hurry, just skip to page 7, and read sections 18 and 19:
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services.
Ken
So yes, Trump's FCC is indeed watering down the definition of "broadband".
No, No it isn't. The 25 Mb/sec definition is for fixed access, the proposed 10 Mb/sec definition is to set a new standard for mobile access - there is no previous definition for mobile access.
Ken
declare all_my_problems_fixed = true;
Pai is a genius! /s
Meanwhile, my work actually requires me to do something about the problems. Imagine that.
You don't seem to understand that what the FCC is doing is accepting 10/1 wireless links as a acceptable alternative to fixed line 25/3 broadband.
You don't seem to understand, the 25/3 broadband metric is unchanged - they are attempting to establish a definition for mobile broadband, not fixed...
Ken
This was the middle plan, not sure what the limits on the other plans were as 250GB seemed good.
The hub does have 2 phone jacks and my neighbour, who seems to have a better relationship with the ISP's representative got her phone connected for $10 extra, supposedly I can do the same in a couple of months. It receives SMS as well, view-able through the web interface, but no way to send. I'd guess I could plug a phone in and access 911 if needed.
Complaints, the hub at $300 ($12.50 a month over 2 years) was too expensive and the battery, rated at 8 hours, only lasts 3 hours.
I'm happy with it. I believe there are some government subsidies involved as well, mostly federal but it is hard to find info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Yes, the FCC is planning to change the limit of what's considered "broadband" to 10/1. Yes, it was previously 4/1. But it is currently 25/3, so 10/1 is a significant downgrade.
No it's not - the 25/3 Mb/sec standard stands, the FCC is setting a brand new definition for mobile access at 10/2 MB/sec.
Ken
How can you people link these documents and not even bother to read them ? Astounding.
Welcome to Slashdot, you're obviously new here...
Ken
Dan Quayle's solution was to increase the size of the gallon.
You know, when Leno or Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert say completely outrageous insulting nonsense everyone assumes that it is supposed to be a joke. (Kathy Griffin had to go completely bonkers before she got called on the "joke" she made, but she expected we would all assume it was a joke to start with.) When a Republican politician says what is obviously a joke, everyone has a hissy fit and thinks he's serious.
I think "increase the size of the gallon" is a perfect joke answer to a complicated question that would take more time than Leno allows his guests to answer seriously. Given that Leno's show is supposed to be humor, responding humorously to one of his questions is to be expected.
I have similar concerns as the OP. I've had days where I've used nothing but my LTE service, including tethering my laptop, and it wasn't terrible. This challenge seems like a good way to confuse the issue, rather than convince people the new standard is unacceptable.
10Mbps might be acceptable for most uses, but all of the bullshit surrounding cellular data is not. A single day won't really reveal the true impact of making LTE the minimum standard.
It is fake news. 25/3 is for FIXED broadband. 10/1 is for MOBILE broadband.
Nothing got lowered. People saying "FCC wants to lower broadband standards" are pushing literal Fake News.
Next Slash-Click Story:
Ajit Pai Turned Me Into A Newt!
(Wot? I got better!)
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Since when is 4/1 ever considered broadband? This is like giving everyone in class an A and celebrating oneself as awesome teacher, no matter how dumb the students remain. Maybe Pai, Trump, and a few others went to such a class....
Not only the last mile, but also that we pay 3-4 times as much for craptastic service compared to other countries.
Moving the goal post as in this case is always bad. Declaring a bit better than dial-up service as broadband is nothing else than political gaming so that in a fe months the administration can claim they brought broadband to all of rural America. This plan is totally ignoring facts that in order to take part in the digital world folks will need big pipes. The fix here is municipal fiber, but for bizarre reasons that is illegal in most states.
As voiced by others, as far as broadband is concerned, it ought not to matter what the transmission medium is. Compare it to HD TV, same quality and properties no matter if it comes over copper, fiber, or the air.
I know you are being sarcastic, but...
That is exactly the spirit that leads to downfall.
An example, in WWII, the Japanese believed that they were innately superior to others and that they would natural win out despite the logistical realities of their situation. ( I do note that most westerners, including America had a similar belief in their own superiority, one which took decades to tone down* despite the rude awakening that was the Pearl Harbor to Midway part of the Pacific campaign ).
No one is innately great. It takes hard work, humility, clear thinking and real striving towards greatness to be great.
That is what we and everyone else needs.
* Yes, there is still racism in the US. It is not as bad as it was then. Yes, any racism is bad and I am not attempting to excuse it, but I would guess that if you gave any person a choice to live as a non-white person in America now versus then, they would choose now. Progress is good, continued progress is better yet.
emt 377 emt 4
If the ISP sold you a 10Gb connection and you only ever got 10Mb, then that's fraud.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Fuck Ajit Pai
If cellular packet data were sufficient speed, we would still be using dial up modems because that is all the speed you need. 10mbps cellula, with the packet lag and dropped packets, has throughput more like a 54 kBPS dialup modem and 3G (which most of the country has as a best signal) is like a 14,400 dialup modem. Yeah, you can get some email and stream low-res but you need to be on wifi to an actual broadband connection to do anything serious. When the FCC upped the definition of "broadband" from 12 Mbps to 25 Mbps who remembers the howls from the huge ISP companies because they couldn't market "cheapest hardware" as "broadband" for premium prices any more. Packet radio like cellular network data is wonderful for access in a semi remote area but pails in comparison to the throughput from an actual internet connection.
NRRPT/RCT
Even though Ajit Pai won't listen to them, maybe the next FCC chair can look into it after Trump leaves office?