FCC Proposes To Maintain US Broadband Standard of 25Mbps Down, 3Mbps Up (arstechnica.com) 194
The FCC is proposing to maintain the U.S. broadband standard at the current level of 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has kept the standard at these speeds since 2017, despite calls to raise it from Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. This week, Pai proposed keeping the standard the same for another year. Ars Technica reports: The FCC raised the standard from 4Mbps/1Mbps to 25Mbps/3Mbps in January 2015 under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler. Ajit Pai, who was then a commissioner in the FCC's Republican minority, voted against raising the speed standard. As FCC chairman since 2017, Pai has kept the standard at 25Mbps/3Mbps despite calls to raise it from Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. This week, he proposed keeping the standard the same for another year. "This inquiry fundamentally errs by proposing to keep our national broadband standard at 25Mbps," Rosenworcel said yesterday. "It is time to be bold and move the national broadband standard from 25 Megabits to 100 Megabits per second. When you factor in price, at this speed the United States is not even close to leading the world. That is not where we should be and if in the future we want to change this we need both a more powerful goal and a plan to reach it. Our failure to commit to that course here is disappointing. I regretfully dissent." While Pai's proposal isn't yet finalized, keeping the current speed standard would likely mean that Pai's FCC will conclude that broadband deployment is already happening fast enough throughout the US. Pai could use that conclusion in attempts to justify further deregulation of the broadband industry.
Can't wait (Score:3)
Re:Can't wait (Score:4, Informative)
This is about calling it "Broadband". It doesn't mean they will upgrade your speed. They just can't call the slower junk "broadband". (Also: 25/3 = broadband has existed for a few years already...)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh ya, it's existed for some time, it doesn't mean it's available to everyone and ISPs will call stuff slow than that "broadband".
Re: (Score:3)
"Broadband" means my wife and daughter can stream two different movies, and I can still read email and get work done.
Even at HD quality, 10 Mbps is good enough for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is 10 Mbits real or nominal?
Neither. It's your maximum. ISPs have this thing called an "oversubscription rate". So let's say that the oversubscription rate is 10, that means you are sharing your 24 Mbit/s with 9 (effectively) other customers that have the same service. Like most telecom services, they bank on the fact that most of the time most customers' usage is well below what they pay for.
In other words, ISPs are totally full of shit. Also, don't trust speed tests. ISPs regularly detect them and suddenly (as if by magic!) you get
Re: (Score:2)
Until your work is interrupted by your daughter complaining that her Disney stream is stopping/stuttering because Disney is not paying your provider the same as Netflix is to keep the streams ehem... steaming. But that's a different subject, isn't it?
I agree that 10 Mbps should be enough but in my experience, it rarely is. Diagnosing why... is it the provider? Is it the streaming service? Is it something in between!? Now days I am told I get "up to 150 Mbps downloads!" & speed tests seem to confi
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand how peering works? And why netflix got fucked when they tried to go around everyone that actrually OWNS the wires used for the internet and decided they could get a better peering deal by their self. then they cried foul when the other companies laughed in their face(paraphrasing and such) a quick google search will give you the truth about it, comcast didnt just decide to throttle netflix out of the blue even know thats how most try to portray it to "push NN".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pai and his cronies are corporate shills, not responsible regulators. He needs to be shown the door.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada, stuck on dial-up until last year, now I have an LTE connection, 10-25 down 1-3 up depending on time of day, with a 250GB limit. Does cost close to a hundred a month.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No 4k or 8k TV for me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've hit precisely when the Trump administration wants to keep the bar for telecommunications low. it inhibits competition in the markets, thereby keeping profits of large, largely monopoly players intact and funneling campaign contributions to the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping the bar low does one other thing - it allows Pai to claim the majority of Americans have at least 2 ISPs that offer broadband and therefore justify removal of Net Neutrality to allow natural competition, even though by the FCC's own numbers that was just over 50% (like 54 or 56%, I believe). When you jump to 100Mbps, only 24% of households have more than one option.
What ISPs can (illegally, but it takes time for the DoJ to catch up and the fines often come way to late) do is charge more for people w
Oh well... (Score:3)
I guess I don't have broadband after all.
Broadband != High Speed (Score:1)
"Broadband" means something specific, and that meaning doesn't shift over time. "High-speed," on the other hand, is much more subjective and liable to shift with the times.
Multiple channels (not baseband or passband) (Score:5, Informative)
> Oh please define broadband for us, tell us precisely what it means
In telecommunications, there are three major types of transmission:
Baseband: The signal is in a channel. A baseband signal on channel 3 doesn't significantly interfere with one on channel 4. 100 Mbps is a baseband signal.
Passband: The signal is centered on a channel, but spills over. You may know in wifi channel 1 will interfere with channels 2 and 3. You can, however, use channel 1 and channel 3 for separate signals. You just have some interference if the two stations are close together.
Broadband: The signal is distributed across several channels. Cable TV and internet is a good example. A cable TV channel is 8Mhz wide (if there is a channel at 54Mhz, the next channel is at 62Mhz). That means it can carry up to 8Mhz gross bandwidth without special tricks like quadrature encoding. In order to get more bandwidth, providers send your internet signal over several TV channels simultaneously. (And use other tricks). Of your signal is on channels 100, 101, and 102 there can NOT be another person using channel 102 at exactly the same time. That's difference between passband and broadband.
In the 1990s, ISDN providers started offering service over three or four channels (broadband) rather than the aingle-channel (baseband) transmission than was available before. Using four channels, broadband ISDN could provide four times the bandwidth - 256Kbs.
DSL was similar - around the same time it became possible to bond multiple voice channels into a broadband configuration for DSL. The public noticed that the new services were faster, and they were "broadband", whatever the heck that means. Typical consumers started associating the word "broadband" with "fast".
As I mentioned, 100 Mbps Ethernet is baseband (single-channel), not broadband (multi-channel). Fiber optic is typically baseband, not broadband (remember we're talking per-signal). USB3 is baseband, at 640 Mbps. SATA is baseband, at 6Gbs. Broadband does NOT mean "fast". In fact most of the fastest connections you use are baseband, not broadband. It's just that for a few years in the 1990s the fast connections readily available to consumers happened to be broadband at the time. Not knowing what ISDN even stands for, and not knowing what broadband, passband, and baseband are, many consumers associated the term broadband with fast.
It would actually be just as accurate to call any high speed internet "DSL". In the same time period in the 1990s, the fastest connections for checking consumers were DSL, and broadband, and 4 Mbps, and copper. Neither "DSL", nor "4 Mbps", nor "copper", nor "broadband" mean "fast". They all have specific meanings. If you want a term that means "high speed", rhe correct term is "high speed". :)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical consumers started associating the word "broadband" with "fast".
And so it means that now. Anything else is as useless as claiming "gay" is not a sexual orientation. But hey /. likes hopeless, lost battles.
Maybe in advertising. Plug parallel in serial port (Score:2)
Maybe in your mind when you see advertising broadband means "fast", whatever "fast" means to you today. (Recall the actual broadband consumer connections that started the marketing were 192Kbps and 256Kbps).
For people who actually work with the connections, it's very much like a serial port vs a parallel port. In the 1980s you may have learned that "the parallel port is the fast one", but it won't work to connect a parallel printer to an RS-485 serial port. My RS-485 port is as fast as a Centronics parallel
Re: (Score:2)
I (heart emoji) slashdot.
A problem with your definition of broadband (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing out that "broadband does not mean fast."
Nonetheless, there's still a problem with your definition of broadband...
It's like serial vs parallel. 100BaseT (Score:2)
Broadband vs baseband doesn't have anything to with the width of the channel. Baseband, such as 10BaseT and 100BaseT, sends one symbol at a time over one channel. Broadband sends multiple symbols Iver multiple channels, simultaneously.
It's like a four-lane road with four cars traveling along side each other vs a single-lane road, cars in single file. One lane doesn't become four by making it wider.
You may be familiar with the difference between serial communication and parallel. Serial has one wire and send
Re: (Score:2)
Shit... so does that mean fiber isn’t broadband?!
Fiber is 100Base-FX, 1000Base-SX: BASEband (Score:2)
Right, fiber standards include 100Base-FX and 1000Base-SX.
Those are 100Mbps Baseband over multimode fiber and 100bps Baseband over single mode fiber.
The "base" in the name 100Base-FX tells you it's Baseband, not broadband.
WiFi is passband - the signal spills over onto other channels.
192 Kbps ISDN is broadband - it uses three 64Kbs channels in parallel.
Politicians don't know what Base means in 100BaseT (Score:2)
The Ethernet standards are called 10BaseT, 100BaseT, etc because it is baseband signaling at those speeds. 100 Mbps Baseband over Twisted pair: 100BaseT.
100Base-SX is 100Mbps Baseband over Multimode fiber.
1000BASE-SX is 1000Mbps Baseband over Multimode.
It's not called 100BroadT, because it's not a broadband signal; it's a baseband signal. That's why it's called 100BASE-whatever.
> meaning of words changes over time.
The ignorance of politicians or bureacrats doesn't change the fact that you can't plug an N
Re: (Score:2)
As AC states, nobody cares HOW the data gets sent and arrives, only that it gets between point A and point B with the correct data at the other end. I could go on all day about how terrible underlying infrastructure technologies like ATM are for data, but at the end of the day it boils down to "did my data get to its destination at 100Mbps?" And that's all technological laymen like Nancy Pelosi care about.
Unfortunately, they write the rules for how it doe (Score:2)
> As AC states, nobody cares HOW the data gets sent and arrives, only that it gets between point A and point B with the correct data at the other end.
Those who are responsible for making that happen care. The customers (you) care that it happens correctly. You even care about how much jitter there is on your VoIP flow, and how much latency there is on your games, and the packet loss rate on other applications. You all care about that even if you don't know what the words mean (and you don't care about j
Maybe it's time to take big money out of politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Crony capitalism doesn't seem to be providing the best infrastructure, regulation, or competitive rates.
Government is a reflection on the people who voted and on the people who didn't vote. Infrastructure is vital, but people don't treat it as vital. They are easily distracted and directed. You don't think Donald Trump really cares that players kneel do you? No it is red meat for his base lest their accidentally wake up and smell the smoke.
In fact the times we live in have convinced me of one thing. If Nixon was in power right now, he would never be impeached in a million years.
If anyone wants to make Am
Re: (Score:2)
With all the shenanigans lately, perhaps the best way to fix problems with providers and the FCC is to vote for canidates who don't take PAC money.
That would work if we were not in a hyper-partisan environment where they rather have their "team" win even if it requires PAC money. One way to dilute the problem would be to have ranked voting so that multiple candidates from the same party can be on the ballot or we can have real third party choices.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately the few candidates that propose voting reforms like that, tend to lose the primaries. Same with the ones who oppose gerrymandering.
Re: (Score:3)
Never gonna happen so long as people keep voting for the person who spends the most on political advertising. They don't always win, but they do often enough that they go to the effort of fundraising. If anything, the death of old media will end that. I'm not hopeful that society will suddenly discover critical thinking or independent research.
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely why SCOTUS ruled the way it did in Citizen's United. By making money free speech and permitting "dark" untraceable spending on electioneering, it paved the way for large foreign/international corporations to funnel unlimited money into the election process. Now Putin and the Saudis have more to say who gets elected than you do. The irony, of course, is that they are now much better able to fool a sizable fraction of the electorate to vote against their own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH turning it into a national security/sovereignty issue might be the only way to fix it.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So what happens when Democrats start taking/continue taking big money from telcos and cable companies? Do you imagine that they'll fix the broadband problem and whip the telcos into line?
We should have never even needed the FCC to step in and police the Internet. The FTC already had a job to do, and it failed. Had we proper competition in ISP markets (read: less crony capitalism) the FTC's intervention would have been far less necessary. That also didn't happen.
Now Democrats - who take money from the tel
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the best argument the GOP can use now to pardon itself for its policies with regard to telecommunication services?
To paraphrase a famous Republican "your argument is a like a thin homeopathic soup made by boiling the shadow of a dead pigeon who died from starvation". Obviously, the GOP has come a long way from the day Lincoln was president.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other countries don't allow talking-heads to defame ordinary people and publish fake news. They don't even allow a broadcast network (eg. Fox news) to spread propaganda created by 1 political party. In the USA, the rich don't care and an independent voice (SCOTUS) has even decided such abuse of the truth (and thus, the people) is allowed.
Society is a conflict of the need to fit-in and belong versus 'fuck you, I got mine'. Go too far to the left and nothing gets done. Go too far right and massacres occur
What does ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not dial-up and satellite speed? ;)
Welp (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The primary qualification to be appointed by Trump is to be wholely dedicated heart and soul to dismantling all regulations. These guys make Tea Party faithfuls seem tepid in comparison. Ajit Pai however is on a committee and he can't just dismantle via fiat, he has to get enough of the other members to go along with him. If he had his way, the airwaves would be controlled by whichever corporate trade association had the biggest guns, Shadowrun style.
Re: (Score:3)
at least they didn't drop it.
Would it matter if they did? These random numbers have no real effect on what services you can or cannot get. They're just speeds the government says you have to provide to use a specific marketing term in your advertisement. There's plenty of alternative terms that are not being regulated the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is tied to subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Data Caps & Rural (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd rather have slow DSL than fast mobile, personally, because my household uses about 300GB/mo.
But the FCC thinks they're interchangable, which is a big problem.
Also 39% of rural Americans don't even have access to the current standard. As a government entity they ought to be focused on that, from a 14th Amendment perspective. If their rules are slowing new deployments, that's an equal protection issue, and the data shows that the Title II rules did just that.
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-re... [fcc.gov]
25/3 is fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to avoid getting kicked in the face for agreeing with anything he says, at all...: I hate Pai.
I'd stand in a line just to WATCH him get punched in the face, but 25/3 to meet the requirements of the term 'broadband' for these rural areas with shitty wiring and terrible population density is plenty. 25Mbps downstream is *multiple* 720p or better video streams down and at least 1-2 up. Considering the percentage of Internet traffic that is youtube and facebook and netflix, that's fair math.
Yeah, of course I want my price to go down, but that's NEVER going to happen with any provider, regardless what the FCC declares "broadband" to be. The last thing I want is to subsidize rural areas getting 1Gbps for 1 house per square mile across the whole country. Let the WISPS do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the "punching" stuff.... +1 insightful. This has nothing to do with raising standards across the country, it has more to do with subsidies and the HUGE number of homes that don't even have what we NOW call "broadband." Until we can bring up rural areas to current standards, why do we need to elevate the definition for everyone else?
Besides, let's not pretend that most cities don't already have way, way higher rates than 25/3 right now. I think I might be on the cheapest and slowest plan on my
Think critically about rural broadband (Score:2)
There are lots of ways rural areas differ from urban areas, and always will, because no one is willing to pony up the massive amount of subsidies it would take to eliminate the differences:
* With enough subsidies, you could entice world-class theater companies to perform in Bankston, Iowa, population 25.
* With enough subsidies, you could entice airlines to provide scheduled passenger service to every grass airstrip.
* With enough subsidies, you could get a subway built that connects Riverside, Georgia to Fun
Re: (Score:1)
Neither of those things mentioned are requirements for functioning in modern society and being able to discuss with your social circles the most basic things they're talking about.
Internet access is. For all intents and purpose, stable internet with an acceptable minimum speed should be considered a utility on par with electricity and running water.
Re: (Score:1)
Do I have needs that I'm not aware of? (Score:2)
they do need options other than: *1-2 MB DSL
I have 1.5 Mbps DSL (and I don't even live in a rural area). It's enough to get a pretty sharp picture when watching Netflix, so I feel no need to upgrade to something faster.
Am I missing something? Do I have needs that I'm not aware of? Why the obsession with more speed than one needs?
Re: 25/3 is fine (Score:3)
I agree that 25 down is fine especially because many places still don't even have that but I wish they would raise the upload. The ratio originally was 4/1 and now has dropped to 10/1. 10/1 prevents any innovations that require real 2 way communication. 10/1 basically says that download is all that matters and upload is just for assisting downloading. There are likely a ton of innovations that could benefit from symmetrical connections.
Re: (Score:2)
There are likely a ton of innovations that could benefit from symmetrical connections.
That's true, but you can't really have it without at least fiber to the curb, if not the home. And the telcos haven't even got broadband to all their customers who have copper. This in spite of our paying them billions of dollars of tax money to do it, and their repeated promises that it would be done long ago. For instance, these payments and promises go all the way back to the days of Pacific Bell. That was two buyouts ago! At the time the promised speed was much lower, and they still haven't delivered th
Re: (Score:2)
Do much more networking and faster network is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
haha. never. Come on, did you not want to punch him purely on the basis of that f'ing lame net neutrality video he did? That's ALL the reason I need.
Re: (Score:2)
You kinda made my point for me. The telcos are known to have squandered the subsidy money from the government and not upgraded the networks out there in good faith. Now we trust them to do the same thing again? No thanks. And even if we do, we end up paying more to upgrade sparsely populated areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Started here at 1 mbps down and I guess 64 kbps up. Now I am at 80 mbps down and 10mbps up. Lowest tier package.
The local cable franchise has changed hands 3 times since then and thats the FUCKING KEY
Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Because raising the standards causes more regions to be 'underserved', forcing the FCC by mandate to enforce means to serve those regions. Such as requesting bids from competitors rather than relying on the lame promises of the incumbent.
This, obviously, is what Pai's masters at Verizon don't want. They'd rather be able to maintain monopoly in their service areas. If they're building 25/3 for a given area, they claim it's served broadband because it's work in progress, even if that result won't be seen for
Re: Why bother? (Score:2)
Everything 99.9 Mbps and under is already considered underserved. Hence why NY is telling Spectrum to get out of the state.
No! This determines subsidies (Score:1)
Keep it at 25x3. Those of us getting less than 10 or nothing at all need the subsidies. If they raise it to 100 the big companies will just cherry pick the most profitable places near town to upgrade. Those of us truely hurting from the digital devide wont see any improvement.
What does this mean for me? (Score:1)
Like how we call the Acela "High-Speed Rail" (Score:2)
It's tradition, like how we call the Acela "High-Speed Rail"
Rural broadband problems (Score:2, Informative)
Most slashdot readers don't get it, but rural broadband is hard. Remember rural areas? You know, the places outside of cities?
America is big, and the rural America are really big. Stringing wire and fiber is expensive, and will never be cost-effective.
Let's take Etex.net. They have a service area of 710 square miles. That's about the size of Singapore, with a population density of about 0. There are probably 30,000 potential customers in their service area.
They offer 20Mbps, tops. Are they going to string f
Re: Rural broadband problems (Score:2)
The thing is that we've been paying the providers all those added taxes and fees that do not actually get collected by the government but go into funds for the ISP to buildout rural areas but nobody enforced this. Spectrum promised a lot of states when Charter and TWC merged that they would take their newfound profits and invest in building out unserved and underserved areas and thus far they haven't built out 100M to a single community that didn't already have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take Etex.net. They have a service area of 710 square miles. That's about the size of Singapore, with a population density of about 0. There are probably 30,000 potential customers in their service area.
So 30000/710 = ~42/square mile or roughly the same as here in Norway (41). Right now 94% has access to a wired connection, 84% has the possibility for 100 Mbps download and 52% has fiber.
So you can string fiber 20 miles to that guy's house for $140k. How do you make that back?
If there's one guy living 20 miles from everybody else in a dead end where you'd never need a fiber passing through then obviously you don't. But that cost is an actual cable gate and everything, not one more strand of fiber. So it's more about the marginal cost of connecting one more fiber customer.
Here in Norway we actual
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, companies aren't going to invest in running the 30 miles of fiber between some towns. That's the crux of the issue, really. While our persons per sq kilometer is double what yours is average density wise, there is a great cost in running the actual lines to these locations.
As an example, the US has 5.5 million miles of just local power lines going to these homes. 5.5 million miles of fiber optic cable costs a whole boatload to run.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about areas of low population density is that MOST PEOPLE ARE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
The real, acknowledged problems with rural broadband have nothing to do with connectivity in metropolitan areas with over 1 million people.
Re: (Score:2)
Most slashdot readers don't get it, but rural broadband is hard.
It's even harder when you don't bother to try to solve it, and hand out the tax money you were given to solve it as executive bonuses instead.
Re: (Score:2)
100Mbps is superfluous (Score:2)
I honestly don't know why one need to have 100Mbps down at home except for multiple 4K streams, but we all know that 4K title library is still very limited. The real problem in this country is not that urban dwellers can't get 100Mbit speed (they can, and in fact they can go up to gigabit speeds in most big cities). The problem is that getting even 25 megabit internet is still very hard in rural America.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ACTUALLY been using the internet lately?
I'm on a 448/96 kbps connection, and there are websites out there that take several minutes to load because of all the crap simple sites want to throw at eyeballs. That's WITH AdBlock, uBlock and Ghostery running.
Many residential users like to play games. On this connection, games like Overwatch, Team Fortress 2, even Heroes of the Storm are so laggy as to be literally unplayable - latency easily hits over 2000 ms. That's not to mention when I want to try a n
Re: (Score:2)
You idiot, who gives a fuck about what you think is sufficient for broadband. My original post was about the problems of getting broadband in the rural USA. If you think 768kbps will do, then I guess it will do for you, if all you do is post troll posts on Slashdot. Fuck off and die.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ... read my post at all? You wanted to comment to the guy before me, not me. And then you looked up other things I'd said to continue calling me a troll.
Maybe you should go check your meds. You forgot to take them these last few days.
Re: (Score:2)
Disabling pictures is a bit of a double-edged sword because of how many websites use graphics for all kinds of interfacing - buttons, links, menus, disabling pictures just means loading the page and then loading it again to get the pictures to show.
I also like reading webcomics while eating lunch, and those kinda need pictures to be shown. <.<
and with no network neutrality that can be to hub (Score:2)
and with no network neutrality that can be to the local hub.
25 x 3 is great (Score:2)
I have DSL and am currently syncing at 9 down and 1 up and its plenty for even high quality streams and downloads. For me 25 down and 3 up would be more than adequate provided I can actually GET that speeds at the times I want to use it.
They should keep the definition at 25 x 3 but ban the use of terms like "up to" and require providers to demonstrate that people can actually GET the advertised speed (e.g. via speed tests). For reference, a speed test on my DSL connection shows 7.85 down and 0.87 up (try ge
High speed NE broadband... (Score:2)
The advertisers will just switch wording to high speed and keep selling snake oil to everyone.
We think speeds must go up while ... (Score:1)
... ISP's think prices must go up, so this proposition is just a justification to raise prices.
When your base product even doesn't need to match 25/3 trump's administration thinks it's just fine. Keep 'em under control is more their goal.
That's why net neutrality was killed.
Even the EU uses that as a practice nevertheless what they say.
Logical Outcome of a Lack of Principles (Score:1)
Ajit Pai works for a Republican government, so of course he uses the power of big government to control the market.
Here in Japan, you canâ(TM)t get less than 40GB up and down for $30 a month (on wireless). Pay $20 more and you get 70GB-plus. In the home, itâ(TM)s 150GB for wired at around $40-$60. Currently weâ(TM)re part of a co-op, so we pay $12 a month for that speed.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very wrong about something. Either you're talking a data cap, not speed, or you're using the wrong numbers. Because even high speed intra-computer connections (to hard drives/USB3.1 devices) don't get 20% of that speed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to have to blame really, really bad translations on what your saying. We're talking line speed here, not data caps.
Who cares? (Score:2)
Push for equal up and down speeds (Score:2)
25 Megabit is a decent minimum speed (Score:2)
I would be overjoyed if the entire country had access to a minimum of 25 megabit data connections. I see nothing wrong with this being the minimum speed. Heck, not long ago I had fiber giving me 30.
Now, it should be noted I'm on Gigabit personally....
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about neutrality if your speed is capped at 1 byte per second?
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle is better connected than those of us on the far side of Puget Sound. In Kitsap county we are restricted to 150 GB/sec for about $70/month unless you start paying much more for enterprise/business service, which can get you up to about 500 GB/sec. Of course, you can always get much less broadband and speed if you don't want to pay the local, largely monopolistic Comcast Communications for service.
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash: The average of a country doesn't mean everyone has that speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's so sweet, you looked up several of my comments to post the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is exactly the point of 1gpbs internet for ALL? 1080p stream on Netflix needs at most 6mbps. 4K stream needs less that four times than that. So what the fuck do you need gigabit for?
Re: (Score:2)
The future... & Quality of experience
For right now it would improve overall feel and experience of the web.
Less waiting, less page load time.
Higher quality uncompressed video so there would be zero artifacting from lame compressed formats.
Multiple High quality streams
Better video conferencing experience.
Better video gaming.
Faster downloads of all files.
Less lag during peak times on ones node.
The feel of the web would be much more flawless.
Then there is the evolution of the web and what that will be.
25mb
Re: (Score:2)
So what your saying is, because there's bad traffic in the morning north on Boston on I93, we can no longer call I93 a highway? This is about what is considered the minimum speed we can call it a broadband connection. NOT the speed which is desirable for your specific usage.
And I have to say, last year I was streaming 4k video over a 30 Megabit fiber connection, so I dunno what your doing that you'd consider 60 megabit laggy during peak times. Watching 3 4k connections while torrenting mov
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about calling a highway a highway. Highways and Broadband are entirely different entities on scalability.
It is more about how the cable companies providing the service qualify things. They can say you have a 30mbps connection if you get that at some point during the day. However, once everyone is home and streaming from your node, then things get bogged down on the node you are on and it is unlikely you will be getting anywhere close to 30mbps say at 8-11 at night.
This has always bee
Re: (Score:2)
Gigabit connections in the US are 100+ USD a month, and are only available more urban areas generally. How do they connect to your home?