FCC says broadband-class connections must offer at least 25Mbps download speeds

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 85
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

     

    I was in Chicago visiting my family for Christmas. I rented an HD movie from the iTunes store and it took over an hour just to buffer it. Turns out my uncle only had 3mb down and 1 up. Paltry! At that rate the movie would have kept buffering.


     

    We have 15/5 and it takes HD Lord of the Rings to load in a minute or two over our AppleTV. I wonder what other factors could make those numbers seem non-linear.

  • Reply 22 of 85
    What frankie said.
  • Reply 23 of 85



    The reason the rates are going to go up is that a portion of what you pay is used to subsidize service in "under-served" areas. Now that the size of the under-served population (per the new definition) has increased dramatically you can expect surcharge increases to help fund the availability of the "new" broadband in such areas.

  • Reply 24 of 85
    Make it for upload speed too and put Comcast out of business.
  • Reply 25 of 85
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member

    ISP's try to sell you up on the next highest package anyway. "Think of all the cool things you will do! Netflix, gaming and internet all at once!"

     

    Now all of a sudden "Nobody needs 25mbps internet, that is too fast". Even though sites like youtube, netflix, twitchtv continue to add higher definition streaming in addition to growing viewership counts.

     

    Keep denying reality ISP's. You've had at least a decade and at least 200 billion in taxpayer funds to prepare.

  • Reply 26 of 85
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member

    That's just crazy talk.  The next thing you know, they'll insist "unlimited" data really means unlimited.

  • Reply 27 of 85
    kent909 wrote: »
    Oh good, now my provider has an excuse to raise my rates.

    As if they needed an excuse to.
  • Reply 28 of 85
    josha wrote: »
    This is only good for those who need that speed.
    The 25% of that speed we now have does all we need.

    The 25% of that speed (6.25 Mbps / 1 Mbps) most certainly does not do all that many of us 'need'*, especially if service quality fluctuates. And once someone is looking at online streaming, especially in a shared household with multiple computer users, it becomes even worse. It is far to say that it is adequate for a number of people, but the merit to that position tapers off when your audience is other people in a technology-related forum.

    And it's not so important a distinction in the case of user need as services will continue to offer lesser packages for people who don't want higher speeds. Companies will have some concern in ensuring that broadband is offered in a given area, but people would typically have access to cheaper/lesser internet services.

    * Assuming you're not using 'need' literally here, but rather in the sense of meeting the demands of what most people are interested in. To use 'need' literally takes on a rather different meaning.
  • Reply 29 of 85

    “HEY NO ONE IS INCREASING SPEEDS"

    “Yeah, because it’s really hard to increase physical bandwidth given the current infrastructure layout and restrictions on improvements."

    “LET’S CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF ‘BROADBAND’ TO MEAN SOMETHING FASTER. THAT WILL FORCE THEM TO MAKE IT FASTER”

    “… No… they’ll just remove the word ‘broadband’ from their documentation and keep offering the same speeds."

    “NO THEY WON’T THEY WILL MAKE IT FASTER BECAUSE I SAY SO"

     

    Thanks, FCC. Thanks for, instead of doing anything whatsoever that would actually increase competition (read: create it at all), doing something that will cause my provider to never offer me faster speed.

     

    Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

    You've had at least a decade and at least 200 billion in taxpayer funds to prepare.


     

    I dislike such subsidization for many reasons. Public funding has no risk associated with it. Not just because of the illegal collusion (not a redundancy) between telecoms and the government itself–though the refusal to prosecute the abject documented refusal of telecoms to use said money for the purpose for which they were given it–but because it is not money earned through the services and quality of the telecom itself.

     

    A telecom doesn’t have to increase subscribers, retain subscribers, or give services that perform well to receive said money. They then have no incentive to do these things in the future, as they have knowledge of receiving said money regardless of their behavior. A telecom doesn’t have to use the money for the purpose for which it is given. They then have no incentive to do so in the future.

  • Reply 30 of 85
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Explain the logic there I must be missing something. If you say, you only had 15 Mb/s and the cable company was billing you as having 'broadband' before this change, then that would surely be a reason for users to demand either an increase to at least 25 Mb/s at the same price or get a price cut. I am trying to think of a scenario that fits your interpretation.



    It means nothing in terms of pricing. The providers will simply stop calling it “broadband.” For example AT&T calls it “high speed Internet” right now, not “broadband.” DSL has pretty much reached its technological limit using twisted copper wires at 18mbps. This decision simply means the carrier cannot call it broadband anymore below 25mbps. There is no requirement to force carriers to offer faster speeds. It is only hoped that this change will prod carriers to build faster networks. With this decision in my area, for example, Charter Cable can claim it provides “broadband” access while AT&T cannot make the same claim. How that will affect competition is anybody’s guess. 

     

    But also in my area Charter’s 60-100mbps “broadband” service is vastly less reliable than AT&T’s 18mbps “not broadband.” So I don’t care what it’s called.

  • Reply 31 of 85
    I believe there is a subsidy from the government for telecommunications companies to provide broadband speeds of Internet access to rural areas and schools. Now, to qualify for this subsidy, they need to make sure their speeds meet 25MB threshold. I doubt this will affect most customers who already have broadband in non-subsidized areas, except for statistical purposes where the FCC published broadband data in the future. American households not receiving 25MB down will not be considered to have broadband by the new statistical measurements.
  • Reply 32 of 85
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post



    Make it for upload speed too and put Comcast out of business.

    Comcast's upload speeds are awful. The highest I've seen on my connection is 15 mbps. It averages probably around 10 mbps. My download speed is really fast though. It's usually always around 130-150 mbps when I do a speed test. 

  • Reply 33 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post



    Well that's barely regulated monopolies for you.



    They are in fact highly regulated. Monopolies in cable have only existed due to local and state government deals with cable suppliers, not because of 'wild, uncontrolled free market competition'.

  • Reply 34 of 85
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post

     

    They'll continue to rape us as long as possible for as much as possible, and buy the gov't to let them.




    You have no clue what Internet access costs to provide and what would be a “fair” price for it. I’m tired of listening to the freetards who think unlimited gigabit access should cost $.25/yr. It ain’t gonna happen. And if Internet access is reclassified as a Title II public utility you’ll see an exodus by the big providers like never before. Add to that all the taxes that will come with Title II moniker (federal, state, local, universal service, etc.) and your price will definitely go up. I still have a landline. My basic rate is $20/mo but the taxes are over $7 so my land line costs $27/mo. That’s a 33% tax rate. I pay $40/mo for my 18mbps DSL line with NO taxes added. So add 30% to your ISP bill when it is reclassified to Title II. Oh, but we’ll have Net Neutrality. Yeah!

  • Reply 35 of 85
    thewbthewb Posts: 79member
    This is misleading. The FCC has not redefined "broadband". The FCC has an obligation to study and report on the availability of high-quality telecommunications across the country and especially in rural areas, and it is left to their discretion to define what "high-quality telecommunications" means. Obviously that's a moving target that should be kept up to date. It used to be 200 kbps, then it was 4 Mbps, now it is 25 Mbps. ISPs are not obligated to change a thing. If what they're selling uses more bandwidth than the 8 kHz of a plain old-fashioned telephone line, then by golly they can keep selling it and they can still call it broadband because it IS broadband.

    A different matter is ISPs tapping into the Universal Service Fund to build out service to rural areas. To qualify for that funding there is a speed requirement that was recently increased to 10 Mbps.
  • Reply 36 of 85
    waltgwaltg Posts: 90member
    Well, picture this, having DSL fastest I can get is a ripping 1.5mb down.... Ask for a faster line,,, nope, that's the fastest, now, we'll increase your rate cause you have 'high speed' access... And no we are not going to upgrade the lines either......

    Would love to get a foster line just not possible here, the 1.5 DSL is the only game availible..
  • Reply 37 of 85

    The term first world problem comes to mind.  There are actual problems out there to solve, not thinking this is one of them.

  • Reply 38 of 85
    I'll take 20 Mbps.

    But I just want the fuçkïñg thing to be reliable, and not freeze up and die on a Fri or Sat night.
  • Reply 39 of 85
    gtbuzzgtbuzz Posts: 129member

    The biggest problem I think I have with Internet providers is the Upload speed and the latency.  The "clouds" seem to need 2 way communication and upload is an issue.  Rural Internet Providers are terrible.  I really would like to give up some download speed in trade for some upload speed and have the providers get rid of the delays.  25 Mbps is fast, but when it takes 3-5 seconds to serve pages (I know it depends upon what is on the page) that is too long.  I run speed tests and you can actually see the problems.  The Providers cannot sustain 25 down and 1 to 2 up for any sustained period of time.  They simply cannot deliver what some of them advertise and they have no intention of doing it.  Sending e-mails is actually getting slower.  Just a few thoughts.  And for Page designers, how about thinking about the users ?  I do not read the ads , I turn them off or tune them out.   Sorry, but that is what I do.

  • Reply 40 of 85
    rob bonner wrote: »
    The term first world problem comes to mind.  There are actual problems out there to solve, not thinking this is one of them.

    Guess what? I live in the 'first' world. And it's a problem. And I bloody well pay for it. So take your class warfare stuff elsewhere.

    (And I might add, 'third' world is an incredibly condescending phrase).
Sign In or Register to comment.