DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

· New Texan
Joined
·
11,467 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I coughed up a furrball when I read this one. Funny thing is... I'm not a cat.

Internet providers seek low broadband bar
The biggest U.S. Internet service providers urged regulators to adopt a conservative definition of "broadband," arguing for minimum speeds that were substantially below many other nations.

(snip)

AT&T said regulators should keep in mind that not all applications like voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) or streaming video, that require faster speeds, are necessarily needed by unserved Americans.
FULL ARTICLE HERE

My "conservative" definition of broadband is at least 1 Mbps, but they are talking numbers as low as 0.256 Mbps. That's just twice bonded ISDN speed. WHA?!?!?!?!?
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,787 Posts
Mark Holtz said:
I coughed up a furrball when I read this one. Funny thing is... I'm not a cat.

Internet providers seek low broadband bar
FULL ARTICLE HERE

My "conservative" definition of broadband is at least 1 Mbps, but they are talking numbers as low as 0.256 Mbps. That's just twice bonded ISDN speed. WHA?!?!?!?!?
I think broadband should be defined as 1Mbps also.

Although, it is pretty pathetic that our average broadband is nearly an order of magnitude behind Japan (92.8Mbps vs 9.6Mbps). :eek:

Mike
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
4,873 Posts
AT&T probably wants the low speed because they can meet it wirelessly with EDGE from a cell tower, which they already provide to a lot of these unserved areas (such as my house.)

It's about 9 times faster than my AT&T dialup was, but of course many of the things people will increasingly want to do are not possible.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,910 Posts
Who cares, honestly? It's all marketing. Sure it kinda gets under my skin, too, that they're clearly looking to take advantage of people that don't know any better, but at the end of the day the law of the land is caveat emptor. If someone buys a product because it simply says "broadband" on it then they deserve what they get. Likewise if someone buys a Chevy because it says "fuel efficient" they have no right to complain that it only gets 25 MPG versus the Prius that gets 50 (which is truly, fuel efficient).

It's not like it's going to prevent providers from rolling out faster speeds and competing for the higher numbers. :shrug:
 

· Icon
Joined
·
883 Posts
I'd like the definition to be higher because I live in an area where, yes, edge is available as is satellite internet but those are my only choices so it's not like I can be stupid & decide to go with one of those when something better is also available. I'm hoping the broadband thing takes off so I CAN get something better than the crap I have now. I'm still not sure why satellite is not considered available to rural areas. I understand that some might not be able to use it because of trees maybe but wouldn't an overwhelming number of the rural areas be able to get satellite service, which claims it is over 1 meg.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,915 Posts
Should be at least 1mbps IMO.

BUT, and a huge but here. I was only able to get 512/128 because of my distance for many many years and even that service is TONS better than ISDN/Satellite/Dial Up options and allowed me to use VoIP and online gaming easily.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
8,968 Posts
tcusta00 said:
Who cares, honestly? It's all marketing.
Actually, it's becoming more than that now. There are lots of laws being written using the term "broadband", and lots of money and tax credits being given based on carriers providing "broadband." That makes it very important to have a technical definition of "broadband".
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,915 Posts
BattleZone said:
Actually, it's becoming more than that now. There are lots of laws being written using the term "broadband", and lots of money and tax credits being given based on carriers providing "broadband." That makes it very important to have a technical definition of "broadband".
Exactly, and that is why providers would like a lower bandwidth bar so extended reach and such programs qualify.

Some areas, like where I am, are not very profitable as the residences are so spread out and a lot of equipment is needed to provide higher speeds at long distances. I was lucky as a development went in somewhat near by and thus the phone company put in a lot of new equipment.
 

· Charter Gold Club Member
Joined
·
22,099 Posts
I sense a pervasive, growing national malaise that could well be indicative of what lies ahead for the country. The subtle, underlying message is that excellence is no longer a worthy pursuit, and the extra effort it takes to rise above the crowd and stand out just isn't worth the reward. It says that 'good enough' is, well, good enough, which flies in the face of what I was always taught and still believe, that "good enough", isn't.

Increasingly, American businesses, once considered the most advanced, free-thinking and innovative on Earth, are now looking to the government teat for a handout, if not their sustenance.

This effort to lower the broadband bar is a much a symptom of this self-defeating 'good enough' mentality as was the introduction of minimum-wage protection laws years ago which became a crutch for workers, and a handy target for employers in their collective goal to hold wages as low a possible.

And worse, if a "minimum-wage" definition of broadband speed is established by the FCC, not only will a majority of our country's Internet subscribers be hoodwinked, they will surely be deprived of all the technological goodies which ever-increasing broadband speeds surely would have brought.

It's a sad day when "good enough" is.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
4,351 Posts
I'm not so sure all that worry is warranted. Sure, AT&T is asking to set the bar low. But Comcast and Verizon would wipe the floor with them. Can you see the ads? "Sure, AT&T is 'broadband' the way Machboxes are cars - for REAL internet service call 1-800-LOSE-ATT"
 

· New Texan
Joined
·
11,467 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
When I see the low bandwidth speeds, I cannot help but think that the executives think of the Internet as just a place to bring up web pages, exchange small e-mails, and possibly instant message. Today's internet, however, is much more. People are attending online meetings, have video calls, telecommute by accessing their computers remotely, and downloading movies.

I work for a company where our product uses the Internet. However, low latency is a must, otherwise your online experience is horrible... even worse than dialup. No amount of complaining changes the fact that you may love living in the country, however, you have to put up with the limitations. So, it's either satellite or dial-up.... at around 12,000 baud. (No, I am not kidding).

What makes the United States different from Japan, Korea, and such is that those countries are densely populated and the land area much smaller than the United States. Thus, it is easier to achieve higher speeds. Of course, in some areas, you have several choices. In the US, you got a choice between the cable company and the phone company. Not much choice in my opinion. The local ISP who probably gave you great service in the dial-up days got locked out because the Telco charged a very high rate to co-locate the DSL equipment in their offices which competed with their own service.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Nick.... it seems that we are stuck in a attitude of "can't do" which is kinda sad. To go completely into the reasons behind that.... requires that we go to a political board.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,915 Posts
You guys are missing the point if you think its for the internet using masses in cities and such and for the key marketable areas of ISPs coverage. The real key is that ISPs are getting funds and have requirements/goals to meet for "Broadband" roll out in their service areas (put upon them by the government).

In rural areas this is very tough as they might only have 5-10 subscribers on a $100k+ node that is required to provide the service. Rural areas thus have many times either not been covered, or covered with extended reach gear that works but often requires slower speeds like the 512/128 service I was on. Some ISPs are pushing for the definition of "Broadband" to be lower so that they can more easily obtain higher percents of "Broadband" coverage in their service areas without it putting them under as the Subscriber/investment ratio just does not play out in many service areas.
 

· RIP
Joined
·
6,203 Posts
Nick said:
I sense a pervasive, growing national malaise that could well be indicative of what lies ahead for the country. The subtle, underlying message is that excellence is no longer a worthy pursuit, and the extra effort it takes to rise above the crowd and stand out just isn't worth the reward. It says that 'good enough' is, well, good enough, which flies in the face of what I was always taught and still believe, that "good enough", isn't.

Increasingly, American businesses, once considered the most advanced, free-thinking and innovative on Earth, are now looking to the government teat for a handout, if not their sustenance.

This effort to lower the broadband bar is a much a symptom of this self-defeating 'good enough' mentality as was the introduction of minimum-wage protection laws years ago which became a crutch for workers, and a handy target for employers in their collective goal to hold wages as low a possible.

And worse, if a "minimum-wage" definition of broadband speed is established by the FCC, not only will a majority of our country's Internet subscribers be hoodwinked, they will surely be deprived of all the technological goodies which ever-increasing broadband speeds surely would have brought.

It's a sad day when "good enough" is.
Wow, comparing minimum wage laws to broadband definitions...way to stretch the topic to meet some political agenda.

AT&T is attempting to get the definition they want in order to make more money. They shouldn't be allowed to do it.
 

· Charter Gold Club Member
Joined
·
22,099 Posts
Ken S said:
Wow, comparing minimum wage laws to broadband definitions...way to stretch the topic to meet some political agenda...
No agenda here, but your rush to judgment may have caused you to miss my point. The comparison is that both minimum wage and reduced BB speeds either represent, or tend to encourage mediocre performance, a trend which, unfortunately, seems to be headed in the wrong direction.
 

· RIP
Joined
·
6,203 Posts
Nick said:
No agenda here, but your rush to judgment may have caused you to miss my point. The comparison is that both minimum wage and reduced BB speeds either represent, or tend to encourage mediocre performance, a trend which, unfortunately, seems to be headed in the wrong direction.
One has nothing to do with the other. We all understand you don't like minimum wage...but that type of political discussion doesn't belong in this forum and you're well aware of that.

AT&T is not trying to reduce broadband speeds they're trying to get a type of service labeled as such so they can make more money. This doesn't mean they won't sell faster services which they already do offer. Your statement/argument is so contrived it's sad.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top