# FCC definition of Broadband



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

In a ruling on Thursday, the FCC said the minimum to be called broadband is 25/3 Mbps. Info here:

http://www.geek.com/news/19-of-us-homes-may-no-longer-have-broadband-1614567/


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Well with my Verizon DSL just clocked at 2.72 Mbps download, it looks like even now I'm not getting broadband.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wonder what this really means.

If they can no longer call it broadband at lower speeds, that doesn't mean they can't sell it or that people would suddenly refuse it. I'm not really sure what this means.

It's like... if they passed a law that said sneakers could no longer be called shoes... it doesn't mean they suddenly become bad to wear.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If it is not legally broadband it doesn't fall under the regulations for broadband.

So, theoretically, if there is an open access rule for broadband that rule would not apply to a slower non-broadband connection.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Well with my Verizon DSL just clocked at 2.72 Mbps download, it looks like even now I'm not getting broadband.


You weren't before, the old definition was 4 Mbps.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Drucifer said:


> Well with my Verizon DSL just clocked at 2.72 Mbps download, it looks like even now I'm not getting broadband.


that is border line dial up...... lol

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wonder what this really means.
> 
> If they can no longer call it broadband at lower speeds, that doesn't mean they can't sell it or that people would suddenly refuse it. I'm not really sure what this means.
> 
> It's like... if they passed a law that said sneakers could no longer be called shoes... it doesn't mean they suddenly become bad to wear.


well, what this means for me is that ISPs wont be able to advertise a "Ferrari" but delivering a "pinto" they is going to be a differentiator, those ISP that offer broadband, and those that just offer "internet"

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> that is border line dial up...... lol
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Back in the day...about 15 years ago I moved from Dayton to Cincinnati. My apartment complex in Dayton, I could only get 26.4kbps, apparently due to a pair gain.

Moved to Cincinnati and fell in love with my brand new Zoomtown 768kbps DSL connection, fastest they offered, which gradually moved up to 10Mbps (when I was looking at houses, I kept the CO distance in mind). Currently satisfied with 30/10 fiber.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I'm surprised that only 19 percent seem to fall below 25 Megs but above 4 megs. 

But I like the change. Keep a few marketers quiet for a few months.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ That number is cooked. That must only include those who can get even slow DSL at all. I'd say there's a fair percentage of the population that can't even get that. I know there are a lot of my neighbors who can't get the 3Mbps service I have since I'm about at the end of the loop limit.

There is an upgrade in progress that should get me 6Mbps whenever they get it done, but even then there will be some households that can't get anything.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Yesterday morning, I woke up with broadband internet (6/.75), and this morning I wake up without it.

What a difference a day makes! :grin:


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Yesterday morning, I woke up with broadband internet (6/.75), and this morning I wake up without it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes! :grin:


Does it make you feel better that your upload speed didn't meet the old requirement? 

They didn't adjust the upload up, only download.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Does it make you feel better that your upload speed didn't meet the old requirement?
> 
> They didn't adjust the upload up, only download.


While you are correct that my upload speed didn't meet the old requirement, DSLReports stated the following:



> The FCC originally defined broadband as anything faster than 200kbps, then upgraded that definition to 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream. Only in 2010 did the agency bump the definition to 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. The broadband industry fought each one of those reclassifications every step of the way.


If correct, they did adjust the upload speed... from 1mbps to 3mbps.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

You're right, it is now 3. Forgot that, and it was in Groundhog's post.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I thought the Solid Signal Blog had some interesting theories on the matter:

Solid Signal Blog

DSLReports also had some people thinking the change could affect the Comcast/TWC merger.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Very interesting point of view. 


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm glad I have the ISP I do, I think it's unlikely they will do anything nefarious.

Or I guess move to California and in Sonic.Net's service area.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Yep my 1.5mb down is defiantly not boardband lol


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I guess I've never been hung up on labels and names. When I buy something I find out what it is and decide if the cost is worth it... they could call it flubber, and if I feel I'm getting my money's worth I'm ok with it.

"Broadband" is a word that never really had a real meaning to me anyway... essentially it was just service that wasn't dial-up. Beyond that, not all broadband was created equal. From what I can tell, that still holds true. Not all new-definition broadband will be equal either... some who buy the new broadband will still be a lot slower than other broadband customers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Sure, but at least there's now a definition. I've stayed at a few hotels that advertised broadband, and it wasn't by my definition. Now it's not by a recognized body... More good than bad in the move.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't think this will help with hotels. If they have a 25/3 connection, can they say they have free broadband, even if there are 400 guests using it? It's the connection as a whole, not to each device. Plus I believe there is still the issue of wifi where if someone connects an old 802.11b device etc, it slows others on the same AP down.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I tend to agree with some of the detractors that 25 is an unreasonable number for most of the country. We'll never see 25 out here in the sticks, unless there's some kind of major change in technology. Most of this area will never see 12 although some that are near the nodes might.

Fiber down the rural side roads just isn't practical for the number of houses, even if everyone subscribed, which they won't.

My only hope would be for some sort of WISP. Even current cell based systems won't help given the current pricing and capacity limitations. I might be able to get 3G reliably, but not with a cap of 2 or 3 Gb a month. I know they figure it differently for mobile devices, but I would need a traditional type of modem to feed a LAN for normal PCs. Even now with no streaming, I regularly use 20Gb/mo. From what I've seen, that would be a couple of hundred dollars on any of the 3G or 4G systems.

Many of you are paying half of what I am ($40/mo for 3Mbps) for 2-3 times the speed also.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Sure, but at least there's now a definition. I've stayed at a few hotels that advertised broadband, and it wasn't by my definition. Now it's not by a recognized body... More good than bad in the move.


most hotels advertised "free high speed Internet" I barely see the words "broadband" being used

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> most hotels advertised "free high speed Internet" I barely see the words "broadband" being used.


Excellent point. Damn, now I can't sue for false advertising!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I guess I've never been hung up on labels and names. When I buy something I find out what it is and decide if the cost is worth it... they could call it flubber, and if I feel I'm getting my money's worth I'm ok with it.
> 
> "Broadband" is a word that never really had a real meaning to me anyway... essentially it was just service that wasn't dial-up. Beyond that, not all broadband was created equal. From what I can tell, that still holds true. Not all new-definition broadband will be equal either... some who buy the new broadband will still be a lot slower than other broadband customers.


You're not wrong. I can almost see a scenario where two people are talking together. One person says they have "broadband service" (30/15) and the other person saying they have "high-speed-internet" (6/1), and the person with broadband service telling the person with HSI that they were jealous of them.

However, as Laxguy said, at least there's now an updated definition.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> I tend to agree with some of the detractors that 25 is an unreasonable number for most of the country. We'll never see 25 out here in the sticks, unless there's some kind of major change in technology. Most of this area will never see 12 although some that are near the nodes might.
> 
> Fiber down the rural side roads just isn't practical for the number of houses, even if everyone subscribed, which they won't.
> 
> ...


My ISP, Windstream, provides a small section of the City of Dawson with 12mbps service. If you live elsewhere in the county, you should feel lucky to receive 6mbps (like myself).

Mediacom provides cable TV and HSI to the City of Dawson, but not to the rest of the county. They bought the system from AT&T Cable years ago, and still use the fiber AT&T buried years ago to provide digital cable to Dawson. That fiber is across the street from me. Years ago, Mediacom asked people if they would be interested in cable service, and since every person was happy with their DISH Network or DirecTV service, they got a lot of "no" answers. If Mediacom were to ask that question again and ask if people would be interested in cable internet service, I believe they would get multiple "yes" answers.

I know of several businesses around this area who are connected to a fiber internet service. This fiber was built out for those businesses, and goes through mostly rural areas in order to get to those business locations. I don't think most people are aware of it.

On the plus side, Windstream is apparently planning on offering higher internet speeds in the next three years, so that's nice at least.



> An important aspect of the restructuring is that Windstream has promised to provide bandwidth of 10 megabits per second to more than 80 percent of its customers by 2018. It will also double its 24 Mbps speed tiers by that time, offering the service to more than 30 percent of its customers.


SOURCE


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I have had Clearwire as my wireless ISP for several years (4/.75) and it has been adequate for my needs. They have been absorbed into Sprint and they're not taking any new ISP users but using it for hotspots. They are dropping email soon and I expect that is the beginning of the end. I'll probably go back to DSL (CenturyLink) soon. When I had them (previously Qwest) before it wasn't great but they ran some fiber about a quarter-mile away and hopefully it's better now.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Why isn't America embrass being so far behind other nations in regards to getting Internt to it citizens at modern 21st century speeds?


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Why isn't America embrass being so far behind other nations in regards to getting Internt to it citizens at modern 21st century speeds?


We make up for it by charging more.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Why isn't America embrass being so far behind other nations in regards to getting Internt to it citizens at modern 21st century speeds?


"Other nations" is a pretty general term. If you set parameters on the term to mean "larger than Texas with a population density less than Texas" you won't find many "other nations." The problem is clearly demonstrated in this Google Fiber map:










Each city can be pretty much described as a tiny dot at the bottom of the marker. The small dot that's Kansas City which they've "fibered" a lot of looks like this:










Now there may come a time that Lawrence, Kansas, will have Google Fiber, but I rather doubt that the folks in Higgensburg, MO, will see it anytime soon. That's because it just isn't cost effective in the free market to build a network to serve all that space which is not within one of those tiny dots. It was only because of government effort that most of the nation in terms of geography got universal access to electricity and then phone service, unless you believe some alternate history.

I just happen to live within a strip about the size of an eight lane freeway which has at its center the main Comcast "cable" going across basically rural space. So a small percentage of us in our community get Broadband by the new definition.

The metropolitan areas have better service because for every foot of line there are far more potential customers. However there is more competition and in the future a lot of it will come from the wireless sector.

Out here in the forests of Mendocino County AT&T has copper wire it's trying to get rid of and they basically have abandoned us if you're talking internet. Comcast is only here because they got stuck with our area when they split the bankrupt Adelphia system with Time Warner Cable. There are some "startup" efforts that don't cut it. And there's satellite. Both Verizon and AT&T give me two bars outdoors so I don't expect any 5G service here any time in my grandkids lifetime.

So when we read that various small nations in Europe are Broadband wired we have to be skeptical. If you take the whole of Europe, which is more the size of the U.S., its patterns look familiar.

We pride ourselves on being a "1st world" country. But our infrastructure outside of metropolitan areas is frequently "2nd world" and headed in the direction of "3rd world." It really a function of geography and population density. What the FCC is doing is defining three classes in America with regard to the internet - "1st World America" has Broadband, "2nd World America" has High Speed Internet, and "3rd World America" has basically dial-up or nothing.

Nobody, not cable companies nor the cellular providers, and certainly not Google, are in a hurry to invest in infrastructure to create universal access to Broadband across the United States.

And yet, 60-70% of the population could have access to it "soon." While the other 30% may never have access to it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I know a lot of people like to compare the US to other countries and talk about how other countries are "way ahead" of the US in broadband deployment... but most of the time the comparison fails to consider the size of the countries.

Most countries are the size of our smaller states. There are a few exceptions, but generally you're comparing deployment of broadband in a country the size of say West Virginia or smaller with the entirety of the US.

I suspect the total broadband deployment within the US is still ahead of most countries in terms of area-covered and speeds... it's just that a whole lot of the US is still uncovered or inadequately covered... and because of the size of the US it is going to take a while to catch up when many people still do not need or want high-speed internet more than they want other things.

I think most people in the US would rather live in their "broadband-lacking" part of the US rather than in whatever country they say is "beating" the US to broadband but lacking in many other things.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think most people in the US would rather live in their "broadband-lacking" part of the US rather than in whatever country they say is "beating" the US to broadband but lacking in many other things.


I like stretching my arms without putting may hands through the neighbor's windows on both sides.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

As long as they don't complain about it. We have a user that complains that remoting into our system is slow, but he lives in the Rockies with a satellite connection, and Terminal Services can be fairly lag sensitive.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

phrelin said:


> "Other nations" is a pretty general term. If you set parameters on the term to mean "larger than Texas with a population density less than Texas" you won't find many "other nations." The problem is clearly demonstrated in this Google Fiber map:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Makes wonder how this country ever get phone service outside of big cities.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

The Universal Service Fund?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> Makes wonder how this country ever get phone service outside of big cities.


Slowly.

Phone services started in towns complete with shared lines, listening for "your ring", manual operators and extremely limited connections to the next town. Services grew and spread into the more rural areas. Connections between towns (and especially competing companies) eventually came. Then deregulation came and now we have competing companies.

Long story short ... we did not get the phone service we have today overnight. Expecting broadband services to be introduced to every location "immediately" is a bit optimistic.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Part of Roosevelt's New Deal, the REA (Rural Electrification Association) was charged with providing electricity, telephone, water and sewer to rural areas.

My grandparents in SC got electricity in the early 40s, telephone in the early 60s (service was probably available in the 50s), and county water in the 80s. Still no sewer in the area.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Today "The Phone Company" is but a memory for many born before 1980 and ancient history for those born after. In fact, it was the creation of Alexander Graham Bell and his father-in-law Gardiner Greene Hubbard accomplished by 1880.

When in the period of 1970-73 Lily Tomlin did her sketch on "Laugh-In" about what began as American Telephone and Telegraph Company...

[youtubehd]SvesMBkduQo[/youtubehd]

...we laughed because "The Phone Company" was a government authorized (some say "created") monopoly with an interesting history. Most today are unaware that AT&T held a monopoly on phone service in the United States because of The Kingsbury Commitment:



> The Kingsbury Commitment of 1913 established AT&T as a government-sanctioned monopoly, as an out-of-court settlement of the government's antitrust challenge. In return for the government's agreement not to pursue its case against AT&T as a monopolist, AT&T agreed to divest the controlling interest it had acquired in the Western Union telegraph company, and to allow non-competing independent telephone companies to interconnect with the AT&T long distance network.


Most don't know that AT&T was_ nationalized_ and then had its status as "The Phone Company" restored:



> The entire network was nationalized during World War I from June 1918 to July 1919. Following re-privatization, AT&T resumed its near-monopoly position. In 1956, AT&T and the Justice Department agreed on a consent decree to end an antitrust suit brought against AT&T in 1949. Under the decree, AT&T restricted its activities to those related to running the national telephone system, and special projects for the federal government.


While "The Phone Company" was a "near-monopoly" it's long distance operations were regulated by the FCC and the "Baby Bell" operations were regulated by state regulators, in my State by the California Public Utilities Commission which included strict control of rates and charges and a strong push to serve every nook and cranny of the state.

The internet, a global system of interconnected computer networks, has a completely different history, supported by DARPA and National Science Foundation monies, and designed to not be dominated by any one owner of "wires."

My only fear here is that, along with the merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the establishment of the term "broadband" will evolve in the U.S. into the consolidation of meaningful access to the "internet."


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Part of Roosevelt's New Deal, the REA (Rural Electrification Association) was charged with providing electricity, telephone, water and sewer to rural areas.
> 
> My grandparents in SC got electricity in the early 40s, telephone in the early 60s (service was probably available in the 50s), and county water in the 80s. Still no sewer in the area.


My brother in law keeps telling me I should disconnect myself from the city, dig a well and put in a septic system.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> My brother in law keeps telling me I should disconnect myself from the city, dig a well and put in a septic system.


Some of us in the stix have wells and septic systems now. But still rely on the grid for electricity, and a propane company for fuel for heating and cooking. If everything came down, we'd survive just fine, but I'd miss my DIRECTV® a lot. Oh, almost forgot: My propane heater needs electricity to function- I think. Don't want to find out. So we'd be chopping more wood.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I know a lot of people like to compare the US to other countries and talk about how other countries are "way ahead" of the US in broadband deployment... but most of the time the comparison fails to consider the size of the countries.
> 
> Most countries are the size of our smaller states. There are a few exceptions, but generally you're comparing deployment of broadband in a country the size of say West Virginia or smaller with the entirety of the US.
> 
> ...


I think it wouldn't be unfair to require company "X" that if they want to serve the big cities that they must service the small towns where their service runs through with the same service that they provide big cities. The problem is that these companies only want to service big cities where their return on investment is huge.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Some of us in the stix have wells and septic systems now. But still rely on the grid for electricity, and a propane company for fuel for heating and cooking. If everything came down, we'd survive just fine, but I'd miss my DIRECTV® a lot. Oh, almost forgot: My propane heater needs electricity to function- I think. Don't want to find out. So we'd be chopping more wood.


Sure, but I fail to see the benefit. He thinks I'd save money by not having to pay the sewer and water bills, but I think it'd cost way more than it's worth to do (if even legal in the city), or even conceivable on my palatial .22 acres. Of course he says I'm wrong and an idiot for paying "the man".


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Oh, I see. Not practical for you. For me, if I want water or sewer, I have to do it myself. Pretty unlikely you'll get permission to put in a septic system on a quarter acre!


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm inside city limits, but still have a well and septic system. Power outages are way too common (trees falling across wires when the wind blows) and that means no water either. No water bill, but replacing the pump isn't cheap and the septic tank needs occasional pumping.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

*The FCC is Preparing to Weaken the Definition of Broadband*

by Karl Bode, DSL Reports

Under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required to consistently measure whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans uniformly and "_in a reasonable and timely fashion._" If the FCC finds that broadband isn't being deployed quickly enough to the public, the agency is required by law to "_take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market._"

Unfortunately whenever the FCC is stocked by revolving door regulators all-too-focused on pleasing the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- this dedication to expanding coverage and competition often tends to waver.

What's more, regulators beholden to regional duopolies often take things one-step further -- by trying to manipulate data to suggest that broadband is faster, cheaper, and more evenly deployed than it actually is. We saw this under former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the top lobbyist for the cable industry), and more recently when the industry cried incessantly when the base definition of broadband was bumped to 25 Mbps downstream, 4 Mbps upstream.

We're about to see this effort take shape once again as the FCC prepares to vote in February . . . . . READ MORE


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Yes -changing- From fast - to really, really Fast = NO added gov't charge for that


----------

