FCC chair: Broadband must be 25Mbps, and ISPs are failing to deliver

Broadband not being deployed “in a reasonable and timely fashion," Wheeler says.

Read the whole story

 

[duncansil]

I live in rural community. I'd be ecstatic with 25Mbps rather than the 2.5 I currently get (Which I am still thankful for). If Big Telco dosen't want to serve me, then at least don't block the smaller or civic ISPs who do.

 

[crhilton]

I live in a city and I can't get 25/3....

I'm pretty confident they have the infrastructure, or are only missing minor pieces, but they'll only offer 15/1. I say that because other parts of the city can get 30/<some arbitrary upload cap> and I think some areas can get 50.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

4mbps is definitely not enough. Whatever Netflix needs for super HD is what should be the minimum. 3 or 4 was good enough ten years ago.

 

[Ironicending]

Must be a typo. It sounded like the FCC chairman was being consumer minded?

Perhaps my reading comprehension is broken.

 

[macemoneta]

3Mbs up? 3Mbs? Hey, Tom Wheeler, try uploading that 15 minute video you took on vacation to Youtube to share with your friends and family at 3Mbs. 25Mbs/25Mbs should be the minimum definition. This is 2015 - asymmetrical bandwidth should no longer be consider "broadband".

 

[ajfink]

I thought they were pushing 10Mbps?

ISPs just got tolt.

 

[Edgarion63]

This is much better than 10mbps being considered broadband. Being a cord cutter, most of my entertainment comes from the internet. Trying to download a game or patch while my wife is watching Netflix in the other room at 10mbps would be painful.

25/3 should be a good minimum for the next 5 years or so. The next logical step should be either 100/100 or even 1gb/1gb the next time it gets reclassified. Sure no one needs 1gbps right now, but why not look to the future instead of trying to catch up in a few years.

 

[smartalco]

macemoneta[/url]":3jlgfpxg]3Mbs up? 3Mbs? Hey, Tom Wheeler, try uploading that 15 minute video you took on vacation to Youtube to share with your friends and family at 3Mbs. 25Mbs/25Mbs should be the minimum definition. This is 2015 - asymmetrical bandwidth should no longer be consider "broadband".

There's still technical reasons for having it be asymmetrical, mainly that increasing your upload reduces your download. It doesn't work exactly like this, but most people would rather have (for example) 25/5 than 15/15. (Over copper anyway, IIRC fiber doesn't have this limitation)

 

[Edgarion63]

macemoneta[/url]":m82jlf7w]3Mbs up? 3Mbs? Hey, Tom Wheeler, try uploading that 15 minute video you took on vacation to Youtube to share with your friends and family at 3Mbs. 25Mbs/25Mbs should be the minimum definition. This is 2015 - asymmetrical bandwidth should no longer be consider "broadband".

It certainly beats 1mbps upload. I only have a 5mbps upload speed and a 720p upload of a 30 minute screen capture takes less than 45 minutes. Not blazing fast, I know, but this is just setting the minimum requirements.

I agree that we should have synchronous download/upload speeds, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

 

[undervillain]

macemoneta[/url]":33i8em31]3Mbs up? 3Mbs? Hey, Tom Wheeler, try uploading that 15 minute video you took on vacation to Youtube to share with your friends and family at 3Mbs. 25Mbs/25Mbs should be the minimum definition. This is 2015 - asymmetrical bandwidth should no longer be consider "broadband".

I agree with you that the upload speed should be higher, but I'll be happy with the proposed 3mbps up for now. The earlier proposal was to move the definition from 4/1 to 10/1 (increasing download speed without adjusting the upload speed at all). I'm happy to see that upload speeds are also being moved in the current proposal.....at least it's something!

 

[dirtside]

I live in Los Angeles, a few miles from downtown; a few weeks ago, Time Warner Cable (our ISP) sent us a letter saying "Hey, we're going to upgrade your Internet speeds from 25/2 to 100/10. Go to our website and order (free) your new cable modem." We did, got it a few days later, got it installed, and sure enough, we have 100/10 now. It doesn't make much impact except for when I need to upload large amounts of data to the Internet, but it's still a nice upgrade.

I don't know what other people's experiences have been like lately but I thought I'd put this in as a data point.

 

[lewax00]

mcmnky[/url]":2c6ntxre]I realize this horse has left the barn, but the definition of "broadband" has nothing to do with speed. It's like saying my vehicle with 4 wheels, an engine, transmission, doors, and seating for 4 people isn't an automobile because the top speed is only 35 mph.

/I'll see myself out, thanks.

Well technically, 25 Mbps isn't a measure of speed, but a measure of bandwidth, so broadband is very much related (i.e. the width of the band is broad). Speed is really latency, which isn't addressed here.

EDIT: It's more akin to saying your sedan isn't a commercial transport because it isn't large enough (which is done to some extent, you need a commercial license to operate a vehicle over a certain weight in many places).

 

[Nijyo]

I was assured that this man was simply a puppet for the telco/cable industry. Has the Internet lied to me again?

smartalco[/url]":8bjdlsbt]

macemoneta[/url]":8bjdlsbt]3Mbs up? 3Mbs? Hey, Tom Wheeler, try uploading that 15 minute video you took on vacation to Youtube to share with your friends and family at 3Mbs. 25Mbs/25Mbs should be the minimum definition. This is 2015 - asymmetrical bandwidth should no longer be consider "broadband".

There's still technical reasons for having it be asymmetrical, mainly that increasing your upload reduces your download. It doesn't work exactly like this, but most people would rather have (for example) 25/5 than 15/15. (Over copper anyway, IIRC fiber doesn't have this limitation)

Yeah, I mean, while I tend to agree that faster upload would be nice, for the overwhelming majority of users, it's really neither here nor there.

 

[StillGridlocked]

Telco's can easily push that rate out over DSL between fiber nodes/remotes, new tech that is maximizing throughput and pair bonding that is not an issue.

 

[taswyn]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":12u7g8om]I'm uncomfortable with precise numbers being codified in government regulations because technology moves very fast and such numbers will be a stable target at which companies will comfortably stagnate. It'd be much better to have healthy competition and let companies drive each other to deliver faster speeds.

Good luck creating healthy broadband competition in the US. That's a good joke.

Not to mention that doing so is completely outside of the FCC's purview, in the case of cable. This is literally the best the FCC can do, by at least setting some bare minimum standards.


Anyway, this is a decent stopgap measure to try to achieve better parity outside of metro areas. What really concerns me is the lack of oversight on all of the rural broadband initiatives, many of which seem to be just cash grabs that get funding, make some noises, spend outrageous amounts on contractors in one or two neighborhoods (aka funnel money to specific contractors) and then fold into bankruptcy.

 

[umaromc]

mcmnky[/url]":2xwcrehn]I realize this horse has left the barn, but the definition of "broadband" has nothing to do with speed. It's like saying my vehicle with 4 wheels, an engine, transmission, doors, and seating for 4 people isn't an automobile because the top speed is only 35 mph.

/I'll see myself out, thanks.

You forgot the [sarcasm] tag?

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

It's great that he has the balls to say that the US being in 20-somthing-th place overall globally for broadband is not acceptable, but when will this stop being lip service and when will this start being progress? This clown has been running his mouth for months saying what ISPs should be doing to make Internet better in the US, but nothing has changed.

 

[kliu0x52]

What we really need is competition. I received an ad from Time Warner Cable in the mail the other day. Offering 100Mbps service. A friend of mine in another part of the country received the exact same TWC ad in her mail, except for one difference: 30Mbps service instead of 100Mbps. Pricing, terms, and even the design of the ad were all the same except for the speed of service.

So what was different? She lives in San Diego (not some underserved rural area) where the two cable companies in operation have mutually exclusive territories and don't compete against each other. And I live in Kansas City with Google Fiber.

 

[AxMi-24]

1/4 to 1/8 asymmetry doesn't feel like the correct direction to move in. How can services like working from home get started when the upload speeds are so anemic?

 

[jdorsey]

I think we all want to see those speeds get better but they also need to keep the price affordable. I'm not going to pay an outrageous fee for 25/3. I'm paying too much (plus hardware costs if something breaks) for my current connection. Years ago if a DSL modem went bad they sent you a new one. Now, I can buy one cheaper on Amazon and it doesn't have the terrible interface.

 

[Danrarbc]

Millions of Americans are losing their broadband connections under this definition.

 

[zAmboni]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":mspasgec]I'm uncomfortable with precise numbers being codified in government regulations because technology moves very fast and such numbers will be a stable target at which companies will comfortably stagnate. It'd be much better to have healthy competition and let companies drive each other to deliver faster speeds.

I kinda agree, especially when such numbers can be reversed at the whim of a politically divided committee. But the numbers seriously needed updating because ISPs could use ridiculously low numbers in advertisements and still be able to call their service "broadband"

Next thing the committee needs to do is come up with precise numbers for "affordable" and "budget" in the pricing of ISP packages.

 

[Viking ZX]

My family is part of that 20%. They're stuck with a 2.5/.7 connection most of the time (and paying for I think 7 or 8 to 2).

The worst part? They also have a 40 GB cap, with a charge of $10 per gig after that. They pay something like $60-80 a month already for what they have.

Oh wait, nevermind, it gets worse. According to the telecom that runs the fiber cable into my hometown, that cable is capable and ready for 1 Gbps speeds to be issued by the local ISPs. The two local ISPs, on the other hand, have collectively given the middle finger to the community, and supported by laws that prevent anyone from competing, continue to offer their current, sub-par, craptastic service.

It sucks.

Edit: I'm all for this news, in other words.

 

[pallentx]

Ironicending[/url]":u3aoffut]Must be a typo. It sounded like the FCC chairman was being consumer minded?

Perhaps my reading comprehension is broken.

Don't worry, its only regarding a meaningless definition that carries no weight or requires no action on the part of the industry.

 

[WaveRunner]

StillGridlocked[/url]":1flrv9pq]Telco's can easily push that rate out over DSL between fiber nodes/remotes, new tech that is maximizing throughput and pair bonding that is not an issue.

Even old tech like ADSL2+ is rarely used. My Telco said there's no way we can get 6mbps+ to you. Then a year later a competitor offered higher speeds, and all of a sudden the Telco called and asked if I would like to upgrade to 16mbps.

 

[kliu0x52]

Danrarbc[/url]":3cviv8rr]Millions of Americans are losing their broadband connections under this definition.

I can already hear them spinning this into an attack ad. "Under the FCC's--" No, wait, it'll sound better like this: "Under Obama's new definition, millions of Americans will lose broadband Internet. Stop big government from hurting our job-creating businesses with unnecessary regulations. Paid for by Wholesome People for Obfuscation."

 

[AnniesBoobs]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":3dg5b9hg]I'm uncomfortable with precise numbers being codified in government regulations because technology moves very fast and such numbers will be a stable target at which companies will comfortably stagnate. It'd be much better to have healthy competition and let companies drive each other to deliver faster speeds.

In any other market besides the US broadband one, I'd agree with you. The big telcos have provided ample data to suggest that they are primarily interested in getting by on the absolute minimum. Not only that, but there isn't enough competition that exists in this segment to drive improvements and innovation. As a result, the government needs to specify just what that minimum should be. Left to market forces, 4/1 was deemed acceptable.

 

[Xipher]

fgoodwin[/url]":1066amle]How can the FCC say x% of "Rural America" suffers from a lack of broadband, when there is no standard definition for "rural America"?

The FCC doesn't have one, different federal agencies (e.g., Agriculture Department vs. Census Bureau) define "rural" differently, and the 50 states don't define it the same way the Feds do.

With so many different definitions, shouldn't the government settle on a common definition before they can determine whether or not "rural" America is getting adequate broadband?

I would assume rural would qualify as anything outside of an incorporated city.

 

[trimeta]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":31v1d8ls]I'm uncomfortable with precise numbers being codified in government regulations because technology moves very fast and such numbers will be a stable target at which companies will comfortably stagnate. It'd be much better to have healthy competition and let companies drive each other to deliver faster speeds.

The only thing these numbers mean is how the FCC defines broadband when preparing reports. It doesn't mandate anything or force ISPs to change anything; literally the only effect is how to calculate numbers when making the statement "X% of Americans have no access to broadband, while Y% only have a single broadband provider, and Z% can choose between only two providers of broadband."

 

[Chase.Turner]

Question : what does the FCC define in regards to maximum acceptable packet loss to qualify as "broadband" service?

For example, Time Warner Cable says they deliver 15Mbps down and 1Mpbs up in our rural town of Hana, HI, but in the prime time viewing hours, packet losses range between 1% and 30% -- as measured by me and my neighbors using devices such as SamKnows.com and atlas.ripe.net network probes.

Point being, whether those packets are flowing at 4Mbps or 25Mbps, a packet loss rate in excess of 1% essentially prevents me and my neighbors from viewing competitive alternatives to TWC CableTV, such as Netflix or Hulu.

 

[Richard_M]

Dollars to donuts they end up settling for 10/1 after the comment period is over. My bet is that the 25/3 rhetoric is just to scare them into not fighting the 10/1 limits.

 

[the_frakker]

I'm curious how this will affect my current "broadband" service that is 12Mbps down (I think upload is above 3Mbps, but not sure).

If the new rules are passed in vote, then AT&T would have to reclassify my current service as non-broadband. At that point they either have to charge me less or boost my speeds - right?

 

[Smeghead]

macemoneta[/url]":19twa1bs]3Mbs up? 3Mbs? Hey, Tom Wheeler, try uploading that 15 minute video you took on vacation to Youtube to share with your friends and family at 3Mbs. 25Mbs/25Mbs should be the minimum definition. This is 2015 - asymmetrical bandwidth should no longer be consider "broadband".

3Mb/s would stull be 3 times faster than what we get here, and I'll bet is better than 80% of the population's upload rate.

The only way to get more upload bandwidth here (Time Warner in Honolulu) is to pay for a 30/5 package, which is $20/mo more. I don't particularly need the higher download bandwidth, and if there were any way to add only upload bandwidth at a lower price, I would have done it already.

As it stands, I've been toying with just paying them their blood money anyway.

As usual, competition is non-existent. I tried switching to the local phone company a year ago, but they were awful. They couldn't deliver more than about 60% of their claimed bandwidth at any point, bur far worse than that, the connection dropped every 5-10 minutes or so. They weren't willing to fix their line (the building wiring tests out just fine) so I told them to bugger off.

 

[Kinemaxx]

Hmm. 25 Mbps would equal the maximum bitrate for high profile, level 4.0 h.264 video, which can support 1920x1080 at 30 fps (encoded with up to 4 reference frames). Of course that doesn't include audio and other overhead, but it does seem a reasonable target for 'serious' broadband, since it's supposed to be the level you can get high quality video and such.

I'd consider 10 Mbps the minimum for 'basic' broadband. That's about the top end of the data rates I see from pretty much any individual service I use. Usually have to have multiple things going at once to see download rates much above that. 10 Mbps would be the maximum data rate for 720x480 video, main profile level 3.0, 30 fps.

 

[Danrarbc]

the_frakker[/url]":2u0s4bgu]I'm curious how this will affect my current "broadband" service that is 12Mbps down (I think upload is above 3Mbps, but not sure).

If the new rules are passed in vote, then AT&T would have to reclassify my current service as non-broadband. At that point they either have to charge me less or boost my speeds - right?

It won't make a lick of difference in your service. But they may be pressured into not using the word broadband.