What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

FCC Raises Definition of Broadband to 25 Mbps (1 Viewer)

cstu

Footballguy
http://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-your-broadband-internet-technically-isnt-broadband-anymore/

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday rewrote the definition of high-speed Internet, and chances are, your connection isn't up to snuff.

The FCC, tasked with overseeing the rules that govern the Internet, raised the standard for broadband at 25 megabits per second from 4 Mbps, while raising the upload speed to 3 Mbps from 1 Mbps. The commissioners voted 3 to 2 in support of the change, though the dissenting Republican commissioners blasted the move as "overreaching." The move comes as the FCC published its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, which is what Congress uses to assess the US broadband market.

The new definition effectively means that millions of Americans subscribing to Internet service that clocks in at less than 25 Mbps are no longer considered "broadband" subscribers. The average speed of service delivered in the US is 10 Mbps. Using this new threshold, the agency determined in its report that true broadband speeds are not being delivered in a timely fashion.

The agency's report found that 55 million Americans, or 17 percent of the population, lack access to advanced broadband services. The bulk of Americans who do not have access to such speeds are in rural areas. The report indicates that 53 percent of rural Americans lack broadband with download speeds of 25 Mbps. This is compared to 8 percent of Americans living in urban areas. The report also indicates that 20 percent of rural Americans don't even have access to the previous standard of 4 Mbps downloads.

A contentious decision

The move has once again pitted Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat appointed by President Barack Obama, against the two Republicans on the commission, Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly, selected by the Republican-controlled Congress. Wheeler says the change in definition is an aspirational target that makes sense given the marketing claims of broadband providers that profess higher speeds are necessary for the ever increasing demands of consumers.

"Our challenge is not to hide behind self-serving lobbying statements, but to recognize reality," Wheeler said at the meeting. "And our challenge is to help make that reality available to all."

But the two dissenters on the FCC called the move an overreach of FCC authority and argued the new standard was arbitrary. Pai said that a better judge of what is considered broadband is to look at the services that consumers actually purchase.

"Seventy-one percent of consumers who can purchase fixed 25 Mbps service -- over 70 million households -- choose not to," he said.

The FCC noted in the Broadband Progress Report that the previous definition for broadband adopted in 2010 was "inadequate." And it redefined broadband services as 25 Mbps for downloads and 3 Mbps for uploads. The previous standard had been 4 Mbps for downloads and 1 Mbps for uploads.

Strong opinions on both sides

"The FCC's reevaluation of the broadband marketplace is long overdue," Edyael Casaperalta, Internet Rights Fellow at Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "For too long, the FCC has gotten by with an outdated standard for broadband, and as a result its analysis of the marketplace grew increasingly antiquated."

The Communications Workers of America union also applauded the effort, arguing the updated standard will create more jobs.

"Our nation's economic strength and social welfare -- as well as the future of good jobs in the telecom sector -- requires world leadership in the quality and capacity of our communications networks, and today's action by the FCC will move us forward toward regaining that leadership," the labor union said in a statement.

But conservative groups derided the move.

"The FCC has been playing political games with the '706 report' since 2010, when it suddenly declared deployment inadequate in order to justify its Net neutrality regulations," said Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, a Washington, DC-based think tank that generally backs the efforts of broadband providers.

Foundation for Net neutrality battle?

The Republican commissioners believe the broadband vote is just a set up for the FCC's intent to settle the Net neutrality fight with new regulations and to push local municipalities to go around state laws and build their own Internet networks. (Net neutrality is the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same.) They believe the stricter speed guidelines paint the broadband industry as less competitive, justifying the FCC moves.

"The ultimate goal is to seize new, virtually limitless authority to regulate the broadband marketplace," Pai said during the agency's meeting Thursday. "A thriving marketplace must be found to have failed so that the agency can regulate it back to health."

At the heart of the Net neutrality debate is a provision in the new rules that will reclassify broadband as a Title II service under the Telecommunications Act. This reclassification will essentially allow the FCC to apply regulation originally established for the traditional telephone network to broadband infrastructure. While Net neutrality supporters hail this move for putting the new rules on firmer legal ground, opponents, such as large Internet service providers and conservative Republicans, say it will stifle investment in networks.

The FCC is also set to rule on two petitions that will override state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prohibit municipalities from building or expanding broadband networks.

The agency will vote on both the Net neutrality proposal and the municipal broadband initiative at its February 26 meeting.
 
This is a fairly transparent attempt by the FCC to say that its obligations aren't being met under 706 so that way it can preempt state muni broadband laws at next month's meeting, which should be an absolute circus. I'm pretty excited.

 
It always amuses me that when fios appears in area or dsl has upgrades, then cable suddenly has more speed for us. I am not a huge regulation guy, but we are closer to a third world nation with out Internet speeds and phone speeds.

 
Reading this article on Net Neutrality from the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-net-neutrality-20150225-story.html#page=1

...and I still can't figure this out.

The Oliver piece on the issue won me over, the regulation issue within the FCC is obviously corrupt from the inside out, but it also disturbs me that the government fed or state could or would ever seek to exercise any kind of influence over the delivery of the internet's data itself.

Questions - will this one day, even 30-50 years down the road:

  • allow any argument for taxation of anything sold on the internet?
  • make it easier to regulate any speech on the internet, such as by arguing that blogs and forums like this one are in some way soft campaign contributions like say ads by PAC's and political groups?
  • make it easier for the feds or states to say what kind of information or data the ISP's must provide to governments domestic or foreign and also to 3rd parties?
I think those are my main concerns. If the idea is that NN ensures that the internet is regulated to ensure that there is no regulation and that the ISP's do not squeeze us, that's fine.

 
85 down 5 up at home - thanks comcast

18 down 5 up at work - so i guess i don't meet broadband requirements.... but honestly 18 down meets all my needs

my work is even an xfinity hotspot... so my phone gets 43 down, 5 up on the wifi which is faster than what i pay for with the hard wire connection

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reading this article on Net Neutrality from the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-net-neutrality-20150225-story.html#page=1

...and I still can't figure this out.

The Oliver piece on the issue won me over, the regulation issue within the FCC is obviously corrupt from the inside out, but it also disturbs me that the government fed or state could or would ever seek to exercise any kind of influence over the delivery of the internet's data itself.

Questions - will this one day, even 30-50 years down the road:

  • allow any argument for taxation of anything sold on the internet?
  • make it easier to regulate any speech on the internet, such as by arguing that blogs and forums like this one are in some way soft campaign contributions like say ads by PAC's and political groups?
  • make it easier for the feds or states to say what kind of information or data the ISP's must provide to governments domestic or foreign and also to 3rd parties?
I think those are my main concerns. If the idea is that NN ensures that the internet is regulated to ensure that there is no regulation and that the ISP's do not squeeze us, that's fine.
They are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist in order to establish authority to regulate the internet

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Reading this article on Net Neutrality from the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-net-neutrality-20150225-story.html#page=1

...and I still can't figure this out.

The Oliver piece on the issue won me over, the regulation issue within the FCC is obviously corrupt from the inside out, but it also disturbs me that the government fed or state could or would ever seek to exercise any kind of influence over the delivery of the internet's data itself.

Questions - will this one day, even 30-50 years down the road:

  • allow any argument for taxation of anything sold on the internet?
  • make it easier to regulate any speech on the internet, such as by arguing that blogs and forums like this one are in some way soft campaign contributions like say ads by PAC's and political groups?
  • make it easier for the feds or states to say what kind of information or data the ISP's must provide to governments domestic or foreign and also to 3rd parties?
I think those are my main concerns. If the idea is that NN ensures that the internet is regulated to ensure that there is no regulation and that the ISP's do not squeeze us, that's fine.
Wheeler has promised a modernized approach in which the FCC would ignore much of its regulatory power, particularly the ability to regulate rates, to "preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.

So they are going to grab the power, but they promise not to use it? Seems sketchy. Especially since Wheeler has no control over what happens in the future.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Reading this article on Net Neutrality from the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-net-neutrality-20150225-story.html#page=1

...and I still can't figure this out.

The Oliver piece on the issue won me over, the regulation issue within the FCC is obviously corrupt from the inside out, but it also disturbs me that the government fed or state could or would ever seek to exercise any kind of influence over the delivery of the internet's data itself.

Questions - will this one day, even 30-50 years down the road:

  • allow any argument for taxation of anything sold on the internet?
  • make it easier to regulate any speech on the internet, such as by arguing that blogs and forums like this one are in some way soft campaign contributions like say ads by PAC's and political groups?
  • make it easier for the feds or states to say what kind of information or data the ISP's must provide to governments domestic or foreign and also to 3rd parties?
I think those are my main concerns. If the idea is that NN ensures that the internet is regulated to ensure that there is no regulation and that the ISP's do not squeeze us, that's fine.
Wheeler has promised a modernized approach in which the FCC would ignore much of its regulatory power, particularly the ability to regulate rates, to "preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.

So they are going to grab the power, but they promise not to use it? Seems sketchy. Especially since Wheeler has no control over what happens in the future.
Seems like the people are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The ISP's can up the rates on high speed broadband which we are all used to, or we can waive our rights to have totally free, unimpeded content.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Reading this article on Net Neutrality from the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-net-neutrality-20150225-story.html#page=1

...and I still can't figure this out.

The Oliver piece on the issue won me over, the regulation issue within the FCC is obviously corrupt from the inside out, but it also disturbs me that the government fed or state could or would ever seek to exercise any kind of influence over the delivery of the internet's data itself.

Questions - will this one day, even 30-50 years down the road:

  • allow any argument for taxation of anything sold on the internet?
  • make it easier to regulate any speech on the internet, such as by arguing that blogs and forums like this one are in some way soft campaign contributions like say ads by PAC's and political groups?
  • make it easier for the feds or states to say what kind of information or data the ISP's must provide to governments domestic or foreign and also to 3rd parties?
I think those are my main concerns. If the idea is that NN ensures that the internet is regulated to ensure that there is no regulation and that the ISP's do not squeeze us, that's fine.
Wheeler has promised a modernized approach in which the FCC would ignore much of its regulatory power, particularly the ability to regulate rates, to "preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.So they are going to grab the power, but they promise not to use it? Seems sketchy. Especially since Wheeler has no control over what happens in the future.
Seems like the people are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The ISP's can up the rates on high speed broadband which we are all used to, or we can waive our rights to have totally free, unimpeded content.
It's not just rates either. This gives them the power to regulate content.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Reading this article on Net Neutrality from the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-net-neutrality-20150225-story.html#page=1

...and I still can't figure this out.

The Oliver piece on the issue won me over, the regulation issue within the FCC is obviously corrupt from the inside out, but it also disturbs me that the government fed or state could or would ever seek to exercise any kind of influence over the delivery of the internet's data itself.

Questions - will this one day, even 30-50 years down the road:

  • allow any argument for taxation of anything sold on the internet?
  • make it easier to regulate any speech on the internet, such as by arguing that blogs and forums like this one are in some way soft campaign contributions like say ads by PAC's and political groups?
  • make it easier for the feds or states to say what kind of information or data the ISP's must provide to governments domestic or foreign and also to 3rd parties?
I think those are my main concerns. If the idea is that NN ensures that the internet is regulated to ensure that there is no regulation and that the ISP's do not squeeze us, that's fine.
Wheeler has promised a modernized approach in which the FCC would ignore much of its regulatory power, particularly the ability to regulate rates, to "preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.So they are going to grab the power, but they promise not to use it? Seems sketchy. Especially since Wheeler has no control over what happens in the future.
Seems like the people are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The ISP's can up the rates on high speed broadband which we are all used to, or we can waive our rights to have totally free, unimpeded content.
It's not just rates either. This gives them the power to regulate content.
See, I don't understand that. There's no reason they couldn't create a regulation that says that only rates can be regulated, not the content.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Reading this article on Net Neutrality from the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-net-neutrality-20150225-story.html#page=1

...and I still can't figure this out.

The Oliver piece on the issue won me over, the regulation issue within the FCC is obviously corrupt from the inside out, but it also disturbs me that the government fed or state could or would ever seek to exercise any kind of influence over the delivery of the internet's data itself.

Questions - will this one day, even 30-50 years down the road:

  • allow any argument for taxation of anything sold on the internet?
  • make it easier to regulate any speech on the internet, such as by arguing that blogs and forums like this one are in some way soft campaign contributions like say ads by PAC's and political groups?
  • make it easier for the feds or states to say what kind of information or data the ISP's must provide to governments domestic or foreign and also to 3rd parties?
I think those are my main concerns. If the idea is that NN ensures that the internet is regulated to ensure that there is no regulation and that the ISP's do not squeeze us, that's fine.
Wheeler has promised a modernized approach in which the FCC would ignore much of its regulatory power, particularly the ability to regulate rates, to "preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.So they are going to grab the power, but they promise not to use it? Seems sketchy. Especially since Wheeler has no control over what happens in the future.
Seems like the people are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The ISP's can up the rates on high speed broadband which we are all used to, or we can waive our rights to have totally free, unimpeded content.
It's not just rates either. This gives them the power to regulate content.
No, it doesn't.

 
13.16 down and 6.87 up, from a 4G Mifi device. While running my work laptop through VPN on the same Mifi.

If you're not getting that kinda of speed at home/work, that that sucks for you.

 
Interesting exchange here:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000356959

One argument by the owners of the "pipes' like ATT is that they won't be investing in expanding their reach or in improving their technology if they aren't able to recoup their investment.
It's a fascinating argument. It's unfortunate that it will get derailed over politics, but there are two very interesting positions here:

1) The side taken by ISPs like AT&T. Namely, that in Europe, there is mandatory interconnection; in English, that means that the first builders of the "pipes" are required to lease out their facilities to competitors at a rate determined by the government. This is also what the U.S does with phone service, courtesy of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Broadband investment on a per-household basis is significantly higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe. How connected are those two facts? That depends on who you ask, but ISPs argue that the investment number in the U.S. is higher because they will be able to recoup their investment.

2) The side taken by others is that the "investment numbers" reflect ISPs' investment in things like set-top boxes and other consumer premises equipment which is used by existing customers, as opposed to an investment in building out their networks to reach new customers. This is also true, as a quick look at Comcast's 10k forms reveals. Unsurprisingly, ISPs will generally only invest in their infrastructure when they face competition; it's hard for new broadband competitors to enter the market because it's so expensive to build a new network, but when they do, the incumbents' investments mysteriously increase. Google Fiber is the best example of this.

People will interpret these facts however they want, of course, but this is an attempt to give an unbiased summary.

 
The vast majority of households have no practical actual need currently for anything over 15-25 mbp/s download speeds. The 1-2 mbp/s upload speeds are an issue for a minority that do things like file sharing, uploading video for remote viewing using things like Plex, sling player,dishanywhere, simple.tv, remote viewing IP cameras, etc. Run of the mill Netflix streaming, MLB.TV, pandora, youtube,VOIP phones, etc. all run just fine at these download speeds. Yes, if you have 4 persons in the house all doing different things simultaneously then you would use 4x as much but 25 down is still difficult to saturate.

There is no real widespread need for greater speeds. It's all just a lot of hype. This would be equivalent to requiring that houses be upgraded from 200a to 600a electric service or their gas and water pipe diameters be doubled in diameter. It's ridiculous to mandate 25 as some kind of minimum required standard.

 
For those with reservations - tell me how we stop a ISP from charging me more to deliver my content? And controlling the speed of my content that I want to deliver on their networks to my customers in order to prioritize others?

 
The new definition effectively means that millions of Americans subscribing to Internet service that clocks in at less than 25 Mbps are no longer considered "broadband" subscribers. The average speed of service delivered in the US is 10 Mbps. Using this new threshold, the agency determined in its report that true broadband speeds are not being delivered in a timely fashion.The agency's report found that 55 million Americans, or 17 percent of the population, lack access to advanced broadband services. The bulk of Americans who do not have access to such speeds are in rural areas. The report indicates that 53 percent of rural Americans lack broadband with download speeds of 25 Mbps. This is compared to 8 percent of Americans living in urban areas. The report also indicates that 20 percent of rural Americans don't even have access to the previous standard of 4 Mbps downloads.
So they upped the broadband standard from 4 mbps to 25mbps?

And so all of a sudden there is a crisis in which millions of Americans do not have access to "broadband"?

 
The new definition effectively means that millions of Americans subscribing to Internet service that clocks in at less than 25 Mbps are no longer considered "broadband" subscribers. The average speed of service delivered in the US is 10 Mbps. Using this new threshold, the agency determined in its report that true broadband speeds are not being delivered in a timely fashion.The agency's report found that 55 million Americans, or 17 percent of the population, lack access to advanced broadband services. The bulk of Americans who do not have access to such speeds are in rural areas. The report indicates that 53 percent of rural Americans lack broadband with download speeds of 25 Mbps. This is compared to 8 percent of Americans living in urban areas. The report also indicates that 20 percent of rural Americans don't even have access to the previous standard of 4 Mbps downloads.
So they upped the broadband standard from 4 mbps to 25mbps?

And so all of a sudden there is a crisis in which millions of Americans do not have access to "broadband"?
If all they did was changed the standard of what can be classified and marketed as broadband I don't understand the big deal here. Is the problem just that now the ISPs can't say they are giving you broadband at the slower speeds? There isn't now a rule that the ISPs have to offer this is there?

I have read pros and cons on this, but every author seems to have an agenda rather than giving an unbiased report so I don't know what to think about this new rule. If the government then gets into content I have a problem, but just the marketing stuff I couldn't care less about.

 
This will be a disaster, a regulated internet.

You have fallen for all the bullet points they are wanting to shove down Americas throats.

You don't know WTH are you asking for and going "hell yeah" for.

We deserve exactly what we get.

SMH

 
Interesting exchange here:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000356959

One argument by the owners of the "pipes' like ATT is that they won't be investing in expanding their reach or in improving their technology if they aren't able to recoup their investment.
It's a fascinating argument. It's unfortunate that it will get derailed over politics, but there are two very interesting positions here:

1) The side taken by ISPs like AT&T. Namely, that in Europe, there is mandatory interconnection; in English, that means that the first builders of the "pipes" are required to lease out their facilities to competitors at a rate determined by the government. This is also what the U.S does with phone service, courtesy of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Broadband investment on a per-household basis is significantly higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe. How connected are those two facts? That depends on who you ask, but ISPs argue that the investment number in the U.S. is higher because they will be able to recoup their investment.

2) The side taken by others is that the "investment numbers" reflect ISPs' investment in things like set-top boxes and other consumer premises equipment which is used by existing customers, as opposed to an investment in building out their networks to reach new customers. This is also true, as a quick look at Comcast's 10k forms reveals. Unsurprisingly, ISPs will generally only invest in their infrastructure when they face competition; it's hard for new broadband competitors to enter the market because it's so expensive to build a new network, but when they do, the incumbents' investments mysteriously increase. Google Fiber is the best example of this.

People will interpret these facts however they want, of course, but this is an attempt to give an unbiased summary.
I work with several of the ISPs and find that most of their arguments against NN are not credible. They are aggressively protecting a backwards business model and are resistant to any disruptive changes that shift away the absolute power they have over their customers. The idea that ISPs would stop investing in infrastructure is illogical and completely untrue. Rather it will force them to invest more strategically to attract new users as well as provide better support and service to existing customers.

 
This will be a disaster, a regulated internet.

You have fallen for all the bullet points they are wanting to shove down Americas throats.

You don't know WTH are you asking for and going "hell yeah" for.

We deserve exactly what we get.

SMH
It's not a regulated internet. It's regulating the ISPs. The ISPs are not the internet.

 
Interesting exchange here:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000356959

One argument by the owners of the "pipes' like ATT is that they won't be investing in expanding their reach or in improving their technology if they aren't able to recoup their investment.
It's a fascinating argument. It's unfortunate that it will get derailed over politics, but there are two very interesting positions here:

1) The side taken by ISPs like AT&T. Namely, that in Europe, there is mandatory interconnection; in English, that means that the first builders of the "pipes" are required to lease out their facilities to competitors at a rate determined by the government. This is also what the U.S does with phone service, courtesy of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Broadband investment on a per-household basis is significantly higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe. How connected are those two facts? That depends on who you ask, but ISPs argue that the investment number in the U.S. is higher because they will be able to recoup their investment.

2) The side taken by others is that the "investment numbers" reflect ISPs' investment in things like set-top boxes and other consumer premises equipment which is used by existing customers, as opposed to an investment in building out their networks to reach new customers. This is also true, as a quick look at Comcast's 10k forms reveals. Unsurprisingly, ISPs will generally only invest in their infrastructure when they face competition; it's hard for new broadband competitors to enter the market because it's so expensive to build a new network, but when they do, the incumbents' investments mysteriously increase. Google Fiber is the best example of this.

People will interpret these facts however they want, of course, but this is an attempt to give an unbiased summary.
I work with several of the ISPs and find that most of their arguments against NN are not credible. They are aggressively protecting a backwards business model and are resistant to any disruptive changes that shift away the absolute power they have over their customers. The idea that ISPs would stop investing in infrastructure is illogical and completely untrue. Rather it will force them to invest more strategically to attract new users as well as provide better support and service to existing customers.
Technology always eventually trumps a backwards business plan. Don't think the phone companies saw Skype coming. Oops.

 
Interesting exchange here:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000356959

One argument by the owners of the "pipes' like ATT is that they won't be investing in expanding their reach or in improving their technology if they aren't able to recoup their investment.
It's a fascinating argument. It's unfortunate that it will get derailed over politics, but there are two very interesting positions here:

1) The side taken by ISPs like AT&T. Namely, that in Europe, there is mandatory interconnection; in English, that means that the first builders of the "pipes" are required to lease out their facilities to competitors at a rate determined by the government. This is also what the U.S does with phone service, courtesy of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Broadband investment on a per-household basis is significantly higher in the U.S. than it is in Europe. How connected are those two facts? That depends on who you ask, but ISPs argue that the investment number in the U.S. is higher because they will be able to recoup their investment.

2) The side taken by others is that the "investment numbers" reflect ISPs' investment in things like set-top boxes and other consumer premises equipment which is used by existing customers, as opposed to an investment in building out their networks to reach new customers. This is also true, as a quick look at Comcast's 10k forms reveals. Unsurprisingly, ISPs will generally only invest in their infrastructure when they face competition; it's hard for new broadband competitors to enter the market because it's so expensive to build a new network, but when they do, the incumbents' investments mysteriously increase. Google Fiber is the best example of this.

People will interpret these facts however they want, of course, but this is an attempt to give an unbiased summary.
I work with several of the ISPs and find that most of their arguments against NN are not credible. They are aggressively protecting a backwards business model and are resistant to any disruptive changes that shift away the absolute power they have over their customers. The idea that ISPs would stop investing in infrastructure is illogical and completely untrue. Rather it will force them to invest more strategically to attract new users as well as provide better support and service to existing customers.
This I agree with. While everyone will pay attention to the NN issue tomorrow, the bigger, and more important, issue that will be discussed tomorrow is whether the FCC can preempt state laws that hamper the deployment of municipal broadband networks.

 
The vast majority of households have no practical actual need currently for anything over 15-25 mbp/s download speeds. The 1-2 mbp/s upload speeds are an issue for a minority that do things like file sharing, uploading video for remote viewing using things like Plex, sling player,dishanywhere, simple.tv, remote viewing IP cameras, etc. Run of the mill Netflix streaming, MLB.TV, pandora, youtube,VOIP phones, etc. all run just fine at these download speeds. Yes, if you have 4 persons in the house all doing different things simultaneously then you would use 4x as much but 25 down is still difficult to saturate.

There is no real widespread need for greater speeds. It's all just a lot of hype. This would be equivalent to requiring that houses be upgraded from 200a to 600a electric service or their gas and water pipe diameters be doubled in diameter. It's ridiculous to mandate 25 as some kind of minimum required standard.
I hope you remember this post when you're trying to stream to your 4K TV.

 
The vast majority of households have no practical actual need currently for anything over 15-25 mbp/s download speeds. The 1-2 mbp/s upload speeds are an issue for a minority that do things like file sharing, uploading video for remote viewing using things like Plex, sling player,dishanywhere, simple.tv, remote viewing IP cameras, etc. Run of the mill Netflix streaming, MLB.TV, pandora, youtube,VOIP phones, etc. all run just fine at these download speeds. Yes, if you have 4 persons in the house all doing different things simultaneously then you would use 4x as much but 25 down is still difficult to saturate.

There is no real widespread need for greater speeds. It's all just a lot of hype. This would be equivalent to requiring that houses be upgraded from 200a to 600a electric service or their gas and water pipe diameters be doubled in diameter. It's ridiculous to mandate 25 as some kind of minimum required standard.
I have 1.5mbps internet.

Netflix streaming looks awful. Nice 1080p 60" TV showing a bunch of blocky garbage. When I watch something on demand I have to let it buffer for several hours first. Cloud storage is basically not an option. Downloading some games on Xbox takes upwards of a week to complete. When one of those mandatory 2gb Xbox dashboard updates roll out it basically means I can't play Xbox for 24 hours. It's really fun setting up a time to play online with all your friends, plopping down on the couch after a long day of work, finally booting up the Xbox and then realizing great, I can't play today. Sadly, all of that is only the beginning.

First world problems, I know. But it freaking sucks. In 100% total seriousness I will never again buy a house without diligently researching the ISPs in the area. There's no way I'm ever buying a place without acceptable internet speeds again. It really does **** with your life.

 
Speed? We don't need no stinkin' speed. I get 6 Mbps download and 0.68 Mbps upload. Yay DSL. I wish I could get something other than that or Comcast...but I can't.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top