
Democrats fight FCC's plans to redefine “broadband” from 25+ to 10+ Mbps - gnicholas
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/ajit-pais-plan-to-lower-broadband-standards-is-crazy-fcc-democrat-says/
======
pasbesoin
To those saying e.g 10 Mbit/second is enough: Do you live with other people?

Get a family on one of those lines, and 10 will not be enough.

And the problem is, even if you think it's a fine solution to ask such cases
to pay more for a higher tier of service, in many areas, _there is no higher
tier of service._

In my area, the phone company's line was too poor quality to support DSL when
I moved in, 16 years ago. And I am _not_ in a rural community. I'm in a dense
sub-division, in the middle of suburbia.

Forward to 2 years ago, when I had a chance to talk with one of the linemen
linemen regularly assigned to my area. AT&T _still_ had not replaced that
line. And, as far as I know, still has not.

It's not that a 25+ expectation is "too hard" or "too expensive". It's that
many incumbents _aren 't even trying._

Then again, whenever a municipality wants to move forward and roll its own
broadband deployment, then AT&T rolls out their lawyers.

They won't roll the trucks for upgrades. But lawyers, to stop competition?
Sure thing.

------
thomastjeffery
This article doesn't focus on the bigger issue: Mobile internet as a viable
substitute.

Right now, the FCC's policy is for all Americans to have _access_ to _both_
home broadband and mobile internet.

Ajit Pai is seeking to change that, so that you only need _one choice_ , and
that that "choice" may be limited to 10Mbit down 1Mbit up.

While _both_ changes are absurd, I think that allowing mobile internet to
"qualify" as home internet is the most detrimental change.

~~~
dragonwriter
With the right speed and latency, I don't see any problem with mobile
broadband substituting for fixed. Number of providers is more important for
choice than if those providers fit in the “mobile” of “fixed” broadband
buckets (except you need mobile whether or not you have fixed; why you need
fixed if you have quality and choice in mobile, though, is less clear.)

------
gnicholas
I have 12 Mbps at home and have had faster speeds (50-100) when traveling and
at work. I generally don't notice any difference when working, browsing the
web, or streaming Netflix/Hulu/etc.

We definitely need to have a "broadband" threshold that automatically
increases over time, but IMO 10 Mbps is functionally equivalent to 25 in most
ways right now.

I run a startup from home and the only time I notice bottlenecks is when I'm
uploading 100MB files. This is rare and not worth the extra $10/mo that I'd
have to pay to get a higher speed.

I'd be interested to know what others think — are there big benefits out there
that I'm missing out on? Has anyone gone from 10 to 25 Mbps and had a big
impact on their work/life?

I'd sooner focus on the fact that sales agents at AT&T and Comcast both
routinely refer to megabytes per second when they should be saying megabits...

~~~
thomastjeffery
12 Mbps may be an OK _bare minimum_ if it's consistent.

Unfortunately, most connections I've used give you a burst, and then drop
drastically down, so you only experience the 12 Mbps for a second or two, then
watch it fall over 30 seconds to around 1-2 Mbps.

Right now I have 20 Mbps fiber that is consistently 20 Mbps. It's right at the
threshold that I would call "comfortable". I'm not sure I would be OK with
half that.

"Broadband" used to mean "really fast". Redefining it to the lowest threshold
that internet is _usable_ does not sound reasonable to me.

~~~
gnicholas
> _Unfortunately, most connections I 've used give you a burst, and then drop
> drastically down, so you only experience the 12 Mbps for a second or two,
> then watch it fall over 30 seconds to around 1-2 Mbps._

I've not experienced this. I've had Comcast and AT&T (DSL) and typically get
60-100% of the putative max speed. Sometimes it's under 50%, but then if I
call in they admit that there's a problem. More importantly, I can do anything
I want with 6 Mbps downstream. In fact, I had 6 until Comcast got rid of the
plan, and I'd happily stick with that speed if I could pay 60% of my current
bill. Maybe I'm peculiar in this regard, but we have 5 tablets, 4 computers,
and 2 iPhones in our house. We're definitely not the "average" US household in
this regard.

> _" Broadband" used to mean "really fast". Redefining it to the lowest
> threshold that internet is usable does not sound reasonable to me._

Reasonable minds can differ on what this definition should reflect. If the
government is going to regulate companies based on a definition, I'd rather it
be closer to "minimum usable" rather than "really fast".

Then you can use that threshold with multipliers if you want, akin to how we
use the poverty level threshold. (For example, you qualify for certain
benefits if you have less than 150% or 200% of the poverty level.)

~~~
thomastjeffery
> I'd rather it be closer to "minimum usable"

The definition is for _what is available_. It explicitly means that if a
community literally has no 25 Mbps option, that ISPs aren't doing a good
enough job with the millions they get in tax dollars. Are you really OK with a
significant population of Americans being limited to the absolute bare-
minimum?

~~~
gnicholas
> _Are you really OK with a significant population of Americans being limited
> to the absolute bare-minimum?_

My understanding is that this definition only impacts how statistics are
reported (e.g., "80% of American's have broadband access at home"). So
changing the definition does not affect people's actual speed, or any
incentives that ISPs have to offer different packages.

For the purposes of reporting, I do think that 10 Mbps is the more appropriate
threshold. Otherwise I would be counted in the "x percent of Americans without
broadband access at home". Considering how much I do with my internet, and how
happy I am with my speed tier, that would be a gross misrepresentation of my
situation.

------
westurner
The FCC redefined broadband as 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up as reported in the
2015 Broadband Progress Report (from 4Mbps/1Mbps in 2010).

[https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-
progr...](https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-
reports/2015-broadband-progress-report)

------
mac01021
Why do we need such a definition at all? Anyone can see that 50Mbps > 40Mbps >
30 > 10 > 1Mbps. And everyone is, regardless of any given definition, going to
figure out how many Mbps will suit their purposes, and then buy the package
from their ISP that they find to be the best tradeoff.

~~~
grok2
That is to force ISPs to provide a minimum level of service everywhere -- what
good is it if you are prepared to pay for 50Mbps in a rural under-served area,
but the ISP will not provide it to you because they don't have the
infrastructure for it.

------
newsmania
This is just such a nonissue. 10mbps is fast enough for anything regular users
need.

~~~
indemnity
In our household 200Mbps approaches not fast enough when everyone is using,
such that we’re upgrading to 1Gbps.

With improved speeds usage patterns change. 5 years ago we would barely crack
150GB/month, and now we’re pushing 1TB/month.

~~~
gnicholas
What apps/services sucks up the bandwidth? I know 7-person families (where
everyone has a computer/tablet) that are happy with 50 Mbps.

