> This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates.
Anybody who disagrees with you must have been bought and paid for by your evil opponents, huh.
> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US.
Honestly, this kind of statement is what sounds like ridiculous astroturfing.
To have a robust market, you need a variety of players. Witha duopoly, you generally end up with approximately the same service as a monopoly, but with two slightly different price points. But the fast majority of the US has at best 2 choices even for a 4 Mbps plan. At 25 Mbps down, then only 2.4% of customers have three or more choices.
I would rather have a robust market, and indeed I'm one of the few people who has stuck with independent ISPs even though it costs me more. But given the oligopoly we've got, I'm happen to take strong regulation to prevent abuse.
The FCC had to change their definition of "broadband" to get that "quite literally almost no competition" result.
The traditional 4Mbps standard found 2 or more wired and 3 or more wireless providers at about 90% of US addresses.
I like ever-faster service, but the idea that's what most people need or even want – when superfast speeds cost more – isn't well-supported. 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video teleconferencing. When and where people crave more, and if the solo 25Mbps-provider annoys them with pricing or traffic policies, more options will arrive, just as they have been arriving for the past two decades.
Most places in the US had zero 4Mbps options 20 years ago, and now they have 5+. Options and speeds have been steadily growing, not shrinking. But utility-style federal regulation, without regard to local competitive possibilities, slowed telephone-network dynamism for decades. It will similarly constrain rather than expand 'broadband' choices, by forcing them into a nationally-managed utility mould.
> 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video teleconferencing
The last six years of my life have been consumed by work on video streaming services. While in a lab environment you would be correct, I can tell you that in the real world you are off by a factor of about 4, and will be off by a factor of about 8 for 4k video.
> Most places in the US had zero 4Mbps options 20 years ago, and now they have 5+.
I have no idea where you got that idea, unless you think wireless is a substitute for cable or DSL. It's not.
While I trust your experience with regard to whatever specific streaming assumptions & goals your project was seeking, in fact my DSL, maxing at 5Mbps in speed tests, has no problem streaming HD from Netflix for a sharp picture on a 50" TV. (A sibling commenter links to Vudu's FAQ that reports 2.25Mbps as their threshold for HD streaming.)
And we're not limited to streaming: at 5Mbps, iTunes HD downloads complete faster than they can be watched, and at 4Mbps you just need to give them a 10-minute head-start per hour.
So no-one at 4Mbps – the floor at which ~90% of America already has 2 or more wired providers and 2 or more wireless providers – need be locked out of their inalienable human right to video-entertainment. At most they might need to wait a few minutes... or watch in the SD that was good enough for decades of TV-watchers.
Wireless is not yet a perfect substitute for cable/DSL, but it's an acceptable substitute for many people, when they're not heavy audio/video consumers. My wireless service (TMobile LTE) is about 4x faster at my home than my DSL wired service – and so I've switched to wireless on occasion when I needed large software downloads to complete quickly.
You are fortunate to live somewhere with high-quality DSL, and not have anyone else using your connection. These things do not hold true for the majority of people. I expect you're also tolerating much longer startup times than most consumers tolerate.
Vudu is not providing meaningful HD. The way you get 2.25mbps "HD" is by providing a 720p or 1080p stream of very low quality. 2.25mbps is not capable of providing even close to HD quality without going to h.265, which is not currently practical.
Your premise was that 4mbps was "plenty" for HD. To now speak of SD is simply admitting that you are wrong, and 4mbps is not meaningfully broadband.
I also have T-Mobile LTE. It's almost useless without putting the phone in the window, has massive latency spikes, and can't maintain high speeds for long without dropping out completely. It is of no practical use in replacing the connection I do actual work on.
If you can download 1 hour of HD in 1 hour and 10 minutes over 4Mbps, that is still "plenty" in my book – especially since 90% of the USA have multiple options for that bandwidth.
If one provider is out front with more bandwidth for impatient cinemaphiles – good for them! Let them charge more, in more ways, as a motivation for competitors to upgrade.
The ability to satisfy all other net uses – web, email, short videos, software downloads, audio streaming, video conferencing, etc – from multiple competing providers almost everywhere is still pretty good. Saying that's "not broadband" is arbitrarily raising the standard to create a false sense of crisis.
It's too bad your LTE needs a careful window positioning; I've noticed mine faces many weak spots around the neighborhood. But wireless is competitive in many places, for many people, for many uses – and keeps getting better. No one is trapped indefinitely with bad service needing federal rescue – the rates and options have been improving non-stop for decades, based on raw competitive factors.
5 seconds is beyond the tolerance point for most consumers. 3 seconds is getting into annoyance territory. You're mostly OK below 2.
Your argument is now circular. 90% of the US is fine because they have at least 4mbps, which is fine because 90% of the US has it. That doesn't work. In fact, I can turn it right around on you, as Wheeler recently did -- "When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard.".
You have cinemaphiles exactly backwards. They are more tolerant of delays and long downloads than ordinary consumers, because they understand and expect that they will have to put up with such for maximum quality. Ordinary consumers want something that works like a TV channel or a website.
Raising the threshold for internet service to be classified as an advanced telecommunication capability is not a "federal rescue", it's the FCC doing what it's mandated by 47 USC § 1302[0] to do -- report on the availability of advanced communications capability, defined as "high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.".
You should also read the actual report[1], where they discuss exactly why the new level was chosen. Hint: They recognize households consist of more than one person.
I've personally had three fixed wireless installations over the past decade. Two residential, one business. I've researched the option in numerous additional cases for both business and residential service.
Both business and consumer services are typically more expensive by 10-100% and have installation (particularly LOS) requirements many -- if not most, in topographically unfavorable areas -- cannot meet. While the business services are usually OK once installed, consumer services are particularly unstable and the equipment prone to early death.
Notably, the wireless ISPs I'm familiar with ended up either shut down or moving to a different line of primary business as soon as any sort of viable wired service made it into town.
While far better than relying on mobile data if you don't have other options, it's still definitely not a substitute, even for DSL.
Under the hood, consumer fixed wireless is usually just wifi gear, but running on licensed frequencies and attached to big outdoor antennas.
If you're very, very lucky, the hardware might have been manufactured to run optimally on those frequencies, or it might just be a WAP in a different box running tweaked software.
This has the generally-crappy results you would expect.
Business gear is substantially more robust and expensive.
The parent is referring to the fact that consumer plans for nearly all ISPs don't guarantee 4 Mbps at all times. Instead they offer "up to 4 Mbps". Average performance is less than that, especially at high-usage times of day.
Historically, that's been an issue. But in fact, the FCC has been testing this, and most users' actual speeds are barely any lower than advertised (and sometimes even higher) during peak periods. From their 2014 report [1]:
"On average, during peak periods DSL-based services delivered download speeds that were 91 percent of advertised speeds, cable-based services delivered 102 percent of advertised speeds, fiber-to-the-home services delivered 113 percent of advertised speeds, and satellite delivered 138 percent of advertised speeds."
And, a majority of wired connections are advertised as "6Mbps or higher" [2] – so even if throughput at peak times was only 66% (while in fact it averages 90%+), it'd be still be plenty for HD video from Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon.
The sense of distress here is based a lot on folklore and outlier complaints. Most people are essentially getting the full headline speeds, even during peak times, and have 2+ choices for service sufficient for all but the most bleeding-edge applications.
4Mbps is not enough to handle a single HDX stream from Vudu (http://www.vudu.com/faq.html) much less a family household streaming to different devices.
Per your link, 2.25Mbps is sufficient for HD from Vudu. Also, 4Mbps is the floor for meeting the original broadband definition; most offerings are higher.
Remember, if not for an accident of history (cable and telephone services running over completely different kinds of wires), it wouldn't be a duopoly, it would be an outright natural monopoly -- a prime candidate for treatment as a public utility.
Anybody who disagrees with you must have been bought and paid for by your evil opponents, huh.
> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US.
Honestly, this kind of statement is what sounds like ridiculous astroturfing.