Minimum Broadband Speed Set at 768 Kbps Down/200 Kbps Up

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
Much has been made about the billions earmarked for broadband projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), with people wondering how the government would define “broadband.” Now that the money is starting to be paid out, GovTech found what the minimum speed must be to qualify for the cash: 768 Kbps down/200 Kbps up. While that’s surely better than dial-up, is this really the best they could settle upon?

"It's almost impossible to participate in a real-time video conference [at that speed]. It's almost impossible to share video files, music files, pictures -- any large quantity of data with a time-sensitive nature to it. It's almost impossible to do that because it's barely four times the speed of dial-up," said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, a consumer group advocating for higher speeds within the National Broadband Plan, which the FCC plans to release February.
Click to expand...
 
wow here in sweden preety much most people say anything under 10mbit up and down isnt broadband... and i should know with 100/10 :D
 
The problem with the good ol' USA is that our country is TOO DAMN BIG

Our infrastructure blows anus because everything is so spread out. Hell, most of our major cities don't even have decent public transportation. And as you can see, our internet speeds suck.
 
wolfen22 said:
The problem with the good ol' USA is that our country is TOO DAMN BIG

Our infrastructure blows anus because everything is so spread out. Hell, most of our major cities don't even have decent public transportation. And as you can see, our internet speeds suck.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much.
 
While 768 kbps down isn't the best, trust me, alot of people are getting far worse.
 
What a joke!!! Minimum should have been 5mb down 1mb up!!! That would drop 80% of home broadband under that par. Making companies innovate and improve to meet the bar. Setting the bar that low lets most providers to not improve.
 
In the context of trying to get large rural areas off dialup and onto SOME form of broadband, I think this speed is appropriate. It wouldn't do anyone any favors if the required speeds for broadband were so high that it only further impeded any companies will to service those remote areas. Even something like extended range IDSL would probably be a dream come true for many of these people.

Though I don't see any reason why the requirements couldn't be tiered, with different minimum speed requirements depending on average population density or other factors.
 
GotNoRice said:
In the context of trying to get large rural areas off dialup and onto SOME form of broadband, I think this speed is appropriate. It wouldn't do anyone any favors if the required speeds for broadband were so high that it only further impeded any companies will to service those remote areas. Even something like extended range IDSL would probably be a dream come true for many of these people.

Though I don't see any reason why the requirements couldn't be tiered, with different minimum speed requirements depending on average population density or other factors.
Click to expand...

uh dude, this is 'murica. We don't take too kindly to your good ideas 'round these parts.
 
GotNoRice said:
In the context of trying to get large rural areas off dialup and onto SOME form of broadband, I think this speed is appropriate. It wouldn't do anyone any favors if the required speeds for broadband were so high that it only further impeded any companies will to service those remote areas. Even something like extended range IDSL would probably be a dream come true for many of these people.

Though I don't see any reason why the requirements couldn't be tiered, with different minimum speed requirements depending on average population density or other factors.
Click to expand...

Yeah we wouldn't want to make minimum broadband requirements higher than 768/200, numbers that sound like they were pulled out of someone's ass, or else the telecom companies might have to install new infrastructure and innovate in order to catch us up with the rest of the world in terms of internet speed.
 
It still surprises me that our country, the supposed country of countries, can't do better than this. *sigh*
 
wolfen22 said:
The problem with the good ol' USA is that our country is TOO DAMN BIG

Our infrastructure blows anus because everything is so spread out. Hell, most of our major cities don't even have decent public transportation. And as you can see, our internet speeds suck.
Click to expand...

ok so what about places like L.A. and New York? why dont THEY have 100/100
its not the size or major citys would still be just as fast as the rest of the world
 
southpaw said:
What a joke!!! Minimum should have been 5mb down 1mb up!!! That would drop 80% of home broadband under that par. Making companies innovate and improve to meet the bar. Setting the bar that low lets most providers to not improve.
Click to expand...

8 down and 4 up
 
And of course everyone thinks the only solution to our problems is government legislation... This country will continue to go down the tubes with that attitude.
 
GishForever said:
And of course everyone thinks the only solution to our problems is government legislation... This country will continue to go down the tubes with that attitude.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The government can't do anything about this. It's not their job to make sure everyone in this country has broadband. It's a waste of time and money.

If people want better internet, STOP LIVING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. MOVE TO THE CITIES. We could ALL have nicer things.
 
GishForever said:
And of course everyone thinks the only solution to our problems is government legislation... This country will continue to go down the tubes with that attitude.
Click to expand...

most cases it isnt this one it is
the FCC needs to kick the ass of the telco ATT mostly and stop letting Verizon sell of its "unprofitable" part to small telcos that dont know what there getting in to and going under 6 months later ala Fairpoint

mean wile cable keeps raping every one with over sold nodes and caps
ATT is milking the copper for all its worth
what we need is a govt owned Fiber network like the power grid were any ISP can hook up to one side and and the customer on the other
 
wolfen22 said:
Agreed. The government can't do anything about this. It's not their job to make sure everyone in this country has broadband. It's a waste of time and money.

If people want better internet, STOP LIVING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. MOVE TO THE CITIES. We could ALL have nicer things.
Click to expand...

ok no more fresh food for you then STOP LIVING IN CITES!:rolleyes:
 
what we need is a govt owned Fiber network like the power grid were any ISP can hook up to one side and and the customer on the other
Click to expand...

That's going to cost a lot of money. Are you aware how large our country is?
 
"It's almost impossible to participate in a real-time video conference [at that speed]. It's almost impossible to share video files, music files, pictures -- any large quantity of data with a time-sensitive nature to it. It's almost impossible to do that because it's barely four times the speed of dial-up," said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, a consumer group advocating for higher speeds within the National Broadband Plan, which the FCC plans to release February.
Click to expand...

Kind of disappointing. I'd be satisfied if the minimum was 2mpbs, but 768kbps? Because my area sucks, 768 kbps is the best speed I can get. I completely agree with that statement, Hulu, for example runs like shit most of the time, and YouTube isn't too much better. I have to let it buffer. I know I know it doesn't take that long, but that's what broadband is, it's supposed to be 'fast' and 768 mbps isn't fast.
 
wolfen22 said:
That's going to cost a lot of money. Are you aware how large our country is?
Click to expand...

sure theres thing calls the USF fund you pay on the phone bill just for things like this
maybe if it wasnt just a slush fund and i know USED FOR WHAT IT WAS MEANT FOR!
and im not even talking places were homes are 10 miles apart im talking like major cites
and large towns

hell give the money to local co-ops let them do co-op run power and cable is the lowest prices in the US and some of the best service why? becouse its owned by its customers
 
Elios said:
ok so what about places like L.A. and New York? why dont THEY have 100/100
its not the size or major citys would still be just as fast as the rest of the world
Click to expand...

DOCSIS 3.0 has already been available in many large cities for quite some time now, not to mention services like Fios gaining in popularity all the time. Our speeds really are not that bad compared to many places. On the other side of the coin it is common in many countries to limit monthly downloads to as low as 25gigs/month.

We are a country with 300 million people and 98 percent of the land in this country is defined as "Rural". That 98% of the country also happens to contain 85% of the population.
 
When my cell phone offers speeds that are quite a bit faster than this, it's bad.
 
wolfen22 said:
Agreed. The government can't do anything about this. It's not their job to make sure everyone in this country has broadband. It's a waste of time and money.

If people want better internet, STOP LIVING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. MOVE TO THE CITIES. We could ALL have nicer things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because rural areas aren't important at all to the US's economy or infrastructure. :rolleyes:

Idiot.


Even if you live in nonrural areas you can't find half decent internet anywhere in the US, with the exception of perhaps FIOS. Compared to EU nations we get 1/5 the speed for 3x the price and our ISPs love to throttle us when we use our connection more than my 70 year old neighbor that checks email once a month. Your solution is "move to cities".. have a good stay at [H].
 
I have 25/15 here in L.A. It's not the world's fastest, but it gets the job done pretty fast.

If you want better internet, stop living in the middle of the woods.
 
Lol I love how many [H]icks frequent this forum. Any hint of government involvement in anything and they clutch their shotties. As has already been mentioned, this country has awful infrastructure and I'm not convinced private enterprise is going to be the answer any more than federal involvement. Other nations with far more stringent regulatory measures stomp us on the issue of internet access and speed. It's clearly just a matter of sheer size here. It's going to take some time to get the rural areas up to speed, and by then, urban/suburban speeds and general quality of service will have improved proportionally. There will ALWAYS be a service gap.
 
wolfen22 said:
I have 25/15 here in L.A. It's not the world's fastest, but it gets the job done pretty fast.

If you want better internet, stop living in the middle of the woods.
Click to expand...

Yeah move your crops to the middle of the city and quit complaining... fucking farmers, who do they think they are?
 
End of the day,if there is no business case for it, private industry will not go through with it. And America being America that means it's never going to happen unless the govt. ignores the $$ your political lobbyists pump into it.

Idealy if you ask me, the govt. needs to drop the fibre into the ground itself. Or even local govt. levels.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
Yeah move your crops to the middle of the city and quit complaining... fucking farmers, who do they think they are?
Click to expand...

Are you really telling me that everyone who lives in rural areas is a farmer? I don't believe that.

And crops can be grown in buildings now...
 
wolfen22 said:
I have 25/15 here in L.A. It's not the world's fastest, but it gets the job done pretty fast.

If you want better internet, stop living in the middle of the woods.
Click to expand...
Yeah seriously. It's just a given that urban areas have the infrastructure to provide its city dwellers with very fast internet speeds.

I live in NYC and get 35/35 from verizon at only $40 a month and I don't even have a contract. If you want good speeds, don't live in the sticks. ;)
 
GotNoRice said:
In the context of trying to get large rural areas off dialup and onto SOME form of broadband, I think this speed is appropriate. It wouldn't do anyone any favors if the required speeds for broadband were so high that it only further impeded any companies will to service those remote areas. Even something like extended range IDSL would probably be a dream come true for many of these people.

Though I don't see any reason why the requirements couldn't be tiered, with different minimum speed requirements depending on average population density or other factors.
Click to expand...

No, it is not anywhere near appropriate. All this does is support small local Telcos in further screwing their customers over. Now that they not only have monopolistic control over their regions, but the government is also going to pay them to maintain speeds that flatly are not broadband. Good job Lobbiest at successfully stifleing competition and broadband speeds even more so. The reason we have such shit speeds in areas has nothing to do with the size of our country. It has everything to do with monopolistic control and companies not being forced to compete.
 
so they set the "broadband" definition to real world 3G cellular speeds. amazing.
 
wolfen22 said:
Are you really telling me that everyone who lives in rural areas is a farmer? I don't believe that.

And crops can be grown in buildings now...
Click to expand...

they are and the people that support them ie stores and other small business, schools etc
i live in Springfield MO we have 4 collages in this town and 2 options for net ATT and Mediacom

guess which is faster
and even then the 20/2 we pay for is bearly 10/1 most of the time
ATT is a joke you would think in a town like this there would be FTTP but no
 
wolfen22 said:
Are you really telling me that everyone who lives in rural areas is a farmer? I don't believe that.

And crops can be grown in buildings now...
Click to expand...

No of course not but farmers do generally live in rural areas. :rolleyes: Do you expect to grow crops for millions of people in buildings in a city? bwahahaha Oh and let's move everyone out of rural areas, that won't completely stifle development in those areas and destroy the infrastructure for anyone still there.
 
With the way web pages have changed, grown in size and complexity, 1Mb down is the new dial up. Anything less than 1.5Mb is painful for even the most sedate downloading. Winupdate on 1.5 is a royal pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top