Do you have a broadband internet connection?

[1979Shocker]

http://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-your-broadband-internet-technically-isnt-broadband-anymore/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6

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 to 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 change came 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.

[shocka khan]

This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is one of these 'depends on which side you're on issues'. Many republicans are siding with Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. They are against net neutrality. Net neutrality is supported by HP, Apple and many Silicon Valley tech companies, who give heavily to democrats. Recently, the republicans sarted making inroads with the Oracles, HP's, Apples and so forth. These companies would probably be more than happy to support the republicans if it weren't for net neutrality. Note that the bill will not enact full net neutrality, it will be the best bill the cables can live with. Myself, I think it might be nice for republicans to make inroads into tech companies and keep the internet as neutral as possible. I really don't like regulation, but when the cable companies calling all the shots, the consumer is not protected, either.

Obama has made clear signals that he wants the net regulated (in order to keep it neutral). This is making the cable providers (who support the republicans) crap their pants. I expect to see a bill brought up in the house that will ensure that subscribers get the services they pay for. It's a lose for the cable folks, but it's a win for the consumer.

This is yet another example of why the sutuation needs to change. We have created virtual monopolies in the cable industry when when they invest in new equipment, it isn't to improve your speed, it's more to throttle the pipe to your house so they can serve more houses with much less equipment (because the new equipment also has a wider pipe). This is what happens when you create companies that have NO completition. Consumers lose.

[1979Shocker]

Google Fiber coming to new cities, including Atlanta and Nashville

As Google Fiber spreads out to more cities, that will help loosen the monopoly of the cable companies.

http://www.cnet.com/news/google-fiber-coming-to-new-cities-including-atlanta-and-nashville/

[_kai_]

My issue is when these Telecom Companies are lobbying for and also providing the legislation that are then sponsored and officially brought forth by their politicians that they give donations to. Like last year or two year ago when the Committee on Telecommunications tried to hear a bill snuck in that was written by a telecom lobbying firm that would make municipal broadband networks illegal in the state of KS.

Go look at that committee and look at their political contributions, guaranteed that they all have some money from AT&T, Cox, Sprint Nextel, etc.

For example, here is the Chair of the Telecom Committee's received contribution breakout. http://www.followthemoney.org/entity...ls?eid=6677634

[shocka khan]

This is why I think all entrenched politicians are crooked. You don't get to be the Chair of the Telecom Committee without seniority. Follow the money. Many of his fellow republicans would not hesitate to 'help' him in making municipal broadband networks illegal. And that goes equal for both R's and D's. Remember the California senators and their vocal opposition to the NSA, but after Obama got elected, it all got magically 'OK'.

[Kung Wu]

Forget the slippery slope argument of this definition leading to Net Neutrality. While the slippery slope could come to pass one day, this definition isn't the reason. Keep in mind there was ALREADY a definition, all that's happening is it is being properly brought into the current decade.

This definition should put appropriate pressure on the cable companies to raise the standard to bring the US Internet infrastructure up to at least competitive standards with the rest of the world (which is averaging 17Mbps [as of April last year] while the US is only averaging 10Mbps). We are falling behind, and this is a race we don't want to lose. If our definition of high-speed access isn't at least equal to the average global standard, that's a bad thing. You can't simply set it at 17Mbps either, because the world isn't getting slower, it's getting faster. So we need to overshoot.

[1979Shocker]

Net Fix

• Net Fix: FCC chief on solving the Open Internet puzzle (Q&A)
  
• Net Fix: Title II, the two words that terrify the broadband industry
• Net Fix: Why FCC's Wheeler is 'defying the greatest lobbyists in the world'
  

[SHOCKvalue]

Regarding the thread title: Isn't this simply a battle of semantics featuring a moving target? The analogy might suck, but I don't need an entity to tell me if I do or do not have a vehicle with high horsepower; I simply look at the HP and TQ rating provided by the manufacturer. Somebody officially telling me I meet some random threshold is moot, as I already know the answer due to my own personal judgment framework.

As for what is and is not "high speed," what are people - on average - needing to do with all of this bandwidth (assuming 25 Mbps is the new threshold of "high speed" acceptability)? My wife and I have a 12 Mbps package - with 2 TVs in the house, and at max 2 people streaming something, I really have no idea what I would do with anything over 12 Mbps. I understand large families can change this, but it seems like the whole bandwidth war is just a phallus measuring contest amongst the pocket protector crowd. Going back to automotive analogies again - if your family car already has 300 HP, can do 0-60 in 5 seconds, and top out at 160 MPH, what in the world is the average person going to do with the same car and 600 HP (other than leave black marks all over town, and keep you on a first name basis with the guy at the tire shop)?

[_kai_]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fcc-says-your-city-can-build-a-public-internet-even-if-your-state-says-no

Suck on that, dirty state legislators.

[1979Shocker]

FCC strikes in Net neutrality war: Run Internet like a utility

http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-wheeler-to-use-utility-style-rules-to-enforce-net-neutrality/?tag=nl.e404&s_cid=e404&ttag=e404&ftag=CAD1acfa04

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is ready to shake up the Internet.

Wheeler confirmed Wednesday that he intends to bring wired and wireless broadband services under utility-style rules based on Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. He said Title II would bring to an end the debate over how to ensure that the Internet remains open to everyone, a concept known as Net neutrality.

The application of Title II has the potential to radically change how the Internet is governed, giving the FCC unprecedented authority. The provision originally gave the agency the power to set rates and enforce the "common carrier" principle, or the idea that every customer is treated fairly, on telephone service. Wheeler hopes to apply that principle to Internet traffic, preventing broadband providers from favoring one bit of data over another.

[Kung Wu]

http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairma...tag=CAD1acfa04

C.r.a.p. The FAA has completely killed American innovation in the aircraft industry. What will the FCC do to American innovation in the Internet industry?

[The Mad Hatter]

Regarding the thread title: Isn't this simply a battle of semantics featuring a moving target? The analogy might suck, but I don't need an entity to tell me if I do or do not have a vehicle with high horsepower; I simply look at the HP and TQ rating provided by the manufacturer. Somebody officially telling me I meet some random threshold is moot, as I already know the answer due to my own personal judgment framework.

As for what is and is not "high speed," what are people - on average - needing to do with all of this bandwidth (assuming 25 Mbps is the new threshold of "high speed" acceptability)? My wife and I have a 12 Mbps package - with 2 TVs in the house, and at max 2 people streaming something, I really have no idea what I would do with anything over 12 Mbps. I understand large families can change this, but it seems like the whole bandwidth war is just a phallus measuring contest amongst the pocket protector crowd. Going back to automotive analogies again - if your family car already has 300 HP, can do 0-60 in 5 seconds, and top out at 160 MPH, what in the world is the average person going to do with the same car and 600 HP (other than leave black marks all over town, and keep you on a first name basis with the guy at the tire shop)?

The move of streaming content to 4K (which will steadily take over just like other HD standards before it) will make current bandwidth levels unworkable for many households.

http://bgr.com/2013/09/26/netflix-4k-streaming/

[JackStraw]

Let's hope the FCC can spur innovation in the Internet industry , since it appears the Telecoms are unable , or unwilling , to do so........ Trouble is , so pesky Republicans are at it again .........

New Bill Seeks to Rein in FCC Regulatory Authority :

Recent attempts to regulate the Internet by the Federal Communications Commission have prompted Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to introduce the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act. Cosponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the bill would require the FCC to prove a clear need exists before asserting regulatory authority.

“I am cosponsoring the FCC Act because I believe we need a safeguard to prevent unelected federal bureaucrats from imposing overreaching broadband regulations on American consumers,” said Thune.

The bill has garnered the support of Sens. Hatch (R-UT), Ensign (R-NV), Coburn (R-OK), Cornyn (R-TX), and Sessions (R-AL).

......... Sounds like a no spin zone to me ...............

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/new-bill-seeks-rein-fcc-regulatory-authority

[shocka khan]

C.r.a.p. The FAA has completely killed American innovation in the aircraft industry. What will the FCC do to American innovation in the Internet industry?

Illogical argument, "what is true of the parts is true of the whole."

You know that 'magic hand guiding competition' Adam Smith stuff that you blindly buy into? Corporations know what's best for us, the government only screws things up.

But since they have a virtual monopoly, there is no need to innovate or compete.

Which means you must like to live with the substandard broadband speeds the cable companies are sticking us with. They're not interested in innovation, they're interested in throttling throughput rates, giving us crappy service and gouging us for it.

To me, you look like you'd be perfectly fine with corporate America sticking us with a third world infrastructure. Have you checked how our broadband speeds stack up vs. the rest of the world lately? What about their customer service ratings (hint: Comcast and Time Warner are two of the worst companies in the most recent customer service survey lately). Then you would predictably ***** about how 'noncompetitive' America has become - all the fault of the government.

Regulation works when hit makes sense and you have an industry full of bad actors (like the broadband industry is).

Magic hand and corporate behaving in the interest of customers my ass!

[Kung Wu]

Illogical argument, "what is true of the parts is true of the whole."

You know that 'magic hand guiding competition' Adam Smith stuff that you blindly buy into? Corporations know what's best for us, the government only screws things up.

But since they have a virtual monopoly, there is no need to innovate or compete.

Which means you must like to live with the substandard broadband speeds the cable companies are sticking us with. They're not interested in innovation, they're interested in throttling throughput rates, giving us crappy service and gouging us for it.

To me, you look like you'd be perfectly fine with corporate America sticking us with a third world infrastructure. Have you checked how our broadband speeds stack up vs. the rest of the world lately? What about their customer service ratings (hint: Comcast and Time Warner are two of the worst companies in the most recent customer service survey lately). Then you would predictably ***** about how 'noncompetitive' America has become - all the fault of the government.

Regulation works when hit makes sense and you have an industry full of bad actors (like the broadband industry is).

Magic hand and corporate behaving in the interest of customers my ass!

You have no idea what you are talking about.