FCC Plan To Lower Broadband Standards Is Met With 'Mobile Only Challenge' (arstechnica.com) 145
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Broadband consumer advocates have launched a "Mobile Only Challenge" to show U.S. regulators that cellular data should not be considered an adequate replacement for home Internet service. The awareness campaign comes as the Federal Communications Commission is considering a change to the standard it uses to judge whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. While FCC Chairman Ajit Pai hasn't released his final plan yet, the FCC may soon declare that America's broadband deployment problem is solved as long as everyone has access to either fast home Internet or cellular Internet service with download speeds of at least 10Mbps. That would be a change from current FCC policy, which says that everyone should have access to both mobile data and fast home Internet services such as fiber or cable.
"The FCC wants to lower broadband standards," organizers of the Mobile Only Challenge say on the campaign's website. "Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK." The Mobile Only Challenge was organized by Public Knowledge, Next Century Cities, New America's Open Technology Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), and other groups. Participants are encouraged to share their experiences using the #MobileOnly hashtag.
"The FCC wants to lower broadband standards," organizers of the Mobile Only Challenge say on the campaign's website. "Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK." The Mobile Only Challenge was organized by Public Knowledge, Next Century Cities, New America's Open Technology Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), and other groups. Participants are encouraged to share their experiences using the #MobileOnly hashtag.
Re: (Score:1)
While I suspect it's true that most people use mobile devices primarily, I would love to see figures on how much they use on an LTE service versus over WiFi hotspots. My guess is that the data transfer distribution skews heavily towards WiFi.
I know very few people who constantly use their LTE data.
Re: (Score:2)
I have similar concerns as the OP. I've had days where I've used nothing but my LTE service, including tethering my laptop, and it wasn't terrible. This challenge seems like a good way to confuse the issue, rather than convince people the new standard is unacceptable.
10Mbps might be acceptable for most uses, but all of the bullshit surrounding cellular data is not. A single day won't really reveal the true impact of making LTE the minimum standard.
10Mbps (Score:2)
Re:10Mbps (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with mobile isn't typically the speeds. It's the monthly bandwidth limits.
Re: 10Mbps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For me, in Canada, being considered rural and remote with no access besides fixed mobile (4G with a shiny new tower), I get a 250 GB cap, probably with some government subsidy somewhere in there. Speed averages over 10/1 with one bar on the hub.
Here it is considered an essential service with the plan to connect everyone, ideally at 50/5 but with 5/1 being acceptable for remote rural and 3/1 for the far north. The far north is quite challenging, areas that can contain a couple of Texas's with maybe 35,000 pe
Re: (Score:1)
I guess you don't live in the boondocks. The other problem is erratic signal power. There are places where you only get a strong signal like every 10 minutes or so. This may just be a shitty AT&T problem, but I've seen it happen with Verizon too. It's like, welp... someone can call them, and I guess they have data every 10 minutes... broadband stamp achieved... But When the signal is low you literally can't even check your email it's so slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's literally 100 times slower compared to my 1G/100Mbps fibre.
Half the people in my country can get this speed.
2/3rds can get 100/20Mbps fibre
The rest have a combination of ADSL2+, VDSL, 3G and 4G
By 2022 87% will have fibre to their home.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I am on 10M ADSL. Honestly, while I suppose it'd be nice to have more speed, I have yet to find the need for it. I can download 720p video faster than I can watch it, and that's my biggest bandwidth requirement.
On the other hand, the faster the standard, the less I'll get charged for my 'slow' connection, so I'm all for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I found it handy to have decent upload bandwidth
I can download media to my phone to watch on the commute home from work if I run out. Having decent upload bandwidth means it doesn't take long to download more over the guest wifi at work.
I was wrong in my previous post, my speed is 950M/450M not 1G/100M
years ago I thought 20/10 on VDSL was great and for a while I was happy on a 100/20 fibre plan.
Re: (Score:2)
It's literally 100 times slower compared to my 1G/100Mbps fibre.
Your mobile devices are tethered to a 1 Gig fibre connection? Where do you live? Or did you miss the part where the 10 Mb/sec is a new definition for mobile access?
Re: (Score:1)
There was money allocated to provide proper internet, but due to the kind of corruption you would expect in less democratic countries the money was pocketed as profits rather than spent they way they were supposed to.
What money was allocated? Please point to the bill that was supposed to provide all of America with blazing fast internets.
The speed is 'eh', the cap+overage isn't (Score:1)
I'd live with fairly reliable 10M LTE for the near term. Some of my rural relatives would dance a jig if they could get it.
The problem comes in with reliability, pricing, and caps. 10/2 cable for $35 a month with effectively no use cap is a very, very different thing from 10/2 LTE for $80 a month that shuts you off at 20 GB (i.e., 4.5 hours of use per month). If you just focus on the 10/2, you are intentionally being blind to the real difference.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet, sweet irony (Score:2, Interesting)
"Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK."
And when the world doesn't come crashing to a halt, these synapse-starved activists will just prove the point that mobile is a perfectly viable alternative in most areas.
Re: (Score:1)
I would reach my data cap in a single transaction if I was forced to do my hobby through cellular internet. God forbid I had to do my actual real job using only cell data.
For the record, my hobby is graphic design-- uploading multiple gigabyte files for printing is a regular occurrence. My job is a consulting engineer. Engineering deliverables tend to be large once you start adding in three dimensional models.
The point is, I can't do my job OR pursue my hobby in a cellular internet world. Could I live?
Re: (Score:2)
I would reach my data cap in a single transaction if I was forced to do my hobby through cellular internet.
Good thing the FCC isn't trying to force you to use just cellular networking, huh? This request for comments has nothing to do with that.
That said, I didn't think I was living in the 1980s so I assumed I'd be able to pursue whatever hobby and job I wanted in the supposed "richest country in the world".
The FCC isn't telling you that you cannot pursue your hobby or job.
we might as well nationalize the infrastructure
I think the point is that where cellular is the best option, there IS no fixed infrastructure to nationalize. It's not there because it costs money to put it there, with few customers to repay the costs.
And the secondary point is, if you need gigabit speeds for your hobby or job, then picking someplace t
Re: (Score:1)
WiFi was down at my hotel, so I spent 2 weeks using only cell phones tethered to laptops. I got sick of local TV and watched Amazon and Netflix through my mobile services. And I'm on a pay-as-you-go plan. It ended up costing me an extra bit of cash than my usual monthly charges, but compared to the hotel bill it was not really that much.
Downloaded and installed updates to an MMO while tethered as well. And the game played fine (well it didn't play that well because our laptops suck for games, but the networ
Re: (Score:1)
And it's gotten so bad that when municipalities try to run their own Internet service, just basic obvious service, they are shut out by lawyers from these companies that obviously do not want to provide normal Internet.
And this isn't FUD...this actually happened in North Carolina & Tennessee a couple years ago, after lobbying by the big cable companies & telcos.
States win the right to limit municipal broadband, beating FCC in court [arstechnica.com]
Muni ISP forced to shut off fiber-to-the-home Internet after court ruling [arstechnica.com]
City ISP makes broadband free because state law prohibits selling access [arstechnica.com]
NC & TN aren't the only places municipal ISPs are restricted; as of 2014, 20 states had regulations [arstechnica.com] limiting municipal ISPs in one way or a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I visited inlaws over the holidays. I had to VPN into work to help with an issue. To accomplish this I had to drive out into the middle of one of their fields, place my cell on top of my car and tether to it.
Not a viable alternative no matter what you goobers say.
How many public libraries, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. did you drive by to get cellphone coverage?
BTW, this isn't about defining a new standard, it's about creating a new, additional standard - fixed remains at 25/3 Mb/sec, the new, additional standard is for mobile at 10/1 Mb/sec.
Seems like the uninformed... (Score:1)
... making wrong assumptions. The FCC wants to classify mobile broadband as 10 mbps. They don't want to lower anything. Fake news is really starting to polute the minds of the gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the article summary says, and that's not what anybody in these comments is claiming, so perhaps you should like work on your reading comprehension before calling other people gullible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, we propose to maintain the current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) for fixed broadband, and we also seek comment about other potential benchmarks.
We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10 Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced telecommunications capability?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the article summary says, and that's not what anybody in these comments is claiming
It's literally the article title, it's in the summary, and its on the activist website linked from the summary. I dunno how you missed it.
Yes, those people are gullible. They swallowed the fake news that standards are being lowered and are pushing that narrative themselves.
It is a false statement as that is not what is happening.
Re: (Score:1)
The reason ISPs want 10/1 to be recognized as "broadband" is so they can ignore customers who don't have access to 25/3 fixed broadband while still claiming that they're being adequately served. While they're not changing the definition of fixed broadband, they are effectively lowering the standard by arguing that a mobile connection is a viable way to access the internet.
From Comcast's filing [fcc.gov] with the FCC:
Leaving aside that the 25/3 Mbps benchmark is an arbitrary cut-off as explained below, any factually-based analysis of the marketplace demonstrates that Americans already have access to a growing number of offerings over varied transmission media, including fixed wireless, satellite, and mobile wireless, which are increasingly capable of very fast speeds. More importantly, Dr. Evans’ analysis ignores the fact that speeds lower than 25/3 Mbps can and do meet the needs of many consumers. As Dr. Christian Dippon explains, “[f]or many people, 10 Mbps service, or even 3 Mbps, is more than adequate.”
They are explicitly stating that 10mbps down is "more than adequate" for consumers, and even go a step
Re: (Score:2)
They are explicitly stating that 10mbps down is "more than adequate" for consumers, and even go a step further by trying to argue that 3mbps down is somehow good enough
I'm pretty sure that's not what even your quote says. Different people = different needs.
If 10/1 is considered broadband, they can claim 100% broadband coverage.
Only from MOBILE sources. Not FIXED sources. You'll never have 100% FIXED broadband coverage. It's just unfeasible in some areas, for economic and geographical reasons.
So having a set standard of 10/1 for MOBILE is a step up, not down.
So yes, you're gullible here when you try to claim the FCC are attempting to lower the standard. They are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you people aren't told and don't research for yourselves is that MOBILE and FIXED deployments are followed seperately by the FCC.
The 2015 had seperate deployment maps for FIXED vs MOBILE. There's a reason there are 2 categorisations.
This allows companies to access grants and bid on projects meant to bring broadband to rural and under-served areas.
VS companies not bidding on the projets at all ? I don't see the downside. Unless you're against rural areas having access to at the very least mobile broadband ? Why are you so mean to rural areas ?
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me, the potential problem is low caps. If a couple of Windows updates maxes out your cap for the month, you still don't really have broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand that what the FCC is doing is accepting 10/1 wireless links as a acceptable alternative to fixed line 25/3 broadband.
You don't seem to understand, the 25/3 broadband metric is unchanged - they are attempting to establish a definition for mobile broadband, not fixed...
Re: (Score:2)
25 mbps is for fixed broadband. This 10 mbps limit is for mobile broadband.
Nothing is getting lowered.
Re: (Score:2)
25 mbps is for fixed broadband. This 10 mbps limit is for mobile broadband.
Nothing is getting lowered.
Nothing gets lowered except your data cap, and hence the utility of having broadband. No one on mobile uses bandwidth the same way as we use fixed bandwidth, because it is an order of magnitude more expensive. Even mobile plans that are "unlimited" have a soft cap that will see you throttled after a few tens of GB compared with hundreds for a typical cable cap.
Re: (Score:1)
... when last year's FCC said it would be 25mbps, per Wheeler's 2016 draft progress report
That's for fixed broadband, it's the mobile broadband definition that is changing (though I haven't yet been able to find out what the current mobile speed is defined as). If you look at the actual FCC document [fcc.gov], it clearly states that the fixed broadband definition should remain the same (at 25 down / 3 up)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a few facts?
Fixed Broadband definition (p. 6): [fcc.gov]
14. We seek comment on the appropriate benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications
capability. Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed
benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? For example, the most recent Internet Access
Services Report finds that 59 percent of residential fixed connections equal or exceed such speed.34
Should we consider modifying the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark? Those proposing different speed
benchmarks should specify and provide justifications for their proposed alternatives. We also seek
comment on whether there are other sources or data points we should consider.
Mobile Broadband Definition (p. 7): [fcc.gov]
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark.37 Our consideration
of whether and how to set a speed benchmark will be informed by assessing the mobile broadband
services and speeds that are available to consumers today, as well as evidence regarding what services
consumers are choosing today, and what might be available in the near future. We ask commenters to
address these factors in their comments. Should the Commission set a mobile speed benchmark, and if
so, what it should be? We anticipate that any speed benchmark we set would be lower than the 25
Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark adopted for fixed broadband services, given differing capabilities of mobile
broadband. We ask commenters to discuss this choice.38 We seek comment on how use cases,
engineering studies, and any other relevant empirical data should inform a mobile speed benchmark in
terms of both the downlink and the uplink speed.
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10
Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced
telecommunications capability? How should we appropriately consider edge speed in setting a mobile
speed benchmark? As discussed below, in setting any mobile speed benchmark, how should we take into
account the important issues of reliability/consistency of service and latency in the mobile broadband
environment? Would it be more practical to use deployment of various air interface technologies (e.g.,
LTE) as a proxy for speed benchmarks? In this case, could we maintain a technology-neutral evaluation
but rely on deployment of technologies we understand to typically be used to provide mobile advanced
telecommunications capability?
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, Trump's FCC is indeed watering down the definition of "broadband".
No, No it isn't. The 25 Mb/sec definition is for fixed access, the proposed 10 Mb/sec definition is to set a new standard for mobile access - there is no previous definition for mobile access.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't meet the standard, then just lower the standards! Who knew it would be so easy to provide broadband speeds to everyone?
Quick - What is the current definition for mobile broadband at the FCC?
Answer - Trick question, it has no current definition, they are proposing the first definition of mobile broadband ever - your anger at the Trump Administration has forced you to invent reasons to maintain your anger at them. You literally have no idea what you are upset about, you just saw a bunch of villagers yelling and waving protest signs and it looked like fun so you decided to join in.
Click here [fcc.gov], read the actual FCC document - if you are in a hurry, just skip to page 7, and read sections 18 and 19:
18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark
19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services.
Lower Standards? (Score:3)
It seems to me that the FCC has been lowering its standards ever since Ajit took over control. Nothing new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the FCC has been lowering its standards ever since Ajit took over control. Nothing new here.
Except that it's not being lowered: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/0808160504329/FCC-17-109A1.pdf [fcc.gov]
Republican way.... (Score:1)
During 1992 election time, Jay Leno made joke on Dan Quayle. "How do you improve mileage of US cars?". Dan Quayle's solution was to increase the size of the gallon. Once again they are going to improve broadband coverage in USA by redefining the broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once again they are going to improve broadband coverage in USA by redefining the broadband.
It's a meaningless metric, are you seriously arguing that 10 Mb/sec is an intolerable connection speed?
If the FCC declared "Broadband" to be 10 Gb/sec, would it make your home connection any faster? Why does defining it at 10 Mb/sec somehow impact your life in any meaningful way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dan Quayle's solution was to increase the size of the gallon.
You know, when Leno or Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert say completely outrageous insulting nonsense everyone assumes that it is supposed to be a joke. (Kathy Griffin had to go completely bonkers before she got called on the "joke" she made, but she expected we would all assume it was a joke to start with.) When a Republican politician says what is obviously a joke, everyone has a hissy fit and thinks he's serious.
I think "increase the size of the gallon" is a perfect joke answer to a complicated question tha
It absolutely is a replacement (Score:1)
My mother's only option for network at her rural house was a very old, very poor DSL line that was around 30kBps at times (yes, bot even mbs).
I got her a T-Mobile hotspot, and after that she was about to get a good 5-10MB/s, almost all the time. That meant she could actually watch HD Netflix. That meant she could download photos in a reasonable time. It was a terrific replacement for infrastructure that was going to take many years to get better.
The ONLY downside is not related to physical equipment - th
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it is working in Canada, if you are considered remote rural with no other choices, as I am, I get a 250GB cap for the same price as a 10GB cap in town. This is what is called fixed mobile, using a hub rather then tethering. The phone number isn't even currently activated.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be perfect, even with a somewhat lower cap of 100 GB it would be plenty for lots of people. That's a really great solution to help rural users.
She also has a hub (the mobile hotspot) that technically has a phone number but is not usable as such (cannot make calls, does not support SMS).
Re: (Score:2)
This was the middle plan, not sure what the limits on the other plans were as 250GB seemed good.
The hub does have 2 phone jacks and my neighbour, who seems to have a better relationship with the ISP's representative got her phone connected for $10 extra, supposedly I can do the same in a couple of months. It receives SMS as well, view-able through the web interface, but no way to send. I'd guess I could plug a phone in and access 911 if needed.
Complaints, the hub at $300 ($12.50 a month over 2 years) was to
Re: (Score:2)
I got her a T-Mobile hotspot, and after that she was about to get a good 5-10MB/s, almost all the time. That meant she could actually watch HD Netflix. That meant she could download photos in a reasonable time. It was a terrific replacement for infrastructure that was going to take many years to get better.
Wait, you mean 10 Mb/sec is actually a real-world useful bandwidth rate? The way folks here are reacting you'd think this was slower than dial-up!
Do it all the time (Score:2)
Why bring second device on vacation or pay for hotel WiFi? E-mail, Photos, Netflix (which T-mobile currently includes), everything else works great. Can set up a hotspot if I need bigger screen/keyboard/etc. Using 1GB of data for 3 hours of emails/tweets seems insane, I had 500MB data pass stretch for a week on vacation. Sure, there is some convenience to faster/higher limit home WiFi, but we are talking about a costly government mandate here. Why prop up dying technology when gigabit LTE is around the corn
10Mbps? I wish! (Score:2)
I live in a major metropolitan area and I dream about 10Mbps speeds on my LTE4 phone. The tower congestion is the rate limiting factor here. If I want good LTE performance, I just need to drive to a rural area where I have a clear shot to the tower and just a few other users. This isn't hyperbole. I get better LTE performance (order of magnitude) off the coast of NJ or rural PA than I do in Washington, DC.
Build more towers damn it!
Whats the point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what horrors do you imagine will befall FCC staffers and Congress Critters when their HOME internet is limited to 10 Mb/sec?
You realize this isn't a speed LIMIT, it's a target for the MINIMUM SPEED to qualify for broadband - right?
Oh wait, you're serious? (Score:2)
"Pledge to spend one day in January 2018 accessing the Internet only on your mobile device to tell them that's not OK."
To prove what? To accomplish what? How will the [FCC | ISP | Anyone] know what you did? How exactly does this influence the FCCs decision?
This will be even less effective than Hashtag Activisim, like #BringBackOurGIrls [independent.co.uk] - at least with hashtag activism you can see how many people support you.
Just Like Fire Island (Score:2)
My next line of code is: (Score:1)
declare all_my_problems_fixed = true;
Pai is a genius! /s
Meanwhile, my work actually requires me to do something about the problems. Imagine that.
Fuck Ajit Pai (Score:2)
Gross Conceptual Error being perpetrated (Score:1)
Ajit Pai Won't Listen (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"The FCC wants to lower broadband standards,"
STANDARDS!! Not the speed. The standards will be lowered, as in having only Mobile available in an area will be considered serviced with high speed.
Re:Fake news. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a point provided that mobile (cellular) high speed service has similar pricing and usage limits as broadband (cable) service. That is normally not the case however; cellular service is typically more expensive and capped at lower usage than cable.
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that pleases the president's ego is great, and if you can achieve it by merely redefining words, then it's even better. The FCC will make the USA great again without actually having to do anything!
Re: (Score:3)
I know you are being sarcastic, but...
That is exactly the spirit that leads to downfall.
An example, in WWII, the Japanese believed that they were innately superior to others and that they would natural win out despite the logistical realities of their situation. ( I do note that most westerners, including America had a similar belief in their own superiority, one which took decades to tone down* despite the rude awakening that was the Pearl Harbor to Midway part of the Pacific campaign ).
No one is innately
Re: Fake news. (Score:3)
We aren't as Net backwards as you. I use anywhere from 300-600GB at home. And no, nothing illegal. I use cellular a lot too, up to ~4GB per month.
Maybe one of these decades the US will realize how piss poor the last mile is here compared to equivalent countries.
The broadband deployment definition was already pretty bad here and now it's no longer laughing matter, it's just sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I'm a simpleton, but isn't high-speed service, regardless of the means by which it is transmitted (copper, fiber, radio, whatever), still high speed service?
Depend on your definition of "service", do you include usage caps in that?
My household uses about 200GB/month of data.
I can useually get 10 - 20mbit/sec from LTE so it's good enough for streaming but at the same level of usage, I'd hit my 5GB usage cap after the first day.
So yeah, I'd have high speed service for one day, and 128kbit/second for the 29 days after that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada, where the government also wants everyone connected with broadband, ideally 50/10 connection but 5/1 in very rural areas and 3/1 in the far north. I'm rural, using dial-up until last Nov. Now on a fixed wireless 4G plan, which is probably partially government subsidized. My usage cap is 250 GBs a month (it would be 10 GB for the same price if I lived in town for the same $85 a month) and the 10-15/1-2 connection is plenty good enough for now, especially after suffering on dial-up for 20 odd ye
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People hate Ajit Pai for being a dishonest (and pompous) PRICK selling out the internet we all use for political payola for the GOP from Comcast/At*t. The cash giveaways by both ($1000, a pittance for working-class pauper drones) announced immediately as the GOP-advertised corporate tax giveaway was passed, THAT OUGHT TO TELL YOU WHO IS COORDINATING WITH WHOM AND WHY, HERE.
Gin hate, lol? People just want the internet to work the way it always has, unimpeded by toll lanes and arbitrary castle walls. You'r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny, just last year, the standard to be met was 25 down / 3 up, and now it's going to be 10 down / 1 up. Sounds like 'down' rather than up to me, Mr. Fake News.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2678482-2016-BPR-Fact-Sheet.html
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, just last year, the standard to be met was 25 down / 3 up, and now it's going to be 10 down / 1 up. Sounds like 'down' rather than up to me, Mr. Fake News.
https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
It is fake news. 25/3 is for FIXED broadband. 10/1 is for MOBILE broadband.
Nothing got lowered. People saying "FCC wants to lower broadband standards" are pushing literal Fake News.
Re: (Score:1)
And if they certify that mobile only is sufficient for the home, then the requirement of 25/3 becomes 10/1, because if you have 10/1 by mobile only, then all's fine.
It's a really bad shell game they're trying to play, and there's no amount of turd polishing you can do to sell it better, except to the ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they certify that mobile only is sufficient for the home, then the requirement of 25/3 becomes 10/1, because if you have 10/1 by mobile only, then all's fine.
It still won't change your cable/DSL/Fiber service. I don't think you understand quite what this applies to and what it'll change in your life.
AKA : nothing will change. Except people trying to sell MOBILE broadband will have to give you 10/1 service to call it mobile broadband.
Re: (Score:1)
"It still won't change your cable/DSL/Fiber service. I don't think you understand quite what this applies to and what it'll change in your life."
It will change the report to reflect that far fewer people do not have access to 'high speed internet'. So you move the goalpost, call it a touchdown, declare victory, and stop pushing ISPs to make REAL broadband internet available in rural or underserved areas.
"AKA : nothing will change."
Exactly. That's the point. The point is to make the report claim there's n
Re: (Score:2)
So if I have a "fixed" connection that is 10/1--which would not be considered broadband--and this goes through, I now am considered to have broadband.
Sounds like the time I got AT&T upgraded me (for free!) from 3G to 4G. My connection wasn't any faster, but it now said "4G" on my phone instead of 3G.
Re: (Score:1)
So if I have a "fixed" connection that is 10/1--which would not be considered broadband--and this goes through, I now am considered to have broadband.
No.
If you have a FIXED connection (DSL, cable, fiber), which is not considered broadband, and this goes through, you still don't have broadband.
They are not changing the FIXED part. They are defining MOBILE broadband as 10/1.
And even worse : all this is still in CONSULTATION.
Re: (Score:2)
It is fake news. 25/3 is for FIXED broadband. 10/1 is for MOBILE broadband.
Nothing got lowered. People saying "FCC wants to lower broadband standards" are pushing literal Fake News.
Next Slash-Click Story:
Ajit Pai Turned Me Into A Newt!
(Wot? I got better!)
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forbid anyone should reply with, like, actual facts...
From 2016 we have:
REF: FCC Fact Sheet: 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Chairman’s Draft, https://assets.documentcloud.o... [documentcloud.org]
From 2017 under Ajit Pai we have:
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-re... [fcc.gov]
For 2015, 2016 and 2017, the speed of 25/1 is what they used as the definition of Broadband. The proposal is to lower this to 10/1 so that most cellular providers will meet the definition.
Try again next time.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not proposing lowering the limit to 10/1. FIXED broadband will remain defined as 25/3. They are proposing changing the MOBILE broadband limits to 10/1.
In your 2016 doc, there was no defined limit for mobile broadband :
but finds that the current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile service.
AKA : they are actually RAISING the limit from none to 10.
How can you people link these documents and not even bother to read them ? Astounding.
Re: (Score:1)
Previous requirement for home internet was 25/3, because home internet meant fixed broadband.
Now the FCC wants to say that if you have Mobile of 10/1, even if you don't have 25/3, that is sufficient for home internet.
So you're arguing it's an increase because 10/1 is more than nothing, and those of us with common sense are arguing that 10/1 is less than 25/3, but with this new proposed rule change, 10/1 will now be considered 'acceptable', which previously required at least 25/3. You're arguing that becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Now the FCC wants to say that if you have Mobile of 10/1, even if you don't have 25/3, that is sufficient for home internet.
Quote the document where it adds mobile broadband as somehow sufficient for the home where it wasn't in prior years ?
Because until then, you're just part of the FUD brigade.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you people link these documents and not even bother to read them ? Astounding.
Welcome to Slashdot, you're obviously new here...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the FCC is planning to change the limit of what's considered "broadband" to 10/1. Yes, it was previously 4/1. But it is currently 25/3, so 10/1 is a significant downgrade.
No it's not - the 25/3 Mb/sec standard stands, the FCC is setting a brand new definition for mobile access at 10/2 MB/sec.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't care about public sentiment on neutrality, they're certainly not going to care about broadband.
They are redefining what counts as broadband, they aren't putting an upper limit on performance.