Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-speed-is-their-connection? dept.

In an absolute surprise to nobody, six Senators came out today saying something along the lines of 5Mbps should be enough for anybody:

Today's letter from Steve Daines (R-MT), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Cory Gardner (R-CO) is almost hilarious in its deep misunderstanding about how people actually use the internet and what they need. The senators say that the 25Mbps standard is unnecessary because, for example, Netflix only recommends a download speed of 5Mbps for HD video, and Amazon only 3.5Mbps. (The recommendation for 4K video from Netflix is actually 25Mbps, but we suppose lawmakers agree that nobody should enjoy Ultra HD content yet.)

The senators say they are "concerned that this arbitrary 25/3 Mbps benchmark fails to accurately capture what most Americans consider broadband," and that "the use of this benchmark discourages broadband providers from offering speeds at or above the benchmark." If these sound exactly like talking points from Verizon, Comcast, and other major ISPs, that's because they are: Comcast loves to tell Americans that they don't need faster internet, and ISPs join together every time they are about to be regulated to say that regulations will chill their future investments. Ars Technica reported that Republicans in Congress echoed ISP spin about network investments in hearings over net neutrality, but then just three months after the net neutrality rules took effect last year, Comcast posted earnings that showed its capital expenditures actually increased by 11 percent. So the idea that creating a standard will discourage ISPs from meeting that standard is total nonsense.

What about you lot? Does your connection meet the new broadband definition? Mine matches the download side but fails by two thirds on the upload side.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by useless on Saturday January 23 2016, @03:00PM

    by useless (426) on Saturday January 23 2016, @03:00PM (#293621)

    Does anyone have a link to the actual letter? None of the websites of the senators mention this in their PR/news sections, and Vox Media is a clickbait shithole (the fact they didn't link to it in the article makes me dubious of their claims of it's contents)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by useless on Saturday January 23 2016, @03:08PM

    by useless (426) on Saturday January 23 2016, @03:08PM (#293625)

    Never mind, found it (http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/letter_to_fcc_chairman_wheeler_-_broadband_definition.pdf)

    And after reading it, it's not as portrayed at all. What a shock.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by stormreaver on Saturday January 23 2016, @04:36PM

      by stormreaver (5101) on Saturday January 23 2016, @04:36PM (#293640)

      And after reading it, it's not as portrayed at all. What a shock.

      For those who didn't read it: it basically says that the FCC is being inconsistent in how it defines broadband, requiring some entities to provide 25/3 or higher speeds, and allowing other entities to meet the broadband definition with much slower speeds. The letter calls for consistency in application and definition by the FCC.

      So yes, the summary is misleading and inflammatory. It quotes out of context in order to inflame political ideologies, and is a shameful example of political gamesmanship.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:10PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:10PM (#293695) Homepage Journal

        For those who didn't read it: it basically says that the FCC is being inconsistent in how it defines broadband, requiring some entities to provide 25/3 or higher speeds, and allowing other entities to meet the broadband definition with much slower speeds. The letter calls for consistency in application and definition by the FCC.

        So yes, the summary is misleading and inflammatory. It quotes out of context in order to inflame political ideologies, and is a shameful example of political gamesmanship.

        Everything you say is correct. However, you left out an important (IMHO) bit of information from the letter. To wit:

        Looking at the market for broadband applications, we are aware of few applications that require download speeds of 25Mbps. Netflix, for example, recommends a download speed of 5 Mbps to receive high definition streaming video, and Amazon recommends a speed of 3.5 Mbps. In addition, according to the FCC own data, the majority of Americans who can purchase 25 Mbps service choose not to.

        This paragraph elucidates several things, to me at least:

        1. The senators involved don't really understand the use cases for internet access, in that even if video streaming is taking place, there may well be a demand for *multiple* concurrent video streams as well as other data intensive connections.

        2. Why is it that most folks don't purchase 25 Mb/sec access (or higher)? Could it be that demand is limited by the abusive TOS, throttling and outrageous overpricing of such offerings? Consider T-Mobile and Verizon's recent activity WRT to unmetered data downloads from sites which *pay* them for such access. If, as the senators imply, that people just don't want/need such high-speed access, then why are these anti-net neutrality offerings so popular?

        In any case, even if TFS attempts to fan the flames of partisan feuds, it seems that these guys really don't get it. Or, if they do, they are acting at the behest of their corporate masters. Just to clarify, if this letter had come from those with 'D' after their names, I wouldn't have been surprised either.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @12:39AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @12:39AM (#293762)

          I thought T-Mobile didn't charge for the data cap exemption, but Verizon did.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 24 2016, @01:33AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday January 24 2016, @01:33AM (#293770) Homepage Journal

            That may well be true. I haven't followed the whole BingeOn thing that closely. If so, my apologies for the inaccuracy.

            Regardless, my point about those programs is still a valid one.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:22AM

          by stormreaver (5101) on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:22AM (#293778)

          However, you left out an important (IMHO) bit of information from the letter.

          Yes, I did leave that out, since it was already in the summary. And also because I view that as ancillary to the main point of the letter, even though it is clearly a paid-for misdirection by the senators.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 24 2016, @04:37AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday January 24 2016, @04:37AM (#293813) Homepage Journal

            Yes, I did leave that out, since it was already in the summary. And also because I view that as ancillary to the main point of the letter, even though it is clearly a paid-for misdirection by the senators.

            Fair enough. As I said, you were quite correct.

            My motivation wasn't to take you to task for not including that part. If I gave that impression, you have my apologies.

            I wanted to expound on the fact that this was likely, as you say, "clearly a paid-for misdirection by the senators."

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr