SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday January 23 2016, @07:02PM
This isn't a free market but an overly-regulated one. Not in the speed-standard sense, but in the wide swaths of ISP monopolies in much of America. In a competitive market ISPs would be trying to offer better, faster service to gain customers. Since there is no competition thanks to regulation, there's no reason to improve things unless more regulations are threatened.
What makes you think an unregulated industry would have provided fair and balanced pricing due to competition? The profits were not there to build the initial infrastructure without monopoly control and without granting those monopolies initially there would be wide swaths of much of America without any broadband at all. You can claim that regulations need to be overhauled, but to claim that the mythical free market would have made anything better is like claiming a [insert generally poor minority of choice here] Santa would make sure poor kids got just as nice presents as rich kids.
You can also go to Open Secrets or any of the other websites to see who is donating to who.