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 NotSanguine on Saturday January 23 2016, @11:50PM
An excellent point.
A few passing thoughts on the ideas presented:
For the cable/last mile broadband market, the problem of regulatory capture is much less a Federal gub'mint issue than it is a state/local gub'mint issue.
As my 10th grade maths teacher (correctly, IMHO) pointed out, not only is it important to involve yourself in the political process (i.e., voting), as an individual you can have a much bigger impact on state/local gub'mint affairs, since there are fewer people involved.
However, this also means that it costs less for businesses seeking to dominate a market in these instances as well. I don't have the numbers handy, but I imagine that it's order(s) of magnitude less expensive to buy a city councilperson or a state assemblyperson than it is to purchase a U.S. senator or congressman.
AFAICT, this hasn't been lost on the likes of Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon and others.
My point is that, at least in this case, FCC regulation is much less impactful than state/local legislation. So if you're unhappy with the broadband status quo in your area, look to your local/state gub'mint as either the problem or the potential solution, or both.
So. If you spend your time harping on Federal regulators and the U.S. Congress (of the party you know is in league with Satan's filthy minions; your choice), you might think about spreading your ire onto some of the folks who may be more directly involved in making your life more difficult.
That's not to say that Federal legislators and regulators aren't also being bought, but as an individual you have much less chance to make a difference by focusing on the scumbags in Washington, DC than you might if you focus on the scumbags in your own state/county/municipality.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr