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 Sunday January 24 2016, @04:37AM
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
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday January 24 2016, @12:25PM
If I gave that impression....
Not at all.