Senators Whine About FCC's 25 Mbps Broadband Standard, Insist Nobody Needs That Much Bandwidth

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog said:
Fast forward a year and the broadband providers' favorite politicians in the House are still whining about the improved definition.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I wonder how many of the 6 are Democrats and how many are Republicans...clicking on that link..."A group of Senate Republicans on Thursday expressed concern that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is setting the nation's Internet speed benchmark artificially high in order to justify more regulation."

Yes, that must be the FCC's motive...more regulation for the sake of more regulation. The FCC motive couldn't possibly be to improve the middle class standard of living.

If you don't know this already: Republicans see their jobs as existing to represent whomever gives them money. Almost all their money comes from rich contributors. So they don't want to waste money on the middle class.
 
Dog eats $15.60 worth of food. So spend $25 and throw away $9.40 worth because, you know, $25 is better.
 
speeds said:
Click to expand...


The thing is, I support nobody in this. Slypokerdog supports Amazon, Netflix and Google getting unfair laws and regulations passed on their behalf.

http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=netflix&cx=010677907462955562473:nlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID:11
$100,000 from Netflix CEO to Senate Majority PAC
(Among others)

http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=google&cx=010677907462955562473:nlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID:11&siteurl=http://www.opensecrets.org/
$250,000 Senate Majority PAC
(Among others, they donated $1.9M total)

http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=amazon&cx=010677907462955562473:nlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID:11&siteurl=http://www.opensecrets.org/

Amazon, Top Contributor to Member
  • Amazon.com to F. James Sensenbrenner Jr (R) in 2012
  • Amazon.com to Charles W. (Chip) Pickering Jr (R) in 2004
 
How exactly is re-definition of a term an unfair law or regulation?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
How exactly is re-definition of a term an unfair law or regulation?
Click to expand...

You must spend $billions on new infrastructure to provide faster speeds so Netflix, Google, and Amazon can stream their video at no extra cost to them.
 
Denny Crane said:
You must spend $billions on new infrastructure to provide faster speeds so Netflix, Google, and Amazon can stream their video at no extra cost to them.
Click to expand...
Or...they can just not advertise their service as "broadband"...? :dunno:
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Or...they can just not advertise their service as "broadband"...? :dunno:
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/266770-fcc-accused-of-power-grab-on-broadband

The commission is authorized to take steps to expand access when the annual report finds it lacking, which critics contend turns the report into a tool for amassing more authority.

The FCC sparked controversy when it raised the benchmark speeds for wired broadband to their current levels last year and forced Internet providers to rethink their offerings.

That decision seems certain to loom over the commission’s discussion on Thursday about the latest iteration of the report.

“It's bad enough the FCC keeps moving the goal posts on their definition of broadband, apparently so they can continue to justify intervening in obviously competitive markets,” said Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, in a statement earlier this month.“It's beginning to look like the FCC will define broadband whichever way maximizes its power under whichever section of the law they want to apply.”

(You don't "need" 25mbits. 5mbits will be more than enough if you are doing VOIP, browsing the Web, reading and sending emails, etc.).
 
Anyhow...

If I were shopping for a house, I wouldn't buy one in Cox Cable's service area. My experience is they're extremely well run but they have absurd data caps that serve no good purpose.

Before the FCC got involved, the cable companies and phone companies were routinely working on and deploying technology to speed up their service. I remember a few years ago at CTIA (on CSPAN), the Cable Companies demonstrated 150mbit Internet (25mbit was the fastest around at the time) and were eager to deploy it.

The carriers have this attitude I call "network boner syndrome." They all want the biggest, fastest, most bad ass networks they can build. Their business is building out and running WANs. They advertise their networks all the time (who has the best coverage, etc.).

The Internet always has had "fast lanes." Yahoo! early on spent $billions making their site reachable under situations where the network is having issues. They did so by distributing servers all over the world, with the result being that some servers would (almost) always be reachable due to shorter network path between browser and server (on average). Akamai and others have built entire businesses around Content Distribution Networks (CDNs) where you can distribute the files that are part of your WWW pages to their servers that are located all over the world in tens of thousands of locations. They sell their service as "PREMIUM BANDWIDTH."

A site like S2 doesn't warrant the use of a CDN due to its size. Google, Yahoo!, ESPN, etc., DO warrant the use of a CDN. An S2 user on the east coast has to fetch the RipCityTwo banner via the network and across the country, thousands of miles (think round trip, too), and all the potential congestion along the way. Fetching the google logo for their homepage is likely to access a server a few miles away, or even right on your ISP's network.

People are using loaded terminology to scare the masses about what's going on. The Internet has grown and become technically advanced as time goes on. It was working exactly as it should have all along.
 
Denny Crane said:
Amazon, Netflix and Google getting unfair laws and regulations passed on their behalf.
Click to expand...

I agree with Denny. (seems like half the time) I don't care about downloading flixs and don't want to pay the price so other people can. Perhaps I need short video occasionally to find out how something works, but short here and there, doesn't take a lot of bandwidth.

As it stand now and where it is going, the movies being shared about, ought to pay the entire bill for the internet so the rest of us small users get by free.

It blows my mind that politician are going to make decisions about such matters. Have any of you talked with your genius that represents you? Mine would have difficulty making change, so he only takes large donations. ( a democrat of course, with a list of accomplishment as long as your arm.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top