FCC Mulls Combining Wired And Wireless Broadband Goals

Status
Not open for further replies.

problematiq

Reputable
Dec 8, 2015
443
0
4,810
16
Sounds like a re-classification to get around broadband requirements. If this happened a few years back, then large carriers could collect from the "Bring broadband to rural" initiative.
 
G

Guest

Guest


They want to see your pretty face, pumpkin.

 

Kennyy Evony

Reputable
Aug 12, 2014
114
1
4,690
1
tom10167 2 hours ago
Why is this website now routinely requesting permissions to my microphone and camera??? Android, Firefox.

because Tom's has perverts on its team!
 

compprob237

Distinguished
May 17, 2009
357
35
18,940
39


Because you don't use noscript and adblock.
 

gggplaya

Distinguished
Who conferences 1080p at their house?? 25mbps is overkill for many people that simply need to do work and research just browsing web pages. You can even have several people doing that and someone watching a 1080p netflix stream.

The problem is you can't set the same rules for a WISP(Wireless Internet Service Provider) and expect them to upgrade and expand their infrastructure at the same time. Many cater to low population areas which are underserved by fiber and cable. So they might have a 1-2gbps wireless backbone to their main server, which then in turn has a 10-40mbps(depending on tier) to your house. That assumes the backbone has a perfect signal, which it may not and will have reduced speeds, which then splits to each customer.

I looked into starting my own mom & pop WISP and if I ever lost my job or something, I would. But the FCC is out of line here because there are more technological limitations to wireless internet. Requiring more speed than many people need is out of touch. My grandmother doesn't need more than 10mbps, that's enough for 1 1080p stream and enough for her ipad to browse the news and stream movies. 25mbps is simply overkill as the minimum for what's considered "broadband". 25mbps should be the standard, but 10mbps should the minimum.
 

problematiq

Reputable
Dec 8, 2015
443
0
4,810
16


I don't think it will really help anyone to classify a WISP as a broadband carrier in the wired sense.
Edit: My reasoning is this. I lived in a rural area for sometime and they best i could get was 1mbs down from a wireless "Broadband" company. and all of the cellular carriers at the time only had edge network in my area. IF they made my ISP follow the same standards as wires ISP's, I would have to use dial-up.
 

toadhammer

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2012
112
2
18,685
0
Reclassifying wireless might be some sort of end-run around requirements of what infrastructure and capability carriers are supposed to be providing in rural areas. (Like problematiq describes above.) Also, "wireless" does not automatically mean "mobile." There is such a thing as "fixed wireless." Think wifi or cellular mounted on your rural house vs satellite dish.

Saying broadband might, maybe, be provided by wireless makes sense. Saying that broadband can be replaced by a cellphone is a bit idiotic and confuses bandwidth with use-case. We want the economy to grow, right? You might be able to run a business off a cell phone, but that's not the same as saying some home business needs a broadband connection and maybe hosts a website.
 
Clyburn also noted that even the 25/3Mbps minimum isn't really enough to handle everything someone might throw at it. 1080p video conferences would struggle to keep up, she said, and 4K conferences simply wouldn't be possible. Cutting that goal in half for wireless connections and then saying those connections qualify as "broadband" internet access would severely limit what people can do online.
While I don't think that wireless Internet should be considered the same as wired as far as broadband expansion targets go, in my opinion, even a 10/1Mbps connection could be considered "broadband", at least for today's home Internet needs. 10 Megabits down should be plenty for viewing 1080p streaming video, or for downloading a Gigabyte of data in under 15 minutes. There arguably isn't any actual "need" for home users to be viewing streaming video in 4K, and that could be considered a luxury more than anything. People aren't going to be particularly disadvantaged by only having access to those kind of Internet speeds. 1 Megabit up should be enough for most current home Internet users as well, who typically make minimal use of uploading large amounts of data, though I could see it being an issue for those who have some work-related need to regularly upload HD video or other large files. As for 25/3, that's plenty of bandwidth to handle almost any need a home user might have. It might be convenient to download or upload things faster, but it's hardly a necessity. The 4K video conferencing example seems completely out of touch with people's actual needs, and I can't see any reason why such a stream would need to be in viewed in 4K.
 

BryanFRitt

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2011
58
1
18,635
0
>= 25/down 3/up required for calling it "broadband", while for
>= 10/down 1/up required for calling it something else like "high speed".
They could be picker and add requirements for the minimum maximum allowed data transfer. Like must permit the user to download for "broadband" at least 2GB/day; and for "high speed" at least 300MB/day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY