FCC redefines "broadband" to mean 768Kbps, "fast" to mean "kinda slow"

Quick, how fast is "broadband?" If you're wearing a gray suit and drove a sensible car to work this morning in Washington DC, you probably answered 200Kbps -- a pokey little number that the FCC's been using as a baseline for years now. But even bureaucrats have to get with the times every now and again, and regulators this morning voted to push the government's official broadband threshold to 768Kbps -- we'd say it should really be a full 1Mbps, but why make things simple when you can be the government? Between 768kbps and 1.5Mbps is now classified as "basic broadband," and providers are also required to break down both upload and download speeds in specific increments -- a move which should make it harder for companies like Comcast to throttle certain types of connections. ISPs also have to provide subscriber numbers broken down by census-block level, which should provide graduate students with hours of number-crunching dissertation fun in the future. The goal is to make sure the data regarding broadband adoption in the US is as accurate as possible -- it's time to reclaim the crown, people.

[CPTStewart @ Mar 19th 2008 8:10PM]

768kbps as in 96KBps?

[Forcewinder @ Mar 19th 2008 8:17PM]

no....as in 768 kilobytes per second

[Forcewinder @ Mar 19th 2008 8:19PM]

crap I meant kilobits...yes youre right but data transfer rates are in bits per second not bytes, thats for storage.

[Stewart Bananas @ Mar 19th 2008 8:23PM]

Well, firefox tracks my downloads in KB so I'm just making sure the capitalization was indeed correct. I've seen people mix them up before so I just wanted to clear it up.

[Jesse S @ Mar 19th 2008 9:38PM]

...There is no set/recognized capitalization.

kb can mean kilobit or kilobyte, KB can mean kilobit or kilobyte, etc.

Some people say B means bits because bits were first, others say it is bytes because they are bigger.

[Nushio (NDF - Blue) @ Mar 19th 2008 10:10PM]

Oblig: http://xkcd.com/394/

[usedHONDA @ Mar 19th 2008 8:16PM]

This is great news, in my opinion.

Higher standards = pressure to exceed them = moar bang for yo monay

[Clinton @ Mar 19th 2008 8:20PM]

I wouldn't consider 768kbps "high standards" by any means.

[iDevin @ Mar 19th 2008 8:31PM]

Unfortunately it is high if you live in a rural area like I do. Well, if you can count northern Los Angeles County as rural. I have a choice of Hughesnet, Wildblue, or a fly-by-night company called Digitron. Hughesnet (who I have) starts at 700Kbps. I buy a small business package that is 1.5Mbps down/300Kbps up and costs $100/mo plus $600 in equipment and installation. Wildblue starts at 512Kbps/128Kbps and the highest level of service they offer is 1.5Mbps/256Kbps. Digitron starts at 512Kbps (with no mention of upload speeds) and maxes out at 1500Mbps. And if that's not bad enough Hughesnet and Wildblue impose asinine Fair Access Policies which for me (and I pay extra for increased capacity) means I can only transfer 500MB in a 24 hour period. The base plan only allows you 200MB.

So this FCC bump, while it may not seem like much to those who can get cable, DSL, or fibre, is a big deal to those of us who are more limited. It will force our small selection of providers to get with the times and upgrade their equipment and impose fewer limits.

[Billy Fiul @ Mar 19th 2008 9:13PM]

@ Clinton

Yeah, that's why he said "higher standards."

Way to misquote him, idiot.

[z3r0D @ Mar 19th 2008 9:18PM]

For people, like me, who only have access to 512 kbps @ 50$ a month, it's helpful.

[Za @ Mar 19th 2008 10:28PM]

This is directed to iDevin - Have you looked into EVDO type services? I know that I get some pretty decent speeds on the Verizon EVDO network when I am using a friend's computer. Furthermore, an EVDO router is around 199-250 range and the service would pay for itself in a few months' time. I would suggest you look into something like that if you have not already; I am on the other side of the US in a not-so-metropolitan area and here, it's a significantly better deal to go EVDO over satellite, and I would have to imagine that the greater LA area has decent cell coverage.

http://b2b.vzw.com/broadband/RevA.html

[david @ Mar 20th 2008 9:33AM]

Za, I am in a similar situation as iDevin. I looked into the EVDO, however, with verizon, you only have a certain amount of data transfer in a month, and while it's not as bad as satellite can be, it is still limiting.

[Nequam @ Mar 20th 2008 9:35AM]

well imagine being restricted by download limits.... yes welcome to Australia, stop your bitching.

[ColonelSmith @ Mar 20th 2008 10:58AM]

Ouch, I get 15Mbps for $50/month

[Timerider @ Mar 20th 2008 5:24PM]

I still can't get broadband where I live.

WTF!?

[Timerider @ Mar 20th 2008 5:33PM]

@Za
EVDO is even less accessible. I can't even get GSM reception. Only CDMA works here.

[Randomness @ Mar 19th 2008 8:24PM]

"and providers are also required to break down both upload and download speeds in specific increments -- a move which should make it harder for companies like Comcast to throttle certain types of connections."

Their TOS still states "up to" xx speed, and they still reserve the right to ~engage in network balancing/load reduction,etc,etc~ all that doublespeak that lets them do whatever they want on your "unlimited" connection. I don't see this changing anything much at all.

[rektide @ Mar 19th 2008 8:29PM]

Comcast's throttling doesnt throttle your P2P connections, it throttles your entire connection if they detect P2P connections. This makes the issue somewhat nebulous, as you no longer receive the same rated connection you had.

[KEROLiUKAS @ Mar 19th 2008 8:47PM]

I have comcast i don't really notice any throttling, though of course i encrypt my p2p traffic...

[Ghen @ Mar 20th 2008 10:51AM]

Peerguardian works wonders for me. Never have any problems with comcast unless I completely saturate the line with downloads and MMOs

[Anton @ Mar 19th 2008 8:24PM]

Finally.

[rektide @ Mar 19th 2008 8:26PM]

I'd be more interested in upstream requirements. Higher tier downstream is usually $10/mo. Getting even passable upstream is usually $100/mo.

The 128kbps upstream most people get is laughable, its not nearly enough for even a single high quality audio stream. Its also usually not advertised.

[rektide @ Mar 19th 2008 8:27PM]

That was a $100/mo upgrade.

[jack @ Mar 19th 2008 8:32PM]

This annoys me. It is redefining terms to mean something completely different for marketing reasons.

'Broadband' does not imply any particular speed, fast or slow. It is a technical term describing how the data is transmitted, specifically that the signal is carried across a range of frequencies. Saying that you can't call a broadband transmission when it is slower than xxxKbps is like saying that you can't call an amount of water 'water' unless you have more than half a cupful.

Has anyone asked them what you should call a broadband connection that is slower than 768kbps?

If you must have things in place to protect those who can't read or can#'t be bothered to do research, stipulate the use of a wolly term such as 'hi-speed internet' rather than try and redefine an existing technical term with a specific meaning in the same field that you are supposedly trying to reduce confusion in.

[Carl Vitullo @ Mar 19th 2008 9:03PM]

they'll probably just call that a "high-speed" connection.
no one will know the difference.

[Phour ZwanZig @ Mar 19th 2008 10:32PM]

Well for us that 768 connection is our lowest Broadband downstream we offer.. our Fastest in comparison is around 14725.. Thats just a rough number from a speed test I had to do 2day.. Thats the 15 Meg Bit connection which has a 1 Meg Bit Up. Our slowest at 768 down has only a 384 up.

Then there is our standard which is 7 Meg Bit down and 512 Kilo Bit up..

Ofcourse you can get other speeds from us if you wanna pay more for the Business Class, which basically you choose your up and down..

[Dr Buzz0 @ Mar 19th 2008 8:44PM]

It would depend on the context but 768kbps is certainly better than baseband. It's more than reasonable as a lower limit for broad area wireless service speed. It's a lower limit and it seems reasonable that anything under that speed is not considered broadband.

[Phour ZwanZig @ Mar 19th 2008 10:40PM]

Thats exactly it.. Some places have been marketing (in the past) 384 down as a broadband speed, *cough*ATT*cough*

I know it doesnt apply to them anymore seeing 768 is now their standard speed.. But Im sure there are others that still do it..

Im glad the FCC did do this thou, with the term being thrown around so much, its been getting miss leading.. Plus Im shocked the FCC did something I like for once.. :)

[Jack @ Mar 20th 2008 5:26AM]

"It would depend on the context but 768kbps is certainly better than baseband."

Bzzt! No.

You may have heard about technologies such as 10BaseT, 100BaseT and 1000BaseT. Those are common transmission standards for your Ethernet cabling. The 'Base' is short for Baseband.

Terms such as Baseband, broadband, narrowband, wideband only imply how signals are encoded for transmission. None of them imply any sort of transmission speed capacity (though I understand that the common term for this - bandwidth - may cause confisuion in this matter).

[ndy @ Mar 19th 2008 8:58PM]

err, real broadband should be atleast 100mbps up&down imo :)

[ethana2 @ Mar 19th 2008 10:55PM]

In SKorea and Japan, I'm sure it does.

[Jamar @ Mar 20th 2008 6:49AM]

And in Japan, indeed it is. 100M symmetric for $50 and you get your choice of 15 or so providers. Why? Because unlike Verizon in America in Japan fiber developers have to share their network. Sometimes regulation is needed to promote competition.

[Carl Vitullo @ Mar 19th 2008 9:09PM]

good.
i've been having problems with my connection just crapping out randomly. it's not just my computer, it's the other computer i use. the internet just stops. completely.
a restart of the browser after a wait solves it though, and p2p doesn't seem to be affected.

[xur17 @ Mar 19th 2008 9:58PM]

I have had similar problems. My problem ended up being that my isp's dns servers sucked. So, I recommend trying opendns out (search for them on google).

[Carl Vitullo @ Mar 19th 2008 11:01PM]

hmm. i couldn't change my dns settings (damn comcast router), but i added my computer the the "Demilitarized Zone" and that seems to have fixed it.

[mattwier @ Mar 19th 2008 9:13PM]

dial up on AOL 5.0 for life... LONG LIVE THE 90's!!!

[Sora267 @ Mar 19th 2008 10:14PM]

So...Having fun waiting three hours for that YouTube video?

I was, too, a few years ago. >_

[AL7AIR @ Mar 19th 2008 9:17PM]

Just out of curiosity: What's the average speed of the currently available broadband connections in the US, and what costs are usually associated with them?

Because the prices iDevin listed are astronomical compared to what I am paying: 32MBit/s downstream and 3.2MBit/s upstream for around 75$US (50€) with no time and volume limitations whatsoever. This monthly fee also includes nationwide phone calls to land lines and a digital cable TV subscription with ~400 international channels, so I'm only paying extra for international land line and mobile phone calls.

[Urza @ Mar 19th 2008 9:28PM]

Yea. US Broadband sucks. For about the same price as you, I get 6Mbps down and 768Kbps up. And from what I've seen, that's a bit above average.
Oh, and that plan includes cable TV (about 100 channels) and internet. That's it. Currently it's $60 a month, but that's their 'promotional rate' for the first 12 months. $100 a month after that. Yup, those of you in the US probably guessed it: Comcast. It's that or dial-up. I can't even get the crappy 768Kbps DSL offered in some areas of town.

[Matter @ Mar 19th 2008 9:57PM]

Through Shaw Cable just outsite of Winnipeg Manitoba Canada I get a download speed of around 30 mb/s down and just over 1 mb/s up. The internet alone costs around $37.00 CDN a month with a bit of a discount for getting TV service through them too.

It does not seem to be throttled at all, I can consitently download a gig of data on P2P in around 7 - 8 minutes. And I am unaware of any monthly restrictions on data transfer.

Matt

[~~Tito~~ @ Mar 20th 2008 3:04AM]

Its usually cable companies that are more generous, comcast isn't one of them. . . .

[Hammond X @ Mar 19th 2008 10:40PM]

I have dial up @36kbps. I think that means it's going backwards. Actually, it's not so bad; I started downloading PowerDVD 7 in Feb. I should be able to watch DVDs sometime next week.

[Hammond X @ Mar 19th 2008 10:46PM]

And what is this "You Tube" I keep hearing about?

[Jagannath A @ Mar 20th 2008 12:37AM]

hahaha that cracked me up :D

[Adrian @ Mar 19th 2008 10:42PM]

In Australia the government classifies as "broadband" anything that is faster than 56kb/s modem speeds. $60 a month for 256kb/s download, 64kb/s upload is broadband

[lynn117 @ Mar 20th 2008 1:40AM]

i will never complain again. i pay for up to 3mpb and actually get around 2.5. the price was 25 dollars but this month its going up to 30 dollars. for 35 i could go up to 6mpbs.

[~~Tito~~ @ Mar 20th 2008 3:01AM]

I have cox cables fastest unlimited internet connection. 10 mbit speeds both ways maybe?

[~~Tito~~ @ Mar 20th 2008 3:02AM]

Only 50$ a month.

[Adam @ Mar 20th 2008 3:34AM]

You guys in US are really far behind with broadband. 768kbps??? Here in Poland I'm using 6mbps now, it's cheap and I'm thinking about switching to something faster (15mbps is easly available)... Poor you. :(