FCC redefines "broadband" to mean 768Kbps, "fast" to mean "kinda slow"
By Nilay Patel 
posted Mar 19th 2008 8:03PM
posted Mar 19th 2008 8:03PM
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.
768kbps as in 96KBps?
no....as in 768 kilobytes per second
crap I meant kilobits...yes youre right but data transfer rates are in bits per second not bytes, thats for storage.
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.
...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.
Oblig: http://xkcd.com/394/
This is great news, in my opinion.
Higher standards = pressure to exceed them = moar bang for yo monay
I wouldn't consider 768kbps "high standards" by any means.
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 $600 in equipment and installation. Wildblue starts at 512Kbps/128Kbps and the highest level of service they offer is 1.5Mbps/256Kbps. Digitron starts at 512Kbps (with no mention of upload speeds) and maxes out at 1500Mbps. And if that's not bad enough Hughesnet and Wildblue impose asinine Fair Access Policies which for me (and I pay extra for increased capacity) means I can only transfer 500MB in a 24 hour period. The base plan only allows you 200MB.
So this FCC bump, while it may not seem like much to those who can get cable, DSL, or fibre, is a big deal to those of us who are more limited. It will force our small selection of providers to get with the times and upgrade their equipment and impose fewer limits.
@ Clinton
Yeah, that's why he said "higher standards."
Way to misquote him, idiot.
For people, like me, who only have access to 512 kbps @ 50$ a month, it's helpful.
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
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.
well imagine being restricted by download limits.... yes welcome to Australia, stop your bitching.
Ouch, I get 15Mbps for $50/month
I still can't get broadband where I live.
WTF!?
@Za
EVDO is even less accessible. I can't even get GSM reception. Only CDMA works here.
Finally.
"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.
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.
I have comcast i don't really notice any throttling, though of course i encrypt my p2p traffic...
Peerguardian works wonders for me. Never have any problems with comcast unless I completely saturate the line with downloads and MMOs
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.
That was a $100/mo upgrade.
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.
they'll probably just call that a "high-speed" connection.
no one will know the difference.
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..
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.
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.. :)
"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).
err, real broadband should be atleast 100mbps up&down imo :)
In SKorea and Japan, I'm sure it does.
And in Japan, indeed it is. 100M symmetric for $50 and you get your choice of 15 or so providers. Why? Because unlike Verizon in America in Japan fiber developers have to share their network. Sometimes regulation is needed to promote competition.
good.
i've been having problems with my connection just crapping out randomly. it's not just my computer, it's the other computer i use. the internet just stops. completely.
a restart of the browser after a wait solves it though, and p2p doesn't seem to be affected.
I have had similar problems. My problem ended up being that my isp's dns servers sucked. So, I recommend trying opendns out (search for them on google).
hmm. i couldn't change my dns settings (damn comcast router), but i added my computer the the "Demilitarized Zone" and that seems to have fixed it.
dial up on AOL 5.0 for life... LONG LIVE THE 90's!!!
So...Having fun waiting three hours for that YouTube video?
I was, too, a few years ago. >_
Just out of curiosity: What's the average speed of the currently available broadband connections in the US, and what costs are usually associated with them?
Because the prices iDevin listed are astronomical compared to what I am paying: 32MBit/s downstream and 3.2MBit/s upstream for around 75$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.
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.
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
Its usually cable companies that are more generous, comcast isn't one of them. . . .
In Australia the government classifies as "broadband" anything that is faster than 56kb/s modem speeds. $60 a month for 256kb/s download, 64kb/s upload is broadband
I have dial up @36kbps. I think that means it's going backwards. Actually, it's not so bad; I started downloading PowerDVD 7 in Feb. I should be able to watch DVDs sometime next week.
And what is this "You Tube" I keep hearing about?
hahaha that cracked me up :D
i will never complain again. i pay for up to 3mpb and actually get around 2.5. the price was 25 dollars but this month its going up to 30 dollars. for 35 i could go up to 6mpbs.
I have cox cables fastest unlimited internet connection. 10 mbit speeds both ways maybe?
Only 50$ a month.
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. :(
Przestań pleść bzdury, po pierwsze: nie pierdol, że 15mbit jest easy available, bo to easy nazywa się dsl tpsiany za grrrubą kasę, dostępny jedynie na dobrych liniach z dslamami wyposażonymi w karty adsl2+.
Po drugie: prawda jest taka, że w stanach w wielkich aglomeracjach mają i Ftth (fios) i cable i szybki xDSL - do wyboru do koloru.
Ci goście którzy się tutaj wypowiadają, mieszkają gdzieś na preriach i stąd ich jedynym wyborem jest 'badziew' typu 512/768 do 1,5mbit max z gównianym fair use policy.
Dla twojej wiadomości - w EU za broadband uważa się łącze 128kbps.
The problem with Internet speeds in the US (and the UK, we're in a simular position), is that many of our phone lines are around 100 years old when obviously the internet wasn't conisdered and they are very thin. Wheras the countries that have only had nationwide phone line coverage in recent (or more recent) years have higher quality connections.
So does this mean Qwest will finally be forced to ditch 256k "broadband"? After who knows how many years of not changing their speeds at all?
This how I see it:
~032kbps or less Dark ages
~064 kbps ultra slow
~128 kbps very slow
~256kbps slow
~512kbps normal-
~001mbps normal
~002mbps normal+
~004mbps Fast
~008mbps very fast
~016mbps ultra fast
~032mbps or more call me when this come up
So I guess I'm in between dark ages and ultra slow.
Who wants to buy this new invention I made? It's called a "wheel". You already have that? Crap.
768KB works just fine for the locals I've been moving from dial-up to AT&T's $10/month 768KB DSL.
And because of the above price, the local cable company has lowered their 768KB price to $14.95/month (just outside of town it's a rural telco instead of AT&T)
I have AT&T DSL with 6Mbps down and 768kbps up which makes me sad. Comcast is the only other provider available and they offer 10 down (up to 12 with speedboost) and 1 up but I refuse to switch to Comcast due to their throttling practices. I really hope FIOS makes it to my neighborhood in the next decade. But then I won't be truly happy until I can get symmetric 100/100. ;)
I'm wearing a black suit in my office in Washington, D.C., and I drove in to work. My internet connection at home is 20 Mbps down, 2 Mbps up.
How fast is your internet connection, Nilay?
Ohh... The king's to you, Comcast.
Wow you guys are slow. Here in NW Connecticut I have Cablevision's Boost which gives me 30 Mbps down and 5 Mbps up. It's very nice :)
I unfortunately have the 'upgraded' HughesNet 'service(?)' with the 7000 modem, converted and upgraded from the previous Direcway. I have been thru countless hours trying to get thru the service rat race with outsourced technicians, and now understand it cannot be fixed. HughesNet has outsold their bandwidth on Sat G161K (per tech admission). They have a problem, yet keep setting up new clients. I have the records, and all info on my 'speed tests'....it is 'class action lawsuit' fodder in my humble opinion.