FCC: Please Define BroadbandBaby steps. Baby steps. 10:56AM Friday Aug 21 2009 by Karl Bodetags: legal · fcc · business · bandwidth · legislation · Politics · networking · consumersIf you've been following this sector at all for the last decade, you'll note that the broadband industry has had a hard time even accurately defining what broadband is, much less how we should forge a national policy. The FCC has traditionally defined broadband as anything faster than 200kbps, only recently upgrading that definition to 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream. But the bill calling for a national broadband strategy doesn't actually bother to define what broadband is. Therefore, the FCC this week put out a public notice (pdf) looking for a more accurate definition. Should we measure advertised speed or actual throughput? Where should the speed measurement occur? How do you factor in latency, reliability, and mobility? Should different definitions apply to different technologies (for instance, landlines versus wireless connections)? How do usage caps and meters impact the quality of bandwidth delivered and its measurement? Over at the new FCC blog, the agency's Carlos Kirjner puts it this way: We want your input. We need your input. If you are an academic, a service provider engineer, a consumer, or anyone else with a stake in the outcome of the Plan, please read the PN, think about it, and share your best thinking. It looks like a document written by lawyers to lawyers, but in there there are some important questions for the country. The problem in the past has been that different carriers want different minimum definitions, depending on the capabilities of their networks. For instance, many DSL carriers want the definition somewhere between 768kbps and 1.5Mbps, since that's the fastest speed many of their customers can get. Providers with deeper pockets who've upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 or FTTH obviously want this definition higher, as it highlights the shortcomings of ISP's who've skimped on infrastructure, either because they're cheapskates -- or they really lack the funds. As such, carriers who don't want to be seen as having failed in terms of deployment or product quality (even if they have), have been lobbying hard for years to keep the definition of broadband fairly wimpy. Even efforts to make 1Mbps the standard definition have been squashed for this reason. This latest effort to define broadband will be yet another in a long line of summer and fall litmus tests for the FCC to determine just how well they hold up under telecom lobbyist pressure. Users with something to say can make a comment here after selecting "National Broadband Plan Notice of Inquiry – Docket 09-51," or submit a document adhering to the FCC format here. Hopefully the nation can bang out a set of definitions fairly quickly, given there's just 180 days left before our first national broadband plan is scheduled to be unveiled.
Related:- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
|
 
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
2 edits | Definition of broadband 3mbps+ down and 512kbps+ up with a latency of 80 or lower to any nearby pinging server.
Reliability doesn't matter in a definition. A 50 year old rustbucket car that breaks down constantly is as much a car as a 2009 Lamborghini is. | |
|  | 
Nick
Purveyor of common sense
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2000-10-29
Smithtown, NY
clubs:
| Re: Definition of broadband said by DrModem  : with a latency of 80 or lower to any nearby pinging server The problem with making statements like this is that you never are in control of "The Internet" and have no way to control latency or bandwidth beyond your network. So while you may be meeting those requirements on your own network, the moment you go across someone else's all bets are off....which is why they want to know where these proposed requirements would be measured.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Misc | |
| | | 
anonphoenix
@cox.net
| Re: Definition of broadband Well to be fair he did say nearby, but i agree once it crosses an ISP's "borders" the rules change. 3+ I think is a good baseline to start with in rural areas, since a lot of us in the cities can get a lot higher than 3, and it can be delivered by wireless, fiber, dsl, etc etc...... | |
| | | | 
smartguy4u
join:2009-08-21
New Bedford, MA
1 edit | Re: Definition of broadband "How do you factor in latency, reliability, and mobility?"" How do usage caps and meters impact the quality of bandwidth delivered and its measurement?"
IMO i dont think that any of these should be a factor as far as defining broadband with the exception of latency within the companies network. | |
| | | 
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| The reason you want to use at least some level of latency to keep 500-1k latent services like 3G or satellite as being considered as broadband. Let alone going over your daily monthly cap and being throttled back to sub dial up speeds.
Perhaps you measure your speed and latency to the ISP edge requiring the edge to work at no more than 80% capacity. Speed would be measured at sustained transfer rate over a 30 min period of time. | |
| | | | dipweed23
join:2009-07-21
Ypsilanti, MI
| 1M/512k would be a good starting point for this broadband plan. As the plan is supposedly being designed to get America 100% connected, no need to say much higher at this time. This would have to be the bare bones minimum to be called broadband.
Measured as delivered speeds, not the "up to" crap.
As far as advertised vs delivered speeds for residential customers, must be able to deliver at least 85% of advertised speed 100% of the time. Outages, interruptions, non-delivery must be reasonably compensated for, such as credits on bill.
Caps must be set to allow a consumer to reasonably use their paid for service, OR on a pricing tier plan where customers pick their speed, cap + overage and/or metered charge. If caps/metered usage is in place, customer must reliably be able to check their usage, much like an electric meter on a home, and the system audited on an annual basis to ensure accuracy. | |
| | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| Re: Definition of broadband said by dipweed23 :Measured as delivered speeds, not the "up to" crap. you can't measure accurately on a shared node. One areas speeds will be completely different than another. And caps shouldn't even be in the equation since they have Nothing to do with speeds. Since a cap is all about money, then define it as such.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
| | | | dipweed23
join:2009-07-21
Ypsilanti, MI
| Re: Definition of broadband If you don't over sell your equipment's capacity, you wouldn't have the problem. Like I said, maintaining at least 80% of that speed 100% of the time.
The way it is now, they can sell you a 30Mbit/sec plan, but if you only get 6Mbit/s they can tell you to just deal with it as it does say "up to". Not a good business model, but seems to work well for the tel/cable companies.
Caps are caps, and although has no role in the definition of broadband, it would be nice to see some sort of mandate that IF they are to cap/charge per GB, that they must provide a reliable way of checking used bandwith as measured by them. | |
| 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Definition? Broadband: A wide bandwidth of available throughput, relative to end-user's requirement, at proportional cost, within reason.
--
Splat | |
| | | Luminaris
join:2005-12-01
Winchester, VA | Re: broadband definition should also include cap info I was going to say the same thing as well as, define what unlimited is. Unlimited with caps is ridiculous.
--
De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da, that's all I want to say to you .. | |
| | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
1 edit | Re: broadband definition should also include cap info Your looking for trouble asking for a bunch of government lawyers to give you a definition to a word. By the time they are done, unlimited would be defined in a 200 page brief.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
| | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: broadband definition should also include cap info Your looking for trouble asking for a bunch of government lawyers to give you a definition to a word. By the time they are done, unlimited would be defined in a 200 page brief. It's business. They don't really have a choice. If they didn't go into nauseating detail on definitions, the rules would have no meaning as business lawyers would dance around them. Lame, but the nature of the beast at this point. Look at the FCC's fight against Comcast over the definition of the phrase "reasonable network management." | |
| | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
| The 90% test is a tough one to use. You could enforce this with mandatory QoS agreements, but I think that a better rule would involve specifying the maximum load-out a circuit can have which would be the capacity of the location your wired to divided by the number of connections going from it. Then you could also specify average speed based on a statistical model of usage. ISPs could easily include throttling in this to increase your numbers here, but again it would help them be honest.
Carriers could still specify their own limits, but they would be forced to be more transparent about it. So something like up to 3Mbps down, 20Kbps under maximum load and 1.2Mbps under normal load. Which could just be written as (3000 / 20 / 1200) down and (786 / 4 / 200) up. Since most large ISPs have some kind of a build out policy implementing this should be too hard, and just to be nice you could use a 95% rule where you only count your average for 95% of the centers in an area to help avoid the effects of outliers that have fallen in disrepair, need maintenance or are still under construction. | |
| rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA
| Should we measure advertised speed or actual throughput? Excellent article Karl.
The rub comes when the actual throughput doesn't match the defined minimum speed. Does network congestion mean consumers can sue if their service falls below this number?
The Martin and Powell administrations avoided setting a minimum speed for broadband because they didn't want to let loose a gaggle of trial lawyers. | |
| | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Re-defined broadband said by mrkevin :As a literal term, 'Broadband' is a frequency bandwidth outside the voice range of 300-3400 hz but because this usually carries internet traffic it has become synonymous with an internet connection. I think we should come up with a new term. In a fiber application the term broadband is meaningless. So should we start calling those internet connections 'wave length'? Maybe start calling it "High Speed Connectivity" and then sub-divide the definitions by media type(fiber, copper, wireless(fixed and mobile)). Then a speed could be defined that would be considered "high speed" for each sub category.
All other things being discussed here(latency, reliability, etc) should not be part of deciding if something is "high speed" or not. Those are service issues best left to the individual providers and that can be used to differentiate them from each other for advertising purposes.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Re-defined broadband Why does a minimum threshold need to be defined for "high speed" connections? I often ask the "who cares what the definition is". Bragging rights? Handing out federal loans/grants? Who cares about a throughput definition today that will be out of date tomorrow? If we really want to develop an enduring infrastructure in this country, why don't we define a common architecture/infrastructure, that's modular and easily upgradeable, then entice current (or new) providers to build the network and migrate their services to the infrastructure?
And yes, I just dropped the "national infrastructure" turd in the punchbowl. I think the concept has merit and should be defined before we worthlessly define "broadband" as x Mbps. | |
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Re-defined broadband That's why I suggest defining a scalable, robust, and common infrastructure, not throughput. People around this forum like to trot out the interstate highway system when a national infrastructure comes up for discussion. I don't believe a roadway is defined as two lanes, or three, four, etc. While planning the highway system takes into account the number of lanes required (bandwidth) given current and projected traffic patterns, it also lays out common standards and guidelines for expansion of additional lanes and new roads. Please convince me of a good purpose of defining throughput in a "broadband" definition. | |
| | | | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | Re: Re-defined broadband So that they can't advertise providing "broadband" without actually providing "broadband"? | |
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Re-defined broadband And that would be about the last reason that I think we should waste time trying to define something. If we stop trying to define it, then it won't matter how it's advertised. Besides, most advertisements that I see are for "high speed internet access, at up to xx mbps". | |
| | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Allowing slower services like copper and wireless to arbitrarily define what "broadband" means to them would result in a disincentive to invest in faster technologies and the deception of consumers who think they're getting the same "high-speed" as their friends. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Re-defined broadband No it wouldn't. For those who actually care how much bandwidth they have, they'll be educated enough to know that "there's is better than their friend's". For the others, it really isn't a concern of there's. | |
| | | | | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Re-defined broadband said by tschmidt :[For many applications latency and packet loss are as important if not more important then raw speed. That is true. But that shouldn't come in to play when defining what is broadband and what isn't. Unless you subscribe to the theory that the FCC MUST be involved in regulating ALL ASPECTS of what ISPs are offering. I say they should butt out. Others want the gov't to manage & regulate everything at a detailed level.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | | | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| I'd either like massive changes in these local monopoly laws for TV, phone and networks in general, so that it's easy and there are little to no barriers to entry beyond the physical build out cost, or in exchange for monopolies and franchise agreements, the compaines are regulated to within an inch of their existance.
If I can't change providers because there is exactly one provider available, and I can't start my own company to compete because of local franchise agreements and a total inability to get right of ways then I should be able to get my government to make sure I'm not getting screwed.
--
Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH | I too chafe at calling high speed "broadband" as well as 8P8C Structured wiring connector RJ-45. But some battles just ain't worth fighting. 
/tom | |
| squison
join:2001-07-07
Decatur, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| Percentage based Instead of defining a set kbps, how about a % of the fastest widely-used (>1000 subscribers) residential broadband available under $100/mo, or something to that effect. That way, the standard upgrades with the available technology, rather than policy changes that take forever. | |
| 
FLengineer
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL | something smells Asking the public for their opinion???? Sounds like someone hired a PR firm to improve the FCC's image. I'd like to know what the motives are behind this. | |
| | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: something smells Funny. The public is so used to the FCC doing whatever the hell it wants (basically, corporate bidding's will) that people are shocked when the FCC seems to solicit their opinions. | |
| | | | brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | Broadband 50Mbs/down 10Mbs/up per user | |
|
poisonpjo
@cdw.com
| Why define broadband? Why do they need to define broadband? Defining broadband doesn't do anything - it just gives the carriers, gov't, and lobbists specific (easy) numbers to throw around in their sound bites. I can hear it now "87% of the country has broadband" or "27% of this county doesn't have broadband." It's just silly.
What they should be focusing on is getting an accurate mapping of speeds per carrier per home. No more of this "up to 5mbps" crap from carriers. It should be fairly easy (expensive - but technologically simple) to set up an online map (maybe a partnership with google maps?) that shows carrier availability in your area, max speeds per carrier, and actual speeds to individual homes. How much easier would it be for the consumer if they could log on and see that, in the area they are moving to, the AT&T DSL of 3 of your neigbors runs at 4.68mbps down/708kbps up and that 8 other neighbors with Verizon FIOS run at 14.89kbps down and 2.58mbps up?
I honestly don't care what my government determines is acceptable as broadband. What's one man's broadband is another man's dial-up - it all depends on usage. Until the gov't wises up and starts to put real data in the hands of actual consumers we're all still going to be bowing at the feet of our local telecoms. | |
| | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| Re: M$ can help i think it should happen once by default, but it shold strongly encourage multiple times. sampling only at one time is far from being statistically sound. plus if you do multiple times, analysts can see if speed (bps and ping) is improving/worsening based on what the ISP is claiming that they have done.
it doesn't really have to be tied to MS, and probably shouldn't be. it may not be a piece of cake to convince people to run this little program that send off info to a database that is most likely going to be controlled (or just used) by the government. | |
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Takes some deep thinking.... Some tough questions when you dive into them. I will have to really think about this before posting.
Regardless, it is my opinion that the provider's thoughts and feelings on this need to be completely ignored. Without question, broadband is for the consumer. Therefore this plan should be consumer (residential and business) focused and shaped how the consumer feels broadband will benefit them in the future.
Once that is established, the plan (rules and regulations) should be laid out to make that happen regardless of what the providers and their stock jockeys want.
Now to think of those rules and regulations that will truly benefit the consumer without putting an extreme burden on the provider (in the beginning). That part I will have to get back to you on. | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Takes some deep thinking.... Another thought......
Why don't we begin by using their own definition when they began raping us for a couple hundred billion dollars just not too long ago.
Let's see... I believe it was their words that stated:
In 1992, testimony given by Verizon (then New Jersey Bell), in order to receive financial incentives to rewire the state, claimed that broadband was:
"Broadband Digital Service — Switching Capabilities matched with transportation capabilities supporting data rates up to 45,000,000 bits per second (45 Mbps) and higher, which enables services, for example, that will allow residential and business customers to receive high definition video and to send and receive interactive (i.e., two way) video signals." | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: Takes some deep thinking.... Hmm, interesting | |
| | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | That's actually the best suggestion I've read thus far. | |
| | |
JoeBobJr
@rr.com
| Must take some deeper thinking to realize Verizon's FIOS and most cable companies are providing services well beyond that definition.
A 860 Mhz cable system support over 5 Gbps data rates.
Customers can receive multiple channels of high definition video.
Customers can send and receive interactive (i.e., two way) video signals, aka VOD. | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| So you're advocating a 45 Mbps connection for all data services to your residence? That's not much different than the U-Verse service that a lot of people around this forum like to complain about. Throw in a couple of HD streams at 19.4 Mbps and you won't have much left for your web surfing. Using MPEG4 for your video streams you get better, but not much better than some cable companies offer these days. | |
| 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| Does everyone only watch youtube? Make it symetrical ffs. All the speed in the world down is useless if you spend hours uploading a little bit. I don't buy routers, switches, or AP's that are crippled when sending data in a certain direction.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| 
Smith6612
Premium
join:2008-02-01
united state
 ·Dish Network
·Verizon Online DSL
·FrontierNet Intern..
2 edits | Here's what I wrote last night. This is what I wrote last night in response to this.
quote:
Well, I'll answer to the information Wired posted up here.
* Where in the network do they measure speed?
At the backbone for the area from the connection, is where I think it'd be best tested at. Line sync won't mean a thing if local congestion such as what is seen in Cable is causing slowdowns.
* How much does latency, jitter, reliability and mobility matter?
In my opinion, being a PC gamer who plays a ton of shooters online in large servers, I have to say that Latency, Jitter and Reliability are extremely important for me. Latency is obvious, as for games you need to get the lowest latency possible. This includes things such as having the best and quickest routing possible over links that are least congested (which also means none of this get sent halfway across the country to get to a server nearby crap that happens all the time, adding latency and more potential bottleneck points), and of course, infrastructure in your area that can take on the load, and lastly, a lot of local peering to servers in your area. Jitter is also important as if a line has too much jitter (poor QoS), not only will my latency be affected, but I will see lag in games, and things such as VoIP and streaming will be affected. Again, I'm stressing great routing and networks that can take on the capacity, both in backbones and at the last mile. For reliability, who doesn't want a reliable connection? I of course want a reliable route to any server I'm connecting to that doesn't have or has minimal latency and jitter spikes, and I want a connection that is fast but reliable here in my home (which is what my DSL lines are already providing, maybe not speed wise though). Mobility isn't too important to me though as I don't need my connection to go everywhere. When on vacation I can typically find Wi-Fi that I can use which will allow me to stream some videos and do what I want to do (not play games though since my laptop isn't built for that. The desktop stays home!).
* Is there one definition, or is it different say for wired versus wireless connections?
Well, if Wireless connections weren't prone to more interference and troubles than wired connections, I'd have to say leave them with the same definition. However, wireless I say could be cut a bit of slack due to it's nature, but obviously speeds/latency, jitter, reliability and mobility all apply with Wireless.
* What are the minimums necessary for classes of applications, such as internet telephony, online video, video chat, gaming, telemedicine, remote learning?
Internet telephony from what I know can work just fine off of a 128kbps/128kbps line for a high quality stream, so that wouldn't need anything more than an ISDN line. Online video is starting to progress more towards HD, so I'd have to say 4Mbps and higher for a connection for a start. 7Mbps for true 720p content, and 15Mbps+ for true 1080p content. For uploads for HD content, of course a few megabits will be needed on a connection, but if it's symmetrical to the download that would be the best. Video chatting is still in the standard definition period, but I have no doubts it'll be moving to HD one of these days. I'd put it under the 2-4Mbps downstream category at the moment for both download and upload, but of those this is a bit high to what is really used. I'm leaving some bandwidth for headroom . For gaming, speed isn't necessarily needed, but I'd say at least 768kbps download and upload would be minimum for gaming. Obviously this is just for connecting to game servers itself and not for things such as the downloads. For the game downloads, patches, betas, etc, I'd say a 10Mbps connection would be at least needed as the size of these files can be MASSIVE. For uploads, 5Mbps and higher would be nice to see. Telemedicine, I wouldn't know of of the top of my head but whatever gives sufficient enough bandwidth to complete the job as best as it can be done. Remote learning is the same a telemedicine, whatever gives the best experience.
So this is just my view on how things should be, hopefully I'm not pushing too hard or too soft for that matter. One thing I really stress is better local peering. It'll take loads off of the ISP network, and not only that reduce latency significantly in some cases. In my case, I should be pinging below 18ms to servers in my area, but I'm pinging a whopping 70-95ms to servers in my local area, and 35ms to another DSL/Fiber connection in my area if they are on the same ISP (when I should pull less than 20ms to those connections). However, oddly enough I can ping 22-30ms to servers in another state.
And lastly of course, no caps, no throttling!
--
It's all fun and games in a Team Fortress 2 battle until your sentry gun is sapped by the Spycrab! | |
| | inferno
join:2008-07-06 | Re: Here's what I wrote last night. I say the minimum should be 20/10. Our country is soooo far behind in this... | |
| | | |
realslow
@comcast.net | 768kbps, no wonder speedtest.com has US 28th place in world 768kbps, no wonder speedtest.com has US 28th place in world
I have 20mbps and I don't think that's fast enough. | |
| | 
Duramax08
Oh rly?
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | Re: 768kbps, no wonder speedtest.com has US 28th place in world I have 44kbps and I don't think thats fast enough. | |
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
 ·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| What I submitted Broadband - 3 Mbps down, 768 kbps up, caps of 75GB or higher, overages of 75¢ per GB or lower
Broadband Lite - 768 kbps down, 200 kbps up, caps of 10GB or higher, overages of 75¢ per GB or lower
Next-generation Broadband - 10 Mbps down, 10 Mbps up, caps of 300GB or higher (preferably no caps), overages of 25¢ per GB or lower, latency of 50ms or less to the nearest "internet hub" city
I feel fine with the latency argument on next-gen broadband because it's supposed to be a prestigious thing.
Download speeds should be obtainable via a download either at a major data center (SoftLayer, The Planet) or via a CDN (Akamai, LimeLight) at 100% speed, 100% of the time. If a provider can't make that speed, they need to either upgrade their networks or overprovision their customers to reach it.
Caps should be revised upward on a yearly basis by 50%, then rounded up to the nearest 5GB, to account for increases in consumer usage.
Currently there aren't a lot of places where next-generation internet is available in residential form; basically you've got Cablevision areas, FiOS areas and some fiber projects. However I'm fine with a bar set that high; everyone else can qualify for the "Broadband" designation, which would be absolutely lovely to get for most people beyond the reach of DSL/cable.
Heck, 768 kbps up is higher than some DSL providers actually offer when ATM overhead is taken into account. With this designation customers will actually get what they're paying for, which would be awesome.
About network congestion, I'm not asking for a non-blocking network, but if I get below my rated speeds, it's my ISP's problem, and they need to fix it. | |
| | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Re: What I submitted WTH? Why would you allow caps to be entered into the definition at all? Since when do caps even manage network congestion, and why is network congestion even an issue when other countries are implementing 1gbps symmetrical connections at affordable prices?
Do you *want* the US to become the broadband backwater this is Canada?
How about we define broadband as a connection without caps. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: What I submitted Easy answer: baby steps.
I dislike caps as much as the next guy, but having reasonable ones that expand by 50% per year is better than having lobbyists keeping the definition of broadband down to 768k and keeping it there.
Also, how many GBs do you use of 'net traffic per month? How much of that is P2P (not saying that's wrong, but I do all my P2P on an unmetered server in Luxembourg where bandwidth is dirt cheap)?
Lastly, these specs are baseline, not maximums. WOW, RCN, Cablevision and Verizon can continue with uncapped wireline broadband; they aren't forced to adopt caps just because the minimum in government says that what they should be. Just like Verizon's lowest DSL speed is 1024 kbps down, 384 kbps up rather than 768/200.
I see what you're saying but if the specs become too stringent the ISPs will just choose not to play along, instead renaming their product "High Speed Internet" or "High Speed Access" while capping, throttling and down-speeding all they want.
One more thing: the current definition of broadband has no verbiage about caps. So they could be 1GB for all the government cares. Now that sucks. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | This is 2009 "Broadband" should be 50Mbps minimum.
I'd even settle for 10M as the minimum.
Sustained speeds, not burst. | |
| 
doublea
join:2007-06-04
Petaluma, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| my response. Notice as “Comments (or Reply Comments) – NBP Public Notice #1.”
About the definition of broadband:
1. Form, Characteristics, and Performance Indicators.
a) The form that a definition of broadband should take:
A simple list of set standards based on delivery method. Lets be realistic and acknowledge we have set limits in our infrastructure and cant demand unrealistic stats from a old infrastructure.
b) whether to develop a single definition, or multiple definitions;
Multiple, because we have two very different worlds between wireless delivery and wireless delivery. We can't rule out one or the other to be included in this plan. Also make limits that companies that deliver services via one method, cant begin to deliver them over a different method just to receive funding. Ie: a landline telco invests in satellite because the funding is more available in that market.
c) whether an application-based approach to defining broadband would work, and how such an approach could be expressed in terms of performance indicators.
If the application is 100% third party and not controlled by the isp's. Also keep an eye out for isp's having the ability to detect the testing application, and simply boosting the broadband performance during the application test. This already happens with several speed testing services on the web.
d. the key characteristics and specific performance indicators that should be used to define
broadband;
Latency: speed in ms
Throughput: data in kbps or mbps
Uptime: Time in % per year
Reliability: 100% - ((% of time per hour that Throughput is not meeting minimum specified value. )(% of time per hour that Latency is exceeding maximum specified value.))\2)
Traffic loading: Must be avoided at all costs, A ISP must not interfere with data QOS no more than 5% of packets per each hour. A ISP may only change traffic loading if they can prove that network is operating at more than 95% of capacity, at which time the ISP is given a set amount of time to upgrade their network. Traffic loading should be looked at as an emergency fix until the network is fixed. No single type of data can be sorted differently than any other type.
e. what segment(s) of the network each performance indicator should measure, such as the local access link to the end user, or an end-to-end path;
End to end path, to avoid the ISP attempting to speed up paths that may be known and used for testing. The ISP should be completely unable to detect testing, to avoid false performance data.
f. how factors such as latency, jitter, traffic loading, diurnal patterns, reliability, and mobility should specifically be taken into account;
All should be taken into account on a certain percentage of 100, and each must meet a specified value. Latency, traffic loading, and reliability are the most important.
g. whether different performance indicators or definitions should be developed based on
technological or other distinctions, such as mobility or the provision of the service over a wired or wireless network;
Yes each performance statistic must be developed based on current delivery methods. Although this can hinder the ability of a ISP to offer hybrid solutions to consumers. Also make sure an ISP cant redefine itself to a lower standard, just to lower or avoid operating/upgrade costs.
h. the feasibility and verifiability of measuring different performance indicators.
All data must be measured by a third party. And ISP's must not interfere in the testing ability in any way at all.
2. Thresholds:
a. what minimum thresholds should be assigned to the performance indicators;
Throughput: 3mbps/500kbps for wired services, 1.5mbps/256mbps for wireless/satellite services. This spec is suitable for video streaming, and downloading, any slower speeds severely limit video and high intensive usage.
Latency: under 100ms for wired services and under 500ms for wireless services
Traffic loading: Less than 5% of total packets per hour. Of the 5% of packets that are sorted differently the packets latency must not be any more than 200% of max latency threshold.
Reliability: More than 99% per hour using performance indicator listed above.
b. the minimum thresholds necessary for broad classes of applications to function properly;
Basic web research and browsing, Throughput 768k/128k, Latency 500ms, Traffic loading 98%
Medical monitoring systems, Throughput 768k/128k, Latency 50ms, Traffic loading 99.9%
Low quality video streaming, Throughput 3000k/256k, Latency 500ms, Traffic loading 98%
HD video streaming / large file transfers, Throughput 12000k/1500k, Latency 500ms, Traffic loading 98%
Live gaming, Throughput 768k/128k, Latency 50ms, Traffic loading 99%
Video Conferencing, Throughput 3000k/1500k, Latency 100ms, Traffic loading 99%
VIOP, Throughput 256k/128k, Latency 50ms, Traffic loading 99.9%
Place shifting (ie: sling box type applications) Throughput 768k/1500k, Latency 500ms, Traffic loading 98%
c. whether we should adopt multiple, escalating tiers of minimum thresholds.
multiple.
Tier 1: basic broadband: Throughput 1500k/256k, Latency 500ms, Traffic loading 99%
Tier 2: standard broadband: Throughput 6000k/700k, Latency 100ms, Traffic loading 99%
Tier 3: improved broadband: Throughput 12000k/1500k, Latency 50ms, Traffic loading 99.5%
Tier 4: preferred broadband: Throughput 24000k/3000k, Latency 25ms, Traffic loading 99.9%
3. Updates:
a. what ongoing process should be put in place to update the definition, particularly the threshold levels;
When users use 90% or more of their thresholds for more than 25% of each day.
When new applications can't be adopted by more than 10% of "broadband users" that want the application.
When the "broadband" connection falls below 1% of the users LAN connection speed. Ie: 1gbps LAN = 10mbps broadband. look back to 2004 1% of 100mbps = 1mbps. This has been consistent.
b. how often should such updates should occur;
Every 18 months.
c. what criteria should be used to adjust thresholds over time;
See A.
d. how modifications over time to the definition will affect the Commission’s ability to collect and
publish meaningful data on broadband deployment and adoption.
Broadband has experienced explosive and slow times of growth and adoption, it's a uneven process, that may need to be averaged over many years. New methods of testing may become necessary. | |
| | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | Re: my response. That's waaaay too slow. Basic broadband at 1.5mbps?
Sure that's great for DSL providers, but bad for everyone else. | |
| | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
| Some of those standards make sense, but I still think that people are getting too hung about about latency. Yes, you can define per hop latency within an ISPs network, but it is unfair and unwise to force them to use a third party measure for this since it will inevitably become comprised and meaningless.
I also think that the 1% on LAN speed standard doesn't add up and is just inviting issues. A lot of computers have been coming standard with gigabit ethernet ports for the last five years, but until recently gigabit switches and routers have been out of the price range of most consumers. So how do we define what LAN speed is?
Which brings us to uptime standards. If you're running an organization with critical pieces of medical equipment that require internet access at all times you can't have a single internet connection. Your organization needs a fail over circuit just in case, and that starts to really skew this statistic.
I do agree that we need more transparency, but this shouldn't be built around buzz words like broadband or tiers. It should come from raw data. Yes, ISPs should be forced to disclose information about their average loads, their internal network's latencies any caps or bandwidth shaping systems they have, but we shouldn't go crazy about the semantics. | |
| | | 
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| Re: my response. I do agree that ISPs need to be more transparent. It is hard to define something that will become policy when so much is unknown.
Pretty much I have a feeling the definition for "broadband" is still going to be considered much lower in standards then we would like to see. I mean it is 2009 and some how I feel we are going to see what some of us in 1999 didn't consider acceptable.
My biggest concern is that some how they are going to define it so satellite providers are still considered broadband. Maybe I am bias for having to have been on satellite "broadband" before, but there is no way anything about satellite internet fits the definition.
You might have mentioned people getting too hung up about latency, but if there is no requirement at all in that respect it opens the door to companies that have no business being called broadband providers access to federal broadband dollars.
Latency is also very hard to explain to people, and I have a feeling that satellite providers would use the argument, 2000ms is only 2 secs. Do you think a extra two seconds to access your email is really that bad? | |
| | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
| Re: my response. I'm of the opinion that wired and wireless broadband should be held to different standards which is a nice way to prevent satellite providers from arguing that the entire world is properly served by our current setup.
As for the issue of latency, this is a tricky issue and to be honest it's tricky enough to make it so I don't want it included as part of any standard. Often times users see high latency when there are routing issues on a network which is a sign of failing equipment or bad design, but in other situations it's based on how the technology works or geographic limitations. When your latency is extremely high it is still possible to perform most business functions provided your packet loss remains low, and when we get down to it that's more important than gaming (yes I game).
The only common businesses applications that get hit by high latency is VoIP (which requires low latency for a proper chat) and web browsing, which is only effected by extremely high latency. Personally I wouldn't have a problem hosting a file server for hundred plus megabyte files on a connection that had enough bandwidth and low packet loss even if it had 10,000ms latency.
The real trick with latency that you have to think: What takes more time: getting your request there and back or having the content delivered.
For a site like Google.com that's 16KB it can be downloaded in 128ms on a 1Mbps connection so latency is your limiting factor. When downloading a 1GB movie from amazon bandwidth is your limiting factor so a little extra latency isn't that bad. | |
| | | | | techygeek
join:2008-04-30
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
1 edit | Open, untainted, everyone should get at least 1Mbps/200Kbps. unless its illegal activity (ie: sale of drugs, music server allowing illegal access of, say, music, viral site); everything on the net should not be blocked or slowed in any way and this should be a condition of being a provider. Everyone should get at least 1Mbps/200Kbps. | |
|
Pma94301
@pacbell.net
| Defining 'Broadband' 'Broadband' has been watered down as a term in the last 15 years. At a minimum, I recommend anything that exceeds 100K up/down (pathetic, I know), no latency requirement (sorry), but that is ALWAYS ON (well ... perhaps 99.9% reliable, given histerical - err historical - data). I wish that Broadband could be much more than this criteria, but it's been so diluted by the incumbents that it is really only something better than dialup in terms of speed, yet still always on. | |
| | trish2
join:2008-03-24
Laurens, SC | Re: Defining 'Broadband' Broadband should be defined as the following:
Two gigabits in both directions over fiber for everyone without limits, caps, or other restrictions. | |
| | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | Re: Defining 'Broadband' Yes, and then all of the stimulus money given for promoting broadband can go to a single small town with a population of under 1,000. Cost matters and running OC48 connections from a person's house to a data center isn't cost effective. | |
|
Bill Stewart
@sbc.com
| Define a technical problem, I'll give you a technical answer This isn't a technical question - it's a political question. Broadband is "fast enough to sell the content you're trying to sell", and they haven't said what kind of content they're trying to help industry sell us. •If they're trying to sell us email, IM, and VOIP, >64kbps is good enough, though 384 is better, and 128-384's enough for video conferencing. • If they're trying to sell us wireless non-tetherable data, the only thing that needs speed is uploading pictures so 200-300 is fine. •If they're trying to sell us Youtube-quality video, 1-3 Mbps is enough. •If they're trying to sell you another television feed in addition to your cable, satellite, and terrestrial broadcast, 10's sort of enough but 20+ is better. •If they're trying to sell you running your own website at home - oh, wait, they're not - then usually 128k upstream is enough, unless you get slashdotted, in which case 50 Mbps isn't enough for 1-2 days, and then 128's enough again.
So what is the FCC trying to sell us? Probably "whatever it takes to keep the Democrats happy that Something is getting regulated." | |
| | | |
|
|
·
