livinded

AT&T Trying To Lower Broadband Requirements

10 posts in this topic

AT&T is attempting to get the FCC to lower the speed requirements for what service qualifies as being broadband. This will allow them to offer lower speeds to their customers so that they can avoid expanding and improving their network. This is becoming a huge issue and more and more people get online and the amount of traffic increases. ISPs don't want to cut into their profit margins so they don't update their network and then go ape shit with traffic shaping or have bad service because they haven't upgraded their network to deal with the influx of customers or data. This is especially true with the data networks for cell phones as well.

This needs to be stopped and ISPs must be forced to not only maintain the speeds their promise, but also increase them to keep up with other countries.

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE5806LY20090902

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually 256KBit/s 'always on' isn't that bad, when you consider that some rural communities are still limited to dialup over very long phone lines.

From a telco point of view a 'broadband' link is an up sell, over their no-limits dialup.

Mungewell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT&T just recently lowered my speed. And raised my price by $5.

I DESPISE AT&T.

Edited by thepcdude
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that sucks. Time warner keeps upgrading my speed. Apparently I have a 20mbit connection now, or higher. When I bought it, I think it was 1 or 2mbit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that sucks. Time warner keeps upgrading my speed. Apparently I have a 20mbit connection now, or higher. When I bought it, I think it was 1 or 2mbit.

I've noticed that with Time Warner as well, however since a week before Defcon my speed has been very inconsistent. At the best, which I rarely get anymore, I'll get 10mbps but I've recently been getting around 1mbps.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...This needs to be stopped and ISPs must be forced to not only maintain the speeds their promise, but also increase them to keep up with other countries...

I can't agree more. This gets me more wound-up than peer-to-peer file sharing (for those who want to know, I'm on TPB side). I'm originally out of Philly and saw Comcast take over Cable and become dominant in the ISP realm as well. Comcast went out of their way to interpret and sell the highest rate that they could get away with, yet forgot to tell you that their models were based on x percent of people using the common line at a time and x was a very low percent with no justification for x.

All the other major players did the same thing. They purposely oversold and under built the infrastructure to keep margins as high as possilbe. Now I don't have any problem with companies increasing their margin but I, and probably everyone here and throughtout the consumerspace, simply want to know with a high degree of certainty what we can get and expect. We know that there are no guarantees, but you can come fairly close. I have ATT right now and they advertise 6Mbs. I would rather have 1Mbs with consistency than 6Mbs that is uneven- even if it costs more! It's all about being able to reasonably plan.

From the article:

A 2008 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development showed that the United States ranked 19th with an advertised rate of 9.6 megabytes per second (mbps). The top three countries were Japan with 92.8 mbps, Korea with 80.8 mbps and France with 51 mbps.

LOL...Look at how bad things are...mbps is megabits per second not megabytes which would be almost 80 Mbs for the United States. If that were true, my crappy Sempron laptop would explode with that rate of throughput! After 1Mbs I have to start closing programs down or else the machine becomes unresponsive! But, seriously, this would be a good measure for the proper rate. That is, if the load of the network taxes an average system to a significant percent then the infrastructure is near the optimum spot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this Time Warner you speak of?

Here in Chicago, only two dominate. And I believe they're literally the ONLY ISP's you can get apart from dial-up.

Those are Comcast and AT&T. Both suck.

*cries*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i think they should just make the speed have to be a constant i mean my internet is probably like 1mb as it starts at like 780k for a second then after like 15 seconds its at like 70k then it just downloads at like 65k. i would love to have 256k internet if it actually stayed at 256k

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT&T is attempting to get the FCC to lower the speed requirements for what service qualifies as being broadband. This will allow them to offer lower speeds to their customers so that they can avoid expanding and improving their network. This is becoming a huge issue and more and more people get online and the amount of traffic increases. ISPs don't want to cut into their profit margins so they don't update their network and then go ape shit with traffic shaping or have bad service because they haven't upgraded their network to deal with the influx of customers or data. This is especially true with the data networks for cell phones as well.

This needs to be stopped and ISPs must be forced to not only maintain the speeds their promise, but also increase them to keep up with other countries.

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE5806LY20090902

you are actually misunderstanding the purpose of defining at what speed internet access can be defined as broadband or high speed internet. there is large amounts of federal stimulus money for the deployment of broadband infrastructure in undeserved communities...

by defining broadband with a lower speed provides service providers to roll out there plans faster, cheaper, and more efficiently, thus qualifying them for some of that broadband stimulus money...

in no way does the speed definition of broadband equate to internet service providers throttling back the speed at which customers already have..

by defining BB with a lower speed allows multiple technologies, including wireline, wireless, and satellite to qualify...

some groups believe that the speed at which BB, or HSI is defined should be updated from time to time.... I tend to agree that the minimum speed for broadband should be reviewed from time to time (lets say every 3-5 years) to ensure that it remains competitive to other developed countries... I also believe that DSL was obsolete almost as soon as it came out compared to the bandwidth provided by cable modem service...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My solution is a peplink multiwan router with 4 wrt routers in client mode leeching off the neighbors. results in one huge fat pipe that priced lower than any provider. FREE. The multi wan isn't cheap though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now