Cable Industry Fights New 25 Mbps Broadband Definition Because The Need For Those Speeds Is 'Hypothetical'
from the please-don't-make-us-work-for-our-money dept
We recently noted how the FCC has been making a push to bump the current definition of broadband from where it sits now -- around 4 Mbps downstream, and 1 Mbps upstream -- to a more modern 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. Carriers have of course been crying a lot about this, given it will more clearly highlight the lack of effort they've been making -- especially in the less competitive markets. While U.S. broadband competition is pretty pathetic across the spectrum, several studies lately have shown it's particularly bad anywhere above 10 Mbps.Quite unsurprisingly the cable industry has come out in strong opposition to the FCC's plan in a new NCTA filing (pdf) with the agency:
"...the two parties that specifically urge the Commission to adopt a download speed benchmark of 25 Mbps—Netflix and Public Knowledge—both offer examples of applications that go well beyond the 'current' and 'regular' uses that ordinarily inform the Commission’s inquiry under Section 706" of the Telecommunications Act. Hypothetical use cases showing the need for 25Mbps/3Mbps "dramatically exaggerate the amount of bandwidth needed by the typical broadband user," the NCTA said."Because really, what kind of boob would want to draft a broadband standard that looks toward the future, right?
Of course, you'd think the cable industry would actually want a higher broadband definition, since its relatively-easy-to-deploy DOCSIS 3.0 (and soon 3.1) technology can achieve those speeds quite easily. That would give them a policy leg up against DSL providers, many of which have struggled with the significantly more expensive upgrade from copper-based network to fiber. And not too surprisingly, Verizon, AT&T and companies like CenturyLink are against raising the standard definition for just those reasons. But there's something else at play here as well.
If you read Techdirt, you know that DSL providers like AT&T and Verizon are actually backing away from DSL they don't want to upgrade on a massive scale, meaning we're entering an era where the cable monopoly is going to be stronger than ever across huge swaths of the country. Under Congressional mandate, the FCC is required to ensure broadband is being deployed in a "reasonable and timely basis." If the data shows it isn't (and that's precisely what the data shows), it gives the FCC legal ammunition in all the current heated broadband fights (net neutrality, municipal broadband). A legally-grounded FCC means less leeway for this growing cable monopoly to abuse its dominant market position, which is why the cable industry would very much like to keep our broadband definition buried somewhere in 2002.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It all comes back full circle.
If you want to really not see latency peaks even if your speed is more than fast enough to handle the connection, get a VPN so they can't throttle your traffic. HostVPN is my suggestion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: broadband speed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, nobody has said that they have to make 25 Mbps connections inexpensive, only that they have to be available. Make it available, and charge whatever it is they need to charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you live anywhere with more than one person (say, in a relationship or a family) - 25mb/s is somewhere between unusable and a joke.
Living with my wife and us both being very connected I find even 100mb/s barely adequate and 10mb/s upstream to be an insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to Netflix: "25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality". So are you, your wife, and your two dogs all streaming movies in 4K at the same time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never mind that no one really needs to charge more for higher bandwidth. They can deploy modern equipment when aging equipment is replaced anyway. Or un-throttle networks which are limited from using existing higher-bandwidth capabilities. Either way, it's an artificial scarcity which few industries or markets get to enjoy to such an extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"let the wireless carriers brand their not-4G garbage as 4G"
G means generation and it was the 4th generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then the ITU changed its tune and declared retroactively that some of these technologies did meet the standard. It still didn't make the services being sold as good as the ones everyone else was using the term 4G to describe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Instead of "Up To XXMbps*!!" we'll get "with future upgrade speeds up to XXGpbs*!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody is using it because it's not available.
It's not available because there's no demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Yogi Berra new that meme
- Yogi Berra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even Yogi Berra new that meme
-Philip J. Fry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Demand, which is the argument from the cable industry or the
availability that other innovative tech-industries - particularly livestream and cloudservice - and many others like techdirt and many common users would like.
It all boils down to money in the end: If you have shelled out millions of dollars on equipment with an expected long repay time, it sucks having to replace it by better technology before time.
While this specific definition is a technicality, it can be used to leverage availability over demand and that would be a disaster for those owning the "older" equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is a two-way communications channel, not a one-way distribution channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So why would they think of Internet any differently. After all, the only thing anyone does on the internet is Netflix, Amazon and YouTube. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As far as the vast majority of users not uploading anything, I think you are wrong there. More and more, even casual users are taking advantage of 'cloud computing', which hosts your data on remote servers. Voice of IP, VPNs, photo postings, video chat/uploads, etc... all are currently constrained by the ridiculously low upload bandwidth offered by ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It allows carriers to repurpose otherwise unused capacity (the uploading direction) and use it for the download direction. This lets them reduce costs by not deploying capacity which isn't needed.
It's true that people are uploading more than before because of all those things, but it's also true that the vast majority of consumer traffic remains downloading, not uploading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think so. The bandwidth of the copper/fiber in the last mile is not limited in either direction, (it's the service tier and/or equipment that sets your speed,) and interconnection/transit is nearly always symmetrical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish I could remember where I read it (it may have been a Techdirt article) but it reminds me of the gist of an argument about streaming availability of (I think it was) TV shows. Basically, they're "available" only in the most obtuse sense, no matter how ridiculously difficult they are to use, especially compared to unofficial alternatives. But it gives the studios cover to say "See, it's available legally, clearly no one wants it!" even though they're entirely misrepresenting the problem.
My (cable) broadband has an advertised speed of 30 Mbps, and it certainly isn't "cheap" but I think it's a far better value than I get from the TV part of the bill. I can pull pretty steadily at 23-24 Mbps on good days too, so the price bothers me even less. I don't always need speeds like that but when I do it makes all the difference in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think how that would go over in other industries:
78% of the car works
78% of the soda in the bottle
78% of that anesthetic while they are doing 78% of your surgery
How have they trained you to think what you are getting is actually good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wish I could download anything from anywhere at that speed, but I accept that the 30 Mbps connection they're selling me is really only between me and their hub. (Which, for the record, does test out at basically a full 30 Mbps.) I don't necessarily expect every site I'm downloading from to be able to max out that pipe even if the last part of the link can handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The real solution, as always, is competition. If you had a choice of say 6 different ISPs, it would cost a lot of money to get a 25Mbp/s connection only if that connection is actually expensive to deliver to you. Otherwise some of the competitors would drop their prices to get your business. It's only because of the oligopoly that we have to worry about abuse. The FCC seems to be moving in the right direction, but I think we're still a long way from real competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypothetical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetical speeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypothetically Hypothetical speeds
Hypothetically you could get 1 Gbps download speeds! *
* if we were to upgrade our network infrastructure. Which we won't. So there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypothetically Hypothetical speeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypothetically Hypothetical speeds
Except if they advertise speeds up to 25Mbp/s and their equipment is only capable of 10, they could - hypothetically - get in trouble for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
I dread that day. Because then Comcast will have us by the balls and I have no doubt that they will force us to buy bundled services we don't want and will raise prices every year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
Oh come now, there are always alternatives. UPS, for example, has great bandwidth. Though to be fair they may not meet your latency needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but
That out of the way, I don't really believe that 25/3 is needed for broadband. My current connection is only 6/.5, but I find that perfectly adequate for Netflix, gaming, and even some VPN use. I work in IT, and regularly need to transfer real data over that connection between my home and my office. I'll admit that I wouldn't mind seeing my upload speed increased to full megabit, but if the connection is clear and the ISP is not oversubscribed, even just 6/1 is perfectly find. And if we're defining "basic" broadband, I think 3/.5 should cut.
The difference is in semantics. The FCC is using broadband as a term to mean "premium internet service". However, in this day and age, broadband doesn't need to mean "premium" any more. Most consumers feel like they only need basic internet service, but they still feel like a broadband connection should be part of that.
In an ideal world, the FCC would define and report on both levels. Given the world we live in, a 25/3 reclassification sounds reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, but
I use these examples because I know they exist today and I know many industries would love to use these potentials a lot more in the future. Since broadband definition is mostly about future needs 25/3 is by no means unreasonable from a use case perspective even in less than 10 years.
I know they use access to 100/30 in 2020 as a service goal for 100 % of the population here. Those numbers are set by the cable companies and they even admit it is possible to go higher with a higher investment! That cable companies in the USA are fighting 25/3 mbps is a question of protecting their investments and avoiding too many new ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you mean Hypothetical?
Every little bit helps in a bittorrent*.
* should not be taken to mean that any copyright infringement is taking place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simultaneous Netflix viewers
(Now just watch the cable tv industry say it isn't reasonable while at the same time saying that it is reasonable to expect to watch several cable tv channels at the same time. Of course, these are the dinosaurs who seemed to think there should be a monthly fee per cable tv outlet rather than a one time installation fee per outlet. Maybe you should have to pay your cable provider per Netflix stream you use -- after all you are using their network service?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All those cheap new 4K TV sets
Never underestimate the political power of the couch potato(e)s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All those cheap new 4K TV sets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All those cheap new 4K TV sets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All those cheap new 4K TV sets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different people, same song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing ...
Who needs to go faster than a horse can walk anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like two people in a household wanting to use Youtube at the same time? Hardly hypothetical! It happens all the time! It's impossible for two people to use Youtube on a 4mbps connection. Trust me I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're watching in HD. 4Mbps should support 480 and below unless there's something else wrong with the connection.
http://www.whistleout.com.au/Broadband/Guides/Broadband-Usage-Guide#section-youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Citation needed. Not to be snarky, but I really doubt home users are uploading as much as they're downloading. For example, Netflix is over a third of peak internet usage in the US, and that's all in one direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any reference showing that a large proportion of home users are saturating their upstream bandwidth frequently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]