Only 25Mbps and up is broadband

zaax

Only 25Mbps and up will qualify as broadband under new FCC definition

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chair-broadband-must-be-25mbps-and-isps-are-failing-to-deliver/


I wonder when (or if) OFCOM will define broadband as 25Mbps and over

bengalknights

Now if only fibre was classed as fibre to the premise

brewerdave

zaax wrote: »

Only 25Mbps and up will qualify as broadband under new FCC definition

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chair-broadband-must-be-25mbps-and-isps-are-failing-to-deliver/


I wonder when (or if) OFCOM will define broadband as 25Mbps and over

...that's in USA - not relevant in UK, because far fewer people have "cable" connections/services.
Also nearly 18 months ago!!

onomatopoeia99

bengalknights wrote: »

Now if only fibre was classed as fibre to the premise

Just use the appropriate acronym (FTTC or FTTP) and it's easy to differentiate. Calling it "fibre" is lazy by ISPs.

kwikbreaks

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Calling it "fibre" is lazy by ISPs.

No it's marketing. VM called their hybrid fibre/coax network fibre and the totally inept ASA ruled that was fine when non-cable ISPs complained. Now FTTC is a close parallel so the ISPs call that fibre too.

bengalknights

kwikbreaks wrote: »

No it's marketing. VM called their hybrid fibre/coax network fibre and the totally inept ASA ruled that was fine when non-cable ISPs complained. Now FTTC is a close parallel so the ISPs call that fibre too.

Yep thats the issue because the ASA set the precedent we get to be stuck in the dark ages of broadband for another decade as we already have "fibre"

unforeseen

And nobody is willing to fund a UK wide FTTP rollout and the corresponding infrastructure upgrade.

lee111s

unforeseen wrote: »

And nobody is willing to fund a UK wide FTTP rollout and the corresponding infrastructure upgrade.

Funding isn't the only issue. The workforce required would be monumentalz

Aside from the £25bn that's been touted as the cost, with Openreach's current work force it would take decades. They'd need to employ many many thousands more engineers to get it done at any great speed.

Nilrem

There is also the disruption.
In many areas it would require digging up the roads, gardens and driveways, often going across several lots of private land to reach some customers.

Mind you at least we're in a better state than much of the USA, IIRC our average speed is actually higher than that of the US, and we have working competition in most areas (a lot of the US is effectively monopoly providers).