That does seem unrealistic. I had always taken 768kbps as the definition, as that has always been the lowest increment offered here where I live.

Since the phrase used is always ‘up to x kbps’, one can certainly count on the fact that when most wish to use the internet, in the late afternoon to early evening, it won’t be anywhere near the top speed quoted, so planning accordingly would be in order.

What was the customer paying for 256k? And what was the cost of the next step? If it is more than $10, it’s no deal. Also, what is the upload speed - sometimes down can be fine but the problem is the EXTREME slow speed of the up direction for the ACKs.

Is the FCC being realistic in its interpretation of what broadband is?

If it were a global definition, I’d accept it because:

-the phone isn’t tied up (broadband often having been promoted as “talk and surf”)
-for many countries around the world (outside scope of FCC, I know), 200-384 or 512k is “standard” broadband…enough for pages to load fast, many places not being mass consumers of media

However, 200 is slow by US/Western standards so they should at least differentiate between broadband ‘lite’ and “broadband 2.0″ in the age of really high speed cable and verizon fios.

When I visit the DR….it’s painful to use the cheaper 384k but it really is just good enough for family’s basic surfing et al.

peace

Hi Marc,
Costs were $14.95, $19.95 and $24.95 for the fastest. I advised them to consider a faster speed.

Hello Ray,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Ron

Hey Ron,

The FCC is government, So the data and knowledge is behind the times. The figure you gave of 200kbps. Would most likely be from a era when Broadband was new. Then that was a fast speed.

Remember the days of 7200 baud. 1997 or around.

Kyle

Hi Kyle,
Thanks for the info.
Ron

Here in Japan we can get basic 100 Mb (megabit) consumer fiber connected to any house or apartment for only around $30/month.　This is 100 Mb upstream and 100 Mb downstream. The speeds are incredible, even at the best effort.

Hi Japan,
Thanks for your input.
Ron

Hey Chris, that is definitely slow. I started out with dialup like most others. I then had cable most of my online life. I moved once and had cable broad band hooked up. After about two weeks of not being able to be online in the afternoon or evening I called the ISP. They told me that cable just did not work right , all kinds of problems. They suggest I go with DSL at no extra hookup fee. Wow. So, they hooked me up. I was talking with the tech as he worked. He told me I would not be happy with thqt plan, as it was too slow. I tried it and it was like dialup. I had him upgrade me while he was there.
Problem solved. One question, in my taskbar, is the double screen monitor.
When I mouse over it, it says speed 100.0 Mbps. What’s with that?

Hi Fred,
Sounds like the 100Mbps is the speed of your network card not your connection.
Ron

My dialup (nothing else available where I am) is 26.4kbps without accelerator software and 45.1 with it turned on…200 would be heaven…I try to stay out of the public library because I get so spoiled by using a fast connection I have using my own computer after that. My local phone company offers DSL, but only near the village. They like their behinds off about why we don’t have it in my grid, and recently I was told that when we eventually do get it we will be “paying through the nose for it”. This is very common in rural areas in this country.

Hello LWilliamson,
Unfortunately this is very true. Rural areas lag behind. Thanks for your comments.
Ron

Our broadband speed might as well be 15000 Mbps for all the good it
is going to do us. As long as the telephone company technology lags
behind countries such as Japan, we are just going to have to suck it up
and stop crying like babies.

I used dial-up from when there were only BBS on line at very slow baud
rates and was thankful for what I had. Then as times changed, I was
able to step up to ISP’s and all had their good and bad sides. The one
I have now is the same way. I could use cable, but find satellite more
satisfying for TV and DSL more useful for business and phone service.

Hi Carl Ray,
Thank you for sharing your experience with us.
Ron

Over here (Serbia), the difference is very clear: either you’re on dialup (like, say, at least 80%), or you are on “broadband”, which means either ADSL (where available - only bigger cities) or cable (only densely populated parts of even bigger cities).

The reason I put broadband in parenthesis is the speed we get, and the cost we pay for it. If you use ADSL (and I do), you have to pay ~18 euro/month for a meagre 256/64 connection, or ~30 monthly for a 512/128 connection - something most of the people here don’t even consider broadband. The costs for cable is comparable, except you get a 1:2 down/up ratio, and a higher speed in the local network.

This probably says more about the situation here than anything else, but I feel the point is that it all depends on what you have available, and what is the standard where you are: if you are on a 10 mbit line, I’m sure everything below 2 mbit/s would be unacceptable, but if you just moved up to 256 from dialup, you’ll be beside yourself with glee.

VP

Hi VPeric,
Thanks for sharing your experience with us and for your comments.
Ron

The FCC definition of broadband is indeed too slow. The Communications Workers of America thru their Speed Matters campaign advocate immediately raising the standard to 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up. By 2010 we hope for 10 mbps down and 1mbps up, with new, higher benchmarks going forward. Visit our website at http://www.speedmatters.org

Hi Paul,
Thanks for your comments and for the link.
Ron

A few months ago I moved to Tennessee. That meant new ISP. My first ISP was a dial-up, which wasn’t bad just slower than I liked. Once I got cable, my connections via cable modem. On moving to TN I fount no cable available, but ISP Embaq said I could get DSL @ 3Mps. Cool! Six months later, I moved across town. Embaq told me that the 3Mps speed was not available but I could get 1.5 Mps which would cost a bit less. OK, I could live with that, it was abouth the same speed I had been getting via cable.

Now the problems begin. First, there is a weeks delay while they find a line to connect me to. Then my spouse begins complaining that e-mail is taking forever to load. I should have listened. Then I decide to download Ubuntu distro, it takes a bit over 4 hours!! I feel like I’m on dial=-up 56 kps modem. I decide to check the download speed and find it to be between 48 and 58 kps. A call to Embarq reveils that instead of 1.5 Mps I had been “throttled back to 512 kps.” Their tech showes up a couple of days later and tells me that indeed I’m set at 512 kps because of the distance to CO. Right, but download speed remains around 55 kps, NOT acceptable! A quick call to cable company, (cable is available this side of town), and I had cable installed in three days. Download speed is now at about 350 to 500 kps though the speed meter says it runs a bit faster.

Sometimes there are other options available, in my case change ISPs.

Hello Bill,
Thank you for sharing your experience with us. Like yourself, I have cable as well and I am very pleased with the up and down speeds. Where I live [just in my neighborhood], cable is the only broadband option.

Thanks for your comments, Ron

I just read HughesNet launched a satellite that will provide internet
speeds as high as 16Mmps on the upload and downloads as fast as 30Mpbs. Satellite Internet is a bit pricier than cable or DSL.

Hi Paul,
Thanks for sharing this information with us. Hopefully the pricing of a satellite connection will decrease as it gains popularity.
Regards, Ron