3 ms·

None of those require broadband (2 Mb or greater according to the FCC, IIRC) though. We're talking about fiber connections in the hundred to thousand megabit ra

by magila 12y ago

None of those require broadband (2 Mb or greater according to the FCC, IIRC) though. We're talking about fiber connections in the hundred to thousand megabit range here. Nobody is talking about cutting poorer neighborhoods off from the internet completely.

mschuster91 12y ago
It's either 56k or crappy DSL (2M) for these 'hoods, which equals a "cut off" these days in which everyone and their mother has a landing page with 2MB+ footprint.
- smsm42 12y ago
  It would be a good idea for the government at least to set the standard for their essential websites to not have 2MB+ footprint. As for the commercial ones, that would be for them to decide if they want larger audience or not.
seanc722 12y ago
Seems pretty short sighted. There is so much being created that is connected to the internet. You say you don't need high bandwidth for these things and I would say that is because they are made with the fact that there are a lot of customers who don't have the higher bandwidth. Give everyone more bandwidth and just think of what we could create!
pdonis 12y ago
> None of those require broadband (2 Mb or greater according to the FCC, IIRC) though. Really? Have you tried your bank's website over dialup? Or a typical bill pay site? (DSL typically meets the 2Mb or greater threshold, so it qualifies as broadband by your definition.)
- EvanAnderson 12y ago
  I had 768/128Kbps DSL until last month (when my wife got fed up with poor streaming video quality and called the telco about upgrading). For using my bank, credit card company, and "social networking" sites it was fine. That's not dial up speed, I realize, but it's not 2Mbps, either. Since the upgrade to 7/1Mbps service I have observed that sites I thought were slow on the old service are still slow. My wife says YouTube and Hulu are better. I am pleased that my VPN to home seems better (which I attribute to the increased upload bandwidth).

by magila 12y ago

mschuster91 12y ago

It's either 56k or crappy DSL (2M) for these 'hoods, which equals a "cut off" these days in which everyone and their mother has a landing page with 2MB+ footprint.

smsm42 12y ago
It would be a good idea for the government at least to set the standard for their essential websites to not have 2MB+ footprint. As for the commercial ones, that would be for them to decide if they want larger audience or not.

seanc722 12y ago

Seems pretty short sighted. There is so much being created that is connected to the internet. You say you don't need high bandwidth for these things and I would say that is because they are made with the fact that there are a lot of customers who don't have the higher bandwidth. Give everyone more bandwidth and just think of what we could create!

pdonis 12y ago

> None of those require broadband (2 Mb or greater according to the FCC, IIRC) though. Really? Have you tried your bank's website over dialup? Or a typical bill pay site? (DSL typically meets the 2Mb or greater threshold, so it qualifies as broadband by your definition.)

EvanAnderson 12y ago
I had 768/128Kbps DSL until last month (when my wife got fed up with poor streaming video quality and called the telco about upgrading). For using my bank, credit card company, and "social networking" sites it was fine. That's not dial up speed, I realize, but it's not 2Mbps, either. Since the upgrade to 7/1Mbps service I have observed that sites I thought were slow on the old service are still slow. My wife says YouTube and Hulu are better. I am pleased that my VPN to home seems better (which I attribute to the increased upload bandwidth).