Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

How Broad is Broadband? 441

Photon01 writes "The Register reports that UK ISP NTL have lost, in a ruling that their advertisement of their 128k broadband service as 'High Speed Broadband Internet' is misleading. This is despite it clearly meeting the technical definitions of broadband internet. Apparently 128k broadband is not broad enough." My first cable modem was only 256k. It wasn't blazingly fast but after being stuck on dialup it was heaven, and I imagine 128k wouldn't be so bad for a single household.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Broad is Broadband?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:14AM (#5708476)
    When you buy gasoline, the octane rating is Required by law to be posted. A similar system of 'Broadband Octane', so to speak, would allow consumers to more effectively make decisions on internet access.
    In addition, there seems to be a growing trend of 'broadband' carriers who are slowly jacking down the bandwidth to each individual, either by packing in more consumers on a main line, or forcing the hardware to lower rates. In any case, more unsolicited disclosure would be welcomed.
  • Broadband misused (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:17AM (#5708494)
    Doesn't broadband refer to a wide bandwidth (as opposed to a narrow band)? For some reason people think "broad" means fast...
  • Latiency (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zackeller ( 653801 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:20AM (#5708513)
    Just remember that to the average user, a 128k ISDN line with relatively low latiency is going to feel much faster at their normal tasks than a faster connection with higher pings, such as satellite or even some cable modems. Broadband should include more than just throughput, it should be the sum of many factors.
  • by nachoboy ( 107025 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:22AM (#5708520)
    Someone should tell these guys [glenwoodapt.com] about it. What they advertise as "ultra high speed internet access" is actually a great 100 Mbit LAN connection...to the other residents of the apartment complex. Connection to the internet? Capped at 64 kbps. Yes, you read that right... 64 kilobits per second. As in, slightly faster than your 56K modem. On a good day.

    I tried to call them on it, but the apartment won't take responsibility ("we're not the network guys, we just pay for it") and the actual ISP won't either ("we just provide what they pay us for"). It infuriates me because I think the ISP is trying to pull a fast one on the apartment complex and the complex just doesn't know any better. Even the head technician claims that 64k is two to three times faster than 56k cause it's full-duplex (doesn't help my download speed) and ethernet means reduced latency (still doesn't help my big downloads).

    Someone get Cogentco [cogentco.com] to come to Utah. Now *that's* what I consider "ultra high-speed internet!"
  • by seanadams.com ( 463190 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:31AM (#5708560) Homepage
    This is despite it clearly meeting the technical definitions of broadband internet.

    I couldn't find anything on their site which calims that their 128Kbps service is broadband. 10Mbps ethernet is not broadband. Neither is 100Mbps or 1Gbps ethernet. Somehow the market decided that the word "broadband" means "fast".

    Broadband is not a measure of speed. It means you're transmitting data on several frequencies at once, to maximize the capacity of the physical medium. I sincerely doubt that anything running at 128kbps is using broadband modems. We have ISDN repeaters for that.
  • DSL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:36AM (#5708584) Journal
    Dont forget about all the people who have the most expensive and lowest speed DSL, iDSL. DSL over ISDN.

    I was stuck on iDSL on covad for 2 years till they fixed our phone lines.

    Good points, faster than modem, almost 3x. And ping was great, 20ms to all hops in Seattle. (Low ping bastard for games)

    So it was doable. And compared to ISDN which you had to bind the channels together, and dial out, was a snap, static IPs and never a disconnect.

    Total cost, about 400 bux for a modem, 100 bux a month service.

    Now YOU bitch about the price of high speed DSL.
  • by cronian ( 322433 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:40AM (#5708591)
    I remember reading a while back about the FCC's definition of Broadband. One idea holds that broadband should be fast enough to support streaming video at VHS quality which is supposedly 500 kb/s. In theory if you can support streaming video, basically anything can be provided over the internet assuming that it is processed on a remote server. However, I would still like my personal fiber optic cable.
  • Re:don't bitch (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pballsim ( 119438 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:51AM (#5708621) Homepage
    I love it how they never put in the units. "Yes I have blazing 640K speed!" 640K what? 640 bits (or a nibble perhaps) per year?

    Of course, bps (bits per second) is extremely misleading too. Why not be honest and saying: "64K" bytes per second.

    This is, 8bits/char plus the two extra bits due to parity and other information.

    Don't make numbers go naked! Put units on them!

    Side note: 2 bits == nibble
  • What a strange case (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tconnors ( 91126 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:58AM (#5708644) Homepage Journal
    Well, where do we start? Sure, it isn't "high speed broadband". So I was agreeing with the judges decision. Afterall, here in .au, we actually care about the "consumer" (hate that word), and if some lousy business lies to you, we sic ACCC (Asutralian competition and consumer commision) onto them.

    But then found out that the lawyers were arguing it wasn't "broadband". ie, some stupid slime has stolen physicist's language, and is trying to force change in terminology through law. They didn't have a beef with the "high speed" part, instead they chose to pick on "broadband".
  • by Soko ( 17987 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:17AM (#5708692) Homepage
    Speaking of deceptive advertising...

    Where I am, the phone company used to advertise thier DSL in the vein of "No sharing access!!!", in reference to the fact that cable subscribers all use the same wire to get to the distribution point, which leads to slowdowns as more people are added. Every household, however, has it's own dedicated line to the CO - no sharing, so it's faster, right? All fine and good, yes? Not quite.

    What they didn't tell you is that each of the COs were provisioned with but a single T1. So, you now have 40 or 50 people each screaming down thier own, dedicated 1Mb pipe to squeeze through a single T1 just a little farther down stream. Pot, Kettle, Black. To boot, the cable access goes up to 25Mb at the end of most streets. Guess which runs faster, all the time?

    Unless you know something of how the technology actually works, marketers can easily prey on you. I've steered more than a few people away from the DSL service in protest of the above misleading advertising tactic, plus the fact that they either don't know what they're doing or are too cheap to provide at least an E10 to all of the COs. They're the phone company, fercryinoutloud - they must have better access than that around.

    A lesson in making sure your "broadband" ISP knows how to build a proper high speed network from end to end.

    Soko
  • Re:Not Broad Enough (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:50AM (#5708779)
    Five miles isn't even a long wireless link. Find somebody who can get it or better yet a tall building in the nearby town, and get your hookup.

    It took me about 2 months to build my tower working on it on the weekends. Plenty of howto stuff on the internet on it. The only tricky part was making myself a gin pole and figuring out how much quickcrete I needed for the base ( 32 bags, 3x3x4 hole ). You could probably do the concreting even cheaper then I did if your willing to mix morter, sand and gravel. I'm wasn't though for varoius reasons.

    These are pretty cool:
    http://www.locustworld.com/

    You'll need some of these:
    http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/cable_ada pter.htm l

    And one of these:
    Prism 2.5 200mW - http://www.mt.lv/

    Hook'em up point them at each other, bam, you have internet.

    I had several people tell me that my ping would be high ( its not ), it would be slow ( its a heck of alot faster then 26.4 modem ), and it would be unstable. Well, its pretty stable, I wouldn't hook a heart monitor up to it though.

  • It's funny... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by devphil ( 51341 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:53AM (#5708789) Homepage


    My home ADSL is 1.5Mb.

    Where I work (the R&D hub of the Air Force) has OC-12s and -48s and who knows what else, coming out of its ears.

    But the link from inside to outside goes through so many filters and firewalls that reading email, loading a web page, or trying to download the latest security patch goes far far faster at home than at work.

    (And it's not competing traffic from the rest of the base's inhabitants, either. Trying to pull stuff off the net in the middle of the night when nobody else is there isn't any faster. Grumble.)

  • by taff^2 ( 188189 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:46AM (#5708913)
    Try explaining to my Father, or my grandmother the difference between kbps and KBps or even why they should care.

    I know it's stupid but we need to do what CD-ROM drive manufacturers have done and call it 4X or 8X and measure it against a base rate of, say 56kbps.

    TV ads for BTOpenworld Broadband already say that their connection is up to 10X faster, so why not adopt that as our unit of measure.
  • by binner1 ( 516856 ) <bdwalton&gmail,com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @09:02AM (#5709735) Homepage
    I worked for a guy rolling out an 802.11b ISP service. He was billing it a 'Ultrafast T1'. I tried to convince him that it was misleading marketing, but he wouldn't have it. The customers may have had a 'white room' 11 Mbps connection to the shop, but the shop only had a 2Mbps connection to the world. I know big ISP's oversell their bandwidth just like airlines oversell plane seats, but only having the capacity to support 1 1/3 customers at 'T1' speed is a little ridiculous.

    Anyway, that guy was a sheister, and I no longer work there!

    -Ben
  • by jeremyp ( 130771 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @09:25AM (#5709861) Homepage Journal
    Firstly, it wasn't Earth that they came from, it was Golgafrincham. The middle ship actually *landed* (crashed) on Earth. Secondly, it wasn't marketeers and politicians, it was the useless middle stratum of society including advertising execs, hair dressers, marketeers, estate agents, telephone sanitisers and marketeers. Thirdly, it turned out to be not such a good move as - some years later - the remaining population were all wiped out tragically by a virulent disease contracted from dirty telephones.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11, 2003 @10:34AM (#5710333)
    you think that's a lot. I consulted for a company in LA that was spending 60K a month with 2 ISDN lines back in 97. The best part was pacbell told them ISDN was the only way to get reliable data connection. when i told them they were only using 128kbits of bandwidth a month and that they should only be paying 250-500/month for fractional, they said "you're joking. that's not possible."


    after a couple months of telling them to walk away from pacbell, pacbell finally offered them a deal of 3K a month for a full T1. This is after me screaming at them they had 3 T1 lines for their voice. only after I pointed that out did pacbell admit T1 was ok for data.


    What's the point of the story? Telco's are in the business to make money and the sales person may be getting a cut, so what you pay is totally relative to who you talk to, when you talk to them, what specials are available and how the ISP feels. One day broad band might mean 512 and another day it might be 128. Shopping around and being aware is the only way to make sure you get your dollars worth.

  • Re:relative (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ian-K ( 154151 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:46PM (#5711862) Homepage
    ITU defines broadband as 1.5Mbps to 2Mbps and above. So even today's 512Kbps ADSL is not broadband, strictly speaking.

    (Luck that I was actually revising this last night, for my uni. exams).

    Trian
  • EE Terms (Score:3, Interesting)

    by man_ls ( 248470 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:23PM (#5712132)
    "Broadband" referrs to the modulation of multiple signals on different frequencies over the same physical wire.

    Contrasted with "baseband", which is the simple placement of an electrical signal on a wire.

    Ethernet uses a baseband method of signaling. Hence the technical terminology "100 Base TX" 100 Megabit, baseband signaling. The TX, I forget what that represends.

    Baseband signaling is trivial to interpret...an ethernet adapter only needs to be aware of three states on the wire...0, 1, and null. As opposed to broadband, where the adapter needs to be aware of the different signal levels and frequencies and pick the right channel from the wire to modulate/demodulate over.

    How can a lawyer define a technical term? "Broadband" has been misused because DSL/Cable are implimentations of broadband, but broadband signaling is not implicitly faster (or slower) than baseband signaling. There is no debate over what "broadband" means, it is explicitly defined in the world of electrical engineering, and has been for many years.

    WTF do the lawyers think they can get off doing?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...