USA broadband isn't broadband per FCC report December 2010 [Telecom]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 05:49:01 -0800, Thad Floryan wrote: .........

Just goes to show what happens when a specific technical term is hijacked by the ignorant for a totally different purpose - in the end the meaning becomes so devalued that it ends up being utilised by whoever decides it can be used to push their particular barrow.

How about we dump "Broadband" and use a nice little TLA like "HSI" (High Speed Internet)?

Then technical committees could attach numerical suffixes to it so various grades of service could be readily identified so we *all* know what we are talking about.

You may have to fight at&t for rights to that "nice little TLA" -- they're using "HSI" to name their at&t/Yahoo! DSL service (which, incidentally, starts at as low as 768 kb/s for DL speed, barely 15x

Cheers, -- tlvp (currently using just such at&t Yahoo! HSI :-) )

We currently use things like 3G, 4G etc for wireless data, surely we can come up with something to use for other delivery media?

If this group can't come up with some good suggestions, I don't know where else can.... ;-)

Comcast also uses that TLA, so I think it may be considered generic. In general, descriptive phrases are harder to trademark than coined terms, and "high speed Internet" is clearly of that type.

I have an idea, but I'm also cynical enough to know it'll never work.

Nearly every country on earth has UHF television. Nearly every country uses roughly the same frequencies we use in the US. Use the white space to create a standard global wireless broadband network allowing people to take their laptops, tablets, and phones anywhere and they'll just work.

Technically this would work fine. The problem is paying for it. Although I'm very libertarian-minded I have thought it's in the national interest to have reliable broadband infrastructure just like it's important to have a reliable highway system, air traffic control, sea lanes, etc. One side would say the private sector could do it better. Another would say the government shouldn't control the Internet. And people like me realize the government is flat broke and can't afford it.

My next thought is Google or a company like Google. But this is too big even for them. Which brings us to the telcos and honestly I see them sitting on the spectrum or balkanizing it, putting us back where we are today.

I spent a good part of 2010 living and traveling outside of the United States and saw how countries with a fraction of our GDP have better infrastructure and how the US seems to be the only country on the planet that puts the consumer last and we seem to like it that way.

John

Something like this? (from the people that hold the WiFi patents):

Several cable TV companies use "HSI." It's certainly better than "cable modem," an archaic term that morphed from the original definition of "cable modem" -- i.e., the modem itself. I guess we can blame Stewart Alsop for popularizing that term in his 1997 Fortune editorial "The Cable Industry's Big Dream," which concluded with the words "cable modems are a fantasy."

As for "Broadband," Great Thinkers of the cable TV industry (and their regulators) have for years been using that term to describe analog distribution networks. This mindset led to such notable failures as Warner Cable's QUBE in Columbus and Time Warner's Full Service Network in Orlando. And, of course, the most spectacular failure of them all: AOL Time Warner.

The first cable TV system I ever worked for (Madison, WI) operated under an ordinance known as the "Broadband Telecommunications Franchise Enabling Ordinance," enacted circa 1972. One of the Great Thinkers who dreamed up that name was Paul Soglin, who, at the time, was a member of the city council and a member of the committee that drafted the ordinance. Soglin subsequently served six terms as mayor and ran unsuccessfully for Congress, but he's remembered today mostly for his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War.

Cox Cable in Oklahoma City (and I presume in other places they serve) within the last few months have been advertising a special including a "cable modem" for one cent if you buy their high speed internet service.

Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

......... Yes, but in the context of the cable carrying multiple disparate services that did not affect each other on the same media, "Broadband" is 100% accurate.

That is the issue I keep banging on about, it is a specific technical term that has been hijacked by so many fools that it is now almost worthless.

:-) And I used to have issues trying to get people to understand the

The non-technical public I can forgive Bill, it's the rest of us that do know the difference yet still give in and accept the bogus definitions that I have trouble accepting.

I continually have to battle erroneous assumptions and misconceptions from the non-tech people I deal with in my various technology areas, and while it can be far easier to let people live with their bad ideas it is irresponsible (as well as career-threatening to me) if something that I knew needed attention was ignored just to avoid trying to set them straight (no matter how tough that can be - for various reasons).

It may be convenient to pander to ignorance in technical matters, but does it really do anyone (except marketers) much good in the long run?

Bah humbug I say, if us pedants can't keep a little of our domain intact in an area that demands accuracy for its basic function, where can we then go? :-)

Cox is using the correct terminology: is uses "cable modem" to refer to the modem itself, not the HSI service.

Neal McLain

But was it a "specific technical term" in 1972 when the Madison city council "hijacked" it?

Neal McLain

AFAIK the term was used decades before that to describe any telecommunication media that carried multiple disparate channels.

In Australia the (then) monopoly telco had it own "Broadband Division" which provisioned and maintained all the interstate telephony/TV trunk links - and all the technicians and engineers were taught the difference between "Broadband" and "Narrowband" services.

I don't know the technical details of the Madison City Council service, was it actually still an accurate use of the term back then in comparison to slapping any data service that has above 56K dial-up modem speeds with it these days?

Well, by that definition of "broadband", I guess it was broadband. The distribution network carried numerous signals, but they were all related to the delivery of cable TV and FM services:

-- VHF TV channels 2-13 (54-88; 174-216 MHz downstream)

-- A couple dozen FM signals in the FM band (88-108 MHz downstream)

-- AGC Control carrier (108.25 MHz downstream)

-- "Sniffer" leakage-detection carrier (downstream)

-- Microwave pilot carrier (73.95640 MHz downstream)

-- One or more video or audio return signals (5-30 MHz upstream)

There were no data services in the '70s. If memory serves, the first carrier carrying data would have been the addressable converter control carrier added circa 1982. I don't recall the data rate, but it was faster than 56K.

This carrier cycled to every converter on the network every few minutes to update its list of authorized services (premium signals and/or upper tiers). If a converter didn't get updated every few hours, it would shut down.

This reminds me of a story. A certain bar owner advertised that sports events would be shown in his establishment. Many of these events were not available to commercial accounts, and especially not at the same price as residential accounts.

A bit of investigation revealed that the bar owner was taking his home converter to the bar and using it for the sports events. After cease-and-desist letters from the cable company and the company's lawyers were ignored, the chief tech took the situation into his own hands. He sent a tech out to install a trap in the drop feeding the bar. But the trap didn't block the video signal; it blocked the control carrier. Halfway through the sports event, the converter timed out and shut down.

Some of the techs were watching from an unmarked car. They reported that it "looked like somebody poked a hornets' nest."

Neal McLain

It was certainly in 1943 when Terman used it. I don't know where it actually came from but I would not be surprised if, like most of the modulation research, it came out of RCA or Bell Labs.

--scott

Yes, that _was_ a correct technical usage of the term. If one is carrying the 'raw' signal only -- i.e. _not_ imposed on a 'carrier' frequency, that is "baseband" transmission. Baseband occupies the spectrum from zero Hz to the 'bandwidth' of the signal, With _rare_ exceptions, two baseband signals cannot share the same physical circuit. the straight 'video out' from a CCTV camera is one 'obvious' example.

If signals are riding 'on a carrier', and multiple such signals can share the same physical circuit, _without_ materially interfering with each other, that is 'broadband". The circuit must handle a "broad" band of frequencies, not just the spectrum of a single baseband signal.