Starlink’s official social media channels are boasting about an incredible performance update on the way to mobile customers. A Tweet on Sunday claimed that the next-gen V2 satellites being launched by SpaceX would deliver “100x the data density of the current V1 generation satellites.” That’s the kind of upgrade multiplier anyone can appreciate.

The announcement will affect the Starlink Mobile service, which was previously branded as ‘Direct to Cell’ until recently. Whatever the moniker, this service provides satellite-to-phone communications – data, voice, messaging – across 32 countries spanning six continents. When enough V2 satellites get into LEO position, we’d say these “cellphone towers in space” are going to boost the service quality significantly.

The Starlink Direct to Cell, now Starlink Mobile, service only began to roll out commercially last July. However, compared to traditional mobile service providers, its only real draw is the inherent ‘connectivity where you need it’ and emergency coverage where space-based comms beat those on Earth.

100x, 20x, what the x?

Starlink Mobile’s current service, using V1 satellites, is currently only good for ‘light data’ and texts, according to a number of mobile-centric sites. Thus, the upgrade to V2 is going to be significant.

Putting some numbers to the claims, we see that the V2 upgrade is touted to deliver ‘5G from space,’ which is also compatible with 100s of existing LTE phones. Don’t get the 100x and 20x claims seen across Starlink social media and web pages mixed up. The V2 satellites upgrade is said to provide “100x the data density” compared to the current V1 satellites, with “around 20x the throughput capability” per satellite.

Starlink also expects terrestrial operator partners, like T-Mobile in the U.S., to provide services which “seamlessly transition between satellite and terrestrial networks without interruption or degradation in service.” Previous Starlink announcements point to a goal of peak speeds of 150 Mbps per user becoming realistic with the rollout of the V2 satellites.

SpaceX is currently planning up to 15,000 new satellites to power its ‘5G from space’ goal. Starship’s progress at putting the larger, more capable V2 satellites into space will impact the availability window of the enhanced service, but some V2 Mini satellites are already being launched to help bridge the gap.

Thus, early 2027 looks most likely to be when the initial V2 service will be tested in the early rollout stage.

G.Network, a broadband internet provider focused on London, England, that mostly uses fiber optic lines, has entered administration (similar to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy) after a potential deal fell through because of rats. According to The Telegraph, the company was £300 million (more than $411 million) in debt and only had 25,000 paying subscribers. Community Fibre was considering acquiring the company’s assets, but decided against it after discovering that its cables suffered from extensive rodent damage. Biodegradable cable covering complicated matters, as they attracted rats.

“Rodents like ducts and they like fibers, which are very tasty,” Community Fibre chief Graeme Oxby told the newspaper. “It’s not something we’ve been particularly interested in because we think it’s got quite a lot of structural issues and would be quite an expensive fix.”

Internet fiber optic cables have layers of protection, including conduits or ducting, casing, and insulation. This makes them robust enough that it would require a power tool to saw through them. However, they’re still no match for rodent teeth. Rats can easily chew through cables, using these protective layers for nesting.

Moreover, some cable jackets are biodegradable, using soy-based or corn-based materials as part of their sheathing. This makes them attractive to the sensitive noses of rodents, as they smell like food and are more likely to be consumed.

Aside from this, The Telegraph reports that the majority of G.Network’s lines are located under the middle of roads, not sidewalks. This makes repair costly, as the company has to close thoroughfares when it needs to replace damaged fiber. Furthermore, it causes disruption, causing traffic to back up in already congested London.

It’s mostly for this reason that competitors aren’t scooping up the distressed company as it enters administration. The firm is currently owned by FitzWalter Capital, a private-equity firm that specializes in investing in distressed companies, where they’re either turned around or cut to pieces and sold for profit.

Community Fiber refused to bid on the company, with Oxby telling the newspaper that it hasn’t even conducted a technical assessment of the distressed broadband firm. He also added that other factors were driving the decision not to acquire its competitor. Because of this, the future of G.Network and its rat-damaged fiber optic network remains unclear.

The Federal Communications Commission has partially approved a significant expansion of SpaceX’s next-generation Starlink constellation, authorizing 7,500 additional low Earth orbit satellites under a partial grant issued by the agency’s Space Bureau and clearing a major regulatory hurdle for SpaceX’s next phase of Starlink growth. The decision brings the total number of authorized Starlink Gen2 satellites to 15,000, while leaving the remainder of SpaceX’s broader proposal under continued review.

The order, released this week, responds to SpaceX’s request to deploy a much larger Gen2 constellation that would ultimately approach 30,000 satellites. Rather than approving the full plan, the FCC granted authority for roughly half of the requested spacecraft and explicitly deferred action on the remaining satellites. The Bureau framed the decision as a balance between expanding broadband capacity from space and managing growing concerns around orbital congestion and spectrum coordination.

Alongside the increased satellite count, the FCC approved substantial changes to Starlink’s orbital design. The order authorizes new orbital shells at lower altitudes, including ranges around 340km and 365km, as well as additional shells in the 475km to 485km range. Lower altitudes can reduce latency and shorten the time non-functional satellites remain in orbit, but they also require more frequent launches to maintain coverage.

The approval also addresses spectrum access, with the FCC authorizing Gen2 operations across Ku- and Ka-band frequencies, while also approving the use of higher-frequency V-band, E-band, and W-band, primarily for gateway and backhaul links. The order emphasizes that these authorizations remain subject to coordination requirements with other satellite systems and terrestrial services operating in the same bands.

Within the U.S., the FCC approved Supplemental Coverage from Space operations in the 1910-1915 MHz uplink and 1990-1995 MHz downlink bands. For deployments outside the U.S., the order authorizes mobile satellite service direct-to-cell operations across a wider set of cellular-adjacent frequencies, subject to national regulatory approval in each market.

To accompany the expansion, the FCC says SpaceX must have 50% of the newly authorized Gen2 satellites launched and operational by December 1, 2028, with the remainder required by December 1, 2031. The order also includes ongoing reporting obligations regarding collision avoidance and satellite disposal, and it grants the Bureau the authority to pause further deployments if debris risk thresholds are exceeded.

Starlink satellite 35956 suffered from a serious anomaly on December 17. It is described as largely intact, but is currently “tumbling, and will reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and fully demise within weeks,” says the official Starlink X account. Geospatial intelligence partner Vantor shared what is likely the last clear image of the ill-fated satellite after SpaceX urgently requested visual intelligence.

Space anomaly damages satellite 35956

We don’t have a clear description of what exactly happened with satellite 35956. Starlink just describes the problem as an “anomaly” that occurred on December 17. Engineers working for Starlink are said to be “rapidly working to root cause and mitigate the source of the anomaly.” No insight into this investigation is ready yet, but apparently, some software changes are already being deployed that “increases protections against this type of event.”

It was observed that satellite 35956 lost communications at an altitude of 418km. “The anomaly led to venting of the propulsion tank, a rapid decay in semi-major axis by about 4 km, and the release of a small number of trackable low relative velocity objects,” says Starlink.

Currently, the “tumbling” satellite remains largely intact, according to the satellite communications firm. It is estimated that it will “reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and fully demise within weeks.” Importantly, neither the larger part of the satellite nor its “small number of trackable low relative velocity objects” are thought to pose any threat to humans on Earth. It is also noted that its trajectory will place it below the International Space Station, so those folks don’t need to worry either.

Partner SpaceX urgently requested visual intelligence, and Vantor quickly responded by capturing a “12 cm non-Earth image that provided visual intelligence about the condition of the spacecraft.”

Vantor explains that its WorldView-3 satellite was 241 km away from the Starlink satellite 35956 when it captured this image of the “tumbling” spacecraft. The image reproduced in the LinkedIn post isn’t the sharpest picture of a satellite we have seen, but it was enough to “provide confirmation that the satellite was mostly intact, enabling SpaceX to assess potential damage,” says Vantor.

Starlink is currently the largest satellite operator by quite some margin. There are approximately 12,000 active satellites now in LEO space, with over 8,000 operated by Starlink. Tens of thousands more are planned by Starlink and global rivals, and it isn’t surprising that there are issues, accidents, and near-misses from time to time.

There was a notably “dangerously close” approach between a newly launched Chinese satellite and Starlink-6079 a few days ago. VP of SpaceX’s Starlink Engineering, Michael Nicolls, disclosed that a Chinese satellite came within 200m (219 yards) of an orbiting Starlink device. That’s an extremely close call with catastrophe, with Starlink LEO satellites known to travel at speeds exceeding 17,400mph. Nicholls called for improved coordination between space agencies.

On December 9, a rocket launched from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center took nine satellites into orbit. One of the Long March 2D rocket payload satellites was then observed to pass within 200m of the Starlink-6079 satellite (NORAD ID 56120) in low-Earth orbit (LEO) at 560km (348 miles) altitude.

Nicolls emphasized that near-misses like this will continue to happen. “Most of the risk of operating in space comes from the lack of coordination between satellite operators,” claimed the Starlink VP. “This needs to change.” Indeed, change is required to prevent the near-miss news, bad as it is, from taking a tragic twist.

There are approximately 12,000 active satellites now in LEO space, with probably 8,000 operated by Starlink. Starlink satellites travel at incredible speeds, exceeding 17,400mph, so a collision could easily destroy anything involved.

Moreover, the resulting high-velocity debris fragments, in their thousands, could cause far more damage, with some commenters on Nicolls’ post raising the specter of the Kessler Syndrome. That would be a chain reaction of collisions, exponentially increasing debris, and potentially making LEO space unusable for generations to come.

Science can help prevent such an unfortunate outcome, but global coordination is lacking, so a policy push seems to be required. China doesn’t notify or share trajectories to voluntary platforms such as the U.S. Space-Track.org or the UN’s International Telecommunications Union. Hopefully, it won’t need to see a massive space incident to prompt it into some sensible preventative collaborative action.

If you think LEO space is crowded now...

Meanwhile, plans for greater numbers of LEO satellites are forging ahead, cranking up the chance/danger of a collision. Starlink plans to expand its constellation to around 42,000 for global internet coverage. Amazon Leo has plans for over 3,200 satellites. In China, Guowang talks about targeting 13,000 satellites, and Shanghai Spacecom has mentioned a target of 14,000. Over in Europe, the Eutelsat OneWeb constellation numbers 648 satellites, with Gen2 mega-scale rollout still in consultation. And there are more…

On this day in 1996, a freshly inked U.S. patent quietly laid the cornerstone of the digital music revolution. In addition to facilitating this now vast internet-based entertainment business, the humble MP3 file format would propel broadband proliferation, usher in the iPod era, and arguably precipitate the iPhone and all the other touchscreen-slabs that remain indispensable gadgets to this day.

MPEG Audio Layer III (MP3) files were devised by scientists to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent an audio file. Key personnel behind the invention of MP3 included: Bernhard Grill, Karlheinz Brandenburg, Thomas Sporer, Bernd Kurten, Ernst Eberlein, and Dieter Seitzer. Brandenburg is often credited as being the father of MP3, for leading this and similar research since 1977, but Seitzer (for example) brought expertise in transferring music over standard phone lines.

Central to this digital audio format’s success was its ability to shrink audio files by 75%-95%. It did this by using now familiar lossy media compression techniques. In other words, the MP3 audio codec discarded audio data to achieve significant file size reductions, with little perceptible difference in listening quality due to the perceptual limitations of human hearing. Depending on the target listening device, users could change compression bit rates, though audiophiles often insisted they could hear the difference between raw CD audio source data, or indeed, vinyl.

Work on the MP3 file format began in 1987, and a patent was awarded for the compression method in Germany in 1989. But it wouldn’t be until 1996 when U.S. Patent 5,579,430 was granted to Fraunhofer, securing the format in the home of leading global entertainment businesses, that MP3 started to gain traction. The inventors were primed to make lots of money from the internet boom that had started in earnest.

From Napster shockwaves to an industry accepted ‘1,000 songs in your pocket’

Unfortunately for Fraunhofer, its software was quickly ripped off and shared widely online. Once it was re-packaged into CD ripper and encoder apps, it was a cinch for music collectors to rip CDs into MP3s and share them with friends. Such activity began online via FTP servers, but in 1999, Napster was launched, changing the music industry forever.

Several tech moments converged to make this a perfect storm for the traditional music industry. WinAmp was released and ready to be your default MP3 player in 1998, the year before Napster arrived. At the same time, broadband was proliferating, which meant it could take seconds, instead of several minutes, to grab the latest number one hit single. Broadband became an accelerant for the physical music media inferno.

We also saw the first MP3 hardware player arrive in 1998. Diamond Multimedia’s Rio 100 launched in the U.S., and Saehan Information Systems' MPMAN became available in Korea. Both used solid-state Flash to store music.

Apple would be instrumental in the legitimization of digital music. Its iTunes software launched in January 2001, with the first iPod hardware released within the same year. However, it would take until 2003 to put together the first groundbreaking partnerships with the music business in crisis. That is when the iTunes Music Store opened its doors with 200,000 digital music tracks at $0.99 each.

The MP3 file format patent expired in 2017, and is an old legacy codec, now largely a symbol of an iconic era in media and internet history. For the same purpose – digitizing physical music media – it has been usurped by modern alternatives like AAC and FLAC.

In 2025, music ripping, downloading, and sharing have taken a back seat to streaming services powered by superfast broadband and 4G/5G mobile connectivity. Ardent music enthusiasts and collectors still prefer their physical media, though, as was the case during the MP3 era.

The latest episode published by tech channel The Serial Port began with an interesting question: Is it possible to stream YouTube via dial-up internet? As the headline suggests, the answer is a resounding yes, with our intrepid heroes managing to establish a connection offering download speeds of 668.8 kbps. The feat was eventually achieved using an era-appropriate Windows XP PC, a Cisco VoIP unit, a couple of serial port packing PCI cards, and a dozen 56K modems bonded using Multilink PPP (MPPP) technology. This is probably a world record.

When broadband wasn’t so broad

The latest regulations from the FCC define broadband as 100 Mbps or higher, but in 2000, a far slower connection of 200 Kbps or higher was considered adequate to earn the designation. Back then, connectivity was slow, but by the turn of the millennium, websites and communications were simpler and had lower bandwidth. For example, downloading multimedia files like MP3s back then could tie up your phone line for 10 to 20 minutes. Thus, applications like the infamous Napster and emerging streaming video and online multimedia experiences begged for broadband.

Multilink PPP technology was one possible solution to faster internet connectivity before ISDN and ADSL connectivity became widespread. As the name suggests, MPPP tech combines the bandwidth of multiple modems to create a single logical data pipe.

Commercial solutions like “the Diamond Multimedia Shotgun, a PCI card with two onboard modems that could be bonded together using multilink PPP,” leveraged this tech, point out the YouTubers. However, it didn’t gain traction due to the multiple lines and ISP shenanigans required.

Now, with an ISP that supports digital modems and the equipment (including a Cisco VoIP gateway) to make it happen, The Serial Port had an opportunity to see how far Multilink PPP can go. Encouragingly, the official MPPP standard doesn’t highlight any practical limits…

Cover your ears - Preparing for screeching modem broadband

Refocusing on the overarching YouTube streaming goal, our intrepid TechTubers calculated how much bandwidth would need to be squeezed out of their bonded modem array to make streaming tolerable. In brief, ~four 56K modems should be sufficient for minimum-quality desktop streaming (240p, ~200 kbps) in 2025.

The first client PC chosen was a 2001-vintage IBM desktop with Windows ME, released just ahead of the widespread availability of broadband. This setup worked with two 56K modems bonded together—a promising start.

With the proof that MPPP worked on this contemporaneous PC system, the TechTubers sought to pack more serial ports into the IBM. A card featuring an extra eight serial ports was found. However, driver clashes prevented further scaling…

Still optimistic about their project, the team moved up to “slightly newer hardware.” Specifically, an IBM Think Center from 2004 was chosen as a compromise, as we did not want to go too modern. Windows XP was pre-installed on this system, and it was hoped that it could do better with MPPP.

Using the newer XP PC, two identical serial expansion cards were installed. However, they didn’t work together, as they overlapped COM port addresses in the Device Manager. So the TechTubers switched to a different brand of serial expansion card for the second card. They ended up with 13 ports in total (including the one on the motherboard).

The dusty dozen

Starlink just launched an AU$15 (about US$9) monthly plan in Australia for existing users. This is a massive discount from the AU$139 (about US$86) monthly fee that users from the Land Down Under pay, but it comes with a stingy 5GB data cap. If you need more data, you could purchase Roam data at AU$3 (about US$1.86) per GB, which allows you to use your Starlink practically anywhere. According to PCMag, this news comes just days after the company started offering a US$50 monthly plan that comes with 50GB of Roam data.

Unfortunately, this plan isn’t available to new users, so you either must have an existing account or have previously subscribed to Starlink to take advantage. Starlink’s email to its customers requires you to log into your Starlink account and choose the “Backup” plan option under “Activate Service” for a preexisting Starlink dish. So, you won’t see this option listed under Starlink’s Service Plans when you’re applying for a new line.

Although affordable, many commenters have criticized the 5GB limit as too low, with some saying that almost all phone plans come with that amount of data, or more. Furthermore, the add-on rate for Roam data is just as expensive compared to other data plans. The average person might use, say, 30GB a month, which means if you’re a family of four, you’ll pay AU$360 (about US$225) for 120GB of data. But if you use a lot of data (like streaming a lot of 4K videos), then you’ll spend a lot more.

However, others say that this isn’t for the average user — instead, it’s only supposed to serve as a backup for areas that only have one or two wired service providers and no phone service at all. So, in case you lose internet connection for a short while, you could remain online. And if the outage lasts longer than expected, you could purchase additional data as needed.

Given that Starlink plans aren’t under contract, users could just purchase the needed hardware and then sign up for the service when they need to. This means there are potentially thousands (if not millions) of Starlink hardware in the wild gathering dust and not giving the company cash flow. By enticing users who do not have reliable backup internet to purchase a cheap monthly subscription, the company could earn money from these Starlink dishes that are otherwise unused.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today announced that it has updated what it considers to be the benchmark for broadband speeds. The update sees 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload as the new standard. This is a four-fold increase compared to a 2015, which set the benchmark to 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. As our Internet dependence increases, changing the bare minimum speed to be called broadband needs to evolve. The FCC explains how it determines the speeds to qualify as a broadband connection

"The increase in the Commission’s fixed speed benchmark for advanced telecommunications capability is based on the standards now used in multiple federal and state programs (such as NTIA’s BEAD Program and multiple USF programs), consumer usage patterns, and what is actually available from and marketed by internet service providers." 

The report also indicates that in the long term, it aims to set a long term goal of 1 Gbps/ 500 Mbps speeds for American consumers, but no date is given in the release. 

Updating the benchmark standard is a given. We all need faster Internet connections for home working, streaming and gaming. Nvidia GeForce Now requires at least 35Mbps for 1080p at 240 FPS. Higher speeds will be required for lag-free multiplayer gaming. For movie streaming, Netflix needs 15 Mbps or higher for 4K streaming but it also has aspirations to expand into cloud gaming. 

Other Evaluations by the FCC

This report also analyzes its deployment and other factors such as affordability, adoption, availability, and equal access. Last year, the White House announced plans to invest $42 Billion for universal internet access by 2030. Based on the data it collected as of December 2022, the report highlights the following:

• Fixed terrestrial broadband service (excluding satellite) has not been physically deployed to approximately 24 million Americans, including almost 28% of Americans in rural areas, and more than 23% of people living on Tribal lands;
• Mobile 5G-NR coverage has not been physically deployed at minimum speeds of 35/3 Mbps to roughly 9% of all Americans, to almost 36% of Americans in rural areas, and to more than 20% of people living on Tribal lands;
• 45 million Americans lack access to both 100/20 Mbps fixed service and 35/3 Mbps mobile 5G-NR service; and
• Based on the new 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff short-term benchmark for schools and classrooms, 74% of school districts meet this goal

Is 100 Mbps "fast"?

For many casual users, 100 Mbps should be plenty. While cities and most towns would have easy access to more than 100 Mbps speeds, this might not be the situation in remote locations. So getting such speeds in certain locations would come at a premium. The FCC said, In addition to deployment, the report considers broadband affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access when determining whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans.”

With the help of such reports, government bodies including local councils could assess the situation and make provisions to have a wide deployment, including fiber. As reliance on telephonic communications is decreasing, having the best possible internet speeds and accessibility grows for home, commercial, and educational purposes.

The White House on Monday announced plans to spend as much as $42 billion on making internet access universal in the country by 2030, according to a report by Reuters. This initiative is part of President Joe Biden's new economic policies, which will be a part of his 2024 re-election campaign.

"Today, 24 million people in our country do not have access to high-speed internet, either because they cannot afford the monthly cost of a plan or because they live in communities that have not yet been fully connected to fiber-optic networks," Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement. "Every person in our nation, no matter where they live, should be able to access and afford high-speed internet."

The funding was made possible by the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, which was authorized by the 2021 $1 trillion infrastructure law that President Biden supported. The allocation of funds was determined based on a recently released coverage map by the Federal Communications Commission, which identified areas with limited access to broadband.

Broadband companies such as Verizon, Comcast, Charter Communications, and AT&T have been hesitant to provide access to low-population rural communities due to the high costs involved and the limited number of potential subscribers in these regions.

The states receiving the highest funding amounts are Texas and California, the two most populous states in the country, with $3.1 billion and $1.9 billion respectively. Less populous states like Virginia, Alabama, and Louisiana also ranked in the top 10 for funding, as they have large rural areas that lack internet connectivity compared to their major urban centers. The funding amounts vary, ranging from $27 million for U.S. territories like the U.S. Virgin Islands to over $3.1 billion for Texas. Each state will receive a minimum of $107 million.

During a White House address on Monday, President Biden highlighted the significance of this investment, stating that it is the largest investment ever made in high-speed internet. He emphasized that, in today's economy, internet access is as crucial as electricity and water. 

While Wi-Fi 6E routers for your home are a dime a dozen these days, that isn’t the case regarding portable routers. Today, Netgear announced the launch of its new unlocked version of the Nighthawk M6 Pro (MR6550), which brings faster internet connectivity to users on the go or for consumers that lack reliable fixed broadband service at home.

Compared to its predecessor, the M6 Pro adds Wi-Fi 6E connectivity and mmWave support for broader compatibility with 5G networks at speeds up to 8 Gbps (up from 2.5 Gbps max). The M6 Pro also features a larger 2.8-inch touchscreen (versus 2.4 inches) and ups maximum LTE speeds from 1.6 Gbps to 2 Gbps. 

The mobile hotspot has 3,600 Mbps of available bandwidth (2,900 MHz 5/6 GHz, 700 Mbps 2.4 GHz) and an integrated 2.5 GbE port (the M6 has just a 1 GbE port) on the back. You’ll also find a USB-C 3.1 Gen 2 port on the back, which is used for charging and data. Another intriguing addition to the M6 Pro are two TS-9 antenna connectors. This allows you to connect external antennas to boost reception beyond what the M6 Pro’s internal antennas can provide (an ideal setup for users that need internet connectivity in more remote regions).

The M6 Pro’s internal battery can also last up to 13 hours per charge, which should be sufficient for even the most demanding users, Netgear told us via video call. I also asked how mmWave connectivity would affect battery life but was assured that endurance hit would be minimal. The M6 Pro’s Wi-Fi coverage is roughly 1,000 square feet on battery power. However, if you connect it directly to a power outlet, coverage doubles to 2,000 square feet.

You might ask why you would want to use a mobile hotspot like M6 Pro when a smartphone can perform the same task. According to Netgear, 88 percent of people purchasing a dedicated mobile hotspot use it as their primary home internet connection. Many Americans live in rural areas with non-existent or substandard broadband connectivity, so a cellular-based solution is ideal — and smartphones can’t simultaneously support up to 32 devices like the M6 Pro can. 

Netgear’s research also found that 54 percent of people use portable routers as a “primary” connection in vacation homes, and 50 percent use them inside their vehicles while traveling. 

There is one “gotcha” to the M6 Pro, and that's would be pricing. You can get an AT&T carrier-locked version of the M6 Pro for $460 or pay $12.78 per month on an installment plan. However, the unlocked version will set you back $999.99 direct from Netgear (and soon from Amazon). According to Netgear, the unlocked M6 Pro is currently only supported by AT&T and Verizon SIMs that have previously been activated or with T-Mobile BYOD plans. However, it does note that new BYOD activations for AT&T and Verizon will be "coming soon."

Are you often frustrated by the lack of transparency regarding available broadband services in your area? Well, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has heard your complaints and is taking steps to provide consumers with a wealth of information about internet service providers (ISPs) before you take the plunge with a contract. 

This week, the FCC unveiled easy-to-understand labels called "Broadband Facts," which are similar in concept to nutrition labels found on packaged foods in U.S. grocery stores. Customers can view pertinent details about broadband services, including service pricing, overage fees, data throttling limits, etc. 

The FCC mandates that these labels be placed "in close proximity to an associated plan advertisement" to ensure maximum visibility. In addition, the full label must be on full display, and ISPs won't be able to get away with simply placing a link on its website that the customer must click to read the full details.

Other essential details arising from this new initiative include making the data available to third parties so that consumers can make more informed decisions while comparison shopping. The broadband plan labels must also be accessible from a customer's account portal when logging in online. Given that the FCC states that the labels be present at the point of sale, we'd imagine that they will be prominently displayed at brick-and-mortar locations for ISPs like Comcast, Spectrum and Verizon, for example.

Taking a closer look at the label, there are sections on the monthly rate for the plan and whether it represents special promotional pricing that will expire after a set number of months/years. There are also provisions to describe any activation fees, one-time or monthly equipment fees, the associated early termination fee (if any) and the amount of government taxes that will be applied to each monthly bill.

ISPs usually love to tout their download speeds in their advertising and then place their upload speeds in small print. They do this because cable providers often offer upload speeds that are much lower than the downloads. For example, my current cable internet plan offers 500 Mbps downloads, but upload speeds are capped at 25 Mbps. Thanks to the FCC, download and upload speeds must now be displayed along with "typical" latency on the Broadbands Facts label. In addition, true unlimited data is becoming a rarity with U.S. home broadband plans, so there's also a section that details how much data you're allotted per month (in gigabytes) and how much you'll be charged per gigabyte for going past that limit. 

"Broadband is an essential service, for everyone, everywhere. Because of this, consumers need to know what they are paying for, and how it compares with other service offerings," said FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. "For over 25 years, consumers have enjoyed the convenience of nutrition labels on food products. We're now requiring internet service providers to display broadband labels for both wireless and wired services. Consumers deserve to get accurate information about price, speed, data allowances, and other terms of service up front."

Overall, this seems like a long overdue change to help consumers make more informed decisions when comparing and selecting a new broadband service -- even if the label looks a bit cheesy. Well, that is if you even have the option to pick from more than one broadband provider in your area. Most Americans only have access to one fixed-line broadband provider, although wireless options from ISPs like Verizon and T-Mobile are also starting to expand their reach across the U.S. However, even those services have issues of their own concerning service reliability.

Consumer Reports and The Verge recently examined over 22,000 U.S. broadband bills submitted by readers. They found that most households spend between $65 to $75 per month on broadband service compared to an average of $40 in London and $31 in Paris. Frontier Communications, on average, had the lowest monthly bill at $53, while Viasat had the highest at $117.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has proposed raising the minimum acceptable transfer speeds for services classed as ‘broadband’ to 100Mbps for downloads and 20Mbps for uploads. A minimum accepted 100/20 service level would be a significant upgrade on the 2015 minimum standard for broadband, which the FCC set at 25/3 Mbps.

According to Rosenworcel, and we think you might agree, the FCC’s 25/3 metric is very much behind the times. This became abundantly clear at the height of the pandemic, with all the internet gaming, media consumption and WFH tasks that became central to many people’s daily lives. Moreover, the FCC Chairwoman went so far as opining that the current broadband standard is harmful in some ways.

“The 25/3 metric isn’t just behind the times, it’s a harmful one because it masks the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are being left behind and left offline,” explained Rosenworcel.

How did the telecoms bureaucrats come to decide on the 100/20 Mbps minimum standards figures? The FCC says it believes in setting “big goals,” so that everyone can have a fair shot in the online world of the 21st century. There is said to be a “range of evidence” supporting the new minimum proposed broadband speeds, including some work previously done as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

The FCC proposal is a small but important step. Next up, the proposal would have to be voted on by a commission that is currently divided by two Democrat and two Republican members, with an empty seat needing to be filled. If the proposal gets through to the next stage of being implemented, then telecoms companies will have to encouraged with government funds and coerced with the threat of regulator action. The commission will be keen to check that telecoms companies provide services that offer “affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access,” and will be deployed in a reasonably timely manner.

We checked speedtest.net today, and it says that the median fixed broadband speeds across the whole of the US was 154 Mbps download, and 21.6 Mbps download using June 2022 data. This data roughly indicates that the new 100/20 broadband goal should not be an insurmountable challenge for the government and private sector to achieve. Most of the upgrading work will probably need to be done in those aforementioned low-income and rural communities. The US is ranked 8th in the world for (median) broadband speeds.

The newly proposed 100/20 Mbps standard might take a little time to get over some hurdles, but it looks like it should get the green light in due course. With the effort needed to bring broadband definitions up to date in evidence, the FCC has also prudently started rolling forward with a separate national goal of 1 Gbps / 500 Mbps to usher in the ‘Gigabit future’.

Researchers at the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) in Japan have achieved greater than 1 Petabit per second (Pb/s) data transfers using 4-core fiber with standard cladding. The key advance, facilitating this new transfer speed record, is the transmission system's support for optical bandwidth exceeding 20 THz. This beefy bandwidth comes largely thanks to the application of wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) technology and the deployment of the experimental S-band.

According to the NICT researchers, with this amount of bandwidth on tap you could broadcast 10 million 8K TV channels simultaneously.

One of the most important aspects of the headlining advance, achieving 1.02 Pbps data transfers, is that the cables used were compatible with existing infrastructure. Adhering to this specification, the technology will be able to be deployed in high-throughput and long-distance links sooner rather than later.

Previous attempts at high-data-rate transfers using the same optical fiber cabling, 125μm diameter 4-core MCF (Multi Core Fiber), peaked at 0.61 Pbps in tests by the same researchers back in March 2020. Now that greater than 1 Pbps transfers have been achieved with 4-core MCF, the research team can claim performance parity with more advanced 15-core fiber.

The push up from 0.61 to 1.02 Pb/s is mostly due to WDM technology. 'M' in this acronym stands for multiplexing, and record optical bandwidth exceeding 20 THz was achieved after multiplexing the already commercially adopted C- and L-transmission bands with recently explored S-band technology. 

"Two kinds of doped fiber amplifiers along with Raman amplification with pumps added in a novel multi-core pump combiner, enabled transmission of 801 wavelength channels over the 20 THz optical bandwidth," explains the academic post.

The diagram above shows a summary of how the impressive bandwidth was achieved. Throughput is plotted against the wavelengths exploited – in 801 channels with 25 GHz spacing for high spectral density.

In the diagram above we get a hint regarding the next step by NICT. Every time the researchers achieve a high data rate transfer milestone, they appear to follow up with work on a long-distance optimized fiber transmission technique. Thus we would expect, with some degree of confidence, that the 4-core MCF long-distance data rate record of 0.32 Pb/s (distance between 2,000 and 3,000km) will be broken in the coming months.

The folks over at broadbandnow.com have completed their research for the impact of the Coronavirus on web activity and found that of the top 200 cities in the U.S., 88 (44%) are suffering from reduced download speeds due to increased web activity.

For the testing, the firm measured broadband speeds over the week of March 15 - March 21, comparing the figures to the speeds 10 weeks earlier before the COVID-19 outbreak.

The three worst offenders are Austin TX, with a 44% hit, Oxnard CA, at 42%, and Winston Salem NC with a 41% decrease in download speeds. 

New York City is witnessing a 24 percent drop in download speeds.

What is Causing the Dips?

With the majority of folks stuck at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for web data has increased exponentially over the last two weeks. Many people are working from home, taking classes from home, or unable to go to work and quarantined at home. The result is that home broadband connections are seeing a severe uptake in demand to meet users' needs, with the networks under high strain to keep up.

Meanwhile, Netflix and other content providers are cutting image quality during peak hours in order to ensure that data connections don't end up congested, allowing those that work from home to continue to do their jobs as effectively as possible -- after all, they're a big factor that's keeping the economy above water.

Various ISPs around the U.S. have lifted data caps temporarily, and are expanding free access for low-income customers where possible. The first of these was AT&T, who set an example for the industry to follow.

The EU has warned that broadband connections are being strained, as millions are working from home or seeking entertainment digitally whilst practicing social distancing to fight coronavirus as reported by Financial Times. today. 

One of the first steps the EU is taking to manage the situation is requesting Netflix to reduce its data traffic, along with YouTube and other streaming services. Entertainment is clearly in high demand currently, but simply limiting image quality could reduce broadband traffic significantly.

These steps are meant to ensure that those working from home can continue to rely on their internet connections. Although EU net-neutrality regulations prevent throttling, it's been reported that exceptions may needed during this global pandemic to prioritize work-from-home traffic over entertainment traffic. This is also a logical conclusion -- the economy is already suffering enough, and those working from home are key to minimizing the damage.

The increase in traffic is a clear consequence of recommendations to socially distance yourself from others to help stop the spread of COVID-19, as people flock to remote communication services, such as FaceTime and Skype. for recharging their social battery. Children taking classes from home and increased game downloads, game streaming and content streaming aren't helping either.

Nevertheless, internet and content providers are adamant that the situation is under control, claiming that they have adequate headroom in their networks to deal with such traffic surges. 

Netflix explained that it already stores content closer to its customers, reducing long-distance internet traffic, which also eases the burden. German Internet Exchange Operator DE-CIX witnessed record traffic through its networks to date, though the figures still fall well within its headroom margins.

For the time being, the EU broadband situation appears to be under control. But note that not all countries in the EU have strict stay-at-home policies yet, so internet traffic in the region is expected to rise before it falls. 

As the coronavirus outbreak and its consequences progress through Europe, the demand for internet traffic is on the rise. DE-CIX, a German internet exchange operator, is witnessing increased traffic and its B2B customers are ordering higher data caps in light of the outbreak. 

Dr. Thomas King, CTO of DE-CIX,  pointed to the importance of a secure and reliable internet infrastructure amid the "exceptional situation people are currently experiencing with the COVID-19 virus," King said in a statement last week. 

"Capacities in our own network are regularly expanded on a long-term basis. We always plan for about 12 months in advance. We continue expanding as soon as 63% of the existing capacities are reached." King said via a press release Wednesday. 

"The remaining 37% free capacity is needed to create redundancy and to ensure that we always have enough free capacity for traffic growth. In addition to our network for the Internet Exchange, customers also need to expand capacity in their own network. These expansions are carried out by the customers themselves, according to their own processes and procedures."

The Internet Exchange Operator is witnessing a 20% increase in traffic since the beginning of March, making the 37% headroom guideline they have been practicing come in handy. 

Meanwhile, DE-CIX also witnessed a peak data rate of 9.1 Tbps on its network, which is the highest figure it has recorded to date. Its previous record was  8 Tbps in December 2019, which goes to show how dramatic the increase in traffic is.

With the increase in demand come customers ordering increased data caps. Although data caps aren't all too common in Europe on the customer side, DE-CIX is seeing an increase in orders from global data hubs to keep up with customer demand. 

We're curious whether internet exchange operators will opt to lift the data caps for B2B clients during the duration of the coronavirus crisis in the same way that AT&T has done for U.S. customers. Lifting data caps could work in the short-term as a social gesture to split the burden of the outbreak. That being said, as the situation worsens, it could also lead to internet congestion. 

In light of the Coronavirus spreading throughout the U.S., AT&T has decided to lift broadband data caps for home internet users in the U.S, as reported by Vice. This is to ensure that those stuck at home due to closed workplaces, closed schools, or quarantines don't end up racking huge charges on additional internet usage that they otherwise wouldn't have dealt with. 

Meanwhile, a group of U.S. Senators is demanding that the other home broadband providers throughout the U.S. do the same, as part of a 'whole-of-society response.'

"No one should be penalized or suffer financial duress for following guidance from the CDC, their employer, local public health officials, or school leaders." reads the letter. "Unfortunately, many Americans are subject to restrictive data caps for their home broadband service -- caps that could be particularly onerous given the more intensive broadband usage of households practicing social distancing measures and the economic uncertainty for which too many people without paid sick leave are already bracing."

AT&T's broadband caps range from 150 GB to 1 TB for those not on an unlimited plan, and extra data costs $10 per added 50 GB, with a maximum of between $100 and $200 added charges per month.

“Many of our AT&T Internet customers already have unlimited home internet access, and we are waiving internet data overage for the remaining customers,” an AT&T spokesperson told Vice. 

This is a rather selfless move from the company, though very fair. Many businesses are suffering heavily from the Coronavirus outbreak, but due to people's dependence on certain products and services, companies such as AT&T can easily profit from the crisis be they inclined to do so. 

A few months back we thought the Coronavirus damage would remain limited to China. There, the local economy came to a standstill, with various factories closing and local demand plummeting. It is now clear that this same pattern is happening elsewhere in the world too, with Europe being hit as well as the U.S. 

With factories, schools, shops, cafes, and workplaces closed, lots of sectors are suffering immense financial damage from the 2019-nCov outbreak. As no single organization can be held responsible for the outbreak, and insurance doesn't cover nearly all of the damage wrought, everyone should do their part to ensure minimal economic damage. As such, we're seeing trends like these, where companies try their best to give back to the public. Examples are AT&T lifting broadband caps, MSI extending warranties by two months and the world's most powerful supercomputer being put to work on finding a cure. If you're willing to deal with a small added electricity cost, you can even donate your computer's leftover resources to help find a cure.

Of course, the best thing you can do to help is to ensure proper hygiene, and, if you suspect that you may have contracted the Coronavirus, stay home and do not come in contact with other people.

Meanwhile, we look forward to more companies offering up their methods of sharing the burden, especially those that are otherwise financially unaffected by the outbreak.

UK-based broadband comparison website Cable.co.uk has published its annual global broadband pricing information and put the U.S. in the 119th spot in terms of pricing for consumer Internet access, as spotted by TechSpot. Last year, the U.S. didn't fare much better and ranked 104th.

That's not to say that prices for broadband in the U.S. are going up. Rather, the year-on-year cost has dropped by $17.69 for the average subscription. But that hasn't done much to help the position in the global rankings, since prices for broadband have been falling all over the world. 

The cable comparison site noted that global broadband speeds increased by 20.65% on average between 2018 and 2019. Meanwhile, the average price of a broadband package decreased by 19.975% between the end of 2018 and beginning of 2020, it said. 

Despite the almost abysmal rankings for pricing on the global scale, the U.S. fares quite well when it comes to broadband speeds. In 2017, the average connection in the U.S. had a speed of 20 Mbps. In 2018 that figure rose to 25.86 Mbps, and in 2019 it jumped to 32.89 Mbps. Consequently, the U.S. is in 15th place when it comes to average broadband speed connections.

Leading the connection speed charts is Taiwan with an average connection speed of 85.02 Mbps, and Yemen takes last place at a meager 0.38 Mbps.

Back to prices. The most expensive country is Eritrea, where the average cost of fixed-line broadband is  a painful $2,666.24 per month. Yemen followed closely at $2,466.67, and the third most expensive location was Mauritania with an average cost of $694.63. Note that in many parts of the world, large portions of the population don't use broadband, and less developed countries often rely on mobile data connections rather than fixed-line connections for Internet access. 

If you want the cheapest fixed-line Internet access, you'll have to move to Syria, where the average broadband connection costs just $6.60 a month.

Many kids learn to count before they even reach kindergarten. Yet, it seems that skill is quickly forgotten, because the FCC voted yesterday to force Internet service providers (ISPs) to more accurately count the number of people to whom they offer broadband Internet access. That knowledge should make it easier to figure out how many Americans truly have broadband Internet access in a time when connectivity is more important than ever.

The FCC previously allowed ISPs to report their broadband Internet coverage using the same large "blocks" as the U.S. Census Bureau (there are millions, and each can have up to 3,000 people). That's already questionable, but it gets worse. ISPs could say they covered an entire block even if they only provided broadband access to a single home, for example, and could also say they covered any blocks to which they could theoretically offer service "without an extraordinary commitment of resources."

We've played board games with stricter rules on how things should be counted. If the FCC needed a warning that its perception of U.S. broadband Internet access was skewed, the fact that having a fair Settlers of Catan game requires more rigor than reporting ISP coverage should've been it, right? But it's only making these changes a decade after Congress told it to adopt the National Broadband Plan to ensure high-speed Internet access.

The FCC said in yesterday's announcement that it "initiated a new process for collecting fixed broadband data to better pinpoint where broadband service is lacking," and because "there is a compelling and immediate need to develop more granular broadband deployment data to meet this goal," it's creating the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. (With the "collection" in this case being the noun, not the verb, despite it literally collecting things.)

The Digital Opportunity Data Collection will "collect geospatial broadband coverage maps from fixed broadband Internet service providers of areas where they make fixed service available" to "facilitate development of granular, high-quality fixed broadband deployment maps, which should improve the FCC’s ability to target support for broadband expansion through the agency’s Universal Service Fund programs." Basically: it's going to count correctly.

The FCC said it will also make it easier to report inaccuracies with coverage areas reported by ISPs. That's supposed to be enabled by a new "crowd-sourcing portal that will gather input from consumers as well as from state, local and Tribal governments." The commission is mulling other changes, too, such as similar updates to how wireless Internet providers report their own coverage areas. Better counting isn't just for broadband connections.

But there are a few concerns with the FCC's new counting methods. Ars Technica reported that FCC commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks were concerned about several aspects of the new plan. Rosenworcel noted that ISPs won't be required to report the price of broadband Internet access, which again means they could say they cover an area even if nobody who lives there can actually afford high-speed Internet.

Starks also wondered if the FCC plans to verify the data reported by ISPs or if it will merely take it on blind faith. (Because if there's one thing companies love, it's...being completely honest and transparent with regulators...ahem.) There were also concerns about having the Universal Service Administrative Company non-profit organization collect this data even though it hasn't done anything similar since it was established in 1996.

Still, this appears to at least be a step toward progress, especially considering this comes from the same FCC leadership that dismantled net neutrality protections amid massive opposition. Let's just hope ISPs have enough fingers and toes between them to relearn counting in time to provide accurate data for these new maps rather than 'accidentally' overestimating the number of people they can serve.

Vodafone Has "Gigafast" Broadband Package Adverts Pulled After Virgin Media Calls Them Misleading

The UK ISP Vodafone has had it’s “Gigafast” Broadband adverts banned after Virgin Media challenged them within the courts earlier this year. The issue arose after Virgin Media accused Vodafone of misrepresenting its broadband packages to consumers, as Vodafone’s website, clearly stated that you could achieve an average speed of 900 Mbps, not exactly 1 Gbps. This falls in line with new British legislation launched in May of 2018, stating that internet service providers must only advertise download speeds that are available to at least 50-percent of their account holders during the prime time hours between 8 and 10 pm.

The Advertising Standards Authority, (a consumer watchdog within the UK), stated that most customers would assume the prefix giga to be a “hyperbolic description of speed”, with many being confused or even tricked into believing that their downloads speeds would exceed or be at that fabled 1 Gbps download speed. The watchdog did take into account that those speeds could be possible outside of those peak times, however it pulled Vodafone up on one other point within its advertising campaign, “enjoy Vodafone Gigafast Broadband speeds for as little as £23 a month”. Problem being that to get that top Gigafast package, you’d need to be forking over £48 a month at a minimum, with the £23 package offering 1/10th the speed of its top rated package.

Vodafone reached out to the BBC and stated that the company “had made improvements to our website several months before the ASA ruling to ensure that the cost and speed of each package is as clear as possible”.

There’s definitely an irony to all of this, as those who are typically going to be looking at these packages should be well aware of how networking works, and when you’re most likely to achieve those speeds. An almost assumed knowledge if you will. Nevertheless calling the package Gigafast may have been a poor decision. Openreach (the company behind the fibre infrastructure within the UK), states that this fibre to the property technology is actually called Ultrafast, circumventing that Giga description, and bizarrely the company also has a “Gfast” technology in place currently as well, which can drive up to 330 Mbps download speeds across fibre to the cabinet, and copper to the house properties too (although again only in select areas). If you’re curious what you can get, and you’re not on Virgin cable check out Openreach’s Ultrafast Broadband Checker

President Trump signed the S.J.Res. 34 bill into law, officially overturning the FCC privacy framework that would have required internet service providers (ISPs) to obtain consent before tracking their customers online and then selling access to that data to advertisers.

Repealing The FCC’s Privacy Protections

The FCC privacy rules required broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to obtain consent before using precise geolocation, health and financial information, and browsing history for advertising purposes. The previous FCC leadership thought that obtaining such information without consent is unacceptable and made it so that broadband customers would have to opt-in before such data collection from the ISPs occurs.

However, with the rules overturned, broadband providers will benefit from selling that data to advertisers on top of collecting monthly payments from their subscribers.

The main argument that the broadband providers and most Republicans have used to repeal the FCC’s privacy rules is that they should be under the same privacy rules as Google, Facebook, and other “edge” services. In the ISPs’ view, it’s not fair that online services can collect user data while they can’t.

The argument doesn’t hold much water. First of all, it’s not unusual for ISPs to have different rules compared to other technology companies. In fact, there are hundreds of pages of legislation that apply only to ISPs, and there is a good reason for that.

Edge services can come and go, and there’s usually plenty of competition for each one of them. This is in contrast to broadband providers, which typically enjoy local monopolies; typically, customers in a given locale don’t have much choice in internet providers. Therefore, if ISPs want to be under the same rules as edge services, they would first have to ensure the same type of competitive environment. Chances are that broadband providers aren’t too eager to see that happen.

Another side of this argument is that ISPs have a typical sort of business model wherein their users pay for a service. Most online services, on the other hand, are free to use, and they generate their revenue from advertising.

Unless ISPs are going to provide broadband access for free, then it doesn’t entitle them to use customer data however they see fit.

Even so, many users don't feel that trading free services for ads is acceptable in the first place. It’s mainly that they feel they don’t have much of a choice, because most services make their money that way.

This brings us to the third reason why the ISP argument is a weak one. If it's unfair for broadband providers to be under different rules than edge services companies, a consumer-friendly solution would be to put edge services under the same privacy rules that the FCC enacted for ISPs.

Then, consent for using sensitive data for advertising purposes would be necessary from both ISPs and online services. That's likely an outcome most people would want to see. But by pushing to roll back the FCC's privacy protections, ISPs can double dip--by making money both from subscriber payments and from mining user data, and then selling access to it to advertisers.

Fighting Back

The long term solution for gaining broadband privacy back is going to have to come in the form of a new law, passed by (presumably) a new Congress and Administration. Anything else is a mitigation, at best, and more of a cat-and-mouse game, as the ISPs will fight back to stop or slow down those mitigations.

However, until such legislation becomes a possibility, there are a few ways to reduce the impact of ISP tracking. You can increase your use of encryption, VPN services, and the Tor browser, and you can also change your DNS servers from those owned by the ISPs and assigned automatically to your devices to privacy-friendly ones. You can also enable any and all opt-outs the ISPs offer you, however complicated and confusing that process may be.

Last week, the U.S. Senate voted to reject the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) soon to be implemented privacy framework that would’ve stopped internet service providers (ISPs) from selling your data without permission. It's now cleared the House, as well, in a 215 to 205 vote that would eliminate the FCC’s new privacy rules. Now only President Trump can stop this bill, but chances that he would do so are slim.

ISPs To Use Your Data Unhindered By Privacy Rules

Last fall, the FCC voted to increase privacy protections for broadband customers because over the past few years multiple ISPs have been tracking users' browsing habits across the web without consent. This has prompted some small fines from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and FCC, but ultimately ISPs could still attempt to track, collect, and then sell data in other ways.

The FCC wanted to establish clear guidelines for what kind of data they would be allowed to use, and when they should be asking users for consent.

Asking users for permission to sell their data didn’t seem acceptable to the ISPs, which protested the move and lobbied Congress to reverse the FCC’s rules before they went into effect. One of their arguments is that services such as Gmail or Facebook also track you and sell your data.

However, although some of those services can be rather hard to quit because of their widespread use and popularity, they aren’t mandatory, and it’s often easy to find a good alternative that doesn’t sell your data without consent. It’s much more difficult for Americans to change their ISPs, given the fact that most locations usually have only one good internet provider, or two at most. It’s also much more of a hassle to change your contract-bound ISPs than it is to change your email address.

Unlike Gmail or Facebook, which should in theory only track you in a limited context (although Facebook has been found before to break those bounds), ISPs will be able to track every single website that you access on your computer or mobile phone (wirelessly). The bottom line is that the tracking an ISP can do is much more comprehensive. Because the broadband market isn’t steaming with competition, you also don’t have much choice about it.

U.S. House Votes To Eliminate FCC Privacy Rules

The U.S. Senate voted to reverse the FCC’s privacy rules last week 50-48 on a party line vote. Republicans voted to eliminate the broadband privacy protections, while Democrats voted to keep them. However, it could be argued that if the Democrats wanted to stop this bill, they could’ve also filibustered it.

Once the Senate passed the bill, it should’ve been even easier for Republicans to reject the FCC privacy framework, and indeed it was. The House vote was 215 to 205, and again there was no filibuster to worry about. The House vote was also largely on party lines, with some exceptions.

In a way, this came as a surprise, because the House voted unanimously twice in a row for the Email Privacy Act, but the Senate never put it up for a vote. Therefore, it seemed like the House cared more about privacy than the Senate did. However, the difference between the two situations may be that the Email Privacy Act is mainly about restricting law enforcement to abuse data requests, while this bill is about helping ISPs make money by selling that data.

Fight For The Future, a non-profit civil liberties group that fought against the infamous SOPA bill, as well as for net neutrality, believes that this is tied to how many contributions the Republican Congressmen got from the ISPs.

“Today Congress proved once again that they care more about the wishes of the corporations that fund their campaigns than they do about the safety and security of their constituents,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future.

The group also promised to put up billboards with the senators and representatives who voted to overturn FCC’s privacy framework.

“Congress should know by now that when you come for the internet, the internet comes for you. These billboards are just the beginning. People from across the political spectrum are outraged, and every lawmaker who votes to take away our privacy will regret it come election day,” added Greer.

Greer also believes that by allowing ISPs to collect all the data they want about their users, users will also be exposed to mass surveillance. AT&T has already been caught selling user data to the NSA and law enforcement for profit, and it’s likely that other internet providers do the same.

However, that form of data collection may have been in a more legal grey area, and it may have been more limited so as to not be too intrusive (and therefore, more detectable). If the ISPs believe they have free rein on what they can do to collect user data, then they may start collecting much more data on users and in more intrusive ways. Greer also said this could make ISPs bigger targets for data breaches, once they start holding more valuable data on hundreds of millions of users.

How To Fix It

There is a small chance that if enough people ask President Trump to stop the joint resolution that aims to overturn the FCC’s broadband privacy protections, he would not sign the bill. However, he appointed an FCC chairman that has publicly come out against net neutrality and these privacy rules, so chances are the President holds the same opinions.

Another solution, or rather a mitigation against invasive ISP tracking, is to use the Tor browser more often, or at least use a VPN service. Sending your traffic through a locally encrypted tunnel should prevent most if not all of the ISP intrusions.

Ultimately, the best solution is going to be one pushed through law that can’t be easily changed. Even the FCC rules are not that solid because they are vulnerable to a change of administration and a new FCC chair. If people make this a big policy issue, the two parties may eventually have to come together to establish broadband privacy rights into law. The only question is if such a law would offer similarly strong privacy protections as the FCC rules seemingly did.

Last fall, the FCC adopted a new privacy framework that would allow broadband consumers to have a much bigger say into what happens to their data as it passes through internet providers’ cables. The Senate has just voted to kill those protections, before they went into effect.

FCC’s Privacy Rules

Over the past few years AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have all tried to track users across the web and collect certain data about their browsing usage without permission. This data could have then be either exploited by the internet providers themselves or sold to other data brokers and advertising companies.

The previous FCC leadership believed that this was too much of an overreach and that there needed to be some ground rules that give internet users much more control over their data. As such, the FCC came up with a privacy framework that would:

Require internet service providers (ISPs) to ask for permission before collecting sensitive information such as content of communications, precise geo-location, financial information, and moreAllow users to opt-out of giving ISPs non-sensitive information such as email addresses Only allow ISPs to collect basic service information without which the service couldn’t be provided without any kind of consent from their customersNotify customers within 30 days that their data has been stolen in a data breach

Criticism From Internet Service Providers

The ISPs didn’t seem to like these privacy protections at all. One of their initial criticisms of the FCC’s initially proposed privacy rules was that there were already some privacy rules from the FTC, and that the FCC’s new privacy rules would make things too complex. The telecom industry lobbyists suggested that the FCC should just adopt the FTC’s privacy rules for the sake of consistency.

This request came after AT&T had already expressed some concerns about putting ISPs under the FTC’s jurisdiction. At the time, it thought the FTC was the more aggressive agency when it came to enforcing privacy and other broadband rules.

However, as the FTC chair previously said, the FTC privacy rules weren’t all that strong and that improvements were needed. These improvements were brought by the FCC’s new privacy rules--the same rules that were killed by the Senate today.

Overturning FCC’s Privacy Rules May Be Permanent

According to Fight For The Future’s (FFTF) “Save Broadband Privacy” website, Congress had 60 days to decide whether the FCC’s privacy rules would go into effect via the Congressional Review Act.

The act not only allows the Senate to overturn FCC rules but also permanently bans the FCC from trying to pass the same rules again. That means the FCC won't be able to implement the same privacy protections again in the future, and that the only way to do it would be through a new law.

In an FFTF article published right after the vote, the group said that the elimination of the FCC's privacy rules will allow ISPs to:

Monitor and sell all your location data, search history, app usage, and browsing habits to advertisers without your permissionHijack your search results, redirecting your traffic to paying third partiesInsert ads into web pages that would otherwise not have them

The FFTF also shared a list of Senators who voted for the bill, and the vote seems to fallen on partisan lines, with Republicans voting to gut the privacy protections while Democrats voted to keep them.

The House will still need to vote on a similar bill, which would then be merged and sent to President Trump for signing. In other words, there may still be some hope that the gutting of the FCC’s privacy framework could be stopped, especially because the House has been a little more privacy-oriented than the Senate in the past few years. However, this would probably still require people to contact their representatives and ask them to vote to keep the FCC’s privacy protections.

Canada's government announced that it now considers broadband internet a basic telecommunications service to which all Canadians should have access. This should make it so internet service providers (ISPs) in the country will have to provide high-speed connections to all their customers.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) said that Canadians need access to 50Mbps download speeds and 10Mbps to participate in the digital economy. It also said there should be no data caps on home internet services and that it wants "the latest mobile wireless technology available not only in homes and businesses, but also along major Canadian roads," so people can have high-speed internet access on the go.

Here's what CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais said in a statement:

Access to broadband Internet service is vital and a basic telecommunication service all Canadians are entitled to receive. Canadians who participated during our process told us that no matter where they live or work in our vast country — whether in a small town in northern Yukon, a rural area of eastern Quebec or in downtown Calgary — everyone needs access to high-quality fixed Internet and mobile services. We are doing our part to bring broadband services to rural and remote communities.

CRTC said that 82% of Canadians already have access to internet speeds of 50Mbps downloads and 10Mbps uploads. But the agency wants that figure to reach 100% so it's established a $750 million (CAD) fund to support projects that would expand high-speed internet access to rural and remote areas. That $750 million would be spent over the course of five years and focus on financing initiatives that haven't already received government assistance.

The announcement comes as many in the United States have to wonder if they'll gain access to internet connections with half the download speeds and one-third the upload speeds. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said in January that 10 percent of Americans lack access to 25Mbps downloads and 3Mbps uploads; many of those people live in rural communities, on American Indian reservations, and within other under-served areas.

The FCC has previously tried to make high-speed internet available to more people. But with chairman Tom Wheeler, who supported broadband expansion as well as principles like net neutrality, departing in January the agency's efforts could lose some steam. That's because president-elect Donald Trump's advisers on telecom policy have opposed plans to use government funds to make broadband internet available to more Americans.

Yet lacking access to high-speed internet is an issue. Pew reported in December 2015 that many Americans without broadband connections feel they're at a "major disadvantage" when it comes to "finding out about job opportunities or gaining new career skills"; "learning about or accessing government services"; "learning new things that may improve or enrich their lives"; "getting health information"; and "keeping up with news and information."

CRTC recognized these shortcomings by establishing these new rules and making that $750 million available to expand internet access. The Great North might not be the warmest place in the world, but it already has better internet connectivity than its southern neighbor, and it's only going to get better.

Introduction

What, exactly, does a router do? And how does it do it? Although the answer to the first question can be relatively simple—a router routes data packets along networks—all of the complexity lies in "how."

Routers come in many shapes and sizes: a room full of rack-mounted, dedicated systems for enterprise clouds; off-the-shelf commercial boxes from manufacturers like Linksys or D-Link; and DIY solutions the size of a deck of cards, built on hobbyist platforms like Raspberry Pi.

Leaving aside the overall meta architecture of packet exchange, the core hardware of a modern commercial router (aimed at the small business and home networking markets) distinguishes it from enterprise or application-specific solutions. Specifically, such a router emphasizes convenience. Single devices act as a DSL modem, router, wireless access point, media server and connection to the smart kitchen sink. Also, the processor and connectivity are geared toward a completely different profile (high-bandwidth use for gaming and streaming, along with simultaneous connections from multiple devices, including smartphones and fridges) than enterprise-oriented platforms.

This article focuses on the hardware that runs modern consumer routers. And in today's routers, SoC (system on a chip) solutions are universal—all of the hardware we cover comes in the form of integrated SoCs. These multi-function systems comprise a variety of configurations with different capabilities, making it more difficult to dig into their respective architectures; but they simplify the router design process. There are far fewer devices to consider when a single board comes with everything built onto it.

That doesn't mean completely integrated systems are the only off-the-shelf setups worth considering, though. Even in the world of SoCs, factors like cost, power consumption and OEM requirements do create a world of chimeric SoC solutions, with multiple high-power radios or transceivers pressed in to service a higher-level processor/memory board, or an xDSL modem connected to one of the ports of a more general-purpose processor. Solutions with discrete RAM or flash memory modules and transceivers with separate radio chips do exist, but they are few and far between. And so we focus on the two classes of SoCs that are most often seen in the wild: processor/all-in-one chips and transceivers.

A Note On Software/Firmware

Commercial routers overwhelmingly favor Linux as an operating system, and often employ a customized version. A lightweight Web server is almost always installed as well for user-controlled device configuration.

Another OS, VxWorks, is used only in enterprise-class systems, but it merits a mention if only because it is used on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and I would buy a commercial router running VxWorks regardless of how unwieldy the final system becomes.

Finally, an open, Linux-based standard, OpenWrt, is being embraced by more OEMs, even though it was previously mostly used by prosumer hobbyists.

MORE: Wireless Routers 101
MORE: All Networking ContentMORE: Networking in the Forums

Router SoC Functional Components

In a router SoC, packetized data arrives through input ports, is directed using a network of connections called the Switching Fabric (which can be thought of as wires connecting each component to every other), and leaves through output ports.

The router SoC keeps, in memory, a look-up table of addresses associated with each packet, and the processor uses various rule sets to determine the best path for sending data. It also listens in to keep tabs on network traffic, updating its "available" and/or "best" path for packets based on load levels.

The SoC's on-board memory maintains routing tables, consisting of network and host addresses. To determine the best path for delivering a packet to its destination, the routing table includes all known network addresses, instructions for connecting to other networks, possible paths between routers and a measure of distance between nodes or network addresses known in the form of cost functions. This on-board memory usually takes the form of flash  or EEPROM. The size of the memory chip is less important than its speed.

By their nature, routers do not communicate directly with end devices like laptop or desktop computers, but with their network adapters. Each NIC has a network address—Ethernet switches, adapters, Wi-Fi transceivers and radios are all NICs.

Additional hardware can provide dedicated support to the main CPU. A cryptographic chip can offload encryption and hashing functions from the main processor. A dedicated load balancer can jump in to optimize different types of data streams—streaming video versus regular Web page browsing, for example. USB, SATA and other types of capabilities on routers are also added in the form of interface cards, often integrated right into the main processor board.

The architecture gets more complex when you consider that many routers also provide an xDSL, cable or cellular data modem. In this case, the router's interface card is the component that mediates data between the modem and switching fabric.

A modem modulates and demodulates digital signals into analog and vice versa, to be sent out over the "line"—cable or xDSL. However, we will not cover cellular modems in this article; those require architecture and protocol different from xDSL or cable modems.

Processors And Transceivers

The Processor

Any host processor can, theoretically, act as a networking processor, but the hardware in commercial routers is optimized to handle very specific networking tasks. These include key look-up (database look-up using a key), computation, data bit-field manipulation, queue management, pattern matching and control processing. A GPU, for example, would yield less-than-optimal results as the brains of a router (though the reverse problem, gaming on a networking processor, would run up against fundamental limits pretty quickly).

Before HD (or 4K) streaming video, multiple devices communicating over the same home network or intensive network gaming, wasting a multi-core processor on routing tasks was unheard of, even in the prosumer segment. Clearly, this has changed. Processor performance, especially on older routers, can bottleneck the bandwidth of ISPs serving gigabit-class Internet.

Beyond cores and clock rates, CPU specifications can quickly become mind-numbing. But in the networking world, they can generally be split into their instruction set architectures (ISAs): ARM and MIPS.

Of course, there are other architectures other than ARM and MIPS used in networking devices. These are usually dedicated co-processors like DSPs, cryptographic processors, media accelerators and so on.

ARM

ARM Cortex-A refers to a series of microprocessors designed by ARM Holdings PLC. The company doesn't manufacture the hardware, but instead licenses its designs. The suffix "A" stands for "applications," hinting that the A series is meant for general-purpose use. There are also "M" (for microcontroller) and "R" (for real-time) families.

The implementations most commonly found in modern networking devices are the older Cortex-A9 or Cortex-A5 chips. Both are based on the 32-bit ARMv7 architecture.

The Cortex-A9 was introduced in 2007. It features L1 instruction and data caches that can be configured independently to 16, 32 or 64KB; up to 8MB of L2 cache and clock rates as high as 2GHz. Cortex-A9 processors are included in many current SoCs, including the Apple A5 and A5X; Broadcom BCM11311; Nvidia Tegra 2, 3 and 4i; and even Sony's PlayStation Vita.

The Cortex-A5 hit the market in 2009 as a less powerful alternative to the A9 for low-end and mid-range consumer devices. It's available with between one and four cores, and includes from 4KB to 64KB of L1 instruction/data cache. It is used on many transceiver SoCs.

MIPS

The MIPS architecture (short for microprocessor without interlocked pipeline stages) was introduced in 1981 by John L. Hennessy of Stanford University. It is currently developed by MIPS Technologies, which has been part of the UK-based Imagination Technologies group since 2013. MIPS uses a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) architecture, enabling specialized chips with low power consumption that are widely used in embedded systems for routers. There are two instruction set versions currently in use: the 32-bit MIPS32 and 64-bit MIPS64. Both were introduced in 1999.

MIPS32 is used in various microarchitecture families—namely, 4K/E, 24K/E, 34K, 74K, 1004K, 1074K/f, microAptiv, interAptiv and proAptiv. The latter three are the most current, introduced in 2012.

The microAptiv, interAptiv and proAptiv microarchitectures typically come with 32x 32-bit general-purpose registers (up to 64x are allowed). The architecture allows for up to 8MB L2 cache, and current implementations operate at frequencies as high as 1.5GHz. MIPS32 is meant to be upward-compatible with MIPS64, which means its features are supposed to be a subset of what MIPS64 offers. Both utilize fixed-length commands in a three-operand format and a load/store data model, catering to high-level programming languages.

Chips based on MIP32 include Broadcom's BMIPS3000, BMIPS4000 and BMIPS 5000; BCM53001 and BCM1255; Ingenic Semiconductor XBurst 1; and Baikal Electronics P5600. Chips using the 64-bit MIP64 architecture include Broadcom's BCM1125H and BCM1255; the Cavium octa-core processors CN30xx, CN31xx, CN36xx and CN38xx; Octeon Plus: CN5xxx, Octeon II: CN6xxx, and Octeon III: CN7xxx; Ingenic Semiconductor XBurst 2, NEC VR4305 and VR4310.

Transceivers

A transceiver is a device that combines a data transmitter and receiver in a single package. Most commercial routers have transceivers with integrated radio/antenna systems, and most often, a small controller or dedicated chip on the board handles radio functions. While "transceivers" are most commonly associated with radio frequency (RF) signals, they have analogs in other transmission standards, though few (if any) of these analogs will be seen in a commercial router for home/small-business use. The Ethernet versions of transceivers are MAUs (medium attachment units), while fiber and 10GbE have their own set of acronyms (GBIC, XAUI, etc.) to describe transceiver devices.

Although the trend toward complete SoC solutions continues unabated, many new devices tend to take the transceiver plus processor card approach. Ensuring backward compatibility with older 802.11b/g/n networks—and avoiding a complete redesign with a router refresh, where new functionality can be thrown in just by adding another card—is a big factor. It should also be noted that many packages called "SoCs" omit the actual transmission-receipt function, instead providing a PCI/PCIe slot for the router manufacturer to fill with a network card.

Chipsets

Chipsets

The landscape of networking device manufacturers has changed drastically within the past five years. The big names—Ralink, Ubicom, Atheros—are gone, absorbed by bigger companies. The ground is now held by two giants: Broadcom and Qualcomm. A relative newcomer to the field, MediaTek, is holding its own through the strength of acquisitions. Smaller manufacturers like Marvell and Quantenna have also introduced SoCs used in many mid- and high-end routers, while the networking division of RealTek supplies D-Link and Huawei with chips.

In 2015, there were some new technologies that affected the giant-dominated line-up, including 5G Wi-Fi Wave 2, 4x4 and 8x8 MU-MIMO. All of the players have exciting offerings, and some of the smaller companies (Quantenna, specifically, with its 10G SoCs) had a lead on Broadcom and Qualcomm at CES 2015.

Chipset Vendors: Broadcom

Broadcom is the wireless and broadband component manufacturing industry's leader. Its undisputed strength lies in its transceivers and radios, which are even used in conjunction with competing router SoCs.

Broadcom Router SoCs

Introduced in 2013, the StrataGX BCM5862X series is part of Broadcom’s Northstar Plus family, featuring single- or dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 processors at 1.2GHz. They connect to two transceivers via PCIe, and are designed for 5G Wi-Fi in combination with capable transceivers. With two SATA 6Gb/s interfaces, a cryptographic accelerator and fast memory, the BCM5862X series is intended for storage appliances.

The BCM5301x and BCM470X lines brought 802.11ac-specific support to the Broadcom portfolio in 2012. The 5301x is the enterprise/small business version of the 470x series suitable for residential routers and gateways, and both are manufactured on a 40nm processes. The 4709/AO/CO chips succeeded the popular 4708 series; the AO model was released in 2013, followed by a base model in 2014. The newest member of the family, the BCM4709CO, came out in 2015 (and is also listed as the BCM47094).

Broadcom's latest and greatest for "affordable and mid-tier" residential/small-business routers, the BCM47189 and the BCM53573, were introduced in January 2015 at CES. They are (probably) meant to be paired with the BCM4366 5G Wi-Fi 4x4 MU-MIMO transceiver (radio) chip. Broadcom also announced its enterprise- and cloud-oriented SoCs from the same family, the 43465/43525 and the 47452.

An ADSL router SoC, the BCM6318 is designed for integration with entry-level networking devices, providing an all-in-one solution for turnkey router development.

Another integrated modem/router solution with an external wireless NIC, the BCM63268, is one of the most widely used chips for xDSL platforms. It is designed to work in conjunction with the BCM2057 radio. The 63168 provides VoIP support (multi-channel HD voice) and is designed for use with the BCM4360 5G Wi-Fi transceiver.

The BCM4706 sits right at the edge of obsolescence, but a number of popular, low-end routers from 2012 and 2013 use this chipset. Its dual PCIe interfaces are designed to pair with a BCM4331 802.11n 3x3 Wi-Fi transceiver, and it operates both in selectable and simultaneous dual-band configurations.

Broadcom Transceivers

The BCM4352, BCM4360, BCM43526 and BCM43516 were a family of Gigabit 5G chips introduced in 2012 meant for the consumer market. They differ mostly in nominal speeds; the BCM4360 is the fastest, at 1.3 Gb/s via three streams, the BCM4352 and BCM43526 offer two streams at 867 Mb/s and the BCM43516 comes in last, providing 433 Mb/s. The BCM43526 comes with USB instead of a PCIe interface and targets set-top boxes and televisions. The BCM4360 is widely used in wireless routers like Asus' RT-AC56S and RT-AC56U; D-Link's DIR-860L; Linksys' EA6200, EA6300 and EA6350; and Netgear's D6200, EX6200 and R6200, among others.

The BCM43131 is a Wi-Fi chipset from 2013 with PCIe interface and support for Wi-Fi standards 802.11b, 802.11g and 802.11n. Equipped with a BCM2057 radio chip, it is used in wireless routers from Tenda, namely the D152, W150D v6 and W311E.

An earlier incarnation of this chipset, the BCM43217 (2012) is equipped with the BCM2055 radio, and supports b/g/n. It was used in wireless routers from a number of vendors, including Asus' RT-AC56S and –U; Belkin's F9K1113 and 1118; Linksys' EA6200, EA6300, EA6350 and EA6400; and Netgear's DGN2200, R6200 and R6250.

Introduced in 2014 as a 3x3 MIMO 802.11ac chip for routers, the BCM43602 is equipped with a 320MHz single-core processor and comes with a PCIe interface. Broadcom rates its peak performance at 900 Mb/s. The chip has been used in multiple routers, including Asus' RT-AC3200; the Linksys EA9200; Netgear's D7000 and R8000; and the TP-Link Archer C3200.

Announced in January 2015 as Broadcom's then-fastest 4x4 MU-MIMO chip, the BCM4366 is a 5G radio unit meant to be used in high-end consumer devices. The BCM4366 comes with an 800MHz Cortex-A7 processor. Its Wi-Fi speed is a nominal 5.4 Gb/s (in theory, since, in practice, most consumer devices are unable to saturate it). More important is the MU-MIMO capability, allowing the BCM4366 to handle up to eight clients simultaneously. The radio spans 160MHz, which, unfortunately, also means that only two such networks fit in the 5GHz band without overlap.

Chipset Vendors: Qualcomm

Atheros absorbed Airgo Networks in 2006, making it a heavyweight in the wireless domain. Qualcomm, originally not a player in the commercial networking field, announced a takeover of Atheros in 2011, and Atheros became a subsidiary named Qualcomm Atheros. Qualcomm Atheros went on to acquire Ubicom for its SoC IP in 2012, and Wilocity in 2014 for its 802.11ad expertise. Another interesting Qualcomm Atheros acquisition from September 2011—Bigfoot Networks, a manufacturer of networking solutions for gaming applications—struck out on its own as Rivet Networks. Its SoCs and NICs are marketed under Killer Networking's name, and show up in high-performance gaming motherboards.

Qualcomm Router SoCs

The IPQ40X8/X9 is Qualcomm's latest Wave 2 MU-MIMO SoC. Because it was introduced in October 2015, information on this chipset is still scarce. But we do have some of its specifications.

The A/IPQ806X chipset family is designed to enable "smart-home" platforms, and it borrows from the MSM8974's mobile pedigree to do it. The 2012 APQ8064 used the same Snapdragon S4 processor as the MSM8974 and had a 3G/4G modem, whereas the IPQ8064/62 looks more like a traditional router platform but with a plethora of slots and ports, as well as SDIO support.

We wouldn't normally include the QC401X and QCA4531 chipsets, since they're targeted at low-power devices for IoT networks, but their newness merits a mention. Qualcomm’s newest WiSoCs, the low-end RTOS-driven QCA401X family and the QCA4531 SoC that runs OpenWrt Linux, support the AllJoyn IoT standard running off a 650MHz, MIPS 24Kc-based processor.

A very popular chipset family, the QCA95xx was introduced in 2013 and was refreshed in 2014. It's found in routers from pretty much every vendor.

Qualcomm Transceivers

The QCA9880 is a 3x3 dual-band radio chip introduced in 2013. It's meant to be paired with the QCA9558 SoC, providing up to 1.7 Gb/s. It is used in various routers, including Cisco's DPC3941; D-Link's DIR-859, DIR-862L and DIR-863; Linksys' E8350; Netgear's C6300 and R7500; and TP-Link Archer's C5, C7, D7, TGR1900 and TL-WDR7500.

The QCA9882 is a 2x2 dual-band radio chip introduced in 2013; its the QCA9880's "little brother," despite its higher model number, and it complements the QCA9880 for home networking. The QCA9890 and QCA9892 are their counterparts for enterprise solutions. The QCA9882 is rated for up to 1.3 Gb/s and is used in various routers, including Asus' RT-AC55U and RT-AC55UHP; D-Link's DAP-2660 and DGL-5500; and Netgear's D6200, JR6100, R6000 and R6100.

In the same family, the QCA9890 and the QCA9892 were also introduced in 2013 as 2x2 and 3x3 dual-band radio chips. They both provide up to 1.3 Gb/s utilizing the 802.11ac standard. The difference between them lies in their number of streams. QCA9890 is the "bigger" of the two, complementing chips for enterprise solutions featuring three streams. The QCA9890 only offers two streams. The QCA9890 has been used in AirTight Networks C-75 and -E, as well as Gateworks Ventana GW3056.

The QCA9860 and the QCA9862 are stand-alone combo chips that complement the above families of radio chips introduced in 2013. The bigger of the couple is the QCA9860, offering three streams, whereas the smaller one, the QCA9862, only offers two. Both reach up to 1.3 Gb/s. Unlike the QCA9880/82 and QCA9890/92, which are meant to be paired with an SoC solution, the QCA9860 and QCA9862 are stand-alone SoCs.

Chipset Vendors: MediaTek

Taiwanese chipset manufacturer MediaTek started out in the optical drive and home entertainment segments, then moved to dominate the smartphone and mobile chipset markets. In 2011, the company bought Wi-Fi chipset manufacturer Ralink, whose chips could be found in every router vendor's devices, marking its entry into the networking chipset space. Ralink itself had previously purchased its major competitor TrendChip in 2010, acquiring ADSL SoC expertise.

MediaTek Router SoCs

MediaTek's integrated SoC offering, the MT7623A/N, was announced in Q2 2015, with optimizations for audio/video streaming. With a storage accelerator and the OpenWrt standard, this chip has the flexibility to enable very capable NAS setups as well.

Intended for IoT gateways and media routers, the MT7683 was announced in Q3 2015, and it differs from the MT7623A/N systems in some key areas—noticeably, the introduction of a Mali 450 GPU. This allows the 7683 to display the status of connected IoT devices on a monitor or TV. IoT control is provided by the MT7687 SoC, MediaTek's first ARM Cortex-M4-based IoT Wi-Fi solution.

The MT7683/23 chips support a number of content streams over cable, Bluetooth and BLE for wearable devices. NFC is enabled for quick setup. Wi-Fi is delivered via the powerful 802.11ac Wave 2 MTC7615 transceiver, announced in Q1 2015.

A power-efficient IoT SoC, the MT7687, was announced in Q2 2015. With a maximum power output of 21 dBm, this chip works as a stand-alone IoT gateway or with the MT7683 as a powerful smart-home solution.

MediaTek's most popular offerings are MIPS-based SoCs. The MT7621 A/N/S powers everything from mid-tier routers to access points. Another comprehensive low- to mid-range SoC, the MT7620, is also used in a variety of networking applications, and is extremely popular across all market segments. The MT7628 family is an update to the popular 7620.

An integrated xDSL (VDSL2/ADSL2+ IAD) and router solution, the MT751x series, is designed for a flexible networking system design, also containing a little bit of everything. Interestingly, these chips adopt a twin-CPU solution consisting of a 32-bit MIPS CPU and an xDSL Discrete Multi-Tone (DMT) engine.

Although Ralink was absorbed by MediaTek, its last few chips were showing up in routers as late as 2013. And the sheer number of devices powered by Ralink silicon means you can't quite forget about the company's SoCs. The 6855 was the last Ralink chip to show up for FCC approval in 2013. Both the 6856 and the 6855 were powered by the dual-core MIPS 34KEc 700 processor. The RT63XXX family of xDSL router SoCs were still being used for new devices as late as 2014 by a loyal TP-Link (in one case, married to a MediaTek transceiver; TP-Link's TD-W8951ND v6 was powered by Ralink's RT63365E and MediaTek's MT7601E).

Smaller Chipset Manufactures

Marvell Technology Group creates SoCs for networking devices, often pairing them with Broadcom transceivers. Chips in Marvell's Armada 38x family are equipped with ARMv7 Cortex-A9 dual-core processors (with the 88F6810 chip, Armada 380, being an exception). They feature GbE, DDR3/3L/4, PCIe 2.0 links and a host of other features that make Marvell competitive. We're not seeing many devices with the company's hardware, though. Armada XP (MV78XXX) chips, with up to a quad-core ARM v7 PJ4 processors, seem to share the same fate.

A new addition to Marvell's Avastar SoC family was announced in Q1 2015, targeted at enterprise APs, hotspots and residential multi-stream (video or gaming) applications. An earlier iteration, the 88W8864, supported up to 1.3 Gb/s and 4x4 MIMO. It was used in the Linksys WRT1200AC and WRT1900AC wireless routers.

We're calling it a "smaller" manufacturer, but in reality, Realtek is one of the largest chip makers in the world. But the company's networking segment peaked with its 10/100 Ethernet controllers. Its wireless offering haven't enjoyed the same level of market penetration. So it's not the most popular chip on the block, but it does deserve a mention: the 2013 ADSL2+ modem/router from RealTek, based on its Lextra LX processor (a 32-bit implementation of the MIPS architecture) held its own for a while. It was used in D-Link's DSL-2740E, Huawei's WS319 and other routers.

Quantenna specializes in wireless SoC transceivers. Its R&D focused on high-end 802.11ac and 802.11n devices. Competing neck and neck with the giants of the industry, Quantenna introduced a number of new devices in 2015, all on the cutting edge. It was first to launch a 4x4 MU-MIMO 802.11ac chipset, and has demonstrated a 10G system. The QSR2000 Wave 2 is a transceiver designed for high-speed Wi-Fi routers. It is marketed as an integrated chipset for 802.11an/ac or 802.11b/g/n Wave 2 applications, dual-band switchable, with 4x4 MU-MIMO four spatial streams. It has 80MHz channels (for the 5GHz band), PCIe 2.0 connectivity and a peak PHY of 1700 Mb/s.

The QSR10G family of chipsets supports 10Gb speeds. There are four variants, ranging from the "U"—a top-tier 12-stream, dual-band device with a peak PHY rate of 10 Gb/s—down to the "5" variant, with eight-stream 5GHz single-band operation with a peak PHY rate of 8.6 Gb/s.

The Future Of Router SoCs

Just as in-home HD video and game streaming drove the innovations behind MU-MIMO and Wave 2 wireless, IoT and smart-home initiatives are poised to drive capabilities in the next generation of routers. Expect to see more and more devices capable of handling low-power, low-data rate, always-on clients in addition to existing high-end capabilities. Qualcomm is already making forays into this area, and Broadcom will not be far behind. Intel is also collaborating with cellular modem manufacturers and has a grand IoT vision, so expect to see new players in the field.

Another series of innovations will target mobile routers—those with integrated cellular modems. With the number of travelers carrying two or more computing devices (laptops, smartphones, tablets, smartwatches), the demand for small, integrated wireless router/cellular modem combination devices is expected to rise. MediaTek has a solid lead here, with its dominance of the cellular modem/device market, but expect to see solutions pairing MediaTek, Quantenna and Broadcom modems with other router SoCs, whereas Qualcomm will probably provide fully integrated solutions out of the box. We even expect to see Western Digital add more high-end devices to its current mobile line-up.

Another paradigm change is the use of the OpenWrt OS, as more manufacturers embrace its standards and compatibility. Also expect to see greater emphasis on security, in parallel with hardware features designed to support "smart router" functions (i.e., remote administration via smartphone or Web apps, which at the moment, is a feature solely up to individual router manufacturers to implement).

On the negative side, the 2.4 and 5GHz bands used for Wi-Fi are becoming more crowded. Interference from multiple devices on these bands, especially in public and enterprise Wi-Fi spaces, means interference and higher error rates, all of which serve to slow down individual connections regardless of actual hardware capabilities. As this is somewhat of a physics-imposed limitation, expect to see active workarounds that include the shunting of smart-home-appliance and IoT connections to other transmission bands.

The 802.11ah extension to the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard allows the use of sub-1GHz bands for Wi-Fi communications, and will be up for approval in its entirety in March 2016. A sub-component to the “ah” extension, the “HaLow” standard operates on the 900MHz band and was recently approved by the Wi-Fi Alliance. It allows for low-power and high-obstacle-penetration operations.

The next iteration of conventional 2.4GHz and 5GHz Wi-Fi is expected to be the 802.11ax standard, still in early stages of development, but which promises 10 Gb/s speeds. Finally, expect further work on all the other iterations of 802.11 standards that utilize bands other than the 2.4GHz and 5GHz, specifically 802.11af that uses the unused TV bands (UHF/VHF white-space spectrum) between 54 and 790MHz.

Follow Gene Fabron @fabrongene. Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube

MORE: Wireless Routers 101
MORE: All Networking ContentMORE: Networking in the Forums

Gene Fabron is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware. Follow her on Twitter. Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Introduction

A few months ago, we launched a survey that asked our community to rate their internet service provider (ISP). Over 3100 readers from all over the country participated, and we picked the top four most-voted ISPs to focus on.

Our readers rated each ISP in terms of price, performance, reliability and support on a scale of one to five stars, with one being the worst possible score and five being the best. We averaged each category's total score, and rounded each result to the nearest one-quarter star. We also provided the mathematical average, so we can compare scores later (it's starting to look like we'll have a close race at the finish line).

The next ISP in our series is the second-largest cable Internet provider in the country, and therefore it's not a surprise the company also garnered the second-highest amount of feedback in our survey, with 372 participants giving their honest opinion of its services.

History

Time Warner Cable's roots can be traced back as far as 1968, when American Television and Communications (ATC) was founded. Five years later, newcomer Time Inc. acquired nine percent of the controlling stake of ATC. In 1973, Warner Communications formed Warner Cable. By 1978, Time Inc. had gained 100 percent control of ATC; Warner Cable and Time Inc. announced the merging of their respectively powerful companies in 1989. In 1992, Time Warner Cable was officially christened with the launch of NY1 News in New York City, operating under the Time Inc. umbrella.

In 1996, Time Warner Cable debuted its “Roadrunner” cable Internet service, becoming one of the first communications and cable television providers to offer high-speed connectivity. When cable television mainstay Adelphia was sold, Time Warner Cable gained additional systems and coverage in the northeast, further cementing its place on the ISP totem pole.

At that point, Time Warner Cable was still part of the massive Time Warner Inc. machine. However, after the company became a public entity in 2007, Time Warner Cable separated from its parent company in 2009 and began acquiring regional communications companies to become an even more dominant force in the cable television and high-speed Internet market. Those acquisitions included NewWave Communications in 2011, Insight Communications in 2012 and DukeNet Communications in 2013.

Today, Time Warner Cable boasts a total customer base of over 15.5 million people, with over 12.2 million high-speed data subscribers. In addition, the company employs over 50,000 people and services 29 different states across the nation.

Technology

Time Warner Cable offers its high-speed Internet services across coaxial broadband cable lines. These networks can span great distances, with no bandwidth degradation as your distance from the main hub increases. However, cable Internet is prone to sagging bandwidth during peak hours, since customers share throughput on a hub.

Cable Internet speeds are comparable to DSL, though cable can hit higher maximum bandwidth. Here’s a chart of Time Warner Cable’s service plans, speeds, price and available service regions:

Pricing: 2 ¼ Stars

Despite offering seemingly reasonable performance for a modest price (compared to similar services from different ISPs), our readers gave Time Warner Cable's pricing the lowest score of any category, at only 2 1/4 (2.36) stars out of five. A trend appears to be developing in our round-up where we see the lowest scores in the pricing category. Many of our readers are particularly sensitive to pricing; pricing was voted the second most-important factor when choosing an ISP by our surveyed Time Warner Cable participants. Despite our survey results, though, when you do the math, Time Warner Cable's rates have some of the best price-to-performance ratios in our series.

I was required to input a serviceable address into Time Warner Cable's website, and once I found a suitable location in Texas, I was shown the ISP's speed tiers. Similarly to other ISPs, TWC offers promotional rates for a year, after which regular rates apply. However, I could not find a set-in-stone contract term or price anywhere on the company's site, so I contacted support for help.

The representative I spoke to helped shed light on the subject, explaining that the promotional rates last 12 months, after which they can be renegotiated (by choosing another promotional rate) or the service can be cancelled with no penalty. Furthermore, I was told that normal pricing for each service tier is only $5 to $10 more expensive, or even cheaper after the first year. Time Warner Cable's Internet services don't technically come with a minimum term, so it appears that these prices are legitimate and you can cancel any time.

Time Warner Cable offers the best price-to-performance ratio we've seen thus far. It also offers speeds higher than any previous entrant in our series. However, the survey score, as determined by our readers, appears to ignore this, resulting in a sub-par 2 1/4 stars out of five awarded to the second-largest cable Internet provider in the country.

Readers who rated pricing below three stars didn't generally score other categories as low, with many actually praising the service in all areas except its price tag.

"TWC is a little pricey, but I've had no issues with them and they [don't have a] bandwidth cap," said one reader who rated every category above three stars (even pricing). Unlike other ISPs we've reviewed so far, a data limit is seemingly not a factor. Many readers with ISPs that do impose limits note that overage charge-incurring policies negatively affect their opinions in this category.

"While they provide generally adequate service, it's very much overpriced for the service provided," said another participant who rated all other categories at or below three stars, with pricing pegged at just one star out of five.  

One of our readers simply commented "it is overpriced because it is the only ISP in town," perhaps pinpointing the reason so many of our respondents gave Time Warner (and most other ISPs) a poor pricing score. Some regions simply have no competition for high-speed broadband cable Internet, and when there's a lack of competition, the perception is that prices are automatically too high (or at least higher than some people are comfortable paying).

These lower-than-average results may come from a lack of knowledge of what other companies charge. At the end of the day, I simply cannot account for the disappointing score that Time Warner Cable's Internet services received, since each service tier offers more speed at a better price per Mb/s than any other ISP we've reviewed, and without a data cap.

Performance: 3 ¼ Stars

Time Warner's performance was judged much more favorably by our readers, earning 3 1/4 (3.17) stars out of five. This is still a somewhat surprising score, mainly because it's lower than what cable Internet providers with slower advertised speeds are earning.

Perhaps performance is a given for cable Internet subscribers, since surveyed readers using TWC voted the category their least important factor when deciding on an ISP. This is similar to how Comcast users voted in our survey, implying that cable Internet customers simply expect high performance from their coaxial cable connections.

Many readers related pricing to performance as well, with the minority who rated Time Warner Cable below three stars noting "poor performance, high prices and highly fluctuating upload/download speeds."

In addition, many who were dissatisfied with performance believed that they should be getting more bandwidth for their dollar (again, confusing given Time Warner Cable's impressive speeds and best-in-survey price-to-performance ratio). Other respondents had legitimate performance gripes. "I have a laggy connection and lots of downtime," said one particularly dissatisfied reader, who gave every category less than a two-star rating.

Time Warner Cable still garnered a respectable 3 1/4 star rating in the performance category, with users who rated it three stars or higher complimenting the broadband service's impressive download speeds. "Time Warner's Internet service is consistently fast and very reliable," said one satisfied reader. Another summed up their high performance score with "reliable speeds, usually low ping, and no data cap."

Reliability: 3 ½ Stars

The reliability category was rated the highest by our readers, with Time Warner Cable earning 3 1/2 (3.37) stars out of five. Many folks praised the company's reliability. The majority who scored it three stars or higher noted better-than-advertised bandwidth and minimal downtime as primary factors for their high rating.

"I've seldom had problems, and when I [had problems] they were resolved promptly," said one of our participants who rated performance, reliability and support at four stars, yet scored pricing at three. "I have very reliable Internet service, and if I see two minutes of downtime a month, I am surprised," said another who gave reliability five stars.

Despite the mostly-positive feedback from our community in the reliability category, a 2014 study called Measuring Broadband America showed Time Warner Cable skimping out on maximum bandwidth.

It is probable that the information (derived from data collected in 2013) is a poor reflection of current Time Warner Cable services, and therefore not a great comparison for current reliability and performance experiences. However, this data supports claims of lower-than-advertised speeds, especially if Time Warner Cable hasn’t improved since then.

The company now offers up to 100, 200 and 300 Mb/s Internet connections, and our readers expressed overall satisfaction with the service's reliability and performance. Ultimately, these two categories were the highest-scoring, yet least important factors as rated by our community. 

The few participants who rated reliability lower than three stars cited lower-than-advertised speeds, connection issues and slow remediation as primary detractors. "I have constant slowdowns and DNS issues," said a reader who rated reliability at just one star.

Let the score show that Time Warner Cable earned a respectable 3 1/2 stars for its reliability, with the company taking the lead in our ISP survey review series. Most readers seem to be under the belief that TWC offers above-average reliability with better-than-advertised speeds and solid up-time.

Service & Support: 2 ½ Stars

It appears that Time Warner Cable drops the ball when its high-scoring reliability fails, with a very average 2 1/2 (2.56) out of five-star rating in the support category. While this isn't the worst support score in our ISP review, our readers are particularly critical when it comes to this subject, likely because it was voted the most important factor when choosing an ISP. Similarly to Comcast, our readers were generally not satisfied with their customer service experience.

"Customer service is terrible. I'm not sure they realize paying customers are why they have a business," said one reader, who rated support at just one star (with other categories at or above three stars). Another was more scathing in critiquing the company's support. "Time Warner has a flagrant disregard for their customers, and customer service with this company is as bad as any other poor service I have ever received." 

Other issues mentioned by our readers included poor response and remediation times, uncaring attitudes and a lack of expertise. "[TWC] customer service is terrible. It's hard getting anyone that knows what they're doing," said one such surveyed reader.

Even respondents who were satisfied with other aspects of Time Warner Cable's Internet service seemed to be disappointed with customer support. "I get pretty reliable service, but if you need technical support, good luck," said one reader who rated all categories except support above three stars.

The vote seemed to be split solidly down the middle, with just as many readers rating Time Warner Cable's support at three stars or higher. Satisfied readers noted friendly customer service, quick response and remediation, easy billing and relatively disruption-free service.

"Customer service is just amazing," said a satisfied reader. "TWC's customer service has been friendly," echoed another.

Overall, the scoreboard for Time Warner Cable's support reflects an average score in our survey, with no single ISP we've looked at breaching a three-star rating. Time Warner Cable isn't the best, but also isn't the worst according to our readers, who pinpointed many of the same negative factors other ISPs seem to suffer from when rating the company's support.

Overall: 2 ¾ Stars

Generally speaking, cable Internet providers score high marks in the performance and reliability categories, and then receive disappointing ratings in the price and support department. Not coincidentally, the two lowest-scoring categories were the most important factors when choosing an ISP, according to our readers. The overall score of 2 3/4 (2.80) stars out of five seems to reflect a weighted average when accounting for what matters most to our surveyed participants: pricing and support. 

The performance and reliability marks for Time Warner are average for cable Internet providers overall; Comcast garnered similar scores. These categories also achieved the highest ratings, yet were less important factors when choosing an ISP, according to the Time Warner Cable subscribers who participated in our survey.

"The service, speed and reliability are the things that have me hooked," said one participant who rated everything but pricing at or above three stars. “Customer support and pricing (which is offered at a reasonable rate and [then] climbs over time) are both hugely frustrating,” stated another, who otherwise provided high marks for Time Warner Cable.

The overall score doesn't reflect a true average of the combined criteria, but this is likely due to the weight the poorly-scored categories carry with our readers.

Conclusion

Despite serving up the best price-to performance ratio in our review series so far, our readers rated Time Warner Cable's pricing at a modest 2 1/4 stars. We've seen overall dissatisfaction with pricing for each ISP we've examined, but TWC's score is surprisingly a top contender in our review series so far.

Performance and reliability seems to be the bread and butter of Time Warner Cable, with greater than three-star ratings for each of those categories. However, these impressive scores do not seem to influence our reader's overwhelmingly sub-par analysis of the company's pricing and support; each category consistently garners below three star ratings. It should also be noted that Time Warner Cable is in contention for the top score in each category so far.

Here's our full results from our Time Warner Cable ISP survey results:

Each category is labeled with the results of the most- and least-important factors when deciding on an ISP, and each score is tallied with its one- to five-star rounded and mathematical average. These scores are so closely in line with other ISPs that we can tell it’s going to be a very close race for first place in each category.

Tom's Hardware's ISP round-up is nearing its end. Thanks goes out to our dedicated community for providing their opinions. In our final ISP evaluation, we will examine another DSL and fiber optic service provider: Verizon.

Derek Forrest is an Associate Contributing Writer for Tom’s Hardware. Follow him on Twitter.

Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Introduction

Last September, we launched a survey asking our readers to rate the price, performance, reliability and support of their Internet service provider (ISP). The response was massive, with more than 3,100 votes cast.

We have already shared the reader survey results for AT&T. The next ISP we are going to examine garnered the most responses in our survey, with 710 users rating the company's high-speed cable Internet service. We had our readers rate the company's prices, performance, reliability and support on a scale of one to five stars, with one being the least satisfied and five being the most. We averaged each category's total score and rounded the results to the nearest one-quarter star. We also provided the mathematical average, allowing us to compare scores later.

History

First called American Cable Systems, Comcast was founded in 1963 with the purchase of a 1200-subscriber cable television system in Tupelo, Mississippi. The business reincorporated as Comcast Corp. in 1969, and held its first public stock offering in 1972.

The company began to purchase other small communications entities, acquiring a larger customer base for its cable television services and increasing its market share. In 1997, Microsoft invested $1 billion in Comcast, allowing it to purchase larger companies like Prime Communications, Jones Intercable Inc. and Lenfest Communications Inc. These acquisitions netted Comcast another 2.3 million customers, further tightening its grip on the cable television market. Now a giant in the industry, the company even struck a deal with AT&T to acquire select cable systems in six different states in 2001, scoring almost another 600,000 subscribers.

In 2002, Comcast launched its HDTV service and what we now recognize as its high-speed Internet services; the company boasted of 3.3 million high-speed data customers that year. The remainder of the decade was spent acquiring more of its competition and creating services that we still enjoy today, such as digital voice, video mail, DVR and On Demand.

As cable Internet speeds began to increase, Comcast introduced its first 50 Mb/s subscriptions in 2009. And in 2010, the company rebranded its technology platforms, products and services as Xfinity, giving its Internet-based services a hip new name (and possibly stealing a line from Buzz Lightyear).

In 2011, Comcast, along with General Electric, joined NBC Universal (which came into being after NBC and Universal merged in 2004), solidifying its spot as one of the most powerful communications companies on the planet. Last year, Comcast approved yet another insane acquisition, this time with rival Time Warner for a whopping $45.2 billion. This deal would have given Comcast roughly 40 percent of the total U.S. cable market, but the plans were abruptly dropped last April when public opposition and FCC reservations forced Comcast to abandon the effort.

Today, Comcast offers its Xfinity High-Speed Internet service in virtually all regions of the country, with more than 22 million subscribers. It's no wonder that the company received the most responses in our reader survey.

Technology

Comcast offers high-speed Internet packages using coaxial broadband cable lines networked over a great distance. The signal is boosted via daisy-chained hubs, and unlike DSL technology, cable Internet customers typically don't experience performance degradation as they get farther away from the central hub. However, cable Internet subscribers use a shared hub to reach the Web, and can often experience reduced performance during peak times when many users are operating from the same hub.

Cable Internet can reach higher peak speeds than the alternative, but generally costs more per Mb/s. Here’s a full chart of Comcast's primary service plans, speeds, prices and serviceable regions:

Pricing: 2 Stars

It was easy to find pricing information for Comcast since I am within one of its serviceable regions. Like most of the other ISPs, Comcast requires potential customers to input a valid address before revealing plans and costs, and often will only show you what is available in your area. Luckily, my quiet corner of the country offers every primary Internet service tier except the recently launched Extreme 505 Mb/s service. We decided to exclude this offering from our review due to its low availability and seemingly business-class contract terms (a three-year minimum with additional line installation fees). Asking an outlandish $400 per month also seems a bit out of reach for standard residential users. Still, it's nice to dream of how many seats you could host at your next LAN party with that level of performance.

There were multiple bundles that brought the cost of certain Internet packages down to reasonable levels paired to television or broadband phone services. These plans offer promotional pricing for a contract term usually double the length of the discounted rate. For the sake of this review series, we only gathered data on stand-alone, non-promotional pricing.

Fortunately, Comcast offered flat-rate pricing on all but one of its performance tiers, which currently requires a two-year contract while offering a one-year promotional rate. Here's a list of Comcast's complete cable Internet service offerings, with unbundled prices and contract terms.

Our readers expressed overall dissatisfaction with Comcast's pricing, and after breaking down each plan's cost per Mb/s, it appears warranted that the company scored a sub-par two (2.11) stars on a scale of five. Some readers may have been influenced to give Comcast a low rating on pricing due to imposed data limits in certain regions.

Others were quick to address the staggering price-to-performance ratio, with Comcast generally charging more money per megabit than alternative DSL providers for roughly the same speeds. This isn't as prevalent when you approach the top of Comcast's residential service tier, but the company's service plans do not become cheaper than comparable DSL offerings until they rise above most providers' maximum throughput, with 150 Mb/s at 52 cents per Mb/s. However, even 150 Mb/s customers were generally unhappy with their pricing, despite heavily praising Comcast's performance and reliability.

"The price is too high, and will be even higher with the new data caps," said one reader, who scored Comcast above four stars in all areas except pricing.

Once again, this debacle seems to boil down to availability. Many of our readers indicated that Comcast was the only high-speed Internet option in their area, and that having no alternative meant dealing with the company's regional data caps and high price points.

Performance: 3 ½ Stars

Incidentally, few readers complained about performance, with the majority of our readers providing positive feedback for Comcast's speedy broadband Internet services. With a score of 3 1/2 (3.53) stars out of five, Comcast earns the highest score so far in the performance category.

Many readers praised Comcast's performance, with most rating it above three stars in our survey. Happy customers noted impressively fast speeds and often higher-than-advertised peak bandwidth. Some of our surveyed readers tied performance to pricing however, and even those who were pleased with performance still couldn't let that ratio slide.

"The speeds were very fast," said one reader who rated performance above four stars, "but the pricing was awful."

The few readers who did seem disappointed in Comcast's performance noted variable speeds, unstable connections and data caps as primary detractors. These community members mostly rated the company under three stars in this category.

It's also interesting to note that our surveyed Comcast users voted performance as the least important factor in choosing an ISP -- which could suggest that high performance is just expected from a cable Internet provider at this point in time. Comcast seems to slightly exceed that standard, with an impressive performance score of 3 1/2 stars out of five in our survey.

Reliability: 3 ¼ Stars

Comcast also scored well in the reliability category, with our readers rating it at an impressive 3 1/4 (3.34) stars out of five. The most recent FCC study on ISP service reliability, Measuring Broadband America, seems to echo our survey responses.

Despite the fact that this dated study does not reflect current Comcast offerings, we can still use it as a foundation for comparison. Generally, Comcast customers seem to enjoy higher-than-advertised speeds, with many of our surveyed readers praising its performance, uptime and reliability as well.

"I get a lot more Mb/s than I pay for," said one surveyed Comcast customer, who rated the ISP at less than three stars in every category, despite this admission. Another commented, "Comcast's speeds and reliability are exceptional in my area, and my speeds have always been higher than advertised."

The few Comcast users who rated the company's reliability at lower than three stars reported frequent and recurring outages, lower-than-advertised speeds and peak-time congestion as the primary factors.

"It's fast most of the time, but reliability is an issue," said one of our readers. "It usually goes down at least multiple times a week, usually between 6pm and 11pm."

For the most part, it seems Comcast offers a decently reliable Internet service for its customers, especially since it's the company's second-highest score in our survey.

Service & Support: 2 Stars

It's no secret that Comcast has a bad reputation for customer service, which our readers typically describe as "nonexistent" (or with other colorful adjectives that can't be repeated). This resulted in a score of two (2.13) stars out of five, which is on the low end of the spectrum in our survey.

Many Comcast customers who participated seemed disappointed with customer support. One reader said, "when you do not have to deal with customer service, it is fantastic."

Furthermore, JD Power's most recent customer service satisfaction study rated Comcast with three stars (out of five) or less in almost every regional market, placing the company among the lowest-ranked ISPs in customer satisfaction.

Readers who were satisfied with customer support noted the company's friendly service, prompt remediation and effective tech support. "They have pretty good tech support and resolved the few issues I have had over the years quickly," said one reader, who seemed pleased on all levels. "High speeds. Good service. Great customer support," said another.

Since the most important factor among readers considering an ISP is customer service, it cannot be a good sign that Comcast has received the least satisfactory score in this area. 

Overall, it cannot be a good sign that the most important factor among readers considering an ISP see Comcast with the least satisfactory score. Along with pricing, support was more important to our readers than performance or reliability, and not coincidentally, Comcast's scores are split straight down the middle. By that logic, Comcast's final grade in our ISP survey seems fitting.

Overall: 2 ¾ Stars

It should come as no surprise that Comcast's overall score was a slightly above average 2 3/4 (2.74) stars out of five. Despite more-than-respectable marks in performance and reliability, our readers could not forgive unsatisfactory pricing and support, which our surveyed Comcast users considered the two most important factors when choosing an ISP. Dropping the ball in two out of four categories obviously hurts the overall average.

Judging by our survey, it seems that one of the largest issues facing Comcast is its perceived unapologetic attitude toward pricing policies and support. Offering bundled Internet packages with term lengths longer than the promotion rate is a sneaky thing to do (even though it's all in the fine print), and facing no competition in certain regions makes some users feel as though there's no choice but to pay higher prices.

Conclusion

Comcast's high-speed Xfinity Internet services received a very typical response in our reader survey, with participants giving almost identical testimony. According to many of our readers, the company's pricing and support are unsatisfactory, and despite its strong showing in performance and reliability, customers are less-than-thrilled with the two factors they consider most important. As a result, the company's overall score is low.

Comcast's strengths lie in the very technology that brought it to the table: cable Internet service, which offers higher speeds than competing DSL providers. Readers seemed to think that Comcast's high speed and reliability weren't good trade-offs for its poorly structured pricing and customer support. Meanwhile, many who gave the ISP a higher-than-average score had the same issues as those who rated Comcast lower. The difference seems to be that the readers who gave Comcast a higher rating seemed complacent about its negatives, accepting them as "the cost of doing business."

Here's a full rundown of our survey results for Comcast. Each category is labeled from one to four, with one being most important and four being the least when deciding on an ISP, according to the surveyed readers:

Thank you, readers, for participating in our survey, and for following along so far. Let us know what you think by leaving your comments below. Next time, we'll examine Comcast's almost-partner in the cable Internet industry, with a sizable consumer base and fast access speeds: Time Warner Cable.

Derek Forrest is an Associate Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware and Tom's IT Pro.

Follow Derek Forrest on Twitter. Follow Tom's Hardware on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

Qualcomm recently closed its acquisition of Ikanos Communications, a vendor best known for its wired modem technology, and now that same acquisition gives way to Qualcomm reveal of the addition of a new G.fast chipset and a new gateway platform for its OEM customers.

Qualcomm boasted that the marriage of the two industries — Qualcomm's home networking and Ikanos' modem technology — brings what Qualcomm calls a "comprehensive, end-to-end product suite for gigabit broadband."

G.fast, a DSL standard, typically reaches high speeds on very short loops, but Qualcomm's newly announced G.fast chipset can reach throughput speeds of up to 1 Gbps over a 100 meter copper loop. Additionally, Qualcomm's new G.fast chipset supports VDSL 35b, a standard that typically competes with the G.fast.

Its new chipset contains Vx686 customer premises equipment (CPE) and Qualcomm's very own Velocity-5U single-port distribution point unit (DPU). The Vx686 CPE requires low power, meaning manufacturers can power their Qualcomm G.fast chipset-equipped products through USB. DPU thermals and power consumption have also been addressed.

Also present in Qualcomm's G.fast chipset is the Qualcomm inSIGHT-BXM, its proprietary software suite dedicated to DPU provisioning, integral diagnostics, line throughput qualification and noise mitigation. The chipset and inSIGHT-BXM are optimized for SDN/NFV frameworks.

Qualcomm's new gateway platform uses the Fusiv Vx585, an xDSL gateway processor from the newly acquired Ikanos. The gateway design supports ADSL to G.fast and VDSL 35b, and contains dual-PCIe connectivity for Wi-Fi modules, Fusiv acceleration processors, and Qualcomm StreamBoost and inSIGHT-BXM. These new suites include Qualcomm's VIVE 802.11ac MU | EFX MU-MIMO technology, Ethernet switches, PHYs and powerline technology.

Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and onGoogle+.

Introduction

It's hard to imagine a world without the internet. Everyday tasks and interactions from reading the latest news, working, communicating, to watching movies and TV shows, streaming music and using social media -- it all exists because of the internet. You name it and it can be found or done on the internet, and our dependency upon it grows stronger with every new technology and convenience it creates for us.

For as long as the internet has existed, there has been someone bringing you the internet service; an unsung hero of sorts, with a relationship that can often feel similar to a long-term boyfriend or girlfriend. The Internet Service Provider (ISP) has been around since the beginning, and although the prices, technologies, availability and performance have all changed dramatically over the years, the ISP has always been there in one form or another.

ISP Pros And Cons

Like most good relationships, the one between consumer and ISP is great when the service works reliably at the expected performance levels. We order dinner, we go shopping, we watch movies, we play games. Things are clear and steady, no terrible surprises, and we can spend the whole day with our ISP happily. When the internet service is dependable, it can make us laugh and smile.

However, sometimes this relationship can feel like a bad one. There aren't too many good ISPs in your area, so you took what you could get. Your ISP isn't the fastest horse on the track, but its a cheap date. So you have to live with the service going missing for hours at a time with no explanation and you know your calls won't be answered or returned in a timely manner. These types of issues can sometimes leave you feeling pretty empty inside, or maybe even make you think about finding something better. So you wonder if there a perfect ISP out there.

Regardless of how your ISP can make you feel at times, the core services are what matters. Choosing the right ISP depends on understanding what the provider can offer you, what access type you'll be using, what charges you'll incur when you subscribe for a plan, and how your ISP will handle support and service issues.

ISP Access Types

Many ISPs offer several different levels of internet connectivity using a variety of technologies, including cable, fiber optics, DSL and satellite. Each of these delivery methods has a very distinct impact on the end-user experience, offering a wide range of speed and reliability.

For example, DSL service is a dedicated line and will therefore not be subject to bandwidth loss caused by "peak times" like its shared-connection cable counterpart. However, cable is inherently faster, and DSL speeds can also degrade as the distance between you and the target central office increases. Fiber optics provide the same dedicated line as DSL, sending the data signal over fiber optic glass cables instead of copper, making it significantly faster, but also more expensive.

However, oftentimes the choice of an access type might be limited to your geographic location as fiber, cable and even DSL might not be available in some remote or rural areas. This is when a satellite service might be the only viable option.

Things To Consider

Reliability

The type of technology and ISP you choose will determine how reliable your service will be. Most broadband technologies rarely see downtime once deployed, but that doesn't mean they never have issues. DSL connections are subject to interrupted service at a higher rate than cable, and satellite options are among the least reliable internet signals available to consumers. Just as with connection speeds, you will pay higher prices for more reliable services.

Pricing

The general rule of thumb when it comes to ISP pricing is the faster and more reliable the service is, the more expensive it will be. Users requiring higher bandwidth for streaming content or gaming usually look for cable or fiber optic services, but will pay considerably more for those options. Consumers looking to simply access the internet for information or basic tasks, such as email and web browsing, can find very affordable plans using DSL or satellite, but access speeds and uptime are significantly reduced compared to cable and fiber optic offerings.

Customer Service And Support

When choosing an ISP, it is not so much how often your service fails, but how your provider handles that failure; this is perhaps one of the most important factors when considering an internet service provider. Friendly support and speedy remediation go a long way with anyone who is victim of a service interruption, and no ISP is innocent of these types of occurrences. While some companies offer excellent customer service, some miss the mark on key considerations like convenience, response time and professionalism.

ISP Ratings: You Be The Judge

Whether your ISP is a match made in heaven or a vicious ball-and-chain you can't seem to get away from, Tom's Hardware wants your input. In the survey below, we are asking readers to tell us what you think about the internet service providers in the United States that you have used. We also want to know what considerations are most important to you when choosing a potential provider. Specifically, we would like you to rate the ISPs that you have had direct experience with as a customer and tell us what you like and dislike about them when it comes to reliability, price, performance and customer support. Please fill out the survey separately for each ISP that you would like to rate.

To complement the reader feedback we receive, we will be taking a closer look at several home user plans offered by the major players in the industry. Our plan is to analyze your ratings along with other statistics and data and share our findings with the Tom's Hardware community. We are going to follow up with an assessment of the leading ISPs and depending on the volume and quality of written feedback, we may even use your commentary in our upcoming ISP articles.

We ran a similar survey earlier this year on VPN services. Take a look to see how we used the reader input we received and to get an idea of what level of details we are looking for.

As you can see, we aren't looking for full-fledged reviews, just 1 to 5 star ratings on some of the most important factors and short comments on what you like and dislike about the services. Most importantly, please only rate the ISPs with which you've had direct experience.

We also realize that the list provided in the survey only represents a handful of ISPs available in U.S., so feel free to add the ISP you'd like to review in the "Other" box. Thank you in advance for helping out. You're not just helping us, but inevitably also other Tom's readers.

Derek Forrest is an Associate Contributing writer for Tom's Hardware. Follow him on Twitter.

Follow Tom's Hardware on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

Introduction

Choosing networking gear can be a daunting process. Buying the cheapest product in this market segment is often a lousy idea due to quality issues and poor support, but purchasing the most expensive adapter for no specific reason can be equally foolhardy. Too often, we simply choose a particular brand of networking gear at the onset based on a recommendation or a sale, and simply keep purchasing it.

Product testing of Wi-Fi gear has traditionally focused on only one piece of hardware--the wireless router. While that's the central hub of a home network, it is not the only piece of equipment that should be optimized for the best networking experience. Indeed, in our testing, choosing the best wireless AC USB adapter can be equally important to choosing the right router for your application.

The ideal would be for home users to have access to several brands of equipment and to pick the components that work best after testing them. But the practical reality is that most of us buy parts one at a time as we build our networks out, without access to multiple products simultaneously. This leads to the inevitable read-through of user "product reviews" on various retailer websites. While occasionally informative, and often entertaining, it is too often unclear how a particular product really performs when there are evaluations mostly based on a lack of real data, a majority subjective, leaving the average home user at a loss to choose the best gear in an objective fashion. For a review of the technology behind wireless AC USB adapters, check out our recent USB Wi-Fi 101 article.

MORE: All Networking ContentMORE: Networking in the Forums

Testing Methodology

With that background in mind, we set out to both objectively and subjectively test wireless AC USB adapters. In the scientific method (remember that from your high school science class?) this is known as quantitative and qualitative testing.

The quantitative method focuses on data gleaned from benchmarks. It needs to be generated in a reproducible fashion, under controlled conditions. To that end, Tom's Hardware has invested in setting up a new hardware testing laboratory to generate networking results. In the area of wireless networking, the important metrics include data throughput and signal strength on the two frequencies that are used: the original 2.4GHz that goes all the way back to the 802.11b standard, as well as the 5GHz band first introduced in 802.11a. The 5GHz frequency was mostly used commercially, while more commonly used in households as part of the 802.11n specification, and was pushed to the forefront by 802.11ac.

While not data-based, qualitative observations are also important in choosing the best gear. This subjective evaluation includes the overall design of the adapter, the internal contents of the device, the installation process and the included software. While not quantifiable like a speed metric or signal strength on a chart or graph, these more subjective points are also critical if the adapter comes with unstable software or protrudes too far from the USB port, for example. The affordability factor of these devices is also a consideration, as many users want good value for their money.

With a comprehensive methodology to evaluate wireless AC USB adapters, we selected several major manufacturers and asked them to submit some of their current models. Some of the products we received will be tested in upcoming articles.

Testing Setup

The router chosen for the setup is the Asus RT-AC66U. This is a current router that features:

• Three external antennas
• Broadcom 802.11ac controller
• Gigabit Ethernet ports (1 x WAN, 4 x LAN)
• 256MB of RAM
• AC1750, 2.4GHz at 450 Mb/s and 5GHz at 1.3 Gb/s
• AiRadar- beamforming technology

The goal was to utilize a router that can match or exceed the capabilities of the wireless AC USB adapters tested, and this Asus model has the go-fast top speed. The latest firmware was used to enhance stability and throughput.

We positioned the RT-AC66U on a cart, which remained in the same location throughout testing. Its antennas were positioned with the center one standing vertically and the two on the side pointing 45-degrees out laterally, as recommended in the owner's manual.

When testing wireless networking hardware, a mobile platform is ideal to facilitate variable distances. We picked Sony's SVS13112FXS laptop, which uses an Intel Core i5-3210M processor at 2.5GHz. It's based on the Ivy Bridge architecture and includes HD Graphics 4000. You also get a 13.3-inch display and plenty of battery life, along with 6GB of DDR3-1333. The operating system is Windows 7 64-bit restored to its factory settings.

During testing, the on-board wireless card was disabled in the BIOS, and all other software other than WirelessMon, IxChariot and TightVNC was disabled. This is done to ensure consistent results, as background processes can affect the results as they consume resources.

Perhaps most important, the Sony notebook has three USB ports, two of which transfer at 3.0 rates. It is important to have these AC-class adapters plugged into a USB 3.0 port capable of 5 Gb/s data rates. USB 2.0 with its theoretical maximum of 480 Mb/s would be a likely performance bottleneck, particularly on the 5GHz band.

For signal strength testing, the laptop was held at its measured distance for 20 to 30 seconds to acquire the signal reading in dB (decibels). In order to level the playing field, the wireless AC USB adapters were plugged directly into the USB 3.0 ports for benchmarking (in other words, the docks or USB extension cords that are provided with some models were not used, since they could give some, but not all, products a signal strength advantage. For those adapters that include extendable antennas, they were positioned upright in a vertical position, and not tuned any further. Our goal was to test the adapter, and not the usefulness of the USB extension cable.

Each of the wireless AC USB adapters was benchmarked with its latest software. While these devices ship with drivers on a CD, they're sometimes outdated. To rectify this, we download any bundled drivers or utilities from the manufacturer's website.

The Sony notebook connects to an ASRock Vision X 471D that plays the server role in our testing. This server features a mobile Haswell processor, Intel's Core i7-4712MQ. It was reviewed previously by Tom's Hardware last year. 

Quantitative Testing

Throughput is one of a Wi-Fi adapter's key specifications. Since these are all AC1200-capable models, you might not expect much variation between them.

The router and the overall network topography remained constant throughout testing. Throughput was measured at five, 25, 50 and 75 feet. The distances were determined with a measuring tape. Fifty-foot testing included two intervening walls that were in the way due to the physical setup of the test lab. Line of sight was slightly lost at 50' as we turned a corner to get far enough away from the router. Tests reaching 75 feet go out into an open atrium just outside the suite's entrance. The setup is in the first floor of a commercial building, and the walls are constructed of plaster.

Above is a figure of the office test setup that shows the various distances, and the intervening wall structures at 50 and 75 feet. If 75-foot testing is done, the procedure puts the tested adapter outside of the office. The diagram is not to scale.

A labeled image shows the physical setup of the testing location. Note that the router on the left-hand side is standing at an upright angle.

When a router and adapter are too close together, the Wi-Fi signals can cause interference (as represented in the image above). This is why a router and an access point (AP) should not be set up in close proximity, and not on the same Wi-Fi channel.

In most cases, the speeds close to the router at the five-foot distance were slower than at 25 or 50 feet. This phenomenon can happen when the signals are too strong between the router and the adapter, creating interference as a result of being too close to each other. Simply put, this is one of those cases when a wired connection is preferred over wireless.

A screenshot of the type of data that the popular Web-based Speedtest (www.speedtest.net) generates. While it will provide an indication of the download and upload speed, it measures the Internet connection and not the wireless network speeds.

Measuring the speed of a network connection is a vital part of each adapter's quantitative evaluation. Simply running an Internet speed metric, such as Speedtest.net, will give you the speed of the online network connection, but it's not the right test to use to compare Wi-Fi speeds. Unless you have a gigabit connection (such as Google Fiber), the throughput of a home's internal network will be faster than the Internet, invalidating the use of a Web-based tool for these tests.

A screen capture from Windows 7 showing the network speed estimate over a 5GHz Wi-Fi network; in this case it was 325.0 Mb/s.

There are better ways to approximate wireless network speed. The first is Windows' Network Center, which can provide a rough estimate of the network adapter's connection. It's not an indicator of actual performance though, so it is not the best number to use since it does not get measured directly.

For home users with multiple devices on their network, by transferring a file between two computers within a Windows Home Group, knowing the size of the file and timing the transfer time, speed can be measured and Mb/s derived. One of the devices should be wireless and the other one wired, preferably on a 10/100/1000 Mb/s Ethernet port, to best measure the wireless connection's speed. The limitation of this method is that the transfer is manually timed, introducing an element of inaccuracy (the last time I did this I was using a stopwatch app for my smartphone, practicing starting the transfer and the stopwatch simultaneously, which is difficult to perfect).

This is the raw data that IxChariot generates. Note the throughput at the 50-foot distance on the 5GHz band fluctuated significantly from a minimum of 18.5 to a maximum of 231.8 Mb/s, which, while it averaged out to 116.8 Mb/s, hardly tells the whole story!

Given the limitations of the previously mentioned techniques, a dedicated software solution was chosen: IxChariot.

This software can measure network performance in a reliable and consistent fashion, including TCP throughput. It'll report minimum and maximum speeds, as well as calculate the average. TightVNCViewer, a remote desktop software solution, is used to remotely access our ASRock server in order to log into a desktop session and retrieve the IP address. Then, TightVNCViewer is terminated. When working with IxChariot, we designate the server's IP address as Endpoint 1 and the laptop's IP address as Endpoint 2. We use the High Performance Throughput test to determine speeds that are reported in Mb/s. Throughput tests are run to completion, which means, specifically, the test is run until 100 timing records are finished and the results recorded with screenshots.

A hypothetical bar graph of the speeds obtained (x-axis, expressed in Mb/s) from four wireless AC USB adapters (y-axis). Note that the maximum speeds are in black, the minimum speeds in red and the average speeds in blue. While one product may have lower minimum values, it may not necessarily have lower averages. This same observation also applies to peaks values.

PassMark's WirelessMon is a software package we use to measure signal strength in five-foot increments on the 2.4 and 5GHz bands. The WirelessMon software provides a signal strength reading between the device under test and the router for a given distance. The notebook is held in each spot for 20 to 30 seconds to get this reading. This data set looks at how good the antenna is on the adapter, or if a manufacturer's implementation of beamforming (a Wi-Fi technology designed for directional signal transmission) is working or not, as the distance increases compared to the competition. All of this data gets put into an Excel spreadsheet with relevant notations on how the test went specifically for that USB AC1200 Wi-Fi adapter. With the data collected on each product, all data points are put into a separate Excel spreadsheet for comparative analysis.

A screenshot of the software PassMark's WirelessMon.

A hypothetical plot of four wireless AC USB adapters with the distance from the router expressed in feet (x-axis), and the signal strength in decibels (dB, y-axis). While the red and black lines follow a linear progression, the blue and green plots illustrate how nonlinear signal strength may be.

Qualitative Testing

To further expand our performance data, the devices are set up independently on a Lenovo S400 in a residential home. In this case, the router we're using is a Netis AC1200 with a broadband cable connection. Each of the USB AC1200 Wi-Fi adapters is installed and used separately in a more typical home environment with the usual challenges that home users face: placing the router downstairs and not directly under the adapter, steel ductwork reflecting the signal in the basement and the multitude of competing wireless networks creating interference.

The point was not to redo the numbers from the Tom's Hardware lab testing, but rather to confirm the numbers generated in our office, as well as see how each wireless AC USB adapter performs under typical residential use. For example, does it stream HD video smoothly or with hiccups, does the adapter stay cool or get hot, and is the connection to the Wi-Fi network maintained or dropped? In addition, the stability and usability of the software could be assessed, as well as the out-of-box experience and setup process. Don't think this all goes smoothly in our expert hands; along the way, we lost an adapter for the initial article, as neither the lab nor this writer could get it up and running. Stay tuned, as this will be featured in a subsequent article.

Getting Inside

It is important to see what these wireless AC USB adapters are made of. While the adapters are enclosed in plastic black shells, upon opening them it becomes clear why the better-performing adapters have the higher speeds, and the answer seems dependent on the antenna solution. Getting inside of these adapters was not via some manufacturer-supplied images, but rather through old-fashioned grunt work, with an assortment of tools, including Torx screwdrivers, pliers (both lineman and needle-nose), flat-bladed screwdrivers of assorted sizes and even micro screwdrivers. Some cases came apart easier than others. The Netgear could be reconstructed, but the D-Link was essentially destroyed in the process. Be aware that this adventure can become a one-way trip to breaking the adapter!

Final Thoughts

While this test process was used specifically for wireless AC1200 USB adapters, it can be easily scaled to higher-speed wireless products like AC1750-class adapters as they become available. This will include anticipated wireless improvements like MU-MIMO, which stands for Multi-User Multiple-Input Multiple-Output. It's an update to the 802.11ac standard known as Wave 2, with maximum speeds anticipated of 6.93 Gb/s. MU-MIMO allows multiple users to simultaneously access the same wireless channel by providing spatial degrees of freedom, albeit only in the downstream direction. In addition, the testing suite will also be applicable to WiGig, a future wireless standard that promises high speeds over short distances on the unlicensed 60GHz band.

Helping users choose a wireless AC USB adapter starts with a comprehensive set of benchmarks, accurately measured across multiple distances and on both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies. This is supported by looking at the out-of-box experience, the setup process, the stability and the software. Taking the devices apart provides another level of analysis. This is all done so that when we recommend a wireless AC USB adapter to our readers, we have full confidence that that recommendation will be the best one to suit their needs, while steering them clear of hardware with issues.

MORE: All Networking ContentMORE: Networking in the Forums

Jonas DeMuro is an Associate Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware.

Follow us on Twitter @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Updates: Fixed images and clarified Quantitative Testing procedures.

Comcast has begun the long and slow process of upgrading its copper-based networks to Fiber Optic systems. Although a 2 Gbps connection will be available from this fiber network, Comcast has priced the service, called Gigabit Pro, at $299 per month, making it a completely unrealistic Internet service for the majority of users.

The service is available in select areas in seven states. To be eligible to purchase this service, you must live within one-third of a mile from the established fiber network. According to the terms of service, users who sign up for the service must agree to a minimum two year term agreement. Installation of the service will take 6 to 8 weeks (or more) to complete, with up to a $500 installation fee, in addition to up to a $500 activation fee. Additional equipment, taxes, fees and other extra charges also apply. After the setup, Comcast stated that users are limited to a single outlet, and the actual speed of the service is not guaranteed.

As you can tell by the terms of agreement, Comcast's fiber network is outrageously expensive, and not really a viable option for many. Overall, the price wouldn't be so bad if this was part of a complete bundle of services including TV and telephone, but the Gigabit Pro network is only available in standalone packages. If you want Comcast for your TV and phone service, you will need to purchase the services for additional monthly fees.

Though this is expensive for customers, it seems like it would be great for businesses needing a faster Internet connection, but unfortunately Comcast has limited the service to residential customers only.

Still, despite the cost, Comcast has some strong points to help attract customers. First, it is the fastest Internet available to users, with upload and download speeds of 2 Gbps. Other fiber networks like Google Fiber currently available top out at 1 Gbps, so Comcast has a performance advantage.

Also, thanks to the large size of the company, Comcast has been able to roll out this network to more cities at once.

Comcast will likely have a difficult time selling its service in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Atlanta, Georgia, though. In Chattanooga, a municipal ISP offers fiber Internet at 1 Gbps, a TV package, and phone service all for $132.82 a month. Similarly, in Atlanta, Google is developing a new branch of its Fiber network that offers service similar to that in Chattanooga for $130.

Despite difficulties in these cities, most areas that Comcast is offering this service aren't competing with fiber networks, and thus Comcast is unopposed for this level of service.

It is interesting to see that the timing of this upgrade comes just a few months after the FCC passed new legislation that protects and promotes municipal ISPs. Although there are only a handful of municipal broadband networks in the United States, the much faster Internet speed and lower costs are the envy of many.

If municipal broadband networks keep growing in number, it would seriously undermine the power of larger ISPs such as Comcast, and that's likely what motivated Comcast to develop its fiber network this year. Although the price isn't very competitive, it will still likely slow the growth of municipal networks in the cities it spreads to with its fast 2 Gbps service.

However, this move by Comcast could encourage other ISPs to upgrade their networks and lead to a competitive fiber network.

Follow Michael Justin Allen Sexton @LordLao74. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Introduction

Just as no man is an island, a computer needs to be connected to its network, and in turn the Internet, to be truly useful. While a wired Ethernet cable is preferable for many applications, the reality for many is that Wi-Fi is more convenient.

The wireless network starts with a broadband modem able to communicate with an Internet Service Provider (ISP), which facilitates your access to the Internet. Unless that modem has wireless functionality built-in, it'll probably be attached to a wireless router through an Ethernet cable. Most Wi-Fi-enabled routers also give you a handful (in the neighborhood of four) Ethernet ports for wired devices close by. It's what broadcasts your wireless signal.

In turn, the client devices connecting to the network (say, your workstation, tablet and smartphone) need to have wireless radios integrated and enabled in order to transmit and receive data over the network. If your PC doesn't already have a wireless adapter, you have several options for adding one. Given the ubiquity of USB, many folks find that interface to be the easiest. The attached Wi-Fi adapter allows the computer to communicate wirelessly with the router, and in turn the modem.

Wi-Fi Adapter Categories

There are several different ways that Wi-Fi can be enabled on a computer, and each implementation has its own pros and cons that you should be aware of, including:

• USB: USB Wi-Fi adapters are easy to install. Simply plug one into an available port and download its drivers (if your operating system doesn't already include them). Of course, their external nature means that USB adapters consume at least one port; many are so large that they block others as well. And they stick out, which many enthusiasts disdain enough on their svelte PCs, much less their diminutive notebooks.
• Desktop Motherboard:In some cases, the Wi-Fi adapter is either built into the motherboard itself or integrated as an add-on accessory. While this can be convenient, and does not take up any space you'd want for other peripherals, these adapters are in the middle of a metal case. Most include antennas that require routing outside of your chassis to avoid issues with signal strength and interference.
• Integrated: In some cases, the Wi-Fi is built directly into the device, such as with smartphones and tablets. The advantage of this setup is obviously that you get functionality within a convenient form factor. Unfortunately, that makes upgrades difficult or impossible, limiting your ability to keep pace with wireless standards.
• PCIe: PCIe stands for Peripheral Component Interconnect Express. Compatible cards fit into slots on your PC's motherboard, and require access to the system's internals. They frequently have antennas that protrude out the back of the card in order to maximize range. Notebooks typically have smaller slots on-board that accommodate mini-PCIe wireless cards. Typically, these slots come populated. But standardization makes it possible for an end-user to remove and upgrade to a faster Wi-Fi adapter down the road.

Wi-Fi Standards

802.11ac is the current Wi-Fi standard. It uses both the 2.4GHz band (like 802.11b and 802.11g) and the 5GHz band (like 802.11n). The next standard, 802.11ad, is reportedly due this fall and adds a third frequency to the mix (60GHz) and is designed for high bandwidth over short distances.

With 802.11ac as the current Wi-Fi standard, 802.11n-based gear is quite affordable. Naturally, you'll ask yourself whether you should save some money on that older equipment. While you can certainly get acceptable performance from 802.11n, at this point I'd recommend springing for the more modern standard. Much of the early price premium is gone, and 802.11ac does offer some benefits, detailed below.

Within modern 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi adapters, there are several different speed tiers:

Notice that adding throughput from the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands gives you the equivalent nomenclature. For example, N600 is precisely the sum of 300 and 300. However, the math is not as clean for AC1200 since 300 and 867 give us a sum of 1176. This gets rounded to a nice even AC1200, which is easier to remember.

Wi-Fi 802.11ac

802.11ac introduces other innovations and advancements to Wi-Fi. These include:

• Dedicated 5GHz bandwidth. While the range of 5GHz is typically less than 2.4GHz, the 5GHz band is significantly less congested and faster - two advantages that make it worth using.
• While 802.11n channel bonding maxed out at 40MHz, 802.11ac offers this at 80 and even 160MHz. Recall that bonding is the method by which a single 20MHz channel can be combined with other channels to create a multilane highway to enhance data transmission speeds.
• 802.11n used 64 QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation); 802.11ac increases this to 256 QAM, which is 33% more efficient.
• 802.11n MIMO (multiple in/multiple out) maxed out at four spatial streams, while 802.11ac doubles this to eight, doubling data throughput.

Modern USB Wi-Fi Adapter Examples

Some examples of current USB Wi-Fi adapters include:

An entry-level N150 USB Wi-Fi adapter, which is quite affordable and can be found for around $10. The Trendnet TEW-649UB is an example of this. However, it tops out at 150 Mb/s over 2.4GHz and cannot access the 5GHz band. For basic use and slower Internet connections, you may find this more than adequate, however.

The fastest USB adapters are rated for AC1200 speeds, and they're available from most manufacturers. An example is Netgear's AC1200 WiFi USB 3.0 Adapter (A6210). It features a high-gain antenna that flips up to increase signal strength. It purportedly achieves speeds of 300 Mb/s over 2.4GHz and 900 Mb/s on 5GHz. You'll find it priced around $50.

The D-Link AC1900 Wi-Fi USB adapter is an upcoming product that should enable even greater performance. It is due out this spring, and promises a speedy 600 Mb/s over 2.4GHz and a blistering 1300 Mb/s on the 5GHz band. The D-Link AC1900 Wi-Fi USB adapter expected this spring will feature even faster speeds than what are currently available.

USB 2.0 Versus 3.0

It is no surprise that current 802.11ac adapters utilize USB 3.0. The USB 2.0 standard, so called “Hi Speed,” theoretically maxes out at 480 Mb/s (60 MB/s), and USB 3.0 standard, also known as “Super Speed,” increases that to 5 Gb/s (625 MB/s). Of course, real-world throughput is usually quite a bit lower.

With 802.11ac's peak data rates exceeding what USB 2.0 is capable of over the 2.4GHz and, even more dramatically, the 5GHz frequencies, the use of USB 3.0 becomes mandatory for the necessary throughput.

Anatomy Of A USB Wi-Fi Adapter

A USB Wi-Fi adapter packs a lot of technology into a compact form factor, just take a look at a disassembled example below:

We can see that it has a USB connector, of course, which is soldered onto the green circuit board hosting the necessary electronics. Much of the adapter is covered by that large interference shield. Still, it all fits into the plastic clam shell case that we're accustomed to plugging in to the back of our PCs.

External Versus Internal Antenna

USB Wi-Fi adapters can be categorized based on their antennas, which can be omnidirectional (transmitting and receiving in all directions) or directional (focusing the transmission in only one direction). The strength of an antenna gets expressed in decibels (dB) relative to a standard reference antenna. Because this standard reference antenna is isotropic, that metric gets expressed as dBi, meaning decibels relative to the isotropic antenna. While this spec is not consistently available for USB Wi-Fi adapters, in cases when it is, this allows a more direct comparison of the expected signal strength for the adapter.

One differentiating factor of USB adapters is an external antenna, or a slimmer profile with an internal antenna. Both have their advantages, disadvantages and applications.

In situations where the signal strength is less than optimal, whether due to router location, interfering obstacles like walls and/or floors, and when there are multiple Wi-Fi networks nearby, a USB-based Wi-Fi adapter with an external antenna is preferred. Also, in the situation where a 5GHz signal is chosen for the Wi-Fi connection, but it is not strong, an adapter with an external antenna can make it usable (keeping in mind that 5GHz penetrates obstacles like walls or floors less than 2.4GHz). An adapter with an external antenna that can be adjusted and positioned to optimize signal strength is particularly ideal for these situations.

While an adapter with an external antenna is ideal from the standpoint of signal strength, they also tend to be bulky and protrude from the USB port. While less of an issue with a desktop, this can be a particular problem in a notebook, especially when they can get hit, and the USB port potentially damaged. In situations where the signal strength is strong, a smaller USB Wi-Fi adapter with an internal antenna and slim profile becomes the preferred choice.

In the never-ending quest for tiny electronics, a class of USB Wi-Fi adapters has emerged that can be described as “nano,” with the adapter only slightly larger than the USB port itself. While devices like this can certainly offer performance in a smaller package, keep in mind that a strong signal from a router is necessary for such a device to maintain a fast connection.

Software

A USB Wi-Fi adapter is a computer peripheral, and as such requires a software driver to function. This is why, when you plug the adapter into a USB port, it doesn't always start up automatically.

This can be a frustrating challenge if Wi-Fi is the only available technology for getting your system online. Thankfully, most (but not all) Wi-Fi adapters come with software on a CD. Even this can be a limitation though, as an increasing number of laptops and desktops do not have optical drives. The other issue is that the software on the CD is often not the latest version of the driver. It is best to always check for newer builds on the Wi-Fi adapter manufacturer's website. Consider the version provided in the package only as a starter to get you up and running.

Workarounds for the initial download of the software on a system with no optical drive and no other Internet access include downloading it to another system and copying it to a flash drive, moving the machine in question to a location where it can be plugged into a wired connection or using an external USB optical drive.

Extension Cable

A USB Wi-Fi adapter will only work as well as the signal it receives from the router. With the metal cases that surround most desktops, and the myriad of wires that supply power and data between the devices of a typical desktop, it is quite common for the available USB port that will accommodate the adapter to not be in an optimal location for maximizing signal strength. Add in the additional interference from nearby Wi-Fi networks and, in situations where the router is not in the same room as the computer, some signal strength optimization is often required.

Thankfully, there is a simple fix for this. A short (24” often works well) USB extension cable can allow a rear USB port to be utilized for the Wi-Fi adapter, while allowing the adapter to be positioned far enough away from the case, and in the direction of the router to gain signal strength. Such cables are available inexpensively, and can be indispensable to optimize the location of the antenna in relation to the router. 

What To Look For

Ultimately, several aspects need to be considered when choosing a USB Wi-Fi adapter. The first one is the adapter's maximum data rate. In other words, for the home user of Google Fiber at 1 Gb/s, an AC1200 adapter can be easily justified. But for the user with 10 Mb/s DSL, any N150 USB Wi-Fi adapter will easily outperform the connection. Faster hardware isn't necessary, since it can't be utilized for improving Internet performance. On the other hand, for tech enthusiasts who use their home networks for more than just Web browsing, faster Wi-Fi adapters will accelerate file transfers across the LAN if the other network interfaces are up for the challenge. Look for a USB 3.0 adapter (as opposed to USB 2.0) for its higher transfer rate.

The next aspect is the need for an antenna. Gone are the days of the DIY Pringles cantenna; premade solutions are readily available now. If your USB Wi-Fi adapter is going to be used in the same room as the router, than any compact adapter should have enough signal strength. However, in cases where the USB Wi-Fi adapter is used farther away, especially with walls or floors in between, than an adapter with a high-gain antenna is called for. This needs to be balanced against any physical constraints, particularly when a bulky adapter will compromise a notebook's portability. Also, some adapters come with a dock for ease of placement, which can be useful.

Make sure that your USB Wi-Fi adapter supports all of the 128-bit security standards, including WEP, WPA and WPA2. Also, certain manufacturers provide more complete software packages that are easy to configure. Many manage the Wi-Fi connection, replacing Windows' built-in interface. Look to see if your vendor of choice has released software updates for its previous products as a sign of commitment to long-term support. Finally, look at the warranty period, which can vary from 90 days to the product's lifetime.

Conclusion

The USB Wi-Fi adapter has several advantages, including ease of installation, affordable price points and compliance with the latest standards. These all contribute to making them a popular method to connect a computer wirelessly to the network. Understanding these devices will allow the user to purchase the best solution for their needs.

MORE: Networking in the Forums

Jonas DeMuro is an Associate Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware.

Follow us on Twitter @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

The FCC just passed a vote to change the definition of "broadband" Internet to a download speed of 25Mbps, up from 4Mbps. The baseline upload speed has tripled, from 1Mbps to 3Mbps.

As a result of this change, the U.S. population without broadband Internet speed has also tripled; it's now at 17 percent, or 55 million Americans. A large number of these people are located in rural areas where half of the population lacks high speed Internet.

The change came today after FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler spoke in an FCC meeting. Wheeler was adamant about passing the speed change and expressed a desire for pushing Internet speeds to a new level in order to cope with the increasing demands on networks as Internet usage grows ever more demanding. "What is crystal clear to me is that the broadband speeds of yesteryear are woefully inadequate today and beyond," he said.

Fellow FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel spoke in approval of the broadband increase but felt that stopping with the new 25Mbps download speed wasn't going far enough. "We invented the Internet," she said. "We can do audacious things if we set big goals, and I think our new threshold, frankly, should be 100Mbps. I think anything short of that shortchanges our children, our future, and our new digital economy."

The increase of baseline Internet speeds might come as a shock to some who will now find that they no longer qualify as having "broadband." Although it won't change the performance that users currently experience, this could cause protests against ISPs who previously sold customers a service plan predicated on having "broadband" speeds. If an Internet service contract defines broadband Internet at a speed of under 25Mbps, that's technically no longer broadband.

This should prove beneficial, however, as ISPs who wish to able to market their services as "broadband" will need to increase speeds to the new standard to do so. Some users might even be in for an unexpected speed boost as ISPs make the change to the new speed standard, but this will likely mean an additional charge for anyone not signed up on a contract plan.

"When 80 percent of Americans can access 25[Mbps down]-3[Mbps up], that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent," said Wheeler. The vote for raising the baseline speed passed with a vote of three in favor of the change and two against. Going by the statements of the FCC Commissioners, it is possible that further efforts to motivate ISPs to raise Internet speeds could follow in the near future.

The FCC Commissioners appear to want to raise the United States back to being a leader in global Internet rankings. According to a report from the Internet Society, the United States currently ranks as 18^th in the world for Internet penetration, only scoring a user penetration of 84.2 percent. Worse yet, the U.S. ranks 30^th in average download speed with a rating of 18.47Mbps.

While the new standard will help to improve this score, growing to an average of 25Mbps would still put the United States at 18^th, tied with Belgium. This helps to give some insight into Commissioner Rosenworcel's point of view. Changing broadband to a definition of 100Mbps would position the United States as the fastest Internet network in the world. Hong Kong, which currently ranks first in Internet speed, has an average download speed of 57.07Mbps.

Of course, the changes brought by the FCC can help to push American ISPs, but it does not guarantee that they'll actually increase speeds. Many companies might decide that it is cheaper to strike broadband from their literature and continue to sell Internet at the current rates. Although some users may not make use of the increased bandwidth, boosting some areas to broadband speeds could mandate upgrading the network to be able to handle the increased load, which is something not every ISP will be willing to do. Hopefully, with the new standard in place, most ISPs will elect to increase speed without requiring further incentives.

You can see the FCC's interactive broadband deployment map here.

Updated Jan 29, 2:20pm to include note about FCC's broadband deployment map and associated image.

Updated Jan 29, 6:45pm to include a link to the broadcast of the FCC's meeting, which you can access here.

Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Super Wi-Fi. The words sound pretty great together, don't they? Like a deity. Omnipotent. So powerful. So many possibilities.

Two scientists from KIT (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) in Germany have proposed a creation of just that, a Super Wi-Fi, from terrestrial broadcasting. Arnd Weber and Jens Elsner, authors of the article Beachfront Commons, propose to use bands below 2 GHz for free communication, instead of licensing them to large companies.

UHF bands originally used for television are being used less and less. In 2008, the FCC auctioned licenses to use portions of the 700 MHz band, which is the spectrum just above the remaining TV broadcast channels. According to a 2012 New York Times Article, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint said they required more radio spectrums, citing necessity due to growing demand, and they sought FCC approval to buy more at auction. The frequencies they hope to buy are 470-698 MHz.

A helpful comparison, which the American public has already seen in headlines this year, would be the issues surrounding cable companies and net neutrality. Currently, cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner more or less have monopolies over certain geographical regions, allowing them to increase the price of Internet with little or no competition.

Telecommunications companies are courting the FCC in a similar fashion, likely in hopes of monopolizing the mobile broadband market to increase profits. It is possible that if telecommunications expanded networks and perhaps concentrated signals better, then mobile networks would be improved. But in Beachfront Commons, Weber argued that giving a small amount of UHF to individuals instead will cause innovation.

Weber and Elsner touched on the fact that certain technologies, which have been in competition with each other in past decades, have become "disruptors" together. This includes smartphones, which have brought WiFi and SMS together, whereas the technologies formerly competed. These disruptors have only been possible because of competition; and Weber asked if more future possible disruptions would contribute to a further reduction in the cost of communications, or to the development of new devices and markets?

As an ideal, competition and disruptors sound fantastic for the market, especially for the consumer. But questions lie in the logistics of high UHF bands hosting wireless communications, rather than one-way broadcasting. Typically, scholars suggest that spectrum commons can be used where congestion of the spectrum is unlikely to occur, as in short-range communications.

Weber and Elsner argue that opening up the spectrum could lead to higher speeds and better, perhaps larger, mesh networks. Techniques can also be used to deal with the open spectrum, among them being Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and Beamforming, or what Weber refers to as "politeness protocols."

Weber said, "A tele[communications company] could argue we price spectrum such that users willing to pay always get some [access to wireless communication]. We argue, okay, with commons one may only get a little [access], but often one gets a lot, and always for free."

But the very idea of radio frequencies and limited spectrum may be a falsehood entirely.

David P. Reed is an American computer scientist most famous for co-authoring the paper about the "end-to-end principle," which in essence created the foundation for the Internet. The end-to-end principle stipulates that in node communication, any "function" (for example, a checksum that checks data errors in a file transfer) should be added at each end host (destination), rather than in the intermediary nodes between the two hosts. This concept actually has been used to argue for net neutrality, because of its use of "dumb" networks. (The original paper is here.)

Reed added an interesting twist to the spectrum argument. He argued that it's a falsehood that a frequency band can only be used by one system at a time.

"The problem with this…falsehood is that frequency bands are, from an engineering point of view, far from the best way to share the electromagnetic field we use for communications -- so inefficient, in fact, that they create a worsening 'scarcity' that need not exist at all," he said.

According to Reed, the idea that there are limited radio frequencies is much like saying that there is limited color in the color spectrum. There are infinite frequencies -- much in the way that there are infinite shades of the color blue -- and they do not interfere; they pass through each other. Bad communication using radio and television frequencies is an issue of devices, not of scarce spectrum space.

Indeed, consumers have seen that upgrading wireless devices improves communication. Weber and Elsner touched on this idea of necessary innovation in Beachfront Commons, but Reed took the idea a step further and proposed that the entire use of spectrum needs to be scrapped.

"'Super WiFi' is interesting in a certain way, but it's been a bit overhyped, and it does not address the long term challenges of an ever-increasing need for wireless internetworking," Reed said. "…The era of sitting down at a laptop, plugging into the wall or a fixed hotspot, is an idea that has been fading for a decade now. 'Super WiFi' is addressing a problem that is not the problem now, and certainly will be less of a problem in the future."

Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.