FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#11

Post by cortesoft » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #9

rhino369 wrote: post #7

43% with less than two choices for 25mbit is more concerning. 25mbit is around what you'd need for a family of four without being bandwidth crunched all the time.

A bit more than that, but not much more. I changed from 50Mb/s to 1000Mb/s service a few months ago; latency is much the same, which means that when the pipe is not crowded, I really can't tell the difference. (But it's wonderful headroom for large file transfers.)

Well, latency is never going to change, no matter what plan you use. You can't really sell a faster speed of light....

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#12

Post by randallsquared » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #10

rayiner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of my county doesn’t even have water and sewer pipes. People just spend the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars needed to build septic systems and wells and accept that is the trade off for living in the country.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Wells and septic systems are so common that I would struggle to believe they're a "trade off". Where I grew up (on well water and a septic tank), people couldn't believe that city folk pay for their water, and what's more, that they pay to have it go down the drain! A septic tank costs ~$5k and will last for 40 years. Over the lifetime of a septic tank, my city water bill will have…

A septic tank also costs acreage that city homes do not typically have available for less than $24,000.

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#13

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #11

dsr_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit more than that, but not much more. I changed from 50Mb/s to 1000Mb/s service a few months ago; latency is much the same, which means that when the pipe is not crowded, I really can't tell the difference. (But it's wonderful headroom for large file transfers.)

Well, latency is never going to change, no matter what plan you use. You can't really sell a faster speed of light....

[deleted]

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#14

Post by wiredfool » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #10

rayiner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of my county doesn’t even have water and sewer pipes. People just spend the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars needed to build septic systems and wells and accept that is the trade off for living in the country.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Wells and septic systems are so common that I would struggle to believe they're a "trade off". Where I grew up (on well water and a septic tank), people couldn't believe that city folk pay for their water, and what's more, that they pay to have it go down the drain! A septic tank costs ~$5k and will last for 40 years. Over the lifetime of a septic tank, my city water bill will have…

Yes, and occasionally, you might have to get a guy with a backhoe to come out and do some work. That's $1000. That's assuming that you don't need a new line, which would take a perc test and a new permit. All the while the guy with the backhoe is looking at your system and wondering how it ever worked or got signed off in the first place.

It's several hundred to get it pumped every couple of years, I think I'm remembering in the range of $600 and just shy of 3 years between pumpings.

Then the well needs power, and someone needs to do the generator in a power outage, or you get to chip in for a spiffy one with an autostart, and the only time the well head ever acts up is on national holidays when if you can get someone out, it's 3x overtime.

You know, I kind of like city water now.

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#15

Post by freehunter » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:53 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #12

freehunter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Wells and septic systems are so common that I would struggle to believe they're a "trade off". Where I grew up (on well water and a septic tank), people couldn't believe that city folk pay for their water, and what's more, that they pay to have it go down the drain! A septic tank costs ~$5k and will last for 40 years. Over the lifetime of a septic tank, my city water bill will have…

A septic tank also costs acreage that city homes do not typically have available for less than $24,000.

Which is why cities have city water systems, yeah, but anywhere outside of the city, septic and wells just makes more sense.

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#16

Post by mnm1 » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:54 PM UTC

This reminds me of the former Romanian dictator's comment that his people simply just did not need color tv. I didn't think I'd ever see that kind of stupidity from the US Congress and regulators. Busting up monopolies is clearly no longer in fashion.

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#17

Post by undersuit » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:58 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #11

dsr_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit more than that, but not much more. I changed from 50Mb/s to 1000Mb/s service a few months ago; latency is much the same, which means that when the pipe is not crowded, I really can't tell the difference. (But it's wonderful headroom for large file transfers.)

Well, latency is never going to change, no matter what plan you use. You can't really sell a faster speed of light....

Latency can definitely improve from where we are at. The speed of light is different through different materials, that's why some people are using hollow fiber optic cables to have lower latency connections. Laying a more direct line would also improve latency, my connections to Seattle backtrack about a hundred miles east before heading out west again according to traces. Faster routing hardware would shave off a few milliseconds. Economic factors hold back latency improvements for the majority of internet users, not hard physical limits.

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#18

Post by inetknght » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 10:00 PM UTC

thekingshorses wrote: post #4

I pay $75 for 7/0.768Mbps and $220 for 50/10Mbps for 2 business lines. My only option is Spectrum cable. They are offering 100Mbps fiber for $770/month if sign up for 5 years contract.

$770/mo for 5 years contract? I assume that's on your business lines and has a service level agreement with it?

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#19

Post by SteveNuts » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #11

dsr_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit more than that, but not much more. I changed from 50Mb/s to 1000Mb/s service a few months ago; latency is much the same, which means that when the pipe is not crowded, I really can't tell the difference. (But it's wonderful headroom for large file transfers.)

Well, latency is never going to change, no matter what plan you use. You can't really sell a faster speed of light....

Speed of light isn't the only factor in latency. Quality of the equipment, routing protocols, etc are far more important since those are the things we can actually change.

Re: FCC report finds almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds

#20

Post by freehunter » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 10:09 PM UTC

wiredfool wrote: post #14

freehunter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Wells and septic systems are so common that I would struggle to believe they're a "trade off". Where I grew up (on well water and a septic tank), people couldn't believe that city folk pay for their water, and what's more, that they pay to have it go down the drain! A septic tank costs ~$5k and will last for 40 years. Over the lifetime of a septic tank, my city water bill will have…

Yes, and occasionally, you might have to get a guy with a backhoe to come out and do some work. That's $1000. That's assuming that you don't need a new line, which would take a perc test and a new permit. All the while the guy with the backhoe is looking at your system and wondering how it ever worked or got signed off in the first place. It's several hundred to get it pumped every couple of years, I think I'm rememb…

You say that like city water never needs maintenance. My neighbor had roots growing into his pipes from a tree on city property, but since the pipes were on private property he had to have them replaced on his own dime, and also fix the flooding in the house from the backed-up sewer line.

I'm not arguing that septic tanks are better, and I apologize that many people reading my comment seem to think I am. What I'm arguing is that septic tanks are not uncommon. On the contrary, basically everyone outside of city limits is using one.