FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
1–10 of 296 posts
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#2100/20 is definitely an improvement, and is probably a reasonable minimum bar to set. I'm sure most of us have much higher speed connections, but I know I rarely take my 1Gb pipe over 10% of that... Heck, 2 TVs streaming 4k during a zoom call would be fine on 100Mb...
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#3100/20 is definitely an improvement, and is probably a reasonable minimum bar to set. I'm sure most of us have much higher speed connections, but I know I rarely take my 1Gb pipe over 10% of that... Heck, 2 TVs streaming 4k during a zoom call would be fine on 100Mb...
plus some content providers limit the bandwith for individual connections
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#4I'd rather have two providers that offers 25Mbps than one that offers 100Mbps. I don't need 100, or even 50. But Comcast has been jacking up their prices, along with increasing the minimum speed available, for years. They respond to government regulations like these. I'm now paying 2x what I used to (from $25 to $50/mo), and getting 2x the speed. But I don't want to be forced to buy 2x the speed (or even faster, as this proposal would require).
I would much rather have the govt provide incentives for there to be more than one provider. I live in the heart of SV (Menlo Park), and Comcast is the only option. 5G is not well-served where I live, and the pricing is also not competitive. We need more competition, not more redefinition of "broadband".
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#5I'd rather have two providers that offers 25Mbps than one that offers 100Mbps. I don't need 100, or even 50. But Comcast has been jacking up their prices, along with increasing the minimum speed available, for years. They respond to government regulations like these. I'm now paying 2x what I used to (from $25 to $50/mo), and getting 2x the speed. But I don't want to be forced to buy 2x the speed (or even faster, as t…
You might be eligible for ATT [gigabit] fiber? Could be worth a shot. (Unless you're in far-east Menlo)
IME the fiber service is faster more reliable than Comcast, but AT&T support is the absolute worst, super incompetent (across the entire company, not just U-verse internet).
It's fine as long as you don't need any support and don't try to deactivate anything, but if your account gets messed up it can literally take a dozen calls and 20+ hours of being on the phone to get seemingly simple issues resolved.
The Comcast ATT duopoly is pretty atrocious. Given the regulatory climate, how can a new player even succesfully enter into the market?
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#6I'd rather have two providers that offers 25Mbps than one that offers 100Mbps. I don't need 100, or even 50. But Comcast has been jacking up their prices, along with increasing the minimum speed available, for years. They respond to government regulations like these. I'm now paying 2x what I used to (from $25 to $50/mo), and getting 2x the speed. But I don't want to be forced to buy 2x the speed (or even faster, as t…
Bear in mind that connection speed sold “up to xx mbps” is largely irrelevant to the actual cost of service. It’s just the sales model that most ISPs have adopted over the last few decades when bandwidth really was constrained. Comcast’s costs are its people, truck rolls, equipment and infrastructure outlay, and advertising.
Convincing or requiring you to pay double for 2x the speed is just the way they can increase cash flow.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#7The amount of bandwidth you need depends on the number of people. 50Mb or 25Mb is probably fine for 1 person. As long as it can do 4k, and zoom calls, it's fine for most people.
100Mb might not be enough for six people, who might need to download, zoom, game, and stream all at once.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#8I'd rather have two providers that offers 25Mbps than one that offers 100Mbps. I don't need 100, or even 50. But Comcast has been jacking up their prices, along with increasing the minimum speed available, for years. They respond to government regulations like these. I'm now paying 2x what I used to (from $25 to $50/mo), and getting 2x the speed. But I don't want to be forced to buy 2x the speed (or even faster, as t…
> I would much rather have the govt provide incentives for there to be more than one provider.
In the UK, ISPs are forced to lease their last-mile lines to anyone who wants to provide internet service. This results in a decent amount of competition.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#9What's the point? It's not even possible for me to get what's currently defined as broadband where I live. Changing some definitions isn't going to give me faster internet.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#10What's the point? It's not even possible for me to get what's currently defined as broadband where I live. Changing some definitions isn't going to give me faster internet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the term "broadband" is connected to things like subsidies (i.e. giving an ISP $x if they can provide y people with broadband) intended to increase internet connectivity in poor or remote areas. Increasing the definition also means that ISPs can no longer cheap out and pocket the subsidies.