Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 296 posts

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#41

Post by gnicholas »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #8
gnicholas wrote: post #4

I'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.

Yeah we have MVNOs that do this for mobile. But it can't currently compete with wired internet on price, and we apparently don't require it for cable internet.

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#42

Post by gnicholas »

metadat wrote: post #5
gnicholas wrote: post #4

I'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…

I'm far-west, which isn't served by ATT. There actually is an upstart in the area, Atherton Fiber. [1] But they don't serve my area either.

1: https://almanacnews.com/news/2022/07/05/new-internet-provide...

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#43

Post by eertami »

pdx6 wrote: post #24

With how slowly these proposals roll out, 100/20 won't be enough. As others said, there is a lack of both competition and pricing to worry about too. In a major tech hub like San Francisco, where I live, it's possible to get 1gb/1gb in some areas for under $90, but which those are isn't consistent nor wide spread. Home cell coverage at 100/20 is spotty at best, and there is only one flat rate vendor (T-Mobile Home, n…

> In a major tech hub like San Francisco, where I live, it's possible to get 1gb/1gb in some areas for under $90

As a point of comparison, I live in a small city in Europe (80k population) and we have 10gb/10gb for $60/month. My internal network is only capable of 2.5gbit, but I can upload at that speed indefinitely. I could honestly not imagine going back to ADSL speeds.

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#44

Post by Wowfunhappy »

What resources does a 100 Mbps connection give access to that a 25 Mbps connection does not?

You don't need 100 Mbps to access educational content. Khan Academy looks fine in 1080p. And even if it didn't, Netflix says their 4K streams only need 15 Mbps.

You don't need 100 Mbps to be a remote knowledge worker. Video calls need a stable connection with low latency—I wish more people used ethernet—but that connection does not need to be particularly fast. An upload speed of a few megabits is sufficient.

You also don't need 100 Mbps to apply for jobs, read the news, chat with friends, or participate in the political process. Any noticeable improvements in page load times above 25 Mbps will be marginal at best. It's fun to hate on how bloated modern websites are, but the situation isn't anywhere near that dire.

I'd posit that if a non-technical person with a 20+ Mbps connection thinks their internet is too slow, they probably aren't actually getting 20 Mbps, most likely because of spotty wifi. And if they really are getting 20 Mpbs, they're probably reacting to latency rather than bandwidth.

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#45

Post by tzs »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #37

So, in areas where a provider only offers 20 or 50... will they just stop serving that area until it's financially worthwhile to upgrade that equipment?

No. The minimums set by the FCC are just the minimums for the service to count as broadband. There's no requirement that a given internet service actually is broadband internet service. The worst that would happen to the provider is that they might not be eligible for some government programs that promote broadband.

The law requires the FCC to regularly check on the availability of broadband in the US and to determine if it is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. If they determine it is not they are required to take action to accelerate deployment by doing such things as removing barriers to infrastructure investments and promoting competition.

To do that they need to define broadband.

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#46

Post by vitus »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #44

What resources does a 100 Mbps connection give access to that a 25 Mbps connection does not? You don't need 100 Mbps to access educational content. Khan Academy looks fine in 1080p. And even if it didn't, Netflix says their 4K streams only need 15 Mbps. You don't need 100 Mbps to be a remote knowledge worker. Video calls need a stable connection with low latency—I wish more people used ethernet—but that connection do…

What if you have a family with four kids, all of whom need to engage in remote learning on occasion?

20Mbps is also entirely noticeable for bulk downloads, whether it's a Steam download or a Windows update. By going from 20 -> 100 Mbps, you save nearly an hour on a 10GB download (1h6m -> 13m).

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#47

Post by zuminator »

giantg2 wrote: post #13

No. This is insanity. Faster speed will mean that providers will charge more. I am perfectly fine with 25 Mbps. I was fine with 10 Mbps too until they eliminated that level and I was forced to pay more. Edit: why disagree?

This is not forcing providers into faster speeds. It's forcing them to stop marketing crawling speeds as "broadband." Of course if they are competing for contracts for deploying internet, they will have to meet the higher standard if "broadband" is specified in the contract.

Additionally, it's far from a foregone conclusion that "faster speeds will mean that providers will charge more." I've been paying roughly the same amount for the past 20 years starting from DSL speeds all the way up to 1Gbps. There were some years that my speed doubled but the bill was lowered.

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#48

Post by godelski »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #44

What resources does a 100 Mbps connection give access to that a 25 Mbps connection does not? You don't need 100 Mbps to access educational content. Khan Academy looks fine in 1080p. And even if it didn't, Netflix says their 4K streams only need 15 Mbps. You don't need 100 Mbps to be a remote knowledge worker. Video calls need a stable connection with low latency—I wish more people used ethernet—but that connection do…

I don't understand how this is the top comment here. This is a modern equivalent of "640K of memory should be enough for anyone." You're also making your assumptions off of a single device on the network. I don't even know a home that has only one connected device at any given time. It also doesn't consider things like how speed can help an unstable connection as a high speed but with moderate variance can beat out a low speed that is stable. There's just so many factors at play that are ignored here that this comment is odd to be placed so high in a forum of tech literate people.

Edit: okay, not top comment anymore.

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#49

Post by sneak »

gnicholas wrote: post #4

I'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…

> and Comcast is the only option.

This is by design. Utility service regulation in the US is famously corrupt.

The system is working exactly as intended.

Internet access should now be close to too cheap to meter, yet it is a nice cash cow that can be milked, so the regulators have an arrangement with the highest bidder.

The US does not have the rule of law.

Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

#50

Post by devwastaken »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #44

What resources does a 100 Mbps connection give access to that a 25 Mbps connection does not? You don't need 100 Mbps to access educational content. Khan Academy looks fine in 1080p. And even if it didn't, Netflix says their 4K streams only need 15 Mbps. You don't need 100 Mbps to be a remote knowledge worker. Video calls need a stable connection with low latency—I wish more people used ethernet—but that connection do…

ISP's already have the ability to switch everyone to 100mbps. It's a simple remote config switch. They don't, because they are milking money. They are all publicly funded through city contracts and federal subsidies.

I can imagine very easily why 25mbps isn't enough - people have families. No, you cannot actually do business or school work when media content is now the vast majority of consumed bandwidth.

Also don't advocate against yourself. Your city boards have already been doing that for decades by giving exclusive access to specific ISP's and making the public pay for it.

Post reply on HN