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

51–60 of 296 posts

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

#51

Post by viraptor »

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…

For one person, I completely agree. But if you have two remote workers on a conference and a kid doing something else at the same time, 20mbps is not going to be comfortable anymore. (Yes, it's probably still usable with degraded quality.)

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

#52

Post by hedora »

Presumably, they'll be measuring by taking the minimum available speed (up or down) over 5 minute windows, on a quarterly basis, and disqualifying anyone with > 1 second latencies for one of those windows, right?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Politicians gotta politic, I guess.

Edit: At least I'll have decent speeds at 4:38AM now...

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

#53

Post by Wowfunhappy »

vitus wrote: post #46
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).

In the unlikely scenario where all four children are simultaneously using the internet full-throttle, they're still each getting 5 Mbps down, which Netflix says is sufficient for 1080p video. Upload speeds could start to be a problem though, and IMO that's a much more significant issue.

> 20Mbps is also entirely noticeable for bulk downloads

It is, but downloading Steam games quickly is not a critical need. It can be done in the background.

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

#54

Post by xboxnolifes »

eertami wrote: post #43
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.

You have access to residential internet with 10Gbps up and down? I didn't even know that was a thing.

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

#55

Post by Stratoscope »

gnicholas wrote: post #42
metadat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Atherton Fiber is a local institution, a true old-school ISP in the finest tradition, but with modern technology.

I live very close to their service area in Lindenwood, and I remember walking down Ringwood a few years ago when they were stringing fiber on the poles and I stopped and asked them, "Hey! I live just a few blocks over that way. You must have a few hundred extra feet of fiber you could sneak over to me?"

They knew I was kidding, but seemed like nice people.

Hang in there, my friend, someone will get you fibered up soon.

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

#56

Post by viraptor »

vitus wrote: post #46
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).

Tbf, the updates can just take longer to download. Higher speed does not enable them as such, which is what the op asked. Similar for steam - spending extra hour for a download ahead of time is... fine for me.

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

#57

Post by dubswithus »

rascul wrote: post #29
superkuh wrote: post #26

The problem, in the USA for most people, is Comcast. Downspeed hardly matters. It's been plenty for decades. Upload speed has stagnated. I uploaded as fast in 2003 as I do now in 2022. And as others have said, it's not so much about 1 fast provider as many providers and choice. In my comcast monopoly my plan started at $60/mo in 2011 and without any changes on my end and no change in my upload speed that price has in…

> Downspeed hardly matters. It's been plenty for decades. Until the power company ran fiber earlier this year, the only wired option here was 3Mbps DSL from AT&T. AT&T buried fiber all over the area (including in front of my house) years ago, but it sits there unused.

My parents live 4 miles from the nearest city in a rural area. Someone paid for a fiber line and my parents got a free install because it crossed the property. Before this they were using a microwave antenna and getting 10 megabit.

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

#58

Post by _Algernon_ »

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…

In a modern household you may have multiple people on the same connection. Two people streaming Netflix at 4k from the same household would not work in your example of "sufficient" 25mbit/s speeds.

Additionally, higher speed provides opportunities which lower speeds don't (e.g. building a live streaming business) which you otherwise don't have.

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

#59

Post by Wowfunhappy »

godelski wrote: post #48
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…

> This is a modern equivalent of "640K of memory should be enough for anyone."

If you have a 4 bit CPU, it probably is enough memory for anyone!

I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. Download bandwidth is fine; stability, latency, and to some extent upload bandwidth are not. I think a forum of tech literate people should understand the importance of optimizing for the right thing.

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

#60

Post by _Algernon_ »

viraptor wrote: post #56
vitus wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Tbf, the updates can just take longer to download. Higher speed does not enable them as such, which is what the op asked. Similar for steam - spending extra hour for a download ahead of time is... fine for me.

Great that it's fine for you. Is the fact that you enjoy waiting for downloads a reason to push the same suffering on others?
Post reply on HN