Live data from Hacker News

FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

fcc.gov

161–170 of 296 posts

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

#161
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…

Why is broadband so shitty in the heart of Silicon Valley? Why doesn’t Google just wire the whole place up as a tech demo? Comcast just upgraded my fiber to 7 gbps. It’s spendy ($300/mo) but I also have gigabit Fios available for $80/mo.

Google wired my city up as a tech demo. Their microtrenching approach was atrocious and resulted in frequent service interruptions and significant traffic disruption as they patched the same spots multiple times.

Eventually they decided the network was so damaged that they’d have to do a total rebuild, and that wasn’t interesting. They threw up their hands up and left, giving the city a few million to clean up the mess.

So, careful what you wish for.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is broadband so shitty in the heart of Silicon Valley? Why doesn’t Google just wire the whole place up as a tech demo? Comcast just upgraded my fiber to 7 gbps. It’s spendy ($300/mo) but I also have gigabit Fios available for $80/mo.

Google wired my city up as a tech demo. Their microtrenching approach was atrocious and resulted in frequent service interruptions and significant traffic disruption as they patched the same spots multiple times. Eventually they decided the network was so damaged that they’d have to do a total rebuild, and that wasn’t interesting. They threw up their hands up and left, giving the city a few million to clean up the me…

It worked in SLC. Maybe they dug deeper trenches?

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But bandwidth does matter when you have multiple devices. On a typical day it is not uncommon for multiple video calls to be going on at the same time in my apt. My roommate and I used to schedule our meetings around one another so that we could have a call with our respective advisors that wasn't choppy. We'd also make sure not to be streaming video at these times either. Bandwidth is 100% part of the problem. Now I…

> On a typical day it is not uncommon for multiple video calls to be going on at the same time in my apt. My roommate and I used to schedule our meetings around one another so that we could have a call with our respective advisors that wasn't choppy. We'd also make sure not to be streaming video at these times either. Bandwidth is 100% part of the problem. I don't know your situation, but fwiw, if a friend was having…

Yeah, that's not what was happening. It was bandwidth issues over peak usage times. You could run speedtests (to the router) and find this out very quickly. I know you want to assert your original answer as still being correct. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that there are other important variables here that you are just throwing out. Anyone that has done debugging with network issues knows that there's a thousand things that can go wrong. Yes, there's common problems, but there's a lot of breaking points. Certain ones became more common during the pandemic as we stressed networks in different ways than most people were doing previously.

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

#164
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

TBF I'm in a SF suburb and I get 10Gb/s down and 2Gb/s up for $40/month.

What? Where can you get that?

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

#165
1Gbps/100mbps should be the standard. Prices have risen for two decades but speed not so much.

America is falling behind, and broadband speeds (and access issues) are at least a contributing factor.

We have certainly paid enough to telecoms, and community telecom after community telecom provide similar speeds.

The main reason it hasn’t been done is the milking of the copper line infrastructure — and the government handouts — by just a few large isps.

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

#166
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A lot of Utah (areas that have UTOPIA Fiber) has had it since 2018. It’s still $200+ a month though.

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

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not just Comcast but everything of its ilk, and by that I mean Charter (Spectrum/former Time Warner Cable), RCN/Grande/Astound and similar giant size coax based DOCSIS3 operators. In Canada, Shaw and Rogers. They are absolutely determined to squeeze every last dollar of ROI out of that existing coax cable plant by doing asymmetric RF channels for downstream/upstream. And not overbuilding themselves wit…

I always thought the upstream speed was an artificial limitation so they could upsell "business internet" to people who wanted to host servers - and that they doubled down by reassigning your IP periodically if they saw a lot of incoming connections on layer 4. I did try hosting a server on my comcast cable internet for a while and the IP which I had for seven years prior did start changing every day - sometimes more…

> I always thought the upstream speed was an artificial limitation so they could upsell "business internet"...

No, really not that at all. As noted in a few comments here, they rolled out their local infrastructure in the era of "on demand TV", when it made sense for both the cable operators and their customers to prioritize download spectrum over upload. And that meant installing expensive analog filters all up and down their lines.

I bet they would love to offer symmetric service, but at the relatively low frequencies that coax cable operates compared with optical fiber, and the cost of replacing all those filters, there is only so much they can squeeze out of it.

I guess you could call this The First Mover Disadvantage.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBF I'm in a SF suburb and I get 10Gb/s down and 2Gb/s up for $40/month.

What? Where can you get that?

Sounds like Sonic. They're building out fiber in various zip codes around the SF Bay Area.

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

#169
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certainly a lot of problems with incumbent ISPs that many other commenters have pointed out: deceptive marketing practices, anti-competitive behavior (ranging from lobby-driven legislation to lock out new entrants, to outright sabotage / destruction of cables), wildly asymmetric up/down speeds driven by economies of scale from 20 years ago, just to name a few. Yes, even 4k video streaming at 20 Mbps is viab…

> But that doesn't mean that there aren't common use cases that benefit significantly from adding more bandwidth, nor does it mean that adding more upstream capacity is useless in the context of these other factors. I agree! I just don't think it's what we should be pushing for right now. > Also, let's be realistic: most regulators don't have anywhere close to the level of technical expertise that you'd expect from,…

> I agree! I just don't think it's what we should be pushing for right now.

While I agree that it's not the only problem at hand (and perhaps not the single most useful change the FCC could make), I think any movement is better than none. If nothing else, the WFH / distance learning situation brought about by the pandemic demonstrated that the current standard for upload speeds is entirely inadequate (and so the proposal increases that from 3 Mbps to 20).

It's also possible that these government agencies are nervous about trying entirely new things, lest the current Supreme Court swat down any such efforts as perceived overreach (as they've done recently to the EPA).

> I think regulators should have a very strong understanding of what they're regulating, or should talk to people who do.

Should != do

It certainly would be nice, but in the last 20 years, the only FCC chairs with relevant prior industry experience were Ajit Pai (Verizon counsel) and Tom Wheeler (CEO of CTIA).

As far as talking to people with experience, guess who's most likely to make sure they're represented at the table? That's right, the incumbent ISPs and their lobbyists.

> To me, this is a bit like saying we should still be measuring all CPUs according to clock-speed, because it's easier for a layperson to understand a single number. (And make no mistake, clock-speed is important!)

Well, we sort of still are, except that one number is Geekbench or whichever other benchmark is popular these days. (Okay, there's also single-threaded vs multi-threaded perf, but there's a strong correlation between the two for consumer-grade CPUs.)

(and I'd expect that your typical consumer doesn't really care much about the CPU details in large part because performance is so opaque now. They probably just buy something with an i7 or the latest generation Macbook and call it a day.)

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought the upstream speed was an artificial limitation so they could upsell "business internet" to people who wanted to host servers - and that they doubled down by reassigning your IP periodically if they saw a lot of incoming connections on layer 4. I did try hosting a server on my comcast cable internet for a while and the IP which I had for seven years prior did start changing every day - sometimes more…

> I always thought the upstream speed was an artificial limitation so they could upsell "business internet"... No, really not that at all. As noted in a few comments here, they rolled out their local infrastructure in the era of "on demand TV", when it made sense for both the cable operators and their customers to prioritize download spectrum over upload. And that meant installing expensive analog filters all up and…

At this point they've gotten plenty of money from those filters, and they should be replacing them instead of doing their best to pretend upload doesn't exist.

It's a disadvantage vs. somehow knowing the future, but in the absence of future-knowing I bet they still made more money by deploying earlier.

First mover tradeoffs.

Post reply on HN