FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps

Post by dntrkv » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 4:23 AM UTC

_lqaf wrote: post #121

koala_man wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My internet in the Silicon Valley today is worse than I had in Europe 10 years ago. It's pretty disillusioning.

Hah, my internet in San Francisco is worse that it was... in San Francisco in the 90s. My symmetric DSL then was faster than downstream-DOCSIS is now. I also have to keep a backup line, because Comcast here (SOMA) goes out about every other month, and I work from home. So I pay another $35 for MonkeyBrains, which is much slower, but more than nothing when Comcast is dead. To paraphrase Gandhi, I think American capita…

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

bad416f1f5a2 wrote: post #161

rayiner wrote: post #155

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…

Post by zxcvbn4038 » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 4:37 AM UTC

Stratoscope wrote: post #167

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #159

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…

Post by travbrack » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 4:45 AM UTC

standardUser wrote: post #176

I pay $40 for a Verizon FIOS connection. It's marketed as 300Mbps but my speed test just now showed 120Mbps. But it also consistently exceeds 100Mbps on the upstream. It's easily the best home internet connection I've had since the university dorms in the late 90's. They also offer 1Gbps for $70, which is tempting but really unnecessary for my needs. I don't understand why I'm getting such an amazing deal! It's a fix…

Post by fragmede » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 4:51 AM UTC

_fjb4 wrote: post #133

danachow wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're on 400Mbps, and even then I manage to block internet for others when I download a large file at full speed. That's more of a router/QoS issue. A large download shouldn't negatively affect quality for other uses, especially VoIP. If the place you're downloading from has a pipe bigger than yours and can saturate your bandwidth you're going to need to implement some kind of rate-limiting/queue management.

I've seen a lot of people complaining that their 100M+ connections are "slow" for that reason, and they upgrade to 1G and they complain again. It's not like they're doing much on that 1G line either, just say a Steam game download at full speed followed with a stuttering Zoom call. You'll be surprised how far you can push a 10M DSL connection with good QOS (assuming you don't have multiple users streaming video and s…