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

191–200 of 296 posts

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

#191

Post by inferiorhuman »

rayiner wrote: post #173
bad416f1f5a2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do you have to trench? Have you ever seen Tokyo? Outside some very high density areas, all the fiber is on poles.

Depends on the city I'm sure. If a city's already invested in undergrounding utilities there may not be any other option.

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

#192

Post by mikeyouse »

_huayra_ wrote: post #188
zbrozek wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my house, thanks to Los Altos Hills Community Fiber. It's in the US. https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/b6f39b75-d71a-4d89-b0f5-9...

Damn you've got 2 orders of magnitude on me with my bare-bones Comcast plan! What's this run you per month?

Los Altos Hills is one of the wealthiest zip codes in the country, filled with tech millionaires and billionaires.. whatever the price may be, it’s heavily subsidized by extremely rich people who became wealthy due to tech companies wanting it in the first place. On Zillow, the cheapest house there is $4M and will likely be purchased to be torn down, the most expensive property is $40M and looks like a boutique hotel. Not really fair to compare them to the normal town.

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

#195

Post by josh2600 »

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…

This.

I am insanely embarrassed by the third world telecom infrastructure many Americans have to live with.

100Mbps symmetrical is just on the edge of what telcos can jam into dsl over their existing install base. The goal of the telco is to keep the FCC speed goal at copper limits for as long as possible to avoid paying the fiber they were paid to build in the 90’s.

Om Malik wrote a fantastic book entitled: “Broadbandits” which covers the $750B telecom heist (way back 30 years ago when a single billion was a lot of money for a business).

https://www.amazon.com/Broadbandits-Inside-Billion-Telecom-H...

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

#196

Post by SamReidHughes »

josh2600 wrote: post #195
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…

This. I am insanely embarrassed by the third world telecom infrastructure many Americans have to live with. 100Mbps symmetrical is just on the edge of what telcos can jam into dsl over their existing install base. The goal of the telco is to keep the FCC speed goal at copper limits for as long as possible to avoid paying the fiber they were paid to build in the 90’s. Om Malik wrote a fantastic book entitled: “Broadba…

Who paid them to build fiber and under what contract?

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

#197

Post by xmprt »

cbozeman wrote: post #178
pottertheotter wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would gladly pay $200 a month for that.

Just curious but how would you use 10GB up/down for personal purposes?

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

#198

Post by bigyikes »

cbozeman wrote: post #178
pottertheotter wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would gladly pay $200 a month for that.

Serious question: what do you want that much bandwidth for? I could upgrade from 100Mb/s to 1Gb/s but I haven’t because honestly can’t think of a use case for myself.

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

#199

Post by josh2600 »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #196
josh2600 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I am insanely embarrassed by the third world telecom infrastructure many Americans have to live with. 100Mbps symmetrical is just on the edge of what telcos can jam into dsl over their existing install base. The goal of the telco is to keep the FCC speed goal at copper limits for as long as possible to avoid paying the fiber they were paid to build in the 90’s. Om Malik wrote a fantastic book entitled: “Broadba…

Who paid them to build fiber and under what contract?

Telecom act of 1996 paid them to build fiber but they set the speed limits low enough that they could satisfy it with DSL.

There’s new DSL tech that’s ~100mbps, so this is that technique again.

The fatal flaw in 1996, like today, is not pushing for gigabit, and is one of the major reasons the US is a declining global power. Faster internet access is core infrastructure for participation in the 21st century.

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

#200

Post by toast0 »

rayiner wrote: post #155
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…

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.

> 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?

Google couldn't figure out how to get on poles. When they announced their batch of 20? or so real Google fiber cities, AT&T rolled out fiber to a good number of them before Google got city council approval to do anything. Comcast announced a loss leader 2Gbps symmetric for $300/month program [1], etc. It's not too hard to roll out fiber if you've got access to the poles and enough clout to put your fiber boxes wherever you need to. (sure, you gotta pay the property owner a little bit, but not it's not too bad)

[1] IIRC, it was always delivered as 10G metro ethernet, originally limited to 2G, but I think they increased that over time (I thought I had seen 6, but you're reporting 7). You've got to be close enough to their existing fiber that they're not losing too much on the buildout with their $1000 installation fee cap.

Post reply on HN