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

201–210 of 296 posts

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

#201

Post by toast0 »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #159
walrus01 wrote: post #117

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…

In addition to what everyone else is saying, even if you allocate the spectrum for upstream and downstream, downstream can be run with more data efficiency because the multiplexing is handled in one place, whereas upstream is multiplex among many modems and you can't get them as tightly synchronized. When I was looking at GPON, it would typically run at half the bitrate upstream vs downstream to make upstream multiplexing more doable.

I dunno about static vs dynamic ip. In ye olde days, there was a real capacity savings with dynamic, but I don't know very many people who don't have a 24/7 device leasing an IP anyway. It's certainly a way to get a little more revenue though.

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

#202

Post by Kadin »

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.

I'd pay $200/mo for that if it didn't come with a transfer cap.

That's the problem with making bandwidth the only metric that we grade broadband connections on. You end up with "Gigabit" connections that you can only use at that speed very occasionally, because otherwise you'll hit a monthly transfer cap. (E.g. Cox's "Gigablast" service, which pairs a 1Gb connection with a transfer cap worth about 20 minutes per month at gigabit speeds.)

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

#203

Post by evandijk70 »

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…

Fiber was installed here, and they provide three tiers - 50Mb/s, 100 Mb/s and 1000 Mb/s, for 45, 50, and 55 euro each. We took the 100Mb/s.

I have no idea what I would use 1 Gb/s for, using it as definition for broadband would be premature. Than again, Bill Gates said that: '640 kB RAM ought to be enough for anybody'.

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

#204

Post by toast0 »

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…

> 100Mbps symmetrical is just on the edge of what telcos can jam into dsl over their existing install base.

I'm not sure that's going to cover much of their base. I've got a pretty good line, I could probably hit 100M down, it's around 90M now, but not more than 40 or 50M up, it's capped at 16M though, cause fixed profiles :/

Elsewhere near me, there's like a chance of 10M. New technology isn't going to help that, unless it's fiber to the curb; but you might as well go the rest of the way to the premises if you can.

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

#205

Post by Kadin »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #147
philjohn wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the key - capitalism only works when there is viable competition, otherwise it's just a monopoly. They got around this in the UK by splitting the monopoly (well, except for Kingston upon hull) into BT and OpenReach. OpenReach provides the infrastructure, and are bound by government regulation to provide open access to last mile infrastructure for a fixed fee per product - this allows a load of ISP's to offer…

That's how DSL was supposed to work in the US. The telcos sabotaged it by not maintaining their copper lines and forced the independent ISPs out of business.

Not really; they just lobbied the Bush II Administration into crippling the Clinton-era rules that required them to allow competitive DSL providers.

The requirement was called "Local Loop Unbundling" and it required the RBOCs (legacy local telcos, from when the Bell System was broken up) to lease "dry pairs" to various competitive DSL providers at reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates. And for a few years it worked! The dialup ISPs started to move into DSL services and it looked like we would have real competition (admittedly DSL, but this looked decent enough at the time).

But they lobbied the shit out of Congress and got LLU killed in the early 00s.

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

#206

Post by Casteil »

p1necone wrote: post #187

There's a lot of comments on this thread pointing out typical bandwidth usage of popular streaming services, games etc and claiming that there's no need for higher bandwidth connections. There's an important point that I think people are missing, which is that the bandwidth usage of internet services is going to be carefully tuned to balance quality and stability at typical internet speeds. When a large portion of co…

>There's an important point that I think people are missing, which is that the bandwidth usage of internet services is going to be carefully tuned to balance quality and stability at typical internet speeds.

...or the fact that there can be and often are more than one person in a single household.

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

#207

Post by NavinF »

namecheapTA wrote: post #98

I got tired of my previous internet provider. I noticed Xfinity wifi was available at my house. I signed up. They asked me to either rent a router or bring my own and do self install. I have done neither. I use the Xfinity wifi. For over a year now. No complaints. Wiring every house in a dense area seems weird when you can just go wireless.

That just means you have very low standards. Wi-Fi is half duplex and the latency spikes are ridiculous.

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

#208

Post by [deleted] »

mulmen wrote: post #123
jfoutz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

somewhat cynical, but I think effective. Look into wireless internet service provider gear and mesh networks. It won't be faster than Comcast. 50Mbit maybe. Make flyers and talk to your neighbors. Call around and ask about pricing for fiber backhauls. Of course you don't want to run your own ISP. But, you could. It's not really that hard. Your neighbors could chip in for gear and be part owners. or a co-op or whateve…

What a nightmare. What if we had to do this for everything. Hey everyone hook up to my rainwater collector. Don’t forget to refuel the generator. Sorry it’s so loud. Keep digging, we have to put the trash somewhere! The Internet is a utility.

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by jbay808 »

p1necone wrote: post #187

There's a lot of comments on this thread pointing out typical bandwidth usage of popular streaming services, games etc and claiming that there's no need for higher bandwidth connections. There's an important point that I think people are missing, which is that the bandwidth usage of internet services is going to be carefully tuned to balance quality and stability at typical internet speeds. When a large portion of co…

> Streaming services generally avoid producing content that doesn't play well with their video compression

And yet, Netflix still produced Dark...

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

#210

Post by tadfisher »

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.

Pole ownership isn't a clear cut thing, and cities are cagey around erecting new poles. So using existing poles requires paying someone money, or is impossible due to local telecom monopolies. Either way, microtrenching is very cheap and attractive, though it has maintenance issues in areas with large climate swings.
Post reply on HN