I haven't read this whole thing yet but there should also be a limit on latency. All the viasat services have stupid high latency. Starlink is so much better, also cheaper.
FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
221–230 of 296 posts
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#222With 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…
I live in Kazakhstan and am paying just a little over $10 a month for a 500 Mbit/s symmetrical FTTH link (no caps either). It's even faster and cheaper in Russia (at least it has been until now, I don't know how long it's going to be true since they're sanctioned to the moon). Both countries pretty much have (their own) monopolistic internet providers, and yet. Why do Americans tolerate this bullshit?
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#223Earlier 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…
While there is plenty of things that can be blamed on cable providers, the allocation is asymmetric RF channels it's not something that they decide to do specifically to mess up with clients but actually part of DOCSIS standard that is made by CableLabs (yea.. with input from cable companies, yet...) . A lot of todays restriction are derived from dark ages when cable was tv and not internet. IIRC till DOCSIS 3.1 (or…
> IIRC till DOCSIS 3.1 (or 3.0?) data downstream was actually framed inside mpeg segments (or something like this) .
Please tell me that's not true. That would either be the worst possible network hack imaginable or comically impressive, maybe it's both.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#224Earlier 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…
I live in Kazakhstan and am paying just a little over $10 a month for a 500 Mbit/s symmetrical FTTH link (no caps either). It's even faster and cheaper in Russia (at least it has been until now, I don't know how long it's going to be true since they're sanctioned to the moon). Both countries pretty much have (their own) monopolistic internet providers, and yet. Why do Americans tolerate this bullshit?
Heh, I guess one thing Borat did learn was how poor US telecom infra is. /s
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I upgraded to 1Gbps a while back, mostly because the price was the same. Also though I don’t really need it. Then I realised I can now download AAA steam games in the time it takes to make a cup of tea. No need for a separate storage drive anymore.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
This was super noticeable for a few years whenever I went back home to visit my parents. I would struggle to load basically anything on my laptop most evenings due to the 5 mpbs or so being split between 3+ devices (although the weak signal in most rooms due to the poor placement of the router that they were not interested in moving somewhere more central didn't help either). Eventually when the pandemic hit and my f…
i can provably determine whenever someone in my household is using youtube. We have "fixed wireless" as primary internet access right now, and the upstream is measurably between 300 and 800 kilobits. However, the "router" assumes perfect connection (which i am guessing is somewhere around 5mbit) so any sort of QOS is out the window. And it's behind CGNAT, so i'm getting a class C on a class A private network, and all gaming stuff that doesn't like NAT to begin with balks. I've worked around that (check my github or whatever), but the fact remains, without literal triple-NAT my household can't actually use the internet as it exists, even with potentially 40mbit downstream speeds.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#227IMO, the FCC should: 1. make payments to local governments in exchange for monopoly access, illegal. 2. strike down laws that prohibit local governments from providing internet service. 3. stop forcing these speed minimums that also come with price minimums not everyone wants.
The FCC doesn't have the power to do this, and these are likely unconstitutional.
> these are likely unconstitutional.
If these are considered to be the correct way forward, the constitution needs to be amended then. When it was written Internet didn't really exist, so it would make sense there aren't many provisions covering it.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there is plenty of things that can be blamed on cable providers, the allocation is asymmetric RF channels it's not something that they decide to do specifically to mess up with clients but actually part of DOCSIS standard that is made by CableLabs (yea.. with input from cable companies, yet...) . A lot of todays restriction are derived from dark ages when cable was tv and not internet. IIRC till DOCSIS 3.1 (or…
> IIRC till DOCSIS 3.1 (or 3.0?) data downstream was actually framed inside mpeg segments (or something like this) . Please tell me that's not true. That would either be the worst possible network hack imaginable or comically impressive, maybe it's both.
It’s true, DOCSIS 3.0 and earlier (which is still commonly used for customers with <1Gbps DL) sends packets within MPEG frames.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#229Earlier 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…
One trick for better AT&T support here on the Peninsula may be to sign up through Sonic instead of directly with AT&T. In some areas like SF, Sonic runs their own fiber, in others they are an AT&T reseller - with the wrinkle that Sonic handles all support with their own local staff. I have been told that they have better insight and connections into the internal AT&T systems than AT&T's own support team. I haven't ha…
Like the other person who replied: hard disagree.
When I first tried to get Sonic ADSL in San Francisco there was a multiplexer on the line (no 56k, no DSL). Lots and lots and lots of calls with Sonic later and they threw their hands up and told me to deal with AT&T myself. In the end what worked was going into the PacBell/SBC/AT&T direct support forum on dslreports.com and having one of those techs prod the bitchy bell into disconnecting the multiplexer. Nothing I've seen since then suggests that Sonic has any more sway over AT&T these days. In fact if you get the resold AT&T service from Sonic you still have to rent the AT&T dongle and use the AT&T DNS servers.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US did that. But only with copper. And so the telcos just ripped out all the copper. There's not too much left.
What is your definition of copper? Almost everywhere I’ve ever lived, the only broadband internet available was provided using coax cable.
POTS. ILECS were required for a while (still are?) to sell access to their central office DSLAMs. For a hot moment in the early 00s there was a fair bit of competition for DSL service (at least in the Bay Area).
If memory serves – as technology moved on to higher speed DSL that worked over shorter distances (and required more RTs as a result) legislation stayed the same. Essentially the only things that ILECS were required to provide access to were outdated products that nobody wants. Sonic finally shut down their resold AT&T ADSL (G.DMT) service this year in large part because it was so unpopular. They still offer ADSL2/VDSL2 service out of their own DSLAMs as well as fiber and resold AT&T whatever (not sure how that came about).