Live data from Hacker News

England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

theverge.com

241–250 of 340 posts

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#241

I think this comes across as shocking to Americans but the thing is the rest of the world treats internet as a utility so most governments try to get cheap and fast internet for as large a portion of the population as possible. Where as US cities and towns are stuck under its isp corporate monopolies.

Sometimes.

I live in a small, sleepy, insignificant town in the Netherlands. Usually in these kind of places, there's an attempt to arrive at a democratic decision regarding the installation of fibre to the home in a collective way.

This almost always fails. The people already have broadband by means of cable internet which is pretty fast over here. There isn't really any normie application that requires fibre, which leaves only one immediate benefit: competition. The cable internet providers are region locked and monopolistic. They'll even spam your mail box with propaganda suggesting you don't need fibre.

Anyway, our municipality took a rare stance: you may not think you need it, but we're going to do it anyway. But...what about that odd farmer living 1 mile from everybody else? Makes no economic sense? Yes, him too. Everyone. By principle.

But you'll need to open the streets? Yes, and we will. And here's the schedule by the day about which street opens when. The schedule was met. In the course of 2 months, an entire ring of small towns got fibre to the home. This includes opening up people's drive way and other custom arrangements.

So now in the middle of nowhere we have fibre, and we can pick from 3 providers on this single cable. A rare case of long term government smarts, and competent execution.

Then again, this example is far from universal.

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#242
If legislation is going to get involved, wouldn't better mobile coverage at faster speeds be the thing to go for? Wouldn't that have broader impact?

I'm not saying the last mile doesn't count. Only that given the choice it feels like they went for the fax machine.

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#243
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mandating infra that will never be used and isn't needed.

Well that might be an assumption that it will never be used. Maybe if people had it they would use it? But also I'm interested in if/whether this builds infrastructure resilience as well. Would be interesting to see a well-thought cost/benefit analysis there. In America at least given that every ISP without exception is a giant piece of crap, mandating them to do things I'm going to generally approve of, especially i…

You say you prefer steak to cabbage, but maybe if you had more cabbage you would eat it? Therefore I think we should mandate 50% of your food purchases should be cabbage.

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#244
post #135
post #90

Some color about buying home internet in London vs San Francisco (in my experience). I recently moved back from London to San Francisco. In my 3 years in central London (N1) I had to use a 5g hotspot (thank you, Vodafone unlimited) to get anything close to fast internet in my flat. If I went with a wired "broadband" connection I could not get more than 10Mbps down. The street next to mine had gigabit fiber though. Th…

They need to reword the law to keep up with Moore's Law, so that if you built a home in 2023 you'd be required to have 1 gigabit, in 2024 you'd be required to have 1.2 gigabit, in 2025 you'd be required to have 1.44 gigabit, etc. The moment internet connections don't keep up with Moore's Law, the real estate typhoons would then have no choice but to fund bandwidth-related R&D to get internet connections back on track…

Moore's law has never applied to network capacity.

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which just goes to show that they are not truly using fiber. which is my point. if you're using fiber, it is designed to be bi-directional full duplex or whatever to call it technically. if you are offering a true fiber connection with asymmetric speeds, then you are doing something artificial to it. if you are actually using coax cable, then it's 100% artificial since it's supposed to be fiber. so what are you imply…

Why do you think it's supposed to be fiber? I've never once seen comcast or any other cable internet provider claim they're fiber.

oh i don't know. somewhere in the multiple responses in this subject got to talking about fiber, so that's what this is in my head. re-reading, i see the title as they are only requiring gigabit speed, not what medium is sent.

fuck'em anyways!!! their all shit companies and deserved to be yelled at for something they're not doing to make up for all of the yelling they are not getting for something else they are doing. /s

but seriously, fuck'em

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Comcast now offers vastly higher upload speeds (10mbps -> 100mbps) I mean, yeah, I guess normally a 10x increase is deemed a good thing and could be considered "vastly higher". Who wouldn't be impressed with a 10x bump in pay? However, 100mbps is still tragically low. Having anything less than full bandwidth up/down on a fiber line is just cheating the user artificially. Being fiber, I could see offering a cheaper m…

Why is 100mbps tragically low? That would be enough for all but a vanishingly small minority of consumers, surely.

because that's no where near gigabit. and what large majority of users do is that really the metric we're going for here?

also, when's the last time you transferred a large amount of data over that slow of a connection? i don't care! I do it every day, and i'm all that matters!!! /s

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#247
post #200
post #90

Some color about buying home internet in London vs San Francisco (in my experience). I recently moved back from London to San Francisco. In my 3 years in central London (N1) I had to use a 5g hotspot (thank you, Vodafone unlimited) to get anything close to fast internet in my flat. If I went with a wired "broadband" connection I could not get more than 10Mbps down. The street next to mine had gigabit fiber though. Th…

Bay Area residents should really consider Sonic as their internet provider. I have gigabit speed, fiber direct to my unit, and a bill lower than Comcast's, with no data cap

Sonic only works some places, specifically where there are overhead power lines they can use to route the cables.

There used to be some discussion about "microtrenching" so they could cost-effectively bury fiber throughout the city but the Board of Supervisors shut that down pretty definitively (or rather: made requirements that made it too expensive for sonic).

So Sonic is really good where you can get it, but you can't get it in much of the city. You also have to be careful, because Sonic has two types of offering: fiber (good) and reselling at&t dsl (pretty bad). Only get them if you get the actual fiber!

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#248
post #90

Some color about buying home internet in London vs San Francisco (in my experience). I recently moved back from London to San Francisco. In my 3 years in central London (N1) I had to use a 5g hotspot (thank you, Vodafone unlimited) to get anything close to fast internet in my flat. If I went with a wired "broadband" connection I could not get more than 10Mbps down. The street next to mine had gigabit fiber though. Th…

There's a pretty big difference between "can't get above 10 Mbps down", which is pretty bad and "can't get above 10 Mbps up), which is not nearly as bad. Most people's internet usage is highly download-heavy!

Pre-video conferencing there wasn't a whole lot that would use upload at all (outside of niche use cases like torrenting). Hard to blame the cable companies for prioritizing download bandwidth. I lived through covid on a normal cable plan of 200/10 and never ran into major issues.

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that all over your state? There are places in California, including parts of Silicon Valley, where you can get 10 Gbps fiber Internet service for $40/month.

FiOS is almost everywhere in the state. Comcast 6 gig fiber is anywhere within 1,760 feet of a fiber node that has overhead (rather than buried) utilities.

Similarly, AT&T and Comcast are almost everywhere in California with at least 1 Gbps service for $70. Places with fiber laid by Sonic have 10 Gbps at $40/month. I checked a random address in Redwood City, where Xcelerate was from, and found that Comcast offers 6 Gbps service there too for the same price you get it, as well as AT&T fiber.

Re: England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think it's supposed to be fiber? I've never once seen comcast or any other cable internet provider claim they're fiber.

oh i don't know. somewhere in the multiple responses in this subject got to talking about fiber, so that's what this is in my head. re-reading, i see the title as they are only requiring gigabit speed, not what medium is sent. fuck'em anyways!!! their all shit companies and deserved to be yelled at for something they're not doing to make up for all of the yelling they are not getting for something else they are doing…

Hey remember when Google delivered kick ass fiber service all over their own back yard in Silicon Valley to show Comcast and Verizon how it should be done?
Post reply on HN