Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

England just made gigabit internet a legal requirement for new homes

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 340 posts

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

#311

Post by sidewndr46 »

komadori wrote: post #193
sidewndr46 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What possible steps would a developer take to "make-ready" for 1 gigabit internet? Does the front door need to open and shut faster? Are the toilets going to have 4k flushing? I'm struggling to figure out how a developer could impede internet access if they actually wanted to.

"such as ducts, chambers and termination points"* This sort of thing is much cheaper to put in when you're building the street/house than after the fact. * https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/01/new-uk-laws-bo...

But how would they know what to add before service is brought to the residence? Maybe it is different, but even on new construction where I live the way service comes in is very simple: a technician takes a large drill and blindly drills through the outer wall of the house to bring a cable in. At that point the install is complete. In fact, even if you have existing cabling they generally will elect not to use it unless you make a point of requesting it.

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

#312

Post by ericmay »

dahfizz wrote: post #256
ericmay wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe if we mandated that everyone buy a hula hoop, people would find creative uses for them. That's not a great way to steer public policy.

Sure but that's also a bad way of thinking about it, because hula hoops aren't useful infrastructure

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

#313

Post by donatj »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #262
donatj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find a 1Gbps plan with a 500GB data cap hilarious This is how I ended up paying the extra $20 a month for unlimited data. I had 1TB cap on a 1Gbps connection. My wifes friend who was unemployed and staying us would put Netflix shows on for ambiance all day as she wandered about the house (not even watching it!) - streaming 4k Netflix ate up serious data pretty quickly and I got quite a few overage charges. It's j…

What a waste. Did you mention it to her? Why not just put the radio on or at least don’t stream in 4k. I wonder how many are like her, just leaving it on all day for ambience and what the carbon footprint is.

Honestly, she was on really hard times already and I didn’t want to make it worse.

I looked for options within the app to disable 4K but couldn’t find anything, I ended up lowering my Netflix subscription to not include 4K but that didn’t kick in until the following month.

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

#314

Post by komadori »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #311
komadori wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"such as ducts, chambers and termination points"* This sort of thing is much cheaper to put in when you're building the street/house than after the fact. * https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/01/new-uk-laws-bo...

But how would they know what to add before service is brought to the residence? Maybe it is different, but even on new construction where I live the way service comes in is very simple: a technician takes a large drill and blindly drills through the outer wall of the house to bring a cable in. At that point the install is complete. In fact, even if you have existing cabling they generally will elect not to use it unl…

Sure, they're probably not going to lay any actual cable, but there's a lot of infrastructure needed to bring the cable from the head-end to the exterior wall of your house and some of that can be laid in advance.

Ideally, if you're building a new housing development, you can relatively inexpensively put in:

* Ducts to carry the cables under streets and driveways.

* Pavement cabinets for junction boxes, distribution equipment, and optical splitters.

This becomes much more expensive if you have to dig up the streets later.

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

#315

Post by vel0city »

wwweston wrote: post #212
vel0city wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast often isn't FTTP, its is usually coax to the home. There are some services they do with FTTP, such as their 2Gbit service, but most installs are coax.

Speaking of coax -- does anyone know if there's a way to hang multiple wireless access points off of coax run through the home, or would one have to get multiple modems to make this work? I've run into a couple of housing situations for myself and family where wifi does not covers the whole household well (combo of wall composition and local interference). In these conditions repeaters sometimes don't help as much as…

If you don't need the coax anymore, you really might just think about using the coax runs to pull some CAT6 through the walls. Same goes with the telephone wiring.

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

#316

Post by whimsicalism »

ericmay wrote: post #312
dahfizz wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if we mandated that everyone buy a hula hoop, people would find creative uses for them. That's not a great way to steer public policy.

Sure but that's also a bad way of thinking about it, because hula hoops aren't useful infrastructure

Maybe if everyone had hula hoops people would figure out ways of making it useful infrastructure? Like attachments that turn them into umbrellas

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

#317

Post by pb7 »

jacquesm wrote: post #272
drstewart wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Maybe it'll spur you on to do something about the other low quality comments that are flooding HN. He's doing just that. You could have engaged the counterparty, you could have ignored it or you could have just downvoted it and moved on, instead you chose to lower the level purposefully, that is the problem that you perceive as 'the quality of HN comments has gone down dramatically'. If you let yourself be provoked…

A blatantly false flamebait comment that started this whole thing is still standing so no, he is not doing just that, and the community supports misinformation as long as it makes them feel good.

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

#318

Post by dang »

drstewart wrote: post #267
dang wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what's going on with your account, but you've unfortunately been posting a ton of flamewar comments lately, and breaking the site guidelines badly in other ways as well. If this keeps up, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to ban you, so would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and go back to using the site as intended?

[flagged]

I didn't even see that comment. We don't see everything that gets posted to HN (not even close) and often don't read the threads in linear order. If there's a comment that ought to be moderated but hasn't been, that's the likeliest explanation, and you can help by letting us know about it—by flagging it and/or (in egregious cases) emailing hn@ycombinator.com.

It isn't against the rules to be wrong. When someone else is wrong, and you know something, the thing to do is to respectfully show how they are wrong by sharing some of what you know. Then you can contribute to improving the threads instead of degrading them.

I wasn't responding to your point about how different countries treat the internet, though; I was responding to the fact that you've been breaking the site guidelines a lot lately. This, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34265230. That's obviously not cool, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.

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

#319

Post by dang »

pb7 wrote: post #317
jacquesm wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe it'll spur you on to do something about the other low quality comments that are flooding HN. He's doing just that. You could have engaged the counterparty, you could have ignored it or you could have just downvoted it and moved on, instead you chose to lower the level purposefully, that is the problem that you perceive as 'the quality of HN comments has gone down dramatically'. If you let yourself be provoked…

A blatantly false flamebait comment that started this whole thing is still standing so no, he is not doing just that, and the community supports misinformation as long as it makes them feel good.

I don't know what "misinformation" means; people use that as a fraught pejorative these days. If you mean another comment was wrong, that's unsurprising; nearly everyone is wrong about nearly everything. As I said to drstewart, the thing to do in that case is to respectfully explain how another comment is wrong. Then we all learn something, and the person who is (by hypothesis) right doesn't make the mistake of discrediting the truth with extraneous attacks or insults (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

We can't have a rule against being wrong. That would combine several impossible things before breakfast, such as (1) making discussion impossible and (2) requiring us to have a truth meter (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), which we don't.

Your sentence "the community supports" doesn't work here because there is no singular community in this respect; there's just a statistical cloud of different users (including you!) who support a plethora of conflicting things.

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

#320

Post by pleb_nz »

habosa wrote: 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…

How long ago are you talking?
Post reply on HN