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

321–330 of 340 posts

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

#321

Post by avianlyric »

cassianoleal wrote: post #282
avianlyric wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t bother. Their IPv6 setup is notoriously broken. They have a number of IPv6 misconfiguration in their core switches which makes using IPv6 with your own hardware almost impossible. Unfortunately it seems they’ve also let go of all their good network admin. It used to be possible to find someone at Hyperoptic capable of investigating and fixing these issues, but no more.

I've been using their IPv6 for years on my Turris Omnia (TurrisOS is based on OpenWRT and also open source) plugged directly to their switch. Everything works via DHCPv6 and RA. I get a /56 PD that I can use for my LAN subnets as I wish. The IPv6 Internet is fast and stable.

I also used their IPv6 setup for years. But then it got broken after they did maintenance, and I’ve never been able to get it fixed.

I’ve talked to insiders about this stuff, and there’s a number of known long running misconfigurations issues. Which unfortunately I’ve probably been hit with. I’ve also been told the odds of it getting fix via support is zero at this point.

In my case their switches refuse to assign an IP to any of my gear. My config hasn’t changed, and I’ve done some pretty in depth debugging. TL;DR I need to spoof some non-compliant with my gear to get their gear to play ball. I’ve zero interest in playing that game, I need IPv6 to be rock solid reliable, or it’s just not worth the effort.

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

#322

Post by ericmay »

whimsicalism wrote: post #316
ericmay wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No we wouldn't so that's a bad idea.

I get where you and others are trying to go with this, but it's just not a good argument and it doesn't translate at all into discussions about public policy. A more appropriate argument would be showing that it wouldn't be worth the cost or potential upside versus awful analogies.

For example, you can talk in abstract about infrastructure resilience for example with decentralized networks or enabling internet services via fast connections. You can't make such an argument about hula hoops. Unfortunately this "I hate everything and everything sucks" mentality is becoming more prevalent.

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

#323

Post by pb7 »

dang wrote: post #319
pb7 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discr…

>I don't know what "misinformation" means

Misinformation means false or inaccurate information.

>Your sentence "the community supports" doesn't work here because there is no singular community in this respect

If a comment is downvoted or flagged, it is not supported. If a comment is not downvoted or flagged, it is either supported or neutral (if it hasn’t been seen). If counterarguments to the comment are downvoted or flagged, that’s a solid signal that the original comment is supported (since it was seen) and the response was not supported.

There’s not enough time in the world to explain why every trivially posted comment is wrong. If I constantly posted comments to the effect of “there are no hospitals in Southeast Asia because it’s such a poor region”, how is that valuable? How does that help the community? Why should anyone bother to constantly correct me? And most importantly, if I’m a casual reader, I might take that as truth and that’s how misinformation spreads. I don’t mean “misinformation” in any political sense which is the trendy way to use it, but rather in a clickbait/flamebait sense that makes a populace dumber. Something that sounds plausible and since someone states it so authoritatively on a site that one might think has some credibility, so it must be true. It’s exhausting to constantly have to verify whether something is true because there’s no community punishment for intentionally saying something not true.

>We can't have a rule against being wrong.

You don’t need a rule against being wrong but you don’t need to shut down people that point it out. Nothing here except the original comment was flamebait. I know this because it was the only comment that triggered a cascade of negative comments.

Did you flag drstewart's comment explaining his point? I presume, because there's no vouch link. If so, why? If you didn't, why is that comment worthy of being flagged but not the original comment? Clearly the community has opinions on comments and misinformation is low on the totem pole of concerns. Hence "the community supports misinformation as long as it makes them feel good" -- it feels good to shit on countries you don't like and it feels good to shut down people that tried to go against the flow, all while the original comment that was wrong and incited this unsavory discussion is still standing.

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

#324

Post by shmerl »

aembleton wrote: post #288
shmerl wrote: post #118

Good. They should also require fiber optics when cables are used.

Why? Surely data rates, latency and jitter are all that matter. Does it really matter what technology is used?

Because they'll excuse running DSL with something otherwise.

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

#325

Post by Sebb767 »

skybrian wrote: post #145
dheera wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But why? How many videos are you going to watch at the same time?

> But why? How many web sites are you going to open at once?

You in 2010 about 10 Mbit/s, probably.

Okay, with less snark, having the capacity just opens up so much more opportunities. Imagine live streaming VR, hosting a video conferencing server, working with remote drives etc.. It really makes no sense to limit our data connections by current use cases, when current use cases are limited by our current data connections. Especially since there is no technical reason to do so.

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

#326

Post by hgomersall »

lhnz wrote: post #307
hgomersall wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but around me, house demand hugely outstrips supply, so everyone buys at the limit of what they can afford. For sure, proper dumps that need significant renovation go for less, but they are super rare. Everything else goes for a price set by the size of the home and increasingly, the size of garden. New builds command a slight premium, but that's mostly a marketing premium, which doesn't hold for resale. It's…

Not to argue, but rather to add my experience as it is fairly unique, I did a renovation to a property that cost a low six-figure amount of money (£). Few have done this so whenever this conversation happens everybody talks about house prices as if there is nothing driving them other than "planning permission is an expensive, time-costly and risky endeavour" -- that's not all as the cost of doing building work is ver…

We went through a similarly priced renovation. We had a different objective to many doing similar to us, which was to improve the energy efficiency of the house. It was interesting to see how incompetent the tradespeople were when the requirements deviated slightly from the norm. We had the usual shenanigans of course: the electricians gave us a bill that included a huge amount for materials, so we asked for a breakdown and found that they'd charged for hundreds of meters of cable that I could prove were not installed (impedance measurements gave me a good upper bound on the total installed length). I simply refused to pay more than a nominal amount until I was given an accurate bill with evidence, which never came (I suspect it wasn't malicious, it was just each electrician buying a reel of cable and chucking the remainder in their van for future use).

I also got into quite a heated argument with a plumber about static vs dynamic pressure and flow rates (it turns out fluid dynamics is not really part of a plumber's training).

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

#327

Post by wwweston »

vel0city wrote: post #315
wwweston wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a good thought, and I guess I could even use it as pull for both replacement coax and CAT6, while I'm at it. But probably beyond what the owner would like me doing in rental situations, and maybe more work than I'd like in the remaining ones if I can even start to approach gigabit order-of-magnitude over coax alone.

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

#328

Post by wwweston »

cibyr wrote: post #224
wwweston wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds like you're looking for some MoCA ( https://hackaday.com/2022/11/03/moca-networking-is-a-niche-s... ) WiFi access points (or just plug some MoCA Ethernet bridges into regular WiFi APs).

Thanks for introducing me to MoCA! Gigabit magnitude networking over coax that can coexist with DOCSIS sounds exactly like what I'm looking for.

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

#329

Post by dang »

pb7 wrote: post #323
dang wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discr…

>I don't know what "misinformation" means Misinformation means false or inaccurate information. >Your sentence "the community supports" doesn't work here because there is no singular community in this respect If a comment is downvoted or flagged, it is not supported. If a comment is not downvoted or flagged, it is either supported or neutral (if it hasn’t been seen). If counterarguments to the comment are downvoted o…

I flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34315771 because it broke the site guidelines*. The GP comment may have been wrong, but it didn't break the site guidelines. As we've just agreed, there isn't a rule against being wrong, nor can there be.

> there’s no community punishment for intentionally saying something not true

I've learned that this isn't a good way to think about internet comments, because it's virtually impossible to accurately read someone's intent. Not only that, but people are much too quick to assume ill intent, intentional deceit, or (favorite internet word) disingenuousness.

* It was dipping a toe into nationalistic flamebait, though, so maybe it would be more accurate to say it was straddling the edge.

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

#330

Post by pb7 »

dang wrote: post #329
pb7 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't know what "misinformation" means Misinformation means false or inaccurate information. >Your sentence "the community supports" doesn't work here because there is no singular community in this respect If a comment is downvoted or flagged, it is not supported. If a comment is not downvoted or flagged, it is either supported or neutral (if it hasn’t been seen). If counterarguments to the comment are downvoted o…

I flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34315771 because it broke the site guidelines*. The GP comment may have been wrong, but it didn't break the site guidelines. As we've just agreed, there isn't a rule against being wrong, nor can there be. > there’s no community punishment for intentionally saying something not true I've learned that this isn't a good way to think about internet comments, because it's vir…

I meant this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34321408
Post reply on HN