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

FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

docs.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 432 posts

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#41

Post by atomicnumber3 »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #7
endisneigh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn’t there be a cap? Bandwidth isn’t free. It’s sad seeing people on a forum called hacker news having no idea how networking infrastructure works.

Because it's next to free (no additional cost to run the infrastructure we're already running) and we're nowhere near the limits of our existing infrastructure's overall bandwidth limits right now, as evidenced by the lack of caps not affecting quality of internet service for the entirety of 2020, when more people were online per hour than at any previous point in history.

Also, when caps are implemented, they're ridiculously expensive and limited, especially in an age of streaming video. Expensive comically beyond any reasonable conception of the actual marginal cost of transiting the traffic.

Also - just look at LTE operators. They're also no-cap at this point (though subject to QoS at certain breakpoints, but they're typically reasonable breakpoints ime?). And that's in a SIGNIFICANTLY more capital intensive market - you have most of the concerns with terrestrial fiber, plus the joy of having to own RF spectrum and maintain towers etc.

So I think no-caps-and-required-speed requirements would just make sense and be required to keep ISPs from trying to backtrack on being forcibly dragged into the modern area like balky calves.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#42

Post by Zigurd »

idiot900 wrote: post #10

Honest question: at what point, with real life usage, is 1 Gbps actually necessary for home users? I find that latency rather than throughput is what determines my perceived quality of an Internet connection. But am curious how others think.

First, you are not buying a sustained 1Gb. Not at consumer pricing. Secondly, having burst capacity is very helpful. Moving big images, videos, etc., which you do only occasionally, benefits a lot from a 1Gb consumer-grade link.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#43

Post by phkahler »

staringback wrote: post #5
andrewmunsell wrote: post #3

This is nice, but with increased speed, they should also require ISPs do not impose a data cap to be considered broadband.

So that someone's grandma who hardly uses her connection can subsidize your extreme over-consumption of digital media?

>> So that someone's grandma who hardly uses her connection can subsidize your extreme over-consumption of digital media?

While I agree that grandma doesn't need 1Gbps, neither do I and neither do most people. So why mandate such a high speed for the label anyway? It seems like a way to disqualify things like Starlink that will have difficulty providing extreme speeds to large numbers of users at once.

The only time I'll use such a speed is when downloading some data - an ISO file or something similar. Streaming video does not require such (gbps) speeds even for multiple streams in the same house.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#44

Post by cortesoft »

idiot900 wrote: post #10

Honest question: at what point, with real life usage, is 1 Gbps actually necessary for home users? I find that latency rather than throughput is what determines my perceived quality of an Internet connection. But am curious how others think.

I recently went from 300mbps to 2gbps, and one big difference is game update time. In the past, I would sometimes go to play a game with my friends and it would require a 10 gig update, and we would have to play a different game because it would take too long to update. Now I can update in under a minute and we can play.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#45

Post by alerighi »

idiot900 wrote: post #10

Honest question: at what point, with real life usage, is 1 Gbps actually necessary for home users? I find that latency rather than throughput is what determines my perceived quality of an Internet connection. But am curious how others think.

They upgraded my line from VDSL (~80Mbit/s down and 20 up) to 1Gbit/s FTTH (~800Mbit/s down and 300 up) and didn't see that big difference, on normal navigation.

Sure, if I download a torrent, it is much faster. But is not the kind of upgrade that I experienced from ADSL (7Mbit) to VDSL. Since most of the time I use the PC under Wi-Fi anyway, that doesn't go over 600Mbit/s near the AP, but really not over 100 in the location where I usually have my PC.

What I've seen instead is a much more stable connection. Giving that the network is entirely fiber and passive there weren't (so far) any interruption of service in roughly one year, while with VDSL there where time to time that the connection did not work, in one occasion for nearly a week. Also since it was copper lines in case of bad weather, or crosstalk with other users, the performance did vary a lot.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#46

Post by rasz »

staringback wrote: post #5
andrewmunsell wrote: post #3

This is nice, but with increased speed, they should also require ISPs do not impose a data cap to be considered broadband.

So that someone's grandma who hardly uses her connection can subsidize your extreme over-consumption of digital media?

No, so that ISPs are incentivized to actually invest in bigger pipes.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#47

Post by nathanfig »

idiot900 wrote: post #10

Honest question: at what point, with real life usage, is 1 Gbps actually necessary for home users? I find that latency rather than throughput is what determines my perceived quality of an Internet connection. But am curious how others think.

Most households with 4+ people are going to have dozens of connected devices, including multiple doing HD to 4K entertainment streams, outgoing video feeds, and (at least on PS5) the occasional unexpected 80GB updates to a video game you were just about to play. This in addition to the apps/webapps that are often in the 10s of Mb of content served per click.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#48

Post by 542458 »

paxys wrote: post #36
staringback wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that someone's grandma who hardly uses her connection can subsidize your extreme over-consumption of digital media?

Data packets aren't a limited resource. The costs for your ISP are fixed whether they serve you 1MB or 1TB. Data caps and overage charges are purely a money grab, not some fundamental economic requirement. So no, infrequent users aren't "subsidizing" anyone else.

> The costs for your ISP are fixed whether they serve you 1MB or 1TB.

That's only true in a very abstract sense. If everybody went from using 1MB/day to 1TB/day there would be massive congestion issues and costs would increase as ISPs rush to install higher-bandwidth equipment. Put a different way: It is cheaper to construct a network where all subscribers consume only 1MB/day than a network where all subscribers consume 1TB/day, because the former can be done with much lower end equipment.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#49

Post by paxys »

voakbasda wrote: post #9
staringback wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that someone's grandma who hardly uses her connection can subsidize your extreme over-consumption of digital media?

Yes, for the same reason that roads used by daily drivers are subsidized by remote workers.

Bad analogy, because it actually costs more to maintain roads that are used more. ISPs don't have to pay extra if I consume more data packets than my neighbor. Overage charges are just a money grab on their part, nothing more.
Post reply on HN