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

61–70 of 432 posts

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

#61

Post by happytiger »

1000 Mbps down / 100 Mbps up should be the minimum for any first world country.

Without mandated illegality of data caps and other Comcast data and modem games this does nothing to change the reality of boots on the ground unfortunately. These speeds only really allow you to close your data cap sooner in the month for the vast majority of customers who use Internet for modern things. A fixed data cap locks in an “era” of technology so that when the era ends (HD > 4k, 4k > 8k for example) every one of the customers ends up being a heavy user. It is a scam that should be illegal.

We’ve already paid for this with multiple rural broadband bills. It’s time for change.

This is woefully (and shamefully) inadequate action by the FCC but at least we don’t have to deal with Ajit’s basically sellout behavior anymore and can at least talk about solutions beyond the current regulatory captured standards.

I commend them for moving, but I can’t condone their proposal as it’s truly and utterly inadequate and far behind global standards as well.

If you want your country to slip into uncompetitive mess, go ahead and hamper the backbone of the new Industrial Revolution by giving away all the value to your corporate friends and leaving the innovation a generation of true broadband performance could generate laying on the shop floor.

Did I mention we have already paid for broadband (ready, was supposed to be fiber rollout)? Twice? Low standards might as well be low standards FCC.

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

#62

Post by Willamin »

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.

In the US, we tax roads by usage via fuel (gasoline and diesel) tax [^1]. It's a simple solution: the more miles you drive, the more fuel you use; the more fuel you use, the more tax you pay. Vehicles that use more fuel per mile driven tend to be larger and thus cause more wear on the roads.

It's not without its faults though. Fuel usage isn't directly related to cost of road maintenance, it's just a very rough approximation. Fuel usage has mattered less and less over the past couple of decades with hybrids and EVs – though this is addressed in some places by imposing an extra EV tax (since EV drivers would pay no fuel tax but would still cause wear on the roads).

[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...

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

#63

Post by paxys »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #55
notyourwork wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that speed should be symmetrical. We are continuing to push the boundaries are content going out.

That's what gets me. Is there a technical reason why symmetrical connections would be more expensive than asymm?

The technical reason is that by restricting upload speed they can offer a higher download speed, and that is what most users care about.

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

#64

Post by toomuchtodo »

throitallaway wrote: post #59
toomuchtodo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chokepoints are peering exchanges, transit handoffs, and core network gear, which is sized for a percentile of utilization below constant 100%. Having implemented a billing system and utilization monitoring for managed hosting datacenter environment, it is trivial to collect metrics from equipment and bill accordingly. You don't want to nickle and dime or gouge customers, but you do want to ensure proportionality acr…

> There is a reason most of Netflix global infra is monster CDN boxes closest to customers. Because it would be ridiculously expensive to egress video streams directly from AWS. They've determined that it's cheaper to pay ISPs for rack space.

You misunderstand the model. They don't pay ISPs, they offer the appliance for free to the ISP for colocation, reducing the upstream networking costs. AWS egress being extortionate is a distinct issue. The cost to the ISP in the rack (cooling, power, space) is immaterial considering the transfer savings (not only opex, but reduced capex from needing to oversize network gear or specific ports for peak streaming consumption) over the life of the relationship.

If you want to learn more, lurk on the NANOG (North American Network Operators' Group) mailing list. It is common to monitor AS traffic flows to understand whether you can offload with CDN appliance relationships or how to improve your network architecture (which networks to peer to directly or which internet exchanges [IXs] to meetup at). These agreements sometimes happen at a bar over beers during NANOG events. Call Verizon and ask them how much a 1Gbps circuit is. Consider why Comcast built their own national backbone.

Also, some important history to remember. Fast.com measures your speeds to Netflix servers because some ISPs wanted to charge their customers and Netflix for that transfer (or to upgrade peering points) because of the revenue destruction from cable customers fleeing for streaming (net neutrality debate).

https://archive.nanog.org/meetings/nanog45/presentations/Nor... (Peering 101, Bill Norton [Equinix cofounder], NANOG 45)

https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Video-Internet-The-Next-W... (Video Internet: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the U.S. Peering Ecosystem (v1.7))

https://drpeering.net/HTML_IPP/ipptoc.html ("The Internet Peering Playbook")

https://arstechnica.com/features/2008/09/peering-and-transit... ("How the ‘Net works: an introduction to peering and transit")

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/how-c... ("How Comcast became a powerful—and controversial—part of the Internet backbone")

https://openconnect.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600361636...

> How much does the appliance cost my organization?

> Appliances, including replacement appliances, are provided to qualifying ISPs at no charge when used within the terms of the license agreements.

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

#65

Post by somat »

Oh boy! pedant time. note that ethernet and gpon(single line fiberoptic) are not broad band, they are base band.

Broad band does not mean speed. it means it uses a lot of frequencies at the same time.

OK getting dizzy here from too much excitement, pedant time is over for this week. We are all allowed to go back to using the non-technical meaning of broadband where it means speed.

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

#66

Post by wongarsu »

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.

In principle caps help with oversubscribing. If you want to use a 10GBit/s uplink to serve 5000 people with 100MBit/s each, you won't saturate your uplink nearly as often if you add a data cap.

Of course that's not all that different from restricting bandwidth, just that you are restricting average bandwidth while allowing for some burst. Still violates the spirit of having fast bandwidth, unless the caps are quite generous.

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

#67

Post by Szpadel »

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 have 1gb connection and I agree that 99% of the time this isn't utilized, but it's very helpful when you want to download anything, from new steam game, through system updated to for me work related usage. this isn't that much about you can download per month, but how fast you can do it when you need something

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

#68

Post by musha68k »

endisneigh wrote: post #4
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.

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.

Peering agreements at internet exchanges make additional bandwidth very cheap to provide and infra costs are spread over years and many users, further reducing ongoing costs..

Bandwidth caps not only have a weak fiscal basis but also clash with net neutrality tenets, go against what made the internet successful in the first place.

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

#69

Post by godzillabrennus »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #55
notyourwork wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that speed should be symmetrical. We are continuing to push the boundaries are content going out.

That's what gets me. Is there a technical reason why symmetrical connections would be more expensive than asymm?

My assumption is torrents are a threat to streaming services already and potentially a death blow if uplink speeds are too fast.

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

#70

Post by gustavus »

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.

As long as front-end developers keep shoving more and more layers of JavaScript "libraries" and corporations shovel more and more adware into every request it's likely we'll continue to need more and more bandwidth; because most developers figure if it is working great in thier office with a dedicated fiber line on the latest MBP it obviously must be fine for everyone.
Post reply on HN