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

221–230 of 432 posts

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

#221

Post by danielfoster »

hipadev23 wrote: post #186
danielfoster wrote: post #119

I recently won a credit card dispute over a hotel resort fee. The hotel claimed they had high-speed Internet. The speed was only 2-3 mbps. I was able to use the current FCC definition of high-speed to claim a refund.

Credit cards almost always side with the consumer if you have meaningful spend and very few issues/chargebacks/claims. If you never use the card, and then chargeback, they'll just deny your claim and drop your ass. It's not about the money of the individual charge (for small stuff like this anyway), it's about keeping you happy and spending on the card. I highly doubt the argument itself was relevant whatsoever.

The claim was $700.

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

#222

Post by NotSammyHagar »

wongarsu wrote: post #66
entropicdrifter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

They do help push people to use less, but for places like Comcast I see data caps as just a revenue stream increaser. The entire company strategy seems to follow this approach.

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

#223

Post by spiznnx »

guhidalg wrote: post #174
spiznnx wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ISPs were like an electric utility, we'd see something like a cost per GB transferred in cents, with a minimum charge reflecting the cost of maintaining a connection of a certain speed to the network. Which is algebraically identical to a monthly charge and data cap with overage charge. The main issue is the overage charge is too high, it should be like 1 cent per GB (Comcast is charging 20x that).

1c/GB would be a decent rate for home data transfer in 2023, but where would you set the free limit? For reference, at my house I have a 1Gbps line and it looks like in 48 hours I have downloaded 1TB of data (looking at the number of received bytes my AT&T device is reporting). Am I normal? I don't know, but AT&T does...

I think that's rather high compared to average, considering the standard cap for Comcast Xfinity residential is 1.2TiB per month, and they claim only "a very small percentage" of their customers use more.

I don't think the actual cap really matters if the per-GB and base pricing reflects the true costs. If it's low it means heavy users pay more, if it's high, light users pay more.

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

#225

Post by danielfoster »

avarun wrote: post #142
danielfoster wrote: post #119

I recently won a credit card dispute over a hotel resort fee. The hotel claimed they had high-speed Internet. The speed was only 2-3 mbps. I was able to use the current FCC definition of high-speed to claim a refund.

Was the wifi access part of the resort fee? Curious how you went about explaining the monetary value of the wifi portion of your stay to the credit card company.

Yes, it was advertised as part of the fee.

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

#226

Post by Fnoord »

vladslav wrote: post #196
Workaccount2 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an extreme ironic twist, me, the techie nerd guy, has the slowest internet of the regular-folk friend group of mine. Everyone has got 1Gbps and here I am with 300Mbps.

My friends in third-world countries get faster and less expensive service than me in Silicon Valley. On top of that, there is no fiber connection in my neighborhood, and they've been on fiber for over 5 years. And there is a data cap also. It's just crazy and sad.

Check this out:

> Broadband penetration as of June 2017: 23.5 broadband connections for every 100 people. > Distribution of broadband connections by type, as reported by Ancom, is as follows 94% FTTx (FTTH/FTTB/FTTC/FTTN) internet access connections, 4.8% Coaxial cable, 0.2% other.

Now guess the country. Answer in ROT13 at [1]. Hint: it ain't a first world country. Another hint: Latine loquitur. Oh and it ain't a recent development either. They've been at it like forever.

[1] uggcf://ra.jvxvcrqvn.bet/jvxv/Vagrearg_va_Ebznavn

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

#227

Post by adrr »

IdiranVibe wrote: post #112
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.

It blows my mind that you guys in the US still have to deal with data caps ... It's been years in the UK since that's been a thing for broadband, and we're close to the point where mobile data will be the same

Only data caps if you only have one choice in broad band. Once you have two or more, data caps go away and price is cut in half. If there are no competitors, the provider will milk the customers of cash.

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

#228

Post by Analemma_ »

jackson1442 wrote: post #214
ska wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments said they don't want to pay more for gigabit (that they don't need) just to get reasonable upload speed.

I’m also in Seattle and get symmetric gigabit for $49.99 all in, I’d be surprised if they’re getting 480 from comcast for cheaper. I think my provider is only available for apartment buildings but there’s likely competition from other providers that at least offer symmetric speeds.

Unfortunately Comcast is the only option in my 14-unit condo, which AIUI is not unusual for this size of building in this area.

The worst part is that the much larger condo right next to us has Google Fiber :(

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

#229

Post by robertlagrant »

vladslav wrote: post #196
Workaccount2 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an extreme ironic twist, me, the techie nerd guy, has the slowest internet of the regular-folk friend group of mine. Everyone has got 1Gbps and here I am with 300Mbps.

My friends in third-world countries get faster and less expensive service than me in Silicon Valley. On top of that, there is no fiber connection in my neighborhood, and they've been on fiber for over 5 years. And there is a data cap also. It's just crazy and sad.

If you develop later you can leapfrog countries that ground through all the necessary phases for the development to happen for everyone globally. But that doesn't mean you can keep pace. Hopefully your area gets an upgrade, or a Starlink, soon.

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

#230

Post by thumbsup-_- »

gnicholas wrote: post #218
vladslav wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends in third-world countries get faster and less expensive service than me in Silicon Valley. On top of that, there is no fiber connection in my neighborhood, and they've been on fiber for over 5 years. And there is a data cap also. It's just crazy and sad.

Are they in geographic region that is more densely populated? Or an area that was built out more recently? In my last house (also in SV) the choices were between Comcast and AT&T copper. The latter went up to 6/1, so was effectively useless. I'm sure it was laid down decades ago.

Yes. Providers in India offer far more speed at far cheaper prices than US. The key to this is competition. There are many providers available in each major city which helps consumer. It's sad that in many US' major cities there is usually one or two providers only for a building or neighborhood. My building in SF only has comcast, so they have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want.
Post reply on HN