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

231–240 of 432 posts

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

#231

Post by I_Am_Nous »

aidenn0 wrote: post #148
somat wrote: post #65

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.

If we are being pedants, I object to fiber-optic being labeled as base-band. It is modulating a ~100THz carrier wave, so is clearly not base-band.

Maybe old fashioned "blink on means 1, no light means 0" is base-band, but these days they have virtual data channels and bidirectional fiber transmits on a different frequency than it receives on...so definitely broad-band.

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

#232

Post by paxys »

endisneigh wrote: post #219
paxys wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 500 Mbps connection with a 1TB data cap, both pretty standard numbers in the US. If I used the connection at its advertised speeds, I would exhaust my monthly limit in about 4 hours. So no, that relationship is non-existent. The data cap math instead is "99% of our users use < 1TB, so we will charge the rest more because we can".

Or more accurately, to disincentive excessive use. They don’t need a cap to simply charge you more money, they’ve been doing that just fine with or without caps.

That would be a valid argument if they defined "excessive" based on infrastructure limits rather than a demand curve and market research.

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

#233

Post by vel0city »

mcoliver wrote: post #216

Should update the title to 100/20. I still find it amazing that companies can list services without the upload speed (eg Comcast). Of course latency and jitter matter too but that's probably above the heads of a lot of consumers. Upload and latency increasingly matter more and more and is essential to many work from home endeavors. Whether you are uploading content for work or play, or have a family video conferencin…

The FCC requires ISPs to publish information about their network management practices. That's how you get sites like this:

https://www.xfinity.com/networkmanagement

I do wish this was required to be easily accessible from the marketing pages. Usually it takes some digging to find it. But at least they do have to make these numbers public.

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

#234

Post by callalex »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #69
AussieWog93 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also new media (streamers and tubers) rely on uploads and are eating cable’s lunch. It’s just extortion through monopoly.

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

#235

Post by freedomben »

c2h5oh wrote: post #154
bscphil wrote: post #37

It's 100 Mbps down / 20 Mbps up as the proposal, and 1000 Mbps / 500 Mbps as an eventual goal. I imagine the 20 Mbps upload target is useless for most of us, even those on asymmetric cable, but there's a good chance that if the ISPs were forced to provide 20 Mbps up at their lowest broadband tiers, it would raise the ladder quite a bit. For example, on Comcast I get 800 / 20, but there's also a 400 / 10 tier (and may…

Starlink will not qualify - even in area with no congestion where you have to problem maintaining >200Mbps down your upload speed averages around 15Mbps

yep, my average is about 88 Mbps down and 7.4 Mbps up on Starlink. The frustrating thing is it fluctuates a lot. At one point I could get about 160/10.

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

#236

Post by freedomben »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #132
bscphil wrote: post #37

It's 100 Mbps down / 20 Mbps up as the proposal, and 1000 Mbps / 500 Mbps as an eventual goal. I imagine the 20 Mbps upload target is useless for most of us, even those on asymmetric cable, but there's a good chance that if the ISPs were forced to provide 20 Mbps up at their lowest broadband tiers, it would raise the ladder quite a bit. For example, on Comcast I get 800 / 20, but there's also a 400 / 10 tier (and may…

I guess I'm the outlier. I have 300 down / 15 up and never really notice an issue.

How often do you upload? I notice especially when trying to rsync or upload files to the cloud.

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

#237

Post by callalex »

ls612 wrote: post #165
IdiranVibe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For residential internet most people have no data cap and those who do have a very large cap (over 1TB/month). Even I as a pretty active user only use like 500GB/month on my desktop according to Windows.

1TB/mo is not “very large” since you can get that kind of data allocation on a $2-4/mo server.

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

#238

Post by Galacta7 »

gknoy wrote: post #201
gnicholas wrote: post #162

I started with Comcast with 12Mbps service. Over time, they increased the base speed they offer to 20, 25, 50, and now 75. They have done this because they want to have x% of their customers on "broadband", per the federal definition. This is all well and good, but they keep increasing the price, and refuse to offer lower-tier service. I probably wouldn't want 12Mbps anymore, but 20 or 25 would suffice. I wish I coul…

> I have considered using a cellular hotspot, but it's not competitive in terms of pricing. I had the opposite experience. I was a very happy Comcast customer for a year or two (their curfew-for-kids-computers feature on their router was great, and the mobile app integration was very handy), but the 5G Verizon offering was cheaper and faster (where I live). I have never felt so bad canceling my account, as everything…

I would love to get Verizon 5G Home Internet for my mom, who is currently getting gouged by Verizon with DSL (and slow barely better than dial-up DSL). Unfortunately, she's not eligible, as Verizon apparently limits the number of 5G customers they offer in a given area -- due to bandwidth limitations. So it's great for folks who can get it, but pretty limited in terms of how many people can actually sign-up for service.

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

#239

Post by manchmalscott »

The issue with that is even though I have gigabit internet, and we pay over $200 a month for it, my internet speed is still usually measured in kilobytes and sometimes just bytes per second. Speed tests show anywhere between 4-9 hundred MiB/s down and yet it takes YouTube like ten seconds just to load the titles of videos, and I’m in a big city not even a rural area. Just because they “””provide””” a speed doesn’t mean anyone will ever see it in practice.

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

#240

Post by mixdup »

gnicholas wrote: post #162

I started with Comcast with 12Mbps service. Over time, they increased the base speed they offer to 20, 25, 50, and now 75. They have done this because they want to have x% of their customers on "broadband", per the federal definition. This is all well and good, but they keep increasing the price, and refuse to offer lower-tier service. I probably wouldn't want 12Mbps anymore, but 20 or 25 would suffice. I wish I coul…

>This is all well and good, but they keep increasing the price, and refuse to offer lower-tier service. I probably wouldn't want 12Mbps anymore, but 20 or 25 would suffice. I wish I could pay a fraction of what I'm paying for 75Mbps and get a lower tier of service. It should suffice that x% of customers are offered "broadband" for a reasonable price, even if some choose a lower speed.

The problem is that most of the costs of providing broadband are fixed costs. To run a coaxial cable from their headend to your house, and to provide employees and crews to repair it and install it all costs the same whether you buy 10 megabits or 2 gigabits

The variable costs--things like backbone bandwidth, paying for transit, doing node splits, etc are a smaller part of the overall cost than you might expect

This lower end of the market, though, is being taken up by Fixed Wireless (T-Mobile and Verizon primarily) for example you can get Verizon home wireless internet for as low as $25. My mom has it, and it's decent 50 megabit service for a low price

Post reply on HN