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

251–260 of 432 posts

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

#251

Post by HDThoreaun »

gnicholas wrote: post #184
whateverman23 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it actually be that much less costly to give you 20-25 vs 75, though? My uninformed assumption was that it was largely artificial once you get to a low enough speed.

Well, if there's not a cost difference, why do they keep trying to double my pricing when the base tier goes up? My sense is there is some cost savings at these lower tiers, but more importantly it would prevent ISPs from jacking prices up while using higher speeds as the rationale ("Look, we just tripled your speed, and it only costs double!"). ISPs would be less likely to double prices without any service improveme…

Because they can? Their goal is to maximize profit, if raising prices does that they'll raise prices.

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

#252

Post by gnarlouse »

In Iowa, you can still find fiber speeds as low as 5mbps in an upscale residential neighborhood. They'll sell it to you marked as 100mbps without batting an eye. Customer service will say "oh you've probably got a gamer in the neigborhood" as if that excuses them from their unapologetically horrible service.

Gotta love the late stage greed in this world

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

#253

Post by klabb3 »

BigFnTelly wrote: post #87
cortesoft wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't true, though. The limit for a network provider is peak bandwidth usage. When they sell a 2gbps connection to a customer, that 2gbps connection is not reserved entirely for that customer. It isn't like the total bandwidth an ISP has is 2gbps * N number of customers. They over-subscribe because they know not every customer is going to be using up that full 2gbps 24/7. Now, you can argue that an ISP SHOU…

would it be fair to say that bandwidth is just another product sold like plane tickets?

Yes? But with orders of magnitude more difference. Let’s do a back of the napkin calculation:

Say your ISP gives you 100mbit/s = 1.08TB/day ≈ 30TB/mo. On gigabit that’d be 300TB. While you do have some heavy torrenters they are outliers.

Now I assume everything but TV/movie streaming is a rounding error for average Joe. Netflix says 1-7GB/h depending on quality. Average user watches ~3.2h/day (wtf is wrong with people!) but that’s ~100-700 GB/mo. Now that’s between 0.033%-2.3% of downstream bandwidth.

Of course, people generally watch TV at the same time of day, so it gets more complicated to provision resources. But there’s also no question that pooling bandwidth (over-provisioning) makes sense to reduce costs. The question is more about how much congestion is acceptable, and I wouldn’t trust shitty monopolistic companies to behave. But if you can handle eg Super Bowl or a World Cup final without degradation you’re probably good the rest of the year?

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

#254

Post by kulahan »

asstrotrash wrote: post #114
kulahan wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge portion of people don't need a massive upstream. This sounds more expensive for basically no benefit (for most)

The majority of people is not the qualifier here for this argument. It's what is actually a good definition for the term "broadband" in this time and age.

A good definition shouldn't apply to the majority of people?

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

#255

Post by I_Am_Nous »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #27

Will they also change how they define a region? At one point, I thought so long as an ISP service a single customer in a zip code(?), census tract(?), some region definition, the ISP could make claims to offering that tier of service everywhere.

The service regions are kind of a government mandated monopoly for who can offer service where. However, the FCC is now requiring automated speed testing so if you say you can offer 100/100 symmetrical you have to prove it. The FCC can pick any customer and say "prove this customer can get the service they are paying for" -- for us, that means installing a cloud connected router that automatically connects and tests. Apparently the fines are pretty gnarly...

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

#256

Post by vel0city »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #109
paxys wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I find that reasoning suspicious. Ever notice how most of the muni and coop internet providers offer a symmetrical speed while att and comcast don't? My bet is that there's no real technical limitation, it's simply price segmentation.

AT&T does offer symmetrical speeds. Most PON-based FTTH ISPs I've encountered do.

There are technical reasons for offering asymmetrical speeds when it comes to coax connections. There's only so many channels on the wire, a lot are still dedicated to television, people mostly only care about download, so they prioritize it. PONs don't carry television and are just fundamentally different in design, so its easier for them to support symmetrical bandwidth.

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

#257

Post by arllk »

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.

I live in Perú, and I have 400Mbps internet FTTH with no data cap, and the price is 37 USD [1], the competition of the internet providers is incredibly good for the consumers.

The lowest plan that mi ISP offers is 100Mbps and is at 21 USD.

[1] https://www.movistar.com.pe/hogar/internet/solo-internet (Link in Spanish)

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

#258

Post by ska »

Analemma_ wrote: post #228
jackson1442 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :(

That's the worst, and usual require board approval to change, which you can't get.

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

#259

Post by lotsofpulp »

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.

You don’t notice because you have never had the capability to host content. With symmetric upload, it would be possible to backup our phones/data to our own NAS at home as opposed to relying on Apple/Microsoft/Alphabet/Amazon. You could stream video from your own device, you could share it, etc.

The lack of high quality, high bandwidth symmetric connections to the home (and ipv6) is a huge boon to the entrenched big tech companies.

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

#260

Post by SoylentYellow »

thayne wrote: post #177
criddell wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your ISP. My phone has a data cap of 100 GB/month. Once I go over that I am throttled when the network is congested. My home internet has no data caps.

I don't know about other ISPs, but Xfinity/Comcast residential internet has a data cap of 1TB/month, regardless of the bandwidth tier you pay for. Although you can pay a (substantial) fee to remove that data cap.

Removing the Xfinity data cap would increase my bill by 60%. It is outrageous.
Post reply on HN