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

261–270 of 432 posts

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

#261

Post by photonios »

Everyone here arguing that most people have no practical use for higher speeds at home have never experienced 1 GBit up+down. Once you have it, you'll never settle for less.

I have 1 GBit up+down at home, I cabled the whole house with CAT7 cables and set up the best access points money can buy for mobile devices. Everything else is wired. It's an amazing experience and internet everywhere sucks compared to home.

When I lived in Romania this costed me €10, now that I am back in the Netherlands it's a bit more pricey at €52, but it's 100% worth it.

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

#262

Post by callalex »

arp242 wrote: post #183
paxys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I cannot believe how anyone with a straight face can claim that the infrastructure and maintenance required to serve "n times 1MB" is exactly the same as the costs for "n times 1TB". This is so obviously not the case that I genuinely don't even know how to explain it. You can serve your thousand subscribers on a dingy Pentium 1 if they're using 1MB…

There is some truth to what you say but Comcast charges me around $1 per gigabyte over my cap. It absolutely does not cost them that much more money to serve me.

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

#263

Post by danielfoster »

xnx wrote: post #145
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.

That is awesome. Can you say more about your process?

I took screenshots of text from the hotel’s website claiming what was included, then sent them to Amex when I filed my dispute online. Of course I tried to work with the hotel before going this route, but they refused to refund anything.

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

#264

Post by d3w4s9 »

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 have 10mbps upload from Comcast. My GoPro footage takes ages to upload. This is just infuriating.

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

#265

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

> There are no other wired options where I live (in the heart of Silicon Valley)

This reads like a joke.

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

#266

Post by HDThoreaun »

ceejayoz wrote: post #97
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)

A lot of people need enough for at least a steady Zoom/FaceTime call, and that's only going to increase over time.

You don't need more than 10 mb for that though. How often are people uploading 1+ GB? For me at least the answer is never.

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

#267

Post by runjake »

What's really hurting me isn't my 400Mbps download.

What's hurting me is the advertised 12Mbps upload, or in reality, 9-10Mbps upload.

Customers are so focused on synthetic download speeds, but meanwhile the upload rug is being pulled from them. Get a few devices on your network with iCloud Photos enabled and you're hosed, because traffic can't ACK/get out.

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

#268

Post by theideaofcoffee »

userinanother wrote: post #98

Does everyone really need that much bandwidth though? Usally 20mbps is enough for most things. 50 is plenty and after that it’s mostly bragging rights.

2023: “Does everyone really need 100Mbps?”

2003: “Does everyone really need 5Mbps?”

1994: “Does everyone really need 28.8Kbps?”

1967: “Does ARPAnet really need 2.4Kbps?”

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

#269

Post by d3w4s9 »

Culonavirus wrote: post #160
happytiger wrote: post #61

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…

Many (most?) people do not even have devices that could utilize 1Gbit/s. My (relatively new) Galaxy Tab S7+ (11ac wifi) has a hard time going over 500Mbit/s (not sure if it's wifi or the slow internal memory, can't be arsed to find out), and it's similar with my (not that old) LG Velvet phone... All of that on a connection that can do a rock solid 1Gbps on my PC through UTP (cat 6)... What I'm trying to say is that m…

Anyone with a PlayStation/Xbox/gaming PC -- that's a lot of people -- can tell you how much they dislike waiting for a game download. I have 300Mbps download and I still find it too slow. I don't want to start a download, wait for half an hour before I can play the game.

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

#270

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

You can find fiber connection in some remote vilage in slovakia.

Consolidation is the cause - US had 2-se as many listed companies 30 yeats ago.

Now US capital is buying up independant businesses across easterm Europe and developing countries, killing competition and the local economy.

Post reply on HN