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

291–300 of 432 posts

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

#291

Post by hipadev23 »

danielfoster wrote: post #221
hipadev23 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

how did you pay $700 for internet at any speed? was this a cruse ship?

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

#292

Post by lotsofpulp »

chrononaut wrote: post #283
lotsofpulp wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I am not following this one. Why would upload bandwidth at home inhibit backing up your phone/data to a NAS at home? Or are you referring to remote restoration / access? Wouldn't the NAS be using its download bandwidth to receive backups when your phone is remote? an…

Sorry, I meant sync services too. As in right now, people use Google or Apple to synchronize their photos/files/etc across devices and locations.

But it could be possible to do this with your own device at home with sufficient upload.

It might be too late though, since if sufficient people are used to the big tech companies doing it, it might not leave enough of a market to develop sell a device to do it (although I feel like it should be doable with software and existing NAS vendors like Synology).

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

#293

Post by vel0city »

eganist wrote: post #34
endisneigh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically roads should also have caps and/or tolls, so this take is strange. This is partly why gas and excise tax is a thing…

> Ironically roads should also have caps and/or tolls, so this take is strange. We'll set up electronic tolls on your cul-de-sac and every light and stop sign, or toll you by mile driven using an odometer beaconing out to the tax authorities per drive and registered to your tax ID number (US) or equivalent. And then cap you on the number of miles you're allowed to drive per year on all cars unless you pay an addition…

I'm absolutely down for vehicle registration fees to relate to miles driven and weight classifications, and major highways being funded by extra tolling.

The streets in my neighborhood cost way less per mile for maintenance than giant highways with massive bridges and interchanges. It makes sense they'd cost more to use.

Showing the real cost of these things to consumers might make them change their minds about riding the train. These days a lot of people don't even think about the cost of driving their car across town, but gosh that metro day pass is $5? How expensive!

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

#294

Post by olyjohn »

freedomben wrote: post #235
c2h5oh wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a bummer, but considering that all I had before Starlink was 768down/128kup, this is a godsend. It will never be as good as an actual good wire-line connection, but whatever, that's not really it's point. Anybody who has cable or fiber, or even a fast tier of DSL should not really bother with Starlink.

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

#295

Post by teaearlgraycold »

huytersd wrote: post #192
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in an area with competition and I think I'm paying like $60/month for 10Gbps.

What? I wasn’t even aware consumer speeds got that high. No caps I hope?

No caps, no cap :P

I even made my own router because I didn't like the consumer options available: https://danangell.com/blog/posts/10gbps-router-for-fun/

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

#296

Post by dottjt »

layoric wrote: post #213

Australia broadband is not great, but a few years ago I got fibre installed (at my own expense), and since have benefitted from actual competition among ISPs. The little ISP I’m with bills a daily rate which you can change at any point without penalty. Most days I just stay on a 1000/50 for about $3 USD a day, but can change to a range of plans from 50/20 to 1000/400, and it take only a few minutes to apply and kick…

Which company are you with? Also in Australia, although I don't think fibre is available yet to my address.

Did you also have to pay for fibre to be installed?

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

#297

Post by gnicholas »

whateverman23 wrote: post #198
gnicholas wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Well, if there's not a cost difference, why do they keep trying to double my pricing when the base tier goes up? Because you keep paying for it. It's not like you're going to not pay for internet, and you probably don't have many alternative options.

Yeah, like I said in my original post, it all comes down to competition.

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

#298

Post by speby »

Remember when a T-1 line was considered to be like the god-level status of internet connections? Whoa.... 1.5Mbps!? Later, more affordable DSL speeds would reach single-digit Mbps and it felt like being on another planet.

Now all of those speeds feel like they're dial-up modems.

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

#299

Post by Fatnino »

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.

Palo Alto just unveiled another fiber to the home plan to be ready by Jan 2025 in one select neighborhood (that I live just outside of, dammit).

This plan will definitely come to fruition just like all the other ones since the 90s

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

#300

Post by isilofi »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #180
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…

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.

Non-techie notices "internet is slow" because their youtube video is blocky or pages load slowly. Non-techie goes to ISP to complain. ISP upsells to a more expensive plan.

The actual reason in almost all cases: non-techies are clueless about their slow and shitty WIFI. Picking empty or less busy channels, using 5GHz, using gasp cables, all black magic and never done.

Sometimes the upselling actually helps because the better plan comes with a maybe-better AP...

Post reply on HN