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

311–320 of 432 posts

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

#311

Post by gosub100 »

isilofi wrote: post #300
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.

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…

> their slow and shitty WIFI

I'm still embarrassed about the time I called my ISP and complained that the new Xmbs package they just installed is capped at only Ymbps only to realize I had run the speed test over wifi (back in the wireless-g,maybe n days)...

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

#312

Post by PaulHoule »

mixdup wrote: post #240
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…

There also is a step between DSL and cable and fiber. I have a fiber to the node situation that gives consistent and reliable 20 Mbps down and I have two of those with load balancer. With VDSL they could sell 100Mbps service to a few houses close to the node.

A real upgrade for me would involve running a cable through a beaver meadow. There is an electric line and crews do go in there to limb up trees and they are planning to replace a pole, if there was some rational coordination of services and a commitment to universal service they’d get the fiber in when they do a maintenance cycle on the power line.

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

#313

Post by bdavbdav »

joe5150 wrote: post #290
warner25 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. I tell everyone who will listen that they should look at their actual bandwidth usage. I've looked at the detailed statistics on my Google Nest WiFi router, and my family's peak usage never exceeded about 30 Mbps. That's with me working from home as a CS PhD student and my wife homeschooling our kids during the day. I have 300 Mbps (down) because that's the lowest, cheapest tier that my ISP offers. Maybe peop…

Netflix 4K streams seem to top out around 25Mbps and I'd guess other services are comparable, so 1Gbps is still a lot of bandwidth for even large multi-streamer households. I think a lot of families will reach the limits of cheap, basic wifi routers before they start actually pushing against their bandwidth caps in these situations. My issue in the past with cable gigabit service was the relatively tiny upstream band…

Yep. We don’t need the gigabit down, we need the 100 up that comes with it. Openreach seem to sell about 10% of the download as the upload.

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

#314

Post by Terr_ »

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.

As someone who plays games a lot more than watches movies, I don't need much bandwidth, what I really want is low latency.

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

#315

Post by josh_carterPDX »

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'm a Comcast customer and bundle my services. Every two years, once the introductory rate expires, I call to get a new "promo" rate or just say they can cancel me right then and there. They've never taken me up on the cancellation. As a result I have a full 1GIG service at my house and feel like I pay a reasonable amount.

I'm just not a big fan of their "security" features. Other than that, I haven't had many issues here in Oregon.

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

#316

Post by jmyeet »

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…

We don't need competition. We need to provide Internet access as a heavily-regulated utility, ideally as a municipal service. Competition for last-mile Internet actually makes very little sense because it's an overbuild.

Imagine it costs $2000 per household to connect a fiber network. With 70% of households signing up, that produces a certain cost. Now imagine there was a second fiber network that also cost $2000 per household that splits the customer base. By definition, this is going to be more expensive.

Capitalism created this problem. It won't solve it. This is capitalism working as intended: doing the absolute least possible for the highest possible price while lobbying to exclude competition (eg by making municipal broadband illegal).

Expecting markets to solve this problem is neoliberal brain rot. Let's imagine that you do get 2 or even 3 ISPs in an area similar to Comcat, Spectrum, AT&T or Verizon. Now what? They just collude to keep speeds low and prices high [1].

Build municipal broadband. Failing that, regulate ISPs like utilities. And this would include unbundling TV services.

[1]: https://www.legitreviews.com/american-isps-collude-to-keep-b...

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

#317

Post by voakbasda »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #85
voakbasda wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's worse than that. With my 20-1 DSL connection, saturating the uplink effectively causes a DoS for the downlink.

Cake or fq-codel on Openwrt

That's not viable for me, as my subnet router is on the far side of my DSL connection. There's absolutely no way for me to filter incoming packets before they traverse my downlink. And as far as I know, there's no easy way to get all of my machines on my static subnet to coordinate traffic shaping.

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

#318

Post by nicoburns »

vondur wrote: post #273
arllk wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

According to wikipedia the average monthly salary in Peru is $502 US. $37 per month doesn't seem that cheap to me.

As another point of comparison, a new ISP in my area of London is offering symmetric gigabit fiber for £25/month or around $30/month (USD).

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

#319

Post by warner25 »

joe5150 wrote: post #290
warner25 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. I tell everyone who will listen that they should look at their actual bandwidth usage. I've looked at the detailed statistics on my Google Nest WiFi router, and my family's peak usage never exceeded about 30 Mbps. That's with me working from home as a CS PhD student and my wife homeschooling our kids during the day. I have 300 Mbps (down) because that's the lowest, cheapest tier that my ISP offers. Maybe peop…

Netflix 4K streams seem to top out around 25Mbps and I'd guess other services are comparable, so 1Gbps is still a lot of bandwidth for even large multi-streamer households. I think a lot of families will reach the limits of cheap, basic wifi routers before they start actually pushing against their bandwidth caps in these situations. My issue in the past with cable gigabit service was the relatively tiny upstream band…

I strongly agree about upload bandwidth. In previous homes I've chosen higher tiers of service for exactly that reason. I think I could live happily with 20 or even 10 Mpbs down, but not 1 Mbps up when I'm using cloud storage for photos and need to be on some video calls. I shouldn't need to pay for an order-of-magnitude more download bandwidth to get reasonable upload bandwidth, but apparently I do.

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

#320

Post by bmicraft »

gnicholas wrote: post #173
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…

I have no need for speeds like this. I have kids, we have many devices, and still we have no need for this. I understand that some people want speeds like this, but it shouldn't be accomplished by eliminating choice for people who would be perfectly happy with much lower speeds. And of course, if the mandated minimum speed is set to 1000/100, then these customers would be subsidizing those who use/want the higher spe…

> And of course, if the mandated minimum speed is set to 1000/100, then these customers would be subsidizing those who use/want the higher speeds.

Barely. Most costs to telcos are fixed costs, and upgrading the speeds of their lower speed plans shouldn't lead to a big increase in traffic.

Post reply on HN