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

391–400 of 432 posts

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

#391

Post by cortesoft »

musha68k wrote: post #136
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…

ISPs face costs for peak usage / level of “playing with the numbers” yes, but economies of scale and exchange agreements reduce these costs significantly. Bandwidth caps not only have a weak financial justification but also run counter to net neutrality.

How do bandwidth costs run counter to net neutrality? (Unless you are talking about certain types of traffic not counting against the caps)

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

#392

Post by warner25 »

pests wrote: post #387
warner25 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do with all that, especially with WiFi everywhere? Are you continuously streaming video while on-the-go between WiFi networks? That's fine, it's just stunning. I'm admittedly a minimal user of my phone. I average about 10 unlocks per day. Especially when I'm on-the-go, it's just calls and text messages, some driving directions, and maybe looking up a phone number or business hours. If I use it to listen t…

I don't actually like connecting to public WiFi spots. Ususally the connection is worse than my cellular and why send data through yet another third party network? At least I have a long established relationship with my service provider. Continuously streaming video? Not at all, might watch something here or there but most of my device usage is text or just reading. I barely use the phone or texting or social media.…

> ...just how data-hungry modern apps are...

True. I really try to avoid using the browser for anything unless I'm on WiFi because a single page (really all the other crap that gets loaded besides the actual content that I'm looking for, even with uBlock Origin) might eat dozens of MB. For a while I used the NPR One app to stream podcasts, but I gave it up when it started using way, way more data than streaming audio should ever require.

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

#393

Post by seany »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #55
notyourwork wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that speed should be symmetrical. We are continuing to push the boundaries are content going out.

That's what gets me. Is there a technical reason why symmetrical connections would be more expensive than asymm?

It depends on the layer 1 medium. In a shared RF environment (dialup, cable, wifi, p2p RF) you normally have a shared bandwidth space. This is typically "channelized" and you can pick how many channels you want for "up" and how many for "down". This isn't normally dynamic, it needs to be fixed by the standard or at the very least by the head end equipment. It's more expensive in the above RF spaces because cabling is expensive the more home runs you want to do. With fiber it's a little easier, 1:32 pon splits still give a _lot_ of bandwidth for upstream because it's easier to isolate the adjacent wavelengths (you can pack them in tighter), and the normal noise floor is lower. With 1:1 fiber DIA it's a total non issue and you can do what ever is the limit of the noise of the fiber and the limits of the transceivers (typically optical packages in sfp/sfp+ packaging these days)

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

#394

Post by phkahler »

cortesoft wrote: post #110
phkahler wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that's more about the company making too many large updates. And when they do have a large updated it should be up to the user to decide when to get it. Downloading it over night should be an option, and not required to play. I've seem games that demanded the update in order to play, which is really annoying and I don't think it should be that way.

The whole point is that I am trying to play multiplayer games with my friends. All being on the same version seems like a reasonable requirement.

>> All being on the same version seems like a reasonable requirement.

Sounds like instantaneous update is too, but that's a relatively infrequent use of your connection.

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

#396

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#397

Post by nunez »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #346
m463 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upload speed is just a cash grab. It is a way to segregate price-sensitive residential vs price-insensitive business customers who can then be charged enormous amounts.

> Upload speed is just a cash grab. No. This lacks all historical and practical understanding of why upload speeds are limited. Back in the 70s/80s when coax was being planned and rolled out for cable, they needed to figure out what frequencies they would use. Cable providers knew they needs a ton in one direction and only a tiny bit for things like buying pay per view in the other. This has been fine traditionally b…

And for most folks 35Mbit up is perfectly fine. Okay, maybe bulk uploading photos and videos to Google Photos will be a slog, but most users aren't doing that with any regularity.

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

#398

Post by runjake »

bmicraft wrote: post #310
runjake wrote: post #267

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.

Wow, the worst ratio i've ever seen was 20:1 and that's way below

This is on Spectrum Cable Internet, for anyone wondering.

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

#399

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#400

Post by toast0 »

msmith wrote: post #321
Fatnino wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It boggles my mind that Google Fiber has been available in Austin, TX for 10 years but is still not available in the communities next door to Google HQ.

Google announced they would bring service to San Jose, along with about 20? other locations, and then later in the week, AT&T announced they would bring fiber to the listed communities in their ILEC territory and a couple more for good measure. And then a few months later, AT&T started rolling it out. Google hadn't figured out how to access poles or where they wanted equipment by the time AT&T was offering service, so they gave up. They did get some new service areas through aquisition, but I don't think they've announced any new construction service areas in a very long time now.
Post reply on HN