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

401–410 of 432 posts

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

#401

Post by toast0 »

adamsvystun wrote: post #247
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 agree that there should be more consumer choice. But is there anything FCC can do to increase it? Is it in their jurisdiction?

> But is there anything FCC can do to increase it? Is it in their jurisdiction?

Sure. They could apply the line sharing rules from the 1996 Telecom Act. Afaik, that's still law, but when courts said the FCC couldn't apply it to telephone companies and not cable companies, the FCC opted to declare the market was competitive and end mandatory line sharing.

Help from congress would be great, though. There was a lot of shenanigans under the line sharing regime, like ILECs pricing retail internet lower than wholesale prices. After a transition period, the line owners shouldn't offer retail service at all, make them restructure it into actually separate companies providing the internet service vs the lines.

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

#402

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

hn_acker wrote: post #378
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It isn’t a “cash grab” at all. If you need more upload you need a new line that isn’t divided so asymmetrically, which means fiber. And once you fiber, there is zero reason to go go symmetric, as you have two lines with the same equipment on either side, to a point where the ISP will charge differently if you cut into their bandwidth too much. Everything else you said could be true, yet not the part about a cash gr…

>Anything worse than $10 for 100 Mbps down and 100 Mbps up from a large ISP is a cash grab now that fiber exists [1],

I thought you were serious for a sec. You should open an ISP, it would be wildly successful with your background knowledge.

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

#403

Post by jupp0r »

toast0 wrote: post #175
jupp0r wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. ISPs can allocate bandwidth on DSL/Coax trunks as they please so it should just be a configuration change to increase the upload percentage.

That's not really true. There's certainly knobs to turn, and almost certainly some available capacity to increase uploads, but coax and dsl are fundamentally asynchronous. Coax has to manage the single (or few) headend transmitter vs many CPE transmitters, you get better multiplexing to the CPE than from the CPE; and while the newest equipment may be able to handle CPE uploads across most of the spectrum, older equip…

Thanks for the detailed overview. I stand corrected. Posts like yours are why I love HN.

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

#405

Post by jackson1442 »

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 :(

Dang, assuming you can get the HOA to sign on you might be able to get in with GFiber Webpass or Atlas (I personally have Atlas) since they’re both microwave providers. There’s no fiber to lay so all they need to do is put a dish on top and integrate it into the distribution system.

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

#406

Post by m463 »

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…

When I first got cable in the beginning, it was symmetrical.

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

#407

Post by landemva »

lyu07282 wrote: post #333
mixdup wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The actual problem is that this is infrastructure owned by a private, international for-profit corporation. Of course it's a fixed cost and a limited number of profitable customers (get fucked if you live anywhere that isn't profitable), yet your profits need to go up forever. I'm always curious because most people intuitively understand why for example it makes no sense to privatize streets and roads, there is only…

> it makes no sense to privatize streets and roads, there is only one going to your home.

Where I live roads are private (part of the lot) with reciprocal easement to all other lot owners to travel on the easement. It's not a toll and it's not 'public' or 'government'. No worries about government making crazy rules on their roads, when we own it.

Closer to topic, I want to get neighbors and everyone onboard with installing fiber in road and leasing to ISPs. Way too many hassles, so we remain dependent on Comcast.

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

#408

Post by huytersd »

duffyjp wrote: post #242
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.

AT&T finally started offering fiber in my neighborhood this summer while Spectrum raised their minimum tier another $5. Needless to said I've seen a lot of AT&T vans around. Unlike most folks my experience with fiber has been dreadful but at least I'm not paying out the nose for a connection with less upload speed than phone.

I’ve only ever heard good things about fiber. High bandwidth, relatively low cost and next to no outages because they are buried. What’s dreadful about it?

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

#409

Post by cereal_cable »

gnicholas wrote: post #390
ZoomerCretin wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK fixes this by forcing the companies who own the lines to rent and share them with other providers. ISPs in the US vehemently oppose this, of course.

> ISPs in the US vehemently oppose this, of course. But is it still required though? Isn't this how Sonic uses AT&T lines? Perhaps it only applies to DSL, which is basically obsolete now?

This happened with copper lines for telephony providers. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers have to provide access for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers to enter the market and break up their monopoly. This effectively made DSL and T1s available via CLECs as they could acquire access to a copper circuit directly.

Internet has yet to be regulated that way and fiber lines aren't considered the same as those copper lines.

Also, fiber to the home is done using most often a PON system purchased from a specific vendor and is a time shared medium. You might only get 1Gbps service but you also aren't getting 100% of the fiber to yourself. The home side device will filter information from your neighbors for instance.

There's always ways to do this of course but, it wouldn't be as straightforward as patch the fiber from your home in the same way that they did with copper lines.

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

#410

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

m463 wrote: post #406
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

When I first got cable in the beginning, it was symmetrical.

Upto 35, yea, ok.

Over 35? You are remembering wrong.

Post reply on HN