61–70 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Three nines is completely unacceptable Less than 9 hrs of downtime per year is unacceptable for consumer internet?
It is when you work from home.
This is over regulation imo. If you support this then you can’t complain about there not being any low cost housing because it’s regulations akin to this that is increasing the costs. 25->100 is more of a luxury then a necessity
25mbps being "broadband" is a bit of a joke, a single 4k stream can exceed that. 100mbps is about what is needed for todays "broadband" applications. Raising the floor to 20mbps for uploads is also fairly important for more practical things, having to backup a laptop at 3mbps was wholly impractical. 20mbps is a good bump if you're running some backups overnight, or uploading a 4k video file. I don't see any reason to…
This is over regulation imo. If you support this then you can’t complain about there not being any low cost housing because it’s regulations akin to this that is increasing the costs. 25->100 is more of a luxury then a necessity
How much do you pay for internet? Maybe you should be directing your ire elsewhere. I currently pay $60/month for 600 down. An ISP that actually struggles to provide 100mbps down at a reasonable rate, today, is simply one that refuses to update their hardware. 100mbps is not hard to achieve with semi-modern hardware. I know of ISPs servicing remote small communities with 1gbps down at $100/month. 300 down for $30/mon…
This is over regulation imo. If you support this then you can’t complain about there not being any low cost housing because it’s regulations akin to this that is increasing the costs. 25->100 is more of a luxury then a necessity
… WAit, how, precisely, does this make housing more expensive? Like, what is the method of action?
So building housing in a remote area only served by a WISP gets more expensive.
In practice I don't think the FCC really thinks about oversubscription.
IMNSHO, latency is more important than raw bandwidth, and raw bandwidth for consumer Internet is more useful as a latency improvement (because the high speed drains the buffers that much faster) than for actually using the bandwidth. If you've got actually decent Internet, or you actually do use the bandwidth, great! My experience is that only a few applications will max out my 115Mbit/s connection, and given I have…
The only thing personally I want is the same upload speed as download. So I can connect to my home server and download/upload stuff from it.
I'd rather have 200/20 than 15/15 or 20/20 (obviously), but I would also rather have 200/20 than 25/25.
IMNSHO, latency is more important than raw bandwidth, and raw bandwidth for consumer Internet is more useful as a latency improvement (because the high speed drains the buffers that much faster) than for actually using the bandwidth. If you've got actually decent Internet, or you actually do use the bandwidth, great! My experience is that only a few applications will max out my 115Mbit/s connection, and given I have…
My experience is that people rarely feel constrained by bandwidth because everyone is fighting to optimize every last bit, often using varying techniques that sacrifice quality. Not a single video calling app that I’ve used recently feels like it’s actually delivering good video to me. They're all bitcrushed. They work for some meetings at work, but I would really love a much higher bandwidth connection for screen sharing on Discord and practically every streaming app.
Latency is also important: don’t get me wrong about that. But the fact that I have 1Gbps and I can’t get high bitrate video down kills me.
Going to be interesting to see how they respond. Do consumers care or differentiate “broadband” anymore? Why do I feel like they might just pivot to not using the word “broadband” at all anymore and use some internal branding like the stupid 10g crap Comcast tried. Thankfully they were told to stop but if they are more careful…
Personally, I can't remember the last piece of marketing that tried to sell me "broadband" internet. They all say "high speed" internet. Anyway, the 15/3mbps down/up I get in the Oregon countryside is indeed high speed compared to the 5/1mbps down/up I had smack in the middle of the Los Angeles suburbs.
With how many 9's of availability, and at what latency? Frontier is advertising 3 nines average network-wide availability for their new fiber network. Three nines is completely unacceptable, but our neighborhood barely got one nine last year. Based on their current behavior, there's zero chance of them providing the bandwidths they're advertising for the new build out, even when the network is completely up and compl…
Why isn't 3 9's acceptable for residential home internet? That's less than 9 hours of downtime a year, 44 minutes/month. Sure, I'd like 4 or even 5 9's, but I don't want to pay for it -- each additional 9 is exponentially more expensive to guarantee, and few people are willing to pay for that much reliability for their own network gear.
IMNSHO, latency is more important than raw bandwidth, and raw bandwidth for consumer Internet is more useful as a latency improvement (because the high speed drains the buffers that much faster) than for actually using the bandwidth. If you've got actually decent Internet, or you actually do use the bandwidth, great! My experience is that only a few applications will max out my 115Mbit/s connection, and given I have…
The only thing personally I want is the same upload speed as download. So I can connect to my home server and download/upload stuff from it.
IMNSHO, latency is more important than raw bandwidth, and raw bandwidth for consumer Internet is more useful as a latency improvement (because the high speed drains the buffers that much faster) than for actually using the bandwidth. If you've got actually decent Internet, or you actually do use the bandwidth, great! My experience is that only a few applications will max out my 115Mbit/s connection, and given I have…