81–90 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If an adversarial nation had control of the white house would anyone be able to tell the difference
I think an adversarial nation would reduce military activity far more than the current regime has. That might be the only difference, though.
You can always tell how tech savvy someone is, buy how much bandwidth they don't buy. They don't fall for the marketing/lobbying of the big incumbent ISPs. Anyone I've known worth their salt in networking cares about latency far more than speed. Historically upload speeds on asymmetrical plans were a problem too, but since people have started to work from home, most cable/fiber/wireless internet providers' lowest pla…
There's no reason to artificially limit the speed. If your city has fibre, everyone can have gigabit internet. There's no savings for the ISP to throttle your pipe.
Seems they really want to revert everything that made the US a world leader. - Reduce science - Reduce collected data - Reduce immigration - Reduce infrastructure - Reduce adoption of EVs
What did EVs make us a leader in? If I remember right, other countries have much higher adoption.
You can always tell how tech savvy someone is, buy how much bandwidth they don't buy. They don't fall for the marketing/lobbying of the big incumbent ISPs. Anyone I've known worth their salt in networking cares about latency far more than speed. Historically upload speeds on asymmetrical plans were a problem too, but since people have started to work from home, most cable/fiber/wireless internet providers' lowest pla…
> rare power users
I would expect a lot of overlap between these two groups! Extremely common things tech people do that benefit greatly from high-bandwidth connections:
- disk backup to the cloud
- use Docker
- have a household with multiple HD TVs (Netflix recommends 30Mbps per stream)
- software installs/updates as a brief interlude instead of an ordeal
Essentially, high-bandwidth connections let you use the Internet like it's functionally infinite instead of something rationed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think an adversarial nation would reduce military activity far more than the current regime has. That might be the only difference, though.
If you reduce all those other things you don’t need to reduce their military. You already won, without a battle or any casualties on your side. The decay and rot from the inside will take care of the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that there is a significant price disparity between locations for what is ostensibly a global service. Central Minnesota isn’t that different in terms of availability of services from my corner of Ohio either. We have 3 fiber providers in the area but even then if you are half a mile out of the service area it can cost a fortune. I just wanted to validate your claim of Starlink’s price competitiveness and…
> Interesting that there is a significant price disparity between locations for what is ostensibly a global service. … is it? Why wouldn't a corporation use any and all data available to them to price discriminate as hard and as much as they possibly can? > my corner of Ohio either. We have 3 fiber providers in the area I … am not sure I believe that. Everywhere I think I have ever lived, broadband is a local monopol…
> Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to determine whether broadband is being deployed "on a reasonable and timely basis" to all Americans.
Carr says that when looking into whether that is being satisfied the FCC should not consider affordability because section 706 does not contain the word "affordability".
But it also does not contain any words for any of the things he does want the FCC to consider. All it says is "reasonable and timely".
I bet if you polled consumers and asked what they would think it means if they were informed some commercial service or product was available to them on a reasonable basis an overwhelming majority would include in their answer that it means it is available to them at a price they find affordable.
You can always tell how tech savvy someone is, buy how much bandwidth they don't buy. They don't fall for the marketing/lobbying of the big incumbent ISPs. Anyone I've known worth their salt in networking cares about latency far more than speed. Historically upload speeds on asymmetrical plans were a problem too, but since people have started to work from home, most cable/fiber/wireless internet providers' lowest pla…
All other things equal, higher bandwidth links are inherently lower latency. Propagation delay usually dominates latency, so it's generally not the biggest factor, but on a simple local network with two PCs and a switch, you can expect about 1ms latency with 100BASE-T, and 0.12ms latency with 1000BASE-T. | Component | 100 Mb/s | 1 Gb/s | | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------------- | -------…
Regardless, the latency difference between 100BASE-TX and 1000BASE‑T pales in comparison to the difference in modem speeds between different providers' network types.
Fiber providers with an ONT get LAN-like speeds, while cable providers' DOCSIS modems add tens of milliseconds of latency, LTE modems are similar to double that of DOCSIS, and satellite providers range from similar to LTE all the way up to hundreds of milliseconds of latency, depending on the orbit and if there are ground stations nearby.
Again, within any provider, you get the same latency with any the plan, but changing providers can have order-of-magnitude differences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem, though; no one's applying any negative stimulus at all.
[flagged]
Get outta here with that. Most of Trump's outrageous policies are incredibly unpopular, even among his base. He's just enacting the wildly unpopular Project 2025, which he denied ever hearing of while hiring 70% of its authors into his administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this isn't as bad as people make of out to be. The 100/20 goal is perfectly fine for the vast majority of users 640K was "perfectly fine" for most people, too. 100/20 is barely enough for a household of 3-5 "light" users. The US already has abysmal broadband speed/bandwidth/latency metrics compared to the rest of the developed world and settling for 2010's version of "fast" in 2025 is ... not how we're goin…
100/20 is barely enough for a household of 3-5 "light" users. What the hell are you doing that 100/20 is "barely enough"?
Also its ridiculous to think that is excessive in any way. Imagine what we could have if we had 100 gigabit or 1 terabit. Instead of watching a flat 4k movie, render a full 4k scene in AR.