101–110 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to be aggressive here (specially since I'm WAY out of my lane when it comes to networking), but what's wrong with PON?
It's asymmetric, providing far less upload capacity than download.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to be aggressive here (specially since I'm WAY out of my lane when it comes to networking), but what's wrong with PON?
It's asymmetric, providing far less upload capacity than download.
Imagine how good our network technology policy would be if the Senate weren't run by septagenarians and octogenarian. I fear that data caps for home internet will become standard. There is no technological reason for these caps. For wireless, they could be defended by arguing that companies only get to use so much spectrum because of FCC laws. But the only limit for home internet is the ISP's willingness to deploy eq…
Flatrate models usually means that a large majority of users actually covers the costs for a the minority high consumers. It is true that the marginal cost for more transmitted data is almost zero, but the overhead costs of running (and expanding) networks are certainly not. Cost has to be covered and you could very well argue that it makes sense that the large consumers pay more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to help improve Internet access through its Universal Service provision. Of course all the telecoms pocketed the money and didn't do shit. https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service
The 1996 telecom act had an unfunded statement of policy to that end. But the universal service fund wasn’t used for broadband until 2013: https://connectednation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/caf_p... . Larger carriers weren’t covered until 2015. And it has not been a lot of money: https://www.telecompetitor.com/ahead-of-rdof-caf-lives-on-as... > AT&T and CenturyLink accepted all funding for all states for which th…
“On October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition the money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program into the new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund, effectively putting an end to the USF High-Cost Fund by 2018.“
“In March 2014, the FCC approved "Phase II" of the transition to the Connect America Fund, adding $1.8 billion a year in funding.”
What’s important to realize is these subsides ends up providing paying customers to these companies. As such they don’t need to cover 100% of the cost of connections only the subset of that cost that wouldn’t be covered by monthly fees.
Somewhat related, if you would like to query any location in the U.S. and see internet speeds, the government has a site for it. [1] I am using that to decide where to move. Use the pull down menu to change from coordinates to address. You can put in a street address. [1] - https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/
At least in my case that map is overly optimistic. It reports two additional providers that won't actually make the installation. I've tried. Charter only.
It's ok for video streaming and conference calls. And I guess that's the minimal threshold. But with more and more services and offerings in the cloud, especially iCloud that just happily backs-up data out of the box and OneDrive 1TB corporate plan it's not going to win any awards.
With the pandemic and the changes in work from home habits, if I was a small town mayor I'd be rolling out fiber right now like there's no tomorrow. Big upfront costs but it instantly boosts the value of every property covered and attracts a new demographic that's not tied to any specific geographic location. Even with folks doing part time work from home, the additional time spent in the town during work days means that commercial real-estate will appreciate as well.
Easy as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 25/3 Mbps is a very reasonable speed for most people. the issue is that its provided on a best effort basis that is never maintained for long, if at all. netflix says thats enough to stream UHD[0] Please expand upon your point. Why exactly is 25/3 reasonable for most people? I'm not necessarily disagreeing; indeed, this would be a god-level speed compared to what's currently standard for most of Latin America. Howe…
> your point about Netflix is irrelevant because not every use case can be buffered nothing special about netflix, just a service that most people use. even their highest quality offering is streamable if we actually got advertised speeds. just trying to say that 25 isnt a meaningful cap for most people. > require better up speed than 3Mbps with bad ping and high jitter rejectfinite makes this point downthread and i…
Remote work has become very much A Thing since the COVID lockdown. Solid upload/download bandwidth isn't about streaming multiple 4K movies. It's about productivity where a sketchy 3Mbps connection is a hurdle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> -regulating ISPs as a free market is, to be hyperbolic, a disaster. there is effectively a monopoly in most parts of the country. > all in all, this reeks of regulatory capture to me. if we're gonna have a serious discussion about internet infrastructure, i think the starting point is how we classify ISPs and where in the city-state-federal hierarchy the responsibility lies. changing a 26 to a 100 is a cool bullet…
> ISPs are generally granted explicit or effective monopolies by local governments Granting ISPs explicit monopolies has been illegal since the 1992 cable act. Show me a franchise agreement that has an exclusivity provision. They’re public documents.
in Romania you can't even get lower than 100Mbs at the largest internet providers (even 100Mbs in some cases) https://www.digi.ro/servicii/internet
I'm I reading that right that a "940/450 Mbps" fiber plan is ~$10 a month??
They also didn't say anything about data caps, though there could be something in the contracts. I don't read Romanian myself and the PDFs of the contracts are time-consuming to manually reformat and feed into Google Translate. (Text selection goes across the page, not down each column, so it interleaves the columns.) But those minimum speeds—which BTW are guaranteed in the contracts—and no data caps would imply an oversubscription rate of only 4-5x.
One question to ask would be whether they are getting a subsidy to provide service at those rates. The subscriber might not be paying the full cost, or at least not up front.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flatrate models usually means that a large majority of users actually covers the costs for a the minority high consumers. It is true that the marginal cost for more transmitted data is almost zero, but the overhead costs of running (and expanding) networks are certainly not. Cost has to be covered and you could very well argue that it makes sense that the large consumers pay more.
Does the cost of running a network depend on network utilization? Does a network that is more heavily used require more maintenance?
If the network is more heavily used, it will require more capacity where it connects to other parts of the network or other networks. More ports and more wires means more failures of ports and wires and more diagnosis of ports and wires and more replacement of ports and wires.
Or, if capacity is not increased to meet demand, you need more people at the callcenter to ignore customer complaints.