101–110 of 233 posts
That explains why I got this email from my broadband provider this morning: >We've increased your internet speeds to show you our appreciation I was wondering what I'd done to deserve it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It’s less a hardware problem and more a medium problem; to go over 100Mbit/sec reliably you’re realistically looking at fibre (or maybe coax, but coax isn’t particularly cost-effective or practical in the rural areas that tend to have problems in this direction.)
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
Nothing is stopping internet providers from selling internet below broadband standard and many do. Changing the exact meaning of broadband allows the government to raise the standard of service people receive and pressure ISPs to be better. Now ISPs have to be at 100/20 minimum otherwise they will not be able to receive grants or other government funding.
It isn't over regulation to mandate ISPs who take government money to meet some pretty basic speed requirements. 100/20mbit isn't even a high bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s less a hardware problem and more a medium problem; to go over 100Mbit/sec reliably you’re realistically looking at fibre (or maybe coax, but coax isn’t particularly cost-effective or practical in the rural areas that tend to have problems in this direction.)
Huh? Business class coax in my area is 1 Gb down. And yes, it does reach those speeds. Are you thinking of DSL?
If the premises served are low-density enough, you may be looking at only one or two per coax section, and at that point you’re probably cheaper just using fibre to the premises anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s less a hardware problem and more a medium problem; to go over 100Mbit/sec reliably you’re realistically looking at fibre (or maybe coax, but coax isn’t particularly cost-effective or practical in the rural areas that tend to have problems in this direction.)
DOCSIS has been able to push 100Mbit/s over coax for nearly 2 decades. Hanging fiber isn't really a complex process anymore anyways. We already run power to basically everywhere people live so hanging some fiber as you go isn't that hard. Electric coops have been receiving federal funding to hang fiber in even the most rural areas for the last 8-10 years with great success.
I like they raised the broadband minimum upload speed from 3 to 25Mbps. Spectrum's 300 Mbps broadband is only 10 Mbps up. Let's see how fast they change their statement that "an upload speed of 3 Mbps is enough for most households" [1]. [1: https://www.spectrum.com/resources/internet-wifi/what-is-a-g... ]
That explains why I got this email from my broadband provider this morning: >We've increased your internet speeds to show you our appreciation I was wondering what I'd done to deserve it!
>"We appreciate providing you with the bare minimum , as required by statute."
Also I believe that an ISP is counted as broadband by the FCC if they have some plans available that meet the FCC's minimums. They do not have to meet them with all plans.
That explains why I got this email from my broadband provider this morning: >We've increased your internet speeds to show you our appreciation I was wondering what I'd done to deserve it!
[flagged]
ADDED: In a context, people develop expectations about what should be metered and what should be unmetered at least up to a point. You want a metered service where most people, at least in the US, have developed an expectation of an unmetered one. And I doubt you're asking for what actually passed for unmetered telecoms 20-30 years ago.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of people have $30 wifi routers that are incorrectly configured and positioned behind a concrete wall in the garage. So 100mbps comes into their house, but their laptops, TVs and phones see 20mbps.
There's also a huge amount of government money going into rural connectivity. It seems to me that StarLink is an ideal solution to this. Rather than running lots of cable to houses that are miles apart, give people subsidies to get StarLink. But if you make legislation that StarLink isn't "broadband", then the money needs to go to the incumbents, who will want billions of dollars in subsidies to lay expensive cables to service a small number of people. If I had to guess, some of those large players might have lobbied for this change, because they want some of that $18 billion pie that the FCC authorized for rural broadband expansion [1].
Anecdotally, Comcast has a 50mbps plan in my neighborhood for $20/month. If I needed more than that, I would gladly pay for it... affordability isn't the issue, I just get very little benefit from a connection faster than that, and the faster plans still have the same 10mbps upload speeds [2]. What I would 100% definitely pay for is more reliable internet that (almost) never goes down, but there's only two options in my neighborhood and I'm not sure the alternative is better. And I'm a software engineer... I'm on my computer all day, often downloading large files, on lots of zoom calls, while my kids are watching Netflix. I doubt most people's needs are substantially higher than mine.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-authorizes-over-18-billion-...
[2] they actually gave me a free bump to 150mbps a few days ago, probably in response to this new ruling. I haven't really noticed any difference.
