131–140 of 246 posts
Also of interest https://www.cable.co.uk/broadband/speed/worldwide-speed-leag... https://www.cable.co.uk/broadband/pricing/worldwide-comparis...
According to that map download speeds are nearly twice as fast in the US as they are in South Korea? I don't know where their data is coming from but that sounds awfully suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
So why is the experience still a monopoly all the same?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is one reason for some caps, which is that you'll always get oversubscription in the cities, and the caps could reflect that to prevent 100% utilisation. They don't have to be so small that people actually think about them. Basically set it at 1TB for residential for the lowest plan and forget about it.
1TB goes by shockingly fast with 4k video streaming (5-10 gigs per hour) and game updates that weight in at tens of gigs each.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1TB goes by shockingly fast with 4k video streaming (5-10 gigs per hour) and game updates that weight in at tens of gigs each.
That's why I mentioned lowest plan. Sure, bump it up for higher levels. But if you want 100h of 4k content a month... just pay for the higher quality to subsidize network development which can handle it? This is totally out of the minimum requirement area.
The place where ISPs skimp is between the home and the DC where the monopoly is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the issue is link speed symmetry, then cable should be out of the running entirely. Even my phone offers better upload speed than cable in my neighborhood. Same for my parents' place across the country. New money should go to fiber, satellite, wireless, or nothing at all.
DOCSIS 3 (from 2006) can do 100/100 over cable - it's the decision of the provider not the technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. 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.
That sounds like a fixed cost to build the network, not the cost of running the network. I agree, building a higher capacity network is more expensive, but how does the cost of running a network change with utilization? If a network is underutilized does it somehow cost less to operate?
I have commercial (ie high priority), 600Mbit/120Mbit broadband with extremely stable (under 15ms, over 99% of th time) round trip to most of the Poland, for equivalent of 20 USD per month.
I know its not the same everywhere in Poland, but consider I also have three mobile internet plans. One of them is 4G limited to 20Mbit but unlimited monthly transfer, for 5 USD per month. This is also quite stable and allows me to comfortably work remotely from almost every place in Poland and serves me as a backup link.
> The funding is going to a mix of cable, fiber, and fixed wireless providers, plus SpaceX's Starlink satellite network. I think cable providers should be left out. They were already gifted many billions of dollars in the past for this same basic purpose but they pocketed the money. They can just use the free money they've already been given. Instead, the funding should go to existing munipical fiber ISPs to expand t…
If the issue is link speed symmetry, then cable should be out of the running entirely. Even my phone offers better upload speed than cable in my neighborhood. Same for my parents' place across the country. New money should go to fiber, satellite, wireless, or nothing at all.
That said, fiber is really really efficient and can put 100 customers utilizing the entire 100m on one strand.
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??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your numbers are misleading. “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 fun…
What's misleading about the numbers? I cited actual distributed money over 7 years for one carrier (AT&T). You're citing proposed amounts to be distributed for the whole program. The program has hit numerous delays, and most of that money has not been distributed. Regarding Phase II, for example: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/fcc-gets-ready-to-kick-off... ("The fund was proposed back in 2013, but for various reas…
In the associated April 2014 Connect America Report and Order, the Commission decided that a competitive ETC that is awarded “support through the competitive bidding process will cease to receive legacy phase-down support for those specific areas upon commencement of Connect America Phase II support.”12 As of July 1, 2014, consistent with the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission froze fixed competitive ETCs’ legacy support at 60%...
Also, wireline providers don’t invest $40 billion per year in extending their networks to new customers. The majority of that money is spent on maintaining and upgrading existing equipment as part of their normal operating costs. It’s like complaining they can’t simply get money without doing anything.