Meaningless vs the most important change the FCC could make for home internet:
"Common carrier"
FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
131–140 of 296 posts
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#132The amount of bandwidth you need depends on the number of people. 50Mb or 25Mb is probably fine for 1 person. As long as it can do 4k, and zoom calls, it's fine for most people. 100Mb might not be enough for six people, who might need to download, zoom, game, and stream all at once.
what's the obsession with 4k? 1080p abd 1440p are way more common.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4k during a zoom call would be fine on 100Mb Not sure what bit rate TV is at, but one 4K YouTube stream can take up to 68Mbps, and 8K even more. We're on 400Mbps, and even then I manage to block internet for others when I download a large file at full speed.
> We're on 400Mbps, and even then I manage to block internet for others when I download a large file at full speed. That's more of a router/QoS issue. A large download shouldn't negatively affect quality for other uses, especially VoIP. If the place you're downloading from has a pipe bigger than yours and can saturate your bandwidth you're going to need to implement some kind of rate-limiting/queue management.
I've seen a lot of people complaining that their 100M+ connections are "slow" for that reason, and they upgrade to 1G and they complain again. It's not like they're doing much on that 1G line either, just say a Steam game download at full speed followed with a stuttering Zoom call. You'll be surprised how far you can push a 10M DSL connection with good QOS (assuming you don't have multiple users streaming video and such).
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#134Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#135I'd rather have two providers that offers 25Mbps than one that offers 100Mbps. I don't need 100, or even 50. But Comcast has been jacking up their prices, along with increasing the minimum speed available, for years. They respond to government regulations like these. I'm now paying 2x what I used to (from $25 to $50/mo), and getting 2x the speed. But I don't want to be forced to buy 2x the speed (or even faster, as t…
Would two providers solve anything? There are 3 cell phone companies and they’re all virtually the same price.
Do you think the price would be the same if two of them were eliminated? I guarantee you the price would go up.
Also, there are MVNOs. You can get cell service much cheaper if you don't go with the big 3, and the quality is basically the same.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#136The problem, in the USA for most people, is Comcast. Downspeed hardly matters. It's been plenty for decades. Upload speed has stagnated. I uploaded as fast in 2003 as I do now in 2022. And as others have said, it's not so much about 1 fast provider as many providers and choice. In my comcast monopoly my plan started at $60/mo in 2011 and without any changes on my end and no change in my upload speed that price has in…
The problem is not just Comcast but everything of its ilk, and by that I mean Charter (Spectrum/former Time Warner Cable), RCN/Grande/Astound and similar giant size coax based DOCSIS3 operators. In Canada, Shaw and Rogers. They are absolutely determined to squeeze every last dollar of ROI out of that existing coax cable plant by doing asymmetric RF channels for downstream/upstream. And not overbuilding themselves wit…
While there is plenty of things that can be blamed on cable providers, the allocation is asymmetric RF channels it's not something that they decide to do specifically to mess up with clients but actually part of DOCSIS standard that is made by CableLabs (yea.. with input from cable companies, yet...) . A lot of todays restriction are derived from dark ages when cable was tv and not internet. IIRC till DOCSIS 3.1 (or 3.0?) data downstream was actually framed inside mpeg segments (or something like this) .
They did manage to incrementally squeeze much more out of their infra (coax) compared to what is achievable with twisted pair.
Last house that I rented had 30+ years old coax drop that were handling 1000/30 just fine and at my current house i get 1200/30. Yea, it sucks that upstream is limited but sometimes legacy tech is legacy tech and decisions must be made in order to properly serve all the clients on plant with all the gazillion of different devices that they have
Edit: nice old discussion about upstream channels allocation in DOCSIS https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22572536
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#137I'd rather have two providers that offers 25Mbps than one that offers 100Mbps. I don't need 100, or even 50. But Comcast has been jacking up their prices, along with increasing the minimum speed available, for years. They respond to government regulations like these. I'm now paying 2x what I used to (from $25 to $50/mo), and getting 2x the speed. But I don't want to be forced to buy 2x the speed (or even faster, as t…
have you considered looking into the 5g home offerings from Verizon and TMobile? In my area Spectrum was having a fine time jacking up rates unfettered and laughing at me when I asked to reduce them. I switched to Verizon 5G Home and when I called Spectrum to cancel, they practically begged me to stay (edit: I didn't) and have now adjusted their rates to match Vzw/Tmo; of course these reduced rates are only good for…
Where I live, there is neither Verizon or T-Mobile service, unfortunately. This is a stone's throw from Stanford; I cannot understand how we only have cell provider that works at our house. Fortunately there are MVNOs, so we're not stuck paying AT&T pricing for mobile.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#138Besides watching 4K TV there is almost nothing that you need 100Mbps for. I don’t see why this is necessary.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
5 Mbps down is certainly more than adequate for a single 1080p stream that's been compressed ahead of time. When you have to stitch together multiple real-time streams as in a classroom environment, then the actual numbers can vary significantly. If your kids are forced into remote learning, and you're working from home, then we might be talking more like 3-4 Mbps per person if your network is split 5 or 6 ways. And…
> If you're paying for 20Mbps under the assumption that you'll only need 18Mbps at peak, you'll be frustrated when you end up only getting 15Mbps and all the video calls stutter / cut out intermittently. But isn't that the real problem here? Companies shouldn't be able to advertise a 20 mbps connection if they aren't able to maintain that speed. Dropping one megabit on occasion may be reasonable, but five is at the p…
Are you literally incapable of understanding that other peoples' needs are different from your own?
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
But bandwidth does matter when you have multiple devices. On a typical day it is not uncommon for multiple video calls to be going on at the same time in my apt. My roommate and I used to schedule our meetings around one another so that we could have a call with our respective advisors that wasn't choppy. We'd also make sure not to be streaming video at these times either. Bandwidth is 100% part of the problem. Now I…
> On a typical day it is not uncommon for multiple video calls to be going on at the same time in my apt. My roommate and I used to schedule our meetings around one another so that we could have a call with our respective advisors that wasn't choppy. We'd also make sure not to be streaming video at these times either. Bandwidth is 100% part of the problem. I don't know your situation, but fwiw, if a friend was having…
A tip for anyone having such issues with wifi on linux: Is it a 2.4GHz network and is anyone using bluetooth (such as headphones)? They might be interfering with each other.
The iwlwifi kernel module has an option that tries to allow them to coexist, but it seems totally random whether or not you should have it on. Different bluetooth headphones also affect it in different ways (as I discovered a few weeks ago when I bought a different brand; with my usual the bluetooth would drop for about a minute then reconnect with no effect on the wifi, but with the new ones they would go crazy maintaining the connection, causing a lot of audio stuttering and extremely slow wifi).
https://techvorm.com/fix-wifi-not-working-slows-ubuntu-bluet...
https://askubuntu.com/questions/1060094/bluetooth-audio-inte...