FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

Post by johncolanduoni » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

BigFnTelly wrote: post #87

cortesoft wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't true, though. The limit for a network provider is peak bandwidth usage. When they sell a 2gbps connection to a customer, that 2gbps connection is not reserved entirely for that customer. It isn't like the total bandwidth an ISP has is 2gbps * N number of customers. They over-subscribe because they know not every customer is going to be using up that full 2gbps 24/7. Now, you can argue that an ISP SHOU…

would it be fair to say that bandwidth is just another product sold like plane tickets?

Post by bscphil » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

jwells89 wrote: post #58

bscphil wrote: post #37

It's 100 Mbps down / 20 Mbps up as the proposal, and 1000 Mbps / 500 Mbps as an eventual goal. I imagine the 20 Mbps upload target is useless for most of us, even those on asymmetric cable, but there's a good chance that if the ISPs were forced to provide 20 Mbps up at their lowest broadband tiers, it would raise the ladder quite a bit. For example, on Comcast I get 800 / 20, but there's also a 400 / 10 tier (and may…

Upload being low is frustrating. In my area Comcast sells “gigabit” service that’s 1000Mbps/20Mbps which seems like it’s explicitly designed to hook less technically aware customers who know “gigabit” is good but not exactly how. Thankfully there are alternative ISPs here that sell symmetrical gigabit, but that’s definitely not the case everywhere.

Post by danielhep » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 8:27 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #75

bscphil wrote: post #37

It's 100 Mbps down / 20 Mbps up as the proposal, and 1000 Mbps / 500 Mbps as an eventual goal. I imagine the 20 Mbps upload target is useless for most of us, even those on asymmetric cable, but there's a good chance that if the ISPs were forced to provide 20 Mbps up at their lowest broadband tiers, it would raise the ladder quite a bit. For example, on Comcast I get 800 / 20, but there's also a 400 / 10 tier (and may…

> I imagine the 20 Mbps upload target is useless for most of us, even those on asymmetric cable I wish this were true. I'm in Seattle and Xfinity will only sell me 5 Mbps up, even at 480 down, unless I pay out the ass for a symmetric gigabit connection I don't need. Very much looking forward to the FCC forcing at least 20.

Post by Szpadel » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 8:27 PM UTC

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #41

entropicdrifter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's next to free (no additional cost to run the infrastructure we're already running) and we're nowhere near the limits of our existing infrastructure's overall bandwidth limits right now, as evidenced by the lack of caps not affecting quality of internet service for the entirety of 2020, when more people were online per hour than at any previous point in history.

Also, when caps are implemented, they're ridiculously expensive and limited, especially in an age of streaming video. Expensive comically beyond any reasonable conception of the actual marginal cost of transiting the traffic. Also - just look at LTE operators. They're also no-cap at this point (though subject to QoS at certain breakpoints, but they're typically reasonable breakpoints ime?). And that's in a SIGNIFICAN…

Post by wing-_-nuts » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

idiot900 wrote: post #10

Honest question: at what point, with real life usage, is 1 Gbps actually necessary for home users? I find that latency rather than throughput is what determines my perceived quality of an Internet connection. But am curious how others think.