151–160 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the kind of unkind and rather toxic comment I would expect on Reddit, not HN. Unimpressed.
This website is worse than Reddit. Lower your expectations.
No. And you'll find people more open to your wishes if you'd avoid the bossy imperative.
Seems they really want to revert everything that made the US a world leader. - Reduce science - Reduce collected data - Reduce immigration - Reduce infrastructure - Reduce adoption of EVs
[flagged]
America had this coming for a long time, right from Reagan's plan to unite Republicans behind Christian nationalism to its realization. This was all so predictable.
In Poland I have 1000/300 fiber in my family house village with ~500 people population and same 1000/300 fiber in city I currently live both for 30 USD / month.
It just seems like the later a country got on the internet, the better their infrastructure is, Poland, Bulgaria, etc. all have way better internet than Austria or Germany
I live in France, growing up most homes were equipped with ADSL. Optical fiber was rolled slowly but surely over the entire territory, systematically replacing older infrastructure. It's now to the point that everyone I know enjoys fast internet, from the center of Paris to the middle of nowhere.
We don't need the FCC to push fast broadband, we need to break up the stranglehold duopoly that phone and cable companies have on cities. If Google can't stomach dealing with them to create more competition, what chance does anyone else have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there was that one court ruling that said agencies have to stick to what Congress actually authorized them to do rather than having free reign to reinterpret their own authorizations however they want.
That's a pretty reductionist take. Here's what I think is a more reasonable one. If I told you your job was to keep the house clean, but made you come back to me for permission to pick up socks, but told you that absolutely didn't give you permission to pick up shoes , waited 8 months to reply to your request for permission to vacuum, denied you authority to decide what pieces of paper are trash and which are importa…
I think this isn't as bad as people make of out to be. The 100/20 goal is perfectly fine for the vast majority of users. The only thing really supporting the old goal of gigabit connections was fiber. I would rather see the expansion of traditional cable or even satellite to rural areas. Fiber plans tend to be expensive and mostly available in the areas that already have usable high speed options. If we really want t…
> I think this isn't as bad as people make of out to be. The 100/20 goal is perfectly fine for the vast majority of users 640K was "perfectly fine" for most people, too. 100/20 is barely enough for a household of 3-5 "light" users. The US already has abysmal broadband speed/bandwidth/latency metrics compared to the rest of the developed world and settling for 2010's version of "fast" in 2025 is ... not how we're goin…
It's plenty for my household with a similar number of users. We have people working from home, streaming, downloading documents or games, etc with no problem.
"The US already has abysmal broadband speed/bandwidth/latency metrics compared to the rest of the developed world"
Because the countries in the rest of the developed world are about the size of 1 state and have higher urbanization. If you want better coverage for an area this size, then it makes sense to include satellite coverage. The gigabit goal excludes them.
"Why spend money and time to expand copper into rural areas when fiber is the same cost."
They're only the same cost if you're starting from the same location. Copper has better penentration already. Expanding copper might mean adding a couple miles. Expanding to that same location with copper might mean putting in 10-50 miles plus any sort of hub or substation. So yes, equal distance is roughly equal cost, but almost everywhere fiber is put in, it's alongside copper anad thus not increasing coverage nor decreasing costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just seems like the later a country got on the internet, the better their infrastructure is, Poland, Bulgaria, etc. all have way better internet than Austria or Germany
Nah, don't buy it. That's a poor excuse for America's bad internet infrastructure and another one of those "it's because we're the first/best/bigger actually". I live in France, growing up most homes were equipped with ADSL. Optical fiber was rolled slowly but surely over the entire territory, systematically replacing older infrastructure . It's now to the point that everyone I know enjoys fast internet, from the cen…
You can always tell how tech savvy someone is, buy how much bandwidth they don't buy. They don't fall for the marketing/lobbying of the big incumbent ISPs. Anyone I've known worth their salt in networking cares about latency far more than speed. Historically upload speeds on asymmetrical plans were a problem too, but since people have started to work from home, most cable/fiber/wireless internet providers' lowest pla…
I don't know about where you live, but by far the lowest latency option for me is symmetric gigabit. And my options jump from 200/20 to 1000/1000, and 200/20 was for sure not enough for everyone to stream and video chat at the same time.
It surprised me, but it works. And despite my 1125/50 connection at home, it surprised me how easy it was to adapt to lower speeds.
That being said, given the option I'd say 200/20 is my preferred minimum.
FYI to all commenters: the current FCC chair was nominated by Trump>Biden>Trump and unanimously confirmed by the Senate all 3 times.
Also, FYI to all commenters: The FCC board is required to have no more than 3 members from a single political party on the board of 5.