Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have access to residential internet with 10Gbps up and down? I didn't even know that was a thing.
Not in the US :'(
Yeah in the US. I've got symmetric 10 Gbps fiber in Oakland, California.
FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
181–190 of 296 posts
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I always thought the upstream speed was an artificial limitation so they could upsell "business internet" to people who wanted to host servers - and that they doubled down by reassigning your IP periodically if they saw a lot of incoming connections on layer 4. I did try hosting a server on my comcast cable internet for a while and the IP which I had for seven years prior did start changing every day - sometimes more…
RF channels actually are a finite resource on a coax segment because the aggregate capacity of one port coming off the CMTS is considerably less than properly implemented singlemode fiber. Because most residential customer traffic is inbound, like people watching netflix or browsing the web, they allocate the capacity asymmetrically.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I always thought the upstream speed was an artificial limitation so they could upsell "business internet"... No, really not that at all. As noted in a few comments here, they rolled out their local infrastructure in the era of "on demand TV", when it made sense for both the cable operators and their customers to prioritize download spectrum over upload. And that meant installing expensive analog filters all up and…
At this point they've gotten plenty of money from those filters, and they should be replacing them instead of doing their best to pretend upload doesn't exist. It's a disadvantage vs. somehow knowing the future, but in the absence of future-knowing I bet they still made more money by deploying earlier. First mover tradeoffs.
On the other hand a cable tv incumbent in a given metro area has a huge first mover advantage of having established the right-of-way in various places (aerial pole to pole, underground duct, etc). And is usually treated by the local government as a default utility service same as water and power so they can build whatever they want almost anywhere they want, anytime they want.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is broadband so shitty in the heart of Silicon Valley? Why doesn’t Google just wire the whole place up as a tech demo? Comcast just upgraded my fiber to 7 gbps. It’s spendy ($300/mo) but I also have gigabit Fios available for $80/mo.
Google wired my city up as a tech demo. Their microtrenching approach was atrocious and resulted in frequent service interruptions and significant traffic disruption as they patched the same spots multiple times. Eventually they decided the network was so damaged that they’d have to do a total rebuild, and that wasn’t interesting. They threw up their hands up and left, giving the city a few million to clean up the me…
was that kansas city?
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Starlink is in your area, this is an option worth looking into.
Or 4g/5g. I bought a place way out in the boonies and I’m getting 70 down with a 4x4 MIMO antenna, no data cap. Without the antenna it would be <5 down.
Neither starlink nor most terrestrial telco offer real internet service. I don't really care about speed. I care about participating in the internet and consistent latency. Some rare terrestrial telcos will offer ipv4 addresses and so use of ports for a much higher fee but it is the general rule that most don't. Consistent latency is impossible to achieve with wireless' random round trip time and tcp back-off.
They're fine services for consuming media but they aren't very good ISPs.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#186With how slowly these proposals roll out, 100/20 won't be enough. As others said, there is a lack of both competition and pricing to worry about too. In a major tech hub like San Francisco, where I live, it's possible to get 1gb/1gb in some areas for under $90, but which those are isn't consistent nor wide spread. Home cell coverage at 100/20 is spotty at best, and there is only one flat rate vendor (T-Mobile Home, n…
> In a major tech hub like San Francisco, where I live, it's possible to get 1gb/1gb in some areas for under $90 As a point of comparison, I live in a small city in Europe (80k population) and we have 10gb/10gb for $60/month. My internal network is only capable of 2.5gbit, but I can upload at that speed indefinitely. I could honestly not imagine going back to ADSL speeds.
San Francisco is an interesting case (and I say this as an SF native). The city government is so unfathomably dysfunctional in large part due to London Breed (the current mayor) bringing cronyism back as fast as she can.
Parts of the city are covered by MonkeyBrainz (microwave p2p), parts by Webpass (fiber), and most of the city is covered by Comcast (cable) or PacBell/SBC/AT&T (DSL and adjacent). Up until Sonic started rolling out 1 Gbps fiber a few years ago all I could get at my last place in the city was 3/1 Mbps ADSL or Comcast.
PacBell was always reluctant to build out RTs compared to GTE/Verizon (who has a significantly smaller presence in the Bay Area) so DSL speeds in large chunks of SF were always shit. Even when they did build out RTs the ILECs were never required to resell RT access so speeds remained shit. I'm not entirely sure why AT&T's U-Verse (FTTN, VDSL last mile) was rolled out so slowly but I expect the need for intrusive sidewalk boxes was part of the problem. Sonic got boned because SF's supervisors were/are reluctant to allow micro trenching. For a while there was some buzz about muni fiber but that never got off the ground (and Sonic certainly helped put a few nails in that coffin).
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#187There's a lot of comments on this thread pointing out typical bandwidth usage of popular streaming services, games etc and claiming that there's no need for higher bandwidth connections.
There's an important point that I think people are missing, which is that the bandwidth usage of internet services is going to be carefully tuned to balance quality and stability at typical internet speeds. When a large portion of consumers have of course all services are going to use The most obvious thing that we already know we're missing out on is video streaming quality. You've possibly already noticed that low contrast dark scenes and scenes with snow/rainfall don't look very good on Netflix/YouTube/insert streaming service here - this is because these are the kind of scenes with the most obvious sacrifice of quality from video compression. (It's also possible you haven't noticed this, because streaming services generally avoid producing content that doesn't play well with their video compression).
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the US :'(
At my house, thanks to Los Altos Hills Community Fiber. It's in the US. https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/b6f39b75-d71a-4d89-b0f5-9...
Damn you've got 2 orders of magnitude on me with my bare-bones Comcast plan! What's this run you per month?
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Where can you get that?
Sounds like Sonic. They're building out fiber in various zip codes around the SF Bay Area.
It sounds like Sonic, but Sonic's 10 Gbps offering is AFAIK symmetric. Of course Sonic's gotten a lot more cagey about specifics and I don't have any 10G equipment so it's hard for me to tell.
Re: FCC proposes to increase minimum broadband speeds to 100 Mbps
#190How does this affect smaller competition? Regulatory capture is always what comes to mind when I think about the FCC. Who are the winners and losers?