Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

docs.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 432 posts

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#201

Post by gknoy »

gnicholas wrote: post #162

I started with Comcast with 12Mbps service. Over time, they increased the base speed they offer to 20, 25, 50, and now 75. They have done this because they want to have x% of their customers on "broadband", per the federal definition. This is all well and good, but they keep increasing the price, and refuse to offer lower-tier service. I probably wouldn't want 12Mbps anymore, but 20 or 25 would suffice. I wish I coul…

> I have considered using a cellular hotspot, but it's not competitive in terms of pricing.

I had the opposite experience. I was a very happy Comcast customer for a year or two (their curfew-for-kids-computers feature on their router was great, and the mobile app integration was very handy), but the 5G Verizon offering was cheaper and faster (where I live). I have never felt so bad canceling my account, as everything about the experience was great, but VZ had double (or more) the upload speed.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#202

Post by musha68k »

I_Am_Nous wrote: post #74
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.

Yes and no, depending on your plant build out you might have great interplant connectivity - 10G between each switch, 10G to the router, but the extraplant connections still cost and have bandwidth limits. So if you only use 2 gbps total during peak, you may not need to upgrade your plant to support higher speeds but you will have to pay more to your upstream provider to support it. This is actually relevant to my IS…

It’s true that smaller ISPs have their challenges, but the cost for both interplant and extraplant connections has been generally decreasing. Economies of scale and peering agreements can mitigate many of these costs.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#203

Post by sokoloff »

notyourwork wrote: post #28
andrewmunsell wrote: post #3

This is nice, but with increased speed, they should also require ISPs do not impose a data cap to be considered broadband.

And that speed should be symmetrical. We are continuing to push the boundaries are content going out.

I don't care if it's symmetrical. I care that I have enough upstream.

I'd obviously rather have a useful 500/200 than a 100/100 or 50/50, even though the latter is symmetrical. (I think my service now is around 400/20. I'm way happier with that than I would be with 50/50.)

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#205

Post by dghlsakjg »

kulahan wrote: post #93
paxys wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad analogy, because it actually costs more to maintain roads that are used more. ISPs don't have to pay extra if I consume more data packets than my neighbor. Overage charges are just a money grab on their part, nothing more.

Also a bad analogy because the roads are paid for with gas taxes, which WFH workers typically purchase less of

A minority of US road costs are paid for with gas taxes, and it depends tremendously on the location. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/states-road-funding...

WFH workers likely pay more per mile travelled in taxes than someone who super-commutes.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#206

Post by throw0101a »

How about a future/stretch goal of open access networks so that we can get some competition at OSI Layer 3:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network

Ideally OSI Layer 1/2 would be a neutral third-party that doesn't do an IP but rather only makes sure physical plant is ubiquitous in good working order:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

It was possible to wire up countries and continents with electricity and telephone in the early 1900s, so I don't see why is not technically possible to do the same with fibre in the early 2000s.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#207

Post by organsnyder »

bscphil wrote: post #188
organsnyder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to someone I know that works at Comcast, they're working on rolling out symmetrical (or at least closer to symmetrical) speeds—even over coax—within the next few years. I'm able to get 2000/200, which is decent. Metronet just buried fiber in my front yard, though, so I'm looking forward to symmetrical fiber soonish (though Metronet has been building so fast I'm worried about growing pains).

Yes, there's actually a significant ongoing scandal over this because they're only rolling it out (in most cases) to people renting their expensive hardware, even if the modem you bought already has the necessary DOCSIS 3.1 support. It's so scummy. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/want-faster-comc...

I can understand it to an extent—easier to do an initial roll-out when you're able to more easily control the parameters—but it certainly isn't a good look.

What's more scummy (IMHO) is that it's actually cheaper for me to rent their modem—which includes unlimited data—than it is for me to pay the fee to remove the data cap.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#208

Post by vel0city »

jacksnipe wrote: post #189
gnicholas wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if there's not a cost difference, why do they keep trying to double my pricing when the base tier goes up? My sense is there is some cost savings at these lower tiers, but more importantly it would prevent ISPs from jacking prices up while using higher speeds as the rationale ("Look, we just tripled your speed, and it only costs double!"). ISPs would be less likely to double prices without any service improveme…

They’ve already trained consumers that higher speeds cost more. They would need a compelling reason to keep costs the same after increasing speeds.

I've had many instances where ISPs increased my speeds without increasing prices.

If pricing stayed even close to fixed my gigabit internet would cost well over $10,000mo, considering back in the day I was paying SBC for less than a meg for more than I'm paying for a gigabit today. And that's before adjusting for inflation, those 90s dollars are worth way more than 2023 dollars.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#209

Post by gnicholas »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #185
gnicholas wrote: post #162

I started with Comcast with 12Mbps service. Over time, they increased the base speed they offer to 20, 25, 50, and now 75. They have done this because they want to have x% of their customers on "broadband", per the federal definition. This is all well and good, but they keep increasing the price, and refuse to offer lower-tier service. I probably wouldn't want 12Mbps anymore, but 20 or 25 would suffice. I wish I coul…

I'm in an area with competition and I think I'm paying like $60/month for 10Gbps.

Yeah that's Comcast's regular price for their lowest tier (75Mbps) where I am.

Re: FCC launches inquiry to increase minimum broadband speed [pdf]

#210

Post by stefan_ »

jjcm wrote: post #108
andrewmunsell wrote: post #3

This is nice, but with increased speed, they should also require ISPs do not impose a data cap to be considered broadband.

I'm actually on the opposite side of this. I wish there were more metered options available for data, especially for wireless options. I'd love to see an offering that has a low monthly connection fee (i.e. $1-5), along with a sensible price per GB option (i.e. double the cost of transit so there are decent margins on this, but isn't something crazy like $10/gb). Assuming that for most consumers the end price average…

Well twice the price of transit is .. NaN? Data isn't generally charged in bits.
Post reply on HN