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

FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 221 posts

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#91

Post by mattgrice »

smt88 wrote: post #72
wnevets wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an adversarial nation had control of the white house would anyone be able to tell the difference

I think an adversarial nation would reduce military activity far more than the current regime has. That might be the only difference, though.

It depends what adversary I guess. It seems like several middle eastern countries of very different religious bent are quite happy with our military activity. Though they are not usually named as adversaries they certainly are by any rational metric.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#93

Post by kstrauser »

jmyeet wrote: post #32

My building recently got wired up with a local ISP taht is offering gigabit fiber for... $25/month. AT&T Fiber or Verizon Fios will tend to start at $60-90/month as an "introductory" price where your bill just keeps going up $10-20/months every yera unless you go through the dance of calling up and threatening to cancel every year. So you could be paying $140/month when a new customer is being charged half that. Chat…

I live in the SF Bay Area where Sonic offers 10Gbit connections for $60/month. They’re a medium sized local provider with excellent support and great prices, and they’re making money doing it. If “economy of scale” were uncapped, Comcast should be a fraction of that price.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#94

Post by kstrauser »

dlcarrier wrote: post #44

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…

What had made you suppose fast means laggy? I upgraded to 10Gbit Internet because their fiber is cheaper than the 1Gbit connection. I get 3ms pings to Google, or 5ms on older IPv4.

Fast, low-latency, and cheap is a pretty great combo.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#95

Post by kstrauser »

dlcarrier wrote: post #80
yxhuvud wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not certain I buy this argument - higher throughput tend to require more modern hardware throughout the whole chain, and modern hardware also tends to have better latency than old. So for most people, they will get improvement in both latency and throughput if they would get a gigabit fiber connection. But sure, if you are comparing chains of the same hardware generation, go for latency in most cases.

You're all using the same equipment, regardless of the tier you sign up for. The firmware in your modem or their router limits the maximum packet rate, but individual packets and small groups of packets are always traveling at gigabit speeds, regardless of the speed cap. That difference in latency isn't even what matters; it's the latency from the various types of modems. With the direct connection of fiber providers…

This is called being “confidently incorrect”. As mentioned above, I have those millisecond-class pings at 200x faster than that piddling 50Mbit pipe (for $60/month). There’s no imaginable advantage to getting a slower, more expensive connection.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#96

Post by 0x457 »

Larrikin wrote: post #90
userbinator wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100/20 is barely enough for a household of 3-5 "light" users. What the hell are you doing that 100/20 is "barely enough"?

2 younger kids streaming a movie, one parent listening to a podcast in the shower, one parent streaming a YouTube cooking video while making dinner, and an older kid playing any game would completely saturate the network. That is assuming nobody has a phone that is also connected to the network Also its ridiculous to think that is excessive in any way. Imagine what we could have if we had 100 gigabit or 1 terabit. In…

2x1080p streams is 10mbit/s 2x4k is 30mbit/s. so below 100mbit/s. Video games don't consume a lot of traffic[] fortnite literally measured in 100s kbps. Video games consume traffic most only when they're updating, then sure you can saturate 100mbit/s, but you also can saturate 10G just as well, so in this case it's about speed, kid can do some chores while it's updating lmao. I initially wanted to skip podcast because...320kbps max? But then thought that not only that, but it's also most likely already downloaded to the device.

[]: destiny 1/2 consume a lot, but that would mean your older child is over 30 and living with you.

That's if you use any streaming service, if you're streaming legally ripped Blu-rays, then yea, 100/20 isn't enough, but those are usually within LAN. And if you're talking seeding/streaming to others, then any asymmetric connection speed will suck.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#97

Post by aaomidi »

datahack wrote: post #74
testbjjl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#98

Post by mattgrice »

giantg2 wrote: post #16
aaomidi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically Tesla was the first major company globally starting a trend. Aka leading.

By that definition, we haven't been leading for years since the Chinese are cranking them out much faster than Tesla. What if we want to be a world leader in satellite internet coverage? Is that a goal you support? Because that's part of what these changes are about.

By any definition has China not been leading?

Socialism with chinese characteristics/ Xi Jinpeng thought is the most successful ideology currently. Free speech/free markets power has decayed since people found ways to exploit them and more powerful people found ways to aid the exploiters.

The US is apparently powerless to exploit our own rare earth resources and fund/subsidize them or lithium production or photovoltaic production, nuclear reactors, or even semiconductor production.

By any measure that is weak.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#99

Post by lenerdenator »

timewizard wrote: post #51
lenerdenator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem, though; no one's applying any negative stimulus at all.

[flagged]

I mean, most people didn't vote for Project 2025, which is exactly what Trump is implementing, despite having lied about not knowing about it during the campaign.

Also, I'm wondering why we suddenly now care about democracy; if we did in 2016, Trump wouldn't have had a first term. If we had after his conviction, the judge in NY state would have taken the jury's democratic decision seriously and handed him to the maximum sentence, presidential election be damned.

Re: FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

#100

Post by datahack »

aaomidi wrote: post #97
datahack wrote: post #74

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.

That’s not the standard I’ve always had, and I’ve been here from the early days.

You get the community we settle for.

Post reply on HN