5 ms·

"Scraps"? No, they just updated it. Nothing was "scrapped". Typical journalist BS headlines. I was on the fence about whether it should be updated, but 25 d

"Scraps"? No, they just updated it. Nothing was "scrapped". Typical journalist BS headlines. I was on the fence about whether it should be updated, but 25 down / 3 up really isn't for "advanced" usage. That's really basic these days. So if that's the line, they made the right call. I'm looking forward to the day they get to their 1000 / 500 goal. Having upload as such a small fraction of the download can be a pain sometimes.

LoganDark 3y ago
> Having upload as such a small fraction of the download can be a pain sometimes. I pay for 900 megabits and get 20. Upload, of course. None of the other plans even offer upload speeds this high - so not only does paying for 900 get you only 20, but to get only 20 you have to pay for 900. That's nuts.
- ufocia 3y ago
  You're most likely not paying for 900. That's just marketing talking. That's not committed bandwidth. Come to think of it, the asymmetry is probably a way to exploit transit fees.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    > You're most likely not paying for 900. That's just marketing talking. That's not committed bandwidth. I do get around 900 megabits of download on real actual workloads like downloading from Steam (over 100 MB/s). I believe there's absolutely no uptime commitment though, and they do commonly shut off my internet access for like 5 minutes at 4am, presumably to install some sort of unwanted update on the router that I don't own, because if I try to install a router I do own, they cut the line after a few days of usage. in contrast, I get about 24 megabits of real-world upload speed. That ratio is disgusting. (DL:UL 35+:1)
LorenDB 3y ago
I think the FCC ought to mandate symmetrical gigabit as true broadband. With today's fiber tech, there's no reason ISPs can't deploy a symmetrical connection to anyone, and gigabit is a perfectly reasonable speed. After all, the hardware for it has been around for years now.
- notquiteright 3y ago
  It’s not that easy. The federal government is in fact spending over $100 billion in the next decade laying fiber (and that’s only partial subsidies, so the total investment will be even higher) and it still won’t be enough to get fiber everywhere.
  - ufocia 3y ago
    Not sure why the taxpayers are footing the bill.
    - notquiteright 3y ago
      Because it’s not profitable to build fiber out to many places.
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    Based on what happened last time: - the telcos pocketed the money and did very very little actual deployment, and the FCC did nothing - lobbied the FCC to deny Starlink funds when Starlink actually delivered a usable rural service and got them to declare it "not broadband" At least the FCC hasn't been completely useless in mobile broadband. I'm sure if 5G starts approaching usable competition with Cable/Telcos, the FCC will kill it for them.
- ufocia 3y ago
  If the FCC had the power to mandate this and they exercised the power its power would likely be curtailed or Internet access would disappear completely, at least temporarily, in certain parts of the US. Infrastructure costs money that companies expect to recoup on a certain schedule (ROI) despite the technology being around for years. Having said this I wouldn't mind at all having a big fat pipe Internet for next to nothing just like everyone else. I was excited to hear about Google's plans to lay fiber "everywhere." More than a decade later, I'm still waiting in my excited state.
hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
I was under the impression that asymmetric connections were a trade off that on a technical level allowed more downstream than upstream - have I been wrong in thinking this?
- cloudwalk9 3y ago
  That's the case for cable Internet, which I wager is a large plurality of Internet connections in the US. At least Charter for the past few years has been rolling out equipment along their cable network to support more uplink bandwidth for symmetrical service, called "high split" I think. I'm still waiting on my area to get the high split treatment.

LoganDark 3y ago

> Having upload as such a small fraction of the download can be a pain sometimes. I pay for 900 megabits and get 20. Upload, of course. None of the other plans even offer upload speeds this high - so not only does paying for 900 get you only 20, but to get only 20 you have to pay for 900. That's nuts.

ufocia 3y ago
You're most likely not paying for 900. That's just marketing talking. That's not committed bandwidth. Come to think of it, the asymmetry is probably a way to exploit transit fees.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > You're most likely not paying for 900. That's just marketing talking. That's not committed bandwidth. I do get around 900 megabits of download on real actual workloads like downloading from Steam (over 100 MB/s). I believe there's absolutely no uptime commitment though, and they do commonly shut off my internet access for like 5 minutes at 4am, presumably to install some sort of unwanted update on the router that I don't own, because if I try to install a router I do own, they cut the line after a few days of usage. in contrast, I get about 24 megabits of real-world upload speed. That ratio is disgusting. (DL:UL 35+:1)

LorenDB 3y ago

I think the FCC ought to mandate symmetrical gigabit as true broadband. With today's fiber tech, there's no reason ISPs can't deploy a symmetrical connection to anyone, and gigabit is a perfectly reasonable speed. After all, the hardware for it has been around for years now.

notquiteright 3y ago
It’s not that easy. The federal government is in fact spending over $100 billion in the next decade laying fiber (and that’s only partial subsidies, so the total investment will be even higher) and it still won’t be enough to get fiber everywhere.
- ufocia 3y ago
  Not sure why the taxpayers are footing the bill.
  - notquiteright 3y ago
    Because it’s not profitable to build fiber out to many places.
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  Based on what happened last time: - the telcos pocketed the money and did very very little actual deployment, and the FCC did nothing - lobbied the FCC to deny Starlink funds when Starlink actually delivered a usable rural service and got them to declare it "not broadband" At least the FCC hasn't been completely useless in mobile broadband. I'm sure if 5G starts approaching usable competition with Cable/Telcos, the FCC will kill it for them.
ufocia 3y ago
If the FCC had the power to mandate this and they exercised the power its power would likely be curtailed or Internet access would disappear completely, at least temporarily, in certain parts of the US. Infrastructure costs money that companies expect to recoup on a certain schedule (ROI) despite the technology being around for years. Having said this I wouldn't mind at all having a big fat pipe Internet for next to nothing just like everyone else. I was excited to hear about Google's plans to lay fiber "everywhere." More than a decade later, I'm still waiting in my excited state.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago

I was under the impression that asymmetric connections were a trade off that on a technical level allowed more downstream than upstream - have I been wrong in thinking this?

cloudwalk9 3y ago
That's the case for cable Internet, which I wager is a large plurality of Internet connections in the US. At least Charter for the past few years has been rolling out equipment along their cable network to support more uplink bandwidth for symmetrical service, called "high split" I think. I'm still waiting on my area to get the high split treatment.