9 ms·
FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoSeems 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
- jart 1y ago[flagged]
- ivape 1y ago[flagged]
- giantg2 1y agoWhat did EVs make us a leader in? If I remember right, other countries have much higher adoption.
- aaomidi 1y agoTechnically Tesla was the first major company globally starting a trend. Aka leading.
- giantg2 1y agoBy 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.
- Bluestein 1y ago[flagged]
- mjamesaustin 1y agoThis is exactly what the US did to Britain. One empire rises, another falls.
- Bluestein 1y agoGranted, totally.- PS. See the down votes. Hi, 61398!
- testbjjl 1y ago[flagged]
- stingraycharles 1y agoYeah agreed, Tesla showed the world it was possible, but they seem to be failing to maintain their leadership position.
- bigbuppo 1y agoCut their CEO some some slack. He's a thought leader/rocket mogul/ISP guy/social media but wants to make it a bank for some reason dude/former government sort-of-official/professional gamer/full time twitter shitposter that's also starting a political party and who is responsible for fathering over a dozen children. On second thought, I think I see the problem.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Technically Tesla was the first major company globally starting a trend And China’s dominance in LFP is based on its acquisition of A123’s IP out of bankruptcy [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130131031501/http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/AONEQ.PK/key-developments/article/2682498 https://web.archive.org/web/20130131031501/http://www.reuter...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoThat's pioneer.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- wnevets 1y agoIf an adversarial nation had control of the white house would anyone be able to tell the difference
- smt88 1y agoI think an adversarial nation would reduce military activity far more than the current regime has. That might be the only difference, though.
- Mistletoe 1y agoIf you reduce all those other things you don’t need to reduce their military. You already won, without a battle or any casualties on your side. The decay and rot from the inside will take care of the rest.
- reactordev 1y agoIn which case turn the military on the people and expedite the process. /s
- actionfromafar 1y agoIt will come, eventually. That usually doesn't need any outside tinkering, it follows naturally in dictatorships.
- mattgrice 1y agoIt 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.
- AngryData 1y agoI don't think so if they are a nuclear armed nation. If the end result of a nuclear armed conflict is mutual destruction and collapse, the only path towards dominance is economic. And in a pure economic fight a massive overpowered military is just an economic anchor.
- gigatexal 1y ago[flagged]
- SV_BubbleTime 1y agoThere is a LOT of data on Trump/Russia out now. I find it hard to believe anyone informed is still using that. It’s kind of an intellectual red flag my man. The smarter liberals have moved on to just hating Trump for being himself. Do the true believers here think that the I formation Gabbard is releasing is fake? We’ve had it for 9 years now about Ohrs and FusionGPS and FBI lying to FISA.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y agohttps://x.com/nicksortor/status/1948007087151190074 https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1948007087151190074 I read 25 of the first documents 46 pages. Sure looks bad.
- thrance 1y agoTrump isn't neutered, he's doing almost exactly what he promised he would do. Russia certainly did help, what with all the online propaganda and stuff, but attributing his victory to them is a little too easy. 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.
- red-iron-pine 1y agoThe Russians have been investing in Trump since the 80s and have been unleashing aggressive Soviet-style propaganda campaigns (minus the communism part) across social media for years now. They were spending as much as $400k a month on payments to bloggers -- just online stuff -- in the run-up to the first Trump election.
- aigen01 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Tenet_Media_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Tenet_Media_investigation Your timelines are a little off but to add more details: Matt Christiansen, Tayler Hansen, Benny Johnson, Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Lauren Southern are the subjects of the ongoing investigation. $400k/month was paid out just for Tim Pool for repeating Russian talking points on the Tenet Media youtube channel which should have raised eyebrows for all parties.
- penguin_booze 1y ago> Seems they really want to revert everything that made the US a world leader. Conservatives takes different names in different places. Calling the spade a spade, a more truthful name is 'Reggressives', no matter what the colour on the banner is. The signatures of regressivism is , among others, the yearning for the past, to bring back the old ways of life, the predisposition for worship (idolatry)--be that of imaginary creatures or very wealthy people. Some of us would find it really hard to imagine why some others would say, "yes please, more oil. I really would love to inhale more toxic fumes". Yet, such people exist. I can't explain why.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoI think it’s a stretch to call the current crop of Republican leaders conservatives. They’re radical reactionaries at best.
- ethbr1 1y agoI’d argue the current crop of Republican leaders are radical populists (for conservative voters). While many of their asks mirror traditional Republican social positions, they’re responsive to an economically disadvantaged class in the Republican Party that’s historically been ignored. And while there’s certainly a lot of backroom dealing to favor business interests, I think it’d be hard to argue that the poor Republican voter has had this much power in the party… ever. (See things like immigration policy, which agribusiness is scared shitless of) The previous Republican bargain was ‘We say we love god and guns, but let business get on with business, and we’re never going to harm the latter for the former.’
- toss1 1y agoYup At the core, it is Anti-Science. Why Anti-Science? Because the answers that come from science are independent of the authoritarian ruler's whims, and that cannot be tolerated, as key to authoritarian rule is that it must be entirely responsive to the whims of the regime. It is the same reason that completely freaked me out when I read that Lenin and Stalin had directed their death squads to target their most loyal party members first. Why the hell would they do that? It turns out it is because the most loyal party members would object to the dictator's schemes on grounds of ideological principle, and such objections or principled people could not be tolerated. Pure evil, but genius in the context of a dictator's needs. Thus, every authoritarian regime attacks the intelligent, academic, and scientific worlds. Both Mao and Pol Pot not only executed people with scientific and academic credentials, but merely for wearing glasses which signified people who likely read a lot. Consistent Anti-Science actions are one of the key signs you are not dealing with a mere political party, but something far worse — a full-on authoritarian takeover. Beware.
- CesareBorgia 1y agoThis seems to be good for Starlink at the expense of the fiber providers?
- tacticus 1y agoYeah cause they're not going to have to compete with real bandwidth availability. given the new shiny one (that hasn't launched) is topping out at 1Tb of downlink (with half of it going to backhaul) and the current units are 80 Gb/s
- greyface- 1y agoIt's good for incumbent terrestrial cable companies, too.
- garciasn 1y agoRural fiber at my lake home went from $35/mo for 100/100 to $89.95 this year. On a 12mo contract. Starlink got my business after VZW forced their 5G boxes to use 5G and not allow forced LTE usage. 5G is unusable there with 60-100/0.03. I force my phone to use LTE and all is well but 5G just does not work. I hate giving Elon money but it’s the only affordable month-to-month option now.
- kemotep 1y agoWhere do you live? Because Starlink is double my current internet plan for half the bandwidth and at least 10x in latency. I am not seeing a plan on Starlink’s website that is lower than $120 a month for unlimited data. I live in rural Ohio.
- garciasn 1y agoIt depends where you live what you get. I was able to get $80/mo Residential Lite service which should top out at 150 but I routinely see 400+ mbit down. Latency is around 20-25ms on average for me. My lake home is in Central MN.
- 1y ago
- etchalon 1y agoSo odd that the FCC would suddenly revert all these rules which were designed to advocate for consumers. Wonder what changed recently?
- downrightmike 1y agoPreviously and recently, we've had to fight tooth and nail to make any progress on this and then others like Ajit Pai just flagrantly fake support for destruction of net neutrality.
- paul7986 1y agoRepublicans are always pro-business first consumers whatever!
- tbrownaw 1y agoWell 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.
- idiotsecant 1y agoThat'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 important, and also told you that it wasn't your job to get large muddy dogs out of the house you might think I wasn't serious about having an effectively cleaned house. And then it turned out that the muddy dog just bought me a new yacht.
- actionfromafar 1y agoYes. But it's important that you accept the yacht afterwards. If you get the yacht in advance, it's a bribe, you see.
- toofy 1y agoi absolutely dread the day of the enshitified internet connection.
- anonym29 1y agoI take it you've never lived in an area where Spectrum DOCSIS over copper coax and geostationary satellite internet were the only options available at all?
- ikiris 1y agoMaybe this will suddenly be the line where HN people discover that regulations matter when their internet sucks. /doubt
- 0x457 1y agoI will let you in a on secret: internet connection in USA been enshitified for a long time.
- _--__--__ 1y agoFYI to all commenters: the current FCC chair was nominated by Trump>Biden>Trump and unanimously confirmed by the Senate all 3 times.
- Cornbilly 1y agoAlso, 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.
- xeonmc 1y agoAre there any similar requirements for the Supreme Court?
- ivape 1y agoWhen it’s all said and done, Americans will have to find the courage to admit the Judicial branch was an utter failure. That whole thing was supposed to be immune to political coercion. I say it will take courage because it got rammed into our heads that God made the constitution, and that it’s infallible. It’s a massive failure through and through. The founding fathers did not protect the branches from each other nearly enough, and certainly did not give the people an end-run mechanism to bypass and fix it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> it got rammed into our heads that God made the constitution Article III is light in describing the courts [1]. Our judicial system is mostly a creature of Congress, not the Constitution. I’m personally a fan of choosing by lot, from the appellate bench, a random slate of justices for each case. (That court of rotating judges would be the one in which “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested”.) You could do this entirely through legislation—nothing in the Constitution requires lifetime appointments to a permanent bench. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
- giantg2 1y agoI 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 to target overall coverage and affordability, then this does make sense. Edit: why disagree?
- maccam94 1y agoIf you're laying a communications cable, you should just do fiber. It can carry any type of traffic at high data rates, and you can upgrade the speed over time by just replacing the optics at the ends rather than having to replace the whole cable. Fiber plans are only expensive if your service level is expensive, or if you have to pay to get the line run to your building
- baby_souffle 1y ago> 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 going to get better. > I would rather see the expansion of traditional cable or even satellite to rural areas Why spend money and time to expand copper into rural areas when fiber is the same cost. it's the people/permits/labor that are $$$$. It makes no meaningful difference weather your expensive hbm crew is pulling fiber or copper and we know that copper doesn't go as fast ...
- ericmay 1y ago> Why spend money and time to expand copper into rural areas when fiber is the same cost. it's the people/permits/labor that are $$$$. It makes no meaningful difference weather your expensive hbm crew is pulling fiber or copper and we know that copper doesn't go as fast ... Well they voted for it, so I'll stick to my fiber in my big city and they can fend for themselves and pay $90/month for 10 up 1 down or whatever while I pay $40 for 1 gig.... With the snide remarks aside, why expand copper or fiber into rural areas when we can just let SpaceX and others launch satellites and provide a potentially better service? I'm sympathetic to a goal of "have really, really fast Internet service" but maybe there is a better regulatory framework for increasing competition both urban/suburban and rural areas.
- puppycodes 1y agothanks government we love slow and expensive.
- anonymars 1y ago"we" = "we the people": sarcasm "we" = the corporations: "yes, quite right" sigh
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jmyeet 1y agoMy 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. Chattanooga, TN has long been known for its excellent and affordable fiber Internet [1]. We know what works: it's municipal broadband not national ISPs. We've known this for a long time but we somehow refuse to recognize it, in part because national ISPs have successfully bought and paid for legislators to create a moat through things like onerous regulation or outright banning of building muncipal broadband. But why is this so? It's economics and incredibly simple. You see when a town or city or county owns the Internet infrastructure, you've removed the profit motive. Put another way, the workers own the means of production. When you have a national ISP, some pension funds and shareholders own the means of production. And what do they demand? Ever-increasing profits. And how do profits increase? By raising prices and cutting costs. There is absolutely no reason Internet access should cost $100/month. And we see this same pattern play out in every market. It's the end state of capitalism. [1]: https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/ https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/
- kstrauser 1y agoI 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.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoI miss Sonic and DSLExtreme. There's only Spectrum (Charter) and GVEC here.
- galaxy_gas 1y agoDid they raise prices or is it location based? I pay 50
- lenerdenator 1y agoAs with everything involving this administration, the behavior will continue until an effective negative stimulus is introduced.
- Bluestein 1y ago[flagged]
- lenerdenator 1y agoThat's the problem, though; no one's applying any negative stimulus at all.
- timewizard 1y ago[flagged]
- ikiris 1y agoWe seem to have hit the point where a civil engineer 2 brick layers and the town drunk are voting on if beams are necessary.
- knodi123 1y agoDid I miss the vote we had on broadband speed goals, or whether we should publish prices? Get outta here with that. Most of Trump's outrageous policies are incredibly unpopular, even among his base. He's just enacting the wildly unpopular Project 2025, which he denied ever hearing of while hiring 70% of its authors into his administration.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y ago> Most of Trump's outrageous policies are incredibly unpopular, even among his base. News to me. I read liberal and conservative sites; I think you are dead wrong from what I’ve seen. The most common comment I see on conservative sites is “I voted for this” “This is what I voted for” or some variation. Everything except the handling of the Epstein information.
- dlcarrier 1y agoYou 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 plans offer upload bandwidth at multiple tens of megabits per second, faster than the ingestion speed of most video hosts, and more than enough for a dozen simultaneous HD video conferences, and their dowstream speeds are enough for dozens simultaneous 4K video streams at the highest resolution streaming services provide. Incumbent ISPs lying about the benefits of gigabit plans, and lobbying for their requirement, is the equivalent of Intel bragging about 5 GHz speeds in the Netburst vs Athlon days. It ran at a higher clock speed, and that sold processors, but they ran slow, because they responded horribly to branching, and were late to the market on 64-bit an monolithic multi-core architectures. Outside of rare power users, or someone especially impatient for one-off downloads, Gigabit is ridiculous for a large family or small office, and especially overkill for a small family or individual. I can't stand the government either, and they'll probably replace that rule with one that's even worse, but it was a bad rule to start with.
- yxhuvud 1y agoNot 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.
- dlcarrier 1y agoYou'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, you can often get sub-millisecond latency from nearby collocations, and rarely do ISPs have more than a few milliseconds of latency. With cable providers, DOCSIS adds ten to twenty milliseconds of latency. You'll get about double that latency With LTE providers and low-eath-orbit satellite providers that have nearby ground stations. With geosynchronous satellite providers, you'll get several hundred milliseconds of latencu. A 50 Mbps fiber plan will get an order of magnitude lower latency than a gigabit plan from anyone else.
- userbinator 1y agoMaybe this will force sites to stop wasting bandwidth and stem the bloat. You should not need a gigabit connection (which I do not even have in all of my home LAN) to browse the Internet. Edit: downvoters, please explain why I need 125MB/s (that's 3 full installations of Windows 95 every second) for normal browsing.
- wmf 1y agoYou don't need gigabit but resource constraints have never reined in bloat in the past and they won't now.
- userbinator 1y agoApparently you've never heard of the demoscene.
- wmf 1y agoYeah, constraints are good for art. I was thinking of the commercial world.
- dartharva 1y agoIt's not about what you may or may not need, it's about how much the telecom company is giving back in exchange of being granted a natural monopoly in their covered regions. This rescinding of regulation will only promote rent-seeking and enshittification.
- 93po 1y agowhy do you need a car that can do 65MPH? just take the backroads and chat with a friend or something while you drive, 30 MPH is plenty to get anyone anywhere. people made do with horses that did about 5 MPH for over a hundred years and they got around just fine. 30 MPH is, like, at least twice as fast as the horse
- nobody9999 1y ago>Maybe this will force sites to stop wasting bandwidth and stem the bloat. You should not need a gigabit connection (which I do not even have in all of my home LAN) to browse the Internet. Nope. You don't. But why should I have to pay Google/AWS/Azure/Cloudflare/Digital Ocean/etc./etc./etc. to host my small business/vanity/family chat/photo sharing site, or YouTube to host my barbecue sauce unboxing videos, when symmetrical (okay, 300 up/down would likely be plenty for most of that, but once there's fiber, Gb/sec seems good to me)? I have no interest in propping up huge companies with hosting fees because other huge companies have no competition. All that said, I get your point. But my use case is not your use case. Do you get mine? Edit: Clarified prose.
- pabs3 1y agoDupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44639837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44639837
- tzs 1y agoWow. The article notes: > Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to determine whether broadband is being deployed "on a reasonable and timely basis" to all Americans. Carr says that when looking into whether that is being satisfied the FCC should not consider affordability because section 706 does not contain the word "affordability". But it also does not contain any words for any of the things he does want the FCC to consider. All it says is "reasonable and timely". I bet if you polled consumers and asked what they would think it means if they were informed some commercial service or product was available to them on a reasonable basis an overwhelming majority would include in their answer that it means it is available to them at a price they find affordable.
- dclowd9901 1y agoOf course the angle is disingenuous. "Reasonable" here implies that it's reasonably attainable for customers. This is merely choosing interpretation arbitrarily. Like me saying the sky is green because green is partly comprised of the color blue.
- tossandthrow 1y agoReasonably attainable must also mean affordable. If it is not affordable most people cannot attain it. Note: affordable and cheap is not the same
- dclowd9901 1y agoYes that's what I was getting at
- autoexec 1y ago> This is merely choosing interpretation arbitrarily I'm guessing it's not arbitrary at all and it's choosing an interpretation most favorable to the industry that has bribed and captured the agency
- supertrope 1y agoThe FCC is a revolving door between industry and regulators. When you understand that the true mission of the FCC is to please big telecom it all starts to make sense. Hence the auctioning off spectrum in huge geographic blocks that only the largest corporations can finance. If the US was really serious about universal broadband there would be a Telecom Ministry doing the cable laying itself or at least local loop unbundling. If we treated roads the same way as broadband we would have private tolled highways near city cores and dirt roads in rural areas.
- gigatexal 1y agoWhat a win for the Telcos. What a loss for all of America. If only municipal broadband/fiber was given the chance to grow there’d be real competition.
- jonhohle 1y agoTelcos were given billions to expand and improve broadband for decades and never did it. If the FCC has scrapped the goal are they also scrapping the handouts? If so, it’s long overdue.
- Tadpole9181 1y agoThe FCC did not give those handouts, Congress did. 100 or so $10k "gifts" and I'm sure they'll do it again.
- jonhohle 1y agoWhile not all, the FCC does give those handouts - https://www.fcc.gov/auction/903 https://www.fcc.gov/auction/903
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bubblethink 1y agoTo be the devil's advocate, the previous admin also squandered a lot of broadband money away in a pattern that seems common to all Democratic infra projects. See https://reason.com/2024/06/27/why-has-joe-bidens-42-billion-broadband-program-not-connected-one-single-household/ https://reason.com/2024/06/27/why-has-joe-bidens-42-billion-... . Neither party is good at this. The FCC broadband map and the b/w labels (previous admin) are nice though.
- izacus 1y agoWhy do you feel the need to be the devils advocate? What do you get from defending this crap?
- x-complexity 1y ago> Why do you feel the need to be the devils advocate? What do you get from defending this crap? To prevent this level of monopolar partisanship. Is this action a net-negative for ISP subscribers (i.e. everyone)? Yes. However, this doesn't give any leeway at all in ignoring the past failures of the other side when it comes to this space either. The only (legally advisable) path left is vocal advocacy for its restoration. Doesn't matter who it is, only that this goal is to be achieved. --- Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
- financetechbro 1y agoWhy do you feel the impulse to reply to a question that was not addressed to you?
- 93po 1y agoits an online discussion, the point is to discuss things, these aren't PMs, the nature of online discussion is anyone can jump in anywhere. i dont understand why you have a hostile tone towards this very normal and acceptable situation
- dsab 1y agoIn 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.
- cenamus 1y agoIt 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
- anon7000 1y agoSeems like if they built it out after fiber was cheaper and more common, they have it good. Meanwhile, to this day, my parents get, at best, 6mbps down from the ancient, shitty copper infra the telco put up ages ago. Thankfully, other options like various 5G home internet products are a common in rural towns now, at least in the Midwest. But wouldn’t beat fiber!
- glanzwulf 1y agoGermany is a special case actually because they just refused to go on the fiber train and instead kept doubling down on DSL. Goes all the way back to the administration from the 80s and onwards, it's finally changing tho.
- thrance 1y agoNah, 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 center of Paris to the middle of nowhere.
- dsab 1y agoTrue, before fiber, 5 years ago, there was ADSL2 connection in my family house.
- Hobadee 1y agoWe 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?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bob1029 1y agoI find the political angles to be boring. The reality out in the actual communities is much more varied and interesting. For example, the Texas market is going crazy with FTTP providers. Even comcast is starting to get involved by upgrading infra and buying out even worse incumbents. My old house in the Houston area has two competing fiber providers now. These aren't fly by night operations either. The last provider I had backed their entire last mile infrastructure with standby natural gas generators. I never lost symmetric gigabit internet access despite not having any power or water during Beryl. At what point do we look at broadband penetration as a solved problem and focus on bigger ones? Unless you live in a radio quiet zone, there is going to be some ability to get online at this point.
- fennecbutt 1y agoAll in the pursuit of profit. But we on HN love billionaires and unregulated capitalism.
- skeezyboy 1y agoive always wondered what the end of america would look like
- frogperson 1y agoI am so sick of this anti-science, anti-competition, lawless administration. I cant believe America is a fascist state. it only took 6 months. un fucking believable. Makes me sick.