4 ms·

> No, they didn’t. They decided not to raise the definition of broadband from 100×20 Mbps up to 1Gps. it should be at least 100x100

by nektro 1y ago

cpncrunch 1y ago
20Mbps upload is fine for pretty much everything, other than uploading large files.
- ikiris 1y ago
  640k should be enough for anyone after all
  - cpncrunch 1y ago
    Not for video conferencing.
- jajuuka 1y ago
  Sure, in a single person household with only a smart tv and laptop. Which is not the average person.
  - db48x 1y ago
    I disagree. I would argue that most people just don’t produce enough data to have a huge need for faster uploads. You would have to produce more than 200 gigabytes of data per day before your backups would take longer than a day to finish: $ units 20Mbps*24hrs gigabytes * 216 If you’re an entertainer then you might record more than 200GB of raw video per day, but most people aren’t. You wouldn’t even need a faster connection to _become_ an entertainer, even if you soon wanted one. You could stream 4K video of your antics all day and it would be less than 200GB. And remember that the definition is about the _minimum_ bandwidth necessary to participate in society, not what you need to be at the peak of your entertainment career. People who do need higher speeds can and will pay extra for them; the FCC definition is not about limiting what products are available. It doesn’t even require anyone to have 100×20Mbps service. The FCC is just trying to get us to a point where we can say that 100% of Americans have _access_ to that level of service, even if they have _subscribed_ to a lower level of service to save money. Since 45 million Americans don’t even have access to 100×20Mbps service we’re still pretty far away from that.
  - cpncrunch 1y ago
    Average household is a family, who arent streaming 4k video or uploading huge backups like i do, and 20Mbps would be fine for me. They typically watch netflix and youtube and doomscroll.
  - caseysoftware 1y ago
    > Sure, in a single person household with only a smart tv and laptop. Which is not the average person. What is the average person/household? How many devices? What use cases (and therefore bandwidth) meet their needs?
db48x 1y ago
I agree that it would be really nice if it were symmetric. But remember, the definition is for a service that isn’t handicapping people, not for what would be nice to have. Maybe in 10 years we can make it symmetric.
- nektro 1y ago
  5 years ago it should've been symmetric gigabit already but yet here we are
  - db48x 1y ago
    No, I completely disagree. Remember that the whole point is to define the _minimum_ level of service at which people can reliably access “advanced telecommunications capability”. Here’s the definition: > The term ‘advanced telecommunications capability’ is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology. By this definition, 4K video is a reasonable metric to judge whether a broadband service qualifies as an “advanced telecommunications capability” or not. Since the major streaming services all use less than 20Mbps to serve up 4K television, 1000Mbps is clearly not necessary. It certainly is nice to have, but it’s not _necessary_. I think that fiber access will continue to grow as long as we remove the regulatory barriers that hamper it. Permitting is a big one. Cities often require separate permits for every street, often for every block! If you have to install anything, then installing fiber is the obvious choice. It has immense headroom for the future; fiber optic cables that carry a gigabit today could easily carry 100,000× that just by buying fancier equipment to install at both ends. The upper limit is currently hundreds of terabits per second, and it goes up every year. We’re nowhere near the theoretical limitations of optical communications technologies. I think that ultimately this means that fiber will win out over coax eventually. But coax has headroom still, and there’s no reason to tear it all out where it’s already in use. We should increase competition by abolishing local monopolies, but that’s something we should do no matter what level of service we adopt as the definition of broadband.

> No, they didn’t. They decided not to raise the definition of broadband from 100×20 Mbps up to 1Gps. it should be at least 100x100

by nektro 1y ago

> No, they didn’t. They decided not to raise the definition of broadband from 100×20 Mbps up to 1Gps. it should be at least 100x100

cpncrunch 1y ago

20Mbps upload is fine for pretty much everything, other than uploading large files.

ikiris 1y ago
640k should be enough for anyone after all
- cpncrunch 1y ago
  Not for video conferencing.
jajuuka 1y ago
Sure, in a single person household with only a smart tv and laptop. Which is not the average person.
- db48x 1y ago
  I disagree. I would argue that most people just don’t produce enough data to have a huge need for faster uploads. You would have to produce more than 200 gigabytes of data per day before your backups would take longer than a day to finish: $ units 20Mbps*24hrs gigabytes * 216 If you’re an entertainer then you might record more than 200GB of raw video per day, but most people aren’t. You wouldn’t even need a faster connection to _become_ an entertainer, even if you soon wanted one. You could stream 4K video of your antics all day and it would be less than 200GB. And remember that the definition is about the _minimum_ bandwidth necessary to participate in society, not what you need to be at the peak of your entertainment career. People who do need higher speeds can and will pay extra for them; the FCC definition is not about limiting what products are available. It doesn’t even require anyone to have 100×20Mbps service. The FCC is just trying to get us to a point where we can say that 100% of Americans have _access_ to that level of service, even if they have _subscribed_ to a lower level of service to save money. Since 45 million Americans don’t even have access to 100×20Mbps service we’re still pretty far away from that.
- cpncrunch 1y ago
  Average household is a family, who arent streaming 4k video or uploading huge backups like i do, and 20Mbps would be fine for me. They typically watch netflix and youtube and doomscroll.
- caseysoftware 1y ago
  > Sure, in a single person household with only a smart tv and laptop. Which is not the average person. What is the average person/household? How many devices? What use cases (and therefore bandwidth) meet their needs?

db48x 1y ago

I agree that it would be really nice if it were symmetric. But remember, the definition is for a service that isn’t handicapping people, not for what would be nice to have. Maybe in 10 years we can make it symmetric.

nektro 1y ago
5 years ago it should've been symmetric gigabit already but yet here we are
- db48x 1y ago
  No, I completely disagree. Remember that the whole point is to define the _minimum_ level of service at which people can reliably access “advanced telecommunications capability”. Here’s the definition: > The term ‘advanced telecommunications capability’ is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology. By this definition, 4K video is a reasonable metric to judge whether a broadband service qualifies as an “advanced telecommunications capability” or not. Since the major streaming services all use less than 20Mbps to serve up 4K television, 1000Mbps is clearly not necessary. It certainly is nice to have, but it’s not _necessary_. I think that fiber access will continue to grow as long as we remove the regulatory barriers that hamper it. Permitting is a big one. Cities often require separate permits for every street, often for every block! If you have to install anything, then installing fiber is the obvious choice. It has immense headroom for the future; fiber optic cables that carry a gigabit today could easily carry 100,000× that just by buying fancier equipment to install at both ends. The upper limit is currently hundreds of terabits per second, and it goes up every year. We’re nowhere near the theoretical limitations of optical communications technologies. I think that ultimately this means that fiber will win out over coax eventually. But coax has headroom still, and there’s no reason to tear it all out where it’s already in use. We should increase competition by abolishing local monopolies, but that’s something we should do no matter what level of service we adopt as the definition of broadband.