The internet needs to be classified as a utility, living without it is just not possible in the world we have created.
I remember the collective shitfit around a decade ago when Obama give out free cell phones to homeless people. It was such a crazy concept to people who have never struggled that yes, you DO need a smartphone to meet your calling, banking and personal management needs. Everything has an online portal. Every job application requires an online portion. It's how the world works and has worked since the mid 00s.
Ah yes "Obamaphones"
Ring ring ring ring ring ... Obamaphone!
Remember that time Obama realized they were never going to approve any Supreme Court pick of his so he suggested "Ben Ghazi" for the job as a joke?
That was funny
Wait. What?! Obama gave out phones? I was living abroad for the first few years of the Obama administration when smart phones happened. Can you fill me in on this one?
BuT yOu CaN aLwAyS gO tO tHe LiBrArY
The libraries that many of the people who say this are trying to shutter, of course.
The libraries that will allow me a maximum of an hour, maybe two if I'm lucky?
It was until Ajit Pai unraveled that.
Should be 1gbps asymmetric now, with a near future goal of 1gbps symmetric.
If the federal government is regulating them can we admit they're a fucking utility already and stop allowing them to gouge prices when they have more money than they could feasibly spend?
Can you imagine if we said "by 2035 every American household in our electric grid will also be connected to the internet at a speed of 1gbps"?
I can imagine it.
I can imagine the next jerk off administration rescinding that goal in the name of private enterprise or whatever bullshit excuse they choose.
We did that in the 90s. We gave ISPs billions to deploy fiber everywhere. It was mostly squandered and 25 years later most Americans still don’t have fiber access.
Well, we didn't. It wasn't a utility. Utilities are more regulated by the govt. Thats a big part of why it failed and why electricity succeeded with the same effort in the fucking 1800s.
Does this really matter. We aren't getting it anyway.
The telcom/cable companies are just going to take the "broadband" money, build out a couple of neighborhoods, claim it is too hard, and then keep all the money.
They have already done it many times. Free taxpayer money with zero repercussions. Why would they do anything different.
I have a lot of experience with rural broadband initiatives, and generally yes, the FCC designation sets the minimums we see in terms of new service delivery to underserved communities. I specifically worked with state and municipal entities to build grant packages to fund infrastructure and these new minimums would be a great help.
We are between towns in western WA state stuck with 10Mb DSL service. There are a lot of us folks. After moving in (the PO said the internet was great, lol), we discovered that doing anything excessive like downloading AND streaming would not work. One thing at a time. We were able to bond two pair and get 20Mb which is workable, but that's where we sit. Gigabit service is all around us, but we'd have to trench a mile up the road and pay for that to even think about getting a provider to lay a line. Century Link outright laughed at me.
I was able to get T-Mo's home internet as a backup since we WFH, but it isn't stellar either.
I live in rural Washington too, in the mountains. There was a local ISP that was terrible and amazingly a very small ISP bought them out from Arizona. The first thing they did was start to run fiber to anyone who wanted it. I went from shit DSL to 1gig up and 1 gig down fiber. To top it all off, they've lowered my monthly price once and doubled my bandwidth once... Without even asking, I even emailed them to check if my bill was lower and speed was faster and they were like yep!
Mind blown.
Small world, but I helped form many of the broadband action teams in Washington State, and consulted on the broadband plans for each country that was submitted for federal funding. We're getting there, slowly, but progress is being made.
My coworkers mom lives in the same general area and has been using Starlink for a while now without issue. She gets around 300Mbps.
I considered it, but it isn't good for online gaming and then there is...Musk. Had to pass.
~20ms ping times are perfectly fine for gaming. Admit it, it's just Musk.
Should that not be enough? There is also the equipment costs and personally my gaming days are waning anyway. When I visit someone with Starkink and use it, it seems very frequently laggy. Bursts seemed common.
I use scheduling/throttling to accommodate this meager link speed. I was on dial-up well into the early 2000's, so I am no stranger to suffering slow links where patience is key.
Western MT here. Starlink is consistently 100+
We really need some upstream minimums as well. That causes so much lag for me. Most plans are 1 up even with 100 down. I have a 200/10 plan now and it's difficult to do work with the maybe 5 that I get in practice if I'm lucky, especially after overhead from VPN.
Most plans are 1 up even with 100 down
That can't be right. I thought Australia's 100/20 plans had pathetic upload speeds but that's unreal.
I have Spectrum here in the southeast of the United States. My plan is 300 down 12 up. That pathetic upload speed needs to change for the better.
Most broadband access in the US is via coax. And the coax companies refuse to let cable TV, and the packages they can bundle, die. So the portion of the coax that would allow for symmetrical service instead brings all the channels you didn't buy because everyone streams now.
Here in Sweden most people have optic fiber with AT LEAST 100/100 speeds. You gotta try if you want lower than that / if you want asymmetrical speeds.
Right now in a lot of states Verizon has a monopoly on symmetrical internet service. I can’t ever switch ISPs because I can’t get 400/400 anywhere else.
God I wish we had that here. We are pretty much stuck with Comcast as the only option in many places since they were granted a monopoly for so long and the phone company never really expanded much. DSL is too slow in most places. Like I think I can only get 100/1 where I am now, but the last place I was at which was not exactly rural at all, was max 12m/768k. In my current place I do have one other option which is another cable provider. They offer the exact same as Comcast for slightly less money, but the primary reason I use them is because they don't have a monthly data cap. With my wife and I working from home plus our personal streaming, we would exceed the cap and have to pay a significant amount to increase it.
Yeah ISPs are doing rural America really dirty. I didn’t even know monthly data caps existed with home internet until somebody from a rural town mentioned it. The only internet with monthly data caps around here is cell service and even then that’s usually unlimited now.
I do a lot of download and upload and one month I realized I accidentally moved like 30 TB that month.
Yar harr? Or wfh programmer?
I have a home server which is used for quite a bit. Bunch of web apps including storage so downloading stuff to my phone over the internet means upload from my server, also multimedia too (That I actually pay for) via Plex, music, and podcasts. Photo hosting, sharing, and backups.
Ah yaeh that would do it.
Yeah I mean right now I'm in a relatively major city in the US (like 750K population), and the previous place I was just inside a major suburb (like 150K population). Rural is just plain screwed.
Is that the Verion 5G modem?
Fios, it’s fiber.
I have Verizon 5g with the ultra wideband service. Tower is on a light post on the street corner, speeds max out around 700/70 for me. 400/400 sounds like Fios which is a fiber service.
How is this possible? Most of network hardware is symmetric. It doesn't make sense.
Cable Internet / DOCSIS splits bandwidth in a way that greatly prioritizes download over upload.
I mean network hardware between providers.
It's a last-mile thing. Artificially boosts the download numbers which most customers look at.
Doesn't DOCSIS 4.0 support 10gbps down and 6gbps up?
The biggest benefit of DOCSIS 4.0 is the ability to dynamically reallocate bandwidth between upload and download.
In addition to cable being the primary means of providing service in the US which does allow for this, there are two reasons for doing it. First, down is all that is advertised. Up is only mentioned in small print usually. And second, the major ISPs and the content companies have merged so it's an anti-"piracy" measure. It significantly impacts torrent seeding and hosting sites using residential Internet service.
I could give a shit what they call it. How about enforcing some god damn price restrictions or make data caps illegal? Speed means little otherwise
This actually does keep prices in check. Albeit, a bit backasswardsly.
I may be off on the specifics but it's something like: Having to offer 100mbps at the lowest rates in (poor neighborhoods) increases the speeds of each tier while keeping the price the same.
Thats great but can we demand some decent UPLOAD to?
cries in 300down measally 10 up
Upload is the biggest nobody gives a fuck in this ISP provider shit despite its importance.
In the linked pdf, it does mention the benchmarks.
2015/current standard is 25/3 Mbps.
Proposed increase to 100/20 Mbps.
Future goal is 1000/500 Mbps.
And really, 20 mbps at the bottom tier for broadband isn't all that unreasonable. We're talking about the floor level here.
20mbits at bottom tier would be fine, but there are currently top tier cable plans, 1gbps down and still only 10mbps up. Upload speed needs to scale at least proportionallly, if not symmetrically.
I felt so gaslit by optimum because they advertise 1gbps parallel.
But, if you don't have their fiber offering in your region they'll happily sell you 1gbps/24mbps for the same price.
Although, unless I complain, they fail to give me even 300mbps down.
I miss Google Fiber :(
Found the Charter/Spectrum customer!
GIGA-SPEEDS!! ... Such bullshit
Isn't that partly a consequence of the cable internet network design? The existing DOCSIS standards are designed to favour download speeds, so the infrastructure doesn't allow asymmetric connections.
If I understand correctly it’s not intrinsic to the DOCSIS standards, it’s just how more or less every cable company chooses to allocate channels. Think like a cable company has 100 channels they may be able to use on a given line, and they choose to put 90 of them on download and 10 on upload (numbers are made up to convey idea). Now they have only a small amount of available upload bandwidth and lots of download, but they could have set it up to be 50/50 to have it be equal.
Ah okay. So the infrastructure is designed that way, but not because it's cable/DOCSIS.
Can’t wait til they give another few hundred billion to ISPs who turn it into bonuses instead of infra improvement
As it should have been 5 years ago. Maybe even more.
5 years late but better than never.
I did telecom work about 5 years ago
It was shocking the amount of area that depends on a low-quality copper wire infrastructure.
I don't know if that changed in 5 years, but companies are going to have a hard time getting that replaced nationwide
They just won't be able to call it broadband.
We live in a rural area (but only 16 miles from the nearest city) and have copper. We really hope the infrastructure bill will bring real internet to us in our lifetime.
If congress passes a bill to improve internet infrastructure, it will be a 10s of billions hand out to ISPs that in turn will do little to nothing to actually improve their infrastructure. Just like when they did it in the 90s to get fiber to most Americans.
They already got billions from the government to upgrade their infrastructure. It's on them if they didn't actually use the money for that by now.
I would think that per FCC this requirement has loop holes and the minimum 100 Mbps is most likely for only broadband not dial up, so many telecommunication companies will be except
Cries in Australian
Laugh in Western European (10Gbps)
Cries in Brexit
cries.
Cries in German. (I personally have Speedy Internet but many people I know have internet that really sucks slowly.)
My relative lives in Germany and can confirm that they have potato internet there
My first thought is you need to buy new network equipment to utilize 10 gbit and new ethernet cables.
Yeah I'd love to have anything near 100Mbps.
Currently get 12Mbps on a good day, usually around 6Mbps.
This is after spending thousands of dollars to upgrade the connection last year. Australian internet is fucked.
That's crazy. Here in São Paulo (Brazil), wired internet plans start at 100 Mbps and you'll often end up with 300+ Mbps, because there's almost no difference in price.
Faster: Australian for tears
I just don't get it. Why not making upload speed same as download speed?
the most simple explanation is that total bandwidth is limited and more upload speed they give you the less download speed.
What about full duplex links?
You can still spend more of the links on download if you wanted to
On all lines the total amount of available bandwidth has to be split between upload and download. If you've got gigabits or even hundreds of megabits to play with then symmetric is great, but on slower connections is makes a world of sense to heavily favour download just because humans are better at consuming information than creating it. Consider how many hours of videos the average person watches per week versus how many they create in the same period. Same for photos, emails, articles, etc. There are people who have parity but they are in a pretty tiny minority.
That said, I hear there are people in the US getting 300Mb/s down and 10Mb/s up which is pretty fucking nuts.
Australia here. 250 down, 20 up
Because regular users need more download than upload, while servers need more upload than download.
100 mbps? That's 100 millibits per second, or 0.1 bits per second. I'd certainly hope for better bandwidth than one bit every ten seconds; that's slower than smoke signals.
I wish we can all move to MB/s and get rid of the endless confusion on names
I say we split the different and go for nibbles per fortnight.
The reason we don't is because the network does not care how the files you transfer are formatted.
It measure the amount of bits it can transfer.
Whether the file in question is for example a text document (8bit) or a HEIF (10bit)
Mbps, megabits per second, is the standard. No idea why this author opted to use the highly unusual millibit.
I tried to get it to point to my username (but it's cool if you want to argue)
No, you didnt
I almost replied saying you had no idea you were talking about, but then I realized.... Lol
Except that’s like dividing by zero. A millibit is undefined. A bit is the smallest indivisible unit of digital information.
But capitalization is important to distinguish between b for bit and B for Byte.
No, that's like dividing by 1,000.
Anyway, computer scientists split the bit back in 1969, which is how we're able to make smaller and smaller computers: the bits are all smaller, so we can pack more into a single potato chip.
Lol thanks for the chuckle
Information entropy is measured in bits, and the bits are almost always fractional.
Good catch but not quite. bps is a rate so it is allowed to be an abstract expression.
How many chickens per hour cross the road?
And more importantly, why.
If you had really slow Internet, like smoke signals or semaphores across a nation, you could characterize it as millibit:
1 bit over 1000 seconds = 1 millibit/s.
But yeah, it's basically meaningless in today's age for Internet speeds.
The title used the wrong abbreviation and you didn’t read the linked press release. The previous standard was 25/3 Mbps so there’s no reason to downgrade; had you bothered to read the link you’re supposedly commenting on you’d see the new standard is 100/20 Mbps. That’s also laughably low for a regular household with a modicum of modern usage but we can’t really expect much from agencies under regulatory capture.
They were making a joke about units and the use of a lowercase m instead of an uppercase M for Megabits per second.....
You might have figured it out by now, but "megabits per second" is abbreviated as "Mbps" with an uppercase m; yeah, it's kinda pedantic, but using lowercase means it's a millibit, which is much, much smaller. The same applies to "gigabits per second," which should be expressed as "Gbps."
At any rate, thank you for posting this, it really is good news. And about time they did this, too.
I think it's common parlance to use Mbps and mbps interchangeably since nothing uses "millibits" as a unit of measurement. More commonly people misuse Mbps and MBps which is incorrect since it signifies bits and bytes.
To avoid the Mb/MB confusion I've gotten in the habit of writing Mbit and MByte, so there's really no ambiguity (like, even if I used them right, it's reasonable that people might not be sure if I'm using them right or not)
At least when talking about network-related things, particularly transfer rates. With storage and things it's way more rare that anyone might be talking about bits.
No one would ever say millibits, because a bit is the smallest meaningful datapoint. It's a non-existent term, and a very pointless pedantic hill to try to build so that you can die on it
Literally no one means "millibit" when they type mbps.....
There is no 1000ths of a 0 or 1.
Milibit does not exist.
Network speed is measured in Megabits per second, which is indeed 8 times smaller than Megabyte per second that OSes show when transferring files.
It should also require allowing incoming connections.
Too much ISPs, especially mobile, are gives one-way Internet now. Basically like having a phone line with no phone number.
You should google "CG-NAT" and learn why mobile providers don't (and simply can't) provide you a public IP. Get yourself a cheap VPS, set up a reverse proxy, and open all the ports you want.
I know why they do that, lack of v4 space and other reasons. Why we need to push forward with such legislations.
VPS + Wireguard is great. And my DNS provider allows private range IPs as "A" records, so I have subdomains for my different home servers.
That's due to there not being enough IPv4 addresses, and IPv6 is... forgotten I guess.
IPv6 is actually widely implemented. Home ISPs are mixed on providing IPv6, but mobile providers widely embrace IPv6, some even running IPv6-only networks that rely on translation services to reach IPv4 destinations. T-Mobile is IPv6-only for example
Interesting. Unfortunately, my carrier is IPv4-only (Swan Mobile).
Yeah, IPv6 adoption varies quite a bit by country and region. It's a shame that it's going so slow
If I could also get 100mbps for less than $80 a month that'd be great.
This. 100mbps is great and all except what good is it if people can't afford it.
Slightly off topic but I seriously hope the Dems have a good plan to tell the general public of the US, just how much Biden and his administration has done for good progressive legislation this far.
They don't.
Source: They keep not executing the plan
I just hope Ofcom will have a similar idea for the UK. Currently you only have a "universal service obligation" for 10Mbps, and if you can be provided by 4G then Openreach doesn't have to upgrade your old copper line. Large areas of my city are still copper only.
Go get them FCC! Lets move into the future.
I'm out here living on 10 Mbps up / 1 Mbps down.
I hate living in LATAM.
I found the HPB
I am sorry, friend, but what does HPB mean?
It's an old school diss
High ping bitch/baby
I was one of the first LPB (low ping bastard). Back in the 90s, some servers would just flat out ban you if you were one or the other. I was very competitive in Quake/Halflife/Counterstrike and even had a shirt with the Ethernet symbol and LPB under it. I fucking loved that shirt.
I was i.am/zzottt if anyone remembers the first days of Counterstrike
Thanks for explaining, comrade. May Shub-Internet be kind to you.
Thanks Biden
Me over here with 40mbps taking days to download games.
I hover around 3Mbps on download, often falling below 1Mbps during peak hours :-/
It's still enough to stream YouTube videos in 360p/480p.
40Mbps would be damn fast. For me, at least.
I usually get 5-10 Mbps download during peak times, which is enough for 720p YT and decent video calls. I really don't understand why people always need faster and faster internet. Although I just checked, and I'm getting 60 down just now, which is way more than I have ever seen.
Do you live in the boonies?
Nope. It's just the best €13/month gets me.
Same. In a large city no less. With new apartments down the road, less than a quarter mile away, having fiber while we have DSL ffs in our whole neighborhood. No other choices for broadband. Fuck ATT.
No, I like my ATT 1gbps symmetric with no caps
I hate you, because ATT's fiber stops about 1/2 mile from my house. My house has never even been able to get fucking DSL.
I'm happy for you. I get 45 with a 1.5 terabyte cap. Fuck ATT.
What are people doing with this high bandwidth?
A killer ratio on a few trackers.
One day I'll be cool enough to use private trackers. Years of megaseeding and I still don't know where to even look.
Silly question. Porn of course.
Ripping YouTube
Look less then 2 years ago I was in the upper 20s at the best of times. Fiber rolled in. I got gigabit and its spoiled me very quickly. I'm not sure why I'd need more but I'm sure they'll find a reason eventually.
I just did a speed test. 329 down, 22 up. I pay like 45 bucks a month and it's totally sufficient. I pirate and stream shit all the time, manage a home media server, have a bunch of smart home bullshit. I don't need 100mbps. Not yet at least.
The internet needs to be classified as a utility, living without it is just not possible in the world we have created.
I remember the collective shitfit around a decade ago when Obama give out free cell phones to homeless people. It was such a crazy concept to people who have never struggled that yes, you DO need a smartphone to meet your calling, banking and personal management needs. Everything has an online portal. Every job application requires an online portion. It's how the world works and has worked since the mid 00s.
Ah yes "Obamaphones"
Ring ring ring ring ring ... Obamaphone!
Remember that time Obama realized they were never going to approve any Supreme Court pick of his so he suggested "Ben Ghazi" for the job as a joke?
That was funny
Wait. What?! Obama gave out phones? I was living abroad for the first few years of the Obama administration when smart phones happened. Can you fill me in on this one?
BuT yOu CaN aLwAyS gO tO tHe LiBrArY
The libraries that many of the people who say this are trying to shutter, of course.
The libraries that will allow me a maximum of an hour, maybe two if I'm lucky?
It was until Ajit Pai unraveled that.
Should be 1gbps asymmetric now, with a near future goal of 1gbps symmetric.
If the federal government is regulating them can we admit they're a fucking utility already and stop allowing them to gouge prices when they have more money than they could feasibly spend?
Can you imagine if we said "by 2035 every American household in our electric grid will also be connected to the internet at a speed of 1gbps"?
I can imagine it.
I can imagine the next jerk off administration rescinding that goal in the name of private enterprise or whatever bullshit excuse they choose.
We did that in the 90s. We gave ISPs billions to deploy fiber everywhere. It was mostly squandered and 25 years later most Americans still don’t have fiber access.
Well, we didn't. It wasn't a utility. Utilities are more regulated by the govt. Thats a big part of why it failed and why electricity succeeded with the same effort in the fucking 1800s.
Does this really matter. We aren't getting it anyway.
The telcom/cable companies are just going to take the "broadband" money, build out a couple of neighborhoods, claim it is too hard, and then keep all the money.
They have already done it many times. Free taxpayer money with zero repercussions. Why would they do anything different.
I have a lot of experience with rural broadband initiatives, and generally yes, the FCC designation sets the minimums we see in terms of new service delivery to underserved communities. I specifically worked with state and municipal entities to build grant packages to fund infrastructure and these new minimums would be a great help.
We are between towns in western WA state stuck with 10Mb DSL service. There are a lot of us folks. After moving in (the PO said the internet was great, lol), we discovered that doing anything excessive like downloading AND streaming would not work. One thing at a time. We were able to bond two pair and get 20Mb which is workable, but that's where we sit. Gigabit service is all around us, but we'd have to trench a mile up the road and pay for that to even think about getting a provider to lay a line. Century Link outright laughed at me.
I was able to get T-Mo's home internet as a backup since we WFH, but it isn't stellar either.
I live in rural Washington too, in the mountains. There was a local ISP that was terrible and amazingly a very small ISP bought them out from Arizona. The first thing they did was start to run fiber to anyone who wanted it. I went from shit DSL to 1gig up and 1 gig down fiber. To top it all off, they've lowered my monthly price once and doubled my bandwidth once... Without even asking, I even emailed them to check if my bill was lower and speed was faster and they were like yep! Mind blown.
Small world, but I helped form many of the broadband action teams in Washington State, and consulted on the broadband plans for each country that was submitted for federal funding. We're getting there, slowly, but progress is being made.
My coworkers mom lives in the same general area and has been using Starlink for a while now without issue. She gets around 300Mbps.
I considered it, but it isn't good for online gaming and then there is...Musk. Had to pass.
~20ms ping times are perfectly fine for gaming. Admit it, it's just Musk.
Should that not be enough? There is also the equipment costs and personally my gaming days are waning anyway. When I visit someone with Starkink and use it, it seems very frequently laggy. Bursts seemed common.
I use scheduling/throttling to accommodate this meager link speed. I was on dial-up well into the early 2000's, so I am no stranger to suffering slow links where patience is key.
Western MT here. Starlink is consistently 100+
We really need some upstream minimums as well. That causes so much lag for me. Most plans are 1 up even with 100 down. I have a 200/10 plan now and it's difficult to do work with the maybe 5 that I get in practice if I'm lucky, especially after overhead from VPN.
That can't be right. I thought Australia's 100/20 plans had pathetic upload speeds but that's unreal.
I have Spectrum here in the southeast of the United States. My plan is 300 down 12 up. That pathetic upload speed needs to change for the better.
Most broadband access in the US is via coax. And the coax companies refuse to let cable TV, and the packages they can bundle, die. So the portion of the coax that would allow for symmetrical service instead brings all the channels you didn't buy because everyone streams now.
Here in Sweden most people have optic fiber with AT LEAST 100/100 speeds. You gotta try if you want lower than that / if you want asymmetrical speeds.
Right now in a lot of states Verizon has a monopoly on symmetrical internet service. I can’t ever switch ISPs because I can’t get 400/400 anywhere else.
God I wish we had that here. We are pretty much stuck with Comcast as the only option in many places since they were granted a monopoly for so long and the phone company never really expanded much. DSL is too slow in most places. Like I think I can only get 100/1 where I am now, but the last place I was at which was not exactly rural at all, was max 12m/768k. In my current place I do have one other option which is another cable provider. They offer the exact same as Comcast for slightly less money, but the primary reason I use them is because they don't have a monthly data cap. With my wife and I working from home plus our personal streaming, we would exceed the cap and have to pay a significant amount to increase it.
Yeah ISPs are doing rural America really dirty. I didn’t even know monthly data caps existed with home internet until somebody from a rural town mentioned it. The only internet with monthly data caps around here is cell service and even then that’s usually unlimited now.
I do a lot of download and upload and one month I realized I accidentally moved like 30 TB that month.
Yar harr? Or wfh programmer?
I have a home server which is used for quite a bit. Bunch of web apps including storage so downloading stuff to my phone over the internet means upload from my server, also multimedia too (That I actually pay for) via Plex, music, and podcasts. Photo hosting, sharing, and backups.
Ah yaeh that would do it.
Yeah I mean right now I'm in a relatively major city in the US (like 750K population), and the previous place I was just inside a major suburb (like 150K population). Rural is just plain screwed.
Is that the Verion 5G modem?
Fios, it’s fiber.
I have Verizon 5g with the ultra wideband service. Tower is on a light post on the street corner, speeds max out around 700/70 for me. 400/400 sounds like Fios which is a fiber service.
How is this possible? Most of network hardware is symmetric. It doesn't make sense.
Cable Internet / DOCSIS splits bandwidth in a way that greatly prioritizes download over upload.
I mean network hardware between providers.
It's a last-mile thing. Artificially boosts the download numbers which most customers look at.
Doesn't DOCSIS 4.0 support 10gbps down and 6gbps up?
The biggest benefit of DOCSIS 4.0 is the ability to dynamically reallocate bandwidth between upload and download.
In addition to cable being the primary means of providing service in the US which does allow for this, there are two reasons for doing it. First, down is all that is advertised. Up is only mentioned in small print usually. And second, the major ISPs and the content companies have merged so it's an anti-"piracy" measure. It significantly impacts torrent seeding and hosting sites using residential Internet service.
I could give a shit what they call it. How about enforcing some god damn price restrictions or make data caps illegal? Speed means little otherwise
This actually does keep prices in check. Albeit, a bit backasswardsly.
I may be off on the specifics but it's something like: Having to offer 100mbps at the lowest rates in (poor neighborhoods) increases the speeds of each tier while keeping the price the same.
Thats great but can we demand some decent UPLOAD to?
cries in 300down measally 10 up
Upload is the biggest nobody gives a fuck in this ISP provider shit despite its importance.
In the linked pdf, it does mention the benchmarks.
And really, 20 mbps at the bottom tier for broadband isn't all that unreasonable. We're talking about the floor level here.
20mbits at bottom tier would be fine, but there are currently top tier cable plans, 1gbps down and still only 10mbps up. Upload speed needs to scale at least proportionallly, if not symmetrically.
I felt so gaslit by optimum because they advertise 1gbps parallel. But, if you don't have their fiber offering in your region they'll happily sell you 1gbps/24mbps for the same price.
Although, unless I complain, they fail to give me even 300mbps down.
I miss Google Fiber :(
Found the Charter/Spectrum customer!
GIGA-SPEEDS!! ... Such bullshit
Isn't that partly a consequence of the cable internet network design? The existing DOCSIS standards are designed to favour download speeds, so the infrastructure doesn't allow asymmetric connections.
If I understand correctly it’s not intrinsic to the DOCSIS standards, it’s just how more or less every cable company chooses to allocate channels. Think like a cable company has 100 channels they may be able to use on a given line, and they choose to put 90 of them on download and 10 on upload (numbers are made up to convey idea). Now they have only a small amount of available upload bandwidth and lots of download, but they could have set it up to be 50/50 to have it be equal.
Ah okay. So the infrastructure is designed that way, but not because it's cable/DOCSIS.
Can’t wait til they give another few hundred billion to ISPs who turn it into bonuses instead of infra improvement
As it should have been 5 years ago. Maybe even more.
5 years late but better than never.
I did telecom work about 5 years ago
It was shocking the amount of area that depends on a low-quality copper wire infrastructure.
I don't know if that changed in 5 years, but companies are going to have a hard time getting that replaced nationwide
They just won't be able to call it broadband.
We live in a rural area (but only 16 miles from the nearest city) and have copper. We really hope the infrastructure bill will bring real internet to us in our lifetime.
If congress passes a bill to improve internet infrastructure, it will be a 10s of billions hand out to ISPs that in turn will do little to nothing to actually improve their infrastructure. Just like when they did it in the 90s to get fiber to most Americans.
They already got billions from the government to upgrade their infrastructure. It's on them if they didn't actually use the money for that by now.
I would think that per FCC this requirement has loop holes and the minimum 100 Mbps is most likely for only broadband not dial up, so many telecommunication companies will be except
Cries in Australian
Laugh in Western European (10Gbps)
Cries in Brexit
cries.
Cries in German. (I personally have Speedy Internet but many people I know have internet that really sucks slowly.)
My relative lives in Germany and can confirm that they have potato internet there
My first thought is you need to buy new network equipment to utilize 10 gbit and new ethernet cables.
Yeah I'd love to have anything near 100Mbps. Currently get 12Mbps on a good day, usually around 6Mbps. This is after spending thousands of dollars to upgrade the connection last year. Australian internet is fucked.
That's crazy. Here in São Paulo (Brazil), wired internet plans start at 100 Mbps and you'll often end up with 300+ Mbps, because there's almost no difference in price.
Faster: Australian for tears
I just don't get it. Why not making upload speed same as download speed?
the most simple explanation is that total bandwidth is limited and more upload speed they give you the less download speed.
What about full duplex links?
You can still spend more of the links on download if you wanted to
On all lines the total amount of available bandwidth has to be split between upload and download. If you've got gigabits or even hundreds of megabits to play with then symmetric is great, but on slower connections is makes a world of sense to heavily favour download just because humans are better at consuming information than creating it. Consider how many hours of videos the average person watches per week versus how many they create in the same period. Same for photos, emails, articles, etc. There are people who have parity but they are in a pretty tiny minority.
That said, I hear there are people in the US getting 300Mb/s down and 10Mb/s up which is pretty fucking nuts.
Australia here. 250 down, 20 up
Because regular users need more download than upload, while servers need more upload than download.
100 mbps? That's 100 millibits per second, or 0.1 bits per second. I'd certainly hope for better bandwidth than one bit every ten seconds; that's slower than smoke signals.
I wish we can all move to MB/s and get rid of the endless confusion on names
I say we split the different and go for nibbles per fortnight.
The reason we don't is because the network does not care how the files you transfer are formatted.
It measure the amount of bits it can transfer.
Whether the file in question is for example a text document (8bit) or a HEIF (10bit)
Mbps, megabits per second, is the standard. No idea why this author opted to use the highly unusual millibit.
👆 Pedant.
👆 Humorless git.
Debate pervert 👆
You're right, I'm horny for words.
I tried to get it to point to my username (but it's cool if you want to argue)
No, you didnt
I almost replied saying you had no idea you were talking about, but then I realized.... Lol
Except that’s like dividing by zero. A millibit is undefined. A bit is the smallest indivisible unit of digital information.
But capitalization is important to distinguish between b for bit and B for Byte.
No, that's like dividing by 1,000.
Anyway, computer scientists split the bit back in 1969, which is how we're able to make smaller and smaller computers: the bits are all smaller, so we can pack more into a single potato chip.
Lol thanks for the chuckle
Information entropy is measured in bits, and the bits are almost always fractional.
Good catch but not quite. bps is a rate so it is allowed to be an abstract expression.
How many chickens per hour cross the road?
And more importantly, why.
If you had really slow Internet, like smoke signals or semaphores across a nation, you could characterize it as millibit:
1 bit over 1000 seconds = 1 millibit/s.
But yeah, it's basically meaningless in today's age for Internet speeds.
The title used the wrong abbreviation and you didn’t read the linked press release. The previous standard was 25/3 Mbps so there’s no reason to downgrade; had you bothered to read the link you’re supposedly commenting on you’d see the new standard is 100/20 Mbps. That’s also laughably low for a regular household with a modicum of modern usage but we can’t really expect much from agencies under regulatory capture.
They were making a joke about units and the use of a lowercase m instead of an uppercase M for Megabits per second.....
You might have figured it out by now, but "megabits per second" is abbreviated as "Mbps" with an uppercase m; yeah, it's kinda pedantic, but using lowercase means it's a millibit, which is much, much smaller. The same applies to "gigabits per second," which should be expressed as "Gbps."
At any rate, thank you for posting this, it really is good news. And about time they did this, too.
I think it's common parlance to use Mbps and mbps interchangeably since nothing uses "millibits" as a unit of measurement. More commonly people misuse Mbps and MBps which is incorrect since it signifies bits and bytes.
To avoid the Mb/MB confusion I've gotten in the habit of writing Mbit and MByte, so there's really no ambiguity (like, even if I used them right, it's reasonable that people might not be sure if I'm using them right or not)
At least when talking about network-related things, particularly transfer rates. With storage and things it's way more rare that anyone might be talking about bits.
No one would ever say millibits, because a bit is the smallest meaningful datapoint. It's a non-existent term, and a very pointless pedantic hill to try to build so that you can die on it
Literally no one means "millibit" when they type mbps.....
There is no 1000ths of a 0 or 1.
Milibit does not exist.
Network speed is measured in Megabits per second, which is indeed 8 times smaller than Megabyte per second that OSes show when transferring files.
It should also require allowing incoming connections. Too much ISPs, especially mobile, are gives one-way Internet now. Basically like having a phone line with no phone number.
You should google "CG-NAT" and learn why mobile providers don't (and simply can't) provide you a public IP. Get yourself a cheap VPS, set up a reverse proxy, and open all the ports you want.
I know why they do that, lack of v4 space and other reasons. Why we need to push forward with such legislations.
VPS + Wireguard is great. And my DNS provider allows private range IPs as "A" records, so I have subdomains for my different home servers.
That's due to there not being enough IPv4 addresses, and IPv6 is... forgotten I guess.
IPv6 is actually widely implemented. Home ISPs are mixed on providing IPv6, but mobile providers widely embrace IPv6, some even running IPv6-only networks that rely on translation services to reach IPv4 destinations. T-Mobile is IPv6-only for example
Interesting. Unfortunately, my carrier is IPv4-only (Swan Mobile).
Yeah, IPv6 adoption varies quite a bit by country and region. It's a shame that it's going so slow
It is not forgotten. https://youtube.com/watch?v=vo5glK9czIE
My ISP have full IPv6 support, but block all traffic via firewall...
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=vo5glK9czIE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If I could also get 100mbps for less than $80 a month that'd be great.
This. 100mbps is great and all except what good is it if people can't afford it.
Slightly off topic but I seriously hope the Dems have a good plan to tell the general public of the US, just how much Biden and his administration has done for good progressive legislation this far.
They don't.
Source: They keep not executing the plan
I just hope Ofcom will have a similar idea for the UK. Currently you only have a "universal service obligation" for 10Mbps, and if you can be provided by 4G then Openreach doesn't have to upgrade your old copper line. Large areas of my city are still copper only.
Go get them FCC! Lets move into the future.
I'm out here living on 10 Mbps up / 1 Mbps down.
I hate living in LATAM.
I found the HPB
I am sorry, friend, but what does HPB mean?
It's an old school diss
High ping bitch/baby
I was one of the first LPB (low ping bastard). Back in the 90s, some servers would just flat out ban you if you were one or the other. I was very competitive in Quake/Halflife/Counterstrike and even had a shirt with the Ethernet symbol and LPB under it. I fucking loved that shirt.
I was i.am/zzottt if anyone remembers the first days of Counterstrike
Thanks for explaining, comrade. May Shub-Internet be kind to you.
Thanks Biden
Me over here with 40mbps taking days to download games.
I hover around 3Mbps on download, often falling below 1Mbps during peak hours :-/
It's still enough to stream YouTube videos in 360p/480p.
40Mbps would be damn fast. For me, at least.
I usually get 5-10 Mbps download during peak times, which is enough for 720p YT and decent video calls. I really don't understand why people always need faster and faster internet. Although I just checked, and I'm getting 60 down just now, which is way more than I have ever seen.
Do you live in the boonies?
Nope. It's just the best €13/month gets me.
Same. In a large city no less. With new apartments down the road, less than a quarter mile away, having fiber while we have DSL ffs in our whole neighborhood. No other choices for broadband. Fuck ATT.
No, I like my ATT 1gbps symmetric with no caps
I hate you, because ATT's fiber stops about 1/2 mile from my house. My house has never even been able to get fucking DSL.
I'm happy for you. I get 45 with a 1.5 terabyte cap. Fuck ATT.
What are people doing with this high bandwidth?
A killer ratio on a few trackers.
One day I'll be cool enough to use private trackers. Years of megaseeding and I still don't know where to even look.
Silly question. Porn of course.
Ripping YouTube
Look less then 2 years ago I was in the upper 20s at the best of times. Fiber rolled in. I got gigabit and its spoiled me very quickly. I'm not sure why I'd need more but I'm sure they'll find a reason eventually.
I just did a speed test. 329 down, 22 up. I pay like 45 bucks a month and it's totally sufficient. I pirate and stream shit all the time, manage a home media server, have a bunch of smart home bullshit. I don't need 100mbps. Not yet at least.