Submitted by Sorin61 t3_yybrwu in technology
Comments
NegativeCap1975 t1_iwthllf wrote
Still not reinstating Net Neutrality. Pretty weird how the Democrats control the white house and both houses of congress and they still haven't reversed that policy. Prreeeeetttty weird.
SwarfDive01 t1_iwticyy wrote
The real question is which ISP initiated this, and who are they targeting? My guess is something like, someone with cables or hardlines, targeting someone with a possibility of inconsistent connectivity. Like satellite or radio. So their "disclaimer" has to be a range. Hardline cables are almost always limited by priority. If your residential base package runs into the same data center from the same switchboard as Amazon fulfillment center? Amazon's premium business package is guaranteed priority over your Hulu stream. Radio can't guarantee a regulated speed. My internet drops to .5mb/s on a cloudy or foggy day.
Pragmatist203 t1_iwtiq1f wrote
It's almost like there isn't a damn dimes bit of difference between them.
hmmm
flashstepthruadmins t1_iwtj58l wrote
>both houses of congress
You ever heard of the filibuster?
NegativeCap1975 t1_iwtjdix wrote
Hate it when the head of the FCC tries to reverse policy and they get filibustered by Congress. Just crazy.
AdventurousTime t1_iwtl0er wrote
This is a good start. Cable operators (in particular) are trying to muddy the waters and tell consumers that their “mostly” fiber network offers as good performance as fiber to the home solution and that there’s no major difference with coax. We all know this isn’t true. It will be obvious from the performance characteristics. But it would be helpful if the label also included the connection type. Fiber coax or dsl.
Robot_Basilisk t1_iwtltxa wrote
Not relevant, but even if it were, the filibuster needed to go because the GOP will toss it the second it gets in their way now.
Every time in recent memory the Dems have declined to do something publicly popular because it would "set a precedent" that the GOP would copy, the GOP has done it anyhow the next time they had the chance.
Citi_Dank t1_iwtmnwn wrote
You know what else is weird? Dems also have a super majority in California and could pass whatever they like and yet they can't ( or won't )even get a vote to the floor on Medicare for all in California. Something that Bernie ran on and is very popular with the people of that state.
Fishy.
[deleted] t1_iwtph66 wrote
FTTN can be as performant as FTTP if implemented correctly, but the cost of implementing FTTN in that fashion is not much less than just actually doing FTTP
[deleted] t1_iwtpk7g wrote
Oh look, this ignorant bullshit again.
tell me how the two parties voted in NN? (hint: very differently)
tell me how the two parties voted on the inflation reduction act?
etc
stfu
flashstepthruadmins t1_iwtpusa wrote
> head of the FCC
The head of the FCC still has to work with the other commissioners, and there's currently a 50/50 split on party lines, so once again Democrats do not have control of the institution.
wntgobak t1_iwtrsqf wrote
But there’s a plus side, hit that sweet duct with hot air and cool trapped in a layer. Shiiiiit your inter webs be speed McQueen 3000. That’s the day you’ll have 30 endusers uploading 4k livestream twitchathon’s. Then you’ll never ever mention cloudy days again.
NegativeCap1975 t1_iwtup5q wrote
>there's currently a 50/50 split on party lines
Pretty crazy how there's a 50/50 split on a 5 seat commission. Wonder how long that's been the case.
SwarfDive01 t1_iwtv52w wrote
I know you think I'm joking, but check your dm's brah
Nine_Eye_Ron t1_iwtzpbb wrote
Dietary fibre
ttubehtnitahwtahw1 t1_iwu1ame wrote
FTTNWRFITATJSIFIMG?
kuikuilla t1_iwu5kbc wrote
FTTx is generally used to describe how close to the end user the fiber reaches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x#/media/File:FTTX.svg
Jakesummers1 t1_iwu68zj wrote
Imagine it going through your system
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwu7dps wrote
No, a good start would be REINSTATING NET NEUTRALITY!!
WHICH BIDEN STILL HASNT DONE!
jBlairTech t1_iwu7fza wrote
For real. I love this idea in the article, but I would love a larger selection of providers even more.
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwu7im0 wrote
is it just the conspiracy theorist in me, or does this feel like Bidens attempt to misdirect us from the fact that he hasn't and won't reinstate net neutrality?
I mean, why else force ISP to make "nutrition labels" unless you expect them to have complete control of network traffic?
This feels like a compromise. What the fuck is happening?
MrWykydtron t1_iwu7kud wrote
Exactly this. In my area, there are other choices, just not everywhere. The best choice isn’t available everywhere and the only choice that is (fuck you Spectrum), sucks dick (in the worst way).
wigg1es t1_iwu7wnj wrote
Net Neutrality is important, but you're nuts if you think it's high on anyone's priority list.
Onihikage t1_iwua36t wrote
Republicans are moving backwards, Democrats are at worst a holding pattern but usually at least trying to move forward. It's a very important distinction.
We're never going to fix this country at the ballot box, but we can hopefully slow down its decline long enough for organized citizen action to bring about the course corrections our country and culture so badly need.
porarte t1_iwuakbg wrote
A "nutrition label" is an imposed standard. It's part of what government is supposed to do. The idea that it's some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous.
IamreallynotaNPC t1_iwub39x wrote
And fttn can be shitty as cable. Souce: I have casair fiber to the home that fucks up more than when I had spectrum cable. Inconsistent as all fuck. Uptime, latency, speed (especially upload).
I pay for 1000/1000 symmetric and it is anything but...
Bonus is every time I call them they cannot figure out why.
123felix t1_iwub6ic wrote
Monthly fees is still important even with net neutrality.
Additional fees is still important even with net neutrality.
Contract length is still important even with net neutrality.
Typical speed is still important even with net neutrality.
Data cap is still important even with net neutrality.
I fail to see the conspiracy here.
[deleted] t1_iwubp6d wrote
[deleted]
xchadrickx t1_iwuc85n wrote
How do you propose stopping the filibustering of the push to stop filibustering?
bluemandan t1_iwuevzo wrote
This doesn't help when there is only one option in a major city
SwarfDive01 t1_iwuewsj wrote
I agree here too though. ISPs aren't servicing rural areas. Fiber is huge in my city, the new neighborhood 1 mile away offers fiber, but our older, low density "rural" neighborhood has 1 broadband, or whatever unholy cost satellite providers. I barely have cell service. Especially now since a recent provider merger obsoleted my repeater.
iam8up t1_iwufaq5 wrote
The IIJA required the FCC to do this.
doommaster t1_iwug40n wrote
There is no practical reason not to do P2P FTTH anymore.
Unless you fear competition/regulation which is when GPON might be acceptable, still FTTH though.
The rest ist shit, expensive, crap.
PM_ME_TO_PLAY_A_GAME t1_iwugcl6 wrote
fftn = fibre to the node
fttp = fibre to the premises
Pragmatist203 t1_iwughqj wrote
And you change the cast of characters around and they do the exact fucking opposite because it's THEIR idea.
fantasmoofrcc t1_iwugvmd wrote
fiber to the home (FTTH) isn't cool anymore?
treenaks t1_iwuh1ck wrote
Business properties are not homes
cas13f t1_iwuh3ic wrote
Unlike legislation, a rule change only require a simple majority to be passed.
Samtheman001 t1_iwuhex8 wrote
Wow, I had to scroll way too far just to see you down voted??? Seriously, this is the way!
Pragmatist203 t1_iwui9fj wrote
It's all just theater. They take turns being the bad guy for a cycle, play the part for the money and votes, rinse and repeat. Strangely enough, nothing ever gets reversed when they swap places in the power dynamic. That's because they were all in on it. If it were important, elections WOULD have consequences, but with the sports team mentality they keep the voters in, nothing changes.
Atarteri t1_iwukozm wrote
Yesssss fuck Spectrum! We switched to Metronet - half the price for double the speed (300/300 to 1g/1g)
E3FxGaming t1_iwukzkc wrote
I had a rough start with Deutsch Glasfaser FTTH and I developed a small program that automatically ran an installed speedtest CLI and recorded the result in a CSV file. I would then compile that data into a bunch of nice graphs on a weekly basis and send it to the ISP, which lead to them eventually fixing the problem.
If they wouldn't have responded I'd have automated the mail part too and just sent them a mail ("live") whenever the speedtest would return unacceptable results.
lifeofideas t1_iwulh2s wrote
Nutrition labels are tight!
Loxley_Hardaway t1_iwulkcr wrote
Can we just stop data cap charges. That’s all I need
TheShocker1119 t1_iwullas wrote
I do not believe any ISP in America, Comcast, Verizon, Frontier, Ziply, etc. actually laid down any fiber optic lines. I believe these companies took Government money for the infrastructure & pocketed it like always.
We need our internet service to be a utility provided by the state & allowed to create community networks.
simple_mech t1_iwum0td wrote
When you’re starving, do you really check the nutritional label lol
[deleted] t1_iwum88j wrote
[deleted]
Minimum-Enthusiasm14 t1_iwumklb wrote
Luckily all this new money coming down bro broadband infrastructure practically mandates laying down fiber. So if they haven’t before, they’ll have to now.
Ok-Gear-5593 t1_iwun0pu wrote
I actually watched them put in fiber optic lines all over my town was it a dream or an expensive fake out? I have FIOS at my house and one of their boxes in my yard with fake(?) fiber. Edit: i remember a few years ago cutting it with my edger because they barely put it under the surface in some areas and down went my service till they came out and replaced the line from the street.
Toonces311 t1_iwun90u wrote
Wow wow wow wow
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunha9 wrote
Okay....the democrats have had control of the federal government for 3 years now.
You explain why Biden hasn't reinstated Net Neutrality, while taking it upon himself to write these new rules for the FCC?
Obviously they're getting something done.
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunkmf wrote
The conspiracy is that they are about to implement these new regulations for the FCC while pretending their hands are tied to reinstate Net Neutrality.
Both of those things can't be true at the same time. There's fuckery afoot.
[deleted] t1_iwunks9 wrote
[deleted]
fantasmoofrcc t1_iwunmq9 wrote
Not with that attitude! :)
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunw77 wrote
Insane that I'm getting downvoted for this in r/technology
This sub used to be the bastion for Net Neutrality
What the fuck is going on?
Biden's FCC has the time to implement these new regulations, but pretend their hands are tied to reinstate NN?
UltravioletClearance t1_iwup700 wrote
Net neutrality has nothing to do with ISP fees or data caps. It got downvoted for using a buzzword without actually understanding its meaning.
Deewd23 t1_iwuq5ll wrote
In order to pass a bill you need more than a majority in the senate. You think the GOP is going to push for rules on ISPs?
porarte t1_iwuqi0z wrote
Didn't have the Senate... so, the answer is "the GOP." The Republicans lately have obstructed almost every good possibility.
pixlbabble t1_iwusno4 wrote
The healthiest amount of competition for one company in your area.
mynameistrain t1_iwuu53r wrote
Found Musks reddit guys.
lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iwuua8s wrote
This would be a nice for comparing services...if Americans had the ability to pick between comparable competing services in any given area.
But with today's regional monopolies, we get whatever high fat, low nutrition crap the local cable oligopoly gives you...
noeagle77 t1_iwuyclp wrote
Ooooh then I can compare all one of my choices with your choice!
cptnobveus t1_iwuz4g9 wrote
Most rural people with starlink are happier than hell with our$110 1tb @ 150/20. Before starlink most of us got $120 50g @ 25/1 and could not stream during peak times.
It's a trade off that is well worth the peace and quiet.
KPookz t1_iwuzgw9 wrote
1TB is not nearly enough. Satellite internet companies put data caps just because they can since they have no competition. All internet should be unlimited.
cptnobveus t1_iwv0k6f wrote
According to starlink only 10% of their users exceed 1tb/month. My household consistently uses around 400g/month. It's awesome compared to what we had. Shitty thing is that there is a roll of fiber hanging on a pole about a half mile from my house and the company said they will not be extending it. Picking up 2 more customers isn't worth the labor to get it too them.
geraltseinfeld t1_iwv0px6 wrote
Gonna need you to get all the way off my back about my data caps.
drawkbox t1_iwv1iej wrote
The Sinemanchin blocked it.
SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwv2qdk wrote
There aren’t unlimited satellites in the sky or unlimited bandwidth on each satellite transmitter. Physics (and economics) puts a hard limit there. Most users would rather have reliable speed for the data they do transfer. See: the complaints about starlink getting slower.
[deleted] t1_iwv386i wrote
so you know you're full of shit, but won't admit it.
how much is russia paying you
[deleted] t1_iwv3cwn wrote
just for those who don't know
FTTH = FTTP different terms for same thing
Fiber To THe "House"/"Premises"
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv4a89 wrote
The FCC is an organization, genius.
They only have so much manpower, they have a limited budget.
The FCC has priorities, and obviously those priorities have nothing to do with reinstating Net Neutrality in the THREE FUCKING YEARS that Biden has been in office.
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv4vin wrote
A bill would be amazing, it would make Net Neutrality the law of the land, but Biden cannot do that because he never had the votes.
I get that.
...but in lieu of that, the FCC commissioner has broad, unilateral powers, and he could reinstate net neutrality at least until the next commissioner is takes office.
That's how Obama got NN instated, and that's who Trump got it uninstated
It feels like Biden just wants us to forget about Net Neutrality, because his commissioner could have reinstated it on day 1!
doommaster t1_iwv52bj wrote
FTTH is not FTTP, at least here. FTTP bundles, FTTB and FTTH PON/AON split in basement (which are not considered FTTH here).
But it seem to differ by region/country and even ISP.
Since about ~2 years now all the new deployments in my region are true P2P FTTH connection, with neither active nor passive splitting in buildings/premises...
One could also say FTTH is is a specific FTTP subset.... at least in our case here.
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv54pw wrote
That's just not true!
I wish the DNC had the votes to pass the law, but they don't, and I understand that
But the FCC commissioner has unilateral powers to either instate those rules or remove them, just like Obama and Trump's commissioners did.
Why hasn't Biden's FCC commissioner reinstated the Net Neutrality rules yet?!
[deleted] t1_iwv5voo wrote
> But it seem to differ by region/country and even ISP.
That's because there is no formal definition of when to use FTTH vs FTTP, just rough guidelines.
for most purposes they're equivalent. when getting into the details of a multi tenant residence vs a home we're getting into details that only matter to use networking nerds
For example all the FTTP apartment buildings i've lived in before I got my FTTH house had fiber all the way to the individual unit. There was no termination at the building split out to ethernet like some do, but my state also has a law against internet vendor lock in on apartments IIRC
Lee1138 t1_iwv697q wrote
I like the cut of your jib.
Pragmatist203 t1_iwv84ls wrote
No, actually I'm fairly honest about what I believe. You just don't like that I don't go along with the sports team you worship. You'll grow up someday.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwva6fk wrote
> There is no practical reason not to do P2P FTTH anymore.
Plenty of practical reasons not to do it point-to-point, even more financial reasons. If you're going house to house in a suburban neighbourhood then you don't want to be slinging multiple 144/288 strand cables down longer stretches of poles, and the only way to really avoid that with active installations is to instead have a ton of smaller access switches in a ton of curb cabinets, which you really don't want to do.
PON is perfectly fine for suburbs and exurbs. Point-to-point FTTH is only really suited for urban deployments with higher density access nodes, or in places with buried or otherwise protected paths that aren't vulnerable and exposed to the elements.
AccidentallyTheCable t1_iwvaggk wrote
I had an att guy show up and was like yeah we got 500mbit symmetrical in your neighborhood now, decided to look into it. Turns out its 500mbit shared by the end box which could hold up to 50 customers
thegreatgazoo t1_iwvbdjz wrote
Less than 2 years.
But yes, they love to promise things and then claim they are super duper busy and will get to it once you reelect them.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwvbgrk wrote
For those who don't get what this person is saying, the example image in the article measures latency in "Ms," which'd be megaseconds, or millions of seconds.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwvcaj2 wrote
For as long as 50 Republican senators, as well as Manchin and Sinema, have refused to confirm Gigi Sohn's nomination.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwvco8w wrote
I don't know what's worse, how patently absurd and obviously incorrect you are, or how confident you are in being so.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwvd0f6 wrote
The FCC commission chairperson doesn't have broad unilateral powers. It's also not a he, but a she. The FCC commission as a whole has broad regulatory powers, but it's currently tied 2-2 and can't get anything meaningful passed unless it has bipartisan support.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwvdnqe wrote
Why couldn't both of those be true at the same time? It's a 2-2 tie in the FCC Commission, and there's no reason why one or both of the Republican commissioners couldn't get on board with these kinds of labels while also not wanting to reinstate the net neutrality rules.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwve6bk wrote
There's not just one single FCC commissioner. There's an FCC commission that has regulatory powers, but it's tied along party lines. You sound way too confident in what you're saying for someone who's so fundamentally misinformed on how the FCC Commission works.
Pragmatist203 t1_iwve876 wrote
Believe what you want.
[deleted] t1_iwvf2t5 wrote
then you're honestly a moron, because the fact that you think they're "The same" and that it's just "Sports teams" Shows that you're completely fucking uninformed. You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
One side is imperfect, the others side are literally fucking neofascists. You can see from the fucking vote history over and over and over this is the case.
But you know, go ahead.
Keep pretending that Republicans taking away women's rights is normal.
Keep pretending that Republicans going after trans rights is normal.
Keep pretending that Republicans going after gay rights is normal.
Keep pretending that Republican White supremacism is normal.
Keep pretending that republicans going after schools curriculum is normal.
Keep pretending republicans screaming about "woke" is normal.
Keep pretending that Republicans attempting a coup after their lost an election is normal
Keep pretending that the clear voting history of "Republicans always vote to fuck over the little guy, Democrats usually vote to help the little guy" doesn't exist. Despite the fucking extensive documentation that it does.
You're not a fucking pramgatist, you're a goddamn nazi-enabling ignorant shit who is too insecure to admit that you're wrong.
The_Chaos_Pope t1_iwvfli8 wrote
Have fibre to my home, can confirm that it's cool as hell.
usmclvsop t1_iwvfpci wrote
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/yyms1j/fcc_unveils_new_broadband_map/
5 "choices" here but only one of them is viable for working from home
LordTegucigalpa t1_iwvfzng wrote
Just above the label it says "How we Fuck You"
doommaster t1_iwvgfug wrote
I am not sure but a PON-Splitter is almost certainly more expensive than say blowing in 12 fibers over 300m instead of 2.
I have not seen PON deployed here anymore since at least ~2 years.
Fiber itself is so cheap, my 9 flat unit just has a patch box in the basement with 12 fibers, and that's it. they do not even care to match them actual demand, 12, 24, 48 is what they do here...
https://imgur.com/a/PrnX8VA that's how it looked in my buildings basement when they first hooked the panel up.
PON also has higher risk of branch failures induced by bad customer equipment and since customer can use their own equipment here, by law, PON might be problematic for the whole PON-splitted branch.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwvh773 wrote
> I am not sure but a PON-Splitter is almost certainly more expensive than say blowing in 12 fibers over 300m instead of 2.
Like I said, in suburbs and exurbs you're not just hanging 12 strands in point-to-point deployments, you're hanging 144s or 288s down long roads. If a driver takes out a pole in bad weather at night, then with a PON deployment your fiber guys have to splice maybe 2-4 pairs, while with a point-to-point deployment they're sitting there all night in shitty weather splicing up to 288 strands and taking a whole lot longer to get customers back online.
A splitter for PON is the same as a splitter for anything else, and they're super cheap commodity items. Pig-tailed cassettes are less than $1 per split in bulk.
doommaster t1_iwvmupa wrote
ok, it is all underground here anyways, risks of fibers ever getting damaged like that is down 0.
Even my parents home/village has P2P all the way.
FriendlyDespot t1_iwvnmfn wrote
Almost all suburban and exurban FTTx in the United States (where the article here is about) is aerial fiber slung from utility poles.
jonathanrdt t1_iwvo0xl wrote
Broadband. Picture of telephone cable.
Deranged40 t1_iwvpmmc wrote
On the plus side, you'll finally see the upload speed that is offered before you purchase the service. So that's good.
AwkwardAd7348 t1_iwvqa51 wrote
They have no-competition agreements in my area to stop them from competing with each other. Should be illegal
lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iwvr610 wrote
Yes, it should be. And is...in every other country in the world.
haagse_snorlax t1_iwvrci1 wrote
You could… do it yourself. Get the permit, rent a digger do it in a couple of days
Pragmatist203 t1_iwvuklx wrote
Your vote is as good as mine. Enjoy.
And by the way, I don't vote Republican.
SlickMouthedFool t1_iwvuzzt wrote
Biden waited 9 whole months to elect new FCC commissioners you fucking genius
And the DNC does have a majority RIGHT FUCKING NOW!
you sound really fucking confident for someone who obviously has no fucking clue how this works.
[deleted] t1_iwvwqko wrote
I'm sure you vote Libertarian instead. Which is the same as voting Republican.
> Your vote is as good as mine. Enjoy.
So your entire purpose here is to be a dickwad troll, knowing that you're wrong and enjoying people calling you out for being full of shit.
Somehow you think that makes you "Win" when really everyone thinks you're an immature prick.
And that comforts you at night when you enable neofascists.
You're a child.
[deleted] t1_iwvxui9 wrote
[removed]
rsta223 t1_iwvzwla wrote
Not in my suburb. Our city-run fiber is all buried.
(FTTH is fantastic too - I'll be super disappointed if I ever have to move away from my symmetric gig)
GenocidalSloth t1_iww4hn2 wrote
Fuck cox more
someguynamedben7 t1_iww5by4 wrote
Data caps have absolutely nothing to do with when the data is used. This argument is nothing but an excuse. Think about it this way, data caps refresh on a monthly cycle right? Well it works that way for everyone. So when a new month rolls around everyone gets 1TB or whatever and starts using it till it runs out. That means a ton a bandwidth is used at the start of the month and very little is used at the end of the month. ISP's are just using data caps as a way to justify squeezing more money out of people. The bandwidth doesn't matter at all to them because slower Internet speeds at peak times are going to be the same for them with or without data caps.
MrWykydtron t1_iww5r23 wrote
That’s your prerogative.
123felix t1_iww6r0m wrote
This is not nearly as contentious as net neutrality you can't compare like this.
SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwwbvp1 wrote
Which is why once you exceed the 1tb you are merely deprioritized relative to users who haven’t.
I do agree it would make more sense to use rolling windows than resetting everyone on the same day. But I don’t work there.
someguynamedben7 t1_iwwckrh wrote
Not true, when you exceed your cap they charge you an arm and a leg for each gig past your limit. I wouldn't be surprised though if they don't also shackle your speed in addition to charging way more simply because they're all greedy assholes.
slvrcrystalc t1_iwwco2v wrote
"Typical" speed is the best part. No more 'up to' bullshit that never happens because all they're offering is the possible max number.
SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwwcv76 wrote
Incorrect.
> After your Priority Access is exhausted, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of Basic Access for the remainder of your billing cycle.
https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1134-82708-70?regionCode=US
someguynamedben7 t1_iwwd7h6 wrote
Then it looks like starlink is the single only ISP that does that. Doesn't change the fact that data caps are dumb though.
Tom2Die t1_iwwspzo wrote
Metronet has been quite good to me these past years; here's hoping that doesn't change.
LearnToStrafe t1_iwxolt9 wrote
I guess those orange tubes ATT put in my neighborhood are for hamsters then to go underground
nzodd t1_iwyefuz wrote
"Both sides" proclaims the guy who thinks watching a bunch of South Park makes him sophisticated and politically literate.
Pragmatist203 t1_iwzyd82 wrote
You obviously know little about me.
ethtips t1_ix2ro79 wrote
Thank you, I thought that was obvious.
ElCapitanAbrasivo t1_ix6xep1 wrote
Regulatory capture.
ethtips t1_iwth6tw wrote
But who would wait millions of seconds in latency? Oh wait, this sort of thing is obviously not proofread by the FCC, lol.