• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    214
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    The internet needs to be classified as a utility, living without it is just not possible in the world we have created.

    • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            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

      • akilou@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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?

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    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”?

    • PorkSoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • Lesrid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

      • yuknowhokat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

      • bratosch@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

        • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

          • irotsoma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              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.

        • bamboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      How is this possible? Most of network hardware is symmetric. It doesn’t make sense.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    8 months ago

    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

    • lemmeout@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

    • Qwaffle_waffle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.
      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        And really, 20 mbps at the bottom tier for broadband isn’t all that unreasonable. We’re talking about the floor level here.

        • privatizetwiddle@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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 :(

    • IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

  • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can’t wait til they give another few hundred billion to ISPs who turn it into bonuses instead of infra improvement

  • popemichael@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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

    • poprocks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

    • shasta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

    • White_Flight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

    • adrian783@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      the most simple explanation is that total bandwidth is limited and more upload speed they give you the less download speed.

    • rmuk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because regular users need more download than upload, while servers need more upload than download.

  • Redhotkurt@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • ripcord@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

    • Avanera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • ieightpi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.