FCC chair: Speed standard of 25Mbps down, 3Mbps up isn’t good enough anymore::Chair proposes 100Mbps national standard and an evaluation of broadband prices.

  • FantasticFox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I have 500Mbps in Spain. Is it that bad in the American cities or is it only like rural Montana that has these speeds?

    • electromage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s widely variable, even in big cities the available ISPs can change depending on what side of a street you’re on. A lot of people are stuck with cable (DOCSIS) providers that run over legacy TV infrastructure and provide wildly asymmetric speeds. This is an excerpt from Xfinity (Comcast):

      Xfinity Gigabit Internet service has advanced, next generation technology, with WiFi download speeds of up to 1000 Mbps (up to 1200 Mbps in some areas) and upload speeds of up to 35 Mbps.

      • Fordry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s a new docsis version right around the corner that will provide symmetric speeds. Comcast is starting to roll it out this year. Cable will be a lot faster in a couple years.

    • JiveTurkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I live in middle America and oddly enough the rural areas have started getting fiber from utility companies. I live in a town of about 40,000 and the best you can hope for is either DSL from AT&T which is maybe 25Mbps with perfect conditions or Optimum Cable internet which is sold as “Gigabit” that never breaks 400Mbps and cost about $120/mo. I’ve also had to file multiple complaints with the FCC to have issues resolved. My connection for about 6 months was completely unusable when it rained and even after “fixing” the issue I have severely reduced speeds when it rains. It’s an absolute joke and nothing is in place to protect consumers from any of this BS.

    • Asifall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The issue is mostly that it’s highly variable, hard to change without moving, and hard to predict before you actually live somewhere.

      The comcast rep will happily take your money to put you on a 200mb plan, but it won’t do shit if the infrastructure in your area is bad, and Comcast (or whoever the isp is) has absolutely zero responsibility to actually provide the promised services. Now you add in that 95% of the population including most of the phone reps working for the ISPs don’t even know the difference between a bit and a byte and it becomes a total crap shoot.

      • Demdaru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        …wow. That’s so shit. Where I live, your internet provider has to have the ability to provide the service or like with every other service provider it’s really open for lawyer action.

        This also makes so that internet providers are at the same time keeping their own infrastructure around which in turn makes that yet another selling point (“we have up to 1 gbps in your area!”) and makes them keep it in top-notch condition.

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I live in the mountain area, and my friend lives 30m from a multi-million population city, in an area with over 100,000 residents. His best option for internet to this day is hotspotting from his cell. Before that was viable, he only had access to satellite internet. Even semi-rural people here get fucked.

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        my friend lives 30m from a multi-million population city

        It took me a beat to realize this was 30 miles or 30 minutes and not 30 meters.

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Ah that’s my bad, should’ve used metric. I meant minutes, but in context it doesn’t really portray that.

          • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Oh, metric isn’t a requirement (although I myself am striving to use it when I remember), just that “m” alone is ambiguous. And in my daily work, a number followed by a single m is meters.