News FCC Chair Aims to Boost Minimum Broadband Speeds to 100/20 Mbps

[cryoburner]

25mbps is not enough, maybe 20 years ago but certainly not now. 3 Mbps up is also a joke, it seems these numbers have been chosen so all the cable providers can keep pushing out the plans with low uploads. The standard should be 100/100 which will force all of the cable providers to go mid split from low.

With 25mbps you will be waiting days to downloads 50-60GB games on steam. Forget about Icloud backups at 3mbps heck forget about uploading anything anywhere at those speeds.\

Starlink is the answer for rural not for densely populated urban area's they don't have the bandwidth for that.

I can't believe how bad internet is in the US. Some third world countries have it better.

You seem a bit out of touch with what common broadband speeds are capable of. A 50GB download would just take several hours on 25mbps Internet, not days. And games can hardly be considered a necessity, let alone something where people will be "left behind" as a result of having to wait an extra few hours to gain access to their latest piece of entertainment.

A 25mbps download speed is also enough to support streaming 4K video, or 1080p video to multiple viewers in a household. Having a moderately sharper image for multiple simultaneous viewers at once might be nice, but again it's a luxury, not a necessity, and ultimately isn't going to affect one's viewing experience much. And those are really the major things one is likely to use faster home Internet for today. Entertainment. Not exactly something the federal government should be mandating access to. As far as most productive tasks like loading web pages or installing productivity software go, the differences will tend to be minimal.

I do think raising the minimum typical upload speed for broadband would be more beneficial, since the mandated 3mbps is a bit low, though the vast majority of internet traffic tends to be downstream anyway, and an asymmetrical connection speed will tend to be fine for the vast majority of people. Something like livestreaming video could benefit from access to higher upload speeds, though things like online backups can be performed overnight while away from a device, so that's probably not a major concern. A 100mbps upload would go largely unused by most though, and would likely just result in things like file-sharing bogging down ISP networks, and in turn reducing performance and increasing costs for everyone.

And no, average broadband speeds are hardly bad in the US. In fact, they are generally ranked as some of the best in the world, typically in the vicinity of 10th place or so, out of a couple-hundred countries worldwide. And the percentage of the population with wired broadband subscriptions is also reasonably high. And that could be considered impressive seeing as the countries ranked higher for speed tend to have their populace primarily located in high-density urban environments. Making high-speed broadband widely available is a whole lot easier when you are in a country like Singapore where the population density is over 200 times that of the US. Now certainly there are many parts of the US where bringing broadband to everyone is impractical, but that goes for every large country with large numbers of people located in rural areas. It's also probably worth noting that Canada has typically been ranked worse in wired broadband speed rankings than the US, so your options in downtown Toronto are hardly indicative of what's going to be available to those in Canada's more rural areas.

 

[Makaveli]

You seem a bit out of touch with what common broadband speeds are capable of. A 50GB download would just take several hours on 25mbps Internet, not days. And games can hardly be considered a necessity, let alone something where people will be "left behind" as a result of having to wait an extra few hours to gain access to their latest piece of entertainment.

A 25mbps download speed is also enough to support streaming 4K video, or 1080p video to multiple viewers in a household. Having a moderately sharper image for multiple simultaneous viewers at once might be nice, but again it's a luxury, not a necessity, and ultimately isn't going to affect one's viewing experience much. And those are really the major things one is likely to use faster home Internet for today. Entertainment. Not exactly something the federal government should be mandating access to. As far as most productive tasks like loading web pages or installing productivity software go, the differences will tend to be minimal.

I do think raising the minimum typical upload speed for broadband would be more beneficial, since the mandated 3mbps is a bit low, though the vast majority of internet traffic tends to be downstream anyway, and an asymmetrical connection speed will tend to be fine for the vast majority of people. Something like livestreaming video could benefit from access to higher upload speeds, though things like online backups can be performed overnight while away from a device, so that's probably not a major concern. A 100mbps upload would go largely unused by most though, and would likely just result in things like file-sharing bogging down ISP networks, and in turn reducing performance and increasing costs for everyone.

And no, average broadband speeds are hardly bad in the US. In fact, they are generally ranked as some of the best in the world, typically in the vicinity of 10th place or so, out of a couple-hundred countries worldwide. And the percentage of the population with wired broadband subscriptions is also reasonably high. And that could be considered impressive seeing as the countries ranked higher for speed tend to have their populace primarily located in high-density urban environments. Making high-speed broadband widely available is a whole lot easier when you are in a country like Singapore where the population density is over 200 times that of the US. Now certainly there are many parts of the US where bringing broadband to everyone is impractical, but that goes for every large country with large numbers of people located in rural areas. It's also probably worth noting that Canada has typically been ranked worse in wired broadband speed rankings than the US, so your options in downtown Toronto are hardly indicative of what's going to be available to those in Canada's more rural areas.

lol ya I'm totally out of touch I've only been on the internet since dial up and have used dial up, dsl, Cable and fiber connections over the last 30 years.

It just seems I have higher standards than most when it comes to a internet connection and what I consider acceptable. This argument isn't a city vs rural I would prefer everyone to have access to fiber where you can even go down to a 25/25 if need be. Some of you are obviously happy with cable connections with low uploads and that is fine.

i'm advocating for faster connections for everyone and your just telling me nobody needs it and let basically stay with the status quo... I think if you were to actually go out and ask many people in the US they would say they are not happy with the choices, the connections are too slow the data caps are not need etc etc.

So i'm not really buying the 100mbps uploads will go unused. Its it only so because you have been conditioned to believe that is acceptable and have had no other choices. If you build it they will come and if you give the bandwidth people will find ways to use it.

 

[gggplaya]

US broadband "minimum" is a joke as it lacks any enforcement power compared to other countries. All it does is that telco companies cannot use "broadband" in its advertisement. Almost 1 million households in NYC alone, including my parents, have been stuck in ADSL which is ~15 Mbps if you are lucky because Verizon kept snowballing "to the door" FiOS orders while its lawyers stalled the city on its monopopy contract to "wire the whole city" with FiOS by 2015. This is NYC which actually had a legal binding contract that Verizon just ignored. My parents finally got T-Mobile 5G for home this year ASAP which gets to around 35-50Mbps. Under the new FCC rule T-Mobile just need to drop broadband in its advertisments instead of raising speed because Verizon and ATT both have local fixed line monopolies no longer being upgraded and wont bring their 5G Home services to NYC any time soon. Rural communities are <Mod Edit> out of luck if they are deemed not worthy to have 5G regardless whatever FCC says broadband is.

That 1 million figure is for what they call " broadband access" and not whether or not they're wired for broadband. Most poor families don't pay for internet because a phone plan is more important and many don't even have a computer at home. Internet on their phone is sufficient for looking things up and social media. TV and news comes from antenna. The 1 million household figure assumes that if these families were middle class, they would pay for broadband internet as a given. But being lower class, they have to make a choice of what bills to have an pay and wired internet falls off that list fairly quickly. SOURCE: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/r...yorker-households-are-not-connected-broadband

If the FCC increases the minimum speed to 100mbps, then that changes all of these facts and figures. When the truth is, many households won't want to pay for 100mbps service, when they can get a cheaper 25mbps plan that will serve them just fine even if higher speeds are available. But the government can claim more families don't have access and try to subsidize the big telco/cable companies with more money. If they really cared about poor families, they would focus on rural areas and last mile service in urban areas. Microwave broadband WiMax has low latency and decent bandwidth. You could place a few dozen on the tallest buildings in NYC with fiber backbones and serves any houses not connected to broadband.

 

[gggplaya]

i'm advocating for faster connections for everyone and your just telling me nobody needs it and let basically stay with the status quo... I think if you were to actually go out and ask many people in the US they would say they are not happy with the choices, the connections are too slow the data caps are not need etc etc.

Ideas are great assuming you had an unlimited budget. The government doesn't have an unlimited budget and neither do broadband companies. The return on investment needs to be a reasonable amount of time, and 20-50 years it would take to recoup the cost in some areas just to run fiber is simply not a good business model. I think WISP microwave broadband is a good solution. The government has plenty of land, we have schools, firestations, police stations, post offices in every community. They could take the extra land and erect a tower. Then have a fiber company run a line to the tower and bring in some mom and pop outfits to server internet from the tower. The cost to cover a 10 mile radius is rather minimal compared to wiring a 10 mile radius with fiber.

 

[spongiemaster]

Yup most people are so use to asynchronous internet connections because that is what Cable has been pushing for decades.

Its not until you actually use a connection that has better uploads that you will see how limited you were.

If you are on a 1Gbps/35mbps connection uploading at full speeds will affect your download speed.

And downloading at 1Gbps will use a good chuck of that 35mbps just for ACK Packets.

Its 2022 and its time to move away from the asynchronous connections.

Here is a typical Cable 1Gbps internet package upload speeds totally hidden because they know they are poor!!

The reason cable internet is so heavily asynchronous is because the infrastructure it runs on was designed for cable TV where it made perfect sense. Here is a link to a more in depth technical answer. The gist of it is in order to get more than 35mbps uploads would require replacing pretty much all the equipment the cable companies use except the copper cable itself.

https://superuser.com/questions/151...onnection-via-cable-coax-not-offer-symmetrica

 

[thestryker]

While I think this would be a good change it doesn't solve the urban/rural divide in the US.

I'm lucky enough to have a 200/200 line but I know most don't have an option like that even in urban areas. Overall coverage and reliability of that coverage is definitely the biggest issue here in the US.

One way to help with this in urban areas would be installing fiber lines any time major construction was done. Leasing out physical lines would be a good way to have actual competition which does mean lower prices and better service. The Northeast saw this when Verizon rolled in with high speed FIOS as Comcast immediately doubled the bandwidth on all of their plans.

For rural areas subsidization of 5G/mmWave installations seems like it would be the best option for fixed broadband. There isn't the tons of tall buildings problem which means it shouldn't take as many towers, range on mmWave is good enough for towns and standard 5G could be used for farms etc if mmWave wouldn't make economical sense. These installations definitely aren't cheap, but it's cheaper than running lines everywhere.

 

[Makaveli]

The reason cable internet is so heavily asynchronous is because the infrastructure it runs on was designed for cable TV where it made perfect sense. Here is a link to a more in depth technical answer. The gist of it is in order to get more than 35mbps uploads would require replacing pretty much all the equipment the cable companies use except the copper cable itself.

https://superuser.com/questions/151...onnection-via-cable-coax-not-offer-symmetrica

Thanks

I'm well aware of how docsis cable works this link does touch on it.

On Docsis there are low splits, mid splits and high splits.

Mid-Split / High-Split |

Over the years there have been many different splits which recently have been standardized by the DOCSIS specifications as sub-split, mid-split and high-split

broadbandlibrary.com

The majority of Cable internet right now is all low splits in order to increase upload bandwidth they will have to move from low to mid which means bring fiber closer to the residence which means investment into infrastructure. Which will hurt short term profits. The government has thrown so much money at these guys and they just sat on the cash and did nothing. Much more of the US should have Fiber access referring to City's and suburbs not rural.

They would rather mess around with Docsis 3.1 and 4.0(this is not out yet) Than to just go fiber right now and its why the Fiber providers like AT&T are eating their lunch in area's where they both compete and you will often find cable packages heavily discounted to compete in those area's.

One of the best Fiber providers in the US are these guys

Internet, Energy, TV, and Phone for the Chattanooga Area

We deliver the best in internet, television, voice, and energy solutions in Chattanooga – plus award-winning customer service available 24/7/365.

epb.com

And that is the model that should be followed on how to roll out fiber and make it successful in a city and state wide. Coaxial cable is 50 year old technology and a dead end.

 

[InvalidError]

You seem a bit out of touch with what common broadband speeds are capable of. A 50GB download would just take several hours on 25mbps Internet, not days. And games can hardly be considered a necessity, let alone something where people will be "left behind" as a result of having to wait an extra few hours to gain access to their latest piece of entertainment.

Most major game releases also have pre-launch pre-loading so people with slow internet can have their pre-launch purchase ready to go on launch-day.

 

[CompuGuy71]

I think it's laughable that the same FCC that has thrown cash at cable and telecom providers for decades thinks they have any control over what these megacorps do. The entire infrastructure is built out by private companies that will continue to apply for extensions to meeting goals and projections ad nauseum and nothing will change.

The worst part is the telecoms are paying for lobbyists and members of congress with money that has been given to them by the very same government agency that is trying now to regulate them.

 

[cryoburner]

i'm advocating for faster connections for everyone and your just telling me nobody needs it and let basically stay with the status quo... I think if you were to actually go out and ask many people in the US they would say they are not happy with the choices, the connections are too slow the data caps are not need etc etc.

I'm not saying that broadband networks should not improve, but a problem with upgrading the existing minimum standard for broadband is that it may do the opposite of what this FCC group is suggesting.

“The 25/3 metric isn’t just behind the times, it’s a harmful one because it masks the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are being left behind and left offline,” explained Rosenworcel.

This makes little sense. Any communities that don't already have access to at least 25/3 wired Internet speeds would likely end up last in line for an upgrade to something like the 100/20 standard they are proposing. The ISPs would be much more likely to focus on upgrading their more profitable markets where they are already offering speeds over 25/3, pushing back any potential rollout into new areas even further. If they don't find it profitable to make at least 25/3 Internet speeds available in an area, they will only find it less profitable if they are expected to provide multiple times the transfer speeds. And of course, higher speeds will only encourage ISPs to raise prices to cover the upgrades, making broadband even less practical for low-income families. I don't see how this would improve access to broadband, which is supposedly the goal they are aiming for.

And that is the model that should be followed on how to roll out fiber and make it successful in a city and state wide. Coaxial cable is 50 year old technology and a dead end.

Fiber is great, but it also tends to be expensive to bring to households, whereas coaxial is relatively cheap, and a very large portion of US households are already wired for it. It also works perfectly fine for practically all of today's home Internet needs. In the long-term, fiber is bound to offer more room for expansion, but for now, it's questionable how much of a "need" there is for fiber service. Lacking access to it is currently more of a minor inconvenience than anything.

And while that Chattanooga fiber network looks great, it appears to have been funded by the government, and in turn taxpayers. Maybe that's reasonable for some urban centers, but again, probably cost-prohibitive to bring to more rural areas.

 

[Makaveli]

Fiber is great, but it also tends to be expensive to bring to households, whereas coaxial is relatively cheap, and a very large portion of US households are already wired for it. It also works perfectly fine for practically all of today's home Internet needs. In the long-term, fiber is bound to offer more room for expansion, but for now, it's questionable how much of a "need" there is for fiber service. Lacking access to it is currently more of a minor inconvenience than anything.

And while that Chattanooga fiber network looks great, it appears to have been funded by the government, and in turn taxpayers. Maybe that's reasonable for some urban centers, but again, probably cost-prohibitive to bring to more rural areas.

What I highlighted in bold is exactly what the Cable ISP want to hear so they can continue to milk a dying infrastructure. With alot of people working from home do to covid and requiring more upload speed it is not perfectly fine. And they need to start thinking long term right now not the current short term thinking they are doing. The Cable ISPs are already using fiber at the head end its time to start replacing the coaxial cable. Its time to stop fighting google and dragging them to court to prevent access to poles that is anti consumer behavior. I as a consumer don't really care if they want to keep the copper plants open to get as much money from them until they go full fiber which is inevitable.

As for EPB and their financial structure I will pay extra taxes to get fast cheap fiber connections instead of the money going into the pocket of the Cable executives because everyone knows the money they were given from the government to expand was just pocketed with minimal expansion.

And for the record i've value your responses on this thread you have clearly put some thought in them.

 

[gggplaya]

What I highlighted in bold is exactly what the Cable ISP want to hear so they can continue to milk a dying infrastructure. With alot of people working from home do to covid and requiring more upload speed it is not perfectly fine. And they need to start thinking long term right now not the current short term thinking they are doing. The Cable ISPs are already using fiber at the head end its time to start replacing the coaxial cable. Its time to stop fighting google and dragging them to court to prevent access to poles that is anti consumer behavior. I as a consumer don't really care if they want to keep the copper plants open to get as much money from them until they go full fiber which is inevitable.

As for EPB and their financial structure I will pay extra taxes to get fast cheap fiber connections instead of the money going into the pocket of the Cable executives because everyone knows the money they were given from the government to expand was just pocketed with minimal expansion.

And for the record i've value your responses on this thread you have clearly put some thought in them.

The FCC is suggesting a new "MINIMUM" speed for households. Working from home would be considered more for professional use, and frankly since the remote worker does not have to pay for the extra wear and tear, maintenance and fuel for their vehicle, they can spend a little more for internet to get a higher tier plan.

25/8 would be perfectly fine for attending teams meetings and general business work. 3mbps upload is a little low for that, so I suggest moving it to 6-10mbps.

If you're a power user that has to upload large amounts of data, then you'll simply need to get a higher tier plan. You can't live out in the remote back country to do your job. No different than workers relocating to more densely populated areas looking for work.

So the problem is not the actual minimum speed, but rather the availability of the minimum speed and potentially the availability of higher tier plans.

Congress should make it into law, that all households within a certain distance from public roads must have some form of internet available to them at the minimum speed. If you increase the minimum speed to 100mbps, that would be difficult to achieve and pay for in rural areas. But 25mbps would be easier to implement using various technologies like microwave wireless broadband, cellular(high latency), cable, VDSL and starlink. It would also be nice if they could specify a maximum average latency of say 40ms or less from the client to the first hop.

 

[spongiemaster]

What I highlighted in bold is exactly what the Cable ISP want to hear so they can continue to milk a dying infrastructure.

Running fiber over long distances isn't particularly expensive, it's the last mile to individual houses where all the money is spent. This applies to any cabling infrastructure, not just fiber. It doesn't matter what people say, if it weren't actually true, companies running fiber networks would be expanding much more rapidly.

 

[Unolocogringo]

My 50/2 plan is ok most of the time.
But it is a bonded pair modem. 2 phone lines to one DSL modem.
which mean i get about 20/.75 on each line.
As soon as one of my computers starts uploading a F@H work unit download speed tanks.

Forget about Skype/Zoom meetings or any kind of video chat. Everything becomes a crawl.
So it is not just speed test numbers that count. Actual usability is what is needed.

 

[Makaveli]

I suggest you guys read the comment section of this same topic posted on ars to see what your fellow americans think.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...of-100mbps-down-20mbps-up/?comments=1&start=0

 

[gggplaya]

I suggest you guys read the comment section of this same topic posted on ars to see what your fellow americans think.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...of-100mbps-down-20mbps-up/?comments=1&start=0

This is the best quote from there "This FCC chair must be operating under the delusion that the FCC is serving the citizens of the USA rather than the ISPs of the USA. ". Like I said, this is about getting more subsidize for the current ISP monopolies. By moving the speed up, the FCC can then shift all their charts to show that more and more people do not have access to broadband internet, because 100mbps would eliminate VDSL, Microwave broadband and Cellular broadband. Even Starlink could be thrown into that once they get more customers and congestion. The only reliable technologies to hit those speeds are Fiber and Cable. So congress will send these companies more subsidies on which they'll pretend it costs 4x more to do they actual amount of work they do.

Running fiber over long distances isn't particularly expensive, it's the last mile to individual houses where all the money is spent. This applies to any cabling infrastructure, not just fiber. It doesn't matter what people say, if it weren't actually true, companies running fiber networks would be expanding much more rapidly.

That's why I'm suggesting microwave broadband, you can place them on Grain elevators, Silos, Water towers, or set up towers at post offices, police stations, schools etc..... The government can provide the structure and pay telecoms to run fiber to these small towns, but not necessarily build the last mile infrastructure which can cost alot. Instead, run it to a point and build a point to multipoint network.