US Senators call on FCC to raise broadband definition to 100Mbs down and up

They do that because it’s cheaper that way for them, and majority of users don’t complain.

Nowadays, I see it as upload is for Zoom, download is for everything. It used to be basically okay to have slow upload speeds, but in an era when everything from kindergarten to the workplace requires video conferencing, good upload speeds are more important.

Unfortunately, eliminating these issues requires large-scale replacement of not just equipment in the field (nodes and amplifiers which are broadly all being replaced anyway to support Node+Zero architecture) but equipment in customer homes: the legacy STBs. Cable carriers have found in the past that getting people to turn these in to swap out for newer models is excessively expensive in customer goodwill, and less so cost, so there's a major technical disincentive to such a change.

Fun fact: Comcast does not even show you the upload speed by default on their speed test page. You have to click an extra "details" section for it to run the upload part of the test. Otherwise you just see the single download number.

They should just require that symmetrical connection is provided or at least is an option. After using it for a year, I’d gladly pay extra for it.

300/300 would probably serve most home applications well and 500/500 or 1Gbps/1Gbps for power users/demanding wfh.

I believe they're required to publish something called a "rate card". If you search "[name] internet rate card", you should be able to find a PDF type document listing service and rates.

Edit: actually get those speeds both ways (~980/980)

Currently paying $45/mo for "20Mbps/2Mbps" VDSL, $70/mo for "25Mbps/5Mbps" fixed wireless, and $110/mo for 100GB of 45Mbps/10Mbps LTE with $10/10GB overage, to barely stay online in semi-rural America, and I'm technically even in a greater metro area. The only way I can have a reliable video call is by using LTE data.

The fact that my household meets the current FCC definition of broadband, such that companies feel like they don't have to invest further because they've met their goal, would be laughable if it weren't so infuriating. I would be over the moon excited for 25Mbps reliable upload, and 100+Mbps download.

Pretty happy about that to be honest. I consider myself relatively lucky.

The ISPs and networks that serve datacenters do not serve apartments and houses.

Local ISPs are great for competition.

There is no single situation in "America" with respect to broadband. We're a federation of 50 different states that's almost the size of the entire EU. Broadband is mainly a state level issue and it varies by state. Here in Maryland, over 60% of people have access to fiber. I have two different fiber providers to my house, more than an hour outside a major city. Symmetrical gigabit here is under $80.

That caused two things:

1. Coming later to the game, you don’t need to deal with legacy infra, that’s there, costed huge amount of money, and replacing it will cost even more (like cable connections to the houses)

2. USA has a general approach of building out infra in sprints, and then neglecting it until next sprint. Few examples - credit cards and their security, roads, space program, internet infra. And while it’s more complicated, politics are large reason for it. It’s much less catchy to say “I’ll spend $500B to maintain X”, then “I’ll spend $1000B to build Y”.

Correct. The politicians that US citizens habitually elect are in the pocket of telecom companies. These politicians have not elevated Internet service in the US to the level of, for example, telephone service which, as a result of government policy established by now long dead politicians, is available almost anywhere someone would care to live in the US. This allows telecom companies to cherry pick lucrative areas for Internet service and ignore everything else. The result is that both rural and poor urban areas have poor or no Internet service while suburbs and dense metropolitan areas have high performance network services.

One might assume that US citizens are fabulously stupid for continuing to elect such politicians. That's the easy answer, frequently offered, and like most easy answers it misses a great deal. There are political undercurrents in the US that create the alignments of power that explain our outcomes. Unfortunately it isn't possible to candidly discuss these currents in forums such as this without igniting flame wars, so I'll end here.

We don't invest in the future, only immediate profits. Look at any other infrastructure....subways, roads, water, electrical, government systems, education, recycling, etc. They're all crumbling.

Half of the senators listed in this article represent states with population densities lower than any South African province other than Northern Cape. Colorado's density is 19.9/km2. Maine is 16.9/km2

Many of the servers which you connect to in the US are in the Northeast megalopolis, which is an area with a density of 359.6/km2

Sounds good, I think it is pretty obvious that fiber is the future of wired connections. Comcast is already beginning to offer fiber service to achieve symmetric speeds and Verizon is planning a large-scale upgrade of its fiber optic endpoints to offer higher speeds (above gigabit service). If the industry needs a small regulatory nudge to move forward with this, great, let's do it.

Not really considering this probably won't be updated for another 20 years

Rising bar won't hurt anyone and should force ISPs to create better infrastructure.

I think the big variable between now and the last time these were set is the great remote working migration of 2020. Zoom doesn't require 1080 quality, but you'll be sending as much up as down, so the 3mbps upload speed would suddenly feel pretty tight.

It was surprising to see how often people upgraded their broadband plan or WiFi router after struggling to FaceTime with friends and family (who were likely on cellular), for example.

Uh, do you really have 10 people doing separate 4k videos? Its just overkill.

Upload on the other hand is far more important than people realize.

The specifics of the definition are left up to the executive branch, as the sibling post has said.

Lets say a provider sells all plans with a 1TB cap. I have an options of 1Mbit, 10Mbit, 100Mbit, and gigabit, I'll take the gigabit plan nearly every time assuming the price is fine. Because while I still only have a 1TB cap actually getting the data I want will be faster. Most consumers have extremely bursty throughput needs, having a faster plan still benefits them even if there's the same cap.

Why would you want a car capable of going 60 miles an hour when a car that only goes 10 miles an hour will still get you there? Because it saves you time.

Is it? What data makes you so confident about this?

If I buy a 25 max down, 3 max up connection, what speed will you actually be able to use - it is unlikely in my experience to be regularly hit those max speeds.

There are parts of the US that don't even have access to 15/3. This reclassification would put them in the same group as people with 75 up and down.

But to me it is not entirely clear in the article.

So we have more use cases than ever before that benefit from symmetric speeds.

Yes, something from the 90s. I'm sure HN user rayiner has posted an argument for why that isn't true, so maybe search comment history for fiber or broadband or subsidy to find arguments and the surrounding counterarguments?