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

Re:US Senators call on FCC to raise broadband definition to ... by mchusma on Thursday March 04, 2021 @01:56PM (#26346554)

The question here is not really "is more speed better?" Of course more is better if there were no tradeoffs.

The question this is asking is "what level should the federal government subsidize connections, particularly in rural areas."

25 down, 3 up is plenty for 99.9% of internet users. It's ok to tell people that if they want faster speeds they have to pay for it.

I am in a city with about 40mb down, 5mb up, 3 kids all doing zoom calls/video all day and internet is basically never constrained.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Senators call on FCC to raise broadband definition to ... by DerpyBaby123 on Thursday March 04, 2021 @02:04PM (#26346653)

>25 down, 3 up is plenty for 99.9% of internet users.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Senators call on FCC to raise broadband definition to ... by fat_pikachu on Thursday March 04, 2021 @02:09PM (#26346736)

This does the opposite actually, it forced the federal government to de-prioritize areas with worse service in favor of areas with good but not as good as 100/100 service.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Senators call on FCC to raise broadband definition to ... by therealdrag0 on Thursday March 04, 2021 @02:09PM (#26346727)

Yeah SLA is more important at that point. I've lived in apartments/had-service that would only slowdown/drop like once a month and I've had service that's dropped nearly every day. The later is incredibly frustrating.

[ Parent | on HN ]