this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
477 points (98.4% liked)

World News

32285 readers
793 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 76 points 1 year ago (4 children)

👏 Make 👏 ALL 👏 connections 👏 Symmetrical 👏

[–] mrbiiggy@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If only it were easy to do. Technical limitations on copper is what causes low upload speeds. ISP’s prioritize the download speed, which is what people utilize the most. As fiber continues to be rolled out it should get better though.

[–] exi@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tell that to our beautiful German Telekom who'll sell you 1000down/200up FTTH for ridiculous 80€/month.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] worfamerryman@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Is there a legit reason they do not do this?

[–] bric@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just to prioritize download in limited bandwidth cables. Like a neighborhood might get 2Gbps total, but instead of doing 1 down 1 up they instead do 1.8 down and .2 up, then split that amongst a bunch of houses.

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In the old world of the internet, people didn’t upload much anyway.

Nobody worked from home. Nobody had their phones constantly syncing photos and videos to 1 (or often more) clouds. And even then, the photos and videos that you could take digitally were very low resolution and not very large files. Game consoles weren’t online by default until Xbox Gen 1 (and as an add on for GC and PS2) and PC gamers were a minority (and rarely direct peer-to-peer).

That has changed, and nobody forced ISPs to keep up. In a lot of markets, the Cable ISP is a monopoly and they don’t have to do shit about it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some service-provider level technology is not symmetrical at the access layer. An ISP serving exclusively fiber may have values like below:

GPON (GIGAbit passive optical network): 1.24416 Gigabits/s up, 2.48832 Gigabits/s down

XG-PON (10 gigabit passive optical network): 10G/2.5G

xgS-pon (10g Symmetrical optical network): 10g/10g

Note that on all of these technologies, you are also sharing bandwidth with neighbors on your PON. Sometimes up to 64 subs on one gpon. I think 128 on xgs-pon Until more providers make fiber available, as well as are willing to fork more up for the latest equipment, and reduce the over subscriptions of pons, symmetrical services for everyone just won’t happen.

Will this ever happen at mega providers / baby-bells? Probably never unless a regional or startup pops up, and then they will only attempt compete in that market.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Motavader@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Quick! Give the ISPs a bunch of federal dollars to build out their networks so they can quietly pocket it and do stock buybacks!

[–] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why weren't those monetary subsidies just after the fact instead of just paying out on promises? "You'll get x billion dollars when y% of this area has access to z Mbps." But then again I've heard there's monopolies for that in the USA, instead of actual competition.

[–] MrMonkey@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But then again I’ve heard there’s monopolies for that in the USA, instead of actual competition.

Government granted monopolies. It's the worst. City / county/ state signs deal with ISP X and give them exclusive rights. Then for some reason they don't spend a lot of time updating anything because they have no competition because of the fucking morons in the government.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] red@feddit.de 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dude, 100Mbps isn't good enough anymore either

[–] wsweg@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (6 children)

What? That’s plenty for the average person.

[–] McBinary@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think person* is the keyword here. Many families have several people concurrently watching streaming video, listening to music, and playing games that are required to have an internet connection. 100Mbps is not enough.

[–] skwerls@waveform.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Streaming music is a very negligible impact. We've had streaming music for 2 decades.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah that one bothers me... The most demanding MP3s are what... 320kbps? That's 3.3GB per day. That is not really a hard demand on bandwidth at all. 100GB/month. And that's the max bitrate MP3 does... Most services are probably doing 128kbps...

Spotify has an Audio quality table on their site... https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/

Low = 24kbps, 0.2471923828 GB/day
Normal = 96 kbps, 0.9887695313 GB/day
High = 160 kbps, 1.6479492188 GB/day
Very High = 320 Kbps, 3.2958984375 GB/day

These are very reasonable and easy numbers to obtain on just about any internet connection. The only way this is an "issue" is if you're running like a couple hundred streams at once.

[–] wsweg@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Right, but this is about setting a minimum standard for it to be classified as broadband. For an average individual 100Mbps is high speed internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would like to disagree, since every "news" site started adding auto playing videos and ads on each and every page. what should be a 2kB text now comes with a 50MB video Download...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Meh, it's good enough to be usable. I have 50/10 Mbps down/up and I can watch 1440p videos just fine. What do y'all use your internet for? Do you have like 5 family members watching stuff at the same time?

[–] Kata1yst@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The average US household has something like 2.5 people in it. It's safe to assume (statistically) that at least two of those people are old enough to consume web content unsupervised.

Then there are edge cases that aren't quite so crazy, like 5 person households where everyone is over the age 14.

So yeah, for one person 50/10 is likely just fine. But for the average household 100/15 is likely closer to baseline.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With the increase in WFH and distance learning, I think up/down parity should be a priority as well. Not everything is just about your ability to consume mass-marketed entertainment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fades@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

50/10

good enough to be usable

On a post about how ISPs are literally fucking us all over, overcharging for the most basic connections that are far behind other countries and all you have to say is iT’s UsAbLe lmao

Youre advocating for the SLOWEST avg speed in the nation

Americans are getting nearly 200 Mbps in download speed, but are you?

https://www.allconnect.com/blog/us-internet-speeds-globally

As of May 2023, Ookla’s Speedtest.net shows Americans are getting over 200 Mbps of download speed and about 23 Mbps of upload speed through their fixed broadband connections — good for 6th in the world for median fixed broadband speeds. Considering “fast internet speeds” are generally defined as any download speed above 100 Mbps, Americans are doing quite well by this measure.

In fact, according to a recent Allconnect data report, 9 in 10 households can access at least 100 Mbps speeds.

That’s an incredible improvement from just under a decade ago when the U.S. had an average download speed of just 31 Mbps. In 2013, America ranked 25th among 39 nations for broadband speed.

Sub-100 is not good enough by most standards these days around the world. 50 is not even double the fastest speeds from TEN years ago

We as consumers and citizens deserve better, especially as working from home continues to be a popular and realistic option and our global culture continues to be directly tied to internet culture/media/content.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Honestly, I would rather have universal health care than faster download speeds any day.

I'm currently shelling out about $18,000 a year to have a $2,500 deductible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

One major AAA game update will likely break your connection for hours for all intents and purposes.

Bitrate of a 1440p youtube video is going to be around 20mpbs (±4). Your 50 down connection couldn't handle more than 2 streams. The lowest reported bitrate is 16mbps on their support page (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en#zippy=%2Cbitrate). 50/16 = 3.125, with network overhead you'd be VERY lucky to get 3 streams going without stuttering.

It's entirely possible that a family of 5 would run into issues if they're all home and some want to watch videos.

My family of 4 have been Plex trained... So I mitigate a lot of these problems personally.

But it's more likely that the 10 up breaks things even more. One person in the house uploading anything (or participating in zoom/teams/etc calls) will cripple your ability to make ANY request to the internet.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ALERT@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Here in Ukraine we got 1000 mbit even in small villages via optic. For 7.5$/month. For the last 10 years at least. Before that the standard was 100 mbit ethernet. 20 years ago the standard was 30 mbit via coaxial tv cable.

[–] Madbrad200@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here in the UK, I can get 1GB up/down for about £30 ($38, or ₴1,434.60).

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Must be nice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Since it takes so long to change the “standard” it should be set to 1-2GB per second or have it set to increase by 10-20% per year or something.

[–] sci@feddit.nl 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

just like things like minimum wage?

[–] skwerls@waveform.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Minimum wage (federally) hasn't gone up in almost 15 years

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

That’s their point, fyi. Not sure why you’re being downvoted though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ISMETA@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sounds good but there isn't any consumer equipment that can handle 2GB/s. Even 10 Gigabit Ethernet switches are super expensive and I don't think we have anything that can do more than 10Gb/s in the consumer Networking space at all .

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Biden finally recently got the FCC back to protecting people, and not the damn phone and cable companies. Thank god.

Still a lot of mess to clean up though.

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Don’t think they’re gonna undo the damage Pai did though. Dems are always so afraid of undoing the horrors the Reps do. Can’t shake the status quo.

load more comments (2 replies)

It hasn’t been “good enough” for a while now.

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Man I really hope so. I'm in a 25/3 wasteland. My dad, a town over, is even lower. About 7/0.8.

[–] riotrick@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Meanwhile in the Netherlands, I can choose between several gigabit providers. Symmetrical on fiber or asymmetrical on cable. I've been on gigabit fibre for a couple of years.

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Can I have that problem instead of being stuck to a single ISP that charges more for copper wire service than they do fiber in the places they have it?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] laminam@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Beats the 1.5/0.25 centurylink provides us

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I live in podunk nowhere, but if the amount of time since I've had that speed could buy things, I think it'd be old enough to buy cigarettes.

Also I'm surprised CenturyLink is even still alive.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They rebranded as Lumen, so they could provide the same shitty service to people who were already wary of them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Polar@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

You guys are getting 25/3? Damn. Must be nice.

[–] hope@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

Ok but can we actually get 25/3 first? All raising it does is set low hanging fruit for newly "underserved" areas while there are still plenty of communities for whom 1Mbps terrestrial links would be a miracle.

[–] 56_@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

5-10 down does just fine for streaming and video calls from my experience. My ISP is badly configured, so I get like 15-20 up.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›