Standard of 100Mbps down and 20Mbps up replaces old 25Mbps/3Mbps benchmark.
About time. Maybe the maps will be updated correctly and people can now see just how pathetic those ISPs have been.
Century Link advertises 12mbps in my town, charges you for 12 delivers 3 with the occasional 6.
I have both T-Mobile home internet and another wireless service. T-Mobile gives me up to 50, but averages closer to 18. The other wireless (WiPower) is 15.
File an FCC complaint. They are required to provide something like 80% of the advertised speeds on average otherwise they can get into hot water with FCC with big files.
Geeze. Where is this? I have multiple gigabit providers to my house.
Rural NM, south of Albuquerque.
We just got fiber, but so far I have not heard from anyone that has actually gotten it yet.
That’s rough and hopefully these revised maps will start to show that better.
Shit. they charged me for 9Mbps and delivered 0.5Mbps when I had them
They really should require it to be 100M symmetric. Slow upload speeds make it nearly impossible to use online storage.
This is why Xfinity just sent me a note saying they’re graciously increasing my upload speed to 20mbps. How nice of them. 🙄
I’m kind of shocked given how historically beholden to the big telcos they’ve been. What’s the status on net neutrality and treating Internet connectivity as a utility?
Ongoing. They adopted the proposal to restore it and public comments period ended.
deleted by creator
As someone with that backwater standard of 30mb/6mb, a 20mb up would mean I could actually stream at a decent quality or upload videos at a decent rate. Sine I’m already at the bottom of the barrel, I’ll take whatever I can get.
I’m at like 300/10 and it’s miserable. I’d gladly go back to 100 down if it means i could also get 100 up. I’d settle for 50 up at this point. Wife can barely stream her Spin/Workout classes (she’s the instructor).
i literally cannot get internet slower than 100Mbps symmetric here in sweden lol, astounding that providers in the US are so reticent to improve speeds.
it reminds me of the american rail freight industry, it seems they would prefer to dismantle the entire infrastructure and become investment companies instead…
Why improve speeds when you can keep the same low ones so charging more for the faster speeds seems reasonable, with the added benefit of not having to upgrade infrastructure for as long as possible! Its even more fun when you get big government subsidies for the improvements and don’t pass the savings on at all!
I’m in the US but thankfully I’m on fiber getting unlimited 1000 Mbps symmetric for $65 a month, but my last place was $90 for 1000 Mbps down 10 Mbps up with a 1 tb cap. My parents pay $150 for the same. It’s a mess out here.
That’s funny, could they also punish my ISP for giving me 30Mib/s but when I run a speed test it magically shows that I should be getting over 160Mib/s? I don’t think anyone but the government should be allowed to run the infrastructure cuz this is criminal
Also if I don’t do the speed test it drops all the way down to 996Kib/s but I have to keep doing the speed test to keep it fast enough
Which sites are you using? TestMy.net is usually a good benchmark when your ISP is attempting to game things. Netflix’s fast.com is a good measure to see how well you can stream even if other traffic is throttled. Cloudflare’s test is a good measure of well you’ll be able to hit most of their infra. Many ISPs and majors (eg Google) just white label the Ookla speed test which is one I really don’t trust. On Spectrum I’d get an order of magnitude difference between Ookla and TestMy. However, collecting all of the tests will give you a good idea of the spread.
How about latency?
I’m not sure this is going to be a net good. There are plenty of places that don’t come close to the old benchmark, and surely it’s easier to go from offering 50Mbps to offering 100Mbps than it is to go from no service to 25Mbps?
If there’s not already lines to an area, you’d have to really try pretty hard to even find enough older/slower cabeling to justify the install costs alone. The only reason we don’t already have fiber everywhere is because they don’t wanna pay to dig… Despite being heavily subsided with the understanding that they should already be doing that.
Don’t want to dig, and throw roadblocks in the way to prevent anyone else from doing it (just ask Google Fiber).
Honestly, im not terribly upset they are getting blocked. The last thing we need is google truly breaking into the utility market nationally
For Google Fiber to have been successful, Google would have had to overturn countless local laws (paid for by the ISPs) that granted the one who laid down the lines a monopoly on their use. So even if Google had won it would have been a net win for customers, as it would have paved the way for local ISPs to compete with the national ones.
I thought their issue was with one-touch make-ready rules on the phone poles. You had to wait for legacy users to move their lines up the pole before Google’s could be added to the bottom. And legacy users had absolutely no incentive to hurry since completing the work means helping add another competitor in the area.
Most of every single fight was at the municipality or city level and not any larger than that. So while those companies may have had holds over that community in particular, those companies are not national companies like Google is. Sure if Google was able to change all those laws that could be a win but we all know they wouldn’t stop there, and it would be less than a year before a very similar law would probably go up across the board. And you know it would pass cuz all they would have to say is “hey government want to take a looksies? Just make sure to pass this bill we wrote for ya”
I don’t think that’s true. If the limitations are physical, the cost is the same. Lay fiber once, problem solved.
Do you know why places don’t come close right now?
