FCC chair proposes upgrading broadband standard to 100Mbps down, 20Mbps up

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 308   +427
With how much I download/upload for work, getting under 2.5MB/s (20mbps) would be criminal (you almost never get the max bandwidth anyway).

But I'm fairly biased because I live in Romania where you can buy a Fiberlink connection (500/250mbps) for 6$ per month (I have 1000/500 for 8$). Best you can buy is 10gbps for 10$ (only available in certain places).
But what is your tax rate. How much of your income do you bring home. it is unfair to quote rates if your country has a very high tax rate and subsidizes most services.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,746   +4,681
TechSpot Elite
But what is your tax rate. How much of your income do you bring home. it is unfair to quote rates if your country has a very high tax rate and subsidizes most services.
VAT is variable with most products being 19% (food for example varies between 5 and 9%).

10% tax for income (taken from the salary), on top of that you add another 10% for health insurance (which means many free healthcare services which I had to use recently). IT workers, like me, have exception from that 10% income tax. The employer also pays about 27.5% and benefits like paid vacations are included by law.

The utility taxes are fairly small although gas prices are much higher than in the US.

The internet is not included in those "subsudies". It's just treated as a common utility with good competition in the market. Nobody can have a monopoly on the cables running though the streets and in the buildings.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 308   +427
VAT is variable with most products being 19% (food for example varies between 5 and 9%).

10% tax for income (taken from the salary), on top of that you add another 10% for health insurance (which means many free healthcare services which I had to use recently). IT workers, like me, have exception from that 10% income tax. The employer also pays about 27.5% and benefits like paid vacations are included by law.

The utility taxes are fairly small although gas prices are much higher than in the US.

The internet is not included in those "subsudies". It's just treated as a common utility with good competition in the market. Nobody can have a monopoly on the cables running though the streets and in the buildings.
Thanks. There are way too many "non-contributing" people in the US to have socialized medicine. The tax rate on the working class would be rediculously high.

I appreciate you taking the time to spell that out. It's interesting.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,746   +4,681
TechSpot Elite
Thanks. There are way too many "non-contributing" people in the US to have socialized medicine. The tax rate on the working class would be rediculously high.

I appreciate you taking the time to spell that out. It's interesting.
You pay more for healthcare percentage-wise than most countries. You just don't pay it to the country's budget, but to private companies. It's why healthcare prices are not sky high, but actually criminal in the US.

A few years ago I bought some pills (could have gotten them for free, but I was too lazy to visit the family doctor) for about 1-2$ per pill. Out of curiosity, I checked prices in other countries including the US and I was actually shell shocked. The same pills (same composition and size) were 200$ and I think I saw a 500$ variant. I immediately looked at if it is possible to export to the US :) (unfortunately not)

I've read many comments written by americans, I just don't understand why so many actually believe they pay less and that universal healthcare is somehow related to "comunism"
 
Last edited:

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 308   +427
You pay more for healthcare percentage-wise than most countries. You just don't pay it to the country's budget, but to private companies. It's why healthcare prices are not sky high, but actually criminal in the US.

A few years ago I bought some pills (could have gotten them for free, but I was too lazy to visit the family doctor) for about 1-2$ per pill. Out of curiosity, I checked prices in other countries including the US and I was actually shell shocked. The same pills (same composition and size) were 200$ and I think I saw a 500$ variant. I immediately looked at if it is possible to export to the US :) (unfortunately not)
It's all about big pharma. They pretty much own the government, and have the money to back it up. God only knows how much these companies made off of the gov't with the Covid Vaccines that don't work :)
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,958   +7,001
It would force a lot of ISPs in the US to get off their collective rear ends and actually upgrade their infrastructure.

Myself? I'm lucky I have AT&T Fiber and I have 500/500 (that acts like 600/600 due to overprovisioning).
I'm lucky, too. I also have symmetric 500 fiber for $50/mo and could upgrade that to 2G symmetric, but I see no need to do so. My wife and I are the only users in the house and 500 is more than enough for us.
I seriously don't understand why in the US you have laws that give regional monopolies.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/...lies-internet-telecommunications-cheerleading This article partly explains it with this quote
On top of that, telecom companies paid what were often super-low fees — maybe enough to create a public access studio — to wire up cities and towns in exchange for, essentially, getting a monopoly.
But perhaps this article does a better job of describing the situation.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/...phone-monopolies-good-thing-solutions-problem
There are those who say that ISPs are abusing very old telco laws in the US.
 

BadThad

Posts: 1,141   +1,341
Nothing more than bureaucrat handwaving to justify the spending of our tax money. This does NOTING for consumers unless you're on the government dole. The current ineptocracy is a disgrace to America.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,958   +7,001
Nothing more than bureaucrat handwaving to justify the spending of our tax money. This does NOTING for consumers unless you're on the government dole. The current ineptocracy is a disgrace to America.
From the article
It also forces internet service providers to upgrade their networks and provide higher line speeds to consumers if they want to keep receiving federal subsidies.[\quote]
 

waclark

Posts: 565   +352
Since cable and DSL ISPs, notoriously frugal will need to improve their infrastructure to provide higher speeds to all, overinflated prices will only go higher. Fiber production needs to increase to replace the ancient providers. I'm in a rural area where a family owned fiber to the home company started up a few years ago, offering symmetrical high speeds at half the price that local cable companies charge. New businesses are needed as the oldtimey ISPs will never reduce their prices for higher performaing service.

We have a small company here in our rural community that is piggybacking on the County fiber initiative. Their sales pitch is that they have cellular backup and their pricing is better than Comcast. However, it turns out their pricing isn't better. One top of that they have no landlines and no TV service. I need those things for my business so they don't work for me.

They want $100/mo for 100G up and down. It's nice that it's symmetrical bandwidth but I get 500Gbs incoming 20Gbps upload for just under $100/mo. If they could get me 500G in/out for $100 I'd be all over it.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,746   +4,681
TechSpot Elite
Nothing more than bureaucrat handwaving to justify the spending of our tax money. This does NOTING for consumers unless you're on the government dole. The current ineptocracy is a disgrace to America.
It's the opposite, it forces ISPs to upgrade their networks if they want to keep receiving subsidies.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,958   +7,001
It's the opposite, if forces ISPs to upgrade their networks if they want to keep receiving subsidies.
With the fiber provider finally in the ISP market in our area, the competition forced Spectrum to upgrade their service. I was getting 100up/20down from Spectrum before I switched to fiber. Literally within four days of my switching from Spectrum to the fiber provider, there was a letter in my mailbox from Spectrum that said "Congratulations, we're upgrading your service to 200down at no extra cost". All I could do at that point was laugh and think - "this is a little late - I'm getting 2.5 times that speed for less cost." 🤣

The "moral" of the story - the only other thing besides government stepping in and forcing A-hole ISPs to upgrade their service to what it should be is competition.
 

trparky

Posts: 1,119   +1,265
I was getting 100up/20down from Spectrum before I switched to fiber.
Uh... I think you may've gotten your numbers switched up. At least, I hope so.

In my area, Spectrum was offering 300 Mbps for $50, 500 Mbps for $70, and 1 Gbps for $90. Needless to say, they were absolutely eating AT&T's breakfast, lunch, and dinner while AT&T's top speed was 100 Mbps if you were lucky to live within the required distance of one of their lawn fridges (VRAD). That competition basically forced AT&T to deploy fiber in my area or continue to bleed customers.
 

RaXelliX

Posts: 57   +43
Here in east Europe 1Gbps up/down is like 5-8 USD per month.
Lucky us. I also live in EE and here 1Gbps costs 99€/month. They will lower it to 72€/month from September 1st this year but it's still higher than our neighbors.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 308   +427
Where I live there isn't any real competition against Spectrum, so no incentive to be competitive with pricing or speed. ATT/DirecTV has been very slow with their fiber rollout. Nothing worth getting here.
 

urielejh

Posts: 7   +1
Lol

Here in Italy I'm on a 900mb dl and almost 300 in up for less then € 30, uncapped, unlimited plan.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 728   +697
Obviously the FCC chairman has never been outside of a "large city.
All the time you hear "government types" say it is not right that countries like
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc have "faster" internet than the United States,
where most of it started. Well, the previous mentioned countries, taking their
land area, would fit within just the state of Texas, with room left over. It is
nearly impossible, for wired internet to be "nationwide" for every single home in
America. We are just too spread out! I remember a trip in the early 2000's from
Kansas City, to Rapid City SD to visit Mt. Rushmore. Once we left Sioux Falls,
traveled through Mitchell to Wall...you'd only see a farm house once in a while.
Then from Wall to Rapid City, about the same. (Now I know why they call the
badlands, the badlands). Wireless/Satellite is going to be about the only way to
provide "high speed" internet to every home in America. Unless they make taxpayers
pay for it.

Yes, because we couldn't run power cables to every home in America, or plumbing to every home in America, or road access to every home in America.

Please, stop it.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 728   +697
It's all about big pharma. They pretty much own the government, and have the money to back it up. God only knows how much these companies made off of the gov't with the Covid Vaccines that don't work :)

I note vaccines have generally been money loosers for companies, due to the R&D and testing costs involved. Generally the Fed has to reimburse their costs in order to keep up vaccine research.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 308   +427
Yes, because we couldn't run power cables to every home in America, or plumbing to every home in America, or road access to every home in America.

Please, stop it.
I'm sorry, but that's the most uneducated reply to this I've seen. Road infrastructure is paid for by taxes, not private industry. Plumbing is paid for by public utilities. This also doesn't account for the current cost of labor/materials vs. 50 to 100 years ago when a lot of the infrastructure was set. It's simply cost prohibative.

Well, Biden wants to throw away 23 BILLION on "Green" **** that will never pay for itself and does more harm than good. The only thing Green about Green is that there are a group of rich that receive a lot of Green.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 308   +427
As a reference, look how many European countries can fit inside the US. I think this describes the problem of upgrading anything in a timely manor in a country our size.
c0S-q0F5hHGfMcSr5_9gMMyKn9EYu4QDNMtqA38S7k.png
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,746   +4,681
TechSpot Elite
As a reference, look how many European countries can fit inside the US. I think this describes the problem of upgrading anything in a timely manor in a country our size.
c0S-q0F5hHGfMcSr5_9gMMyKn9EYu4QDNMtqA38S7k.png
Not when every state has its own network that can be upgraded similarly to how those European countries can.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 728   +697
I'm sorry, but that's the most uneducated reply to this I've seen. Road infrastructure is paid for by taxes, not private industry. Plumbing is paid for by public utilities. This also doesn't account for the current cost of labor/materials vs. 50 to 100 years ago when a lot of the infrastructure was set. It's simply cost prohibative.
Nonsense; look at what something like the IHS would cost in todays dollars. We can absolutely upgrade everything, and in a reasonably short timespan to boot.

Your argument basically boils down to "its hard".
Well, Biden wants to throw away 23 BILLION on "Green" **** that will never pay for itself and does more harm than good. The only thing Green about Green is that there are a group of rich that receive a lot of Green.
Actually, the amount of jobs created (which in turn drives both long-term economic growth and tax revenue) in green industries per dollar spent by the government is among the best in the nation. And I note the cost of doing nothing and letting climate change continue unhindered is not zero, especially since we're already paying several hundred billion per year to deal with the damages that are currently happening. Compared to that, 23 Billion is chump change, and frankly would pay for itself in *very* short order.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 308   +427
Nonsense; look at what something like the IHS would cost in todays dollars. We can absolutely upgrade everything, and in a reasonably short timespan to boot.

Your argument basically boils down to "its hard".

Actually, the amount of jobs created (which in turn drives both long-term economic growth and tax revenue) in green industries per dollar spent by the government is among the best in the nation. And I note the cost of doing nothing and letting climate change continue unhindered is not zero, especially since we're already paying several hundred billion per year to deal with the damages that are currently happening. Compared to that, 23 Billion is chump change, and frankly would pay for itself in *very* short order.
The climate will always change. Will be hot a century, cold a century and nothing you do with what mankind does will change that. It's hot this year, but we are getting more rain than I can remember. It's wonderful. Usually a very hot summer brews a very cold winter. Funny how that happens.

Climate change. If you really think anything we do will affect and control climate change, then there is no use arguing. The only thing we are doing with "Green" is producing extremely toxic products that don't decompose.