You must log in or register to comment.

lelio98 t1_iwtohbz wrote

Can’t wait to see how all one of the choices in my area compares with itself.


jBlairTech t1_iwu7fza wrote

For real. I love this idea in the article, but I would love a larger selection of providers even more.


MrWykydtron t1_iwu7kud wrote

Exactly this. In my area, there are other choices, just not everywhere. The best choice isn’t available everywhere and the only choice that is (fuck you Spectrum), sucks dick (in the worst way).


Atarteri t1_iwukozm wrote

Yesssss fuck Spectrum! We switched to Metronet - half the price for double the speed (300/300 to 1g/1g)


cptnobveus t1_iwuz4g9 wrote

Most rural people with starlink are happier than hell with our$110 1tb @ 150/20. Before starlink most of us got $120 50g @ 25/1 and could not stream during peak times.

It's a trade off that is well worth the peace and quiet.


KPookz t1_iwuzgw9 wrote

1TB is not nearly enough. Satellite internet companies put data caps just because they can since they have no competition. All internet should be unlimited.


cptnobveus t1_iwv0k6f wrote

According to starlink only 10% of their users exceed 1tb/month. My household consistently uses around 400g/month. It's awesome compared to what we had. Shitty thing is that there is a roll of fiber hanging on a pole about a half mile from my house and the company said they will not be extending it. Picking up 2 more customers isn't worth the labor to get it too them.


haagse_snorlax t1_iwvrci1 wrote

You could… do it yourself. Get the permit, rent a digger do it in a couple of days


SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwv2qdk wrote

There aren’t unlimited satellites in the sky or unlimited bandwidth on each satellite transmitter. Physics (and economics) puts a hard limit there. Most users would rather have reliable speed for the data they do transfer. See: the complaints about starlink getting slower.


someguynamedben7 t1_iww5by4 wrote

Data caps have absolutely nothing to do with when the data is used. This argument is nothing but an excuse. Think about it this way, data caps refresh on a monthly cycle right? Well it works that way for everyone. So when a new month rolls around everyone gets 1TB or whatever and starts using it till it runs out. That means a ton a bandwidth is used at the start of the month and very little is used at the end of the month. ISP's are just using data caps as a way to justify squeezing more money out of people. The bandwidth doesn't matter at all to them because slower Internet speeds at peak times are going to be the same for them with or without data caps.


SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwwbvp1 wrote

Which is why once you exceed the 1tb you are merely deprioritized relative to users who haven’t.

I do agree it would make more sense to use rolling windows than resetting everyone on the same day. But I don’t work there.


someguynamedben7 t1_iwwckrh wrote

Not true, when you exceed your cap they charge you an arm and a leg for each gig past your limit. I wouldn't be surprised though if they don't also shackle your speed in addition to charging way more simply because they're all greedy assholes.


SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwwcv76 wrote


> After your Priority Access is exhausted, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of Basic Access for the remainder of your billing cycle.


someguynamedben7 t1_iwwd7h6 wrote

Then it looks like starlink is the single only ISP that does that. Doesn't change the fact that data caps are dumb though.


Tom2Die t1_iwwspzo wrote

Metronet has been quite good to me these past years; here's hoping that doesn't change.


SwarfDive01 t1_iwuewsj wrote

I agree here too though. ISPs aren't servicing rural areas. Fiber is huge in my city, the new neighborhood 1 mile away offers fiber, but our older, low density "rural" neighborhood has 1 broadband, or whatever unholy cost satellite providers. I barely have cell service. Especially now since a recent provider merger obsoleted my repeater.


simple_mech t1_iwum0td wrote

When you’re starving, do you really check the nutritional label lol


pixlbabble t1_iwusno4 wrote

The healthiest amount of competition for one company in your area.


noeagle77 t1_iwuyclp wrote

Ooooh then I can compare all one of my choices with your choice!


Deranged40 t1_iwvpmmc wrote

On the plus side, you'll finally see the upload speed that is offered before you purchase the service. So that's good.


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwu7im0 wrote

is it just the conspiracy theorist in me, or does this feel like Bidens attempt to misdirect us from the fact that he hasn't and won't reinstate net neutrality?

I mean, why else force ISP to make "nutrition labels" unless you expect them to have complete control of network traffic?

This feels like a compromise. What the fuck is happening?


porarte t1_iwuakbg wrote

A "nutrition label" is an imposed standard. It's part of what government is supposed to do. The idea that it's some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous.


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunha9 wrote

Okay....the democrats have had control of the federal government for 3 years now.

You explain why Biden hasn't reinstated Net Neutrality, while taking it upon himself to write these new rules for the FCC?

Obviously they're getting something done.


porarte t1_iwuqi0z wrote

Didn't have the Senate... so, the answer is "the GOP." The Republicans lately have obstructed almost every good possibility.


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv54pw wrote

That's just not true!

I wish the DNC had the votes to pass the law, but they don't, and I understand that

But the FCC commissioner has unilateral powers to either instate those rules or remove them, just like Obama and Trump's commissioners did.

Why hasn't Biden's FCC commissioner reinstated the Net Neutrality rules yet?!


FriendlyDespot t1_iwve6bk wrote

There's not just one single FCC commissioner. There's an FCC commission that has regulatory powers, but it's tied along party lines. You sound way too confident in what you're saying for someone who's so fundamentally misinformed on how the FCC Commission works.


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwvuzzt wrote

Biden waited 9 whole months to elect new FCC commissioners you fucking genius

And the DNC does have a majority RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

you sound really fucking confident for someone who obviously has no fucking clue how this works.


Deewd23 t1_iwuq5ll wrote

In order to pass a bill you need more than a majority in the senate. You think the GOP is going to push for rules on ISPs?


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv4vin wrote

A bill would be amazing, it would make Net Neutrality the law of the land, but Biden cannot do that because he never had the votes.

I get that.

...but in lieu of that, the FCC commissioner has broad, unilateral powers, and he could reinstate net neutrality at least until the next commissioner is takes office.

That's how Obama got NN instated, and that's who Trump got it uninstated

It feels like Biden just wants us to forget about Net Neutrality, because his commissioner could have reinstated it on day 1!


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvd0f6 wrote

The FCC commission chairperson doesn't have broad unilateral powers. It's also not a he, but a she. The FCC commission as a whole has broad regulatory powers, but it's currently tied 2-2 and can't get anything meaningful passed unless it has bipartisan support.


123felix t1_iwub6ic wrote

Monthly fees is still important even with net neutrality.
Additional fees is still important even with net neutrality.
Contract length is still important even with net neutrality.
Typical speed is still important even with net neutrality.
Data cap is still important even with net neutrality.
I fail to see the conspiracy here.


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunkmf wrote

The conspiracy is that they are about to implement these new regulations for the FCC while pretending their hands are tied to reinstate Net Neutrality.

Both of those things can't be true at the same time. There's fuckery afoot.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvdnqe wrote

Why couldn't both of those be true at the same time? It's a 2-2 tie in the FCC Commission, and there's no reason why one or both of the Republican commissioners couldn't get on board with these kinds of labels while also not wanting to reinstate the net neutrality rules.


123felix t1_iww6r0m wrote

This is not nearly as contentious as net neutrality you can't compare like this.


AdventurousTime t1_iwtl0er wrote

This is a good start. Cable operators (in particular) are trying to muddy the waters and tell consumers that their “mostly” fiber network offers as good performance as fiber to the home solution and that there’s no major difference with coax. We all know this isn’t true. It will be obvious from the performance characteristics. But it would be helpful if the label also included the connection type. Fiber coax or dsl.


[deleted] t1_iwtph66 wrote

FTTN can be as performant as FTTP if implemented correctly, but the cost of implementing FTTN in that fashion is not much less than just actually doing FTTP


ttubehtnitahwtahw1 t1_iwu1ame wrote



PM_ME_TO_PLAY_A_GAME t1_iwugcl6 wrote

fftn = fibre to the node

fttp = fibre to the premises


fantasmoofrcc t1_iwugvmd wrote

fiber to the home (FTTH) isn't cool anymore?


IamreallynotaNPC t1_iwub39x wrote

And fttn can be shitty as cable. Souce: I have casair fiber to the home that fucks up more than when I had spectrum cable. Inconsistent as all fuck. Uptime, latency, speed (especially upload).

I pay for 1000/1000 symmetric and it is anything but...

Bonus is every time I call them they cannot figure out why.


E3FxGaming t1_iwukzkc wrote

I had a rough start with Deutsch Glasfaser FTTH and I developed a small program that automatically ran an installed speedtest CLI and recorded the result in a CSV file. I would then compile that data into a bunch of nice graphs on a weekly basis and send it to the ISP, which lead to them eventually fixing the problem.

If they wouldn't have responded I'd have automated the mail part too and just sent them a mail ("live") whenever the speedtest would return unacceptable results.


doommaster t1_iwug40n wrote

There is no practical reason not to do P2P FTTH anymore.
Unless you fear competition/regulation which is when GPON might be acceptable, still FTTH though.

The rest ist shit, expensive, crap.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwva6fk wrote

> There is no practical reason not to do P2P FTTH anymore.

Plenty of practical reasons not to do it point-to-point, even more financial reasons. If you're going house to house in a suburban neighbourhood then you don't want to be slinging multiple 144/288 strand cables down longer stretches of poles, and the only way to really avoid that with active installations is to instead have a ton of smaller access switches in a ton of curb cabinets, which you really don't want to do.

PON is perfectly fine for suburbs and exurbs. Point-to-point FTTH is only really suited for urban deployments with higher density access nodes, or in places with buried or otherwise protected paths that aren't vulnerable and exposed to the elements.


doommaster t1_iwvgfug wrote

I am not sure but a PON-Splitter is almost certainly more expensive than say blowing in 12 fibers over 300m instead of 2.
I have not seen PON deployed here anymore since at least ~2 years.
Fiber itself is so cheap, my 9 flat unit just has a patch box in the basement with 12 fibers, and that's it. they do not even care to match them actual demand, 12, 24, 48 is what they do here... that's how it looked in my buildings basement when they first hooked the panel up.

PON also has higher risk of branch failures induced by bad customer equipment and since customer can use their own equipment here, by law, PON might be problematic for the whole PON-splitted branch.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvh773 wrote

> I am not sure but a PON-Splitter is almost certainly more expensive than say blowing in 12 fibers over 300m instead of 2.

Like I said, in suburbs and exurbs you're not just hanging 12 strands in point-to-point deployments, you're hanging 144s or 288s down long roads. If a driver takes out a pole in bad weather at night, then with a PON deployment your fiber guys have to splice maybe 2-4 pairs, while with a point-to-point deployment they're sitting there all night in shitty weather splicing up to 288 strands and taking a whole lot longer to get customers back online.

A splitter for PON is the same as a splitter for anything else, and they're super cheap commodity items. Pig-tailed cassettes are less than $1 per split in bulk.


doommaster t1_iwvmupa wrote

ok, it is all underground here anyways, risks of fibers ever getting damaged like that is down 0.
Even my parents home/village has P2P all the way.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvnmfn wrote

Almost all suburban and exurban FTTx in the United States (where the article here is about) is aerial fiber slung from utility poles.


rsta223 t1_iwvzwla wrote

Not in my suburb. Our city-run fiber is all buried.

(FTTH is fantastic too - I'll be super disappointed if I ever have to move away from my symmetric gig)


[deleted] t1_iwv3cwn wrote

just for those who don't know

FTTH = FTTP different terms for same thing

Fiber To THe "House"/"Premises"


doommaster t1_iwv52bj wrote

FTTH is not FTTP, at least here. FTTP bundles, FTTB and FTTH PON/AON split in basement (which are not considered FTTH here).
But it seem to differ by region/country and even ISP.
Since about ~2 years now all the new deployments in my region are true P2P FTTH connection, with neither active nor passive splitting in buildings/premises...

One could also say FTTH is is a specific FTTP subset.... at least in our case here.


[deleted] t1_iwv5voo wrote

> But it seem to differ by region/country and even ISP.

That's because there is no formal definition of when to use FTTH vs FTTP, just rough guidelines.

for most purposes they're equivalent. when getting into the details of a multi tenant residence vs a home we're getting into details that only matter to use networking nerds

For example all the FTTP apartment buildings i've lived in before I got my FTTH house had fiber all the way to the individual unit. There was no termination at the building split out to ethernet like some do, but my state also has a law against internet vendor lock in on apartments IIRC


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwu7dps wrote

No, a good start would be REINSTATING NET NEUTRALITY!!



Samtheman001 t1_iwuhex8 wrote

Wow, I had to scroll way too far just to see you down voted??? Seriously, this is the way!


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunw77 wrote

Insane that I'm getting downvoted for this in r/technology

This sub used to be the bastion for Net Neutrality

What the fuck is going on?

Biden's FCC has the time to implement these new regulations, but pretend their hands are tied to reinstate NN?


UltravioletClearance t1_iwup700 wrote

Net neutrality has nothing to do with ISP fees or data caps. It got downvoted for using a buzzword without actually understanding its meaning.


SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv4a89 wrote

The FCC is an organization, genius.

They only have so much manpower, they have a limited budget.

The FCC has priorities, and obviously those priorities have nothing to do with reinstating Net Neutrality in the THREE FUCKING YEARS that Biden has been in office.


thegreatgazoo t1_iwvbdjz wrote

Less than 2 years.

But yes, they love to promise things and then claim they are super duper busy and will get to it once you reelect them.


AccidentallyTheCable t1_iwvaggk wrote

I had an att guy show up and was like yeah we got 500mbit symmetrical in your neighborhood now, decided to look into it. Turns out its 500mbit shared by the end box which could hold up to 50 customers


SwarfDive01 t1_iwticyy wrote

The real question is which ISP initiated this, and who are they targeting? My guess is something like, someone with cables or hardlines, targeting someone with a possibility of inconsistent connectivity. Like satellite or radio. So their "disclaimer" has to be a range. Hardline cables are almost always limited by priority. If your residential base package runs into the same data center from the same switchboard as Amazon fulfillment center? Amazon's premium business package is guaranteed priority over your Hulu stream. Radio can't guarantee a regulated speed. My internet drops to .5mb/s on a cloudy or foggy day.


wntgobak t1_iwtrsqf wrote

But there’s a plus side, hit that sweet duct with hot air and cool trapped in a layer. Shiiiiit your inter webs be speed McQueen 3000. That’s the day you’ll have 30 endusers uploading 4k livestream twitchathon’s. Then you’ll never ever mention cloudy days again.


SwarfDive01 t1_iwtv52w wrote

I know you think I'm joking, but check your dm's brah


iam8up t1_iwufaq5 wrote

The IIJA required the FCC to do this.


NegativeCap1975 t1_iwthllf wrote

Still not reinstating Net Neutrality. Pretty weird how the Democrats control the white house and both houses of congress and they still haven't reversed that policy. Prreeeeetttty weird.


flashstepthruadmins t1_iwtj58l wrote

>both houses of congress

You ever heard of the filibuster?


Robot_Basilisk t1_iwtltxa wrote

Not relevant, but even if it were, the filibuster needed to go because the GOP will toss it the second it gets in their way now.

Every time in recent memory the Dems have declined to do something publicly popular because it would "set a precedent" that the GOP would copy, the GOP has done it anyhow the next time they had the chance.


xchadrickx t1_iwuc85n wrote

How do you propose stopping the filibustering of the push to stop filibustering?


cas13f t1_iwuh3ic wrote

Unlike legislation, a rule change only require a simple majority to be passed.


NegativeCap1975 t1_iwtjdix wrote

Hate it when the head of the FCC tries to reverse policy and they get filibustered by Congress. Just crazy.


flashstepthruadmins t1_iwtpusa wrote

> head of the FCC

The head of the FCC still has to work with the other commissioners, and there's currently a 50/50 split on party lines, so once again Democrats do not have control of the institution.


NegativeCap1975 t1_iwtup5q wrote

>there's currently a 50/50 split on party lines

Pretty crazy how there's a 50/50 split on a 5 seat commission. Wonder how long that's been the case.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvcaj2 wrote

For as long as 50 Republican senators, as well as Manchin and Sinema, have refused to confirm Gigi Sohn's nomination.


wigg1es t1_iwu7wnj wrote

Net Neutrality is important, but you're nuts if you think it's high on anyone's priority list.


Citi_Dank t1_iwtmnwn wrote

You know what else is weird? Dems also have a super majority in California and could pass whatever they like and yet they can't ( or won't )even get a vote to the floor on Medicare for all in California. Something that Bernie ran on and is very popular with the people of that state.



Pragmatist203 t1_iwtiq1f wrote

It's almost like there isn't a damn dimes bit of difference between them.



[deleted] t1_iwtpk7g wrote

Oh look, this ignorant bullshit again.

tell me how the two parties voted in NN? (hint: very differently)

tell me how the two parties voted on the inflation reduction act?




Pragmatist203 t1_iwughqj wrote

And you change the cast of characters around and they do the exact fucking opposite because it's THEIR idea.


[deleted] t1_iwv386i wrote

so you know you're full of shit, but won't admit it.

how much is russia paying you


Pragmatist203 t1_iwv84ls wrote

No, actually I'm fairly honest about what I believe. You just don't like that I don't go along with the sports team you worship. You'll grow up someday.


[deleted] t1_iwvf2t5 wrote

then you're honestly a moron, because the fact that you think they're "The same" and that it's just "Sports teams" Shows that you're completely fucking uninformed. You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

One side is imperfect, the others side are literally fucking neofascists. You can see from the fucking vote history over and over and over this is the case.

But you know, go ahead. Keep pretending that Republicans taking away women's rights is normal.
Keep pretending that Republicans going after trans rights is normal.
Keep pretending that Republicans going after gay rights is normal.
Keep pretending that Republican White supremacism is normal.
Keep pretending that republicans going after schools curriculum is normal.
Keep pretending republicans screaming about "woke" is normal.
Keep pretending that Republicans attempting a coup after their lost an election is normal

Keep pretending that the clear voting history of "Republicans always vote to fuck over the little guy, Democrats usually vote to help the little guy" doesn't exist. Despite the fucking extensive documentation that it does.

You're not a fucking pramgatist, you're a goddamn nazi-enabling ignorant shit who is too insecure to admit that you're wrong.


Pragmatist203 t1_iwvuklx wrote

Your vote is as good as mine. Enjoy.

And by the way, I don't vote Republican.


[deleted] t1_iwvwqko wrote

I'm sure you vote Libertarian instead. Which is the same as voting Republican.

> Your vote is as good as mine. Enjoy.

So your entire purpose here is to be a dickwad troll, knowing that you're wrong and enjoying people calling you out for being full of shit.

Somehow you think that makes you "Win" when really everyone thinks you're an immature prick.

And that comforts you at night when you enable neofascists.

You're a child.


Onihikage t1_iwua36t wrote

Republicans are moving backwards, Democrats are at worst a holding pattern but usually at least trying to move forward. It's a very important distinction.

We're never going to fix this country at the ballot box, but we can hopefully slow down its decline long enough for organized citizen action to bring about the course corrections our country and culture so badly need.


Pragmatist203 t1_iwui9fj wrote

It's all just theater. They take turns being the bad guy for a cycle, play the part for the money and votes, rinse and repeat. Strangely enough, nothing ever gets reversed when they swap places in the power dynamic. That's because they were all in on it. If it were important, elections WOULD have consequences, but with the sports team mentality they keep the voters in, nothing changes.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvco8w wrote

I don't know what's worse, how patently absurd and obviously incorrect you are, or how confident you are in being so.


nzodd t1_iwyefuz wrote

"Both sides" proclaims the guy who thinks watching a bunch of South Park makes him sophisticated and politically literate.


lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iwuua8s wrote

This would be a nice for comparing services...if Americans had the ability to pick between comparable competing services in any given area.

But with today's regional monopolies, we get whatever high fat, low nutrition crap the local cable oligopoly gives you...


AwkwardAd7348 t1_iwvqa51 wrote

They have no-competition agreements in my area to stop them from competing with each other. Should be illegal


lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iwvr610 wrote

Yes, it should be. And every other country in the world.


bluemandan t1_iwuevzo wrote

This doesn't help when there is only one option in a major city


jonathanrdt t1_iwvo0xl wrote

Broadband. Picture of telephone cable.


Loxley_Hardaway t1_iwulkcr wrote

Can we just stop data cap charges. That’s all I need


LordTegucigalpa t1_iwvfzng wrote

Just above the label it says "How we Fuck You"


eldred2 t1_iwvremv wrote

I have a thought. How about they can't use the word "unlimited" in association with a product, if there are limits imposed.


tcote2001 t1_iwufwn1 wrote

Net nutritionality is here. Wait, that’s not what we asked for? Damn it Congress.


spinjump t1_iwv64zb wrote

When does this go into effect?


slvrcrystalc t1_iwwco2v wrote

"Typical" speed is the best part. No more 'up to' bullshit that never happens because all they're offering is the possible max number.


TheShocker1119 t1_iwullas wrote

I do not believe any ISP in America, Comcast, Verizon, Frontier, Ziply, etc. actually laid down any fiber optic lines. I believe these companies took Government money for the infrastructure & pocketed it like always.

We need our internet service to be a utility provided by the state & allowed to create community networks.


Minimum-Enthusiasm14 t1_iwumklb wrote

Luckily all this new money coming down bro broadband infrastructure practically mandates laying down fiber. So if they haven’t before, they’ll have to now.


Ok-Gear-5593 t1_iwun0pu wrote

I actually watched them put in fiber optic lines all over my town was it a dream or an expensive fake out? I have FIOS at my house and one of their boxes in my yard with fake(?) fiber. Edit: i remember a few years ago cutting it with my edger because they barely put it under the surface in some areas and down went my service till they came out and replaced the line from the street.


LearnToStrafe t1_iwxolt9 wrote

I guess those orange tubes ATT put in my neighborhood are for hamsters then to go underground


ethtips t1_iwth6tw wrote

But who would wait millions of seconds in latency? Oh wait, this sort of thing is obviously not proofread by the FCC, lol.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvbgrk wrote

For those who don't get what this person is saying, the example image in the article measures latency in "Ms," which'd be megaseconds, or millions of seconds.


ethtips t1_ix2ro79 wrote

Thank you, I thought that was obvious.