77 points

👏 Make 👏 ALL 👏 connections 👏 Symmetrical 👏

permalink
report
reply
17 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Fuck telekom, i can’t wait to switch to fiber

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Is there a legit reason they do not do this?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

@dingus @worfamerryman On DSL you have a limited set of frequencies that you can use for either upload or download. So you have to split these frequencies between upload and download. Also the DSL speed is highly depending on the length of the copper between your home and the switch cabinet on the street. (Just remember: DSL is the transmission of high frequencies over unshielded cables that never meant to transmit high frequencies) So the longer the cable, the lower the total possible bandwidth. And most people have a demand for a higher download than upload. So most people will prefer some 16 down, 2 up instead of 8 down and 8 up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What about on a fiber connection? I wonder if the slower upload speed is artificial.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Because they can. Most people’s typical usage isn’t impacted by low uplink bandwidth. Very few people are uploading 4K content or live streaming or hosting a high traffic webserver from their garage. Less bandwidth means less expense, thus more profit. Capitalism, baby.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I wouldn’t mind a ratio like those for just regular home Internet, but right now I get gigabit down but only 20 megabit up. 1/50th.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

yeah that’s garbage, we just started rolling 2.5/500 in certain xgs-pon areas. i think minimum now (for fiber, we still have vdsl/adsl) is 500/50. i don’t sell any of it just work on the technical side.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

It is pretty dumb to me that symmetrical is not the standard way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

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

permalink
report
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I mean, I understand the original rationale: building out infrastructure is super expensive, so the monopoly gives the company an assurance they can recoup investment. But then there’s no follow-up! There’s nothing requiring the ISP to evolve, so we end up with the same tech as when the contract was signed 20 years ago. At least wireless (LTE, 5G, etc) is promising for competiton, but buying spectrum from the FCC is also f’ing expensive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Dude, 100Mbps isn’t good enough anymore either

permalink
report
reply
29 points

What? That’s plenty for the average person.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And most families probably have cheap wifi routers with poor snr as their main bottleneck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
  1. get yourself a good adblocker (ublock origin)
  2. Block autoplay by default (firefox has had this for years, chromium just added it)
  3. start deliberately avoiding such sites when you can
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s like two people streaming high def TV at the same time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No way, that would be 6.25 MB/s for tv. For a two hour movie that would be 50GB. Is a 4k movie really 50GB?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

One major AAA game update will likely break your connection
One person in the house uploading anything will cripple your ability to make ANY request

You are describing symptoms of bufferbloat, not capacity problems.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This is disgusting :( I am greatful that consumer markets in Ukraine, despite the corruption, have always been ~80% open for natural evolution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Must be nice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

from Ukraine too, can confirm.
still using 100mbps because it’s dirt cheap and I don’t really need more yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Damn you got me salivating at the mouth

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

just like things like minimum wage?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Another reason the feds ensure inflation, it makes their workforce cheaper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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 .

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Probably because there isn’t demand, cause service is so slow.

Kind of a chicken/egg scenario.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Is it fun living in 2008 still? 2.5g exists and is cheap af now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Eh, 2.5gbps is kind of a dumb move IMO… 10gbps equipment has existed for a really long time at this point… There’s no legit reason to have an in-between with all the 10gbps stuff coming out of production environments from enterprise.

802.11ac can already break 2.5gbps on it’s own (with 160MHz wide channel). My cellphone can get 1733/1733 (2x2 with 256-QAM lock) in the living room (same room as the access point). My access point costs ~$150 right now… so nothing super expensive. Theoretically with 160MHz wide channels on a 4x4 setup at 256-QAM you’d be looking at 3.5Gbps (less in real world for single devices obviously… but total throughput of multiple devices can tally up)

With 802.11ax adding a whole new 6ghz that’s effectively another whole ~3.5gbps that you can push there as well. So let’s just say a second 1.7gbps connection cause we know real world wont get the maximum theoretical… That’s still 3.4gbps, blowing you 2.5gbps out of the water. 802.11be is also supposed to increase the channel sizes up to 320MHz… That will be something like 4-5gbps on it’s own.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 4.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 126K

    Comments