• lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    6 months ago

    Bandwidth is a finite resource. If everybody on your street wants that 10GB at the same time there’s going to be throttling.

    But that’s a common sense type of throttling. Net neutrality is about not giving priority to certain types of content or websites over others.

    • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Right — not immune to congestion at all. Unlike ATT fiber, where we had 300Mbps (symmetric I think)…but if you log in to the modem it reported a gigabit link. Starting a download, you could often get more than 300Mbps, but it would slowly fall in line with bandwidth policies.

      With Sonic, my gigabit connection would get north of 900Mbps (iperf3), both ways, to a nearby university computer. I miss it.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Technically yes. But the odds on a properly built trunk line getting saturated by a random neighborhood aren’t great. Unless of course they’ve never upgraded that line in 20 years…

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I feel like I’m not making myself clear. It doesn’t matter how large and great is the last mile infrastructure to the neighborhood. The ISP itself has limited capacity; their pipe to the internet is only so big, and all their customer bandwidth runs through that pipe.

        ISP capacity does NOT cover every single one of their clients using 10 Gbps at the same time by a long shot. Most ISP can maybe cover 5-10% of their total advertised speeds at any given time. That’s why they say “up to”. They can do 10 Gbps simultaneously for a handful of customers here and there; if everybody starts using the internet at the same time (evenings, the weekend) the speeds drop dramatically. If any significant portion of their customer base ever happened to use the internet for anything serious at the same time it would be a shitshow. Every ISP bets on that never happening.

        So getting back on topic, this kind of throttling typically does not fall under net neutrality. It’s not discrimination based on where the data is coming from. You could argue it’s deceptive practices or false advertising but that’s a different kettle of fish.

        • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          How many terabytes is a single customer or group of customers moving that saturating their upstream would be more than a few minutes a month?

          It’s not really deceptive, and backup systems and other enterprise type of things can and are configured to run off peak.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Its dependent on the cable quality and materials. Its not a harvest, you can expand it at anytime by replacing the cable.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The upstream bandwidth of the ISP is limited. Expanding the capacity to the curb won’t improve that.

        Good cables will get you good bandwidth with your neighbors — if that’s something you find useful.