Social FCC Voted 3-2 Along Party Lines To Raise The U.S' Minimum Broadband Speed From 25Mbps to 100Mbps

[Blayt7hh]

i have 300mbps and thats more than i need. for some reason i average a fair bit more than that speed. even over my vpn. we have gigabit internet here but i dont feel like i really need it. there might be the odd game ill download that weighs in at over 100GB and it might take me somewhere close to an hour to download it all, but i really dont feel like i need anything faster than what i've already got. if i can download a 2 hour movie in less than a minute then i'm good with that.

i survived the horrifying days of downloading mp3's off of napster over a 28.8k dialup modem. i think i will manage.

100 mbps might be rough these days if you're streaming 4k or are running a bunch of devices that are using it alot so i can feel your pain though.

You’re willing to wait a whole ass many for a movie to download? I always suspected you were a chud


In all seriousness it may have actually been 50mbps I don’t remember, but over Wi-Fi the best speeds I’m seeing while downloading a game is about 6. It takes hours and the internet is basically unusable while it’s downloading. It’s a far cry from my internet back home which is stupid fast

 

[emefer]

They need to make it 1g up and down and cut the price in half.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

You’re willing to wait a whole ass many for a movie to download? I always suspected you were a chud


In all seriousness it may have actually been 50mbps I don’t remember, but over Wi-Fi the best speeds I’m seeing while downloading a game is about 6. It takes hours and the internet is basically unusable while it’s downloading. It’s a far cry from my internet back home which is stupid fast

i was running 30 mbps for a good while and it sucked. i lived with it, until i bought a 4k tv and realised how bad it was for 4k streaming, and yeah streaming or downloading would not only bring the rest of my internet connectivity to a crawl, but for some odd reason it would fuck with my cable tv signal too and make it stutter and shit on many tv stations whenever i was downloading at full speed. if there was a game or a big update i needed to download, it would take most if not all of the whole damn day.

going to 300 mbps cleared everything up big time though. maybe one day that won't be enough for me. but not right now anyways. though i could probably make do with 100mbps if i had to.

 

[method115]

Me too, but there's still a very clear problem with one size-fits-all schooling.

We live in a society where we're only just beginning to learn about autism and ADHD. Many kids with diagnoses need wildly different schooling than they get from "sit down, stop fidgeting, be quiet" style of education.

I can agree with that and I'm ok with making some changes for these situations. There's plenty of things we can do to improve schools in general honestly. I want to work on doing that though and not just shutting them down and having everyone work from home. Not to mention a lot of families rely on schools as a day care of sorts so they can go to work.

You’re willing to wait a whole ass many for a movie to download? I always suspected you were a chud


In all seriousness it may have actually been 50mbps I don’t remember, but over Wi-Fi the best speeds I’m seeing while downloading a game is about 6. It takes hours and the internet is basically unusable while it’s downloading. It’s a far cry from my internet back home which is stupid fast

We got fiber in my area about a year ago and it's been amazing. I download 100GB games in like 20 mins.

 

[AtomicPanther]

i was running 30 mbps for a good while and it sucked. i lived with it, until i got a 4k tv and realised how bad it was for 4k streaming, and yeah streaming or downloading would not only bring the rest of my internet connectivity to a crawl, but for some odd reason it would fuck with my cable tv signal too and make it stutter and shit on many tv stations whenever i was downloading at full speed. if there was a game or a big update i needed to download, it would take most if not all of the whole damn day.

going to 300 mbps cleared everything up big time though. maybe one day that won't be enough for me. but not right now anyways. though i could probably make do with 100mbps if i had to.

I think that's because a lot of cable channels now are actually streamed. Only a handful actually go through the cable.

So people are finally getting mBIT vs mBYTE, so the big number isn't as great as they'd like you to think. What's smaller than a bit? Oh, I remember wasn't it nibble? Now on to 8kNIBBLE

 

[idrankyourbeer]

I think that's because a lot of cable channels now are actually streamed. Only a handful actually go through the cable.

So people are finally getting mBIT vs mBYTE, so the big number isn't as great as they'd like you to think. What's smaller than a bit? Oh, I remember wasn't it nibble? Now on to 8kNIBBLE

ive always gauged my speed through gigabytes, megabytes, and even kilobytes per second. even everything i download with uses those speeds.

i guess ISP's just like to use bits cause the number is 8 times bigger or whatever. maybe some people would get a little confused though and wonder why they cant download at 1 gigabyte per second when they pay for a gigabit!

we have 3 gigabit internet here now. so i guess it's been progressing. i really dont need that kind of speed though. maybe if an asteroid was heading towards the earth and i hastily needed to download the entire internet's worth of midget clown porn as quickly as i could get to it so i could preserve the history of the human civilization, or if i had a family full of teenagers using the internet and streaming shit then yeah that might help. otherwise i'd just be paying a whole lot more money for very little gains.

 

[Loiosh]

 

[idrankyourbeer]

the struggle is real bro

 

[Loiosh]

the struggle is real bro

I'm old, I don't really understand internet speeds.

I get on just fine with what I have, but my father's on Bell and his internet is about five times as fast as mine. I know this because I set him up to torrent and was shocked at his download speed.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

I'm old, I don't really understand internet speeds.

I get on just fine with what I have, but my father's on Bell and his internet is about five times as fast as mine. I know this because I set him up to torrent and was shocked at his download speed.

if you ever need a shoulder to cry on im here for you

don't show that picture to your dad or he might disown you.

 

[Barteh]

100mbps seems like a lot for a minimum. Hard to imagine most people use/need that much.

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

I grew up during the AOL heyday, and I assure you that 56Kbps dial-up is not even on the same continent as 25Mbps.

Waiting for that one good picture to load... and someone calls

 

[Loiosh]

if you ever need a shoulder to cry on im here for you

don't show that picture to your dad or he might disown you.

Seriously, should my speed make me sad? I have no idea.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Seriously, should my speed make me sad? I have no idea.

well, it could be alot worse. but for todays standards its pretty shit bro. though it all depends what you need it for i guess.

 

[panamaican]

This is a horrible idea and I hope this never happens.

@Siver!

Why is it a horrible idea?

Modern schooling is barely 200 years old (might actually be less). It was invented as a means to prepare kids for entry into factory work and later the military. It was never designed to maximize learning.

The original gold standard of education was individualized instruction, primarily through tutors. Unfortunately, this was only really possible for the rich. In this modern era, we've screwed the pooch on tutor based education. Instead of providing kids with tutors to help them excel, we primarily assign tutors to kids who are struggling with a curriculum that is too advanced for them.

Right now, we live in a world where we have access to unlimited digital tutors. Not just for kids who are falling behind academically but for everyone. I cannot understand why people would object to an education system where we teach kids according to their current level of ability and engage them intellectually. So I ask -- why is it a horrible idea?

 

[Siver!]

@Siver!

Why is it a horrible idea?

Modern schooling is barely 200 years old (might actually be less). It was invented as a means to prepare kids for entry into factory work and later the military. It was never designed to maximize learning.

The original gold standard of education was individualized instruction, primarily through tutors. Unfortunately, this was only really possible for the rich. In this modern era, we've screwed the pooch on tutor based education. Instead of providing kids with tutors to help them excel, we primarily assign tutors to kids who are struggling with a curriculum that is too advanced for them.

Right now, we live in a world where we have access to unlimited digital tutors. Not just for kids who are falling behind academically but for everyone. I cannot understand why people would object to an education system where we teach kids according to their current level of ability and engage them intellectually. So I ask -- why is it a horrible idea?

Nothing can replace proximity, certainly not screens, when it comes to maintaining attention and focus during learning in my opinion.

Children also need, need, need social interaction. Not all of it, but a decent amount of it, with a variety of people, some whom they will react more positively to.

Home is not a great place for many kids to learn.
Home is not a great place for many kids full stop, and the thought they basically wouldn't leave is frightening in some cases.
Homes are not always nice places, and the people in them can be the most destructive in a kid's life.
Homes also don't always even feed kids a good meal.

I'm sure it might work for some, but it's a nightmare for many others, and the idea it could happen carte blanche that kids are educated online at home is positively dystopian.

 

[Barteh]

Nothing can replace proximity, certainly not screens, when it comes to maintaining attention and focus during learning in my opinion.

Children also need, need, need social interaction. Not all of it, but a decent amount of it, with a variety of people, some whom they will react more positively to.

Home is not a great place for many kids to learn.
Home is not a great place for many kids full stop, and the thought they basically wouldn't leave is frightening in some cases.
Homes are not always nice places, and the people in them can be the most destructive in a kid's life.
Homes also don't always even feed kids a good meal.

I'm sure it might work for some, but it's a nightmare for many others, and the idea it could happen carte blanche that kids are educated online at home is positively dystopian.

As a parent I can't stress enough how important social interactions are for kids. Having a young kid really makes you realize how social we are naturally as human beings. The way kids instantly look for social interactions when outside is like a reality check that what most adults are doing nowadays, being stuck to their screens, isn't natural at all. I could give hundreds of small examples, whether it's instantly looking for other kids on the playground or just randomly greeting people on the street when they're learning to say "hello".

While I think a lot of @panamaican 's criticism on current education systems is valid. The solution definitely isn't to do more home schooling and go digital. Teaching people based on their current level of ability and engaging with them on their level is a great idea, just don't do it from a distance.

 

[Siver!]

As a parent I can't stress enough how important social interactions are for kids. Having a young kid really makes you realize how social we are naturally as human beings. The way kids instantly look for social interactions when outside is like a reality check that what most adults are doing nowadays, being stuck to their screens, isn't natural at all. I could give hundreds of small examples, whether it's instantly looking for other kids on the playground or just randomly greeting people on the street when they're learning to say "hello".

While I think a lot of @panamaican 's criticism on current education systems is valid. The solution definitely isn't to do more home schooling and go digital. Teaching people based on their current level of ability and engaging with them on their level is a great idea, just don't do it from a distance.

You can see it in babies.

They are pre-programmed to search out interaction.

Any lack of interaction when they need it can be crippling. No over-exaggeration, no joke, it can be extremely damaging.

Besides all of this, though, schools have a valid role as 'day care' for parents that work.

How would a single parent family with multiple kids possibly function?

 

[Barteh]

You can see it in babies.

They are pre-programmed to search out interaction.

Any lack of interaction when they need it can be crippling. No over-exaggeration, no joke, it can be extremely damaging.

Besides all of this, though, schools have a valid role as 'day care' for parents that work.

How would a single parent family with multiple kids possibly function?

Yup my youngest one is 3 months old now. When I greet him in the morning and caress his tummy he smiles at me. When mummy goes away it usually takes less than a minute before he starts crying and he's immediately searching for some kind of interaction.

But you still see it in older kids as well. Since I spend a lot of time at the playground or similar places with my daughter I see this behaviour in pretty much all other kids. She's only 2 but it doesn't matter if there's a kid who is 2 years old or 8 years old, they immediately start searching for interaction and looking for somebody to play with. An 8 year old would rather pick flowers in the grass or stack up random pebbles with my kid than do somebody by himself that might be more appropriate for somebody his age.

This one of the reasons why these mask mandates at schools and even closing of schools during the covid era pissed me off so much. It's like because so many people barely have social interactions anymore they forgot how important it is for kids to be social. How is my kid gonna learn to interpret facial expressions when she can't even see your face?

 

[panamaican]

Nothing can replace proximity, certainly not screens, when it comes to maintaining attention and focus during learning in my opinion.

Children also need, need, need social interaction. Not all of it, but a decent amount of it, with a variety of people, some whom they will react more positively to.

Home is not a great place for many kids to learn.
Home is not a great place for many kids full stop, and the thought they basically wouldn't leave is frightening in some cases.
Homes are not always nice places, and the people in them can be the most destructive in a kid's life.
Homes also don't always even feed kids a good meal.

I'm sure it might work for some, but it's a nightmare for many others, and the idea it could happen carte blanche that kids are educated online at home is positively dystopian.

I'll start with social interaction first since it's the one that I assumed you'd start with. Kids don't need school to socialize. If that's what we're relying on, that should tell you that we're already at cross purposes on the role of the classroom.

A wee bit of re-writing:
School is not a great place for many kids to learn. <-- dangerous environments, toxic water and paint, etc.
It's not a great place for many kids, full stop. The thought they they're forced to go there is frightening in some cases. <-- see above.
Schools are not always nice places and the people in them can be the most destructive in a kid's life. <-- Anecdotally, my cousin did her PhD on bullying, school can definitely be a more destructive place than home for some kids.
Schools don't always even feed kids a good meal.

I'm not dismissing your points but they don't have anything to do with education. They're primarily focused on the socio-emotional health of kids. And if that's the argument for schools, we should simply acknowledge then that we've moved the mission of schools from educating kids to providing safe spaces for emotional development. And while noble, it doesn't make educating kids at home a horrible idea. Instead it highlights exactly why school based education is failing.

No man can serve 2 masters, as they say, and school can't be a one stop shop for all things children. It can't be where there's a major focus on education and also be the place tasked with providing the socio-emotional ballast for those kids. Your concerns would be better addressed getting rid of schools for education and replacing them with institutions focused on providing kids with safe places to grow up and socialize since their parents are at work or their neighborhoods are dangerous.