I'm one of their customers. I often see that one green car parked down the road.
It's pretty good - their provided router is locked down to hell and they're on a cgnat, but not having to deal with Comcast's 1.2tb data cap is well worth it. Checking Comcast's site now, it seems that they now offer "unlimited" data. Interesting, that option wasn't there 6 months ago.
~100 customers seems too small for the amount of effort they have put in so far. They've been working along all the roads near me for about a year, and they're out there running fiber conduit every day. The houses out here are far apart. Hopefully, they can make it work.
gs17 · 6h ago
> Checking Comcast's site now, it seems that they now offer "unlimited" data. Interesting, that option wasn't there 6 months ago.
It's been there since they announced the data cap. I thought the unlimited bundled with leasing their higher end hardware came first, but the email from 2016 announcing that our plan was getting the cap mentions being able to pay for unlimited.
nkellenicki · 5h ago
You've always had the _option_ of paying extra for unlimited data, however its only in the past month or two that they've started offering unlimited data as standard (in select markets).
I’m sorry I still don’t get it. Could you explain that in different phrasing ?
A comcast customer always had the option to pay for unlimited data. I get that part. What is the 2nd part? “Started offering it as standard” means what?
amethyst · 4h ago
In markets where Comcast has actual real competition, they "include" the unlimited data (aka no cap) with no extra charge when you sign up for their gigabit plans.
dietr1ch · 3h ago
In the Bay Area Comcast offered (2017-2023 at least) internet with a default 1-1.2TiB/mo data cap that you can lift for the month for an extra 10-20usd (I don't recall, my roommate who played CoD was the one paying for this by himself on every month with huge updates).
There's barely any competition here. You can pretty much chose from Comcast Business or XFinity, which both are just Comcast because of a free market with free as in not in jail.
rcleveng · 2h ago
Really 10-20 more? When I asked, and I'm in the Bay Area, the unlimited plan was $5 a month more than it would cost if I leased their modem.
jacobgkau · 1h ago
How much more was it than if you weren't leasing their modem?
baby_souffle · 40m ago
It used to be 30/month for me. I was not renting their modem and got charged more for it.
If starlink ever gets more capacity, I'll probably switch. Right now I think the only way to get gigabit down on starlink is with four or five accounts and manually bonding the dishes together. As soon as that obstacle goes away, Comcast will have competition in my area and I intend take advantage of that.
wijwp · 3h ago
That's not true. I tried getting unlimited data like 7-8 years ago and they said I needed a business account to get it.
bayarearefugee · 2h ago
What ISPs offer and how much they offer it for tends to vary wildly region to region.
If you live in a region where they have no meaningful competition (which is still fairly common in a lot of places in the US) well bend over and lube up.
observationist · 1h ago
They'll vary wildly, as much as they think they can get away with, in the hopes that you will never use the service and pay them as much as possible for it, and they'll bury your mailbox with crap to try to wear you down into coming back.
They will happily let you pay for years, for services that no longer exist, no longer connected to any of their networks. They'll take you to court rather than pay anything back; they know they are receiving extra money, and there's a significant amount that comes in, but "oh, it's so confusing, and there are so many legacy systems, we can't possibly catch every mistake."
The money they shuffle back and forth between each other, daily, reeks of book cooking - you might have a stretch of 20 miles of trunk in which there are 20 separate owners - not concurrent riding separate fiber lines, but in sequence, each paying rent to or getting rent paid by the adjacent rider, even though only a single company actually services the entire span.
It's funny how construction companies and ISPs get these rackets going, and then when people come along like these PrimeOne guys and offer a reasonable rate on a decent product, it's somehow vastly disruptive and threatening.
They'll expand, and be encouraged and allowed to expand, and after 5 or 6 years, the big ISPs will start circling, and eventually buy them out, and they'll retire happy. AT&T or Lumen will own their network inside of 10 years, and they'll claim it's modernized and upgraded infrastructure. People with shitty oversold undermaintained cable internet will be left alone until the money stops.
Starlink to phones is great, if it only didn't make ISPs so much money handling the base stations on the ground.
There's fiber all over the US just hanging there, unused, unmaintained, because merger after merger after merger left giant piles of assets under the ownership of companies like comcast and centurylink and at&t, who left infrastructure to rot, often built with public funding, and maintained their local monopolies and shitty service.
Whatever it is we're doing to regulate the industry at a federal level isn't working, but I imagine that's where a lot of the money goes.
WarOnPrivacy · 6h ago
> I'm one of their customers. It's pretty good - their provided router is locked down to hell and they're on a cgnat
This sounds like mine. I'm guessing yours doesn't support IPv6 because most fiber providers don't.
For the router, I already build firewalls so that. I pay $10/mo to escape their cgnat.
I've also alerted them to expect regular haranguing from me about deploying IPv6. Especially since bgp.he.net shows they have a /40 allocated to themselves; it doesn't seem to be used.
bcrl · 4h ago
I've had less than 0.5% of customers ask for IPv6 from my fibre ISP. It's not worth supporting as a result. The main reason is that any service that is not widely used will have gremlins that result in poor customer experience, and if it's always the same handful of customers hitting problems or finding quirks, there is a real risk of poor word of mouth incident reporting that can harm the business. At least if something goes wrong with IPv4, it's going to be noticed very quickly.
Some people will say monitoring is all that you need, but I do not agree. There are a million different little issues that can and do occur on physical networks in the real world, and there's no way monitoring will have a 99% chance of detecting all of them. When incidents like the partial Microsoft network outage that hit certain peering points occurred, I had to route around the damage by tweaking route filtering on the core routers to prefer a transit connection that worked over the lower cost peering point. It's that kind of oddball issue that active users catch and report which does not happen for barely used services like IPv6.
mrweasel · 4h ago
> I've had less than 0.5% of customers ask for IPv6 from my fibre ISP
How many ask for IPv4? I understand your situation, it's a lot of work, for something that many won't notice. It's just that saying there's no demand because your average consumer, who also doesn't know what IPv4 is, isn't asking for it, is the mentality that keeps IPv6 from being implemented.
On the funnier side of things, we've also sometimes run into the opposite problem that we can't reproduce an issue, because it's only on IPv4 and 95% of the time everything we do is IPv6. But we're also not serving home users.
bcrl · 3h ago
Static IPv4 addresses are closer to around 5% of customers. Nobody asks for IPv4, but some customers bring their existing or own wireless routers along and occasionally choose devices that are not IPv6 capable. Maybe in another 10 years those devices will finally be fully removed from service. The worst stragglers right now are the old combo DSL modems that effectively have no modern replacements -- it's just not worth spending money to replace them when customers are going to migrate to fibre soon enough.
massysett · 36m ago
> I've had less than 0.5% of customers ask for IPv6 from my fibre ISP. It's not worth supporting as a result.
Big, evil, hated Comcast has full ipv6, and I doubt any of its customers asked for it either. Instead people complain they’re only getting a /60.
Sanzig · 4h ago
If you already have to do CGNAT, why not IPv6 as your core network with NAT64 at the border and 464XLAT on the CPE? It gives you best of both worlds.
bcrl · 4h ago
I'm not doing CGNAT. We were able to get enough IPv4 addresses directly from ARIN a few years ago after being on the waiting list for a couple of years. It's a pity that widespread fraud depleted that pool faster than it should have been.
CPE support for IPv6 has generally been garbage with it taking 15-20 years before the bare minimum was supported by mainstream router vendors. Even today there are still vendors that assume only IPv4 support. In my opinion the IETF really screwed up when they made IPv6 more complicated than just IPv4 with more address bits. The incumbent in my area generally uses PPPoE in their access network, but routers that supported PPPoE and prefix delegation basically didn't exist in 2010, and only started being available circa 2015 (in part due to the required bits not existing in OpenWRT and the hardware vendors' software development kits for their chipsets). Sure, we're 10 years further on now, but there remain a number of vendors that only support IPv4 for management of devices (cough Ubiquiti cough) in parts of their product line.
That said, there are features of IPv6 that are absolutely awesome for carriers. The next header feature that pretty much eliminates the need for MPLS in an IPv6 transport network is one such item that makes building transport networks so much cleaner when using IPv6 than IPv4. No more header insertion or rewriting, just update one field and fix up the delta on the checksum and CRC. They just aren't really applicable for smaller networks.
bigstrat2003 · 4h ago
For me, no IPv6 = no business. I don't think it's acceptable to build a network on IPv4 only at this point, it speaks to being willing to cut corners and not do things the right way just because it's easier.
kjellsbells · 25m ago
I worked in this space for a while, in the US. Outside of the major cities, Internet service falls off extremely quickly. Like, shockingly so: you can be as close as fifty miles from, say Philly or Flagstaff and have zero fiber, zero cell coverage, just nothing.
The people who attempt to fill these gaps are commonly rural telephone companies, electric cooperatives, tribal entities, or mom and pop shops where the owner grew up on a Ditch Witch and only knows as much IP networking as essential to light up the fiber and get the packets flowing upstream.
They are enormously resource constrained in ways you might not expect, too, eg operations can grind to a halt because everyone is out with a chainsaw after a storm, or because the Guy that Knew Stuff about their network died suddenly.
They are very, very unlikely to decide to run an IPv6 network just because. There's no upside that makes the juice worth the squeeze for them.
artooro · 2h ago
I wish I could say no IPv6 no business. There are only 2 ISPs here, one cable and one fiber. Neither have IPv6, the smaller ISP also does CGNAT because IPs are expensive.
I'm trying to convince them that they could save money with less powerful CGNAT hardware if they deploy dual stack.
ToucanLoucan · 2h ago
I agree in principal but if the only other option is Charter/Spectrum/Comcast, you bet I'm going with the "lazy" person's fiber.
I have spent most of my career under the thumb of fucking cable and I'd sooner slam a car door on my nuts than go back to paying so much money for such garbage service.
jerf · 5h ago
"I'm guessing yours doesn't support IPv6 because most fiber providers don't."
Yeah, what's up with that? I just got switched on to fiber and the CGNAT for IPv4 doesn't shock me much, but what's with the no IPv6 in 2025?
I know enough to deal with it, but what's the deal? Is there something systematic here?
ta8645 · 5h ago
Everybody can muddle along without IPv6, so it's easy to make it a very low priority. Especially for small shops that are struggling just to create a viable business. IPv6 needs something more to motivate it, a web destination or application that is only available on IPv6.
bigstrat2003 · 4h ago
We used to have freeipv6porn.com, lol. But I suspect that was a joke as much as anything else given how much porn you can get for free all over the Internet.
throw0101b · 54m ago
> IPv6 needs something more to motivate it, a web destination or application that is only available on IPv6.
How about not having to pay for (as) beefy CG-NAT hardware because people that go to Youtube, Netflix, MetaFace, TikTok, etc, can directly connect via IPv6.
ta8645 · 19m ago
Hadn't thought of that, but it might not be a huge savings unless you were to go ipv6 only. If you're still going to support ipv4 anyway, the hardware savings might not be too significant.
paleotrope · 5h ago
The eggs need some chickens first.
Sanzig · 4h ago
Surprised they aren't deploying NAT64/DNS64 with 464XLAT on the CPE. You get essentially the same setup as CGNAT for IPv4 services but your whole core network is native IPv6 so you only have one set of address space to manage and your customers will be able to directly connect to anything IPv6 related.
mananaysiempre · 3h ago
How would you as a customer tell if they were?
yjftsjthsd-h · 3h ago
Because you'd have native IPv6
nancyminusone · 5h ago
Thankfully, they are doing IPv6, although one day I had some weird issue where IPv6 was broken but if I disabled it ipv4 was still working. Could have been my fault, IPv6 is generally new to me (not much of a network person).
I get the impression that they are still learning to run an ISP, both technically and customer facingly. It's weird - I learned more about them from this article than from actually being living here with them.
yuvadam · 3h ago
since tailscale exists, why would you care about cgnat or even pay to escape it?
tjohns · 3h ago
I'm not the only person connecting to my machines.
Some applications want to open ports and don't have the server-side infrastructure to punch a hole through NAT. Especially P2P apps and some games.
Sometimes I want to run a small, low-traffic web server from home.
Sometimes I'm connecting to my network from a machine that I don't control and can't install Tailscale on.
imzadi · 1h ago
I'm on the other side of the country and was a Cox customer for over a decade until they decided to add a data cap to their plans. Fortunately, wyyred rolled into town right around the same time, offering fiber at higher speeds, no data caps, and half the cost. It was an easy decision. I also noticed that Cox is now advertising unlimited data for free. Too little too late.
justusthane · 4h ago
> their provided router is locked down to hell
From the article, it sounds like the "default" option is for the customer to supply their own router, which I appreciate:
> Prime-One provides a modem and the ONT, plus a Wi-Fi router if the customer prefers not to use their own router.
eurleif · 4h ago
Modem and ONT? I'm under the impression that there's nothing called a "modem" for fiber, and that the ONT serves a similar role. Am I confused?
Polizeiposaune · 4h ago
No, that's my understanding as well.
My fiber installer referred to the Adtran 632V ONT he installed as the "modem".
He installed two other junction boxes (one outside the house near/under where the fiber attaches to the wall of the house, one inside near the ONT) but they're just passive optical couplers allowing them to swap out fiber segments in the event of fiber damage without re-running the entire install.
lstamour · 4h ago
Can’t speak to this exact circumstance, but more generally: The ONT translates the SFP+ networking to fibre optic, but the modem is still somewhat necessary for logins if you use PPPoE as a wrapper for example. In telecom fibre optic, it often also assigns a particular vlan to internet packets and separate vlans for TV and phone. But I’m not an expert here, just explaining why I needed a modem function in my router as well as a media converter to house the ONT.
As far as I know, nobody uses separate boxes for the modem and router, that kind of thinking died when wifi became more widespread and included by default with ISP plans.
vel0city · 3h ago
I wouldn't really call that a "modem" though, it's not really doing modulation/demodulation work to convert between media types. The terminology I usually hear for the provider's box handling any final authentication and VLAN splitting is usually a "residential gateway", which can be configured to bridge to a client's equipment.
Definitely splitting hairs here though on terminology.
wmf · 3h ago
their provided router is locked down to hell and they're on a cgnat
So not actually better than Comcast, just bad in a different way.
babypuncher · 5h ago
Comcast similarly removed their 1.2TB cap in my neighborhood within months of us getting fiber. It's almost like the only reason for the cap was because they could get away with it when there wasn't any competition.
xedrac · 5h ago
Comcast is notorious for exploiting places that don't have any other real options. Just before Google Fiber was activated in my area, Comcast stepped up their game big time. The only problem is that they had spent years nickel and diming me for actual connection speeds that didn't even come close to their advertised rates, and their latency/jitter is garbage compared to fiber. Comcast clearly doesn't want to have to compete. In their defense, their connection was rarely down.
some-guy · 5h ago
When I lived in downtown Oakland CA, Comcast literally could not keep up price-wise with the competition. Their customer service jaw would drop when I told them our local fiber offered a flat fee cheaper than theirs for 10 gigabit symmetrical fiber. On top of that there was another local microwave wireless option that wasn't too terrible.
The only thing in the end their salespeople could do was offer TV bundles but still wasn't cost-competitive. Not sure what their offerings are now but it was such an easy decision to switch.
PantaloonFlames · 4h ago
> is notorious for exploiting places that don't have any other real options.
Isn’t this standard competitive practice ? Charge what the market will bear.
I don’t know if I’d call that “exploitation”. If there’s one gas station 90 miles from every other gas station in the Nevada desert, they’re gonna charge more, aren’t they?
xedrac · 4h ago
Yes, it certainly is. But isn't it interesting that Comcast is almost universally hated? I used the word "exploit" simply because had they treated their customers better and focused on putting their best foot forward, I don't think they would have bled customers nearly as quickly.
Feature-wise it doesn't matter because you're still going to have to play the price haggling game. Other providers don't renegotiate every 6 months like they do. They have more in common with Waste Management than with a respectable ISP.
newZWhoDis · 1h ago
It was there 6 months ago, because when I moved and had to switch to comcast in 2021 I found out about the cap after ~5TB/mo
baby_souffle · 1h ago
I vaguely remember reading something about their consolidating plans and simplifying pricing slightly. Part of that was eliminating the data cap.
This article couldn't have passed through my inbox more than 6 weeks or so ago so it is a very recent change.
WarOnPrivacy · 6h ago
"Everything that we're doing is all underground."
This indicates that their local and state governments aren't (at this time) captured by the incumbent cable provider.
A captured state gov will pass laws to thwart new infra deployment, commonly written by ISP interests. A captured local gov will never approve deployment or slow-walk permitting in an attempt to bankrupt the upstart.
more explainers: New suburban fiber infrastructure means either trenching or pole hanging. The local gov issues permits for both but poles also require the cooperation of the pole owners. This last adds the PSC to the mix.
Recalcitrant pole owners are known to stall and kill infrastructure deployment - especially where going underground isn't an option. Some PSCs mandate that pole owners cooperate. Some PSCs abdicate that responsibility and are examples of regulatory capture.
rayiner · 4h ago
I’ve been hearing about “captured government” with respect to fiber deployment for two decades now and the folks on that soap box have made absolutely zero progress on improving deployment of fiber infrastructure in that time. Tilting at that windmill isn’t working, because for the most part that’s not the real problem.
Why isn’t the Bay Area a hot bed of fiber deployment? You think Comcast in Philly has more pull with Cupertino and Mountain View than Google and Apple? No! Internet in the Bay Area is shit for the same reason all the infrastructure in the Bay Area is shit. The government makes it slow and difficult to build anything.
Comcast installed fiber to my house back in 2018 or so. The permitting took months. And this was to run Comcast fiber on poles where Comcast already had their own cable lines. And my county is actually pretty efficient with permitting. It’s just that American municipalities absolutely hate it when anyone builds anything.
wmf · 3h ago
I guess Comcast doesn't need to capture the local government in places where it's already illegal to build anything. But in other places it has definitely happened.
rayiner · 2h ago
In most places, permitting is the most direct and immediate roadblock. If you don't start there, you won't make any progress on the issue.
I live in a blue state that actively encourages municipal and cooperative fiber deployment: https://mdbc.us. It's had approximately zero impact outside some rural parts of the state.
frollogaston · 2h ago
Maybe it's good enough that not very many people care. I moved around San Jose, Mountain View, Berkeley, and Sunnyvale, never noticed problems with Comcast or AT&T. Was expecting flakiness after hearing all these bad stories, but no, it was reliable.
What you don't get often is fiber-to-home, or great upload speeds. But most people aren't running big home servers.
xmprt · 3h ago
If you think internet in the bay area is shit then you haven't seen how bad it can get. Even other large cities within California like LA and SD are worse.
frollogaston · 2h ago
Having lived in all three mentioned areas, none seemed particularly bad unless your standard is fiber straight to home. And seemed like Bay Area had more of that if anything.
baby_souffle · 29m ago
I am absolutely not defending Comcast here but its worth pointing out that every anecdotal bit of evidence about performance and reliability can be true.
Network performance in that last mile can differ by block and even by season. An otherwise functional run of coax might have intermittent ingress but only shortly after it's rained while cold out.
This isn't even counting all of the flaky performance anecdotes that really boil down to overcrowded Wi-Fi or poorly configured consumer gear or anything else that isn't strictly the fault or problem of Comcast.
frollogaston · 6m ago
In college, we had the combination of spotty wifi + 10 dudes concurrently torrenting Shrek 2 + someone's jank Android tablet running a rogue DHCP server + rats chewing through cables, yet every time the internet went down, they called Comcast. And it was never actually Comcast's fault.
itslennysfault · 2h ago
This was even a major hurdle for Google Fiber. The incumbent ISPs did everything they could to obstruct them from installing fiber, and it was fairly effective even against someone with deep pockets like Google.
bongodongobob · 6h ago
Looks like they're somewhat rural which probably makes it way easier. I was a project manager for a Telco years ago and the process to get fiber run in an established city is crazy. Had no idea how much was going on under the roads until I had to plan out conduit boring projects.
mschuster91 · 5h ago
It's not that easy. Poles vs trenches are a tradeoff discussion. FWIW I was once in construction digging trenches and I'm German, so I might be biased a bit.
Pro poles / open air:
- very, VERY cheap and fast to build out with GPON. That's how you got 1/1 GBit fiber in some piss poor village in the rural ditches of Romania.
- easy to get access when you need to do maintenance
Con poles / open air:
- it looks fucking ugly. Many a nice photo from Romania got some sort of half assed fiber cable on it.
- it's easy for drunk drivers, vandals (for the Americans: idiots shooting birds that rest on aboveground lines [1][2]), sabotage agents or moronic cable thieves to access and damage infrastructure
Pro trench digging:
- it's incredibly resilient. To take out electricity and power, you need a natural disaster at the scale of the infamous Ahrtal floods that ripped through bridges carrying cables and outright submerged and thus ruined district distribution networking rooms, but even the heaviest hailstorm doesn't give a fuck about cable that's buried. Drunk drivers are no concern, and so are cable thieves or terrorists.
- it looks way better, especially when local governments go and re-surface the roads afterwards
Cons trench digging:
- it's expensive, machinery and qualified staff are rare
- you usually need lots more bureaucracy with permits, traffic planning or what not else that's needed to dig a trench
- when something does happen below ground, it can be ... challenging to access the fault.
- in urban or even moderately settled areas, space below ground can be absurdly congested with existing infrastructure that necessitates a lot of manual excavation instead of machinery. Gas, water, sewers, long decommissioned pipe postal service lines, subways, low voltage power, high voltage power, other fiber providers, cable TV...
There's a huge downside to poles where I'm based: permit shenanigans by pole owners that delay projects and allow incumbents to destroy competitors. Granted, some municipalities do the same thing. One local municipality I have to deal with responds to permit requests almost instantly, while another takes weeks of pestering to acknowledge even the most basic of permit requests.
For anyone starting out today, I would strongly recommend having a planned legal / regulatory strategy to fall back on in the event that excessive delays occur by parties you cannot avoid dealing with.
mook · 3h ago
More importantly, if they go on poles Comcast can "accidentally" cut their lines all the time.
mschuster91 · 4h ago
Meh, here in Germany you got the same issue with trenches. It takes ages to coordinate digging them, I think the worst example simmered for two years until the permits arrived. And then, it's a nightmare because you can't just cut off people's courtyards and parking spots for any time longer than absolutely required, so as soon as you're at depth you gotta cover the trench with steel plates so cars and pedestrians can cross...
universa1 · 2h ago
The fiber installing crews around here go street by street and usually do one street section per day/or two.
fsckboy · 4h ago
>Poles vs trenches are a tradeoff discussion. FWIW I was once in construction digging trenches and I'm German, so I might be biased a bit.
when i got this far I literally thought you were making a joke about Poland.
tguvot · 1h ago
those days it's not trench digging (unless it's next to highway with machine that in one pass will trench and lay conduit/cable), it's trench drilling with something like this https://www.ditchwitch.com/directional-drills/
frontier installed fiber in my area using this method. relatively quick and no damage that needs to be "aggressively" paved over.
yalok · 7h ago
Still waiting for someone to do the same in Bay Area. Many parts of it don’t have any fiber optics options, even though Sonic does provide some in the north.
AT&T put an optic cable at my curb 10 years ago (most likely due to imminent competition from Google Fiber internet), but then never lit it (most likely because Google dropped their effort due to complications with cities)…
dilyevsky · 4h ago
Sonic is doing this in sfba. Used to be att reseller now they lay their own fiber, 50% cheaper plans, byo router, ipv6 that actually works, great service.
PantaloonFlames · 4h ago
Pardon my ignorance but what is the benefit to ipv6 for local, consumer internet?
dilyevsky · 4h ago
For regular folks there isn't much benefit tbh. Mainly I think it simplifies ISP architecture and offers slightly faster (like 10%) performance but ISPs have to support IPv4 stack for foreseeable future anyway so kinda moot point. If you game a lot p2p (i don't) you should, in theory, see lower lag.
For me personally, I work on networking startup so I'd like to be able to run IPv6 stack from my home network to test things.
frollogaston · 2h ago
Most video games don't work with ipv6 at all, which is ironic since in theory they're the exact use case for it
simoncion · 2h ago
If you don't currently have IPv6 service, have you looked into something like Hurricane Electric's IPv6 tunnel broker? [0] It's how I got my first IPv6 subnet, and worked really well for me. I stopped using it when Comcast finally got around to providing IPv6 for non-business accounts.
The big customer-visible feature is that every machine on their LAN can be globally reachable. For ISPs that absolutely cannot get enough IPv4 space to give their customers even a single globally-reachable IPv4 address, this would be the only way to get any global IP space. IME, edge routers that are intended for networking noobs to use often set up their firewalls so that they block inbound unsolicited IPv6 traffic, but (unlike with IPv4 NAT) there's the option of opening up multiple hosts to some or all inbound traffic.
Another feature that I find to be pretty stupid (but that some folks seem to really like) are IPv6 "privacy" addresses. Because each host usually is assigned an IPv6 address in a subnet that's 64 bits wide, most mainstream OS's have configured their IPv6 address autoconfigurator to set one stable, "permanent" address, and to set a parade of periodically changing "temporary" addresses. The OS is usually configured to prefer the permanent address when software asks for a socket to listen on (and sockets that handle replies to that listen socket), and those temporary addresses are preferred for sockets that initiate outbound traffic. The idea is that this is supposed to confuse tracking, but I'm very skeptical of its efficacy in the real world.
Finally, a customer can also usually get enough IP space to make globally-reachable subnets on their LAN. Depending how the ISP has configured things, a customer can get between four and 256 subnets. These subnets are handy to provide networks that provide globally-reachable IP addresses, but that can be easily logically isolated from the rest of the LAN by the router.
frollogaston · 2h ago
Pretty much negative, I always disable it
llsf · 3h ago
Unfortunately Sonic does not cover the whole bay, and certainly not all SF. I am still waiting for Sonic to cover the heart of the City (Eureka Valley).
Cerium · 6h ago
Downtown San Jose is nice - I have fibers from both AT&T and Sonic. I switched from AT&T to Sonic a couple years ago and have been impressed. I pay half what I did, get 10x the speed, and customer service is much better.
mosdl · 6h ago
Downtown SJ has sail internet as well, great local isp!
mayli · 3h ago
I am on it, still a little bit pricer than Comcast, but worth every penny.
Cerium · 5h ago
Thanks for saying so - I got a flyer and didn't realize they are local.
rayiner · 4h ago
I have two lit fiber cables to my house in exurban maryland and I find it hilarious that many places in the Bay Area have zero.
I have been a customer for 14 years now. Would love to move to higher bandwidth.
manquer · 4h ago
It could just be mundane technical debt or just organizational bureaucracy .
I recently moved into Menlo Park and had no problems getting 2.5Gbps from ATT fiber.
bob1029 · 5h ago
I am in a rural area of Texas and I just recently got access to fiber. The other competition is ADSL and DOCSIS providers - AT&T and Optimum.
Optimum had their entire service area bought out by Comcast the day after I switched. Comcast has since broken every major utility at least twice and my fiber connection three times by working on the old infrastructure. I think Optimum won that trade. I can't imagine many residents are going to prefer Comcast over $80/m for no-bullshit internet, especially after the water main break they caused last week.
These FTTP providers have the game solved in Texas. I've seen them do 500-1000 homes in <30 days. Their directional drilling expertise and aggressive neglect for 811 seem to get things done very quickly. There are some areas with competing fiber providers now. I've got 5gbps symmetric for $110/m and I live in the woods. Trees go through power lines and the fiber infra is completely unaffected. The only utility left to bury is the electricity, and they're actively working on that in some areas now.
kube-system · 7h ago
I've seen a few articles about folks who started an ISP and they always talk about the physical infrastructure. But in today's world where ISP ads are touting the speeds of their wifi, it really makes me wonder what the support burden ends up being like. What's the breakdown for actual ISP issues vs issues with customer equipment?
jeroenhd · 6h ago
My experience from almost a decade ago, mostly in DSL land, is that most customer calls were "my WiFi doesn't reach through the solid steel wall the router is hung against" and "how do I set up my email" and maybe "I lost the password to my WiFi again". WiFi issues were especially bad when 802.11n got finalised but there were tons of "draft n" WiFi devices out there that almost followed the WiFi spec. I still shudder when I see Atheros listed in device manager.
There were things that made the ISP I worked at special, one of them being that we pretty much defaulted to having customers hook up their own DSL, which meant spending a lot of call time helping people who have no idea what an RJ11 jack is install plugs and adapters.
I've also spent a lot of time on "the password I use for my email doesn't work on my Facebook" and "my USB printer doesn't work". People don't know who to call for tech support so they try their ISP. There was also the occasional "the internet is broken" whenever the user's home page had a different theme or design as well, those usually came in waves.
Once the modem and/or router is installed, most internet services Just Work. There are outages and bad modems and the occasional bad software update to deal with, but they're a relatively low call volume compared to what customers call about.
ecshafer · 7h ago
This is 10 years out, but I used to work on an IT help desk, that was the outsourced 24/7 helpdesk / hosting for a collection of small local/regional isps (<5000 customer rural dsl companies, local municipalities, apartments, etc) My ballpark estimate from that over 3 years working there is probably 75%+ are Not equipment related. Setting up email was a big one, people accidentally hitting the input/source button on their remote and losing their STB input setting, People needing to reboot their router, flushing DNS settings / winsock reset. These might have been the majority of cases.
no_wizard · 4h ago
other than flushing DNS / winsock resets, I don't understand how the rest of those are blockers.
I think my conception of basic tech illiteracy among the general public is vastly wrong. I generally like to believe most people are competent enough to handle these sorts of things.
kube-system · 4h ago
Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Even if 99.9% of Comcast customers are pretty good with technology, and only 1 in 1000 customers are illiterate enough that they have trouble selecting the correct input on their TV... with 32 million customers, that means you might get tens of thousands of calls about it.
But really, internet (and digital TV) services are pervasive enough that they are no longer just for technologically inclined and resourceful people. All aspects of society are now using the internet, even the homeless, impoverished, disabled, and institutionalized.
teeray · 6h ago
ISPs are weird: You don’t call the water department if your sink is backed up—you call a plumber. You also don’t call the electric company when you want to wire your finished basement—you hire an electrician. ISPs somehow became responsible for absolutely every aspect of consuming their service though. Why isn’t “home internet plumber” a thing?
dmonitor · 5h ago
Most people don't have the equivalent of home internet plumbing in general. They have a hole drilled into the wall (by the ISP) where the all-in-one modem-router-switch-wap sits on a shelf. There's probably a third party service to get ethernet run through your walls, and maybe even replace your all-in-one box with something good, but most people are just doing the equivalent of getting water straight out of the water company's tap with no plumbing.
MostlyStable · 5h ago
This, and also, it's much more common for internet problems to be caused by upstream issues not in the house (partly because of the situation you describe....not much to go wrong on the users end). It's very rare that a plumbing problem is because the main water line lost pressure.
Back when I still had ISPs that provided the modem + router, every single issue I think I ever had fell into one of two categories: a modem and/or router power cycle fixed it, or it was a broader network issue that had nothing to do with me or my particular internet situation (this is omitting the most common third issue: terrible customer service problems, but that's a separate thing)
pintxo · 5h ago
Nice analogy!
icedchai · 5h ago
After fixing internet for some neighbors and older relatives, I've wondered if people would pay for a home network / internet handyman service. It's super frustrating, especially for older folks. They often confuse their email passwords, ISP passwords, wifi setup, etc. Also I could save them a bunch of money getting rid of services they don't use, like moving their landlines to VOIP.
dlgeek · 21m ago
> After fixing internet for some neighbors and older relatives, I've wondered if people would pay for a home network / internet handyman service.
That's what I did for pocket as a kid in high school (in the mid-2000s).
freedomben · 4h ago
I had the same thought, and even took on a few "customers" (local folks I didn't charge, but used as a test group). If I decide to do it "for real" I will definitely need to build a relationship with a person who can run ethernet cables through walls for people. I can do that, but the time it would take would not make it worth it for me.
rahimnathwani · 4h ago
Also I could save them a bunch of money getting rid of services they don't use, like moving their landlines to VOIP.
If you want a landline to call emergency services, I'd expect a real landline will have higher uptime than one that depends on your router.
icedchai · 1h ago
This is true, but it's not just that. How many useless cable TV packages are people paying for, on top of Netflix, Hulu, and tons of other streaming services?
kube-system · 3h ago
VoIP doesn't necessarily require your router to be up.
For example, if you subscribe to Verizon FiOS voice, the technician will disconnect your copper phone lines and connect them to VoIP termination on your ONT.
Polizeiposaune · 3h ago
There are times when you're better off calling the local sewer department first.
In San Jose, if you see evidence that your house's main drain has backed up and you have a cleanout within 5' of the sidewalk, you're better off calling the city first before calling a plumber -- the sewer department will snake the "lateral" pipe between the cleanout and the main sewer line under the street for free.
The one time we used this the response time was very quick (in line with the 30 minute response time they cite on their website).
akerl_ · 3h ago
I don’t understand what you mean. If you want Ethernet run through your house, or coax in more places, or access points mounted, you don’t call your ISP.
You call an electrician or a handyman or somebody and tell them you have some low voltage work.
The ISP provides a cable box and modem to most homes in the same way that the electric company sticks a meter on your wall.
kube-system · 3h ago
> If you want Ethernet run through your house, or coax in more places, or access points mounted, you don’t call your ISP.
In the US, most do. This is a standard part of "in home installation" when first subscribing to service for all of the major providers in the US.
Having worked with the public before, I have no doubt that a lot of people likely do contact utility companies for issues inside their home. Some of them even do have repair programs with outside contractors. People often simply call whoever they have an existing business relationship with for issues related to that product/service. It may be ignorant but it isn't illogical.
Also, as the other commenter pointed out, ISPs don't terminate their service at the edge of your premises. Basically all of them today will connect one of your devices to confirm installation.
tptacek · 4h ago
For the same reason you called the phone company when your phone went out, not a phone plumber.
adambatkin · 50m ago
My electricity and water is much more reliable than my Internet service. Then again, I've never called my ISP about an issue that wasn't 100% on them, but the HN crowd is more exceptional in that sense than most people.
bcrl · 4h ago
Fibre is orders of magnitude better than DSL or cable as entire classes of problems are eliminated. Water shorting out copper pairs? Not a problem unless the water gets inside a splice and freezes causing significant bends that lower signal levels. Water getting into a cable is generally not an issue as most cables are either gell filled or have water blocking tapes. Lightning strikes are generally a non-issue since the cable isn't going to conduct a damaging charge into the ONU/ONT.
With careful selection of the customer ONU/ONT, the incidence of support calls means that it can be weeks between customer issues on smaller networks. These days my biggest support headache is in house wireless coverage. It's also the one part of internet service that most people are unwilling to invest even small amounts of money to improve. The worst are the folks that install outdoor wireless security cameras without thinking ahead to putting them on a dedicated network to avoid driving up airtime usage and congesting the main wireless AP.
boredtofears · 6h ago
Which is why comcast goes to such great lengths to ensure they own as much of your network stack as they can - in my area at least, their support is capable of fully managing your router and WiFi remotely if you're leasing their equipment. I imagine this is a great boon for their ability to provide tech support (and includes a host of other "features" that don't serve direct customer needs such as a non-optional guest WiFi access point that any other comcast user can use).
This leads to fun tech support calls if you use your own equipment where you're basically proving to the support underling that you know how to run your equipment for the first 20-30 minutes before they take your issue seriously (yes, the modem light is green, yes, I've already power-cycled, yes, I'm testing on a wired connection, etc)
teeray · 6h ago
> proving to the support underling that you know how to run your equipment for the first 20-30 minutes
I usually speedrun this by telling them something like: I am hardwired to the modem and seeing T4s in the log.
kube-system · 5h ago
> Great. Glad to hear you are connected via hard wire Mr. teeray.
> Please wait a moment while I check on some things on your account.
> Thank you for your patience. Can you please confirm for me that you see a green light on the top of the device? Can you tell me whether the light is blinking or is solid?
Last I checked (years ago) it turned itself back on any time the router was power cycled.
FireBeyond · 6h ago
I know for a while (I switched back to consumer a few years ago) Comcast Business let you persistently opt out, but if you opted out, you couldn't use other people's APs (either "share and get access to that network" or "don't share, and don't").
Back when Comcast made it absolutely mandatory to have a technician come to the house to do the install, I just chatted with the tech about computer networking and our respective home setups. This usually got me the phone number for the local tech support office along with a "Call this if the service is giving you any real issues.".
mindslight · 6h ago
> This leads to fun tech support calls if you use your own equipment where you're basically proving to the support underling that you know how to run your equipment for the first 20-30 minutes
For analyzing support burden, I think the relevant question here is why have you even had the experience of calling tech support for a non-working connection - and that falls squarely on the non-reliability of Comcast's network.
bobmcnamara · 6h ago
Comcast killed my Internet during an interview video call.
Called them to ask why, and they said it was a planned outage. When was it planned, I asked? 17 minutes ago.
mindslight · 3h ago
Exactly. That's the kind of logic that only makes sense in a metastasized corpo. The only times my non-incumbent fiber connection has gone down in 8 years have been overnight maintenance windows that only happen maybe a few times per year.
mindslight · 6h ago
I'd imagine it's a lot less than "Okay, let's start by going into your dialer settings..."
With fiber, the ISP can see that everything is good up to the GPON terminal. Probably the router too as most customers will just use the ISP provided one. So that leaves the ethernet interface / wifi card as the only thing that would fail and have to be ascertained over the phone, and with a local ISP its probably more cost effective to cut out all the abstractions and just have a tech stop by to check it out.
On the other side, customers have become a lot more used to self help. For example their email isn't even hosted with the ISP any more! I would think that most people would be aware that if a device works good close to the router, and not good far, the issue is wifi range. If they're still calling the ISP, you can direct them towards wifi extenders. Or if device A does not work but device B does, it's not a problem to call the ISP about. And so on.
Of course this is my idyllic view not having worked ISP tech support in a few decades...
teddyh · 7h ago
I am always baffled by these things. Say there’s a huge company with a monopoly in your area. My first thought is “How did they get that monopoly? What happened to all the other people who must surely have had the idea to compete with them?” But no, these stories are always treating “Hey, let’s start a competing company!” like some revolutionary idea that nobody has thought of before, and that success is assured.
wmf · 3h ago
Telephone and cable TV companies were explicitly envisioned as regulated monopolies in most places. Then it was cheaper for them to provide Internet over their existing lines than for a new company to come in.
Neywiny · 6h ago
I didn't think I've ever seen mention of a buyout in these articles. That could be something. Franchised ISP. Maybe Comcast is incapable of servicing an area effectively, so they could say something like "we'll give you x gbps of guaranteed throughout at the datacenter (or however it works) to our main line and teach you how to setup, you cover installation and maintenance". Just because it seems like it would've been easier for these guys to do only the installation and routine maintenance. But idk I guess they don't want to because they make their money anyway
bell-cot · 6h ago
> What happened to all the other...
There's a huge gap between "had the idea" and "had all the technical skills, the $millions in capital, and the managerial ability to actually build it". Then there's the barrier of "and succeed". If you read between the article's lines a bit - these guys had loads of the first 3, yet they're still losing loads of money every month.
But, bigger picture, you have a good point. These articles are obviously cherry-picked stories, with an extremely optimistic "... and the little guy wins!" spin. Ars is writing for an audience of techies who are frustrated with crappy ISP's.
immibis · 3h ago
The capital for an ISP is surprisingly low. The main problem is getting a physical connection to your customer's house. And that's such an obvious legal minefield that no networking nerd wants to do it.
bell-cot · 2h ago
The capital can be low. Vs. the article notes that these two guys have 75 miles of fiber installed (to 1,500 potential-customer homes) and 15 local employees. Vs. currently monthly revenues of about $10K.
Yeah, obviously these guy's long prior experience - pulling fiber for other ISP's - was another critical cornerstone of their ability to go from idea to build-out.
immibis · 3h ago
In the specific case of ISPs I think it's always because you won't make enough money to justify it as a big company, yet the task is too big and complicated to do it as an individual nerd.
The worst part appears to be the physical wiring. If your government has implemented loop unbundling, you're already set (probably need to do some bureaucracy and pay some affordable-at-a-stretch fees to get access to it). Otherwise, or if the loops are just crap, you have to figure out how to physically get a cable to everywhere, a task that is fundamentally laborious and legally fraught, not nerdy at all (unless lawyers are nerds) so nobody wants to do it.
Wireless ISPs are about as popular because of this. Wireless service is always worse, but you only have to install plant (physical infrastructure) at the customer's house and one central location, not all the places leading up to the customer's house. This makes it a whole lot more amenable to individual-nerd or handful-of-nerds setup.
I encourage everyone to at least think about how they would do it.
simoncion · 2h ago
> ...you only have to install plant (physical infrastructure) at the customer's house and one central location, not all the places leading up to the customer's house.
In a rural environment, yeah, sure. Based on what I'm seeing in San Francisco, in an urban environment, you're going to be negotiating for roof space for many transceivers on many separate roofs. (I do absolutely agree that even that annoying tasks is certainly way less work than dealing with a local or state government that wants it to be impossible to run fiber through or along streets and sidewalks.)
tptacek · 4h ago
For anyone who doesn't know the area, Saline is adjacent to Ann Arbor, and along with Ypsilanti makes up a sort of greater Ann Arbor/UMich co-prosperity sphere. Saline is the kind of place you expect people to stand up a private fiber ISP; a place with an outer-ring suburb vibe, but far from any major metro, with lots of nerds.
monster_truck · 6h ago
If you ever have the chance to support a local ISP like this, do it! You can get some pretty sweet deals, the last time I had the opportunity to do this they threw in a /28 for "free" (agreed to two year terms)
simoncion · 2h ago
When was the last time you had the opportunity to do this? 1998? I believe that what you're telling me is true, (and yeah, small ISPs are often really great to be customers of because of stuff like that) but -given the state of IPv4 allocations- I find it difficult to believe that it happened within the past ten, twenty years.
coolgoose · 2h ago
But kudos to them, that's the only way to break monopolies.
Although I do wonder how much they bet on people not using all that bandwidth based on their promises.
bradleyy · 2h ago
From everything I've ever read and my (admittedly old) ISP experience, people really don't use all the bandwidth. Yes, occasionally there are exceptions.
beeb · 5h ago
Wow the US really has it bad when it comes to home internet. In many European countries, you can get symmetric Gbit internet for 30-40 EUR (probably less in some places), and I haven't seen a data cap in forever.
sleepydog · 5h ago
The EU is better on average, but isn't universally great either. I pay 60 EUR for 200Mbit down/20Mbit up ADSL in Amsterdam, after my 6-month discount ran out. No fiber in my neighborhood yet. There's one gigabit provider in my neighborhood (Ziggo) and they have a bad reputation. For the same price I was getting FiOS gigabit in NYC.
jkl12 · 2h ago
Would it make you jealous if I tell you, that I get 10 Gbit symmetric fiber here in Switzerland (greater Zurich area) for roughly 80 USD/month with no data cap? And I can use my own router and could even go up to 25 Gbit if I want ;-)
Oh, and did I mention no CGNAT and it comes with a static /48 IPv6 net?
HnUser12 · 5h ago
Depends on where in the US. Most populated places have inexpensive internet. Smaller towns have these issues because there's not much competition.
danieldk · 5h ago
Here symmetric 4Gbit without a data cap (NL). Best of all, you can bring your own equipment. I have my Ubiquiti Gateway Max hooked up to fiber with a media converter (yes, the Gateway Max does PPPoE etc.).
My parents live in a small, countryside village. They have fiber at the same prices (including 4Gbit symmetric, though they are happy with a cheap 200Mbit subscription).
gs17 · 5h ago
It's getting better here. Google Fiber is expanding to a lot of cities and their symmetric Gbit with no data cap is the equivalent of 60 EUR ($70).
radley · 5h ago
Bay Area has sonic.net with unlimited 10Gb down & 1Gb up for only $40.
rconti · 2h ago
I don't think sonic has asymmetric internet anywhere.
It used to be symmetric gig, now they're deploying symmetric 10gig.
And the price is $49, although they just announced an increase to $59.
amethyst · 4h ago
*parts of the Bay Area. I'd say the majority of areas are still monopolized by Comcast, including my neighborhood of course.
simoncion · 2h ago
If you haven't already, check to see if either Google Fiber or Monkeybrains is available in your area. Last I checked, the regs are still in place that prevent landlords from denying you access to an ISP of your choice.
amethyst · 34m ago
Google Fiber isn't rolled out to most of the bay area. Monkeybrains is wireless with speeds significantly slower than what Comcast offers me. I've checked just about every wired ISP possible, and Comcast is the only option that services my neighborhood.
And FWIW, I own my house in the east bay — I am the landlady ;)
slater · 2h ago
Seconding monkeybrains - they can usually get to houses that the other ISPs can't/won't service, and speed is pretty spiffy
ipython · 7h ago
So glad to see a renewed emphasis on proper wired infrastructure. It seems the "big boys" (Verizon, T-Mobile, etc) are heavily pushing wireless and not building out new wired areas, I assume because it's less capital intensive.
Hell if there's a way to invest in Prime-One, these guys seem to have their stuff together...
LoganDark · 6h ago
> It seems the "big boys" (Verizon, T-Mobile, etc) are heavily pushing wireless and not building out new wired areas
Those are all telecom providers. It makes sense that they'd love wireless because they already have cellular infrastructure.
sometimes_all · 5h ago
I understand the need for independent fiber ISPs. But are gigabit speeds really necessary? For me, a 300 Mbps connection is way more than enough for a four-person family.
godelski · 4h ago
Depends on what you're doing, right?
Let's take video streaming. I have a pretty compressed version of Arrival that's at 2GB and is a 4k movie ~2hrs long (the original file was ~2x the size). To stream that we need to do 2000Mb / (3600s * 2) = 277.8Mb/s. This also doesn't account for any buffering. This is one of my smaller 4k videos and more typical is going to be 3Gb-5Gb (e.g. Oppenheimer vs Children of Men). Arrival is pretty dark and a slow movie so great for compression.
Now, there's probably some trickery going on that can get better savings and you'll see used with things like degrading the quality. You could probably drop this down to 1.5Gb and have no major visual hits or you can do a variable streaming and drop this even more. On many screens you might not notice a huge difference between 1440 and 4k, and depending on the video, maybe even 1080p and 4k[0].
For comparison, I loaded up a 4k YouTube video (which uses vp9 encoding) and monitored the bandwidth. It is very spiky, but frequently jumped between 150kbps and 200Mbps. You could probably do 2 people on this. I think it'd get bogged down with 4 people. And remember, this is all highly variable. Games, downloads, and many other things can greatly impact all this. It also highly depends on the stability of your network connection. You're paying for *UP TO* 300Mbps, not a fixed rate of 300Mbps. Most people want a bit of headroom.
[0] Any person will 100% be able to differentiate 1080p and 4k when head to head, but in the wild? We're just too used to spotty connections and variable resolutions. It also depends on the screen you're viewing from, most importantly the screen size (e.g. phone).
Sohcahtoa82 · 2h ago
> I have a pretty compressed version of Arrival that's at 2GB and is a 4k movie ~2hrs long (the original file was ~2x the size). To stream that we need to do 2000Mb / (3600s * 2) = 277.8Mb/s.
Your math is WAY off.
2 gigabytes / 2 hours is only about 2.22 megabits/sec.
vel0city · 3h ago
Blu-rays don't do anywhere near 277Mb/s.
First, if it was 2GB * 2 for the source of your recompressed copy, that's 4GB * 8 bits per byte = 32 Gigabits (Gb), or 32,000Mb. Two hours in seconds is 60 * 60 * 2 = 7,200 seconds.
32,000 / 7,200 is 4.444Mb/s. Streaming your 2 hour long 4GB movie could be done with ~5Mbit. A 1Gb/s connection could handle streaming ~200 of these movies.
Going back to Blu-rays as a source, an Ultra HD Blu-ray maxes out at 144Mbit but in reality most movies are encoded at a much lower bitrate. Most movies will cap out around 40-50Mbit. You could do 20 of these straight Blu-ray movies on a 1Gb connection.
That's a bit more than I have (Starlink), but anytime a kid is downloading a big Steam game or big ISO file or something, everything else slows to a crawl. I also occassionally rsync large directories to/from cloud storage and that can also saturate. I've tried setting rules/priorities but it's a constant game of whack-a-mole
godelski · 4h ago
> I also occasionally rsync large directories to/from cloud storage and that can also saturate
Just offering some advice if you aren't aware. If you are, freely ignore. (And if you have advice in return I'd love to hear!)
For convenience, the rclone tool is nice for most cloud storage like google and stuff that make rsync annoying[0]
rsync also offers compression[1], and you might want to balance it depending if you want to be CPU bound or IO bound. You can pick the compression and level, with more options than just the `-z` flag. You can also increase speed by not doing the checksum, or by running without checksum and then running again later with. Or some intervaling like daily backups without and monthly you do checksums.
If you tar your files up first I have a function that is essentially `tar cf - "${@:2}" | xz -9 --threads $NTHREADS --verbose > "${1}"` which uses the maximum `xz` compression level. I like to heavily compress things upstream because it also makes downloads faster and decompression is much easier than compression. I usually prefer being compute bound.
Also, a systemd job is always nice and offers more flexibility than cron. It's what's helped me most with the wack-a-mole game. I like to do on calendar events (e.g. Daily, Weekly) and add a random delay. It's also nice that if the event was missed because the machine was off it'll run the job once the machine is back on (I usually make it wait at least 15 minutes after machine comes online).
Thank you! I do love rclone a great deal, and need to start using it more. I mostly use rsync right now because I've got some Contabo storage instances and ssh is already set up, so it's nice and easy, and I've already got the rsync commands burned into memory from decades of use :-) I also typically rsync with the same command to an external hard drive for an on-site backup.
Great tips! I'll definitely be using your tar command
godelski · 2h ago
Oh, that reminds me. When I had an Android (I already regret my iPhone) I used termux to write a very basic script to rsync data to machines and do so based on if connected to WiFi (with whitelisted SSIDs). Pretty easy to write and then schedule a cron job. Can be nice to put that onto other peoples devices and give them automated backups. Makes it FAR easier to do the 321 backup strategy. Also pretty easy to build a tracking app for a lost phone that way (like if haven't connected to home WiFi in x days send you an email). Both work really well when also using tailscale.
BlimpSpike · 5h ago
The article says they're a 10 person family.
simoncion · 2h ago
> But are gigabit speeds really necessary? For me, a 300 Mbps connection is way more than enough for a four-person family.
I'm certain that one could make a sound argument that 300 Mbps is not necessary for that four-person family, and they could make do with a much slower connection. Back in the day, folks would be asking if it's necessary for your Internet connection to be always on. After all, it's no hassle at all to plug the modem into the house phone line and unplug it when you're done!
For me, switching from a 1400/40mbps cable connection to a symmetric-but-variable 300-1000mbps Ethernet connection meant that I was doing the same sorts of things, but often spending much less time waiting for them to complete. Related to that, it also made "content creation"-esque things [0] much, much easier.
[0] Which I'm declaring is a category that includes uploading and downloading huge files while working from home as a programmer/"DevOps" guy.
immibis · 3h ago
Gigabit is the slowest reasonable fiber speed. Even 10-gigabit is now very cheap to the point that some gigabit equipment is just 10-gigabit equipment operating at a low speed. They could artificially throttle you to even less, if it made business sense.
It's not a committed rate. Your individual line is a gigabit, but the upstream from your whole block is 10 gigabit so you can't all use it at once. Your guaranteed rate is probably have more like 20-50 Mbps, if that's what's confusing you. But it's extremely rare that everyone tries to use their gigabit all at once.
If it's a Passive Optical Network, you might be sharing a gigabit download with your block - you all share the same fiber - and you get substantially less than a gigabit upload due to the need for timeslotting. Gigabit PON is obsolete though, now you'd get at least 10G PON.
RyanOD · 7h ago
Congrats! I grew up just down the road from Saline. Exciting to see this happening on my old stomping grounds. Best of luck.
guenthert · 4h ago
Ha ha, I misread it as "Two guys hated using CompuServe, so they built their own ISP". Wrong millennia ...
Rooster61 · 7h ago
I once lived in a town with local high speed (although it was cable, not fiber). It really does make a world of difference in terms of what you pay and what kind of support you get.
It's disgusting that big telecom has been able to monopolize so much of the US for so long.
throw0101b · 7h ago
A presentation from 2020 NLNOG by Jared Mauch who did something similar in Michigan community:
Getting the rights to lay the fiber seems like the most difficult part, and they don't go into much detail. Which HN user knows something about this?
xyst · 6h ago
This is why national ISPs like Comcast have fought/lobbied tooth and nail to prevent municipal based ISPs from being created in various states (ie, Texas). Next logical step is starting a small ISP like these people have but they have the advantage of learning the skills and process (permitting with municipality) of doing this for other ISPs. There's also the capital aspect of this, which they apparently have.
> Comcast seems to have noticed, Herman said. "They've been calling our clients nonstop to try to come back to their service, offer them discounted rates for a five-year contract and so on," he said.
go figure. their monopoly/duopoly has ended, profits dropping like a rock in area, and now they want to compete.
Only billionaires and people fooled by Peter Thiel think competition is evil.
spandrew · 2h ago
I have to admit, everytime I hear the "Two guys hated x, so they built their own!" I see the XCKD cartoon https://xkcd.com/927/
It's not a fair comparison; competition can drive price down, but I pessimistically just see two guys who'll inevitably join the Comcast billionaires club. That's just where these "small guys" end up.
latchkey · 5h ago
I wish these guys the best, but I've shifted more and more to Starlink. As long as their is a clear view of the sky, it works exceptionally well and is more than enough bandwidth. Plus, I can easily take it with me anywhere I go, which includes my campervan. This is great for when you're out in the middle of nowhere, with no reception, and you need access to maps.
I wish it was a bit cheaper, but someone has to fund that trip to Mars.
seany · 5h ago
I've really been looking at some of the new mobile options for when I take the family camping but I still need to get some stuff done. With that said, over the last 30 days at home we've downloaded 4.8tb and uploaded 6.2 (no torrenting). I'm sure there are thing we could do different, but two people that WFH and do some semi data involved things... really just not sure how we could make that work full time.
It's pretty good - their provided router is locked down to hell and they're on a cgnat, but not having to deal with Comcast's 1.2tb data cap is well worth it. Checking Comcast's site now, it seems that they now offer "unlimited" data. Interesting, that option wasn't there 6 months ago.
~100 customers seems too small for the amount of effort they have put in so far. They've been working along all the roads near me for about a year, and they're out there running fiber conduit every day. The houses out here are far apart. Hopefully, they can make it work.
It's been there since they announced the data cap. I thought the unlimited bundled with leasing their higher end hardware came first, but the email from 2016 announcing that our plan was getting the cap mentions being able to pay for unlimited.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/stung-by-custome...
A comcast customer always had the option to pay for unlimited data. I get that part. What is the 2nd part? “Started offering it as standard” means what?
There's barely any competition here. You can pretty much chose from Comcast Business or XFinity, which both are just Comcast because of a free market with free as in not in jail.
If starlink ever gets more capacity, I'll probably switch. Right now I think the only way to get gigabit down on starlink is with four or five accounts and manually bonding the dishes together. As soon as that obstacle goes away, Comcast will have competition in my area and I intend take advantage of that.
If you live in a region where they have no meaningful competition (which is still fairly common in a lot of places in the US) well bend over and lube up.
They will happily let you pay for years, for services that no longer exist, no longer connected to any of their networks. They'll take you to court rather than pay anything back; they know they are receiving extra money, and there's a significant amount that comes in, but "oh, it's so confusing, and there are so many legacy systems, we can't possibly catch every mistake."
The money they shuffle back and forth between each other, daily, reeks of book cooking - you might have a stretch of 20 miles of trunk in which there are 20 separate owners - not concurrent riding separate fiber lines, but in sequence, each paying rent to or getting rent paid by the adjacent rider, even though only a single company actually services the entire span.
It's funny how construction companies and ISPs get these rackets going, and then when people come along like these PrimeOne guys and offer a reasonable rate on a decent product, it's somehow vastly disruptive and threatening.
They'll expand, and be encouraged and allowed to expand, and after 5 or 6 years, the big ISPs will start circling, and eventually buy them out, and they'll retire happy. AT&T or Lumen will own their network inside of 10 years, and they'll claim it's modernized and upgraded infrastructure. People with shitty oversold undermaintained cable internet will be left alone until the money stops.
Starlink to phones is great, if it only didn't make ISPs so much money handling the base stations on the ground.
There's fiber all over the US just hanging there, unused, unmaintained, because merger after merger after merger left giant piles of assets under the ownership of companies like comcast and centurylink and at&t, who left infrastructure to rot, often built with public funding, and maintained their local monopolies and shitty service.
Whatever it is we're doing to regulate the industry at a federal level isn't working, but I imagine that's where a lot of the money goes.
This sounds like mine. I'm guessing yours doesn't support IPv6 because most fiber providers don't.
For the router, I already build firewalls so that. I pay $10/mo to escape their cgnat.
I've also alerted them to expect regular haranguing from me about deploying IPv6. Especially since bgp.he.net shows they have a /40 allocated to themselves; it doesn't seem to be used.
Some people will say monitoring is all that you need, but I do not agree. There are a million different little issues that can and do occur on physical networks in the real world, and there's no way monitoring will have a 99% chance of detecting all of them. When incidents like the partial Microsoft network outage that hit certain peering points occurred, I had to route around the damage by tweaking route filtering on the core routers to prefer a transit connection that worked over the lower cost peering point. It's that kind of oddball issue that active users catch and report which does not happen for barely used services like IPv6.
How many ask for IPv4? I understand your situation, it's a lot of work, for something that many won't notice. It's just that saying there's no demand because your average consumer, who also doesn't know what IPv4 is, isn't asking for it, is the mentality that keeps IPv6 from being implemented.
On the funnier side of things, we've also sometimes run into the opposite problem that we can't reproduce an issue, because it's only on IPv4 and 95% of the time everything we do is IPv6. But we're also not serving home users.
Big, evil, hated Comcast has full ipv6, and I doubt any of its customers asked for it either. Instead people complain they’re only getting a /60.
CPE support for IPv6 has generally been garbage with it taking 15-20 years before the bare minimum was supported by mainstream router vendors. Even today there are still vendors that assume only IPv4 support. In my opinion the IETF really screwed up when they made IPv6 more complicated than just IPv4 with more address bits. The incumbent in my area generally uses PPPoE in their access network, but routers that supported PPPoE and prefix delegation basically didn't exist in 2010, and only started being available circa 2015 (in part due to the required bits not existing in OpenWRT and the hardware vendors' software development kits for their chipsets). Sure, we're 10 years further on now, but there remain a number of vendors that only support IPv4 for management of devices (cough Ubiquiti cough) in parts of their product line.
That said, there are features of IPv6 that are absolutely awesome for carriers. The next header feature that pretty much eliminates the need for MPLS in an IPv6 transport network is one such item that makes building transport networks so much cleaner when using IPv6 than IPv4. No more header insertion or rewriting, just update one field and fix up the delta on the checksum and CRC. They just aren't really applicable for smaller networks.
The people who attempt to fill these gaps are commonly rural telephone companies, electric cooperatives, tribal entities, or mom and pop shops where the owner grew up on a Ditch Witch and only knows as much IP networking as essential to light up the fiber and get the packets flowing upstream.
They are enormously resource constrained in ways you might not expect, too, eg operations can grind to a halt because everyone is out with a chainsaw after a storm, or because the Guy that Knew Stuff about their network died suddenly.
They are very, very unlikely to decide to run an IPv6 network just because. There's no upside that makes the juice worth the squeeze for them.
I have spent most of my career under the thumb of fucking cable and I'd sooner slam a car door on my nuts than go back to paying so much money for such garbage service.
Yeah, what's up with that? I just got switched on to fiber and the CGNAT for IPv4 doesn't shock me much, but what's with the no IPv6 in 2025?
I know enough to deal with it, but what's the deal? Is there something systematic here?
How about not having to pay for (as) beefy CG-NAT hardware because people that go to Youtube, Netflix, MetaFace, TikTok, etc, can directly connect via IPv6.
I get the impression that they are still learning to run an ISP, both technically and customer facingly. It's weird - I learned more about them from this article than from actually being living here with them.
Some applications want to open ports and don't have the server-side infrastructure to punch a hole through NAT. Especially P2P apps and some games.
Sometimes I want to run a small, low-traffic web server from home.
Sometimes I'm connecting to my network from a machine that I don't control and can't install Tailscale on.
From the article, it sounds like the "default" option is for the customer to supply their own router, which I appreciate:
> Prime-One provides a modem and the ONT, plus a Wi-Fi router if the customer prefers not to use their own router.
My fiber installer referred to the Adtran 632V ONT he installed as the "modem".
He installed two other junction boxes (one outside the house near/under where the fiber attaches to the wall of the house, one inside near the ONT) but they're just passive optical couplers allowing them to swap out fiber segments in the event of fiber damage without re-running the entire install.
As far as I know, nobody uses separate boxes for the modem and router, that kind of thinking died when wifi became more widespread and included by default with ISP plans.
Definitely splitting hairs here though on terminology.
So not actually better than Comcast, just bad in a different way.
The only thing in the end their salespeople could do was offer TV bundles but still wasn't cost-competitive. Not sure what their offerings are now but it was such an easy decision to switch.
Isn’t this standard competitive practice ? Charge what the market will bear.
I don’t know if I’d call that “exploitation”. If there’s one gas station 90 miles from every other gas station in the Nevada desert, they’re gonna charge more, aren’t they?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/stung-by-custome...
This article couldn't have passed through my inbox more than 6 weeks or so ago so it is a very recent change.
This indicates that their local and state governments aren't (at this time) captured by the incumbent cable provider.
A captured state gov will pass laws to thwart new infra deployment, commonly written by ISP interests. A captured local gov will never approve deployment or slow-walk permitting in an attempt to bankrupt the upstart.
more explainers: New suburban fiber infrastructure means either trenching or pole hanging. The local gov issues permits for both but poles also require the cooperation of the pole owners. This last adds the PSC to the mix.
Recalcitrant pole owners are known to stall and kill infrastructure deployment - especially where going underground isn't an option. Some PSCs mandate that pole owners cooperate. Some PSCs abdicate that responsibility and are examples of regulatory capture.
Why isn’t the Bay Area a hot bed of fiber deployment? You think Comcast in Philly has more pull with Cupertino and Mountain View than Google and Apple? No! Internet in the Bay Area is shit for the same reason all the infrastructure in the Bay Area is shit. The government makes it slow and difficult to build anything.
Comcast installed fiber to my house back in 2018 or so. The permitting took months. And this was to run Comcast fiber on poles where Comcast already had their own cable lines. And my county is actually pretty efficient with permitting. It’s just that American municipalities absolutely hate it when anyone builds anything.
I live in a blue state that actively encourages municipal and cooperative fiber deployment: https://mdbc.us. It's had approximately zero impact outside some rural parts of the state.
What you don't get often is fiber-to-home, or great upload speeds. But most people aren't running big home servers.
Network performance in that last mile can differ by block and even by season. An otherwise functional run of coax might have intermittent ingress but only shortly after it's rained while cold out.
This isn't even counting all of the flaky performance anecdotes that really boil down to overcrowded Wi-Fi or poorly configured consumer gear or anything else that isn't strictly the fault or problem of Comcast.
Pro poles / open air:
- very, VERY cheap and fast to build out with GPON. That's how you got 1/1 GBit fiber in some piss poor village in the rural ditches of Romania.
- easy to get access when you need to do maintenance
Con poles / open air:
- it looks fucking ugly. Many a nice photo from Romania got some sort of half assed fiber cable on it.
- it's easy for drunk drivers, vandals (for the Americans: idiots shooting birds that rest on aboveground lines [1][2]), sabotage agents or moronic cable thieves to access and damage infrastructure
Pro trench digging:
- it's incredibly resilient. To take out electricity and power, you need a natural disaster at the scale of the infamous Ahrtal floods that ripped through bridges carrying cables and outright submerged and thus ruined district distribution networking rooms, but even the heaviest hailstorm doesn't give a fuck about cable that's buried. Drunk drivers are no concern, and so are cable thieves or terrorists.
- it looks way better, especially when local governments go and re-surface the roads afterwards
Cons trench digging:
- it's expensive, machinery and qualified staff are rare
- you usually need lots more bureaucracy with permits, traffic planning or what not else that's needed to dig a trench
- when something does happen below ground, it can be ... challenging to access the fault.
- in urban or even moderately settled areas, space below ground can be absurdly congested with existing infrastructure that necessitates a lot of manual excavation instead of machinery. Gas, water, sewers, long decommissioned pipe postal service lines, subways, low voltage power, high voltage power, other fiber providers, cable TV...
[1] https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/illegal-shoo...
[2] https://ucs.net/node/513
For anyone starting out today, I would strongly recommend having a planned legal / regulatory strategy to fall back on in the event that excessive delays occur by parties you cannot avoid dealing with.
when i got this far I literally thought you were making a joke about Poland.
frontier installed fiber in my area using this method. relatively quick and no damage that needs to be "aggressively" paved over.
AT&T put an optic cable at my curb 10 years ago (most likely due to imminent competition from Google Fiber internet), but then never lit it (most likely because Google dropped their effort due to complications with cities)…
For me personally, I work on networking startup so I'd like to be able to run IPv6 stack from my home network to test things.
[0] https://tunnelbroker.net/
Another feature that I find to be pretty stupid (but that some folks seem to really like) are IPv6 "privacy" addresses. Because each host usually is assigned an IPv6 address in a subnet that's 64 bits wide, most mainstream OS's have configured their IPv6 address autoconfigurator to set one stable, "permanent" address, and to set a parade of periodically changing "temporary" addresses. The OS is usually configured to prefer the permanent address when software asks for a socket to listen on (and sockets that handle replies to that listen socket), and those temporary addresses are preferred for sockets that initiate outbound traffic. The idea is that this is supposed to confuse tracking, but I'm very skeptical of its efficacy in the real world.
Finally, a customer can also usually get enough IP space to make globally-reachable subnets on their LAN. Depending how the ISP has configured things, a customer can get between four and 256 subnets. These subnets are handy to provide networks that provide globally-reachable IP addresses, but that can be easily logically isolated from the rest of the LAN by the router.
I have been a customer for 14 years now. Would love to move to higher bandwidth.
I recently moved into Menlo Park and had no problems getting 2.5Gbps from ATT fiber.
Optimum had their entire service area bought out by Comcast the day after I switched. Comcast has since broken every major utility at least twice and my fiber connection three times by working on the old infrastructure. I think Optimum won that trade. I can't imagine many residents are going to prefer Comcast over $80/m for no-bullshit internet, especially after the water main break they caused last week.
These FTTP providers have the game solved in Texas. I've seen them do 500-1000 homes in <30 days. Their directional drilling expertise and aggressive neglect for 811 seem to get things done very quickly. There are some areas with competing fiber providers now. I've got 5gbps symmetric for $110/m and I live in the woods. Trees go through power lines and the fiber infra is completely unaffected. The only utility left to bury is the electricity, and they're actively working on that in some areas now.
There were things that made the ISP I worked at special, one of them being that we pretty much defaulted to having customers hook up their own DSL, which meant spending a lot of call time helping people who have no idea what an RJ11 jack is install plugs and adapters.
I've also spent a lot of time on "the password I use for my email doesn't work on my Facebook" and "my USB printer doesn't work". People don't know who to call for tech support so they try their ISP. There was also the occasional "the internet is broken" whenever the user's home page had a different theme or design as well, those usually came in waves.
Once the modem and/or router is installed, most internet services Just Work. There are outages and bad modems and the occasional bad software update to deal with, but they're a relatively low call volume compared to what customers call about.
I think my conception of basic tech illiteracy among the general public is vastly wrong. I generally like to believe most people are competent enough to handle these sorts of things.
But really, internet (and digital TV) services are pervasive enough that they are no longer just for technologically inclined and resourceful people. All aspects of society are now using the internet, even the homeless, impoverished, disabled, and institutionalized.
Back when I still had ISPs that provided the modem + router, every single issue I think I ever had fell into one of two categories: a modem and/or router power cycle fixed it, or it was a broader network issue that had nothing to do with me or my particular internet situation (this is omitting the most common third issue: terrible customer service problems, but that's a separate thing)
That's what I did for pocket as a kid in high school (in the mid-2000s).
For example, if you subscribe to Verizon FiOS voice, the technician will disconnect your copper phone lines and connect them to VoIP termination on your ONT.
In San Jose, if you see evidence that your house's main drain has backed up and you have a cleanout within 5' of the sidewalk, you're better off calling the city first before calling a plumber -- the sewer department will snake the "lateral" pipe between the cleanout and the main sewer line under the street for free.
The one time we used this the response time was very quick (in line with the 30 minute response time they cite on their website).
You call an electrician or a handyman or somebody and tell them you have some low voltage work.
The ISP provides a cable box and modem to most homes in the same way that the electric company sticks a meter on your wall.
In the US, most do. This is a standard part of "in home installation" when first subscribing to service for all of the major providers in the US.
Example: https://forums.xfinity.com/conversations/customer-service/sc...
Also, as the other commenter pointed out, ISPs don't terminate their service at the edge of your premises. Basically all of them today will connect one of your devices to confirm installation.
With careful selection of the customer ONU/ONT, the incidence of support calls means that it can be weeks between customer issues on smaller networks. These days my biggest support headache is in house wireless coverage. It's also the one part of internet service that most people are unwilling to invest even small amounts of money to improve. The worst are the folks that install outdoor wireless security cameras without thinking ahead to putting them on a dedicated network to avoid driving up airtime usage and congesting the main wireless AP.
This leads to fun tech support calls if you use your own equipment where you're basically proving to the support underling that you know how to run your equipment for the first 20-30 minutes before they take your issue seriously (yes, the modem light is green, yes, I've already power-cycled, yes, I'm testing on a wired connection, etc)
I usually speedrun this by telling them something like: I am hardwired to the modem and seeing T4s in the log.
> Please wait a moment while I check on some things on your account.
> Thank you for your patience. Can you please confirm for me that you see a green light on the top of the device? Can you tell me whether the light is blinking or is solid?
https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/disable-xfinity-wif...
Now I just use my own customer modem.
https://xkcd.com/806/
For analyzing support burden, I think the relevant question here is why have you even had the experience of calling tech support for a non-working connection - and that falls squarely on the non-reliability of Comcast's network.
Called them to ask why, and they said it was a planned outage. When was it planned, I asked? 17 minutes ago.
With fiber, the ISP can see that everything is good up to the GPON terminal. Probably the router too as most customers will just use the ISP provided one. So that leaves the ethernet interface / wifi card as the only thing that would fail and have to be ascertained over the phone, and with a local ISP its probably more cost effective to cut out all the abstractions and just have a tech stop by to check it out.
On the other side, customers have become a lot more used to self help. For example their email isn't even hosted with the ISP any more! I would think that most people would be aware that if a device works good close to the router, and not good far, the issue is wifi range. If they're still calling the ISP, you can direct them towards wifi extenders. Or if device A does not work but device B does, it's not a problem to call the ISP about. And so on.
Of course this is my idyllic view not having worked ISP tech support in a few decades...
There's a huge gap between "had the idea" and "had all the technical skills, the $millions in capital, and the managerial ability to actually build it". Then there's the barrier of "and succeed". If you read between the article's lines a bit - these guys had loads of the first 3, yet they're still losing loads of money every month.
But, bigger picture, you have a good point. These articles are obviously cherry-picked stories, with an extremely optimistic "... and the little guy wins!" spin. Ars is writing for an audience of techies who are frustrated with crappy ISP's.
Yeah, obviously these guy's long prior experience - pulling fiber for other ISP's - was another critical cornerstone of their ability to go from idea to build-out.
The worst part appears to be the physical wiring. If your government has implemented loop unbundling, you're already set (probably need to do some bureaucracy and pay some affordable-at-a-stretch fees to get access to it). Otherwise, or if the loops are just crap, you have to figure out how to physically get a cable to everywhere, a task that is fundamentally laborious and legally fraught, not nerdy at all (unless lawyers are nerds) so nobody wants to do it.
Wireless ISPs are about as popular because of this. Wireless service is always worse, but you only have to install plant (physical infrastructure) at the customer's house and one central location, not all the places leading up to the customer's house. This makes it a whole lot more amenable to individual-nerd or handful-of-nerds setup.
I encourage everyone to at least think about how they would do it.
In a rural environment, yeah, sure. Based on what I'm seeing in San Francisco, in an urban environment, you're going to be negotiating for roof space for many transceivers on many separate roofs. (I do absolutely agree that even that annoying tasks is certainly way less work than dealing with a local or state government that wants it to be impossible to run fiber through or along streets and sidewalks.)
My parents live in a small, countryside village. They have fiber at the same prices (including 4Gbit symmetric, though they are happy with a cheap 200Mbit subscription).
And FWIW, I own my house in the east bay — I am the landlady ;)
Hell if there's a way to invest in Prime-One, these guys seem to have their stuff together...
Those are all telecom providers. It makes sense that they'd love wireless because they already have cellular infrastructure.
Let's take video streaming. I have a pretty compressed version of Arrival that's at 2GB and is a 4k movie ~2hrs long (the original file was ~2x the size). To stream that we need to do 2000Mb / (3600s * 2) = 277.8Mb/s. This also doesn't account for any buffering. This is one of my smaller 4k videos and more typical is going to be 3Gb-5Gb (e.g. Oppenheimer vs Children of Men). Arrival is pretty dark and a slow movie so great for compression.
Now, there's probably some trickery going on that can get better savings and you'll see used with things like degrading the quality. You could probably drop this down to 1.5Gb and have no major visual hits or you can do a variable streaming and drop this even more. On many screens you might not notice a huge difference between 1440 and 4k, and depending on the video, maybe even 1080p and 4k[0].
For comparison, I loaded up a 4k YouTube video (which uses vp9 encoding) and monitored the bandwidth. It is very spiky, but frequently jumped between 150kbps and 200Mbps. You could probably do 2 people on this. I think it'd get bogged down with 4 people. And remember, this is all highly variable. Games, downloads, and many other things can greatly impact all this. It also highly depends on the stability of your network connection. You're paying for *UP TO* 300Mbps, not a fixed rate of 300Mbps. Most people want a bit of headroom.
[0] Any person will 100% be able to differentiate 1080p and 4k when head to head, but in the wild? We're just too used to spotty connections and variable resolutions. It also depends on the screen you're viewing from, most importantly the screen size (e.g. phone).
Your math is WAY off.
2 gigabytes / 2 hours is only about 2.22 megabits/sec.
First, if it was 2GB * 2 for the source of your recompressed copy, that's 4GB * 8 bits per byte = 32 Gigabits (Gb), or 32,000Mb. Two hours in seconds is 60 * 60 * 2 = 7,200 seconds.
32,000 / 7,200 is 4.444Mb/s. Streaming your 2 hour long 4GB movie could be done with ~5Mbit. A 1Gb/s connection could handle streaming ~200 of these movies.
Going back to Blu-rays as a source, an Ultra HD Blu-ray maxes out at 144Mbit but in reality most movies are encoded at a much lower bitrate. Most movies will cap out around 40-50Mbit. You could do 20 of these straight Blu-ray movies on a 1Gb connection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray#Specification...
For convenience, the rclone tool is nice for most cloud storage like google and stuff that make rsync annoying[0]
rsync also offers compression[1], and you might want to balance it depending if you want to be CPU bound or IO bound. You can pick the compression and level, with more options than just the `-z` flag. You can also increase speed by not doing the checksum, or by running without checksum and then running again later with. Or some intervaling like daily backups without and monthly you do checksums.
If you tar your files up first I have a function that is essentially `tar cf - "${@:2}" | xz -9 --threads $NTHREADS --verbose > "${1}"` which uses the maximum `xz` compression level. I like to heavily compress things upstream because it also makes downloads faster and decompression is much easier than compression. I usually prefer being compute bound.
Also, a systemd job is always nice and offers more flexibility than cron. It's what's helped me most with the wack-a-mole game. I like to do on calendar events (e.g. Daily, Weekly) and add a random delay. It's also nice that if the event was missed because the machine was off it'll run the job once the machine is back on (I usually make it wait at least 15 minutes after machine comes online).
[0] https://rclone.org/
[1] https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/292020
Great tips! I'll definitely be using your tar command
I'm certain that one could make a sound argument that 300 Mbps is not necessary for that four-person family, and they could make do with a much slower connection. Back in the day, folks would be asking if it's necessary for your Internet connection to be always on. After all, it's no hassle at all to plug the modem into the house phone line and unplug it when you're done!
For me, switching from a 1400/40mbps cable connection to a symmetric-but-variable 300-1000mbps Ethernet connection meant that I was doing the same sorts of things, but often spending much less time waiting for them to complete. Related to that, it also made "content creation"-esque things [0] much, much easier.
[0] Which I'm declaring is a category that includes uploading and downloading huge files while working from home as a programmer/"DevOps" guy.
It's not a committed rate. Your individual line is a gigabit, but the upstream from your whole block is 10 gigabit so you can't all use it at once. Your guaranteed rate is probably have more like 20-50 Mbps, if that's what's confusing you. But it's extremely rare that everyone tries to use their gigabit all at once.
If it's a Passive Optical Network, you might be sharing a gigabit download with your block - you all share the same fiber - and you get substantially less than a gigabit upload due to the need for timeslotting. Gigabit PON is obsolete though, now you'd get at least 10G PON.
It's disgusting that big telecom has been able to monopolize so much of the US for so long.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASXJgvy3mEg
2020 NANOG:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo
> Comcast seems to have noticed, Herman said. "They've been calling our clients nonstop to try to come back to their service, offer them discounted rates for a five-year contract and so on," he said.
go figure. their monopoly/duopoly has ended, profits dropping like a rock in area, and now they want to compete.
Only billionaires and people fooled by Peter Thiel think competition is evil.
It's not a fair comparison; competition can drive price down, but I pessimistically just see two guys who'll inevitably join the Comcast billionaires club. That's just where these "small guys" end up.
I wish it was a bit cheaper, but someone has to fund that trip to Mars.