• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    229
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The internet needs to be classified as a utility, living without it is just not possible in the world we have created.

    • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      101
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember the collective shitfit around a decade ago when Obama give out free cell phones to homeless people. It was such a crazy concept to people who have never struggled that yes, you DO need a smartphone to meet your calling, banking and personal management needs. Everything has an online portal. Every job application requires an online portion. It’s how the world works and has worked since the mid 00s.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Remember that time Obama realized they were never going to approve any Supreme Court pick of his so he suggested “Ben Ghazi” for the job as a joke?

            That was funny

      • akilou@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wait. What?! Obama gave out phones? I was living abroad for the first few years of the Obama administration when smart phones happened. Can you fill me in on this one?

    • thantik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      147
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d be okay with 200mbps symmetric, with a future goal of 1gbps symmetric. More than ANYTHING, I’m tired of providers providing things like 1gbps down, 10mbps up. And then doing shit like “Here’s you’re 1gbps plan with a 1tb data cap!”

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really wish symmetric broadband was standard. Having 500 down (as a homelabber especially) means nothing if you have only 25 up 😭

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same boat here with Comcast. I would gladly give up some of the 800Mbps download to increase the 12Mbps upload speed I’m getting.

            • gkd@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              We don’t throttle to our company-owned Speedtest servers though so we can disprove you when claiming we are not offering you peak speeds.

          • mild_deviation@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            DOCSIS 4.0 makes that a reality. Your connection will reallocate your available bandwidth between upload and download dynamically as needed.

        • shadow@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Homelabber here, stuck in Comcast hell with 10Mbps upload.

          I wish I could afford to bring the local municipal fiber to my house, but to go like 2 city blocks with it would be tens of thousands of dollars. :(

          I’m considering a local colocation/ datacenter to move my homelab to. But then it wouldn’t be a homelab anymore

            • shadow@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Would need to convince a local business down there to support it, but it’s not a terrible idea.

              But it is a terrible situation that this is the length people need to go to to work around Comcast / DOCSIS lopsided networking.

          • eek2121@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How much is Comcast charging you compared to the fiber? If I were in that position I would have decided differently (assuming I owned the property) as the difference for me peaked at $150/mo. Even more if I chose a slightly cheaper plan…and I have AT%T fiber, not municipal.

        • TesterJ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Spectrum? I’ve got the same plan. Sucks because I have trouble streaming my Plex server outside of my apartment. And when I work from home uploads take forever.

      • Uprise42@artemis.camp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        The asymmetrical aspect of cable will be here to stay. Fiber can do it because it was build on a different foundation.

        Copper cable transmits data using electric signals in various frequencies. There are a batch of frequencies reserved for phone and TV. ALL of the tv programming is constantly streamed to your lines whether you have TV or not and whether you pay for it or not. It’s encrypted and is only decrypted by your cable boxes when your provider says they can decrypt it. The phone frequencies are reserved so you can make phone calls and still max out your download.

        So what about the rest of the bandwidth? Well, way back in the early days of cable it was pretty much everyone for themselves. Every company did things its own way. That’s where DOCSIS came in. It’s a platform that allows modem manufacturers to make modems that will work on any cable network that supports Docsis. And the key part is that DOCSIS is always backwards compatible. The network upgrade to 3.1 did not break the old d2 devices.

        When it was developed the download was extremely more necessary than the upload. You’d be sending small single line commands on upload and receiving entire files in download. So more frequencies went to download than upload. In a lab setting 1.0 could reach 40mbps down and 10 up. That’s not what was sold because real life isn’t a lab and there’s loss over large distances. Realistically most people got 10 mb down and upload wasn’t even listed.

        Whats changed? Well today those same download and upload frequencies are still used. We’ve added more around them to deliver higher speeds. But we’ve also kept the same principles that people need more download than upload. Docsis 3.1 was released in 2013. We really didn’t start stressing over upload until Covid and work from home had us on zoom calls all day.

        Docsis 4.0 is technically released but requires quite a bit of overhaul to work with existing networks. We pretty much need to do away with cable tv. That’s why many ISP’s are pushing IPTv. It removes the need for all that bandwidth devoted to just TV. If everyone in a region drops traditional cable for IPTv they can easily switch to d4. D4 does increase upload but does not make it symmetrical.

        Your cable company does not decide their highest tier realistically. It’s the most that medium will offer. It’s gonna be a while too for d4 to be available everywhere. Everyone would need to drop traditional cable (which is honestly a nice move regardless) and people don’t upgrade plans very often. When I worked in tech support I would frequently deal with customers complaining about slow speeds while on plans from 2002.

          • Uprise42@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s just because they’re not maxing the download. They could push a few a few more gigs download in the same package but that’s close to the cap for upload. That’s like a provider being capable of 1G down and 50 meg up offering a 50 down and up plan. Just marketing is all that is

            • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, you’re moving the goal post. A company like Comcast offering a symmetrical service is huge, regardless of what the underlying technology is capable of. They could have been offering 200 megs symmetrical with Docsis 3.0, but they didn’t. They restricted customers to 11mbit uploads. This is a big deal

              • Uprise42@artemis.camp
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Except they literally couldn’t? Official documentation for 3.0 is 100 up and 1G down in a lab setting. As someone who’s actually tested that with an ISP it doesn’t work in the real world. 500/50 was what was achievable in most cases. Then 3.1 pushed the download with OFDM splits, but practical applications still couldn’t hit the 1G they got in lab environments. 3.0 was never advertised to hit 200 up and 3.1 hasn’t actually hit it in real world. 4.0 will get us closer to symmetrical max.

                I will say that Comcast being the biggest ISP does likely mean they’ll reach true d4 first but to my knowledge they haven’t achieved it yet.

      • Avg@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        My isp used to offer 10mbps up for like a decade, they have recently downgraded it to 5mbps for new subscribers. I’ve uploaded a few things with it and it’s extremely slow. If it wasn’t that I’m only paying $40 for 1gbps down, I’d have switched.

      • Zanz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Things with caps aren’t terrestrial broadband. You can have caps on cell based networks and still be considered broadband. One of the biggest issues is it companies like Comcast and AT&t will offer broadband service in an area but not necessarily offer only broadband service or not let you buy broadband service about also having their TV. And then they claim they’re serving the area because they have broadband speeds or you can pay a bunch of money to have your service uncapped but that’s not really the point of having a broadband connection available in the area.

        • thantik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Things with caps aren’t terrestrial broadband.

          Comcast is Terrestrial Broadband and has a 1tb cap. You are simply wrong.

          • Zanz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Comcast has broadband speed plans. They also charge you an extra $30 if you don’t have a TV bundle and then give you an actual broadband plan that’s unlimited. They have also been throwing the unlimited data and router and security bs in more competitive areas but that’s not a nationwide product.

      • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I literally can’t do half of what I want to do online efficiently or in a timely manner because I can barely crack 10 up. I do video work on the side. Takes hours if not days for me to upload something. Even pictures nowadays. Great I’ve got a DSLR for a phone and I can shoot raw. Takes 5 mins to upload a pic.

      • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Worse, they do that crap for my business account. Great for the vpn to the office.

        • Zanz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s normal for businesses to pay for peak and total bandwidth. That’s one of the reasons why they guarantee speed and availability and should be refunding you if they don’t meet those.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the federal government is regulating them can we admit they’re a fucking utility already and stop allowing them to gouge prices when they have more money than they could feasibly spend?

    Can you imagine if we said “by 2035 every American household in our electric grid will also be connected to the internet at a speed of 1gbps”?

    • PorkSoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I can imagine it.

      I can imagine the next jerk off administration rescinding that goal in the name of private enterprise or whatever bullshit excuse they choose.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We did that in the 90s. We gave ISPs billions to deploy fiber everywhere. It was mostly squandered and 25 years later most Americans still don’t have fiber access.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, we didn’t. It wasn’t a utility. Utilities are more regulated by the govt. Thats a big part of why it failed and why electricity succeeded with the same effort in the fucking 1800s.

  • geekworking@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does this really matter. We aren’t getting it anyway.

    The telcom/cable companies are just going to take the “broadband” money, build out a couple of neighborhoods, claim it is too hard, and then keep all the money.

    They have already done it many times. Free taxpayer money with zero repercussions. Why would they do anything different.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    1 year ago

    We really need some upstream minimums as well. That causes so much lag for me. Most plans are 1 up even with 100 down. I have a 200/10 plan now and it’s difficult to do work with the maybe 5 that I get in practice if I’m lucky, especially after overhead from VPN.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Most plans are 1 up even with 100 down

      That can’t be right. I thought Australia’s 100/20 plans had pathetic upload speeds but that’s unreal.

      • yuknowhokat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have Spectrum here in the southeast of the United States. My plan is 300 down 12 up. That pathetic upload speed needs to change for the better.

      • Lesrid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most broadband access in the US is via coax. And the coax companies refuse to let cable TV, and the packages they can bundle, die. So the portion of the coax that would allow for symmetrical service instead brings all the channels you didn’t buy because everyone streams now.

      • bratosch@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here in Sweden most people have optic fiber with AT LEAST 100/100 speeds. You gotta try if you want lower than that / if you want asymmetrical speeds.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right now in a lot of states Verizon has a monopoly on symmetrical internet service. I can’t ever switch ISPs because I can’t get 400/400 anywhere else.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        God I wish we had that here. We are pretty much stuck with Comcast as the only option in many places since they were granted a monopoly for so long and the phone company never really expanded much. DSL is too slow in most places. Like I think I can only get 100/1 where I am now, but the last place I was at which was not exactly rural at all, was max 12m/768k. In my current place I do have one other option which is another cable provider. They offer the exact same as Comcast for slightly less money, but the primary reason I use them is because they don’t have a monthly data cap. With my wife and I working from home plus our personal streaming, we would exceed the cap and have to pay a significant amount to increase it.

        • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah ISPs are doing rural America really dirty. I didn’t even know monthly data caps existed with home internet until somebody from a rural town mentioned it. The only internet with monthly data caps around here is cell service and even then that’s usually unlimited now.

          I do a lot of download and upload and one month I realized I accidentally moved like 30 TB that month.

            • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I have a home server which is used for quite a bit. Bunch of web apps including storage so downloading stuff to my phone over the internet means upload from my server, also multimedia too (That I actually pay for) via Plex, music, and podcasts. Photo hosting, sharing, and backups.

          • irotsoma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I mean right now I’m in a relatively major city in the US (like 750K population), and the previous place I was just inside a major suburb (like 150K population). Rural is just plain screwed.

        • bamboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have Verizon 5g with the ultra wideband service. Tower is on a light post on the street corner, speeds max out around 700/70 for me. 400/400 sounds like Fios which is a fiber service.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is this possible? Most of network hardware is symmetric. It doesn’t make sense.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        In addition to cable being the primary means of providing service in the US which does allow for this, there are two reasons for doing it. First, down is all that is advertised. Up is only mentioned in small print usually. And second, the major ISPs and the content companies have merged so it’s an anti-“piracy” measure. It significantly impacts torrent seeding and hosting sites using residential Internet service.

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    1 year ago

    I could give a shit what they call it. How about enforcing some god damn price restrictions or make data caps illegal? Speed means little otherwise

    • lemmeout@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      This actually does keep prices in check. Albeit, a bit backasswardsly.

      I may be off on the specifics but it’s something like: Having to offer 100mbps at the lowest rates in (poor neighborhoods) increases the speeds of each tier while keeping the price the same.

    • Qwaffle_waffle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In the linked pdf, it does mention the benchmarks.

      • 2015/current standard is 25/3 Mbps.
      • Proposed increase to 100/20 Mbps.
      • Future goal is 1000/500 Mbps.
      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        And really, 20 mbps at the bottom tier for broadband isn’t all that unreasonable. We’re talking about the floor level here.

        • privatizetwiddle@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          20mbits at bottom tier would be fine, but there are currently top tier cable plans, 1gbps down and still only 10mbps up. Upload speed needs to scale at least proportionallly, if not symmetrically.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I felt so gaslit by optimum because they advertise 1gbps parallel. But, if you don’t have their fiber offering in your region they’ll happily sell you 1gbps/24mbps for the same price.

      Although, unless I complain, they fail to give me even 300mbps down.

      I miss Google Fiber :(

    • IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t that partly a consequence of the cable internet network design? The existing DOCSIS standards are designed to favour download speeds, so the infrastructure doesn’t allow asymmetric connections.

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I understand correctly it’s not intrinsic to the DOCSIS standards, it’s just how more or less every cable company chooses to allocate channels. Think like a cable company has 100 channels they may be able to use on a given line, and they choose to put 90 of them on download and 10 on upload (numbers are made up to convey idea). Now they have only a small amount of available upload bandwidth and lots of download, but they could have set it up to be 50/50 to have it be equal.

  • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t wait til they give another few hundred billion to ISPs who turn it into bonuses instead of infra improvement

  • popemichael@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I did telecom work about 5 years ago

    It was shocking the amount of area that depends on a low-quality copper wire infrastructure.

    I don’t know if that changed in 5 years, but companies are going to have a hard time getting that replaced nationwide

    • ainokea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      We live in a rural area (but only 16 miles from the nearest city) and have copper. We really hope the infrastructure bill will bring real internet to us in our lifetime.

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If congress passes a bill to improve internet infrastructure, it will be a 10s of billions hand out to ISPs that in turn will do little to nothing to actually improve their infrastructure. Just like when they did it in the 90s to get fiber to most Americans.

    • shastaxc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They already got billions from the government to upgrade their infrastructure. It’s on them if they didn’t actually use the money for that by now.

    • White_Flight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would think that per FCC this requirement has loop holes and the minimum 100 Mbps is most likely for only broadband not dial up, so many telecommunication companies will be except

    • adrian783@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      the most simple explanation is that total bandwidth is limited and more upload speed they give you the less download speed.

    • rmuk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      On all lines the total amount of available bandwidth has to be split between upload and download. If you’ve got gigabits or even hundreds of megabits to play with then symmetric is great, but on slower connections is makes a world of sense to heavily favour download just because humans are better at consuming information than creating it. Consider how many hours of videos the average person watches per week versus how many they create in the same period. Same for photos, emails, articles, etc. There are people who have parity but they are in a pretty tiny minority.

      That said, I hear there are people in the US getting 300Mb/s down and 10Mb/s up which is pretty fucking nuts.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because regular users need more download than upload, while servers need more upload than download.

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should also require allowing incoming connections. Too much ISPs, especially mobile, are gives one-way Internet now. Basically like having a phone line with no phone number.

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    100 mbps? That’s 100 millibits per second, or 0.1 bits per second. I’d certainly hope for better bandwidth than one bit every ten seconds; that’s slower than smoke signals.

    • simple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wish we can all move to MB/s and get rid of the endless confusion on names

      • thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We should change to mibibits! We need easily factored numbers of 10, not this old powers of 2 stuff! (/s if it wasn’t obvious)

        • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sarcasm noted, but: mibi/gibi are the powers of 2 version.

          We all say megabit or gigabit when talking about internet speeds, but in many cases under the hood it’s actually measured in mibi/gibibits. Just means it’s 2% more when converted into base 10 ;)

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The reason we don’t is because the network does not care how the files you transfer are formatted.

        It measure the amount of bits it can transfer.

        Whether the file in question is for example a text document (8bit) or a HEIF (10bit)

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mbps, megabits per second, is the standard. No idea why this author opted to use the highly unusual millibit.

    • Calavera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I almost replied saying you had no idea you were talking about, but then I realized… Lol

    • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except that’s like dividing by zero. A millibit is undefined. A bit is the smallest indivisible unit of digital information.

      But capitalization is important to distinguish between b for bit and B for Byte.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, that’s like dividing by 1,000.

        Anyway, computer scientists split the bit back in 1969, which is how we’re able to make smaller and smaller computers: the bits are all smaller, so we can pack more into a single potato chip.

      • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good catch but not quite. bps is a rate so it is allowed to be an abstract expression.

        How many chickens per hour cross the road?

        And more importantly, why.

      • Kevin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you had really slow Internet, like smoke signals or semaphores across a nation, you could characterize it as millibit:

        1 bit over 1000 seconds = 1 millibit/s.

        But yeah, it’s basically meaningless in today’s age for Internet speeds.

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The title used the wrong abbreviation and you didn’t read the linked press release. The previous standard was 25/3 Mbps so there’s no reason to downgrade; had you bothered to read the link you’re supposedly commenting on you’d see the new standard is 100/20 Mbps. That’s also laughably low for a regular household with a modicum of modern usage but we can’t really expect much from agencies under regulatory capture.