11–20 of 176 posts
I’m reminded of a comment I read a few days ago from someone that has their own small isp that said bandwidth was basically an inconsequential cost for them. Throttling like this is penny pinching of the highest order. How do we get the benefits of competition if every company is doing it?
I keep thinking I see this on my wired (Comcast) connection too. Stuff just behaves too strangely for it to be anything else. One video provider will get slow. Switch to the mobile connection and it's fine. Switch to another site on the wired connection, that's fine too. They've made it perfectly clear they're unhappy I won't pay them an extra $100+/month for 900 channels of crap over and over.
If I were of a suspicious mind, I'd wonder if Rogers is pulling some backend shenanigans to discourage cord-cutting.
if I were legislating this I'd mandate transparency before I mandated neutrality -- maybe consumers would be willing to pay up or switch to a provider that provided neutrality for streaming. one way for government to provide usable markets is to mandate good information without setting standards. NFLX is over neutrality for home internet (not sure about mobile), they're in every server cage maybe neutrality is the wr…
Most people do not have another reasonable option to switch to.
Or is the issue rural locations which were never wired for cable because they all just got satellite dishes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people do not have another reasonable option to switch to.
It surprises me that most people in the US wouldn't have at least one cable and one DSL option. After all, cable TV is available most places, and everyone has a phone line (or is at least wired for one). Or is the issue rural locations which were never wired for cable because they all just got satellite dishes?
* Spectrum (up to 400mbps)
* AT&T (5mbps dsl)
I technically do have some choice, but given that one of these is close to 100x faster than the other, and the pricing is fairly similar...
I think wireless isps and 5g are our best chance at disrupting this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people do not have another reasonable option to switch to.
It surprises me that most people in the US wouldn't have at least one cable and one DSL option. After all, cable TV is available most places, and everyone has a phone line (or is at least wired for one). Or is the issue rural locations which were never wired for cable because they all just got satellite dishes?
1) 6mbit AT&T/SBC DSL internet
2) 400mbit cableco internet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people do not have another reasonable option to switch to.
It surprises me that most people in the US wouldn't have at least one cable and one DSL option. After all, cable TV is available most places, and everyone has a phone line (or is at least wired for one). Or is the issue rural locations which were never wired for cable because they all just got satellite dishes?
EDIT: In comparison, the same dsl provider on streets that have had their lines upgraded offers 100Mbps plans for about $30 less per month than the cable provider. So some homes actually do enjoy a little healthy competition, but it hasn't been enough to cause any changes in the cable plan pricing yet :(
And by QoS I don't mean limiting video even if there's available bandwidth, I mean limiting it if other people are trying to use their connections reasonably.
if I were legislating this I'd mandate transparency before I mandated neutrality -- maybe consumers would be willing to pay up or switch to a provider that provided neutrality for streaming. one way for government to provide usable markets is to mandate good information without setting standards. NFLX is over neutrality for home internet (not sure about mobile), they're in every server cage maybe neutrality is the wr…