31–40 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the infrastructure cost. I use Ting in the US which uses brokered network infrastructure similar to Google Fi.
its on the order of 375m to build out a market with 500 cell sites, assuming you have no greenfield sites. Thats not a huge number, not for google.
I think this is generally a good thing for consumers. One strong company with a solid network can provide more effective competition against Verizon and AT&T than two weak companies with crappy networks can separately.
No it's not, now T-Mobile will have as much leverage as Verizon and AT&T and will become horrible like them. T-Mobile so far is nice here, but for example in Germany is one of the despised companies. The companies don't need to merge to become better for customers. They could for example have agreements and share their towers to improve each other's coverage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a perfect example of how Silicon Valley mentality and technocratic solutions often overcomplicate, to a ridiculous degree, the mostly solved challenge of how to get obtainable and affordable high-speed internet in the United States. It's called municipal broadband.[1] Not everything has to be disrupted the way that SF startup cats want to. There is legitimately no reason you couldn't de-privatize spectrum and…
My municipality cannot even deliver water without making our kids mentally disabled from lead poisoning. Not sure I want them with a monopoly on telecoms too.
Also why would municipal broadband be a monopoly? There are lots of municipal broadband projects that are one of many ISPs.
This isn't a theoretical prediction of the future, there are already lots of examples.
Quick question. Why do people continue to use Verizon or AT&T when Sprint or T-Mobile are so much cheaper? It looks like I could cut my Verizon bill in half by switching to T Mo.
I really hope Starlink starts a boom in low orbit, low ping, internet providers... Because that's the only way we're going to see any competition emerge in wireless telecommunications. This merger is unlikely to do anyone good, IMHO, and is very likely going to make prices rise in a few years once the FTC isn't watching them. Look at the very expected level of bullshit AT&T has done with Dish Network's pricing... If…
I really hope Starlink starts a boom in low orbit, low ping, internet providers... Because that's the only way we're going to see any competition emerge in wireless telecommunications. This merger is unlikely to do anyone good, IMHO, and is very likely going to make prices rise in a few years once the FTC isn't watching them. Look at the very expected level of bullshit AT&T has done with Dish Network's pricing... If…
edit: I've always avoided AT&T because they're always the highest priced offering even after bonuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My municipality cannot even deliver water without making our kids mentally disabled from lead poisoning. Not sure I want them with a monopoly on telecoms too.
Most municipalities can do that, so the problem is likely more with your municipality than the concept in general. Also why would municipal broadband be a monopoly? There are lots of municipal broadband projects that are one of many ISPs. This isn't a theoretical prediction of the future, there are already lots of examples.
> water consumption is down, there are still an estimated 240,000 water main breaks per year in the United States, wasting over two trillion gallons of treated drinking water
> While drinking water infrastructure is funded primarily through a rate-based system, the investment has been inadequate for decades and will continue to be underfunded without significant changes as the revenue generated will fall short as needs grow.