21–30 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US did that. But only with copper. And so the telcos just ripped out all the copper. There's not too much left.
What is your definition of copper? Almost everywhere I’ve ever lived, the only broadband internet available was provided using coax cable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US did that. But only with copper. And so the telcos just ripped out all the copper. There's not too much left.
What is your definition of copper? Almost everywhere I’ve ever lived, the only broadband internet available was provided using coax cable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would much rather have the govt provide incentives for there to be more than one provider. In the UK, ISPs are forced to lease their last-mile lines to anyone who wants to provide internet service. This results in a decent amount of competition.
If, say, Comcast had to lease their last mile, why wouldn’t they charge an arm and a leg to whoever was trying to sell internet? I don’t see how this would bring prices down meaningfully.
In a major tech hub like San Francisco, where I live, it's possible to get 1gb/1gb in some areas for under $90, but which those are isn't consistent nor wide spread. Home cell coverage at 100/20 is spotty at best, and there is only one flat rate vendor (T-Mobile Home, no Verizon Home yet). For those outside of the Bay Area exurbs, I can only imagine the horrors of Comcast/Xfinity or only DSL people must deal with.
Looking forward, the FCC is assuming that people are just watching Netflix, Tiktok, and making angry Karen posts on Nextdoor. We're not sure where web3 will lead, and how much bandwidth will that take: Distributed file systems/data privacy? Fast crypto transactions? Metaverse/VR/AR glasses/contacts? And what about latency?
1000/500 should be the FCC goal.
What's the point? It's not even possible for me to get what's currently defined as broadband where I live. Changing some definitions isn't going to give me faster internet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the term "broadband" is connected to things like subsidies (i.e. giving an ISP $x if they can provide y people with broadband) intended to increase internet connectivity in poor or remote areas. Increasing the definition also means that ISPs can no longer cheap out and pocket the subsidies.
Downspeed hardly matters. It's been plenty for decades. Upload speed has stagnated. I uploaded as fast in 2003 as I do now in 2022. And as others have said, it's not so much about 1 fast provider as many providers and choice. In my comcast monopoly my plan started at $60/mo in 2011 and without any changes on my end and no change in my upload speed that price has increased to it's current $105/mo. In addition to the price increases they've implemented a new system of total data transfer limits ((up/down)+internal overhead) meaning even if I could have a faster connection it'd mean nothing if I used it in the first week and then got hit with multiple $10 overage "fees".
But I don't have a choice. It doesn't matter how good, or bad, Comcast is. They're the only game in town.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would much rather have the govt provide incentives for there to be more than one provider. In the UK, ISPs are forced to lease their last-mile lines to anyone who wants to provide internet service. This results in a decent amount of competition.
If, say, Comcast had to lease their last mile, why wouldn’t they charge an arm and a leg to whoever was trying to sell internet? I don’t see how this would bring prices down meaningfully.
I can't be the only one that this happened to.
The problem, in the USA for most people, is Comcast. Downspeed hardly matters. It's been plenty for decades. Upload speed has stagnated. I uploaded as fast in 2003 as I do now in 2022. And as others have said, it's not so much about 1 fast provider as many providers and choice. In my comcast monopoly my plan started at $60/mo in 2011 and without any changes on my end and no change in my upload speed that price has in…
Until the power company ran fiber earlier this year, the only wired option here was 3Mbps DSL from AT&T. AT&T buried fiber all over the area (including in front of my house) years ago, but it sits there unused.
No. This is insanity. Faster speed will mean that providers will charge more. I am perfectly fine with 25 Mbps. I was fine with 10 Mbps too until they eliminated that level and I was forced to pay more. Edit: why disagree?