91–100 of 106 posts
200Mbps is barely enough for TV streaming if you are on Comcast (Xfinity). You need 500. I have tried 300 and had issues once in a while, 500 works fine. That is because with Comcast, you will never get 200Mbps, no matter what the plan, at least were I live.
> The New York law requiring Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people with low incomes will take effect on Wednesday this week following a multi-year court battle in which the state defeated broadband industry lobby groups. I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". W…
Just adding the burden to the ISPs of offering service at a fixed price will let ISPs compete for who can do it the most efficiently and raise the prices for other customers the least.
But in general I agree with the concept of "just give people enough money so they can afford a base standard cost of living", but in the US specifically that seems very anathema to the culture, they're always trying to control how poor people spend their money (see "food stamps" something I've never seen anywhere else) so unless you do the same thing across the board, just giving one single targeted handout will not have the desired effect.
> The New York law requiring Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people with low incomes will take effect on Wednesday this week following a multi-year court battle in which the state defeated broadband industry lobby groups. I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". W…
but the Internet is free once the infrastructures base costs have been paid.
Somebody has to run the network. Employees need salaries. Things break and wear out. Customers need service. Billing isn’t free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does not increase the cost to ISPs. It does marginally decrease their profits. A profit is not a cost, and despite what finance bros think lower profits are also not a cost. It is perfectly possible to supply 1000Mbps symmetrical fiber service to end users for $20/mo because numerous self-sufficient non-profit municipal broadband organizations in the United States are doing just that. This is 2.5% the capacity f…
What does that have to do with what I wrote? If you want to transfer some ISP profits to low income New Yorkers, do that directly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does not increase the cost to ISPs. It does marginally decrease their profits. A profit is not a cost, and despite what finance bros think lower profits are also not a cost. It is perfectly possible to supply 1000Mbps symmetrical fiber service to end users for $20/mo because numerous self-sufficient non-profit municipal broadband organizations in the United States are doing just that. This is 2.5% the capacity f…
> It is perfectly possible to supply 1000Mbps symmetrical fiber service to end users for $20/mo because numerous self-sufficient non-profit municipal broadband organizations in the United States are doing just that. This statement is false.
> The New York law requiring Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people with low incomes will take effect on Wednesday this week following a multi-year court battle in which the state defeated broadband industry lobby groups. I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". W…
This does not increase the cost to ISPs. It does marginally decrease their profits. A profit is not a cost, and despite what finance bros think lower profits are also not a cost. It is perfectly possible to supply 1000Mbps symmetrical fiber service to end users for $20/mo because numerous self-sufficient non-profit municipal broadband organizations in the United States are doing just that. This is 2.5% the capacity f…
> New York Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian last week issued an order stating that the law will take effect on January 15. > $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. This looks like it will be applied statewide. Not sure if remote parts of the state can handle such heavy connections.
the $15 plan is about what I expected. the $20 plan is kinda absurd. I'm in CA, but I'm paying 100/month for a 400 Mbps plan.
> New York Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian last week issued an order stating that the law will take effect on January 15. > $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. This looks like it will be applied statewide. Not sure if remote parts of the state can handle such heavy connections.
the $15 plan is about what I expected. the $20 plan is kinda absurd. I'm in CA, but I'm paying 100/month for a 400 Mbps plan.
I get that the last mile infrastructure costs a lot to lay down especially in the U.S. with your crazy local politics, but once that pipe is there the bandwidth to fill it should be cheap.
200Mbps is barely enough for TV streaming if you are on Comcast (Xfinity). You need 500. I have tried 300 and had issues once in a while, 500 works fine. That is because with Comcast, you will never get 200Mbps, no matter what the plan, at least were I live.
I thought it was 25 for HD streaming, but Netflix they only need 5mbps! I'd still shoot for higher, but we are plenty happy with 100. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306