61–70 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet prices in Canada are awful... Videotron is charging me 50$/mo for 10 down / 1 up and a supplement of 30$ for unlimited download... and the other provider in Montreal (Bell) has exactly the same pricing scheme... we have a lot of choices.
Start an ISP. You'll make a lot of money.
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
In the UK in particular both broadband AND cellular/mobile service should be nationalised. Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends on it. To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines, and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to ISPs/telephone companies. Wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think its bias. I cannot get DSL, CABLE, Fiber-anything... My choices are: Dialup, Satellite, or wireless internet. I can get 3G cell coverage -- sometimes. My street does have cable television, they just refuse to service the area with internet access. My country has an exclusivity agreement with this cable provider, so no other providers can come into the area. The sickening factor for me is the fact that I…
We lived with that situation for years. Finally we banded together to start a WISP, signed a few people, and put up some antennas (with the blessing of local government) We then started passing out flyers. The flyers did it. The a cable company had everyone hooked up in less than 6 weeks. They had previously told the county that geography made this impossible while reupping their exclusivity contract.
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
True, I have no need for fast speeds; 20 Mbs is more than enough for me.
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
Yes, not to mention some rural areas which have no broadband at all and are still on 56k or satellite. In some cases locals have taken it into their own hands and established coops to build their own broadband systems. Even if you have no interest in the internet, stuff like that has to hurt your house price.
Their base-line internet service is roughly five times faster than my base-line internet service (from AT&T) in Chicago.
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
In the UK in particular both broadband AND cellular/mobile service should be nationalised. Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends on it. To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines, and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to ISPs/telephone companies. Wit…
In practice a conservative government will end up selling off and privatizing the company. Subsequent governments will still act like they own it though, because that one company now controls 99% of the country's infrastructure. The share price will then stagnate forever.
Kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't.
This reminds me a bit of the situation we had in Zurich. The (city owned) electric utility had a few hundred million reserves and decided to invest it into a fiber network. Actually - since the utility was owned by the city - the decision was based on a popular referendum, which sailed through. Needless to say that the established telcos and cable providers fought tooth and nail to kill the referendum. The interestin…
> The network is managed, and I think wisely so, in a way that EWZ grants equal access to private ISPs which then compete for customers. They don't act as an ISP. This is the model I see as ideal and it always baffles me why it's so rarely mentioned as an option. Make the fiber network a public grid like roads, water, sewer, power. Then sell access to private companies to deal with the connectivity, services (TV/VoIP…
I agree that this is 100% the best way to do it - currently here, internet is delivered over a decaying copper network owned by privatised monopoly that is openly hostile to open access, who also competes in the retail space. So the new model should be so much better and encourage so much more competition.
We're just hoping that the opposition government (which are likely to come into power in September) will have enough pressure from voters and industry to not put in their awful policy which stops the fibre to the premises rollout and installs fibre to the node instead (costing almost as much, and offering a maximum of 50Mb/s instead of the 1Gb/s that the current plan will provide).
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
In the UK in particular both broadband AND cellular/mobile service should be nationalised. Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends on it. To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines, and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to ISPs/telephone companies. Wit…
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
Yes, not to mention some rural areas which have no broadband at all and are still on 56k or satellite. In some cases locals have taken it into their own hands and established coops to build their own broadband systems. Even if you have no interest in the internet, stuff like that has to hurt your house price.
We have a microwave link on the church tower to cover the village here. It really shouldn't be left up to the locals to manage their own network.