Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps for $60 After Years of Battling Comcast

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 519 posts

Re: Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps for $60 After Years of Battling Comcast

#31

Post by imglorp »

jkilpatr wrote: post #20
Donald wrote: post #10

As a FoCo resident, Comcast sent me an email saying that they're "upgrading our network" and "increasing your Internet download speed". Not really clear what that means until I see an updated rate sheet. I'm sure this is entirely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the fact that they suddenly have some competition now.

> "upgrading our network" They actually where not doing this before because it's probably a bad idea. Modern cable networks look like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_fiber-coaxial#/media/Fi... Fiber goes to copper which then splits out to a large number of homes. The copper line near your home can do multiple gigabit but that needs to be shared with everyone else on the tree. So selling higher speeds is ea…

Fraud yes, because they're underprovisioned if everyone asks for 1 Gb, but the ponzi scheme continues to work okay because many households will find that median 72 Mbps is enough for several vid streams so they're good to go.

The bigger problem is the industry which can do horrible, abusive things to its customers and communities. They'll try anything except delighting their customers. If any of the upcoming WISP solutions like Starlink take off, you might imagine a serious disruption.

Re: Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps for $60 After Years of Battling Comcast

#34

Post by rectang »

jessaustin wrote: post #26
cptskippy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's that and incumbents get laws made to preserve their monopolies or make it more expensive for competition to start up.

So true! There is a giant federal agency, FCC, the primary purpose of which is to preserve telco monopoly. Few people realize this is FCC's purpose. As usual, it's informative to pay more attention to results than to marketing. Even supposed "reforms" (why would an agency functioning in accordance with its stated goals need reform?) like the 1996 law have primarily led to increased revenue for monopoly telcos.

Whenever you hear "deregulation", think "choosing winners".

The form of "deregulation" we get from Ajit Pai's FCC selectively advantages the incumbent oligopoly of telcos, leaving in place the most grotesque market-distorting regulations and removing controls on vertical integration which allow for the expansion of telco power into other industries.

Market failure can take myriad forms. The ISP situation in the US is a particularly maddening variant.

Re: Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps for $60 After Years of Battling Comcast

#35

Post by close04 »

Etheryte wrote: post #15

Could someone please explain the background to someone not from the US? Why is competition so scarce in this field in the US? Is it just the cost of infrastructure over large distances, or is something else at play here?

Big ISPs (and any big company really) can afford to lobby (legal bribery) to get laws exclusively in their favor. This basically guarantees that the bar for any new player is ridiculously high if it's even possible to pass, and that customers have no real choice.

Re: Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps for $60 After Years of Battling Comcast

#36

Post by chopin »

martin_a wrote: post #16
bencollier49 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually a rule on here?

Es ist einfach eine Frage der Höflichkeit, dass wir in der "Quasi-Weltsprache" Englisch kommunizieren. Ich denke das trägt im Internet allgemein zum Verständnis bei und sollte dementsprechend auch hier zum guten Ton gehören. Ob man es in irgendwelche Regeln schreiben muss weiß ich nicht, ich dachte ich kann ja trotzdem mal danach fragen. Better this way?

Im letzten deutschen Satz fehlt ein Komma.

Re: Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps for $60 After Years of Battling Comcast

#37

Post by egeozcan »

martin_a wrote: post #16
bencollier49 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually a rule on here?

Es ist einfach eine Frage der Höflichkeit, dass wir in der "Quasi-Weltsprache" Englisch kommunizieren. Ich denke das trägt im Internet allgemein zum Verständnis bei und sollte dementsprechend auch hier zum guten Ton gehören. Ob man es in irgendwelche Regeln schreiben muss weiß ich nicht, ich dachte ich kann ja trotzdem mal danach fragen. Better this way?

For me yes, I wouldn't want it all the time, but after so many years in Germany, feels natural, given that I understand it as good as I do English. I wouldn't say the same if you had written in Kaixana or any other language I neither speak nor can use an online translator with. I however don't think that there should be written rules, unless this becomes a problem.

Re: Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps for $60 After Years of Battling Comcast

#38

Post by cptskippy »

jessaustin wrote: post #26
cptskippy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's that and incumbents get laws made to preserve their monopolies or make it more expensive for competition to start up.

So true! There is a giant federal agency, FCC, the primary purpose of which is to preserve telco monopoly. Few people realize this is FCC's purpose. As usual, it's informative to pay more attention to results than to marketing. Even supposed "reforms" (why would an agency functioning in accordance with its stated goals need reform?) like the 1996 law have primarily led to increased revenue for monopoly telcos.

Faliciously Purporting that Federal Regulatory Agencies are intended to be something because that's how they currently function doesn't lend you any credibility. Instead it makes untrustworthy and manipulative.

It's completely possible to corrupt an agency and for the FCC to behave the way you described through political interference but that is not their intended purpose.

Post reply on HN