Verizon pretty much did the same thing with $5B in money from just New York City. They completely got away with it too.
AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
41–50 of 96 posts
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#42I'm no fan of AT&T. Their contract terms are garbage, and I feel lucky to love somewhere with options. But the article hasn't done a great job of explaining this headline. It makes it sound like these subsidies were designed to encourage AT&T to build out more fiber. But when I follow the links, they're about things like general tax cuts that were followed by layoffs or misrepresenting figures to benefit from a COVID…
Yeah that's the vibe I got. More accurate headline: "ATT has been beneficiary of government action. ATT says it won't build new fiber to some dsl customers."
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#43My first thought is "ok well then give the cash to a company that is actually willing to do it". IMO Starlink would be the best option for these rural areas, simply based off the fact that they have a track record of providing broadband to very rural areas + they don't have to run any fiber to connect a new location. Starlink is very expensive though which is where I would expect a govt subsidy to step in and bring t…
It's not an issue of what companies to trust. The issue is trusting them at all.
Ideally this sort of thing should be a public work. Operators can be private but shared infrastructure should be publicly owned seeing as we're paying for it.
But if markets have to be involved...If we're willing to pay $X per customer we should give the tax subsidy to them. The market can sort out who is actually willing to get the work done and service customers to get the subsidy.
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#44My first thought is "ok well then give the cash to a company that is actually willing to do it". IMO Starlink would be the best option for these rural areas, simply based off the fact that they have a track record of providing broadband to very rural areas + they don't have to run any fiber to connect a new location. Starlink is very expensive though which is where I would expect a govt subsidy to step in and bring t…
This seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge impact on astronomy, and they increase the probability of accidents which cause space debris.
>They have a huge impact on astronomy
I'm of the opinion that commercial satellites should be required to be painted as dark as possible. If that requires extra engineering to dissipate heat, so be it.
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#45Is AT&T still around? Bell Labs is a long-faded memory at this point.
Wasn't Bell Labs a result of ATT's natural, sanctioned monopoly?
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#46I gave up on waiting. I live in Silicon Valley, and was stuck with a 50Mbps DSL line from AT&T. Insane.
Internet connection is a personal top priority when choosing a residence. Why haven’t you moved?
Do you have children? I ask this because no matter what personal preferences people have, many sacrifices are made for the kiddos.
Move for good schools and extra curricular activities. Move for good sports programs. Move for after school care.
Move for better fiber though? Doubt momma is gonna be happy about that idea. If momma ain’t happy. Ain’t nobody movin nowhere.
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet connection is a personal top priority when choosing a residence. Why haven’t you moved?
Because moving out of the bay area, even with shit internet, is extraordinarily stupid if you work in tech.
That sounds like a perfectly usable Internet connection but tons of reasons one might choose to move out of the Bay Area. There are various good reasons to live there (including some that have nothing to do with employment) but the idea that you must in tech is misguided.
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#48My first thought is "ok well then give the cash to a company that is actually willing to do it". IMO Starlink would be the best option for these rural areas, simply based off the fact that they have a track record of providing broadband to very rural areas + they don't have to run any fiber to connect a new location. Starlink is very expensive though which is where I would expect a govt subsidy to step in and bring t…
This seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge impact on astronomy, and they increase the probability of accidents which cause space debris.
So for the space debris argument, is humanity just not supposed to have satellites? Like should we phase out the entire concept? Do we expect to solve the issue somehow and then open up space?
Are some satellites okay and it's just a value judgment of the clear worth of one more satellite against the unquantifiable risk of possible downside?
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#49My first thought is "ok well then give the cash to a company that is actually willing to do it". IMO Starlink would be the best option for these rural areas, simply based off the fact that they have a track record of providing broadband to very rural areas + they don't have to run any fiber to connect a new location. Starlink is very expensive though which is where I would expect a govt subsidy to step in and bring t…
It's not an issue of what companies to trust. The issue is trusting them at all. Ideally this sort of thing should be a public work. Operators can be private but shared infrastructure should be publicly owned seeing as we're paying for it. But if markets have to be involved...If we're willing to pay $X per customer we should give the tax subsidy to them. The market can sort out who is actually willing to get the work…
Yes, I have no idea how, in 2024, internet service is not considered a basic utility like power and water, and regulated as such.
My parents paid ~ $65 / mo for 6mb dsl for ages. They had constant outages, and ATT always stonewalled the repairs. Talking to the repair guy, he admitted that ATT basically hated supporting that DSL, and wished all their rural customers would go elsewhere. He even told them that if they canceled, ATT would not offer internet service to them again, they'd just decommission the service down their street.
They're now on starlink, despite being only a 1/4 mile outside of city limits, it's the best option they have.
Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies
#50My first thought is "ok well then give the cash to a company that is actually willing to do it". IMO Starlink would be the best option for these rural areas, simply based off the fact that they have a track record of providing broadband to very rural areas + they don't have to run any fiber to connect a new location. Starlink is very expensive though which is where I would expect a govt subsidy to step in and bring t…
The rural broadband subsidies would work much better if they were not available to large ISPs. The scaling effects of last mile internet installations are basically negligible. For instance, a neighborhood of a few hundred houses in the mountains outside of Silicon Valley started their own fiber to the home ISP. It cost something like $10K per house to wire it up and monthly payments are much lower than starlink. We…
>The rural broadband subsidies would work much better if they were not available to large ISPs.
This. When you go on to the FCC website and look for good high speed internet, outside of major cities it's almost always available through some coop. The government should be supporting this, but it's not 'by the people, for the people' anymore, it's 'by the corporations, for the corporations'