51–60 of 67 posts
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2475450363.png
Now, could someone explain to me why this is on hacker news, and so high in the list? It only remotely references something new that Google is doing, is that the requirement these days?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you are, but believe it or not the competition between Eastlink and Bell Aliant FibreOp are making the market pretty good here in the Maritimes. I think, anyway. I pay $99/month for 50M/50M internet, phone and TV (with the movie network, a couple of extra 'networks' and the full home DVR). Admittedly, that's for 12 months, but I can renew at that price for another 24 months after that. If worse com…
Sounds a lot better than Vancouver. I'm paying $45/mo for 15 down 1 up, with a bandwidth usage cap. You literally can't get home internet for less than $40/mo, and the speed you get when you pay that is a joke.
This article is factually inaccurate. Time Warner is rolling this change out across the country, not just in the Kansas City area. Here's the announcement from December: http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2012/12/we-are-boosting-down... Frankly, Time Warner needs to increase their internet speeds to keep up with LTE. I have one of the higher speed options and my LTE speeds are about twice what I experience on my Time Wa…
> This article is factually inaccurate No, it is not. The guy states what he /thinks/ might be reasons for this change, not that they /are/ the reasons.
Which is not really the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Startup opportunity?
Not sure how Canada's laws are, but in the US it is heavily regulated. You can't just become an ISP, even if you could get the city to let you trench fiber. FCC licenses are heavily policed. We don't have duopolies in internet throughout most of the country by accident or because no one has noticed. It's because it's illegal to operate otherwise.
In most places in the US the telephone poles and utility conduits are generally owned by the telephone or electric company. You need to lease pole space from them, and those leases aren't cheap. There have been several municipal WiFi initiatives that got alot of press, but later died because they couldn't afford to rent the pole access.
In higher-density areas, there are alternatives. For example, in Albany, NY a small telco provider worked with the city to provide municipal wifi and public safety networking using traffic lights, city buildings, and streetlights (which are owned by the city). The problem with that model is that you get good coverage in central business districts and avenues, but nothing on residential blocks.
You have duopolies because the Bell System was the one and only phone company, and the Feds have basically allowed SBC/AT&T and Verizon to bring that back. Phone companies didn't "get" IP networks in the 90's and early 2000's, and decided to just milk the aging out POTS network as long as possible and ask for government handouts later. Cable companies evolved differently from community co-ops (Ars Technica has a few good stories about this) and tend to operate in a model where they get a franchise agreement that gives them a monopoly in a city or town. So now you have highly regulated, dumb telcos and lesser regulated cable companies who negotiate sweetheart deals with dumb municipal governments.
That is so cute, getting excited about 5mbps extra. http://www.speedtest.net/result/2475450363.png Now, could someone explain to me why this is on hacker news, and so high in the list? It only remotely references something new that Google is doing, is that the requirement these days?
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/11/speedtestga.jpg (edit: does anyone here have a faster connection to the place where he lives?)
(Typically its much slower (esp wrt latency, but throughput too, around 25ms/90Mbit/s down) though because for normal surfing I usually just use WLAN.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This article is factually inaccurate No, it is not. The guy states what he /thinks/ might be reasons for this change, not that they /are/ the reasons.
Come on. The tone of the article is clearly "TWC is a bunch of evil bastards and they're only doing this because of new competition and they're assholes and this is something they could have done years ago and they just didn't because they're greedy!!1" Which is not really the case.
Is it not, really? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a 50mbps Time Warner connection and all I got was a letter telling me that I would have to pay $8 a month to rent a $10 modem. One thing I've noticed since moving to New York City from Chicago is that nobody has to even try in New York because the captive audience is so large that even the worst-run business will make tons of money. ("We don't take credit cards." "A $5 fee will be added for paying your bill on…
Buy this from your favorite online site: http://www.motorola.com/Video-Solutions/US-EN/Products-and-S... Call the service # and tell them you have a new MAC address to give them for your subscription and the fee gets removed. All-in-all it took 5 minutes.
Meanwhile in Canada, internet prices trend upwards, and google fibre-esque offerings are nowhere to be seen.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Bell-Canada-Offers-Unlimi...
