[HN Gopher] Report: Most Americans have no real choice in intern...
___________________________________________________________________
Report: Most Americans have no real choice in internet providers
Author : rmason
Score : 141 points
Date : 2020-08-14 20:26 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ilsr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ilsr.org)
| fireattack wrote:
| Questions for the people from areas that _do_ have: do the
| different providers have separate infrastructures and facilities
| (optical fiber cables, switches, etc.)?
| DavidVoid wrote:
| I'm not in the US, but the apartment building I live in is
| connected to so-called dark fiber that is run by the
| municipality. My understanding is that the fiber cables are
| provided by the municipality and are then connected to a switch
| belonging to the ISP you choose. I can pick between 16
| different ISPs with speeds up to 10 Gbit/s (both down and up).
| vinay427 wrote:
| My parents' current and previous homes both had two choices.
| One was AT&T's fiber option (probably FTTN, not FTTH) and the
| other was cable through the local provider.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| AT&T Fiber is FTTH.
| zombielinux wrote:
| Typically, you'd have one fiber provider and one cable (coax)
| provider. I've never met anyone that has two fiber, or two coax
| providers to the same residential address.
| just-ok wrote:
| In our case they definitely do. We _finally_ had an opportunity
| to ditch AT &T's pathetic 3Mbps DSL offering in our area (which
| was their _best_ plan...) recently in favor of Comcast's
| 200Mbps which was cable-based (so obviously different infra).
| Same price, too...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| In my area, you used to be able to sign up for 2-3 different
| cable internet providers on the Time Warner Network.
|
| I'd bounce between EarthLink and TWC to get new customer
| bonuses. EarthLink was cheaper ($25 iirc vs $45 several years
| ago) but slower.
| wtallis wrote:
| Local loop unbundling hasn't been a thing in the US for a long
| time, and never applied to cable or fiber to begin with.
| Separate ISPs means separate infrastructure. The coax, POTS and
| fiber cables in my yard all go to different places. However, a
| well-placed backhoe at the nearest major road can probably
| still take them all out in one swipe.
| oneplane wrote:
| We have 3 different media options and 14 different providers. 4
| media options if you'd allow for 3g/4g/5g internet, 56k modem
| internet and satellite internet, but I don't count those.
|
| Differences:
|
| Media is DOCSIS, DSL or Optical fiber
|
| Providers have differences in facilities and services,
| differences:
|
| - Plain internet vs. user-selectable filters (i.e. SMTP
| protection, SMB protection, content filters at the ISP level)
|
| - VoIP options
|
| - IPTV options
|
| - Connectivity options (i.e. auto failover to LTE or special
| managed hardware)
|
| - Addressing options (single IP, multiple IP, routed subnet if
| you want)
|
| So you might find yourself wanting an all-in-one package over
| DOCSIS using the coax cable media, which is a common choice (at
| least before fiber rollout). Or you may like very fast internet
| in your own control, so you'd take fiber with no bundled stuff.
| Costs about the same as the other option.
|
| Other things like having HD or 4K broadcasts may limit your
| choices, not all providers have all channels available in all
| formats, and not all kinds of media support all kinds of
| bitrates. So for non-cable (non-DOCSIS) you'd not be able to
| use 4k with DSL for more than 2 IPTV receivers.
|
| Some providers come with extra on-site support in the package,
| like someone who will set it up, check that it works with your
| computer, setup your email if you still have ISP-bound email
| for some reason, and do your WiFi with extra access points (no
| repeater!) as needed. Others may be cheap and have no default
| service like that included and you then have the option to buy
| it on-demand at a higher price.
| pottertheotter wrote:
| Almost always, the answer is yes. The exception is in areas
| where the municipality operates an open access network (i.e.,
| the city installs and owns all the fiber, but multiple ISPs
| provide service). Community Networks, which is part of ILSR,
| has a list of some of those communities. [1] UTOPIA is perhaps
| the most prominent, as it covers several municipalities in
| Utah. Snazzy labs recently posted a video discussing their
| network. [2] I have family that has UTOPIA and they can choose
| from something like 11 ISPs all over the same network. [3]
|
| [1] https://muninetworks.org/content/open-access
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e9DNwInTE4
|
| [3] https://www.utopiafiber.com/residential-pricing/
| gz5 wrote:
| Regulation does't always spur open competition and often has
| unintended consequences.
|
| Separate the last mile pipe provider/operator (infrastructure)
| from the service providers. All service providers compete across
| that pipe. Traditional ISPs, niche providers, etc. I may choose 5
| of them as a consumer.
|
| It does necessitate an open, multi-tenant architecture. Let's
| invest there rather than investing in trying to implement a new
| regulatory scheme.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| Local loop unbundling, as it's called in the U.K. has
| definitely driven prices down for DSL, but it means there's
| very little in terms of actual consumer choice. It's basically
| one ISP (virgin excluded cause that's docsis and a totally
| different network) for everyone, with different people you can
| buy service from. If anything actually goes wrong with the
| network, open reach fixes it, but there's no way for a company
| to differentiate on performance, only price.
| milankragujevic wrote:
| There are "variants" of LLU that allow ISPs to install their
| own equipment in the ILECs central office buildings, which
| would allow the ISP to utilize their own equipment on both
| ends of the line (CPE and DSLAM). It is rare, though, and
| incompatible with Vectoring for example. Most xDSL ISPs just
| resell service and the ILEC uses a L2 VPN to route traffic
| from the DSLAM to the core network of the reseller ISP. Price
| is rarely lower, usually only with bundles such as IPTV or
| landline with cheap international calls...
| Proziam wrote:
| Customer service, features/bundles, and deal terms are
| reasonable ways for a company to differentiate itself I
| believe.
|
| I'd rather everyone have great internet access at a fair
| price and let the companies battle it out for a smaller piece
| of the pie. Consumers win.
| crooked-v wrote:
| > Separate the last mile pipe provider/operator
| (infrastructure) from the service providers. All service
| providers compete across that pipe.
|
| That sounds like regulation to me.
| lutorm wrote:
| Soon they'll at least have 2...
|
| https://www.starlink.com/
| chrsstrm wrote:
| In a rural area where the local telco was granted a legal
| monopoly, their "high speed" comes in a 5/0.5mbps on a good day.
| The area is now blanketed in T-Mobile 5G coverage, but questions
| asking T-Mobile about a 5G hotspot with a wired LAN port have
| gone unanswered. I'd love to use a 5G hotspot as the house's
| modem, but WiFi-only just won't work. Do any 5G devices with a
| SIM slot and a wired LAN port exist?
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Keep an eye on Cradlepoint. Their 5G modem is available on
| Telstra and I'm sure American carriers will be available soon.
| ropiku wrote:
| Huawei 5G CPE Pro (if you don't mind Huawei) has good reviews,
| has ethernet and you can use external 5G antennas.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| You don't need a 5G device for decent Internet speed - at least
| not in my rural area (Nevada City, in town). T-Mobile is my
| only provider for phone/data/etc. At $60/month, 50GB cap, it's
| the best deal I've had for a while.
| donatj wrote:
| My parents were in a similar situation. They only had terrible
| DSL in their area.
|
| T-Mobile actually offers a home router with Ethernet out, they
| got accepted into the beta about 6 months ago and it's been a
| godsend.
|
| - https://www.t-mobile.com/isp
| chrsstrm wrote:
| That's exactly the type of program I'm looking for but it
| only mentions LTE. The LTE coverage there is spotty and
| speeds aren't great, so really hoping for 5G. Plus the fine
| print in the terms talks about how some streaming services
| can't be used, but doesn't name them. If T-Mobile rolls out a
| program like this with their 5G network it would be amazing.
| I really can't imagine them trying to sell 5G phones to
| country folk, at least not until the price comes way down.
| What else would they use that 5G bandwidth for in the
| meantime?
| joe_the_user wrote:
| I can't imagine how 5G could leap-frog LTE. As I understand
| it, 5G has to blanket an area to be able to reliably
| transmit into a building. When the companies seem to put
| 2-3 towers per ridge in mountain areas, how is that going
| to happen? And generally, I'd expect any new 5G towers
| would also be LTE towers anyway.
| camkego wrote:
| I think the Netgear Nighthawk M5 for 5G Mobile Router might
| help you. It is announced, but not yet released. I have the
| previous generation, the Netgear Nighthawk M1. I believe both
| have a wired ethernet port.
| umvi wrote:
| Well hopefully things like Starlink can provide an alternative to
| terrestrial internet and force competition into the picture.
| connon wrote:
| Thank you for sharing. This is exactly why Ready (YC S20) makes
| tools that help America's thousands of Local Internet Service
| Providers compete with the copper cartel. https://ready.net
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| Living in NYC, I have one high-speed internet option (Spectrum,
| formerly Time Warner) and one not high-speed internet option
| (Verizon DSL with "up to" 3.1 - 7 Mbps). That's it.
| codegeek wrote:
| NYC still has DSL option ? Wow. I left NYC in 2005 as a
| resident and would assume that it has fiber everywhere by now.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| It was supposed to. NYC gave Verizon a deal in exchange for
| wiring fiber citywide. They never did.
| crgwbr wrote:
| They at least partially did. I'm in a not-wealthy area of
| the Bronx and somehow managed to get gigabit Fios from
| Verizon. But, yeah, it's certainly not everywhere yet.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| right - and comparing its service to the AT&T offering, a
| residential Internet service provider in the California Bay Area
| said, "and, we don't send in those reports that most ISPs do" ..
| on a support call..
| qetuo wrote:
| I live in an apartment in Passaic County, NJ. My ISP, Optimum,
| has a monopoly on this group of apartments.
|
| They take advantage of this to charge $75/month for plain
| broadband Internet service, which is about 50% more than the
| average Internet service (including Verizon FIOS) costs in the
| nearby area.
|
| Just sayin'.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Seriously. I don't understand why there isn't a movement to
| regulate ISP's like utilities at this point. Why aren't mayors
| and governors running on this as a major plank?
|
| ISP investments, profits and pricing would all get regulated by
| the municipality. Performance is monitored and guaranteed.
|
| I've lived in many, many apartments in NYC and each building has
| only ever had one choice -- Spectrum (was Time Warner) or
| Optimum. And it's always the same -- it's $24.99-39.99 at first,
| then after a year it's jacked up to $49.99-54.99, then another
| year up to $69.99.
|
| It used to be you'd call to threaten to cancel and they'd re-
| lower it. But they haven't agreed to do that for over 3 years now
| -- they'll just let you cancel. They know you don't have a
| choice.
|
| ISP's are so obviously by now a utility like water, gas and
| electric. Why aren't we treating them that way?
| pwinnski wrote:
| Because very large companies with a lot of money are willing to
| spend vast fortunes to ensure we don't. If it costs them $200
| million in lobbying to ensure that they hang onto $1 billion a
| year in revenue, that's well worth it to them, while the rest
| of us are too busy paying our too-high monthly ISP bills to
| scrape together $200 million to counter their lobbying.
|
| A regular diet of TechDirt[0] on the subject, going back many
| years, tells quite a story.
|
| [0] https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=muni+broadband
| amiga_500 wrote:
| Why are the entire population just accepting the lack of
| democratic representation to defend their interests?
| zajd wrote:
| I live in a town with all utilities municipalized and it's
| wonderful. $50/mo for a Gigabit fiber connection.
| zzzeek wrote:
| optimum is now 90 BUCKS A MONTH. for basic internet, no TV, no
| phone. they are owned by some corporate entity called "Altice"
| which basically came in and ruined whatever slightly positive
| features the website had, like an outage map.
| hvaoc wrote:
| US Internet system is rigged to benefit the providers. This
| exactly the reason after every year we switch back the internet
| connection between me and my spouse, to keep the internet cost
| low.
|
| For most part US doesn't have functional government to manage
| these things properly.
| stainforth wrote:
| I would say all of marketism is rigged to benefit providers
| cameronbrown wrote:
| > Seriously. I don't understand why there isn't a movement to
| regulate ISP's like utilities at this point. Why aren't mayors
| and governors running on this as a major plank?
|
| Who do you think gave them these monopolies in the first place?
| [deleted]
| lioeters wrote:
| That's the answer to why most Americans have "no real choice"
| in Internet service providers, as well in countless other
| services like healthcare, where anti-competitive behavior has
| become normalized and tolerated (or actively encouraged)
| legally.
|
| Even when it's not legally a "monopoly", it's a collusion
| among the most powerful corporations and their revolving-door
| regulators that allow continued exploitation of the public.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Exactly. They're making money!
| Retric wrote:
| Your local power, water, etc company's have a monopoly and
| serious regulation. Internet just has the monopoly bit.
| dhosek wrote:
| The ISPs have bought themselves some democracy. They've managed
| to get numerous state laws passed to prevent local government
| from doing any of this.
| kinjba11 wrote:
| This is correct. What happened to Wilson, NC is fairly
| illuminating. Big ISPs convinced governments to pass laws
| that make it illegal to make an ISP as a utility.
|
| Planet Money - Small America vs Big Internet
| https://www.npr.org/transcripts/865908114
| ghaff wrote:
| Ma Bell as a regulated monopoly for long distance gave us
| pretty great service. It wasn't cheap.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Then force ISPs who own infrastructure to allow competitors
| to use it. Residents are technically the ones who own it and
| lease to these monopolies at the local level.
|
| ISPs are more like Ma Bell than a free market while they keep
| getting exclusivity agreements from localities
| kebman wrote:
| This seems to be the model in Norway for both power and
| internet service. You pay a small fee for "line rent" in
| both instances. While this works well for electricity in
| Norway, IMO it's not that good for internet service. How
| many ISP's there are depends on who's got a server in your
| immediate area. I don't know the details of how it's
| regulated, though. This is just based upon what I see on my
| bill, and the competing ISP's in my area, whic surprisingly
| aren't that many, even though I'm in the middle of Oslo.
| ghaff wrote:
| Residents don't own infrastructure if a local monopoly
| delivery company does. I don't own the electrical lines
| coming to my house.
|
| Nothing wrong with a system where the infrastructure is a
| regulated utility and ISPs can use it. Just don't assume it
| will be better or cheaper than it is today. There's no
| reason to believe that infrastructure won't cost you $100+
| per month before you buy service on top of it. Or that it
| will be more widely available than today.
| exabrial wrote:
| I have 4, which is unusual. To some the problem, more local
| competition is needed. The problem is curbing the anti-
| competitive prentices that prop up local monopolies. States don't
| seem to care about consumer choice.
| jtxx wrote:
| in NYC, I've only ever had the option for one cable provider at
| any given location, either Spectrum / Time Warner or Optimum,
| maybe RCN. but never more than one to pick from, unless you're in
| a fios building then I think that's an option. and there's
| usually DSL but that's not a real competitor.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| We don't have FiOS or even have RCN on our block in NYC.
| Spectrum or "up to 3 to 7Mbps" Verizon DSL. That's it.
| djaque wrote:
| This is what frustrated me the most with some of my friends "free
| market" arguments when net neutrality was in the news. I am also
| a believer in the invisible hand, but it doesn't work when I can
| literally only choose from one provider.
| pascalxus wrote:
| it's not the invisible hand's fault when that hand is tied
| behind it's back. there's so many politicians that have been
| creating legislation that prevents new entrants from coming
| into the market with regulatory capture. that's not a free
| market.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _it 's not the invisible hand's fault when that hand is tied
| behind it's back._
|
| There is no real way "untie" this hand in this case. The
| regulatory pseudo-markets that governments impose are often
| presented as "deregulation" but they aren't that. They're
| just a different kind of regulation. However, both companies
| and politicians put forward the claim that these pseudo-
| markets make their players "private enterprise" and so-
| absolved from responsibility to the public but that's a self-
| serving fiction.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _there 's so many politicians that have been creating
| legislation that prevents new entrants from coming into the
| market with regulatory capture._
|
| Politicians paid for by the incumbents.
|
| Not everywhere though:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_I
| n...
|
| * https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2016/06/what-...
| msla wrote:
| The fact it's impossible for everyone to build cable
| everywhere means it isn't a free market.
| donatj wrote:
| How much of that comes down to municipalities not allowing
| competition on the poles though?
| joe_the_user wrote:
| When a municipality is "not allowing competition on the
| poles", that doesn't the municipality is standing in the way
| of a natural free market. The act described as "allowing
| competition on the poles" is actually an act of _regulation_.
| It is telling whoever owns the poles what to do (even if that
| whoever is the municipality).
|
| This is no more "opening up to the free market" than if
| someone owns some land and a regulator says "you have to
| allow other people's cattle to graze here and must charge
| what we consider a fair price".
|
| --> This isn't to say free markets are the best or that we
| should unregulated natural monopolies in the name of private
| property. Rather, regulatory pseudo-markets often wind-up
| just as shams to allow effective monopolies without implied
| responsibility to the public that a regulated monopoly has.
| sixdimensional wrote:
| Only Cox at the most southern point of SoCal where I live. I have
| only one choice, other than satellite.
|
| We can get 940Mbps down/35Mbps up w/ 1.25TB cap and mid level
| cable TV from Cox for.. wait for it $270/month. O_o
|
| Currently I get 150Mbps down/5Mbps up + mid level cable TV...
| $130/month. It's fast enough for work, but feels so expensive.
| clairity wrote:
| do you have neighbors within ~100 ft? if so, why not share
| internet (and cost) with them? with that much bandwidth, you
| can split it 10 ways and not even notice.
|
| an smb-class wireless router will let you segment neighbors
| into their own isolated vlan, and with mesh/repeaters, you can
| cover a fairly large area.
| ExtremisAndy wrote:
| It's really depressing in rural places. I had to teach online all
| summer with DSL 6mbps down/ 0.3mbps up. Forget uploading any
| video. My students never saw my face. Thankfully, the
| videoconferencing software I was using managed to allow me to
| share my PowerPoint and voice reliably enough. Otherwise, I don't
| know what I would have done.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| What I don't understand is why do we keep repeating these same
| observations again and again and still nothing happens. I've been
| upset at Comcast constantly jacking up the prices, not having an
| internet only option in my area (gets bundled up with TV), making
| sure good prices are available only if you get a 12 month
| contract and so much more. I mean Southpark said it years ago and
| even John Oliver had a segment on it. What is new about this? And
| why haven't we seen an action against it?
| neonate wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200814203602/https://ilsr.org/...
| war1025 wrote:
| This seems fairly unsurprising to me.
|
| Internet is a utility. Most people also don't have a choice in
| who they get electric, water, gas, etc. from.
|
| It's unfortunate that internet service quality is so varied from
| location to location, but utilities tend to form natural
| monopolies.
| avmich wrote:
| > It's unfortunate that internet service quality is so varied
| from location to location, but utilities tend to form natural
| monopolies.
|
| You're missing the crucial difference. Public utilities are
| supervised by the public.
| war1025 wrote:
| > Public utilities are supervised by the public
|
| I have municipal fiber, which is not common, so I guess
| that's a fair point.
| shados wrote:
| they're generally a fair bit more regulated though (and
| ironically I actually have more options for electric than I do
| for internet).
| throw0101a wrote:
| > [...] _but utilities tend to form natural monopolies._
|
| Then perhaps more local authorities should form Internet
| utilities:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
|
| It's a thing in many places:
|
| *
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In...
|
| * https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2016/06/what-...
|
| Unless you are in one of the 22 US states that have
| restrictions on it:
|
| * https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-
| roadbloc...
|
| The public infrastructure provides ISO Layer 1/2 connectivity,
| and let the Free Market(tm) compete at Level 3.
| war1025 wrote:
| Both the town I grew up in and the town I currently live in
| have Municipal Broadband. So maybe I have a skewed view of
| the landscape.
| non-entity wrote:
| The city i live in has been trying to organize municipal
| fiber internet but there's very hard pushback from both
| citizens and lobbying from spectrum.
|
| There was even an entire account on the cities subreddit
| named _Cityname_ FiberBad lmao
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _very hard pushback from both citizens_
|
| What are the citizens' concern(s)?
|
| The _Ars_ article is interesting: the place is in Ammon,
| Idaho, where they label themselves as right-leaning, small
| government. That would be the stereotypical place to _not_
| do such a project.
| non-entity wrote:
| Thats part of it, but from what I understand there was a
| similar project attempted years ago that failed from what
| they say.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| > Internet is a utility. Most people also don't have a choice
| in who they get electric, water, gas, etc. from.
|
| Wait, you don't get to choose who your electricity and gas
| provider is either ?
|
| Here we get to choose from literally dozens of providers. Same
| goes for internet. I can choose from 13 different ISPs at my
| address on fiber alone.
|
| I thought the US believed in competition and free markets ?
| pwinnski wrote:
| "Competition for thee, but not for me" is the order of the
| day. Outsiders and upstarts wants competition, and once they
| establish a majority market share, they spend and fight to
| ensure nobody else can do the same. Money controls
| everything.
| jldugger wrote:
| Do you have 13 different gas pipelines leading to your home?
| war1025 wrote:
| > Here we get to choose from literally dozens of providers
|
| How does this work? Is it similar to all the various wireless
| providers that are actually just resellers for the people who
| own the actual infrastructure? I don't understand how you
| could choose to get electric or natural gas from someone else
| when there is a physical line that comes to your residence.
| candyman wrote:
| I was pleased when we lived in Boston where our building and many
| others was able to put microwave-based services on the roof. It
| was internet-only but very fast and inexpensive - just what we
| needed. Now we are in Louisville and back to the only two
| mediocre and more expensive choices - ATT and Spectrum. And if
| you go out into the country many homes are stuck with satellite
| internet service from Hughes which is damn near unusable.
| umvi wrote:
| Online games on HughesNet are unplayable. Called and complained
| that ~500ms RTT is unacceptable but they made up some excuse as
| to why it couldn't be faster, some mumbo jumbo about the speed
| of light
| kibwen wrote:
| As a transplant to Boston I was thrilled that for the first
| time in my life I actually had a choice of internet provider; I
| went with "not Comcast", aka RCN, because they were the one who
| didn't charge an absurd fee to let me use my own router, and
| the service has been extremely reliable and inexpensive.
| Apparently Verizon has just begun fiber service as well to my
| area, so with a whopping three providers to choose from I am
| perhaps the luckiest person in America.
|
| (The microwave service you mention, Starry, sadly isn't in my
| area yet, but HN will be delighted to hear that their microwave
| relays use Rust internally in embedded context.)
| derblitzmann wrote:
| Yeah, I'm out in the country with Hughesnet, and it works fine
| provided you haven't hit the data cap. But streaming 720p or
| higher is going to be pausing rather consistently.
| darepublic wrote:
| Canadian here. For us it is Rogers, Bell or some skin of those
| two
| throw0101a wrote:
| The telcos / cablecos run the wires, but are mandated by the
| CRTC (~FCC) to allow third-party ISPs access:
|
| * https://canadianisp.ca/
|
| One is still limited to the limits of the underlying technology
| (e.g., copper distance with DSL), but it's better than nothing
| IMHO.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| For internet?
|
| Where are you located? Even my grandparents in Northern Ontario
| have some 5 or so options, and not just skins of the Big 3.
|
| I checked 8 providers when I lived in Kingston.
|
| For cell phone, you are right.
| cmehdy wrote:
| If you're talking about Start, Tekksavy, Tbaytel and similar,
| they're all bound to Rogers or Bell. I think the user you're
| replying to is pretty much right when it comes to Canada, and
| it shows in the prices you get. Same thing for phones.
|
| A couple providers are through satellite and such in rural
| areas and in those cases it's typically even worse since the
| service truly sucks while costing much, and they're in no
| rush to do anything about it when there are issues on the
| line. And I'm not even talking about middle-of-nowhere stuff,
| just places north of Sudbury for example.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| I live in Brooklyn and had Verizon fiOS at my last place, 100/100
| mbps. I moved last year and called Verizon to confirm their
| service reached my new apartment. They said yes.
|
| However... I didn't confirm that their "fiber service" reached my
| apartment, so when I went to change my address they told me the
| only plan available was a 15/1 mbps DSL connection for more money
| than fiber! My only other choice was Spectrum, where I'm now on a
| 200/10 mbps cable connection (it's the fastest upload speed they
| had).
|
| I'm moving again now (neighbor issues) and you can be damn sure I
| confirmed a fiber hookup at my new apartment. I also learned some
| ISPs will say yes, they cover your address. And then when you
| actually go ahead to schedule installation it turns out your unit
| cannot be connected and they call back to cancel. What a hassle.
| vondur wrote:
| Heck, many Americans in metro areas have only one choice for
| internet providers. I've helped people here in SoCal whose only
| choice has been 5-10MB DSL service, and they were getting charged
| like $70/month for it.
| vinay427 wrote:
| Was this in the outer areas (San Bernardino, Ventura, Imperial,
| etc.)?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Helped how? Getting charged that for 100mb in LA, and feel it
| is too high.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Same thing with health insurance.
| avmich wrote:
| Interesting that we discuss sometimes benefits of having
| engineering licensed, but here we apparently see disadvantages
| of licensing going wrong.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-14 23:00 UTC)