- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Make cable internet a utility.
That’s all you gotta do. Will solve 1000 problems and create 0, unless you’re Comcast.
It’ll create 0 as long as the legislation is robust and the current department/politician in charge doesn’t meddle. If you look at other utilities that doesn’t always end up being the case. They should definitely be ripping apart most big-name ISPs and replacing them with localized ones, in addition to absolutely destroying their ability to monopolize by forcing them to rent shared linespace at reasonable cost.
Unless you’re Comcast… or someone who owns a lot of Comcast stock. And I’m pretty sure a lot of people in Congress own a lot of Comcast stock.
Wheeeeeeeeee rampant unregulated late-stage capitalism
My coworker’s wife works for a large consulting firm. He is barred from owning any securities, but fucking congress is not.
Rules for thee but not for me
Disagree. Utilities are also a shitshow and have defrauded the consumer.
I’d prefer that a baseline level of internet service be defined (100mbps symmetrical max, 100ms latency or lower ) and allow local governments and communities to provide that level of service to their constituents. If a company wants to compete above those baselines, let them.
I’d also let the baselines be re-negotiated annually.
Companies are also a shitshow who defrauds consumers. Especially ISPs. I don’t see how this is remotely an argument.
Like it isn’t even an argument. ISPs rank highest among the worst companies in the country.
Do you have a source on utilities defrauding consumers? I don’t doubt it I’m just not aware of it.
Does Flint MI count?
See: pacific gas and electric
If someone randomly told the public “Hey whatever you do, don’t look into my basement” I would instantly start wondering what’s in there. If a company said “We don’t need to be investigated” I’d instantly double the funds to investigate them.
Sort of like “Don’t be evil”, right?
I called my ISP after they bumped prices by $5/month (and told me a single time on the fine print at the bottom of the PDF e-bill of their shitty app). I threatened to switch to their competition and they told me flat out “no you won’t they’re not as fast and you’re not going to break even on setup fees for years”.
I feel like the fact an ISP can just flatout say that should really scream oligopoly issues. Not just the fact the other company is just as bad, but the fact that they (the competitor) is fully aware that the switch is too costly to do.
Utility must become an internet
I have Spectrum and they essentially told me the same, since Frontier is now available in my area. Unsure if it’s true or Spectrum is bluffing. Can anyone here comment on Frontier or the difference between the two? Getting older and I can’t say I keep up with ISP’s as much as I should.
Nah. You can enter your address on frontier and they will tell you the max speed you can get. Over here, cable spectrum is more expensive than frontier fiber.
Really? I had no idea, but Spectrum is more expensive here, at $79 a month. I can’t imagine the monthly average for Frontier is worse.
Yeah, just check on frontiers website and compare the speeds and pricing. I think they have promotions right now for holidays. Just swapped over, $65 for 1GB speed.
First, look into 5G competitors. They have higher latency but usually decent speeds. Unless you’re playing tournaments in competitive video games, they work just fine.
Then, call your ISP with a complaint, and say you’re considering moving over to that competitor. You have to actually be willing to make the move though, because retention lines are starting to care less and less about actually keeping you. I had one actually just say “okay done the line is cancelled.”
Be sure you actually call them on their bullshit though. “They aren’t as fast” may be true, but “I don’t actually need the speeds you’re offering 99% of the time.” “They have high latency” again may be true, but “I don’t actually use the internet for anything that requires an obscenely low ping.”
It’s annoying to have to do, but you can save money with it. And you may actually find a competitor you’re willing to make the move for, saving yourself some money in the process.
For me, unless the 5g has truly unlimited usage, data caps (even slowdowns) would be a bigger deal than the latency.
One provider in my area does 1Gbit truly unlimited, the other has 1Gbit but with 1.2TB caps (which we would probably hit each month)
That’s a good point as well, and people should likely check their own current cap as well, because a lot of people don’t realize they have a cap already.
My choices are Verizon FiOS and Xfinity. I’d rather stay with FiOS than move to 5G because I do have some applications that benefit from 1% highs being <20ms ping. Plus when I looked at 5G the pricing was still around that $40-50 range for a decent line of service.
It’s just annoying because FiOS has a “2 year price guarantee” for new subscribers but is shafting my prices after 12 months. Xfinity is ~$5 cheaper but setup fees are ~$200 and I have to buy my own modem if I don’t want to pay the $10-20 rental fee. All that assumes Xfinity doesn’t raise their rates in 2 years.
In my town, I used T-Mobile Home Internet for a bit. The speed increase was great for a bit, even tho I liked to game. But after a point, the internet was congested from 3 PM to 10 PM. It was wonderful for the first 3 months, and then I had to constantly call the IT/Networking department. Imaging calling them twice a week, every week, and going through 3 router swaps, and a minimum of 20 minutes of phone tag, from September 2022 to February 2023.
- Sorry, we’re having high traffic. It should go away by the next week.
“You said that last week.”
- True, but now we’re planning an update to the tower in your area, it should be improved by November!
“Okay, it’s past november. It’s still slow. My phone has no issues with data or calling.”
- So that was delayed, it should be done by the end of the week.
“It’s now close to Christmas, and it’s even worse.”
- Okay, you got us, we’ll have it done close to January.
“Yet again, its still slow. Why does my phone still work just fine?”
- We’ll have yet another upgrade in February
“It’s february and still shit.”
- Alright, so, we oversold our network too rapidly, and now no one can use it.
“Then why can I use my phone just fine?”
- Because home internet is in the last tier, where you get data after everyone else. Phones, tablets, watches, child tracking devices, and then home internet
“So I’m paying $50 a month to get the bottom of the last barrel?”
- Yeah, I’d say swap to another provider. At least AT&T’s wires are dedicated. Marketing and installation didn’t talk to the other departments here.
So now I’m back to using copper wires because at least it only gets slower during heavy wind, not people wanting to download songs and spy on their children when I’m trying to just relax after work.
They need to do a full in depth examination of their practices, tell them to spread em and cough.
Serial killer lobby to FBI: Please don’t look too closely at the people we kill
Drug smugglers lobby to DEA: Please don’t look to closely at the drugs we smuggle
People still watch Cable?
Ah, I see that you’re not a pro wrestling fan
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The FCC has been evaluating US-wide broadband deployment progress on a near-annual basis for almost three decades but hasn’t factored affordability into these regular reviews.
An FCC Notice of Inquiry issued on November 1 proposes to analyze the affordability of Internet service in the agency’s next congressionally required review of broadband deployment.
Cable industry lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association complained in a filing released Monday that the Notice of Inquiry’s “undue focus on affordability—or pricing—is particularly inappropriate.”
If the answer is no, the US law says the FCC must “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”
The NCTA argued that “the language of Section 706 does not in any way reflect a congressional directive for the Commission to address [adoption and affordability] in what is for all intents and purposes an inquiry and report on the state of broadband deployment.”
USTelecom said the FCC should “limit its inquiry to the progress of broadband deployment, or availability, and eschew questions related to adoption, affordability, competition, and equitable access, which are the focus of other statutory provisions and programs.”
The original article contains 815 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
