Cable can't compete with 5G home internet, so it's cheating
Cable can't compete with 5G home internet, so it's cheating
I'm forced to pay for Spectrum cable internet, and I'm not the only one.
Internet should be public like many other utilities.
This is the only answer
Cries in having a for-profit, NYSE traded electric utility
hm, i didn't think about that yet, this is actually a pretty interesting thought.
I think we as a society need to have a debate about this.
The internet is free and public. You can go to any mcdonalds and go all the internetting you want. At home, its all the buried cabled that have to be checked on and maintained that you have to pay for.
Lmfao you think they actually maintain that shit? They dont check on it, that’s part of the problem.
Won't they start pulling more and more tax for it then ? Having it private keeps the competition at least, wouldn't you agree ?
Your taxes already subsidize it. You just don't see any benefits for your money in the current system because they pocket it without making upgrades.
What competition? Tax me and give me fucking municipal fiber instead of giving giant paychecks to wealthy assholes who invest nothing in improving the service but raise everyone's rates regardless.
Ah yes competition. I get to choose between two providers, charter and at&t. Same price, about the same speeds.
I guess to answer that, wonder if your water, electric, or waste companies are gouging you. If they are, like in Texas, then yeah maybe?
Everywhere I lived, people and voting have strong control over utilities and they are fairly priced because it's a service not a business
Where I use to live was all private. CenturyLink was the only option as they had an agreement with Comcast that Comcast wouldn't come into my area.
I paid $60/month for 500kbps down. Yes kilobits.
It's so weird to read these articles. I live in a shithole country, but even here fibre internet with 2.5gbps speeds is easily available... 5G ain't bad but against it never feels replacing that kind of connection for me.
It actually seems common for less developed countries to have better internet than the more developed ones. Germans always complain about their internet, for example. I believe the reason is simply that your country laid down lines relatively recently, so they're compatible with high speed internet, while Germany laid down their lines 30 years ago, so they're fairly shitty in comparison. It tends to be a lot harder to convince governments or bosses to replace something that seems to work fine, and it can be costlier too.
Yea its similar to why the electrical lines and plugs suck in the US, they were just here at GEN 1,while others had to wait so they got better versions.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the lines, but the headends. Coax is very capable of transmitting lots of Data fast. Due to the tree topology of cable however, the headends have to be extremely fast. If everyone on the tree of 100 has 1000 Mbit, that headend needs to have 100 Gbit of capacity. Most of those headends however cap out at 10 Gbit and sometimes service up to 300-500 ports. German cable providers cheaped out and didn't upgrade their infrastructure for quite a while. The coax line technology didn't change in the last 30 years.
Well, I live in Germany and I know quite a few people who have internet so bad IPoAC would be a valid option. You can get fibre but A it’s fucking expensive and B you need to live somewhere where there actually is fibre. Most people either have DSL or cable. DSL is "slow" (depending where you live up to 250mbps. Most places only get up to 100mbps) and expensive (although not as expensive as fibre). And cable is fast (up to Gigabit) and a bit cheaper but the biggest pile of garbage I‘ve ever seen.
I live in the US in a pretty large city and I would never even think to replace my fiber with 5G. I've never seen 5G get above 25 Mbps, when I was getting those speeds with COAX 10 years ago.
I pay for 1Gbps fiber now and will never go lower.
I wish I had fiber. I get 100 Mb from T-Mobile 5g and 80 from spectrum. I've had two significant gaps in coverage from T-Mobile, but I also had internet during a power outage with a generator and an extension cord, which was huge.
For 50$, I'll take that over a more consistent 80mb for 100-120$.
Definitely a rural thing, less 5g congestion and all. a physical line makes way more sense in a city, ideally fiber, but 5g internet has a pretty big niche.
here we are getting some limited "5G" (bandwidth is fucked it's basically early 4G speeds but with a 5G written at the top) here and there, but most cable connections are still on ADSL2. if you want fibre you have to pay for replacing the cables and congratulations now your bandwidth maybe increased from 8 Mbps to 16 Mbps but now your data cap costs are twice more expensive and you basically limited your choice to 1 or 2 ISPs.
the irony is now that almost everyone are on the mobile network the speeds are basically the same as landline connections but data caps are much more expensive. internet here is just fucked.
How the fuck can they not compete with 5G? Is using the advantages of their wired infrastructure to just provide customers with the same service as always but without the bandwidth caps, effectively overcoming the 1 major disadvantage of mobile internet, really that hard?
Cable definitely does have a capacity and speed advantage over 5G in most cases. But 5G is plenty fast and reliable for most people these days, and it's cheaper because there is no last mile maintenance. T-Mobile doesn't need to repair a bunch of decades old coax line every time the wind blows.
I get 1600Mbps down, 180 up on my 5G home internet (for $60/mo). The fastest cable can offer here is 600 down, 30 up (for $120/mo).
So yeah, I'd say 5G is fast enough for most people. It maxes out my ethernet ports. I have to use wifi to hit my bandwidth cap. Eventually I will upgrade to 2.5G ethernet.
How the fuck can they not compete with 5G?
According to the article, for the last few decades the cable and telecommunications companies have avoided upgrading infrastructure to increase profit margins, while wireless companies have been building and upgrading towers like mad. Wireless companies have also successfully lobbied to gobble up a bunch of frequency allocation to increase their bandwidth.
I think if you allow a bit of simplification, it's essentially the same thing as Ethernet vs Wireless as your home network solution. The other is slightly better in performance and reliability but way less flexible. That's why 5G is winning.
5g is by far the best option in my shitty small town in Iowa. The two wired options are more than twice as expensive for less than half of the speed.
People need to start speaking out more against this type of behavior, and I don’t just mean in blogs and forums. I mean write the FCC, write the Attorney Generals in your state. Dare i say, write your congressmen (yeah, mine are the apathetic, pro-business politicians who don’t really care about the little people too).
Make some noise folks.
Seriously, companies like this get away with these shenanigans because we the people have been beaten into submission for so long that we believe we are powerless (I’m guilty of feeling this way). We need to start changing that. And nothing is easier than writing letters these days.
It can, in regards to network saturation in rural places that only have one tower whose use spikes during holidays, not to mention being immune to signal jammers and interference.
The fact that this is even legal shows how incredibly weak the regulations are. They are essentially non-existent, with the consumer ripe for maximum exploitation. Just forcing people to buy is legal at this point huh?
Incidentally, Spectrum is my only choice thanks to an exclusivity agreement, but we aren't forced to pay. We can actually opt out at our location. 5G home internet is way more reliable and faster in my area.
Regulate! All businesses are self-interested!
Sounds like cable is just in its natural death throes and will be gone soon. Markets will take care of this too, if we just let them: i.e. don't let cable companies lobby against 5G etc.
They'll still have some role since 5G practically requires fiber optics as its backbone anyway.
Why is this legal? What kind of shithole country allows this?
The usual shithole country where capitalism and the free market has been allowed to run completely rampant. In Germany it's even illegal to not allow users to use their own modem and router. You are entitled to use any company that serves your street. It might take a while longer if your building isn't connected yet, but a landlord can't just prevent you from choosing a company. Same with electricity providers.
It is a loophole in the current Federal Communications Commission's regulations, where these kinds of deals are supposed to be forbidden. The Commission doesn't seem to like it either and may close the loophole in the future, but the regulatory process takes time.
I love how in the “FAQs” of that agreement, there is no “why.” Which is surely the most F of the A’d Q’s.
It is, in fact, the only Q I A'd.
I'm paying 10 euros a month for the plan on my 4G router because even though I have fibre available aswell I just don't feel like paying 30€ a month for it. 70 bucks however? That's ridiculous.
Just like the cable TV companies that will stop at nothing to trap their customers in their overpriced af prison?
They’re the same companies.
Alternatively, it's possible cell companies like T-Mobile will lobby against these anticompetitive agreements, since it does reduce their number of potential customers. I don't like cell company lobbying any more than ISP lobbying, but in this case, let them fight.
Something tells me T-Mobile's got a little too much class solidarity to have any interest in reducing the profits of Charter Communications.
Why would T-Mobile reduce their own potential profits to ensure that Charter continues to have higher profits?
This is the stupidest timeline.
I have 5G home internet. Downloads are twice as fast (and uploads 8x faster) than cable here—the next fastest available service—for half as much. No arbitrary bandwidth cap, either.
The property owner had the right to enter into such agreements.
The prospective renter does not have to rent that place.
Sounds fair to me.
This is an addendum. The renter has the right to refuse to sign it and the leasor still has to honor the original lease. I'm assuming the signature portion is cropped out. But if there's no signature line provided, that some real shady business.
In my case it was an addendum to the lease renewal, so it was a completely new agreement. The only other option was leaving after my original lease was up but I'm not in a position to do that right now.
Dare I say, but this could be use case for something like starlink. Of course, also mounting the dish with non-penatrating mount or in ground mount.
Starlink wouldn't change anything in terms of cost, if a specific ISP is force-bundled into a lease then it doesn't matter which alternatives exist. There isn't a technical solution to this problem, only a legal one.
I guess, ya if the service is bundled in the lease and non negotiable/declineable sure. But not every apartment complex is like this. Sure, they may limit you to one or two options. But I still think it would be a viable alternative.