2 ms·

From your own cite: >At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basi

by treis 9y ago

From your own cite: >At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service, 98 percent of the population had a choice of at least two mobile ISPs and 88 percent had two or more fixed ISPs available to them. And you're doubling down on nonsense. There's no regional agreements not to compete and your quote isn't any proof of it.

lovehashbrowns 9y ago
> However, as multiple household members increasingly consume video streaming services music streaming, and online games, the adequate broadband speed bar has been raised. To understand just how slow 3 Mbps is, it takes about 2.25 hours to download a 6 gigabyte movie. The same movie would only take 16 minutes to download at 25 Mbps The FCC later increased their definition: https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-defin... We both know 3 Mbps isn't enough these days, and it hasn't been enough for many years. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comcast-says-its-too-expensive-to-compete-against-other-cable-companies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comca... The previous PDF I linked, from their FCC filing, discusses the reasons why they don't compete with each other. Sorry, I'm still stuck at work.
- treis 9y ago
  Ok, I'm still not sure what your point is here. Even if we use a higher limit my statement that most Americans have at least two companies to choose from is accurate.
  - lovehashbrowns 9y ago
    37% is not most, though. And the choice is still between two shitty companies, usually. Right now I have either Time Warner, I think Comcast (haven't checked but probably), and Google Fiber. That, to me, is still not ideal. As I said in my previous comment, the ideal would be two additional options for me: a smaller, regional-based ISP, and a municipal ISP. Prior to Google Fiber, there was no fiber at all here. I had to pay Time Warner $90 for 1/10th of what I get with Google right now. Just two companies is not ideal because, as we have seen before, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon don't compete enough to improve their infrastructure. We've seen that just Google Fiber alone is enough to get the current ISPs to drop their prices, improve speeds, and get Fiber going: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/google-fiber-plans-expansion-then-twc-makes-speeds-six-times-faster/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/googl... But that's not enough. Google Fiber isn't ever going to spread enough to become widely available, and I think they stopped altogether, didn't they? Maybe if Google Fiber was planning to roll out everywhere in the US, I'd be more okay with letting NN go but at this point, it's too risky IMO. And I just want to make it clear that the ideal scenario is for competition to determine ISP policies and behavior, not legislation. But we're not getting competition any time soon, so I see legislation as a last resort.

by treis 9y ago

lovehashbrowns 9y ago

> However, as multiple household members increasingly consume video streaming services music streaming, and online games, the adequate broadband speed bar has been raised. To understand just how slow 3 Mbps is, it takes about 2.25 hours to download a 6 gigabyte movie. The same movie would only take 16 minutes to download at 25 Mbps The FCC later increased their definition: https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-defin... We both know 3 Mbps isn't enough these days, and it hasn't been enough for many years. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comcast-says-its-too-expensive-to-compete-against-other-cable-companies/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comca... The previous PDF I linked, from their FCC filing, discusses the reasons why they don't compete with each other. Sorry, I'm still stuck at work.

treis 9y ago
Ok, I'm still not sure what your point is here. Even if we use a higher limit my statement that most Americans have at least two companies to choose from is accurate.
- lovehashbrowns 9y ago
  37% is not most, though. And the choice is still between two shitty companies, usually. Right now I have either Time Warner, I think Comcast (haven't checked but probably), and Google Fiber. That, to me, is still not ideal. As I said in my previous comment, the ideal would be two additional options for me: a smaller, regional-based ISP, and a municipal ISP. Prior to Google Fiber, there was no fiber at all here. I had to pay Time Warner $90 for 1/10th of what I get with Google right now. Just two companies is not ideal because, as we have seen before, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon don't compete enough to improve their infrastructure. We've seen that just Google Fiber alone is enough to get the current ISPs to drop their prices, improve speeds, and get Fiber going: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/google-fiber-plans-expansion-then-twc-makes-speeds-six-times-faster/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/googl... But that's not enough. Google Fiber isn't ever going to spread enough to become widely available, and I think they stopped altogether, didn't they? Maybe if Google Fiber was planning to roll out everywhere in the US, I'd be more okay with letting NN go but at this point, it's too risky IMO. And I just want to make it clear that the ideal scenario is for competition to determine ISP policies and behavior, not legislation. But we're not getting competition any time soon, so I see legislation as a last resort.