4 ms·
The article conflates mobile and home internet. It correctly claims that most people don't have a significant choice for home internet, but doesn't say that for
by ikeboy 6y ago
The article conflates mobile and home internet. It correctly claims that most people don't have a significant choice for home internet, but doesn't say that for mobile because it's obviously not true - there's at least three major carriers plus over a dozen resellers. But then the article complains about zero rating, which as it concedes only applies to mobile, and tries to argue it's a result of lack of competition.
- gsich 6y agoResellers aren't going to change the performance of the underlying network.
- ikeboy 6y agoBut they often have different practices around what data gets billed, prioritized, etc, so they count as competition when discussing those features.
- cbsmith 6y agoThe trend is within the next year that at least in major metropolitan areas, wireless 5G providers will compete for home Internet. It's a dumb way to solve the problem, that becomes the smart way to solve it once the regulatory/protective measures around the last mile overwhelm the other inefficiencies.
- ikeboy 6y agoIt won't be cheap enough for a couple of years, I think, but agreed. Tech solving thorny political problems is always my favorite.
- cbsmith 6y agoHere in LA, Verizon's 5G Home Wireless plan is $50/month if you already have a Verizon mobile plan that is $30/month or more. It includes a year of Disney+, and the first three months free. That's very competitive in the LA market.