4 ms·
That's because it's not. The cost isn't $240 by necessity. They're knowingly overpaying for Internet access (they have multiple connections, they're not even us
by adventured 5y ago
That's because it's not. The cost isn't $240 by necessity. They're knowingly overpaying for Internet access (they have multiple connections, they're not even using Starlink for example).
I'm paying $34 / month in a small city in the middle of nowhere for 200mbps in the US.
- geerlingguy 5y ago$140/month to get the most upload bandwidth possible at my house (35 Mbps through Spectrum). Then $99/month for Starlink (for now, at least). Meanwhile a few blocks away a friend has 500 Mbps symmetric access for $50/month.
- iptrans 5y agoTime to build a wireless link to your friend :)
- anderspitman 5y agoSeriously though this is achievable with consumer hardware[0], as long as you have line-of-sight or close enough to it. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-300Mbps-dual-polarized-directional-CPE510/dp/B00N2RO63U https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-300Mbps-dual-polarized-direct...
- BenjiWiebe 5y agoAnd check out Ubiquiti and Mikrotik for more hardware that does this sort of thing.
- anderspitman 5y agoYeah most of my experience is from Ubiquiti and Mikrotik about 10 years ago. I was going to recommend Ubiquiti but it looks like the bar (and price) is even lower now.
- karmanyaahm 5y ago@geerlingguy that would be a great video idea if possible
- mattl 5y agoHow is 5G or LTE service in your area?