5 ms·

I love the grand total of one option I have for broadband internet at my apartment.

• Steko 12y ago
  In theory mobile carriers should bring competitive pressure to the broadband space. My sister-in-law's family in Japan has access to cheap broadband but they don't even use it, they all use pocket wifi. Now mobile internet sucks for some things and omg caps are teh worst but at least t-mobile is moving away from caps and most of comcast's customers are not counterstrike players.
  • makosdv 12y ago
    Mobile carriers, at least here in the US, are extremely limited with backhaul. They can support high burst speeds, but they can't handle high traffic loads. That's one of the reasons why the data caps are so low on mobile (e.g., 5GBs) vs broadband (e.g., 500GBs). Otherwise, yes, a lot of people would ditch their cable/DSL and just use a mobile datacard/modem.
    • mikeash 12y ago
      Strange, I would have expected spectrum to be the limiting factor. Shouldn't backhaul be much cheaper to and easier to improve for them?
• kokey 12y ago
  Why do you only have one option?
  • makosdv 12y ago
    I only have two: Brighthouse (basically TimeWarner) or AT&T Uverse. In the US, most broadband companies are issued local monopolies or duopolies on service, so there's little or no competition.
    • dublinben 12y ago
      Exclusive cable franchises have been illegal since 1992. [1] Cable companies choose not to compete against each other in order to keep their profit margins high. It's unofficial collusion between all the major players. [1] http://www.mackinac.org/10118 http://www.mackinac.org/10118
      • pessimizer 12y ago
        Or a natural monopoly.
    • rayiner 12y ago
      As 'dublinben points out, the granting of exclusive cable franchises has been illegal under federal law since 1992. So why is there so little competition? Because municipalities make it unattractive for companies to compete. American cities are totally dysfunctional when it comes to socioeconomic conflict, and it plays out in a way where building infrastructure becomes a huge political battle: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140219845/mayor-pushes-verizon-to-discount-fios-for-poor http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140.... If you want to bill fiber in New York City, you can't just operate like a regular business, targeting the most profitable customers. You have to play in this insane socioeconomic battleground with a civil rights lawyer breathing down your neck turning a simple business into an economic justice issue. Or you go into San Francisco, and your fiber upgrade gets stymied because people don't like how the boxes look: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/judge-orders-att-halt-u-verse-construction-san-francisco/2011-11-16 http://www.fiercecable.com/story/judge-orders-att-halt-u-ver....
      • selmnoo 12y ago
        We already have a tremendous amount of socioeconomic problems when it comes to housing; only those who are privileged enough to be able to afford housing near good schools, good communities can get good education and a stable/safe life, etc., why let the internet be a repeat of this? I say good on those cities trying to make things fair. It might make the difference of the next Zuck being from a middle-class household who in fact has the same speed and experience on the internet as everyone, rather than another privileged Harvard-educated brat who has the familiarity with the new and the fast, who is better able to see the frontier of internet technologies and is thus able to innovate without as many obstructions. The current way, the rich are in some way subsidizing fast internet for the poor, and telecom companies are deprived of high profits. That is excellent.
  • jessaustin 12y ago
    Because corrupt regulators.