5 ms·

Why isn't wireless 'legit'? Monkeybrains is wiring up much of San Francisco with service that's ~300Mbps (6X Comcast's best) for $35/month. My T-Mobile LTE gets

by gojomo 12y ago

Why isn't wireless 'legit'? Monkeybrains is wiring up much of San Francisco with service that's ~300Mbps (6X Comcast's best) for $35/month. My T-Mobile LTE gets 20-45Mbps throughout my apartment. Yes, it's more expensive – as I'd mentioned, not yet cost-competitive for lots of HD video watching. But it's good for everything else, and getting better. Almost everywhere has both cable and DSL options – that is, two providers, not "only" one. Some places have more than one cable option – including my previous SF address. And more wires can be run: for example Google Fiber, or even actual Ethernet cabling. By all means, add new options to areas with limited choices! Use antitrust, or have localities take steps tuned to their needs. But forcing a unified, commodity-like national regulated-service model on the whole industry doesn't run any new wires or add any consumer options... it only adds constraints & compliance costs for potential new entrants.

jacquesm 12y ago
Rural areas are completely different from large metropolitan areas like San Francisco in this respect and vast chunks of the US have only one provider for the last mile creating de-facto monopolies. The money isn't there to keep multiple sets of infrastructure going which in turn leads to exorbitant pricing for the customers of the one remaining option. And due to the distances involved and lack of 3G/4G coverage in those areas the other obvious option is usually also in short supply.
- gojomo 12y ago
  In my experience, rural (but still populated) areas have great wireless coverage in the US – the networks have plenty of places to put their towers, and the service is uncongested. Wired service is more hit-or-miss. Still, if the problem were in fact limited rural options, for the minority of citizens who live in rural areas, the fix would be new options for them, or regulations of their monppoly provider – not new federal rules and discretionary oversight for every ISP, including those in urban areas with vigorous competition.

by gojomo 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

Rural areas are completely different from large metropolitan areas like San Francisco in this respect and vast chunks of the US have only one provider for the last mile creating de-facto monopolies. The money isn't there to keep multiple sets of infrastructure going which in turn leads to exorbitant pricing for the customers of the one remaining option. And due to the distances involved and lack of 3G/4G coverage in those areas the other obvious option is usually also in short supply.

gojomo 12y ago
In my experience, rural (but still populated) areas have great wireless coverage in the US – the networks have plenty of places to put their towers, and the service is uncongested. Wired service is more hit-or-miss. Still, if the problem were in fact limited rural options, for the minority of citizens who live in rural areas, the fix would be new options for them, or regulations of their monppoly provider – not new federal rules and discretionary oversight for every ISP, including those in urban areas with vigorous competition.