Comment on We need a permanent solution for universal broadband access
Banzai51@midwest.social 6 months agoBecause these access companies DO NOT COMPETE with each other. Without that competition we all get the shit end of capitalism. The landlines all have their own fiefdoms. Wireless is balkanizing based on tower placement, and satellite is for rural areas that don’t rate wired connections or cell towers. The politicians can point to all this and say we have options, but really you’re lucky if you have two options.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 6 months ago
Indeed, the US has a major lack of fixed-line competition and lack of regulation. Starlink doesn’t really help with that, at least in urban areas.
I’m not familiar with the wireless situation. You’re saying that there are significant coverage discrepancies to the point where many if not most consumers are choosing a carrier based on coverage, not pricing/plans? There’s always areas with unequal coverage but I didn’t think they were that common.
Here in NZ, the state funding for very rural 4G broadband (Rural Broadband Initiative 2 / RBI-2) went to the Rural Connectivity Group, setting up sites used and owned equally by all three providers, to reduce costs where capacity isn’t the constraint.
Banzai51@midwest.social 6 months ago
From my experience, the wireless carriers are trying their best not to laugh in the same areas for home Internet. They’re trying hard to avoid the competition like they do in phone service. Example: I get T-Mobile home Internet, but Verizon doesn’t in my area. Asking friends, I’m finding that to be a common situation where one or the other is offered, but rarely both. Completely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt.