The FCC now defines broadband as 100 Mbps at minimum - 25/3 Mbps was simply not...

[netman]

More important than speed is Data...! If they rule unlimited data for everyone, then this move was worth it...!

 

[RandomWAN]

Oh noes, Comcast! Whatever are you to do with all those "high speed" connections you offer with less than 20Mbps upload speeds?

Only offerings you have over 20Mbps for upload is two tiers - Gigabit and Gigabit Pro and you're looking to pay $80+ for these offerings.

Thankfully I moved away from their crap - hopped on optical that's 500/500 for $50. Speeds are generally around 450/450.

I don't have Gigabit and get 900+ down, 25 up (plan is 800/20).

They started bumping available rates, reducing monthly costs, and slightly expanding caps once 5G started becoming widely available for home use. I still think their monthly costs are too much (can get lower, but you have to sign contracts), the caps are absurd (1.2TB which a streaming family of 4 can easily exceed), and there's no actual competition unless you want to switch mediums. I'm not defending them as a company, but the actuality of what you get is better in terms of performance.

Is your fiber Quantum? They're part of Centurylink and have started popping up in this area with that advertised rate.

 

[Endymio]

...when electricity was a fledgling, there were people who said the same thing about electricity. It would also not surprise me if, when telephony was a fledgling, people said the same thing about telephony.
... they were eventually declared public utilities. It would not surprise me if, some time in the not-too-distant future, internet service is also declared a public service.

A very confused analogy. A "public utility" isn't designated such to make it a basic human right. It's simply a tool the government uses to allow a state-sanctioned monopoly. When telephone, electric, and water service became "public utilities", the government decreed that one -- and only one -- company could provide this service to residents in a given area. In exchange for this, the company agreed to additional government regulation and oversight. The original touchstone for utility designation was that it would be impractical to allow market competition for said service, due to duplication of infrastructure.

Ironically enough - you and your ilk were the ones complaining the loudest when cable service (which at the time was the only option for broadband) WAS actually a public utility, banning all competition.

Regardless, you've again missed the primary point. It's not whether "The Interwebs are a necessity", it's rather whether or not people who don't have access to 100/20 broadband are so deprived that the federal government must expend vast sums to subsidize the upgrading of their 25 mpbs connection.

 

[Endymio]

Also seems like every right in the US Bill [sic] need [sic] some form of public service to be preserved. So seems like there's a lot of individuals, governemnt services, working to benefit others.

Err, what? Did you never read the US Constitution? No one needs build billion-dollar infrastructure to preserve your right to free speech or to carry (your own self-purchased) arms. No one needs labor incessantly to prevent the government from seizing your property without recompense, from searching your home without warrant, or from forcing you to incriminate yourself. And while a certain degree of cost is associated with holding a criminal trial, it is expected that requiring it to be a fair trial is no more expensive.

These rights are negative - they're a compilation of what the government isn't allowed to do. Not a list of all tha free stuffs they be forced to gives to youze.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

I don't have Gigabit and get 900+ down, 25 up (plan is 800/20).

They started bumping available rates, reducing monthly costs, and slightly expanding caps once 5G started becoming widely available for home use. I still think their monthly costs are too much (can get lower, but you have to sign contracts), the caps are absurd (1.2TB which a streaming family of 4 can easily exceed), and there's no actual competition unless you want to switch mediums. I'm not defending them as a company, but the actuality of what you get is better in terms of performance.

Is your fiber Quantum? They're part of Centurylink and have started popping up in this area with that advertised rate.

What finally pushed me off from Xfinity was the latest price hike. Xfinity masked some of it with their "you can save money if you have a direct pay setup, $5 for debit card or $10 for checking account".

January comes around and my internet (only had internet) went up $8. I thought I would have saved money having direct pay setup. I check the statement and I see in small print somewhere on the statement I see I have been marked down $10 for having direct pay setup, yet I still incurred an $8 increase in price. In actuality my price increased $18, but they deducted $10 for having direct pay setup.

In the past 3 years I've had 3 price increases from Xfinity and nothing else in return for the price jumps. Went from $50 a month to now $68 (would be $78 with direct pay setup) with my awesome 300/5 (download/upload) speed. 2 years ago nothing else in my area offered anything better than what Xfinity gave me, but it recently changed and now they can't offer anything close to what Quantum Fiber can.

Now, I could have easily added a "unlimited data" addition to my plan, but that would have been an extra $30, pushing my cost to almost $100.
OR
I could have taken one of Xfinity's Xfi plans which means I have to now rent their equipment and pay extra for renting their equipment - but I would have then had unlimited data, but still paying just as much or more than I was currently paying and still have crappy upload speeds and maybe slightly faster download speeds.

No thanks. I'm done with Xfinity.

I made the move to Quantum Fiber, getting around 450/450 for $50 a month. Plus, no data cap! F you Comcast/Xfinity and your craptastic data cap and horrific upload speeds.

 

[daffy duck]

Slow as usual... FCC

Well our Australian equivalent deemed 12/1 sufficient for a decade. Only now are we basically making 50/20 entry level, but that is still a joke. I'm on 1000/50 and we still have to suffer pathetically poor upload speeds.

 

[wiyosaya]

Regardless, you've again missed the primary point. It's not whether "The Interwebs are a necessity", it's rather whether or not people who don't have access to 100/20 broadband are so deprived that the federal government must expend vast sums to subsidize the upgrading of their 25 mpbs connection.

Regardless, indeed. The FCC is doing exactly this, even though you might not like it.

None-the-less, the more progressive states realized their mistake in granting cable/cable internet government sanctioned monopolies. Their solution? Allow competition. Its the cable/cable internet companies that don't like it now, and have been shown, by their actions that they were just BSing all along about how much speed they could provide.

Once again, I think you are making an argument that you think you know what goes through the minds of everyone. Its just like you.

But go ahead. Try to convince everyone that you know what they think It's an argument doomed to failure, as I see it.

The competition that has entered the market is a foundation of modern economics.

And still, the internet has become a necessity in modern times just like electricity and telephony. Personally, I see no problem with the FCC recognizing this fact and setting minimum standards for "broadband access." Note that what they are doing is in no way the same as granting any specific ISP a monopoly.

For me, boiling away all the crap, the FCC has given those in the US a standard by which to measure their internet. This might as well be declared a right.

 

[Durch]

Then you'd be wrong. Broadband internet doesn't supply itself. Claiming you have a "right" that others must labor to provide is nothing more than thinly-veiled slavery. These fairy-tale fantasies are the initial justifications for brutally repressive authoritarian regimes, in which most of an individual's life is spent supplying the needs and demands of others. It didn't work well for the former USSR or Maoist China; it's not working well for North Korea or Cuba, and it has no place in civilized society.

If you look at actual rights -- such as those in the US Bill of Rights -- you'll note that none of them require any individual to work for the gratification of another.

No it doesn't supply itself, but our payments and tax dollars build the infrastructure for 1s and 0s to go across a wire or fiber into switches and routers. It's beyond time for the infrastructure to be upgraded and expanded. We've shelled out billions of dollars to these companies via grants and have seen very little return in any improvement. These companies need to use the funds they have been provided by the tax payers to build the infrastructure they took the grants for.

 

[Endymio]

It's beyond time for the infrastructure to be upgraded and expanded.

In 25 years, we've gone from 56K dialup and 110K ISDN to 100M and even gigabit broadband -- a performance increase of one million percent. That's somewhat of an "upgrade and expansion", wouldn't you say?

We've shelled out billions of dollars to these companies via grants and have seen very little return

That's just the point. Economists have shown time and time again that government intervention -- I.e. these grants you desire so much -- generate far less increased utility for the consumer than simply allowing market forces to work. But while one can lead the public horse to water, it's impossible to make them *think*.

 

[Endymio]

None-the-less, the more progressive states realized their mistake in granting cable/cable internet government sanctioned monopolies. Their solution? Allow competition.

Want some syrup with that waffle? Two posts ago, you were wanting those "government sanctioned monopolies", by having us return to the days when government treated cable and telephone service as public utilities, which do not allow competition.

The competition that has entered the market is a foundation of modern economics.

Welcome to Economics 101. There are still plenty of open seats in the class.

Personally, I see no problem with the FCC recognizing this fact and setting minimum standards for "broadband access

Only because you haven't thought it through. Government mandates are only free in a childish world of unicorns and rainbow sprinkles, and companies stubbornly refuse to provide any service for which they can't receive a profit. Mandating a minimum standard means companies competing in an area below this standard will do one of two things: either they'll stop providing service in that area (reducing competition), or they'll raise prices to cover that additional cost, and not offer a lower-cost less-performant option (reducing consumer choice). Take your pick.

 

[Hotlynx16]

Someone needs to tell Spectrum!Even though they have increased their downloads to 300 Mbps their uploads are capped at 10 Mbps! My brother-in-law in Louisiana has century link and can only get DSL at 6 Mbps down and 6 Mbps up!