AT&T: Cities should never offer Internet service where ISPs already do or might later

[Bateluer]

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...where-private-isps-already-do-or-might-later/

AT&T pointed to industry data showing that “over 98 percent of Americans had access to broadband at combined speeds of 6Mbps downstream and 1.5Mbps upstream” as of mid-2013.

So, AT&T thinks 6Mbps is an acceptable speed? Yeah, no.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

would be funny if there was a regulation on the definition of "broadband" to where the bar was periodically raised to at least keep up with the rest of the world, and then if the ISPs couldn't offer service at those updated marks, they could no longer advertise is a broadband.

Because seriously, to call 6Mbps "broadband" is a relic from when 6Mbps was blazing fast compared to dialup or shoddy DSL.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...where-private-isps-already-do-or-might-later/



So, AT&T thinks 6Mbps is an acceptable speed? Yeah, no.

Actually they thin 750 kbps is acceptable. And yet millions continue to flock to them.

 

[lupi]

Regulation of what is considered broadband and what could be charged for non-broadband would be nice, but sure they'd still find a way to screw us.

 

[Raduque]

Hah, I consider my 15Mbps uverse DSL line to be not-broadband.

Actually they thin 750 kbps is acceptable. And yet millions continue to flock to them.

That's because they consider Email and text-based browsing to be the only acceptable use case of the Internet.

 

[dougp]

would be funny if there was a regulation on the definition of "broadband" to where the bar was periodically raised to at least keep up with the rest of the world, and then if the ISPs couldn't offer service at those updated marks, they could no longer advertise is a broadband.

Because seriously, to call 6Mbps "broadband" is a relic from when 6Mbps was blazing fast compared to dialup or shoddy DSL.

Wasn't the FCC looking at establishing 100Mbps as the minimum to qualify for high-speed internet recently? Or maybe it was 10Mbps.

We've been "lucky" in that we haven't seen bandwidth caps stick around, honestly.

Actually they thin 750 kbps is acceptable. And yet millions continue to flock to them.

Because a lot of people don't have a choice. In Houston, I only have two options that are not "area" specific, Comcast and AT&T. Some counties have something local, but their price and speeds really suck compared to the big two. AT&T continues to advertise Uverse as fiber, but for my neighborhood, it's only fiber to the big box and then copper to our house. I think I'm paying like $60 for 30Mbps out in Katy from AT&T yet my friend who lives in Boerne (suburb of San Antonio) has 1Gbps for something crazy like $100 give or take. He needs it for his job, but his pricing is much better than mine - and they'll have Google Fiber soon as well.

 

[Dulanic]

AT&T is a freaking scam when it comes to "broadband". $50 for 3Mbps? What a joke. I may hate Comcast for many reasons, but heck at least they offer 25-50mbps for the same price.

 

[notposting]

More explicitly, they definitely don't want tax dollars going into providing internet service for the population paying those taxes. What they WOULD like to see however, is the continued funneling of those tax dollars to private corporations (ie, them) to spend on hookers and blow.

 

[SAWYER]

I continue to use att 6 mb uverse because my only other option is cable and they have caps and I have heard there are regular outages with it. My speed may be slow but it is reliable and no caps is the main reason

 

[Brian Stirling]

Regulation of what is considered broadband and what could be charged for non-broadband would be nice, but sure they'd still find a way to screw us.

No chance in hell that there will be new regulations that have any teeth in in. No way I see the repubs pushing it and no way the repubs would support the dems pushing it. Add to that the fact that the telecoms are in bed with the government in a mutually parasitic way with regards to data collection and mining/spying and there's no chance that we'll see action on this. Face it, we are living in a time when big business runs the show and owns the regulators...


Brian

 

[DeathReborn]

Cities/Local Community Organisations should definitely provide Internet access where currently ISP's are not doing so. Whether the ISP's will go there eventually, they're not there now leaving the door open to anyone else.

I do feel for my American brothers & sisters, having a massive economy and pretty bad ISP's/connections. The regulators seem to be toothless, aimless & as corrupt as anything abroad. It's going to take a seismic shift to get real progress in the US & I just can't see where it'll come from.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Comcast and AT&T. Two evils? Where's the No Evil option I wonder?

Over at my place, Comcast is the only choice for home internet, but their recent buisness practices have turned me off. So it's mobile internet for me.