Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lelio98 t1_iwtohbz wrote

Can’t wait to see how all one of the choices in my area compares with itself.

347

jBlairTech t1_iwu7fza wrote

For real. I love this idea in the article, but I would love a larger selection of providers even more.

84

MrWykydtron t1_iwu7kud wrote

Exactly this. In my area, there are other choices, just not everywhere. The best choice isn’t available everywhere and the only choice that is (fuck you Spectrum), sucks dick (in the worst way).

37

Atarteri t1_iwukozm wrote

Yesssss fuck Spectrum! We switched to Metronet - half the price for double the speed (300/300 to 1g/1g)

13

cptnobveus t1_iwuz4g9 wrote

Most rural people with starlink are happier than hell with our$110 1tb @ 150/20. Before starlink most of us got $120 50g @ 25/1 and could not stream during peak times.

It's a trade off that is well worth the peace and quiet.

3

KPookz t1_iwuzgw9 wrote

1TB is not nearly enough. Satellite internet companies put data caps just because they can since they have no competition. All internet should be unlimited.

11

cptnobveus t1_iwv0k6f wrote

According to starlink only 10% of their users exceed 1tb/month. My household consistently uses around 400g/month. It's awesome compared to what we had. Shitty thing is that there is a roll of fiber hanging on a pole about a half mile from my house and the company said they will not be extending it. Picking up 2 more customers isn't worth the labor to get it too them.

3

haagse_snorlax t1_iwvrci1 wrote

You could… do it yourself. Get the permit, rent a digger do it in a couple of days

1

SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwv2qdk wrote

There aren’t unlimited satellites in the sky or unlimited bandwidth on each satellite transmitter. Physics (and economics) puts a hard limit there. Most users would rather have reliable speed for the data they do transfer. See: the complaints about starlink getting slower.

−3

someguynamedben7 t1_iww5by4 wrote

Data caps have absolutely nothing to do with when the data is used. This argument is nothing but an excuse. Think about it this way, data caps refresh on a monthly cycle right? Well it works that way for everyone. So when a new month rolls around everyone gets 1TB or whatever and starts using it till it runs out. That means a ton a bandwidth is used at the start of the month and very little is used at the end of the month. ISP's are just using data caps as a way to justify squeezing more money out of people. The bandwidth doesn't matter at all to them because slower Internet speeds at peak times are going to be the same for them with or without data caps.

1

SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwwbvp1 wrote

Which is why once you exceed the 1tb you are merely deprioritized relative to users who haven’t.

I do agree it would make more sense to use rolling windows than resetting everyone on the same day. But I don’t work there.

0

someguynamedben7 t1_iwwckrh wrote

Not true, when you exceed your cap they charge you an arm and a leg for each gig past your limit. I wouldn't be surprised though if they don't also shackle your speed in addition to charging way more simply because they're all greedy assholes.

−1

SeaweedSorcerer t1_iwwcv76 wrote

Incorrect.

> After your Priority Access is exhausted, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of Basic Access for the remainder of your billing cycle.

https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1134-82708-70?regionCode=US

3

someguynamedben7 t1_iwwd7h6 wrote

Then it looks like starlink is the single only ISP that does that. Doesn't change the fact that data caps are dumb though.

2

Tom2Die t1_iwwspzo wrote

Metronet has been quite good to me these past years; here's hoping that doesn't change.

1

SwarfDive01 t1_iwuewsj wrote

I agree here too though. ISPs aren't servicing rural areas. Fiber is huge in my city, the new neighborhood 1 mile away offers fiber, but our older, low density "rural" neighborhood has 1 broadband, or whatever unholy cost satellite providers. I barely have cell service. Especially now since a recent provider merger obsoleted my repeater.

8

simple_mech t1_iwum0td wrote

When you’re starving, do you really check the nutritional label lol

6

pixlbabble t1_iwusno4 wrote

The healthiest amount of competition for one company in your area.

1

noeagle77 t1_iwuyclp wrote

Ooooh then I can compare all one of my choices with your choice!

1

Deranged40 t1_iwvpmmc wrote

On the plus side, you'll finally see the upload speed that is offered before you purchase the service. So that's good.

1

SlickMouthedFool t1_iwu7im0 wrote

is it just the conspiracy theorist in me, or does this feel like Bidens attempt to misdirect us from the fact that he hasn't and won't reinstate net neutrality?

I mean, why else force ISP to make "nutrition labels" unless you expect them to have complete control of network traffic?

This feels like a compromise. What the fuck is happening?

−24

porarte t1_iwuakbg wrote

A "nutrition label" is an imposed standard. It's part of what government is supposed to do. The idea that it's some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous.

21

SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunha9 wrote

Okay....the democrats have had control of the federal government for 3 years now.

You explain why Biden hasn't reinstated Net Neutrality, while taking it upon himself to write these new rules for the FCC?

Obviously they're getting something done.

−8

porarte t1_iwuqi0z wrote

Didn't have the Senate... so, the answer is "the GOP." The Republicans lately have obstructed almost every good possibility.

6

SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv54pw wrote

That's just not true!

I wish the DNC had the votes to pass the law, but they don't, and I understand that

But the FCC commissioner has unilateral powers to either instate those rules or remove them, just like Obama and Trump's commissioners did.

Why hasn't Biden's FCC commissioner reinstated the Net Neutrality rules yet?!

−2

FriendlyDespot t1_iwve6bk wrote

There's not just one single FCC commissioner. There's an FCC commission that has regulatory powers, but it's tied along party lines. You sound way too confident in what you're saying for someone who's so fundamentally misinformed on how the FCC Commission works.

2

SlickMouthedFool t1_iwvuzzt wrote

Biden waited 9 whole months to elect new FCC commissioners you fucking genius

And the DNC does have a majority RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

you sound really fucking confident for someone who obviously has no fucking clue how this works.

−2

Deewd23 t1_iwuq5ll wrote

In order to pass a bill you need more than a majority in the senate. You think the GOP is going to push for rules on ISPs?

5

SlickMouthedFool t1_iwv4vin wrote

A bill would be amazing, it would make Net Neutrality the law of the land, but Biden cannot do that because he never had the votes.

I get that.

...but in lieu of that, the FCC commissioner has broad, unilateral powers, and he could reinstate net neutrality at least until the next commissioner is takes office.

That's how Obama got NN instated, and that's who Trump got it uninstated

It feels like Biden just wants us to forget about Net Neutrality, because his commissioner could have reinstated it on day 1!

0

FriendlyDespot t1_iwvd0f6 wrote

The FCC commission chairperson doesn't have broad unilateral powers. It's also not a he, but a she. The FCC commission as a whole has broad regulatory powers, but it's currently tied 2-2 and can't get anything meaningful passed unless it has bipartisan support.

2

123felix t1_iwub6ic wrote

Monthly fees is still important even with net neutrality.
Additional fees is still important even with net neutrality.
Contract length is still important even with net neutrality.
Typical speed is still important even with net neutrality.
Data cap is still important even with net neutrality.
I fail to see the conspiracy here.

14

SlickMouthedFool t1_iwunkmf wrote

The conspiracy is that they are about to implement these new regulations for the FCC while pretending their hands are tied to reinstate Net Neutrality.

Both of those things can't be true at the same time. There's fuckery afoot.

−8

FriendlyDespot t1_iwvdnqe wrote

Why couldn't both of those be true at the same time? It's a 2-2 tie in the FCC Commission, and there's no reason why one or both of the Republican commissioners couldn't get on board with these kinds of labels while also not wanting to reinstate the net neutrality rules.

3

123felix t1_iww6r0m wrote

This is not nearly as contentious as net neutrality you can't compare like this.

1