Are we just building excess capacity that won’t be used like we did with minimums?
I don’t think so, no. There’s clearly demand for high speed broadband, and the US lags behind in average consumer broadband speeds. This creates a bottleneck in Internet technologies and services that mostly affects poorer regions.
We can do better. We already paid for better. It’s time for telecomms to pony up and deliver the results we paid for in the 80s.
That’s good for you, that you have the ability to buy a better plan. There are huge swaths of the US where they simply don’t have that freedom of choice.
And they settled on 100mbps as the standard because that’s what it needs to be…a standard. Not a mandate that “all internet to every house shall only be 100mbps” but rather that 100mbps be the bare minimum that we are able to provide across the country.
I don’t think so, no. There’s clearly demand for high speed broadband, and the US lags behind in average consumer broadband speeds. This creates a bottleneck in Internet technologies and services that mostly affects poorer regions.
We can do better. We already paid for better. It’s time for telecomms to pony up and deliver the results we paid for in the 80s.
Whatever isp your shilling for is overpaying. You’re not convincing anybody.
If I want faster speeds l can buy a better plan. This will just make my bill go up for capacity I don’t need.
The article didn’t provide any reason for the increase either. How did they land on 100mbps and not 200? It feels bogus.
That’s good for you, that you have the ability to buy a better plan. There are huge swaths of the US where they simply don’t have that freedom of choice.
And they settled on 100mbps as the standard because that’s what it needs to be…a standard. Not a mandate that “all internet to every house shall only be 100mbps” but rather that 100mbps be the bare minimum that we are able to provide across the country.
There is already a standard…