I truly laughed out loud when the reporter said that Comcast (CNBC's parent company) did not respond to requests for comment on this piece. That says A LOT right there!
What? How can you name Comcast without including the government entities that handed them terms they never should have? We expect companies to try for their best deal. Obviously, you do. It’s the government officials who took oaths that are supposed to keep the companies from getting protected from competition. Who is the real problem then?
Only have Spectrum in my area. Took them a year-and-a-half to fix a problem. I told them, if there was a competitor, I would leave. This is how it is without competition.
In Australia if the big internet companies get lazy other new internet companies will use there grid and and make a cheaper service so the big companies have to be on their toes
AT&T far worse though.. Took them 3 years to fix my problem internet when using Phone ... and it was slow DSL. 15mbps for 49.99 $.. ( this was like 5-7 years ago but still hella expensive).. And they threaten me so they wouldn't have to come told me if problem on my side of line 350$ for technician visit plus parts ...... Plus they have data caps...
according to who any by what metric? Ive seen plenty of services with lower satisfaction ratings. Not that i love Comcast, but atnt always gives me more trouble, a lot of people however people don't have the privilege of having multiple options. You're always best off comparing locally, since they aren't uniform everywhere where they offer them.
True but Cox communications is trying very hard to become number one in not helping anyone. Watch out Comcast, Cox is coming for your number one spot of bad service, high prices, and not giving a crap except when paying dividends.
@@40fire81 Despite the chatter Comcast really isn't the root of the problem in all this, they do have low cost plans for low income individuals. $10 a month gets you 50mbps/5 and there are promos that are low cost. At the very least they are not the biggest offender out there. If you have Comcast,Spectrum, etc. You are better off than many Americans because at least you get access to highspeed broadband.
Data caps too, which cost them like nothing. My ISP let's people pay $50 extra for unlimited data cap, but if u consistently use over 4tb every month, they can even threaten to kick u off their service.
From my knowledge the infrastructure in the US is just bad. The ISP’s have taken grants to upgrade it but have done more or less nothing. It’s similar in Australia.
@@ro0ster648 I pay in Romania 7$/month and I get unlimited acces at 100Mb/sec. And it's normal over here. Most people have 300Mb/sec. Some have Gigabyte internet. And for mobile we already have 5G in big cities. American internet is just medieval and it's not even funny.
As a professional working for a smaller municipality trying to solve this problem for our community and the rural areas around us, I can tell you that the solution is the underlying physical infrastructure. The government (or 3rd party separate from the ISP) should own the conduit and poles or provide open access to any and all ISPs for fiber. The construction of poles/conduit is like 80% of the cost. Eliminating that cost or spreading that cost across multiple ISPs encourages competition. The problem is that once a single ISP builds that infrastructure to a neighborhood, the cost for the 2nd ISP is the same as the 1st but the potential customers is smaller due to the incumbent provider. So there is no incentive for competition. If the infrastructure was built out and a competitor only had to lease the pole or conduit at a reasonable cost, they could provide service nearly instantly and at low cost to an area. It would also reduce the cost of that infrastructure as lease deals across multiple IPS would cover the cost of a single piece of infrastructure vs multiple separate pieces of infrastructure for each ISP.
@@fci2023 It doesn't necessarily mean the government is the ISP. You would still have all the same ISPs you have today but they share a common physical path. It's like government builds the roads but private sector uses them. Government builds the poles and conduit but private sector installs the fiber for the homes/businesses.
The problem then is that the public has to pay for the infrastructure. People love to say "the government should" but neglect to account for the fact that the public is obscenely cheap. The US is a country where the overwhelming majority of the federal government's tax revenue comes from a quarter of the tax units and people making up the other three quarters of the population that account for near as makes no difference nothing still feel comfortable loudly complaining that they pay too much.
@@BTrain-is8ch Couldn't agree more. That's why the ISPs should lease the infrastructure from the government. Similar to how municipal water works. The government builds out ensures everyone has equal access to water, but then charges appropriate to the costs. There are private utility models that work too. The point is separating the infrastructure from the actual internet service to promote competition rather than government control. In the end the public pays either way. You pay higher prices and poorer service due to monopolistic behavior or the government gets involved in some way. If it's price regulation, then you deal with lack of innovation. Or you can do public infrastructure projects (the one thing the government is not completely terrible at) and then encourage private sector competition utilizing that infrastructure. We pay one way or the other. Either high prices, low innovation, or shared taxes. Pick your evil but you only get one.
Simple, when you have a legal monopoly in certain areas there is no reason to invest in the system. Raising price is simple because what choice do most people like myself actually have?
What frustrates me about this country is so many things are fixable but it’s always stonewalled. Think of the skills gap that could be filled just by having reliable internet. We could fill so many more jobs.
@@texasgermancowgirl The US really needs to fix its government, which is pretty broken. Gerrymandering has assured low voter engagement and turnout, as most federal seats are safe for one party or the other. That means Congress can effectively ignore their voters, and instead focus on pleasing the corporates who donate to their reelection campaigns. They build long relationships with representatives and senators who stay in seat for decades, and find plenty of dirt on them to keep them in line. Anyone who crosses the aisle is vilified and primaried, and since the seat is 'safe', the party is able to put someone who will hold ranks in place. We need to: 1. Enact term limits for Congress (8 or 12 years for a rep, 12 for a senator should be more than enough. We'll get a lot of people who want to get something done before their term limit kicks in). 2. Stop gerrymandering the districts, set a limit and let a computer determine if it's gerrymandered or not, and then let everyone play by the same rules. and 3. remove corporate donations to election campaigns and lobbying of elected officials. Just pass a law and make it illegal. Then things will quickly move in the right direction.
your country cares more about creating wars everywhere. creating terrorist organizations everywhere. trying to topple down democratic governments because they dont like it. then actually fixing their country. they all claim that america is the greatest nation on earth. yet it got a C- when it comes to inrastructure. it got the highest homeless crisis of any developed nation. it doesnt have a good functioning social system like we have in europe. it doesnt have universal health care payed maternity and paternity leave or payed sick days like the rest of the developed world have. Point is your government dont care for their people or the country. there is only 1 group they care for and that is the zionists that they love to be a puppet from. you need 4.5+ trillion dollars by 2025 to fix the most important infrastructure problems. but thats never going to happen. so in other words your country will go down to crap even more every single day. and you will never have good internet for a decent price. on top of that you still have a data cap in america. which is something we dont have anymore (in the netherlands where i live) since 2000. so yeah i feel for you for not having good internet. they really should fix that. but it most likely will not happen in a long long time
@@nocrtname starlink is extremely expensive and extremely crappy. in the Netherlands we can get that as well. cost 658 euros in total. 99 euros per month for 30Mbps down and 6Mbps Up. 499 euros to get the dish and everything and 60 euros to get it up and running. on top of that we get a 150GB per month data cap. for a country like the netherlands its not needed. we have the best fiberoptic infrastructure in the world. but i can see some scenarios where this can be useful. but to pay that much for still crappy internet is just bs
Monopolies are a form of runaway capitalism. The problem is that these companies lobby politicians to enact confusing regulations that bar any competitors.
Do you have any idea what a monopoly is? All I can tell you is that I have 5 choices for internet, and that includes Starlink. Two weeks ago comcast ran a new fibre optic cable down my median in front of my house. Now I have 2 cable options. Anyhow a monopoly is when one major company is the only choice. Bell Telephone System was a monopoly until the Government broke up their monopoly in 1984
@@fauxque5057 hey chief, there’s many places in the US where there’s only one major internet provider in an area. Up until two months ago, the only “options” I had were Spectrum Internet or dial-up, the latter of which isn’t really an option, since it sucks. So go on, please tell me more about how there’s no regional monopolies.
Cell phone prices in the US have always struck me as exhorbitant. In Ireland, I get unlimited (80GB soft cap) data and unlimited calls and texts for €13/month (roughly $16).
Challenge in the US is the cost of covering the millions of miles/kilometers of rural communities, which cost the companies significantly more to service than they make from them. So everyone in cities or suburbs pays a higher price to cover the rest of the country. Plus a hefty mark-up. So some legit issues, some greed issues.
Here in Nairobi, Kenya (Africa) the internet speeds are phenomenal..Among the fastest in the world....Comparable to what you would get in the UK or other European countries
I concur the internet speeds in Kenya are very fast. While in Nairobi, Mombasa, and Malindi I conducted speed tests and have the screenshots as proof. Safaricom keep doing what you all are doing. :-)
i see that you live in nairobi? average speed in 2021 in nairobi was 21.79 Mbps. thats slow. almost impossible to get those speeds in the netherlands where i live. slowest internet connection here is about 50Mbps. Eldoret got the fastest fixed broadband speed of kenya with 23.68 Mbps. so i dont know why you call yoru internet among the fastest in the world. because thats simply not true. you rank is about 150 in the world. what you do have is faster mobile internet then america on average. so i dont know why you claim you have among the fastest average internet speed in the world. most european countries if not all offer 1Gbps connections (1000Mbps). I have not seen any providers in Kenya that offer such speed. but correct me if i am wrong though. in the netherlands i my self have 1000Mbps or 1Gbps.
@@metalvideos1961 Its been confirmed by foreigners that have posted here that it is true....Seeing is believing. I lived in the UK for 8 years and was using Virgin Media Broadband..When I compare speeds, yes we are among the fastest in the world..It that annoys you then go on hunger strike. Read the replies to my previous previous comment on the same.
"Government" also voted to hamstring antitrust law and prosecution of such. Our representatives voted to undermine our system in favor of monopolies, who contribute to their campaigns.
If it is too expensive, a factor in that is many ISPs are controlled by media conglomerates. Especially many that have cable TV options. So "cutting the cable" is still feeding that same company.
in Australia we have ALL ISP's available to ALL houses at a minimum of 12MB/s up to a maximum of 1GB/s and there are some debating that it's worth the cost, even though it's only costing us $49 per month Australian for the 12MB/s on wireless all the way up to $200 per month for 1GB/s on fiber optics. America, your country is no longer modern, it is falling behind the rest of the world and dropping to the levels of 3rd world countries... my thoughts and prayers go out to you.
@@SkashTheKitsune 1 GBPS? Biatch please, my house has had 2 GBPS internet for a while now for $100/month so know your role Kangaroo hugger, Australia is like a 60 yr old woman, everyone knows it's down there but nobody cares
I own a small ISP. Everything they're saying is true. It is so hard to compete with the big boys. If there were grants for smaller companies the wheels would turn.
Considerably good speeds do not cut it in the US. With the amount of cell phones, smart TVs, smart devices, smart home appliances, etc. way faster speeds are needed. I have Gigabit internet at my home and have about 50 devices connected to the internet. Unfortunately, the capacity of Internet that I have in my area is way higher than what people get in other areas of the US.
@@thejwviolinist a side bar question- is that healthy? I'm mean yay development but to what level?? I went to one of these "smart" homes and my friend was showing off, how he can switch off the lights from his phone. Even though the switch for the light, was literally next to him.
@@pranshuanand4560 It can be very helpful to have smart appliances at home. Let's say you running late and are rushing to get out of the house. In my house, everyone uses the garage door as the "main door" of the house. So I can tell Google to open my garage door, turn all the lights off and tune down the thermostat all at once (while I'm putting my socks and shoes on) and BOOM, literally something that would have slowed me down from leaving the house has become a nonissue. Or even when I'm going to sleep, I tell Google goodnight, and it automatically set my alarm for the next morning, turns all the lights off, locks the doors of the house, and sets my alarm system to armed--all of that with just one tiny command. You might think that these things will make a human lazier, but it really just makes time for more important things.
@@d_techterminal That's good to know. At least India is getting somewhere with Internet now. Now it's just a matter of how available it is to the population and how many people can actually pay for it. I've heard good things about Jio, so whatever they're doing must be working!
The ISP's should fall under the Public Utility Commission and their laws. Internet is no longer (and has not been for some time now) an optional / luxury utility.
The problem in some areas is ISPs are regulated by the Public Utility Commission. A state PUC is who picks the monopoly and charges the monopoly a franchise fee, which gets passed on to the consumer but doesn't accomplish anything but prohibit competition. They still don't force investment or require a minimum standard of service.
No! Did you watch the video? Competition is the best way to improve service and lower costs. We need to foster choice for more Americans which can also include new technologies like 5G which doesn’t require laying cables. When you say it’s a public utility you pretty much guarantee we’ll be stuck with the level of service we have now forever
I live in Atlanta and only have one choice for Internet, Comcast. That said, I can't really complain. It's reliable and I chose the slowest speed, 50 MBPS which gives me internet at a decent speed for my PC, appliances, Roku Streaming TV and Ooma Phone for $71/mo total. In addition, being an internet customer qualifies me for a cell plan for $14/mo for 1gb data and unlimited calls and texts. So, for $85/mo I have cell phone, home phone, TV (Sling streaming extra) and internet. I'm satisfied with that.
WiFi for 16$ a month- unlimited data at 150mbps +Netflix + prime video + Disney+ Mobile data for 8$ for 3months- 1.5gb per day, unlimited calling. Hello from India
I live in Republic of Ireland. I have a mobile phone. This serves me perfectly well for my Internet. I can watch podcasts on U tube without problems. For 35 euro a calander month, I have unlimited phone calls to European Union plus U K, both land line and mobile. I have unlimited texts and Internet to aforementioned places as well. I do not have a land line or a router for Internet in my house.
Did anyone stop and think that these ISP's are more than likely reducing their bandwidth speeds intentionally forcing citizens to purchase their cable packages.
I have wondered if they were doing that to people who don’t buy their cable packages. Nothing ISPs do surprise me to give consumers a poorer product at a higher price
I pay $80/month for gigabit fiber from AT&T in Oklahoma. No data cap. Averages 900mbps both upstream and downstream. Competition does help, as I have two other ISP's that offer gigabit speeds in my neighborhood.
Spectrum is the best and never let me down, working from home for about 2 years and I do a lot of gaming online and never had a problem, and I live in the hood lol
I paid over $100 a month in New York State three years ago for 100mbps (Verizon FIOS). In the UK, I pay £27 ($36) for 150 mbps! I’ve never see broadband for $68 in the USA! It’s a monopoly or at best a duopoly in the USA. So much for market competition!
Meanwhile in Finland, I live by dirt road 15 miles from closest town of 3000 people and 35 miles from local central city of 20 000 people. And have 100 mbps service via fiber for 30 eur a month. Bit of socialisim isn't always a bad thing :)
@@cleverusernamecl5532 True. If those high taxes from fuel, cars and electricity would go into infrastructure itself, I'd be fine with it, but they're grossly overtaxed considering the amount our government invests in them.
@@cleverusernamecl5532 Do people in Finland drive as much as Americans though? I mean, most of us in the US have to drive 30 minutes just to get to work. If the gas in more, but they drive less and pay less for services, it seems to me it would balance out. Just a thought.
@@ajspice Yes, actually we do drive a lot more than most europeans. 15-40 min drive to work is pretty typical. Finnish population density in only half of USA (18 vs. 36), as we're just 5,5 million people in an area same size of UK, which has 68 million people. Because of this, public transport outside 3 largest cities in Finland is also very poor to nonexistent, unlike in most of Europe.
The country which is the originator of the Internet is being embarrassed by other countries when it comes to Internat services is just a truth that each and every American needs to accept.
So many comments complaining about the business X and Y. That's just ridiculous. If you want to change something, just enact a new law regulating the businesses. It's that simple. In Sweden we have a healthy internet and mobile phone marketplace. Most people pay between 10-50 $ for very high speed internet(unlimited data), and the same price for mobile phone service (including either high amounts or unlimited data). This has been the case for a very,very long time.
Home internet in the USA is slow because the ISPs impose ridiculous bandwidth caps. I switched from Frontier to Spectrum because I was getting faster download speeds over AT&T cellular in my house, than I was getting with my wired fiber connection from Frontier (they capped us at 100mbps for $60 and to get anything faster they wanted us to pay $100/month)
We wouldn't have this problem if private companies were not allowed monopolistic control over the telephone lines. In a given area you only have one "choice" for cable and one for phone. So, you could choose between a DSL company and a Cable company if both are in the area, but you cannot choose between two different cable companies because each one gets control over it's own territory. If the telephone lines - which are on public property - were allowed to be used by any company wishing to enter the market it would allow the free market to drive prices down and speeds up. Granted, there are problems with this idea. Each cable only has limited bandwidth meaning that each new company would have to run it's own wires. Still, that would be an improvement. The reason why I can't get fiber optic internet in my area is because they have to be buried, but the only reason they have to be buried is because the companies that do this don't have permission to run the fiber optic cables along the telephone lines. Another potential problem is maintainance, but that would be easy to solve by requiring each company that wishes to use telephone lines to share in their maintainence costs. Without the free market, we have monopolies. Monopolies can charge whatever they like unless otherwise regulated and broadband service has never been regulated. So they are allowed to charge whatever they want and your choice is to either have no service or pay what they demand. Beyond price though monopolies are more likely to act with impunity against the interests of the consumer. Everyone has their own story, but suffice to say, the conduct of these companies are characteristic of one who does not believe you can leave. If there's anything we learned these past 2 years it's how vital having stable internet access is, but no matter how much money the government injects into the infrastructure the problem won't really be solved without regulation and/or an elimination of the monopoloy. And we know the government has the authority to act because the entire telephone line system used to be owned by the single phone company that built it. Even new technologies like 5G won't solve the problem because local companies still own and have a monopoly on the infrastructure meaning that even though this might add some options, it won't really be much of a difference in terms of competition. What we need is for new companies to be able to enter the market using existing infrastructure. Either that or we need sensible regulation, although I'd still prefer the free market took over.
@@Chaser4906 I'm in the UK so never used aol but getting the free 500hr cd's in magazines or diallers to connect to in newspapers that lead to the screeching connecting tone. Even when it was at 10p a minute in some cases I still get a positive nostalgic feeling whenever I hear it
I'm in an Asian country, and my monthly Internet bill is only around $10. It's Wifi, so everyone in my family can use it. We have an Internet TV, 3 phones and a laptop. Sometimes a neighbor or two sneaks in our wifi, too. And it's still running smoothly. As for outdoor data, with just about $6 a month, you can effectively have unlimited internet access for your phone
The problem is that the owner of the cable is also the provider of the service. Split those and you’re covered. Companies a-m hold the network of cables, companies n-z provide the service and pay a-m for use of the network, for a nominal fee. If a-m can spread their cost over urban and rural areas to come up with a fixed price for all, you’re set. Legislation is easy. The issue is one of definitions: cables are national infrastructure, just like roads, bridges and airports. But right now they’re run like private property of the commercial providers. You can’t run a country that way
In my country in Eastern Europe, my internet speed is 300mbs! And my operator also has option for 600mbs and even higher! And i pay 55 local currency which is about 30$! The download speed shown in the video is 60mbs and also 3mbs like it used to be normal years ago. That’s insane!
Im from India, my broadband internet charge per month is 500 rupees (6 USD), I get unlimited internet at 20 mbs I also have data plans for phone - unlimited calls and 2 gb data per day in my 4g phone for one month at 300 rupees (3.61 usd). Next time im buying 5g phone
I enjoy providing internet services to rural areas where big companies are not present. I believe everyone should have access to the internet regardless of where they live.
Meanwhile, in India JIO has revolutionised the Internet. 100mbs at $11 with unlimited data that too with fibre optics cable, which means no speed fluctuation. And same goes for cellular connections we are getting data packs with a daily limit of 2GB or 3GB. 5 years ago that was the monthly limit.
Separate ownership of the physical infrastructure from service delivery. This would allow service providers to compete anywhere they want and the only way to grow revenue from infrastructure would be to expand the network to more customers.
Not only does Europe have affortable broadband, some countries also have very affortable mobile broadband (3G, 4G, 5G). Here in Finland it's unlimited, nationwide and essentially can also be used as a replacement to regular (wired) broadband. Everyone has good access to the Internet everywhere, that hasn't been an issue for many many years. The mobile plans also allow generous usage (free of charge) in other EU countries as well when visiting them.
when the government pays for internet as an infrastructure, what a joke, but the companies take the money and borrow even more and pay themselves fabulous salaries.
@@longshengpeh978 Speaking as someone from the US, I think about just HOW MUCH money has been spent in being (as you put it) nosy. Estimates of the Afghan/Iraq war alone is about 5.8 trillion dollars US. Imagine if at least some of that was allocated towards internal growth.
No kidding! we are still stuck on pushing our views on every other country, and bickering about basic services and abortion in the US. Our schools and infrastructure sucking surprises nobody, and it will not end until the boomers are either dead or too senile to vote... So another 20 years of this BS
Here in Guwahati, Assam, India.. I am using broadband of 50mbps speed having virtually unlimited downloads at 943rupees i.e 12.61 dollars per month... The speed hovers around 46-47 mbps.
Their average price data is COMPLETELY wrong. I love in a "village" in Hong Kong with only one possible provider and I pay just under 40 USD/month for 100mbps (the highest possible where I am). In the VAST majority of homes you can get 1gbps for under 20 USD/month. Where on earth did they get 150$/month??? The only possible explanation is that they confused HKD with USD (150hkd ~ 20usd)... Maybe not such a great source of economics news...
This really reminds me of the railroad tycoons back in the 1800s before track sizing was standardized. It’s the same problem, with the same greedy tycoons.
Internet and communications is the industry I think where India is at the lead, I pay a total of about 19usd(1580rs) monthly for a 200mbps ( proper optic fiber ) unlimited data, a Tv satellite connection with a smart tv box and a 4g sim card with 2gb data everyday....and all of this is cheap and no catch, it works as advertised.
It’s because ISP’s have little to no competition in the markets they compete in which means they can charge whatever they want. And these same ISP’s pay off politicians so there is no competition.
Ah, so you blame the companies. I blame the politicians. I expect some of the companies to cheat, and I demand the politicians do their job to prevent the cheating. I feel lonely though, and I’m often out voted.
In the philippines, after a third player was introduced to break the doupoly, home fibre data speeds can be availed at 50mbps for 25$ a month or 300 mbps for 50$ a month with unlimited data.. Or mobilephone data at 4$ for 25gb mobile data and unlimited calls & texts. Good enough after years of neglect.
i would NEVER pay 145 dollars per month for internet. thats literally a waste of money. i pay 57.50 for 1Gbps right now in the netherlands. and thats already over priced.
@@metalvideos1961 yeah that’s in the Netherlands in America Internet is overpriced everywhere so actually $145 yes it’s expensive even for America but for the quality I get it justifies it for me
I pay $80 a month for Charter Internet. It's now double what it originally cost me 10 years ago. And the service is very very poor. Maybe if competition existed things will change, but at present I don't have any options for other broadband carriers. The fact that they are using HTTP code injection to replace HTTP requests with messages they want to serve customers, regardless of the fact that this causes permanent loss of data, suggest that data might be getting bottlenecked by whatever system they're using to do this. So I'm sure the internet speeds and reliability are not just a matter of poor infrastructure, but also what's being done to the data at the ISP. Call me jaded, but my guess is that they're going to get huge chunk of this money and they will still find a way to increase rates. So my taxes will have to pay for them to make even more money.
Simple solution make the cable companies do the same as the phone companies are required by law. The phone companies are required by law to allow use of their lines by competitors, but cable companies are not, hence the monopoly. By example MCI, and Sprint were using AT&T's (and the Bells) phone lines on those long distances plans they offered.
I love in bumfuck nowhere, "proper" internet isn't on the table. All I've got out here is LTE/5G plans with ridiculous data caps. Starlink would be huge here.
@@ironeleven Absolutely, and I think Starlink has the potential to exceed the capabilities of traditional ISPs, since light travels faster in a vacuum. Rural users of Starlink could get some pretty stellar internet. I think what isn't yet in place, is the satellites don't all communicate with each other via lasers yet, instead they are using substations a lot right now.
When you consider that the internet is the acquiring and distribution of information and that the ISPS' that own the networks control access to that information. I think I read about that in a book, back in 1984......😲
I live in the UK, and to me regulation has a big part to play, we do have a lot of competition, mainly through regulation requirements I mean BT do own the entire network but give internet to smaller providers. And prices have only been getting lower and lower over the years, internet speeds are also getting better.
I had Comcast back when I was in Chicago and it was ok but never would get anywhere near 200 Mbps they promised. Here in LA my brother and I have same scenario as it is in 3:50. He's across the street and has Spectrum (Charter) which always has issues and pays more than me. I have no option on my end besides Frontier fiber which I must say is amazing; best internet experience I have ever had (450-500 Mbps). It must be because the infrastructure was built by Verizon.
We have better connectivity now in this part of a Central American country and much cheaper than my US family does. It used to not be so but it is NOW.
Starlink has horrible service, look at the tons of videos on UA-cam about it. Anything blocking the line of sight for the satellite, boom crap connection
I get 50 mbps for 9.5 dollars a month in India. Internet is cheap and reliable in India now and the infrastructure is good. The government is also expanding fiber optic lines to all the villages
Whoever did this report didn’t realize that xFinity and Comcast are the same thing. At the same time, you can tell that some of these people don’t understand how a broadband plant is done or how they function. Are they completely wrong? No but they are making huge claims with little data. The example of different speeds with house across from each other, is simple they could both be on different systems. Only because I have a neighbor it doesn’t mean that we are connected to the same plant. Also, I would add that connectivity can be impacted by a residents structure especially when it comes to wifi, a person can put a complaint about a company not supplying the accurate speed but it could be fixed if their internal connections are fixed. All in all, they need to do more research.
I think competition will come from above when Starlink is available to the average consumer. I also think it is funny that I pay $$$$ for a 400 megabit service and Comcast is not required to guarantee that speed to me. Hmm
When you do the math on Starlink you can see it will never be available to the average consumer at the speeds being sensationalized by everyone. There are too many people and not enough frequency space, physics get in the way unfortunately.
Yes, we need more competition and consumer options for broadband internet! Almost all Americans have one or less choice for wired broadband, we need to change this.
Lol I used to work for Spectrum and we laughed at our customers. The internet should be regulated as infrastructure but it’s not. So we can do whatever we like to you since we are a monopoly. I used to literally tell people on calls that we are a private business and we reserve the right to refuse service and we were refusing to install service at their property even if they were in our coverage area. They slowly understood that they have 0 options when the reality that we are a monopoly sunk in.
The problem is that we get all of the downsides of regulation without the benefits. Monopolies are enforced because zoning rules won't allow new companies to dig and add in lines. It's even difficult (6 months process) for existing companies to add new lines.
@@angelgjr1999 I agree with your comment, but I do not see how that relates to them paying their employees so little since they don’t have to work for Spectrum - I.e. Spectrum doesn’t have a monopoly on employment.
Watching this on a Fibre internet plan of about 8$/month (50mbps) might be slow as per US standards but still does the job for me! We can get up to 150mbps under 20$. Competition is really the key, apart from big players we have hundreds of local ISPs that helps keep the prices in check and offer services where big players are yet to come!
They're right about competition being the best solution. My country (UK) has a lot of ISPs and has led to much cheaper prices, I pay £21 ($28.53) a month for a 40Mb down / 10Mb up no bandwidth cap service which is fine for my needs.
I got a 500MB dedicated fiber line for 47 a month, best deal ever for me. Can turn it up to 1GB if I elect to but see no need. Have 3 computers, 4 smart tv’s, 4 ipads, 2 phones and an xbox. Not see sluggishness in my uploads or downloads.
The government limits competition in cities which inhibits the markets’s ability to improve efficiency. Then, rural cannot be made economical so government taxes us to create programs to expand rural service. Finally, politicians and bureaucrats take credit for doing something about the problem whether it improves or not. Regulations discussed in the video will all make the problems worse over time.
"Then, rural cannot be made economical so government taxes us to create programs to expand rural service" but thats always the case.... providing internet to rural areas will always be not economical. and thats literally the pt of taxes. to raise money to do something that is otherwise not economical yet improves quality of life.
@@REIwAlexY I agree on the first only if you mean economical as compared to denser areas. I mean economical in the sense that it’s worth the cost. I also question a lot of the claimed need. If someone is living on a working farm and the market won’t support him at any price, then maybe government should get involved because the market is failing. If I choose to buy a remote cabin to retire to, should you be taxed to get me internet? (That’s actually going on in upstate NY right now). Your expansive definition of government is quite radical by my standards, though not so much by the modern standard (People have forgotten rather recent lessons of history). I say to only have government intrude when the market has ACTUALLY failed (I don’t care if some people in the US cannot afford kiwi fruit, for instance) or will not work because of misaligned incentives. Then, I insist the government only enter with a well defined plan that includes if and how they will ever exit.
I personally feel that 100 Mbps internet, with NOTHING ELSE, is worth AT MOST $40/mo after all promotions are done and you're on your full-price rate. Currently, I'm paying $80 as an introductory promotion. Yes, I have Comcast, and no, I don't have access to anything else that's more reasonably priced or can match the advertised download speeds. Also, Government should mandate an infrastructure improvement on the telecom companies, cap service prices, and institute an increasing schedule of fines if the law is not complied with. I propose this, because Telecom companies were paid in full, up front, to install fiber optic internet IN THE 1980'S!!!! Now they're just delinquent on their commitment.
It's worth considering that the installation and maintenance cost for ISPs in a country like the US which is so spread out (especially compared to peers in development level and economic prosperity) is substantially higher, but that doesn't justify the extent to which internet prices are an outlier to comparable countries. The way that speed tiers are grouped to price is fabricated by the ISPs to take advantage of the average consumer not knowing that it's all just the same lines, and they just change a couple numbers to give you new bandwidth that already is usable on their infrastructure. You wouldn't see these practices in a competitive market, but ISPs know that they don't have competition, and ensure that status quo with monopolies at a local level especially in non-cities. The solution to fix this is to encourage competition through some set of policies, or regulate internet access as a utility akin to electricity and water, where they get special regulatory status due to the nature of their infrastructure being more efficient for the citizenry to be run by a single entity in a geographical area, and in return for the monopoly, have tighter restrictions to protect individuals in these controlled markets. How we, the people, can get any policies like these into effect when the people who make and enact policies are direct beneficiaries to the current situation, and are in-general oblivious to the technical aspects relegated to the industry insiders to know that the current situation is ridiculous... I have no answer.
The ISPs need nowadays to have at least fiber link packages from 500 Mbps if not 1 Gbps because of how interconnected we are in this modern world. I had 23 Mbps back in 2006, it's straight-up disgraceful to have those speeds in one of the most evolved countries on Earth. I just got the 10 Gbps from my current ISP and is amazing, if we continue to strive to be more interconnected then we need very good internet connection.
People in the USA have extraction capitalism, there is no incentive to constantly improve. Work those assets return profits to the rich and wealthy investment class on wall street. With no rules, they only want the cream not to provide service to all.
Rules? I had a great ISP small rural provider supplying many tiny communities until BY LAW he had to provide free stuff, which drove his price above Verison Comcast, Socialism not FREE market kills.
I get constant 1Gbps up/down fiber connection for less than $15 in Moscow, Russia. On mobile for less than $12 I get unlimited LTE/4G. There is competition in the USA market, yet, lobbies meet to discuss how to extract maximum profit from their customers. Most of the basic things are much cheaper across the world, while a single apple can cost a dollar in USA, other places you get a full 1kg for the same price.
CAT 8 is literally useless lol. dafuq do you want to do with that. CAT6a is fast enough for new houses. CAT 8 is literally BS lol. Cat 6A support up to 10Gbps. no house in america will ever have to worry about getting 10Gbps. thats simply never going to happen. but if you really want to be sure get Cat 7. Cat6a transmitting on 500MHz, while Category 7 cabling utilized a 600Mhz. so Cat 6 would be a little bit better. but 6a and 7 are both more then enough for american home users. way cheaper to buy then Cat 8 cables.
@@metalvideos1961 , Cat8 runs on a different frequency, currently T- Mobile runs on the same frequency and 5cat and 6cat. Higher frequency is better plus it's future proof. I'm getting a cleaner signal now.
@@Gastell0 I agree but for home use, Cat8 is a cleaner signal. Look up at the frequency Cat8 runs on. Then look up T- mobiles 600mhz band. Going to Cat 8 reduces the chance of interference from cellular towers.
Russia, ~400 miles away from Moscow. local ISP (covers just couples of cities). 100/100 (Mbps, download/upload speeds), 7 USD / month (500 rub; router included), no problems with internet for over 8 years. USA, Philadelphia, PA. Comcast - $60/month for 200/5 (Mbps, DL/UP), problems with internet - every month, problems with router (rented from comcast itself) - every week. and that price (60) is with a discount as a new customer (which will end soon) and this discount is huge - $46. So in reality it will be $106/month Even though internet and mobile phones were basically born here, in the US, the prices are insane and quality of service in every part of the country is poor at best
The problem with competition in this industry is that the infrastructure is expensive. The cost of entering the market is really high. It’s not a monopoly by any means, it is a oligopoly. Typically in a city you have a coaxial provider and a fiber/DSL provider. Those providers are not available in all 50 states. For example, AT&T is available in CA but not in AZ. I believe the government needs to step in a provide and provide more regulation in this industry in favor for consumers.
Rural fiber is cheap to install. City fiber is more expensive but not by much. The problem is the customer base is fixed, so as more companies enter the market, that customer base gets split and lowers the profits for each company, so instead of super excessive profits, each company has has only huge profits.
I always knew the large land mass to be inexcusable. Why is internet slower in the metropolitan area, then? Compare NYC internet to Tokyo or Seoul internet.
Seoul has like, 3 competing companies for that for most areas. for rual areas, one of the companies (the national owned one) is obligated to provide service cheaply.
I truly laughed out loud when the reporter said that Comcast (CNBC's parent company) did not respond to requests for comment on this piece. That says A LOT right there!
I guess it doesn't have enough bandwidth to respond
At least they called them out in their lack of response.
@@descentplayer They are actually ethically required by code to say that
🤣🤣🤣
“ our mom doesnt wanna talk”
Props to whoever made this video for acknowledging that Comcast is one the causes of monopoly
What? How can you name Comcast without including the government entities that handed them terms they never should have?
We expect companies to try for their best deal. Obviously, you do. It’s the government officials who took oaths that are supposed to keep the companies from getting protected from competition.
Who is the real problem then?
Comcast owns the company that made this video.
Comcast, Disney, and a few other companies have a monopoly on all of American media.
My weiner is like a Comcast bill
It keeps going uppppp......
- regular car reviews
Lol your parent company doesn't respond to a request for comment.
Only have Spectrum in my area. Took them a year-and-a-half to fix a problem. I told them, if there was a competitor, I would leave. This is how it is without competition.
I have AT&T and Comcast. They're experts at not competing.
In Australia if the big internet companies get lazy other new internet companies will use there grid and and make a cheaper service so the big companies have to be on their toes
AT&T far worse though.. Took them 3 years to fix my problem internet when using Phone ... and it was slow DSL. 15mbps for 49.99 $.. ( this was like 5-7 years ago but still hella expensive).. And they threaten me so they wouldn't have to come told me if problem on my side of line 350$ for technician visit plus parts ...... Plus they have data caps...
@@carlosk8103 as Australian THATS LEGAL IN AMERICA
I live in a rare place in the us with two competing internet companies with gigabit internet
Comcast not responding to CNBC is hilarious, like wtf.
CNBC not realizing they're owned by Comcast
😂😂😂😂😂this is so funnyyyy ✋😂
It shows you how just unserious these reports are. Merely clickbait!
Someone at CNBC will get FIRED by Comcast
Oi
Remember, Comcast is the last ranked regulated utility based on customer satisfaction in the US for the last 6 years going strong.
Source? I'd like to see that when I'm comparison shopping.
according to who any by what metric? Ive seen plenty of services with lower satisfaction ratings. Not that i love Comcast, but atnt always gives me more trouble, a lot of people however people don't have the privilege of having multiple options.
You're always best off comparing locally, since they aren't uniform everywhere where they offer them.
They also impose arbitrary data caps.
Perhaps it's just semantics, but Comcast is *not* a utility and therefore is not regulated as a utility.
True but Cox communications is trying very hard to become number one in not helping anyone. Watch out Comcast, Cox is coming for your number one spot of bad service, high prices, and not giving a crap except when paying dividends.
7:55 Comcast can't be bothered to respond to its own daughter company. Sounds about right for an ISP...
@@40fire81 Because they know that nothing will change.
AMERICA OVER THINKING ABOUT ELON MUSK HE IS SAYING SOME WORDS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND COLLETING FUNDS. FIRST ELON SEND YOUR INVERTORS TO MOON.
@@40fire81 Despite the chatter Comcast really isn't the root of the problem in all this, they do have low cost plans for low income individuals. $10 a month gets you 50mbps/5 and there are promos that are low cost. At the very least they are not the biggest offender out there. If you have Comcast,Spectrum, etc. You are better off than many Americans because at least you get access to highspeed broadband.
@@dragon.fromindia3235 wtf
They limit speeds on purpose to sell more expensive packaged with higher speeds.
True the technology can easily provide maximum speed for everyone, they just want to maximize their profits
Data caps too, which cost them like nothing. My ISP let's people pay $50 extra for unlimited data cap, but if u consistently use over 4tb every month, they can even threaten to kick u off their service.
From my knowledge the infrastructure in the US is just bad. The ISP’s have taken grants to upgrade it but have done more or less nothing. It’s similar in Australia.
@@ro0ster648 I pay in Romania 7$/month and I get unlimited acces at 100Mb/sec. And it's normal over here. Most people have 300Mb/sec. Some have Gigabyte internet. And for mobile we already have 5G in big cities.
American internet is just medieval and it's not even funny.
@@popcornsniper 🤯 🤯 🤯 🤯 🤯 🤯 🤯 (shocked)
As a professional working for a smaller municipality trying to solve this problem for our community and the rural areas around us, I can tell you that the solution is the underlying physical infrastructure. The government (or 3rd party separate from the ISP) should own the conduit and poles or provide open access to any and all ISPs for fiber. The construction of poles/conduit is like 80% of the cost. Eliminating that cost or spreading that cost across multiple ISPs encourages competition. The problem is that once a single ISP builds that infrastructure to a neighborhood, the cost for the 2nd ISP is the same as the 1st but the potential customers is smaller due to the incumbent provider. So there is no incentive for competition. If the infrastructure was built out and a competitor only had to lease the pole or conduit at a reasonable cost, they could provide service nearly instantly and at low cost to an area. It would also reduce the cost of that infrastructure as lease deals across multiple IPS would cover the cost of a single piece of infrastructure vs multiple separate pieces of infrastructure for each ISP.
sounds good... but then internet content censorship begins, imagine the gov handling an ISP.
@@fci2023 It doesn't necessarily mean the government is the ISP. You would still have all the same ISPs you have today but they share a common physical path. It's like government builds the roads but private sector uses them. Government builds the poles and conduit but private sector installs the fiber for the homes/businesses.
The problem then is that the public has to pay for the infrastructure. People love to say "the government should" but neglect to account for the fact that the public is obscenely cheap. The US is a country where the overwhelming majority of the federal government's tax revenue comes from a quarter of the tax units and people making up the other three quarters of the population that account for near as makes no difference nothing still feel comfortable loudly complaining that they pay too much.
@@BTrain-is8ch Couldn't agree more. That's why the ISPs should lease the infrastructure from the government. Similar to how municipal water works. The government builds out ensures everyone has equal access to water, but then charges appropriate to the costs. There are private utility models that work too. The point is separating the infrastructure from the actual internet service to promote competition rather than government control. In the end the public pays either way. You pay higher prices and poorer service due to monopolistic behavior or the government gets involved in some way. If it's price regulation, then you deal with lack of innovation. Or you can do public infrastructure projects (the one thing the government is not completely terrible at) and then encourage private sector competition utilizing that infrastructure. We pay one way or the other. Either high prices, low innovation, or shared taxes. Pick your evil but you only get one.
This is what NZ does. Internet is fast and there are many ISPs to choose from.
Simple, when you have a legal monopoly in certain areas there is no reason to invest in the system. Raising price is simple because what choice do most people like myself actually have?
You can thank your local government
@@jamess3109 Indeed!
What frustrates me about this country is so many things are fixable but it’s always stonewalled. Think of the skills gap that could be filled just by having reliable internet. We could fill so many more jobs.
Starlink is coming...
@@nocrtname I know. I’m thankful for Musk on that. Rural texas is waiting
@@texasgermancowgirl The US really needs to fix its government, which is pretty broken. Gerrymandering has assured low voter engagement and turnout, as most federal seats are safe for one party or the other. That means Congress can effectively ignore their voters, and instead focus on pleasing the corporates who donate to their reelection campaigns. They build long relationships with representatives and senators who stay in seat for decades, and find plenty of dirt on them to keep them in line. Anyone who crosses the aisle is vilified and primaried, and since the seat is 'safe', the party is able to put someone who will hold ranks in place.
We need to:
1. Enact term limits for Congress (8 or 12 years for a rep, 12 for a senator should be more than enough. We'll get a lot of people who want to get something done before their term limit kicks in).
2. Stop gerrymandering the districts, set a limit and let a computer determine if it's gerrymandered or not, and then let everyone play by the same rules.
and 3. remove corporate donations to election campaigns and lobbying of elected officials. Just pass a law and make it illegal.
Then things will quickly move in the right direction.
your country cares more about creating wars everywhere. creating terrorist organizations everywhere. trying to topple down democratic governments because they dont like it. then actually fixing their country. they all claim that america is the greatest nation on earth. yet it got a C- when it comes to inrastructure. it got the highest homeless crisis of any developed nation. it doesnt have a good functioning social system like we have in europe. it doesnt have universal health care payed maternity and paternity leave or payed sick days like the rest of the developed world have. Point is your government dont care for their people or the country. there is only 1 group they care for and that is the zionists that they love to be a puppet from. you need 4.5+ trillion dollars by 2025 to fix the most important infrastructure problems. but thats never going to happen. so in other words your country will go down to crap even more every single day. and you will never have good internet for a decent price. on top of that you still have a data cap in america. which is something we dont have anymore (in the netherlands where i live) since 2000. so yeah i feel for you for not having good internet. they really should fix that. but it most likely will not happen in a long long time
@@nocrtname starlink is extremely expensive and extremely crappy. in the Netherlands we can get that as well. cost 658 euros in total. 99 euros per month for 30Mbps down and 6Mbps Up. 499 euros to get the dish and everything and 60 euros to get it up and running. on top of that we get a 150GB per month data cap. for a country like the netherlands its not needed. we have the best fiberoptic infrastructure in the world. but i can see some scenarios where this can be useful. but to pay that much for still crappy internet is just bs
for a capitalist society, US seems to have some serious monopoly in come of its industries.
Monopolies are a form of runaway capitalism. The problem is that these companies lobby politicians to enact confusing regulations that bar any competitors.
@@danielsteel9757 huh? No only did you contradict yourself, your argument makes no sense.
Do you have any idea what a monopoly is? All I can tell you is that I have 5 choices for internet, and that includes Starlink. Two weeks ago comcast ran a new fibre optic cable down my median in front of my house. Now I have 2 cable options. Anyhow a monopoly is when one major company is the only choice. Bell Telephone System was a monopoly until the Government broke up their monopoly in 1984
@@fauxque5057 hey chief, there’s many places in the US where there’s only one major internet provider in an area. Up until two months ago, the only “options” I had were Spectrum Internet or dial-up, the latter of which isn’t really an option, since it sucks. So go on, please tell me more about how there’s no regional monopolies.
@@LaniakeaDenizen Monopolies exist in capitalism but only continue to exist thanks to government.
Cell phone prices in the US have always struck me as exhorbitant. In Ireland, I get unlimited (80GB soft cap) data and unlimited calls and texts for €13/month (roughly $16).
I get 2GB data with unlimited calling and 100 SMS in $8 for 3 months
vodafone here gives 4gb/day, free calls, and unlimited sms for $3.3
Challenge in the US is the cost of covering the millions of miles/kilometers of rural communities, which cost the companies significantly more to service than they make from them. So everyone in cities or suburbs pays a higher price to cover the rest of the country. Plus a hefty mark-up. So some legit issues, some greed issues.
That would be $200-$300 in canada
@@scottfike6649 yes theres distance but alot of it is b.s its the fact they can charge high same thing in canada with our triopoly
Here in Nairobi, Kenya (Africa) the internet speeds are phenomenal..Among the fastest in the world....Comparable to what you would get in the UK or other European countries
plz dont mention the country first, US people can have a heart attack on knowing that africa can also have internet😂
I concur the internet speeds in Kenya are very fast. While in Nairobi, Mombasa, and Malindi I conducted speed tests and have the screenshots as proof. Safaricom keep doing what you all are doing. :-)
i see that you live in nairobi? average speed in 2021 in nairobi was 21.79 Mbps. thats slow. almost impossible to get those speeds in the netherlands where i live. slowest internet connection here is about 50Mbps. Eldoret got the fastest fixed broadband speed of kenya with 23.68 Mbps. so i dont know why you call yoru internet among the fastest in the world. because thats simply not true. you rank is about 150 in the world. what you do have is faster mobile internet then america on average. so i dont know why you claim you have among the fastest average internet speed in the world. most european countries if not all offer 1Gbps connections (1000Mbps). I have not seen any providers in Kenya that offer such speed. but correct me if i am wrong though. in the netherlands i my self have 1000Mbps or 1Gbps.
@@metalvideos1961 Its been confirmed by foreigners that have posted here that it is true....Seeing is believing. I lived in the UK for 8 years and was using Virgin Media Broadband..When I compare speeds, yes we are among the fastest in the world..It that annoys you then go on hunger strike. Read the replies to my previous previous comment on the same.
CNBC: Dad, are u monopolizing the Internet market?
Comcast: ...
Having lived in Seoul spoiled me, internet was fast and cheap. Living in AZ now and the internet in my area drops and slows all the time.
"Government" also voted to hamstring antitrust law and prosecution of such. Our representatives voted to undermine our system in favor of monopolies, who contribute to their campaigns.
If it is too expensive, a factor in that is many ISPs are controlled by media conglomerates. Especially many that have cable TV options. So "cutting the cable" is still feeding that same company.
What about the summer of love? When the ISP's came together and decided who gets what region and then decided not to encroach on one another's areas.
Not in my small growing city. We've got 3 ISPs.
@@robertlee8805 I've got crappy overpriced spectrum or dial-up.
in Australia we have ALL ISP's available to ALL houses at a minimum of 12MB/s up to a maximum of 1GB/s and there are some debating that it's worth the cost, even though it's only costing us $49 per month Australian for the 12MB/s on wireless all the way up to $200 per month for 1GB/s on fiber optics.
America, your country is no longer modern, it is falling behind the rest of the world and dropping to the levels of 3rd world countries... my thoughts and prayers go out to you.
@@SkashTheKitsune you sure bro? My wireless is only $49.99 for 500MB speed here in Florida.
@@SkashTheKitsune 1 GBPS? Biatch please, my house has had 2 GBPS internet for a while now for $100/month so know your role Kangaroo hugger, Australia is like a 60 yr old woman, everyone knows it's down there but nobody cares
I own a small ISP. Everything they're saying is true. It is so hard to compete with the big boys. If there were grants for smaller companies the wheels would turn.
@blake christenson where is your company located?
@@mikeaskme3530 dude you've ask the wrong question and no answer see
@blake christenson yup totally understand
at least in india we have considerably good speed with cheapest rates
Considerably good speeds do not cut it in the US. With the amount of cell phones, smart TVs, smart devices, smart home appliances, etc. way faster speeds are needed. I have Gigabit internet at my home and have about 50 devices connected to the internet. Unfortunately, the capacity of Internet that I have in my area is way higher than what people get in other areas of the US.
@@thejwviolinist a side bar question- is that healthy? I'm mean yay development but to what level?? I went to one of these "smart" homes and my friend was showing off, how he can switch off the lights from his phone. Even though the switch for the light, was literally next to him.
@@thejwviolinist i live in Prayagraj and i have 1gbps connection with static ip from a local isp.
The scenario has changed a lot after jio dude.
@@pranshuanand4560 It can be very helpful to have smart appliances at home. Let's say you running late and are rushing to get out of the house. In my house, everyone uses the garage door as the "main door" of the house. So I can tell Google to open my garage door, turn all the lights off and tune down the thermostat all at once (while I'm putting my socks and shoes on) and BOOM, literally something that would have slowed me down from leaving the house has become a nonissue. Or even when I'm going to sleep, I tell Google goodnight, and it automatically set my alarm for the next morning, turns all the lights off, locks the doors of the house, and sets my alarm system to armed--all of that with just one tiny command. You might think that these things will make a human lazier, but it really just makes time for more important things.
@@d_techterminal That's good to know. At least India is getting somewhere with Internet now. Now it's just a matter of how available it is to the population and how many people can actually pay for it. I've heard good things about Jio, so whatever they're doing must be working!
Short answer: Because ISPs can make money off of it.
There are more lobbyists than politicians now. Get them out of D.C.
The ISP's should fall under the Public Utility Commission and their laws.
Internet is no longer (and has not been for some time now) an optional / luxury utility.
The problem in some areas is ISPs are regulated by the Public Utility Commission. A state PUC is who picks the monopoly and charges the monopoly a franchise fee, which gets passed on to the consumer but doesn't accomplish anything but prohibit competition. They still don't force investment or require a minimum standard of service.
No! Did you watch the video? Competition is the best way to improve service and lower costs. We need to foster choice for more Americans which can also include new technologies like 5G which doesn’t require laying cables. When you say it’s a public utility you pretty much guarantee we’ll be stuck with the level of service we have now forever
@@IStillLikeIke - competition does NOT WORK as the cost to duplicate existing networks is very high
I live in Atlanta and only have one choice for Internet, Comcast. That said, I can't really complain. It's reliable and I chose the slowest speed, 50 MBPS which gives me internet at a decent speed for my PC, appliances, Roku Streaming TV and Ooma Phone for $71/mo total. In addition, being an internet customer qualifies me for a cell plan for $14/mo for 1gb data and unlimited calls and texts. So, for $85/mo I have cell phone, home phone, TV (Sling streaming extra) and internet. I'm satisfied with that.
Big corporate oligopolies like Comcast, Time Warner, RCN is the issue. Save you 10 minutes
WiFi for 16$ a month- unlimited data at 150mbps +Netflix + prime video + Disney+
Mobile data for 8$ for 3months- 1.5gb per day, unlimited calling.
Hello from India
Back in the '90s, when we had dial-up internet, you had many ISPs to choose from, but now with broadband you don't have choices anymore.
Its really a government decision to make access for other ISPs or not. I bet the lobby has DEEP pockets and the average customer pays the price.
Remember AOL
We have a local telecom service that keeps Time Warner err... Spectrum in check.
I live in Republic of Ireland.
I have a mobile phone. This serves me perfectly well for my Internet.
I can watch podcasts on U tube without problems.
For 35 euro a calander month, I have unlimited phone calls to European Union plus U K, both land line and mobile.
I have unlimited texts and Internet to aforementioned places as well.
I do not have a land line or a router for Internet in my house.
Did anyone stop and think that these ISP's are more than likely
reducing their bandwidth speeds intentionally forcing citizens to purchase their cable packages.
Money is delicious.
I pick my speed based on what I want to pay. 100mb a sec is fast enough for me, and I consider it a bargain for what I'm paying
I have wondered if they were doing that to people who don’t buy their cable packages. Nothing ISPs do surprise me to give consumers a poorer product at a higher price
What do you mean? You can always test the speed, if you are not getting the speed you were promised, call them and sue.
I pay $80/month for gigabit fiber from AT&T in Oklahoma. No data cap. Averages 900mbps both upstream and downstream. Competition does help, as I have two other ISP's that offer gigabit speeds in my neighborhood.
Spectrum is the best and never let me down, working from home for about 2 years and I do a lot of gaming online and never had a problem, and I live in the hood lol
I paid over $100 a month in New York State three years ago for 100mbps (Verizon FIOS). In the UK, I pay £27 ($36) for 150 mbps! I’ve never see broadband for $68 in the USA! It’s a monopoly or at best a duopoly in the USA. So much for market competition!
Meanwhile in Finland, I live by dirt road 15 miles from closest town of 3000 people and 35 miles from local central city of 20 000 people.
And have 100 mbps service via fiber for 30 eur a month. Bit of socialisim isn't always a bad thing :)
Shhh they will accuse you of communism or something 😂
Yeah and your gasoline is $8 a gallon.
@@cleverusernamecl5532 True.
If those high taxes from fuel, cars and electricity would go into infrastructure itself, I'd be fine with it, but they're grossly overtaxed considering the amount our government invests in them.
@@cleverusernamecl5532 Do people in Finland drive as much as Americans though? I mean, most of us in the US have to drive 30 minutes just to get to work. If the gas in more, but they drive less and pay less for services, it seems to me it would balance out. Just a thought.
@@ajspice Yes, actually we do drive a lot more than most europeans. 15-40 min drive to work is pretty typical.
Finnish population density in only half of USA (18 vs. 36), as we're just 5,5 million people in an area same size of UK, which has 68 million people.
Because of this, public transport outside 3 largest cities in Finland is also very poor to nonexistent, unlike in most of Europe.
In Thailand, broadband internet based on Fiber optic system is so fast and so cheap. And, there is no monopoly issue as seen in the US.
The country which is the originator of the Internet is being embarrassed by other countries when it comes to Internat services is just a truth that each and every American needs to accept.
So many comments complaining about the business X and Y. That's just ridiculous. If you want to change something, just enact a new law regulating the businesses. It's that simple.
In Sweden we have a healthy internet and mobile phone marketplace. Most people pay between 10-50 $ for very high speed internet(unlimited data), and the same price for mobile phone service (including either high amounts or unlimited data).
This has been the case for a very,very long time.
Home internet in the USA is slow because the ISPs impose ridiculous bandwidth caps. I switched from Frontier to Spectrum because I was getting faster download speeds over AT&T cellular in my house, than I was getting with my wired fiber connection from Frontier (they capped us at 100mbps for $60 and to get anything faster they wanted us to pay $100/month)
We wouldn't have this problem if private companies were not allowed monopolistic control over the telephone lines. In a given area you only have one "choice" for cable and one for phone. So, you could choose between a DSL company and a Cable company if both are in the area, but you cannot choose between two different cable companies because each one gets control over it's own territory. If the telephone lines - which are on public property - were allowed to be used by any company wishing to enter the market it would allow the free market to drive prices down and speeds up.
Granted, there are problems with this idea. Each cable only has limited bandwidth meaning that each new company would have to run it's own wires. Still, that would be an improvement. The reason why I can't get fiber optic internet in my area is because they have to be buried, but the only reason they have to be buried is because the companies that do this don't have permission to run the fiber optic cables along the telephone lines. Another potential problem is maintainance, but that would be easy to solve by requiring each company that wishes to use telephone lines to share in their maintainence costs.
Without the free market, we have monopolies. Monopolies can charge whatever they like unless otherwise regulated and broadband service has never been regulated. So they are allowed to charge whatever they want and your choice is to either have no service or pay what they demand. Beyond price though monopolies are more likely to act with impunity against the interests of the consumer. Everyone has their own story, but suffice to say, the conduct of these companies are characteristic of one who does not believe you can leave. If there's anything we learned these past 2 years it's how vital having stable internet access is, but no matter how much money the government injects into the infrastructure the problem won't really be solved without regulation and/or an elimination of the monopoloy. And we know the government has the authority to act because the entire telephone line system used to be owned by the single phone company that built it.
Even new technologies like 5G won't solve the problem because local companies still own and have a monopoly on the infrastructure meaning that even though this might add some options, it won't really be much of a difference in terms of competition. What we need is for new companies to be able to enter the market using existing infrastructure. Either that or we need sensible regulation, although I'd still prefer the free market took over.
I remember when 1.5 Mbs was fast.
My first modem was 33k. When I replaced that for one which did 56K I was amazed.
@@Gambit771 flashback of AOL dial tone.... LOL
From 56K to DSL. Those sure were luxurious times.
@@Chaser4906 I'm in the UK so never used aol but getting the free 500hr cd's in magazines or diallers to connect to in newspapers that lead to the screeching connecting tone.
Even when it was at 10p a minute in some cases I still get a positive nostalgic feeling whenever I hear it
@@Gambit771 🤣👍🏻 I remember when I need to download a small file for half an hour and it's consider fast in the past
I'm in an Asian country, and my monthly Internet bill is only around $10. It's Wifi, so everyone in my family can use it. We have an Internet TV, 3 phones and a laptop. Sometimes a neighbor or two sneaks in our wifi, too. And it's still running smoothly.
As for outdoor data, with just about $6 a month, you can effectively have unlimited internet access for your phone
USA: Tech companies are monopolies, we should regulate them.
Also USA: Yeah we are fine with Comcast being monopoly.
The problem is that the owner of the cable is also the provider of the service. Split those and you’re covered. Companies a-m hold the network of cables, companies n-z provide the service and pay a-m for use of the network, for a nominal fee. If a-m can spread their cost over urban and rural areas to come up with a fixed price for all, you’re set. Legislation is easy. The issue is one of definitions: cables are national infrastructure, just like roads, bridges and airports. But right now they’re run like private property of the commercial providers. You can’t run a country that way
In my country in Eastern Europe, my internet speed is 300mbs! And my operator also has option for 600mbs and even higher! And i pay 55 local currency which is about 30$! The download speed shown in the video is 60mbs and also 3mbs like it used to be normal years ago. That’s insane!
Why do you need 300mbs in a home? And 60 mbs download speed 😮. It makes sense for a small business
Im from India, my broadband internet charge per month is 500 rupees (6 USD), I get unlimited internet at 20 mbs
I also have data plans for phone - unlimited calls and 2 gb data per day in my 4g phone for one month at 300 rupees (3.61 usd). Next time im buying 5g phone
I enjoy providing internet services to rural areas where big companies are not present. I believe everyone should have access to the internet regardless of where they live.
I live about an hour north of Manila, Philippines. The average cost for fiber (45 mbps down/ 25 mbps up) is $30 USD per month.
The same speed in india will cost 5-6USD
That's way too expensive
Meanwhile, in India JIO has revolutionised the Internet.
100mbs at $11 with unlimited data that too with fibre optics cable, which means no speed fluctuation.
And same goes for cellular connections we are getting data packs with a daily limit of 2GB or 3GB.
5 years ago that was the monthly limit.
Separate ownership of the physical infrastructure from service delivery. This would allow service providers to compete anywhere they want and the only way to grow revenue from infrastructure would be to expand the network to more customers.
Not only does Europe have affortable broadband, some countries also have very affortable mobile broadband (3G, 4G, 5G). Here in Finland it's unlimited, nationwide and essentially can also be used as a replacement to regular (wired) broadband. Everyone has good access to the Internet everywhere, that hasn't been an issue for many many years. The mobile plans also allow generous usage (free of charge) in other EU countries as well when visiting them.
when the government pays for internet as an infrastructure, what a joke, but the companies take the money and borrow even more and pay themselves fabulous salaries.
Chattanooga, TN made Fiber Optic Internet easily available and cheap. More cities should copy that model.
The United States should focus solely on building their country instead of being nosy.(interfering in others affairs.)
God if only.
@@rafterscott what do u mean?
@@longshengpeh978 Speaking as someone from the US, I think about just HOW MUCH money has been spent in being (as you put it) nosy. Estimates of the Afghan/Iraq war alone is about 5.8 trillion dollars US. Imagine if at least some of that was allocated towards internal growth.
They care more on getting Internet in Afghanistan
No kidding! we are still stuck on pushing our views on every other country, and bickering about basic services and abortion in the US. Our schools and infrastructure sucking surprises nobody, and it will not end until the boomers are either dead or too senile to vote... So another 20 years of this BS
Here in Guwahati, Assam, India.. I am using broadband of 50mbps speed having virtually unlimited downloads at 943rupees i.e 12.61 dollars per month... The speed hovers around 46-47 mbps.
Their average price data is COMPLETELY wrong. I love in a "village" in Hong Kong with only one possible provider and I pay just under 40 USD/month for 100mbps (the highest possible where I am). In the VAST majority of homes you can get 1gbps for under 20 USD/month. Where on earth did they get 150$/month??? The only possible explanation is that they confused HKD with USD (150hkd ~ 20usd)... Maybe not such a great source of economics news...
Always all about keeping their Stocks up.
India:
1.3B People.
Fibre Internet connections for Office/Home offer avg. 100-150 Mbps.
Cost: Just $10 to $12 per month.
We pay €40 for 1Gbit but it took like 20+ years to get there. I remember paying 100€ for 1mbit way back…
This really reminds me of the railroad tycoons back in the 1800s before track sizing was standardized. It’s the same problem, with the same greedy tycoons.
Finally a thing which is more expensive in USA than in Europe :)
Internet and communications is the industry I think where India is at the lead, I pay a total of about 19usd(1580rs) monthly for a 200mbps ( proper optic fiber ) unlimited data, a Tv satellite connection with a smart tv box and a 4g sim card with 2gb data everyday....and all of this is cheap and no catch, it works as advertised.
It’s because ISP’s have little to no competition in the markets they compete in which means they can charge whatever they want. And these same ISP’s pay off politicians so there is no competition.
Ah, so you blame the companies. I blame the politicians. I expect some of the companies to cheat, and I demand the politicians do their job to prevent the cheating.
I feel lonely though, and I’m often out voted.
@@nunyabidness3075 I agree with you! I hope you wouldnt have to feel lonely tho :(
Expensive!.. You should see here in Canada, not only the Internet but cell phone service. A basic landline from Bell Canada is now $50 a month
I’m super happy I live in a small town in SoCal and we have fast internet and less congestion on the wired and cell network.
In the philippines, after a third player was introduced to break the doupoly, home fibre data speeds can be availed at 50mbps for 25$ a month or 300 mbps for 50$ a month with unlimited data.. Or mobilephone data at 4$ for 25gb mobile data and unlimited calls & texts. Good enough after years of neglect.
I have 1.5 gig internet. So I guess I shouldnt complain at $144.95 a month. It’s very pricey but I love it
i would NEVER pay 145 dollars per month for internet. thats literally a waste of money. i pay 57.50 for 1Gbps right now in the netherlands. and thats already over priced.
@@metalvideos1961 yeah that’s in the Netherlands in America Internet is overpriced everywhere so actually $145 yes it’s expensive even for America but for the quality I get it justifies it for me
mean while in India now most metropolitan Cities pay 16$ for 150 Mbps. Same soon will be available in rural villages near metropolitan cities.
I pay US$ 18.00 a month for 400 mbps down / 200 mbps up, no data cap, here in Brazil.
Wow…I’m paying $75 a month for 100 mbps down in the US
@@TheMrDamp Here competition is fierce, there's at least 4 companies offering services where I live.
@@LeoVines that’s great! Wish it was like that most places
I pay $120 for 500 Mbps down, 20mbps up, with 1.25tb data cap. No data cap is $50 more 😭😭
@@ro0ster648 I pay 115 for 1 gig
I pay $80 a month for Charter Internet. It's now double what it originally cost me 10 years ago. And the service is very very poor. Maybe if competition existed things will change, but at present I don't have any options for other broadband carriers.
The fact that they are using HTTP code injection to replace HTTP requests with messages they want to serve customers, regardless of the fact that this causes permanent loss of data, suggest that data might be getting bottlenecked by whatever system they're using to do this. So I'm sure the internet speeds and reliability are not just a matter of poor infrastructure, but also what's being done to the data at the ISP.
Call me jaded, but my guess is that they're going to get huge chunk of this money and they will still find a way to increase rates. So my taxes will have to pay for them to make even more money.
Plot twist: This video was supposed to be uploaded yesterday, but the upload speed was too slow.
Simple solution make the cable companies do the same as the phone companies are required by law. The phone companies are required by law to allow use of their lines by competitors, but cable companies are not, hence the monopoly. By example MCI, and Sprint were using AT&T's (and the Bells) phone lines on those long distances plans they offered.
Starlink and 5g ISPs can't come fast enough. We need competition.
don't be delusional. starlink and 5g are not replacements for proper gigabit
I love in bumfuck nowhere, "proper" internet isn't on the table. All I've got out here is LTE/5G plans with ridiculous data caps. Starlink would be huge here.
@@ironeleven Absolutely, and I think Starlink has the potential to exceed the capabilities of traditional ISPs, since light travels faster in a vacuum. Rural users of Starlink could get some pretty stellar internet. I think what isn't yet in place, is the satellites don't all communicate with each other via lasers yet, instead they are using substations a lot right now.
And Fiber.
When you consider that the internet is the acquiring and distribution of information and that the ISPS' that own the networks control access to that information. I think I read about that in a book, back in 1984......😲
I live in the UK, and to me regulation has a big part to play, we do have a lot of competition, mainly through regulation requirements I mean BT do own the entire network but give internet to smaller providers. And prices have only been getting lower and lower over the years, internet speeds are also getting better.
This guy gets it
I had Comcast back when I was in Chicago and it was ok but never would get anywhere near 200 Mbps they promised. Here in LA my brother and I have same scenario as it is in 3:50. He's across the street and has Spectrum (Charter) which always has issues and pays more than me. I have no option on my end besides Frontier fiber which I must say is amazing; best internet experience I have ever had (450-500 Mbps). It must be because the infrastructure was built by Verizon.
In eastern Europe u can get unlimited 1000Mbps fibre optic for equivalent of 10 bucks per month.
We have better connectivity now in this part of a Central American country and much cheaper than my US family does. It used to not be so but it is NOW.
Meanwhile, Elon at SpaceX is spending billions in private funds setting up the Starlink network. Starlink FTW.
When you say spending you mean they still haven't found investors yet right?
Starlink has horrible service, look at the tons of videos on UA-cam about it. Anything blocking the line of sight for the satellite, boom crap connection
@@Twinturbo120 ... which is why its still in beta. RN there are only like 2-3 satilites that you can see at a time.
Well if it works it’ll change everything google already failed so now they know what to look out for
Utterly crazy idea that cannot deliver competitive performance at a profit.
I get 50 mbps for 9.5 dollars a month in India. Internet is cheap and reliable in India now and the infrastructure is good. The government is also expanding fiber optic lines to all the villages
I was having internet issue and this video shows up and then I remember I don't even live in US.
Whoever did this report didn’t realize that xFinity and Comcast are the same thing. At the same time, you can tell that some of these people don’t understand how a broadband plant is done or how they function. Are they completely wrong? No but they are making huge claims with little data. The example of different speeds with house across from each other, is simple they could both be on different systems. Only because I have a neighbor it doesn’t mean that we are connected to the same plant. Also, I would add that connectivity can be impacted by a residents structure especially when it comes to wifi, a person can put a complaint about a company not supplying the accurate speed but it could be fixed if their internal connections are fixed. All in all, they need to do more research.
I think competition will come from above when Starlink is available to the average consumer. I also think it is funny that I pay $$$$ for a 400 megabit service and Comcast is not required to guarantee that speed to me. Hmm
I love that people think they will be able to use internet from space.
To download movies sure, to play games or make zoom calls you're dreaming
When you do the math on Starlink you can see it will never be available to the average consumer at the speeds being sensationalized by everyone. There are too many people and not enough frequency space, physics get in the way unfortunately.
@@janeblogs324 We've done VoIP over Starlink and it works fine, no issues with gaming either. The issues come when the customer base is scaled up.
GOLD PRICE WILL RISE AGAIN TO 2100$/OZ..
@@janeblogs324 ……really stupid thinking, huh!?
Yes, we need more competition and consumer options for broadband internet! Almost all Americans have one or less choice for wired broadband, we need to change this.
Lol I used to work for Spectrum and we laughed at our customers. The internet should be regulated as infrastructure but it’s not. So we can do whatever we like to you since we are a monopoly. I used to literally tell people on calls that we are a private business and we reserve the right to refuse service and we were refusing to install service at their property even if they were in our coverage area. They slowly understood that they have 0 options when the reality that we are a monopoly sunk in.
The problem is that we get all of the downsides of regulation without the benefits. Monopolies are enforced because zoning rules won't allow new companies to dig and add in lines. It's even difficult (6 months process) for existing companies to add new lines.
The sad part is spectrum employees are paid garbage money in my state (like 8.50$ an hour). Monopolies hurt EVERYONE.
@@angelgjr1999 I agree with your comment, but I do not see how that relates to them paying their employees so little since they don’t have to work for Spectrum - I.e. Spectrum doesn’t have a monopoly on employment.
@@teddysmith8725 not true
@@angelgjr1999 I got paid $20 at the call center.
Watching this on a Fibre internet plan of about 8$/month (50mbps) might be slow as per US standards but still does the job for me! We can get up to 150mbps under 20$. Competition is really the key, apart from big players we have hundreds of local ISPs that helps keep the prices in check and offer services where big players are yet to come!
I live in a town in the UK and I get reliable 35mbps for about $25/ month
Internet access should be guaranteed free to everyone. Taxpayer funded municipal or federal networks is the best way to solve our issues.
Many cities in Colorado have done this.
When you only have 2 parties the monopoly just lobby both.
2 is very far from 1, 2 is very close to 5.
They're right about competition being the best solution. My country (UK) has a lot of ISPs and has led to much cheaper prices, I pay £21 ($28.53) a month for a 40Mb down / 10Mb up no bandwidth cap service which is fine for my needs.
CNBC: "Why internet speed is slow..."
Call Center Agents: Hold my candle.
I got a 500MB dedicated fiber line for 47 a month, best deal ever for me. Can turn it up to 1GB if I elect to but see no need. Have 3 computers, 4 smart tv’s, 4 ipads, 2 phones and an xbox. Not see sluggishness in my uploads or downloads.
The government limits competition in cities which inhibits the markets’s ability to improve efficiency. Then, rural cannot be made economical so government taxes us to create programs to expand rural service. Finally, politicians and bureaucrats take credit for doing something about the problem whether it improves or not.
Regulations discussed in the video will all make the problems worse over time.
"Then, rural cannot be made economical so government taxes us to create programs to expand rural service" but thats always the case.... providing internet to rural areas will always be not economical. and thats literally the pt of taxes. to raise money to do something that is otherwise not economical yet improves quality of life.
@@REIwAlexY I agree on the first only if you mean economical as compared to denser areas. I mean economical in the sense that it’s worth the cost. I also question a lot of the claimed need. If someone is living on a working farm and the market won’t support him at any price, then maybe government should get involved because the market is failing. If I choose to buy a remote cabin to retire to, should you be taxed to get me internet? (That’s actually going on in upstate NY right now).
Your expansive definition of government is quite radical by my standards, though not so much by the modern standard (People have forgotten rather recent lessons of history). I say to only have government intrude when the market has ACTUALLY failed (I don’t care if some people in the US cannot afford kiwi fruit, for instance) or will not work because of misaligned incentives. Then, I insist the government only enter with a well defined plan that includes if and how they will ever exit.
7
I personally feel that 100 Mbps internet, with NOTHING ELSE, is worth AT MOST $40/mo after all promotions are done and you're on your full-price rate. Currently, I'm paying $80 as an introductory promotion. Yes, I have Comcast, and no, I don't have access to anything else that's more reasonably priced or can match the advertised download speeds. Also, Government should mandate an infrastructure improvement on the telecom companies, cap service prices, and institute an increasing schedule of fines if the law is not complied with. I propose this, because Telecom companies were paid in full, up front, to install fiber optic internet IN THE 1980'S!!!! Now they're just delinquent on their commitment.
It's worth considering that the installation and maintenance cost for ISPs in a country like the US which is so spread out (especially compared to peers in development level and economic prosperity) is substantially higher, but that doesn't justify the extent to which internet prices are an outlier to comparable countries. The way that speed tiers are grouped to price is fabricated by the ISPs to take advantage of the average consumer not knowing that it's all just the same lines, and they just change a couple numbers to give you new bandwidth that already is usable on their infrastructure. You wouldn't see these practices in a competitive market, but ISPs know that they don't have competition, and ensure that status quo with monopolies at a local level especially in non-cities. The solution to fix this is to encourage competition through some set of policies, or regulate internet access as a utility akin to electricity and water, where they get special regulatory status due to the nature of their infrastructure being more efficient for the citizenry to be run by a single entity in a geographical area, and in return for the monopoly, have tighter restrictions to protect individuals in these controlled markets. How we, the people, can get any policies like these into effect when the people who make and enact policies are direct beneficiaries to the current situation, and are in-general oblivious to the technical aspects relegated to the industry insiders to know that the current situation is ridiculous... I have no answer.
Not true - the cost to provide broadband in the USA is NOT HIGHER.
The ISPs need nowadays to have at least fiber link packages from 500 Mbps if not 1 Gbps because of how interconnected we are in this modern world. I had 23 Mbps back in 2006, it's straight-up disgraceful to have those speeds in one of the most evolved countries on Earth. I just got the 10 Gbps from my current ISP and is amazing, if we continue to strive to be more interconnected then we need very good internet connection.
People in the USA have extraction capitalism, there is no incentive to constantly improve. Work those assets return profits to the rich and wealthy investment class on wall street. With no rules, they only want the cream not to provide service to all.
Rules? I had a great ISP small rural provider supplying many tiny communities until BY LAW he had to provide free stuff, which drove his price above Verison Comcast, Socialism not FREE market kills.
I get constant 1Gbps up/down fiber connection for less than $15 in Moscow, Russia. On mobile for less than $12 I get unlimited LTE/4G. There is competition in the USA market, yet, lobbies meet to discuss how to extract maximum profit from their customers. Most of the basic things are much cheaper across the world, while a single apple can cost a dollar in USA, other places you get a full 1kg for the same price.
Add CAT 8 as a requirement when building all new homes in the bill, plus make it a 2.5 vs 1 gigabit switch when installed.
Cat 8 is pushing the capabilites of copper too much IMO. We should instead require fiber optics for those cases.
Copper twisted pair is rated only up to 100m (328f) tops for 1gig, any decently large building needs fiber
CAT 8 is literally useless lol. dafuq do you want to do with that. CAT6a is fast enough for new houses. CAT 8 is literally BS lol. Cat 6A support up to 10Gbps. no house in america will ever have to worry about getting 10Gbps. thats simply never going to happen. but if you really want to be sure get Cat 7. Cat6a transmitting on 500MHz, while Category 7 cabling utilized a 600Mhz. so Cat 6 would be a little bit better. but 6a and 7 are both more then enough for american home users. way cheaper to buy then Cat 8 cables.
@@metalvideos1961 , Cat8 runs on a different frequency, currently T- Mobile runs on the same frequency and 5cat and 6cat. Higher frequency is better plus it's future proof. I'm getting a cleaner signal now.
@@Gastell0 I agree but for home use, Cat8 is a cleaner signal. Look up at the frequency Cat8 runs on. Then look up T- mobiles 600mhz band. Going to Cat 8 reduces the chance of interference from cellular towers.
Russia, ~400 miles away from Moscow. local ISP (covers just couples of cities). 100/100 (Mbps, download/upload speeds), 7 USD / month (500 rub; router included), no problems with internet for over 8 years.
USA, Philadelphia, PA. Comcast - $60/month for 200/5 (Mbps, DL/UP), problems with internet - every month, problems with router (rented from comcast itself) - every week. and that price (60) is with a discount as a new customer (which will end soon) and this discount is huge - $46. So in reality it will be $106/month
Even though internet and mobile phones were basically born here, in the US, the prices are insane and quality of service in every part of the country is poor at best
me myself stuck with spectrum. no other provider here. first year: 49.99 second year: 64.99 third year: 79.99
The problem with competition in this industry is that the infrastructure is expensive. The cost of entering the market is really high. It’s not a monopoly by any means, it is a oligopoly. Typically in a city you have a coaxial provider and a fiber/DSL provider. Those providers are not available in all 50 states. For example, AT&T is available in CA but not in AZ. I believe the government needs to step in a provide and provide more regulation in this industry in favor for consumers.
Rural fiber is cheap to install. City fiber is more expensive but not by much. The problem is the customer base is fixed, so as more companies enter the market, that customer base gets split and lowers the profits for each company, so instead of super excessive profits, each company has has only huge profits.
I always knew the large land mass to be inexcusable. Why is internet slower in the metropolitan area, then? Compare NYC internet to Tokyo or Seoul internet.
Seoul has like, 3 competing companies for that for most areas. for rual areas, one of the companies (the national owned one) is obligated to provide service cheaply.
Here in south Africa companies are in a healthy competition for consumers... We get cheap fiber.. Fast.. Smooth 24/7/365...