
70% of surveyed Americans say they can't do their job without internet - sharkweek
https://decisiondata.org/news/70-of-surveyed-americans-say-we-cant-do-our-jobs-without-a-home-internet-connection/
======
dgrin91
This doesn't really make sense to me. Only 30% of Americans have jobs where
they can't work from home? Truck drivers, factory workers, cashiers, taxi
drivers, etc all make up less than 30% of America? I dont buy that.

Smells like selection bias to me... are they interviewing people already at
home because their work allows it?

They do mention -

> There are certainly some folks who work in healthcare, grocery stores, auto
> shops, etc., where you wouldn't think a strong home internet connection was
> a requirement.

But I still remain skeptical that so many claim they require home internet. At
the very least work email can be done on a phone.

~~~
mywittyname
You can work as a factory worker and still require internet access for
scheduling days off, getting payroll information, etc. In fact, it's likely
that people not working desk jobs are those most in need of home internet
access, as they might not be provided such at work.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
People like that could get by with dial up if people like the ones reading
this comment would stop loading 80MB of JS just so they can save a couple
lines of code.

Edit: The dailup part was an exaggeration but if your web app doesn't suck 3g
and two bars or a 1Mb down DSL pipe should be fine for most CRUD type business
tasks that. There's no reason that signing in and signing up for a shift
should take more bandwidth than Craigslist.

~~~
emodendroket
They could even get by without the Internet if such business were all
conducted on the phone. So what?

~~~
yodelshady
I'll preface this with noting it's a little odd to act as though adding 80 MB
of unnecessary JS is a popular idea on HN.

They couldn't if they needed to work asynchronously. Or if they couldn't speak
or hear well over the phone, the likelihood of which approaches 1 if you have
so much as a different accent. Or if you don't want the other person to hear
your accent.

It's a bit cliche maybe, but I know people who've benefited from all of those
features of IP-based communication, and they're reasons to be happy about the
Internet. And since just about any telecommunications system that transmits
voice can be bullied into transmitting IP packets, there's really little cost.

~~~
emodendroket
I mean, we can all agree, I imagine, that many pages have too much JS. But
then what do we cut? My idea of what's "useless" is probably different than
the people cutting my checks. Saying pages don't need "unnecessary" JS is
tautological but not really illuminating. I do think there is plenty of reason
lots of people would benefit in their work from single-page applications, not
to mention video and audio that would dwarf the JS anyways.

------
Someone1234
One of the better ideas to handle "internet as a utility" is actually not to
scrap private ISPs, but to give government a monopoly over the physical
infrastructure in the "Last Mile" (i.e. fiber from central hub to
business/home).

ISPs lease the Last Mile at near cost (to pay for physical
maintenance/improvements) and then are responsible for peerage agreements,
subscriber management, network equipment, data budgets, plans, customer
service, and other services (e.g. VoIP, TV over IP, etc).

Nobody benefits from ten+ different fiber runs from data center to home or
business, it is inefficient. So you have to consolidate it and then lease it,
that way granting an actual competitive landscape where consumers would get
many choices for their ISP (and their ISP is responsible for mediating with
the government about physical issues/faults).

Other countries have done this successfully. It also keeps government from
being responsible for actually providing internet services, which could have
civil rights problems (or politicians trying to decide winners/losers, etc).

~~~
stevenjgarner
While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of having a single last mile
connection to each home, IMHO I think giving the government a role is a really
bad idea. As a FTTH engineer that has deployed millions of feet of last mile
optical fibers, I can tell you government is clueless as to how best do this
(as I might add are the MSO's). The majority of small FTTH ISP's have received
funding through the USDA RUS, which has specific engineering requirements.
Those requirements are prehistoric and dramatically inflate the cost of
deployment. For example, one of the better topologies is to implement fast
spanning tree to each home over 2 route-diversified connections back to a
municipal ring. This dramatically reduces cost vs a star topology build-out
(typically endorsed by RUS), and increases fault tolerance. The RUS estimates
cost per home well in excess of $1,800 while it is possible to reduce that to
well under $1,000 using appropriate engineering. One of the big problems is
that most larger organizations (e.g. MSO's) have separate departments for
physical networking (buried/aerial cable) and for Ethernet networking
(spanning tree etc). As these departments do not communicate well at the
design/planning stage, they do not enjoy engineering economies. The MSO's
actually believe quite sincerely that their cost of FTTH is at least an order
of magnitude higher than it is - they are just plain wrong.

~~~
dbcurtis
Dude, I live in the heart of Silicon Valley and have dealt with AT&T and two
different offices and my home. And I can tell you that AT&T are both utterly
clueless and shameless liars when it comes to FTTH and FTTN installations. You
can not imagine the depth of my anger with those clowns.

I have no idea who you work for. But my personal experience with trying to get
fiber from AT&T in what is supposed to be one of the most tech-forward regions
of the world is laughable. The government may not be better, but at least I
know where to aim my pitchforks and torches.

~~~
fossuser
I'm in Palo Alto - sounds like maybe you are too?

The best networking option available is Comcast Gigabit Pro (2gbps both up and
down).

I wrote up details here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/fs6un2/comc...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/fs6un2/comcast_gigabit_pro/)

These two articles are also helpful:

\- [https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-
instal...](https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-install/)

\- [https://medium.com/@Gtwy/comcasts-2000mbit-fiber-to-the-
home...](https://medium.com/@Gtwy/comcasts-2000mbit-fiber-to-the-
home-f106d64d5f51)

If you're not looking to spend that much, Comcast gigabit (non-pro) is cheap
and gets you 1gbps down, but only 35mbps up. They're annoying to interact
with, but once it's set up it's reliable.

Pro-tip: Ignore the Comcast website prices/packages. The only way to work with
them is to call and get a friendly sales rep, then ask them to look through
their options to find the best gigabit only plan (they have a lot more
promotions available than they list online). This might take a few tries if
you get someone on the phone that isn't very good. Comcast Twitter support is
also pretty helpful.

You should be able to get something around ~$80, but it might require a multi-
year contract to lock in the price. I also had to add $50/month to remove the
1TB cap because of this:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/dqwsnj/comcast_dat...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/dqwsnj/comcast_data_usage_doubles_for_no_obvious_reason/)

~~~
stevenjgarner
That is not gigabit. That is 35MB. Big difference. Internet MUST be
symmetrical. There are too many essential peer-to-peer technologies for it to
be anything but symmetrical.

~~~
leetcrew
to me, a symmetric connection is more of a "nice to have" than a "need". I
have something like 400/25 right now. if I had 400/400 or even 1000/1000, I
might consider reconfiguring my plex server to stream outside my LAN, but
aside from that I can't think of any obvious application. can you list some of
these "essential peer-to-peer technologies" that a normal person would be
likely to use?

~~~
admax88q
Even just backing up your shit to the cloud is way nicer with good upload.

Its also a bit of a chicken egg situation. If the majority of internet users
had good upload maybe some "killer" p2p apps would be developed.

------
wintermutestwin
I live in semi-rural California. It would be a great place for SV tech to live
- great schools, affordable (for CA) houses, awesome nature access, and you
could drive to the Bay for a really important meeting. The problem is there
are only pockets of cable internet and most places are lucky to get 2 bars of
cellular. There is fiber running down the two major highways. The reasons why
we are so disconnected are many and complicated, but the only real solution is
that access should be driven top down as a public utility - just like power.

Oh, and while they are at it, I shouldn't have to worry about my internet
utility stealing my data. They have a monopoly and so I am forced to accept
whatever they put in my contract. If I could negotiate, I'd charge these
leaches billions for my data...

~~~
dghughes
Rural Canada is a big problem for ISPs or so they say. Vast distances and
little profit. Often the people who live in rural areas do so because it's
cheaper to live there. Many may not be able to afford $200 Internet or maybe
even $20 is too much. I know some rural folks who live on $6,000 per year.

My province is small but even here in the rural areas ISPs balk at having to
run fiber down a side road off the main highway. Even with money thrown at
them from various governments over the last two decades they still won't
budge.

The places that do have DSL or wireless are often stuck in the "up to"
scenario. Sure it's supposed to be 1.5Mbps but it's up to 1.5Mbps.

Many people here are waiting for Starlink but I don't think that will be as
good as promised. If the cost is low that will help but the dish will be a
problem. Rural areas tend to have a lot of trees and here we also have snow
1/2 the year.

~~~
ajmurmann
Absent StarLink, the higher price on rural areas sends inherent. The only way
around this seems to be to subsidize it in some way. Should we really make
everyone else pay so that some people can save money by living in a rural
area? Why not then just straight up give them the cash and leave the rural
area to nature?

~~~
dghughes
My main reason would be because the people that grow the food we all eat live
in rural areas.

------
blululu
Note that this is a survey of Americans who are currently employed. It should
be '70% of all currently employed Americans require home internet'. This
statistic is likely inflated by the currently high unemployment numbers in
sectors that cannot work remotely, and it overlooks the large portion of the
populace that is not part of the work force.

------
cco
So I had this thought the other day while talking to a friend that works at an
electrical utility, the thought is naive so I'd love to hear some thoughts
from people in the ISP game.

My friend and I calculated that it takes about $1 worth of electricity per
year to keep your smartphone charged, we have cheap power so let's say $1-3,
but even on a very cheap MVNO it costs at least $360 per year to provide cell
service to that same phone.

There are a lot of assumptions here, I pay ~$30/month for 12GB of data, for a
lot of people that's too little, for some more than enough, but its the orders
of magnitude that are important, is it just the case that providing cell
service is 100x to 300x harder than providing electricity? I'm curious to hear
the answer from people in the field, because for my friend who works in power
generation, electricity generation doesn't seem 100x easier than providing
data service, no coal had to be mined or water reservoirs had to be created in
order to send cat videos, his words lol.

~~~
grahamburger
> that providing cell service is 100x to 300x harder than providing
> electricity?

Yes, unfortunately. It's at least that much harder. For a similar comparison
think of traditional radio - you buy the radio, and that's it. You might
wonder how that's possible when it costs so much to beam data to your phone
wirelessly? It's a complex question with a lot of nuance, but there are two
important reasons that float to the top:

First, Internet requires reliable two way communication. Neither radio or
electricity require that. These means economies of scales work in favor of
electricity generation and radio transmission - they can put up a huge plant
or radio tower, crank the power up, and serve a lot of customers far away. The
customer's device doesn't have to talk back. Imagine if each home had to have
a mini generator to send electricity back to the power plant - that would cost
a lot!

Second, Internet service requires much, much more precise electronics than
power or radio transmission. The Ethernet port on your laptop can understand
signalling at (at least) 1gbps (1 _billion_ bits per second, more or less).
And that's not even that much - large networks today are doing 100 of times
that on single physical connections, with electronics on both sides both
modulating and demodulating those signals simultaneously. All that expensive
(both to design and to manufacture) electronics adds up, and is accounted for
in the cost of getting those bits to you.

~~~
zbrozek
This doesn't really make sense to me. The big difference I see is the cost to
buy spectrum and the inherent geographic monopoly of owning it. Transformers
and switchcraft are heavy-iron things which cost a lot because they're safety-
rated and built with a large amount of actual matter. Transceivers and
antennas are comparatively cheap to manufacture (but with higher margins) and
generally don't incinerate things if they fail.

In my area the cost to deploy service seems to be primarily driven by the cost
of labor to bury things. That impacts electricity more than cell data, as you
actually have to physically reach every one of your customers.

Also your meter _is_ two-way. It's just sending your usage data back, not
power.

~~~
grahamburger
> Also your meter is two-way. It's just sending your usage data back, not
> power.

This is actually a pretty good illustration of what I'm talking about -
sending a few bytes a month for power usage data is much different than
maintaining a constant bit rate of >0mbps from each customer. It's the
difference between broadcasting 40 channels to everyone and reserving 1
channel for a bit of upload (fairly easy with old technology) and giving
_everyone_ their own channel for upload (much more difficult).

You're not wrong that a huge portion of the costs is putting things in the
ground, though. The advantage that power companies have is that a lot of that
work has already been done, and they don't have to upgrade as often because
power usage requirements aren't changing as rapidly as bandwidth requirements.
They also have the (arguable) advantage of usually being a government granted
monopoly, so they don't have to worry about building something out and then
being undercut by a competitor.

There is a lot to dig in to here, but consider this from a different
perspective - there is actually quite a bit of competition among mobile
providers, and yet prices aren't dropping very quickly. You could argue that
that's because of corruption and collusion (in some cases it probably is) but
also consider that any one of those companies would absolutely _love_ to take
market share from the cable companies. If Verizon could undercut Comcast and
give you Internet and TV at home over their wireless network they would do
that in a heartbeat. The only reason they're not doing it is because it would
be too expensive. Or, more precisely, they are _trying_ to do it, that's what
5G is, and it's costing them a fortune.

EDIT: Also consider another perspective - the power companies themselves would
love to provide Internet service! On paper they are in a great position to be
able to do that. They already have infrastructure, technicians, billing
platforms, captive customers, etc. The reason they're not doing it is because
their infrastructure doesn't support it, and couldn't really be made to do it
without spending so much money on it that they could not be cost-competitive
with existing products.

~~~
zbrozek
Personally I think mobile is tolerably (but not ideally) competitive. I think
the costs are driven by the high costs of spectrum and marketing/customer
acquisition. And the product is reasonably high-value, so prices _can_ be
high.

A useful comparison is the cost of fixed wireless internet service vs mobile
service. The price/GB of the former is usually far lower than the latter
despite running on exactly the same infrastructure.

I merely point out that I struggle to believe that the physical infrastructure
costs are large components of the cost of service. Unlike power delivery,
where the physical distribution infrastructure seems to be the majority share.
Or at least it is if my bill breakdown is to be believed.

~~~
grahamburger
> A useful comparison is the cost of fixed wireless internet service vs mobile
> service. The price/GB of the former is usually far lower than the latter
> despite running on exactly the same infrastructure.

Glad you brought this up, fixed wireless is my career so this is something
I've thought about a lot over the last 15 years or so. I would argue that the
difference in pricing between fixed wireless and mobile is actually almost
entirely driven by the 'fixed' qualifier - it's just much easier and cheaper
to deliver Internet service to a fixed point where you can put a high gain
antenna (like a rooftop) than it is to deliver to a cell phone in someone's
pocket inside a building.

Of course the next question is why don't the mobile operators do home service
with a fixed antenna on the rooftop like fixed wireless operators do, but
using their massive spectrum and tower footprint advantages? I don't really
know the answer to that. There have been a lot of efforts to do this, actually
- the earliest one I know of was Sprint putting up these diamond shape
antennas on rooftops back in the late 90s / early 00s. I think at least part
of it is that it's hard to have high-gain antennas on rooftops coexist with
low-gain antennas in cell phone on the same medium, and another part is that
it's hard to hire and train and manage folks to do the home installs. I do
believe that part of the push to 5G is to enable this type of service, though.

------
bovermyer
That sounds like internet access should be a public utility, with all that
implies.

~~~
MereInterest
What finally convinced some of my family members of that was that internet
access is required in order to apply for housing. The last two times I moved,
all rental applications were online only, without a physical form as a backup.
Having a roof over your head requires not only having internet access, but
having secure internet connection. I wouldn't trust putting personal details
in on a library computer, for example.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
I think you're renting classier apartments than me.

I've always just seen the state's sample form often without any modification.

~~~
bovermyer
It's definitely changing. Even a decade ago, I was seeing home-grown leases,
including some with clauses of questionable legality.

Now, a lot of the rental complexes either have their own online system (if
they're owned by a big management company), or they use something like Avail
if they're a one-off.

I pay my rent through Venmo for my current house.

Times have changed.

------
yujanshrestha
If you are on the house hunt then you may want to check out a tool I made to
help you narrow down places by internet speed:

[https://gigahood.com](https://gigahood.com)

Hope that helps somebody. It sure did help me!

~~~
axaxs
Hey really like your site. If I could add any suggestions, it would be - 1)
use of an address picker/dropdown, though honestly I haven't run into issues,
it just seems cleaner.

2) link to the companies listed? I see some odd names when I searched my old
address that I couldn't even find in Google.

Anyhow, thanks again!

------
djrogers
If you take a look at their 'about us' page and some of their other articles,
it becomes pretty clear that this organization is a paid lobbying/PR firm for
ISPs.

Kinda calls into question their methodology and intent...

------
hinkley
Early in the epidemic, someone posted pictures of a schoolbus parked near an
area with poor internet service.

You see, in this school district, the buses have wifi. So they were using this
to tether some of the kids with no internet access to the school. I guess they
have some way of leaving the wifi on with the bus turned off, and since they
weren't using the buses anyway...

It is still one of the classiest things I've seen come out of the quarantine.
Unfortunately.

------
znpy
The funny thing that in the us it's easier to raise money and get permits to
develop electric and autonomous cars and to start a space exploration business
than to develop a business in cheap, fast and reliable internet connections.

~~~
burntoutfire
How do you know that it's easier?

~~~
znpy
I've seen that happen.

------
GCA10
I wish these sorts of insta-surveys would disclose more about how the polling
was done. The cheapest way to do polling is via a pop-up notifcation on a
heavily trafficked digital property, with online button-clicking to follow.

But then you aren't really getting data on all Americans. You're getting data
on people who happened to be hanging out on cnn.com, smokinggun.com or
whatever. And that's going to skew quite severely to people who have above
average digital activity.

Same problem if they're using a ready-built panel of people who like to take
online polls.

They might be surveying differently, and spending more money. But given that
the publishing organization, decisiondata.org, is in the business of guiding
people on their ISP choices, I don't think this is likely to be a
demographically balanced phone survey, let alone Census-grade field work.

Sure, lots of us do rely on home internet to do a lot of work, especially now.
But any effort to quantify this really ought to avoid big-time sampling
problems.

------
hrktb
It’s a bit offputting to have a site called “decisiondata” giving basically no
info on their data retrieval procedure or caveats that should be applied on
their methodology.

We don’t know much about who they polled, when or how they polled them, and of
course no sample questions. Their citation of the BBC result have more info
than their own.

In this day and age I would have expected most people to be fine with just
their cellular connection. Heck, I had a coworker working from home at the
peak of the crisis only using their 4G data.

------
H8crilA
Who is thinking of getting a second internet connection?

I live in a place where I can get two connections over two different
technologies (cable TV and fiber optic), and there are some cheap and lower
bandwidth (~10MiB/s) options that make sense for a backup connection. I think
it's better to avoid having 4G as your backup since if there's any wired
connections outage your local mobile frequencies will very quickly get
saturated.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Who is thinking of getting a second internet provider subscription?

One of the reasons I have an unlimited mobile plan with uomited hotspot is
that it is also the home internet fallback.

------
krisgenre
>>We asked _950_ currently employed Americans.. and the title goes "70% of
Americans Say"

Isn't the sample size miniscule to make such a big statement?

~~~
blululu
Well that sample size would give an 95% confidence interval of ~ 2.8%. I don't
think '68% of Americans' changes the story here. The main methodological
problem is that only sampled employed Americans (Labor Force participation is
~60%), so it should really read '70% of American Workers'.

------
coding123
This means that 70% of people are doing BS jobs (including me). Basically
we've made information access and curation a full time job for 70% of the
population. INFORMATION CURATION!

The other 30% is doing all the hard work of keeping people fed or in support
roles of transportation and construction for the information curators.

~~~
grahamas
That quite a leap. Even ignoring other potentially beneficial jobs, do you
really think that modern supply chains ("support roles of transportation” of
food) can function without the internet?

------
Macumbapotatos
At first I thought "How are 70% of Americans tied to the internet? What about
taxis, factory workers, truckers, some brick and mortar?" Then I remembered
that most of these jobs require some form of internet to gain key inputs to
work. Truckers may need GPS and connection to HQ, brick&mortar is interwoven
with procurement and operations, factory workers may have multiple pieces of
equipment that are at least partially tied to the internet, so on and so
forth.

------
anonu
My gut feel is that statistic seems high. Maybe there was a sampling error
(selection bias?) where they sent a survey via email or asked people to Zoom?

------
gregwchase
CBS Sunday Morning did a recent segment about this issue [1]. In the video,
it's mentioned the FCC estimated ~23M Americans are without broadband
internet. Microsoft did another study, and estimates ~162M Americans don't
have broadband internet.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWXrHmbu-w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWXrHmbu-w)

------
tekknik
> “ Please note that DecisionData does have a paid financial relationship with
> some of the providers listed. This does not impact which providers are
> shown, as we show all providers we have data for.”

Well that’s unfortunate because I can’t believe your facts, if they are indeed
facts.

------
astockwell
The abysmal-yet-totally-American solution: have _employers_ provide your home
internet access. I sincerely hope we never end up there, that should be an
Onion headline, but stranger (and sadder) things have happened _ahem
healthcare ahem_.

~~~
jjcon
With 5G it may not be all that different from employers paying employee phone
bills

------
Havoc
Kinda hard to reconcile that with being a democracy that just killed net
neutrality

------
tempsy
Prediction...employers are going to have to start paying for or subsidizing
home internet, with some already paying for cell phone bills.

Then subsidizing home office set up/construction.

------
deeteecee
"We asked 950..." Okay I closed the article and left. I guess I'm surprised
people keep saying they're surprised by the percentage and whatnot.

~~~
jazzyjackson
I mean 950 is not a bad sample size (gives a 3% margin of error for
populations of millions) the trouble is they don't say where they found these
950 people. So yeah, if it was an email survey or a people-who-answer-
telephone-calls-from-strangers-during-the-workday, they may have selected for
information workers.

------
ixtli
And yet whenever people suggest it should be a municipal utility like the
telephone the response is astonishment.

------
microcolonel
100% of surveyed Americans say they can't do their job without food.

------
alexfromapex
What happens if there’s a solar event? Are governments ready?

------
mensetmanusman
Crossing fingers that starlink enables 100% connectivity here

------
hanniabu
What would be required to make internet a basic right?

------
abigger87
Was this data collected over the internet?

------
grahamburger
Something I've been wanting to run by the HN community - would you pay
anything for a backup home Internet connection? How low do you think the price
would have to be to get 50-80% of your neighbors to buy it? Would $20/mo be
low enough?

I've spent my career building and maintaining small, regional Internet Service
providers. One of the realities of the market is that no matter how good your
service is you can't get more than around 15-25% of people in an area to use
your service. Most of the companies trying to do this on a large-ish scale
(like Starry) are trying to break that barrier by selling wholesale contracts
(like exclusive contracts to entire apartments buildings / communities) and/or
by piling other services on top of the Internet service and reaching higher
and higher speeds.

I have a hypothesis that a company that could go the other direction and
provide a really cheap, basic Internet connection (<20$/mo, 30mbps) could gain
more market share in an area specifically because it would be cheap enough to
be used as a secondary Internet connection. I'm thinking of three types of
customer here:

1) Very price sensitive customers who just want the cheapest thing they can
get that's still usable. Maybe they have Internet access at work and use
satellite TV at home and are OK with very basic Internet service at home.

2) Customers who use the service as their primary connection and it saves them
enough money to add tethering to their phone plan, so if the service is
unreliable they can switch to tethering.

3) Customers who have cable TV and Internet and can switch over to this
service when their cable Internet is slow or down.

I'm thinking of two types of plans, one for $20/mo and one for 10$/mo + 1$/day
that the service is used. These numbers mostly work out on paper _as long as_
>60% of the homes in a community sign up to use the service _and_ it's
understood that support is going to be slow. Like, no phone support
(email/text only), response times in 1-2 business days, and it might take a
week to send someone out if your service is down (but we won't charge you for
the time it was down.) Obviously this class of service only works if it's
redundant with something else. I'm kind of thinking about it as the
'MagicJack' of Internet service - as home phone service started to become less
essential (due to the redundancy of having a phone in your pocket) it became
possible for a very low cost and not particularly reliable service to have a
place in the market. They would not have had the strict geographic customer
density constraint, though.

The cool thing is that once you get to that 60-80% market penetration you can
start offering really great plans at really great prices. Like 1gbps
symmetrical for $50-60/mo, 10G symmetrical for ~$250/mo.

If anyone is interested in chatting about this my email is in my profile. I'm
not quite committed to pursuing it, but it's something I think about a lot and
would love to get some outside perspective.

~~~
jazzyjackson
Verizon tethering is my backup ISP

~~~
grahamburger
What do you use for your primary connection? If you had an option to use
something that cost half as much, would you take it?

------
UncleOxidant
Only 70%?

------
gregors
obligatory EPB post here - Chattanooga, TN - [https://epb.com/home-
store/internet](https://epb.com/home-store/internet)

------
NDizzle
What? I always wonder where they get this data. I'm a software dev for two
companies. I moved 1900 miles this summer. I'm currently outside of city
limits using a LTE broadband connection (unlimited phone sim) and things work
fine.

Most people don't understand technology!

Edit, looks like I read this incorrectly. I thought it said 70% said their
home internet connection wasn't good enough for working from home.

~~~
EE84M3i
I don't understand -- how is an "LTE broadband connection" not a "home
internet connection"?

~~~
throwaways885
LTE isn't practical for more than one person. You're getting 10-100x less
speed for your money, not to mention terrible latency.

