> I was shocked that the best I could do was Comcast.
I can't help but feel that all of the providers are at this point happy to not compete with each other. It's expensive to build out infrastructure, and where they don't compete, they can charge more. This feels like there should be a monopoly case against all of them for effectively being in league with each other, even if there has been no explicit agreement.
On top of that, states like Tennessee blocking cities from expanding their own networks to help reach those who only have one provider? And the providers trying to argue that 10mbits is broadband?!
I'd like to see that where this is barely competition, municipalities take over. But, that doesn't necessarily mean much as in SF we've passed two resolutions for city wide wifi, and it's basically a sham.
I can't help but feel that all of the providers are at this point happy to not compete with each other. It's expensive to build out infrastructure, and where they don't compete, they can charge more. This feels like there should be a monopoly case against all of them for effectively being in league with each other, even if there has been no explicit agreement.
On top of that, states like Tennessee blocking cities from expanding their own networks to help reach those who only have one provider? And the providers trying to argue that 10mbits is broadband?!
I'd like to see that where this is barely competition, municipalities take over. But, that doesn't necessarily mean much as in SF we've passed two resolutions for city wide wifi, and it's basically a sham.