Not to defend those shitbags, but population density plays a large part in infrastructure cost. source
Granted, they’ve alco received enormous subsidies without intending to fulfill their obligations, but still, it’s a significant factor. This country is quite large. I can drive 4h in nearly any direction and still be in state lines. Most of that is farm land.
This is one of the reasons why this should be nationalized because rural areas are still either unserved or underserved by broadband because the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t favor the provider enough.
That said, prices are higher than they should be even taking density into account (strictly my opinion). Gigabit fiber should actually be about $15/mo for all regions, (my SWAG*) but the infrastructure just is not there yet. The biggest challenge being the “last mile”.
Don’t let them tell you it’s the lack of density that is the problem. I live in a major US city with high density, and there is only one provider that offers actual broadband at my address (~$100/mo for 500Mb/s service). The “competition” wants me to pay $50/mo for 20 Megabit DSL.
No, it truly is part of the problem and there is no excuse for you to be billed that much. Two things can be true!
I have the option of 200 megabits for $19. It all depends on what infrastructure is already there and how much it costs for them to get the hookup to you whatever it is. I think the real problem is that we’re living under their rules which are based on how much money they can make rather than providing equal access for everyone.
Not to defend those shitbags, but population density plays a large part in infrastructure cost. source
Granted, they’ve alco received enormous subsidies without intending to fulfill their obligations, but still, it’s a significant factor. This country is quite large. I can drive 4h in nearly any direction and still be in state lines. Most of that is farm land.
This is one of the reasons why this should be nationalized because rural areas are still either unserved or underserved by broadband because the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t favor the provider enough.
That said, prices are higher than they should be even taking density into account (strictly my opinion). Gigabit fiber should actually be about $15/mo for all regions, (my SWAG*) but the infrastructure just is not there yet. The biggest challenge being the “last mile”.
*Sophisticated wild-ass guess
Don’t let them tell you it’s the lack of density that is the problem. I live in a major US city with high density, and there is only one provider that offers actual broadband at my address (~$100/mo for 500Mb/s service). The “competition” wants me to pay $50/mo for 20 Megabit DSL.
No, it truly is part of the problem and there is no excuse for you to be billed that much. Two things can be true!
I have the option of 200 megabits for $19. It all depends on what infrastructure is already there and how much it costs for them to get the hookup to you whatever it is. I think the real problem is that we’re living under their rules which are based on how much money they can make rather than providing equal access for everyone.