this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
407 points (93.0% liked)

Technology

59693 readers
3188 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GlitzyArmrest@lemmy.world 233 points 9 months ago (19 children)

Internet should be public like many other utilities.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 52 points 9 months ago

This is the only answer

[–] lengau@midwest.social 28 points 9 months ago

Cries in having a for-profit, NYSE traded electric utility

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The internet should be entirely decentralized. We have the technology.

[–] PHLAK@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The internet IS decentralized.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Not nearly as much as it should be. In many places certain ISPs have near monopolies over internet access, and domains and dns used on the web are managed by ICANN. Sure, there's alternatives to that, but barely anyone knows or uses them

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 73 points 9 months ago (5 children)

It's so weird to read these articles. I live in a shithole country, but even here fibre internet with 2.5gbps speeds is easily available... 5G ain't bad but against it never feels replacing that kind of connection for me.

[–] UnityDevice@startrek.website 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

It actually seems common for less developed countries to have better internet than the more developed ones. Germans always complain about their internet, for example. I believe the reason is simply that your country laid down lines relatively recently, so they're compatible with high speed internet, while Germany laid down their lines 30 years ago, so they're fairly shitty in comparison. It tends to be a lot harder to convince governments or bosses to replace something that seems to work fine, and it can be costlier too.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Yea its similar to why the electrical lines and plugs suck in the US, they were just here at GEN 1,while others had to wait so they got better versions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] accideath@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well, I live in Germany and I know quite a few people who have internet so bad IPoAC would be a valid option. You can get fibre but A it’s fucking expensive and B you need to live somewhere where there actually is fibre. Most people either have DSL or cable. DSL is "slow" (depending where you live up to 250mbps. Most places only get up to 100mbps) and expensive (although not as expensive as fibre). And cable is fast (up to Gigabit) and a bit cheaper but the biggest pile of garbage I‘ve ever seen.

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, travelling to Germany a few times, even data always sucks, both wifi and mobile. We joked that Germany has the beet economy in EU because the net is so bad people don't waste so much time on Facebook...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 7 points 9 months ago

I see Avian carrier I upvote

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I live in the US in a pretty large city and I would never even think to replace my fiber with 5G. I've never seen 5G get above 25 Mbps, when I was getting those speeds with COAX 10 years ago.

I pay for 1Gbps fiber now and will never go lower.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] daniyeg@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

here we are getting some limited "5G" (bandwidth is fucked it's basically early 4G speeds but with a 5G written at the top) here and there, but most cable connections are still on ADSL2. if you want fibre you have to pay for replacing the cables and congratulations now your bandwidth maybe increased from 8 Mbps to 16 Mbps but now your data cap costs are twice more expensive and you basically limited your choice to 1 or 2 ISPs.

the irony is now that almost everyone are on the mobile network the speeds are basically the same as landline connections but data caps are much more expensive. internet here is just fucked.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 52 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

How the fuck can they not compete with 5G? Is using the advantages of their wired infrastructure to just provide customers with the same service as always but without the bandwidth caps, effectively overcoming the 1 major disadvantage of mobile internet, really that hard?

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 35 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Cable definitely does have a capacity and speed advantage over 5G in most cases. But 5G is plenty fast and reliable for most people these days, and it's cheaper because there is no last mile maintenance. T-Mobile doesn't need to repair a bunch of decades old coax line every time the wind blows.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 46 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps they should have invested in infrastructure with the government handouts they were given to do so?

[–] ech@lemm.ee 24 points 9 months ago

They spent it all blocking access to the fiber lines that are already there and padding the wallets of their execs.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago

People need to start speaking out more against this type of behavior, and I don’t just mean in blogs and forums. I mean write the FCC, write the Attorney Generals in your state. Dare i say, write your congressmen (yeah, mine are the apathetic, pro-business politicians who don’t really care about the little people too).

Make some noise folks.

Seriously, companies like this get away with these shenanigans because we the people have been beaten into submission for so long that we believe we are powerless (I’m guilty of feeling this way). We need to start changing that. And nothing is easier than writing letters these days.

File a Complaint With the Attorney General

File a Complaint - FCC

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 38 points 9 months ago

It can, in regards to network saturation in rural places that only have one tower whose use spikes during holidays, not to mention being immune to signal jammers and interference.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 29 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The fact that this is even legal shows how incredibly weak the regulations are. They are essentially non-existent, with the consumer ripe for maximum exploitation. Just forcing people to buy is legal at this point huh?

Incidentally, Spectrum is my only choice thanks to an exclusivity agreement, but we aren't forced to pay. We can actually opt out at our location. 5G home internet is way more reliable and faster in my area.

Regulate! All businesses are self-interested!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] computerscientistI@lemm.ee 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why is this legal? What kind of shithole country allows this?

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 9 months ago

The usual shithole country where capitalism and the free market has been allowed to run completely rampant. In Germany it's even illegal to not allow users to use their own modem and router. You are entitled to use any company that serves your street. It might take a while longer if your building isn't connected yet, but a landlord can't just prevent you from choosing a company. Same with electricity providers.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

It is a loophole in the current Federal Communications Commission's regulations, where these kinds of deals are supposed to be forbidden. The Commission doesn't seem to like it either and may close the loophole in the future, but the regulatory process takes time.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I love how in the “FAQs” of that agreement, there is no “why.” Which is surely the most F of the A’d Q’s.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

I'm paying 10 euros a month for the plan on my 4G router because even though I have fibre available aswell I just don't feel like paying 30€ a month for it. 70 bucks however? That's ridiculous.

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just like the cable TV companies that will stop at nothing to trap their customers in their overpriced af prison?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Alternatively, it's possible cell companies like T-Mobile will lobby against these anticompetitive agreements, since it does reduce their number of potential customers. I don't like cell company lobbying any more than ISP lobbying, but in this case, let them fight.

Something tells me T-Mobile's got a little too much class solidarity to have any interest in reducing the profits of Charter Communications.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

This is the stupidest timeline.

load more comments
view more: next ›