Hacker News Reader

Comment by NeedMoreTea | Hacker News Reader

Assuming I'm parsing the sarcasm correctly, they can't sign on for any other ISP? So you get a choice of one depending on where you happen to live?

I'm used to what's called local loop unbundling in the UK and Europe - which is the removal of the last mile monopoly, and all ISPs simply putting a DSLAM in exchanges. Initially this was localised, and there were smaller local players, but they're now effectively all nationwide.

View on HN

50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...

Yep. I'm in the 'none' category. On a good day I can get 22Mbps down / 1.5 up. On a bad day it doesn't work at all.

DSL (with a single provider) is my only option for wired internet at home. Satellite and cellular are both available, but with higher prices and sever data caps.

I have an office 1.5 miles away that also has a cable line that can do ~120Mbps down and ~5 up, but the cable lines end about a mile from my house.

Yeah the US does not have local loop unbundling. We need to have it, as it's maybe a good way to start fixing the problem.

It did exist in some form after the 1996 Telecommunications Act so it happened somewhat with DSL providers, but the laws were narrow, didn't address other issues that arise as a result of the law, and didn't include cable/fiber/etc

Interesting, thanks. Despite much complaint at the state of UK broadband, particularly speed variance from distance to exchange or cabinet, LLU has always included whatever came next from ADSL+ through to the current fibre (mostly FTTC) that's almost complete apart from some rural areas. FTTH is still pretty rare sadly.

So any speed differences between ISPs are mostly down to the quality or not of the ISP's network. Which means roughly Talktalk bad, A&A good, but the sync speed should be the same. :)

For much of the US the situation is something like this:

You have ISP #1, who have relatively modern infrastructure and bandwidth.

You may or may not have ISP #2, who have antiquated infrastructure they don't maintain that delivers bandwidth circa 2005.

You probably also have ISP #3, who use alternate delivery technologies (wimax, satellite, etc) to deliver low bandwidth at exorbitant prices.

That's my current experience. Comcast is very fast and low latency. The next best is DSL that maxes out at 2 Mbps. After that my only choice would be some form of wireless.

So if Comcast decides not to sell me service, I'm screwed. They could charge as much as they want and to a point I'd just have to suck it up and pay. I assume the reason it isn't multiple times more expensive is because there is some regulation from the PUC capping what they can charge.

In the US, most homes only have 1 option for wired broadband internet with decent latency. And even then, the upload sucks. Phone line DSL is not decent internet, so unless the phone provider offers fiber, which they very rarely do, you’re at the whim of the company that provides cable television.

Doesn't work that way in the US. I have a choice of two ISPs where I live. AT&T and Comcast.

Some have more. Some have less. I've never lived somewhere that had only one choice though, so I'm not sure how common it is.

There are large swaths of the United States where people have just one choice for internet service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com