Originally Posted by phildaant
Especially when it is the only affordable broadband service in your area like mine.
People should be happy to be have cable Internet services if no DSL, fiber, etc. :P
Doesn't this really depend on what a customer determines is "affordable" rather than what is "available" since competition no longer means lower prices for comparable services rendered?
For example: AT&T offers internet service "up to" 50Mbps for $40 per month with a 1 year contract and a 1TB data cap. In my neighborhood, the maximum speed is 10Mbps for the same $40. Since other areas get 50Mbps for the same $40, does that sound fair? Also, at least AT&T offers three various levels of internet speed (even though those speeds may not be available in your neighborhood as I have just remarked on and so may not be economically feasible).
Spectrum only offers two internet speeds: 100Mbps and 300Mbps. Other than businesses, who really needs either of these speeds? And does it make that big of a difference since speed is really dictated by the speed provided by the site you are visiting?
Why can't service providers provide internet access in the same manner they provide TV service? For TV, you have many plans. Why not for internet?
Using Spectrum as an example, let's say they offered TV service in the same manner as internet service--only two plans. For TV, plan 1 would be all TV channels EXCEPT premium channels. This would equate to the 100Mbps internet plan they offer. To equate to the 300Mbps internet plan (call it plan 2), you would get all TV channels INCLUDING ALL premium channels, no pick and choose of premium channels. Can you imagine what the pricing would be for this?
All I want is an option to get internet access at a reasonable speed (one I can live with for streaming videos, which can really be as low as 15 or 20Mbps, actually even lower) and a reasonable price (one that isn't more than other utilities since I use it less and it doesn't impact on whether I stay warm, cool, or eat--the real necessities of life).