US providers speed up for lower prices or lower returns – IT Pro – News

U.S. providers are very disorganized in terms of technology.

In larger cities you usually have options, but in smaller cities you can often choose only 1 broadband (standard) broadband provider. It could be “broadband”. Or you have data caps.

In the countryside it often cries completely.

In terms of pricing policy, they are all practically comparable: very good at attacking you outright with extra fees (‘fees’). “Courier recovery cost surcharge”, “Federal subscriber tax fee”, “Facility fee”, “VOIP admin fee” and many more. There is strict oversight in European consumer law, which is very wild-western practices in the United States.

The unimportant reason is that the Regulator (FCC) is not independent, but highly political. Their policy is driven very strongly by ideology and partisanship. That party affiliation is again well motivated by corporate campaigning and campaign funding from providers. The final leader (Ajit Bai) was absolutely dramatic in that regard.

This is utterly wild when you look at what is happening in local initiatives to set up your own networks. When many municipalities decided that this would take more time and that it would be better for them to create their own network, the campaign engine was exaggerated and in many places local governments were banned from doing so.

In this context, Starling is a game changer. Here in Europe we do not understand why you have to pay 100 euros per month for DSL-level internet *. In the American context, for many places it is not even * good * speed and bad price / quality ratio.

* To some extent we should be obligated to do this again Blue CrossOne of the drivers behind Digital agenda for EuropeThis obviously includes broadband targets

[Reactie gewijzigd door Keypunchie op 9 mei 2022 14:15]