Kevin Hanson said:
You can live anywhere and get broadband via Starlink for like $100 / month. It's expensive so there's an affordability gap, but there's no longer a connectivity gap based on geolocation.
You can live most places and get 5G to the home. Companies are charging $30, $40, $50ish a month for internet services that is going to be more than reasonable for most families.
Meanwhile, Amazon is launching satellites in space to compete with Starlink.
Meanwhile, fiber continues to roll out in various neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, we still have our cable companies... Like... We are starting to see real competition here, and i think it will only get better. Consumers demand fast internet. I think we need to do more to make internet affordable to communities that cannot, but I don't think setting minimum broadband requirements matter anymore. People want to know if they can video conference and watch netflix / youtube. If the answer is yes, it's fast enough for 90%. I understand my opinion on this topic may be in the minority, but given where we are today, I think this is okay. I don't think there needs to be a speed goal or anything. We should find ways to make it more affordable for families who can't afford it, but all of a sudden, the market seems to be working...Like... We are starting to see real competition here, and i think it will only get better. Consumers demand fast internet. I think we need to do more to make internet affordable to communities that cannot, but I don't think setting minimum broadband requirements matter anymore. People want to know if they can video conference and watch netflix / youtube. If the answer is yes, it's fast enough for 90%. Click to expand...
Starlink is doomed like every other satellite ISP by the laws of physics. They only have so much bandwidth so unless they oversubscribe there is a limit to how many people they can provide to. They already have implemented bandwidth caps. Our business has to use it and our bill last month as a couple of thousand dollars due to overages to cover critical services during the season.That same location has no mobile service to speak of. We even offered the land for a cell company to build a tower for the region, and they were not interested because there weren't enough customers in the area. However, once again mobile broadband typically has either draconian bandwidth caps or throttles on their service after a they use their GB allotment.Amazon's satellite service will have the same issue as Starlink, ViaSat and Hughes. You cannot break the laws of physics, and they cannot place enough satellites up in the sky to meet the demand.Fiber does roll out to urban areas, but rarely to rural unless it is a local co-op (and then they have to fight like hell against corporate rulemaking trying to prevent them from doing so). I literally have a main fiber line for the eastern coast running under the rail trail at the end of my property, but my only internet choice is at least Comcast. Glo Fiber is working to deploy fiber, but rural areas like I live in are way down their priority list.Comcast (and other cable companies) have had years to provide affordable internet yet mostly has failed to do so in the most rural areas. I still deal with locations that have data caps and no service because it isn't profitable to provide it for our more rural locations. DSL is what most of them end up with, and that is on copper lines that haven't been replaced since they were originally installed in the 70's and 80's.