• CallumWells@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why weren’t those monetary subsidies just after the fact instead of just paying out on promises? “You’ll get x billion dollars when y% of this area has access to z Mbps.” But then again I’ve heard there’s monopolies for that in the USA, instead of actual competition.

    • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      But then again I’ve heard there’s monopolies for that in the USA, instead of actual competition.

      Government granted monopolies. It’s the worst. City / county/ state signs deal with ISP X and give them exclusive rights. Then for some reason they don’t spend a lot of time updating anything because they have no competition because of the fucking morons in the government.

      • Motavader@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, I understand the original rationale: building out infrastructure is super expensive, so the monopoly gives the company an assurance they can recoup investment. But then there’s no follow-up! There’s nothing requiring the ISP to evolve, so we end up with the same tech as when the contract was signed 20 years ago. At least wireless (LTE, 5G, etc) is promising for competiton, but buying spectrum from the FCC is also f’ing expensive.