I daresay, it's even worse than that. Your neighbors are actively fighting against the installation of infrastructure that would enable faster internet speeds.

AT&T tried to bring FTTN to San Francisco years ago, but neighbors decried the "ugly" green boxes that would run down the street. Boxes that are standard in literally any suburb with fast internet.

There are limited parts of the bay area with gigabit fiber, including some large apartment buildings. The rent is higher in those places, of course.

It's so crazy because if you have ever seen the same neighborhood with and without power lines, the difference is dramatic. Power lines are horrendously ugly. But after people got use to them, they can barely be bothered to pay 10% extra on their power bill for the lines to be buried.

Likewise, people would instantly forget about the green boxes after a few year.

> Likewise, people would instantly forget about the green boxes after a few year.

I disagree, as a pedestrian I have to walk around FTTC and terminal boxes every day.

Imagine if they were installed off the kerb, on the road instead of the pavement. There would be uproar.

Fiber boxes (and cable boxes) here are all at least twelve feet above ground level up on a pole. You never 'walk around them' unless you are levitating.

That's not an aesthetic complaint.

> Power lines are horrendously ugly.

So is the 20 foot wide expanse of dirty tar next to the power lines. But people have lived with that all their lives, and barely notice it.

I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. Power lines can be buried but what’s the alternative to residential streets?

In Walt Disney's opinion, you could bury the streets, too. Utility corridors (or "utilidors" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_utilidor_system) are essentially the road equivalent to a subway systems' rails.

There are some existing pedestrian-only underground city corridor systems, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(Toronto); and there are many vehicle-only road tunnel networks underlaying modern "walkable" cities, mostly in Europe. There are even a few cities that already have both (e.g. Dubai), although they just have separate pedestrian and road-tunnel networks that don't connect.

Disney's vision was to marry the two—to treat them as an interconnected network, as we do today with the road network (which spans everything from walking trails in parks, to residential streets with bike lanes, to grade-separated freeways.)

We haven't done it yet, but there's not much stopping a city planner (especially of a new city, e.g. a charter city) from doing it. We really could have a "roadless" and even "streetless" surface, with only buildings and parks visible.

(IMHO, it'd be very good to try this first in an area that gets really hot, like Arizona, since you'd get the dual benefits of 1. keeping people cool on their way between air-conditioned buildings by relying on the natural thermal buffering of the earth; and 2. greatly decreasing surface albedo compared to cities that have tons of blacktop. Maybe make a city ordnance that all buildings—and especially rooves—have to be light colors, to boost that effect.)

It's definitely an interesting thought exercise.

Do those tunnels actually go to individual homes? I can understand subterranean arterials but would each house actually have direct access to a tunnel? How does that work? Is my garage underground? Does everyone have a basement with an "outside" door?

How does a fire truck or ambulance get to my house? Do deliveries get dropped off underground?

> Is my garage underground?

Not the whole garage (unless that looks better, or is more space-efficient), but it’d probably exit underground, yeah.

I would expect that under this model, due to the costs of digging and the economies-of-scale of shared digging, most housing developments (even single-family housing developments) would lean away from SFH garages, and toward neighbourhood autopools (like the parking floors of condo buildings, but not attached to any one building), where you could walk (underground) from your house to the autopool, then drive (underground) from the autopool onto the auto-tunnel.

> Would each house actually have direct access to a tunnel?

Probably not. Big condo buildings would. Townhouse developments might, since you could just build one tunnel “across” a stretch of homes with regularized entrances. (Though these might necessarily be clumsy, tight stairways.)

I would imagine, in suburban areas where you’ve mostly got individually-developed single-family housing†, you’d likely have above-ground pedestrian walkways connecting a neighbourhood’s worth of houses to a ground-level pedestrian utilidor access point. Like a street-corner subway entrance, but without the subway. (I mean, the subway would be there, but you’d get to it with more walking through the utilidor.)

† Not that “suburban” makes much sense to talk about in this context, for various reasons, but it might be relevant to retrofitting projects.

But, presumably, the utilidor would be “shared public/private infrastructure” just like the road system is—so if you wanted a direct access from your house to the pedestrian utilidor, or from your garage to the auto-tunnel, it’d just be a matter of spending the money to get it dug out yourself, rather than about getting the city to do it for you. (Presumably you’d have to hire city-certified engineers to do the work, but that’s true of any digging you do in city limits today.) And that means that you could probably find developments with their own private utilidor access as an amenity.

Walkable,neighbourhoods designed for people rather than having them designed for cars first.

Ok but even pedestrian first residential neighborhoods need roads. It’s not like power lines where you can completely get rid of them.

Those few roads can be tiny and out of the way, see this Utrecht redevelopment. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/forward-thinki...

Cities have had roads for a lot longer than cars have existed.

Certainly but they weren’t originally designed to carry cars as their primary function.

I never understand the "green box is ugly" argument. Yes it is. Can we not work out a deal where a local artist paints it and puts a statue on top.

It needs to be a box with stuff in it and access panels, the outer aesthetic doesn't matter and can conform to local tastes.

It’s a good point. Sebastopol CA is full of cute metal statues up and down the front yards of homes and entrances to businesses. A local artist makes them. It’s cute. You’d think we could do that with infrastructure too.

AT&T can put those under the ground. They are ugly. And they take up already limited sidewalk space in many areas.

Do you want to put up taxes for additional trenching, nevermind the overhead associated with the different agencies when digging is involved?

Taxes paid for the initial cost of not only most of the infrastructure of internet but also cable. This was "paid back" at zero interest loan payments over dozens of years, in most municipalities.

Put them in the street, take up parking spaces from cars. The attitude that people don’t deserve the same guarantees as cars is a bad one.

People will drive into them.

I don't think her DSL argument is coherent. The only reason DSL is available to most houses is that those wires were put in by a municipal phone company or highly regulated monopoly. Anybody who has talked to a DSL tech knows that a lot of that infrastructure is creaky, many decades old. We need to figure out what to do for the next century.

Personally, I think we should at least look at the local loop as a natural monopoly. Just like the city is expected to own and maintain the road to your house, it should own and maintain the digital equivalent. From your house to the POP, it's city fiber. From the POP onward, sure, let that be run commercially, with a free minimum tier, say 5 mb/s. If you want anything more, you can contract with any ISP who has a presence in your POP. That way we get both a truly competitive marketplace and universal access.

Those same DSL techs often know exactly what needs to be done to save the telecom company they work for, deploy GPON.

Verizon broke new ground and did it in the early 2000s, and its the only reason they still have as many customers as they do. The assets they sold to Frontier were partially upgraded, and have taken a beating due to Frontier's internal incompetence and poor service. Reactivating service to an existing ONT should not take more than a few minutes, yet it takes 24+hrs with Frontier.

The cable companies are willing to do what is neccesary to get customers up and running, which is how they have hollowed out the incumbent telecom's business.

Of course it's not coherent, it's just a roundabout way to say they don't want to give anyone any reason to move to LOH. Read between the lines.

Here's the sad truth: you're not going to be able to do anything for the next century. The next century will not happen in the US cities you are thinking about. They will happen in other US cities or elsewhere in the world.

The city of Zurich has what to my understanding is public fiber which is available to most buildings. (I assume there are some exceptions). It is managed by the electricity company run by the city. https://zuerinet.ch

Setting up routers, billing etc. has been delegated to any third party ISP willing to do the job. I think they can charge what they want, as there are some very small differences in price. I pay ~44CHF/month for 100mb/s. While not dirt cheap, It's ok considering the price of other stuff here. Service so far has been very reliable.

This is the sort of model that many US municipalities have tried to implement. Unfortunately, many of them have been blocked from doing so by ISP lawsuits.

I’m also a Zürich resident. There is a healthy competition between ISPs and it’s easy to switch between them since the fiber network is provided by the city. When your contract is expiring, ask your ISP for a loyalty discount. I’m paying CHF 35/month for 1 Gbps (although in the last few weeks it hasn’t been that fast).

This is the model that NZ (similar size/population as Oregon) followed. We have the network provider, which can be regional. ISPs compete for pricing model and peering etc, and the ISP manages the home installation, but all ISPs use the same network.

It is a country wide rollout, subsidised by the government (maybe loan, but govt takes risk?). They haven’t solved rural access.

Everything in my city is underground - mostly trenchless on the street using underground thrusting. Tech used varies by region and network operator.

> ~44CHF/month for 100mb/s. While not dirt cheap

That _is_ dirt cheap by US prices. Comcast (my only option) is $75/mo for 250/5 (yes, only 5 megabit up!).

$50/month here for me in southern Mississippi for gigabit fiber from AT&T. I'm not sure what dirt cheap is for internet in the US but I think I'm there.

That's approximately $46 USD, which is actually in line with most cable companies when you are a new customer.

Of course, they get you by turning that $45 for 100Mb down with the modem rental for $10 / month, the 'fees' and taxes that are another $10 / month. Then, after your 'introductory' prices expire, you end up at $70 / month for the same 100Mb. But listen to this - a deal you can't refuse when your intro prices expire: They will sell you a 'bundle' with included cable TV for the same price of $70.

And now you're looking at the original $70... plus digital box fee of $10 / month x 2 or 3 outlets, and also another $5 for sports programming fees you never watch, DV recorder boxes for all the outlets, so you can record that one show, and even an HBO Go trial that was 'free' for 6 months, but then turns into a $10 / month recurring charge.

And this is how the average household in America ends up paying $150 / month, when all they really wanted in the first place was a $40 /100MB internet connection. Unless you're making below poverty rates, where the telecoms are forced to offer you a basic internet plan for under $20, you're going to get screwed because there is no way to get just decent internet without all the add-ons.

You can get the original promo price if you threaten to cancel. There's a song and dance with CSR but once they transfer you to the retentions dept, they are authorized to give you the original price again for a year. Actually, Comcast did give me a different deal once where the price was slightly higher than my original introductory offer but speeds were also better.

That trick had worked for me about 10 years ago. The last time I was buying my own plan, Verizon was not interested in playing that game. The 'TV bundle' was the only thing they would offer, which is why I ended up at $70 anyway. And that was in a city with another Cable internet provider and a (very slow) DSL option.

Most consumers don't even have another option, and the cable companies know you aren't going to just get rid of internet to spite them.

$75/mo here in Iowa for 30/30 fiber to the home.

I’m on a 2 year contract with Comcast and getting 600 down for $60. You might give them a call to see if they can lower your rate.

I get att fiber 1g at 70$. It's even cheaper now at 50$

$40/month 1 Gig - SONIC in Bay area.

I understand that running physical cable to all locations is expensive, and if there is not a guarantee of minimum customer buy in it makes no financial sense for companies to do that. I grew up in the 80s and should be of the MTV generation, but because of the economics I never had an option for cable until I moved away from the parental units. I couldn't imagine not having access to the internet in today's society.

I have hopes that with 5G, we could have a way to deliver gov't subsidized internet plans that allow everyone to be able to have a minimum amount of reliable bandwidth. Buy your $20USD receiver to receive a basic 10Mbps down, 1.5Mbps up connection. I think that should be free. Just enough to watch some video, enough to push normal attachments in email/web post (homework, resumes, etc). After that, if you want/need more bandwidth, then buy what you want. But at least this would provided a way to get past that last mile problem while making basic internet for all a viable thing.

Comcast offered to connect my place for something around $22,000. When I asked them to write a bid, they vanished. So as far as I can tell, they were bluffing and did not expect me to call them on it.

And on 5G? I have little hope. At least here in the US where we've decided that it should be millimeter-wave, the range is insufficient to circumvent NIMBYism and FUD around installation and RF emissions.

I thought there's already a bunch of low-band deployments in US?

> Her argument is that ~20 mbps DSL is good enough

that is insane. How having no internet is fine because 20mbps is enough?

That could be a good argument against fiber (which i also think is overkill, decent cooper is lower maintenance and with enough repeaters as good as) but it is hardly an argument against it being available to all as a public utility.

> And, by the way, the FCC thinks I have a dozen options for broadband. That is false.

and the real enemy shows up. FCC, from the bush-omaba-trump admin become the most corrupt organization one can think of. They openly lie and laugh when someone point out the lie.

> from the bush-omaba-trump admin become the most corrupt organization one can think of

I don't know whether they were corrupt, but Tom Wheeler did a fantastic job from a consumer rights & Internet health perspective during the Obama admin. Most notably he implemented Title II regulations to enforce net neutrality (since undone by a Republican), but also supported municipal broadband (since undone by a Republican), fought against several huge communication company mergers (since undone by a Republican), and supported content providers against ISPs charging interconnection fees.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/how-a...

on his first year he passed the "internet fast lane" regulation, against net neutrality, and made lots of profits for his cable and wireless business.

only to four months later start a huge campaign with obama pro net neutrality for the classification of ISPs as utilities under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (with profitable exceptions). Opening the floodgates on direct white house influence on the FCC and permanently making it the political tool which Ajit Pai wields.

> on his first year he passed the "internet fast lane" regulation, against net neutrality, and made lots of profits for his cable and wireless business

No, he proposed a net neutrality regulation that would allow fast lanes, and said he was open to a stronger rule if it had enough support. The comments on the first proposal overwhelmingly favored a stronger approach, and so the final rule that he actually passed was the Title II reclassification.

He took this approach because the courts had struck down the Open Internet Order of 2010, and this was the safest way to restore as much of that as possible without doing a very politically difficult and risky Title II reclassification.

And what do you mean "his cable and wireless business"? In the distant past he had held executive positions in first the main cable trade group, and later the main wireless trade group, but the first was something like 30 years before he was on the FCC and the second something like 10 years before he was on the FCC.

The cable stuff was so long ago that it was just television--the cable modem had not yet been invented. It was also a time when the cable industry was the disruptive new kid on the block trying to bring competition for the big entrenched OTA broadcast networks.

Same thing when he worked for the wireless industry. It was when they were the new thing trying to make inroads against the big landline telecom companies.

ok, you think the fast lane is not part of net neutrality to begin with. I'm on the side where words have meaning.

What choice is there when congress can't/won't legislate?

The regulation is (still) badly needed. We see the shortcomings of the current delivery system laid bare but if a company won't invest to keep a competitive advantage, again what choice is there?

> What choice is there when congress can't/won't legislate?

Work on electing different people to Congress, and meanwhile try to implement it on state level?

I mean, the whole point of having Congress is so that the executive can't just do whatever it wants.

Yeah we should encourage executive overreach - clearly title II was not for the internet and the FCC has no role. If congress wants to give them that role - then that is the job of congress.

I'm not sure why you think "decent cooper" is as good as fiber. Unless you can deliver me 1Gbps symmetrically like my current fiber, you're inadequate. I currently have two kids doing remote learning, a wife who's starting to VPN at times, and I myself work remotely at least 9 hours a day for the last 20 days.

My podunk town has FTH through a municipal partnership. It works great. If my town can do it, I expect every other town above a population of 300K to do it as well. It's not rocket science.

The problem is with people saying crap like "good enough." The Network Director at my company said that a wireless (GSM) connection of 1Mbps was "good enough." I laughed and said that explains why our LAN and WAN speeds are so bad. WiFi in a conference room with an access point directly overhead fails half the time.

Good enough...

Times are changing. 20 years ago I worked at a distance learning company creating H.S. courseware. Cutting edge stuff that was lost in a market that didn't care. Too many competing interests. But I bet all those education administrators wish they had invested in more than Chromebooks that don't have courseware.

> Unless you can deliver me 1Gbps symmetrically like my current fiber, you're inadequate. I currently have two kids doing remote learning, a wife who's starting to VPN at times, and I myself work remotely at least 9 hours a day for the last 20 days.

This really shouldn't require such exotic internet. Unless you are downloading large files, it's hard to use more than a few megabits per person on average.

Often the nice thing about fiber is the surrounding infrastructure is newer and better.

> it's hard to use more than a few megabits per person on average.

With the coming rise of streaming services(currently using 6 to 12 mbps) and other things I can regularly see each individual person using 25mbps or more with the rise of 4k. And in a house of 4. That means the house needs 100mbps real capacity. And then it needs to not be bottlenecked on the street with dozens of other houses.

And not just streaming of games. But of movies. Education. Meetings. And tons of other streaming related activities compounded on potential normal usage non streaming.

And lets not forget that my predictions are based on the short term (<5 years) time frames. Infrastructure shouldn't need replacing every 5 years, but perhaps every 10-15 years at the lowest. So in that regard I'd bump it up to say at minimum every household should be able to sustain 500mbps symmetrically during peak concurrency strain hours.

Perhaps offer up to 1 gbps to 10 gbps during non peak times and during short spikes.

Why do people need to see pimples of everyone in your family in 4K each?

>This really shouldn't require such exotic internet. Unless you are downloading large files, it's hard to use more than a few megabits per person on average.

You're assuming averages, but just looking at Youtube buffering, it downloads videos in bursts, despite being a "streaming" service. Combine bursty behavior with latency sensitive applications like video conferencing or gaming, and having that headroom is nice.

That said 1000/1000 may not be absolutely needed, but 100/100 or even 100/10 does not seem like it should be that big of an ask.

My provider gives me 250/25. That the upload speed has been a tenth of the download has never been an issue before.

But video calling with colleagues and while doing syncing data with servers has been a bitch.

Try living in a place with only 3 mbps down. You'll find your various computing devices are constantly pegging the connection doing nothing but downloading updates.

I have a lot of computing devices. Probably more than the average American. But both of those numbers are only going up.

> decent cooper is lower maintenance

This is interesting. Do you have a reference for that? Everything I've read seems to claim that fibre is lower maintenance than copper -- but I'd love to read something to the contrary.

> ~20 mbps DSL is good enough for the elderly population

I used 30 mbps internet for years till my ISP upgraded my lovest tear and I worked from home. Even gigabit was available I don't really care about speed. If you don't work with big files that needs to be synced often slow speed is fine.

I only care that my internet is stable. In this regard, fiber is way better, but for most elderly even a few hours a week downtime is not a big deal.

Not that this is a solution but get a good directional antenna and point it at Google - instant guest network(advice not guaranteed to work)!

All it would take to get muni-fiber to really get going would be for the FCC to get behind it and for federal aid to spur development in places to go to these muni-fiber cooperatives rather than the telcos.

I see the internet as a road. I think it’d be cool if road tech advanced but if it didn’t the economy would still function because all of the things built on the robust road system are there.

Also nothing is going to make entrenched telcos innovate more than having to compete with 10s or hundreds more players.

If you have LOS to GOOG headquarters, you probably have LOS to someone with fast internet. You can set up plug-and-play directional internet bridge over several km for a couple hundred USD, and split their internet bill with them. Yeah there's a lot of hurdles, but if you don't have another option might be worth looking in to.

There's a couple of dishes in a box downstairs. It's on the to-do list. :)

Common.net is planning on gigabit wireless service in Alameda and San Leandro later this year. And they offer 300mbit service now. The technology is there to do this without laying fiber or other traditional infrastructure. If there are many people that want something better than DSL start a wireless ISP.

We tried this in South Africa. It ended badly with Telkom.

I mean, you would also expect one of the richest cities in the country to have sidewalks and street lights. They have different priorities.

> She makes a good point: the residents don't care. Her argument is that ~20 mbps DSL is good enough for the elderly population.

I'd say that's a horrible point. Many people don't care about having guns or being monitored 24/7. That doesn't mean we shouldn't provide those as liberties.

For most non-Americans, it's fairly non-controversial that one of those should definitely be severely restricted.

There are some efforts in LAH at the grassroots level.

https://lahcommunityfiber.org/

I imagine the low density of LAH makes the cost of installing fiber throughout town more of a barrier than other areas.

I went to their most-recent meeting. I have some hope for the project, but I don't think it's likely to make it my way before I'm part of the 20-mbps-is-ok elderly population. They've really got to figure out how to be a real ISP and use the preexisting utility easements rather than try to get new ones.

As for the cost, they were talking about $1-3k/house depending on how many signed up in a "corridor". That's peanuts, especially for the area.

So iirc LAH doesn't have (or has very few of?) conduits that the town itself owns. The part that'll likely happen first is a "dig once" installation of the Utility tunnels that are publicly owned. Gary Kremen (of match.com fame, who's on the water district as well) has been fighting hard for this, and I'd encourage you to reach out to him.

There's an utility undergrounding effort over near the Foothill college fire station area that'll hopefully be the pilot project for this.

What I wasn't aware of until recently was how spotty the broadband coverage is in the town. There are areas with 100mbps, and others with barely any coverage at all from what I've heard. The situation really isn't pretty.

I think the $1k-$3k cost is if you have an existing backbone(?) endpoint near your residence. If you happen to not be close to an existing one, the costs will be much higher. I think the group has some ideas for some short term workarounds.

Thanks for the pointer! I sent a note on Nextdoor. I'm not opposed to spending money on infrastructure, but so far I haven't found a viable avenue for actually doing so.

I've also reached out to Common and Sail to see if they'd be willing to try to make something out of my commanding line-of-sight. Historically that has not been the case.

I think the nearest AT&T fiber node is a few minutes' walk away and I'd love to pay to cut a trench to it. But I haven't been able to find anyone there willing to entertain the idea.

I'm also trying to find a business within my line-of-sight that will let me pay them for roof and utility access so that I can beam something to myself.

It’s Gary Kremen here - hit me up for info - gkremen @ gmail or check out - https://www.nextlevel.net/

> She makes a good point

How can that be a good point?...

I think we all know that until an amazing product is presented to the customers, and the customers start to actually use it in its designated ways, the truly amazing product will be loved and touted by the people.

For example, China Mobile was routinely instructed by government to cut price [1]. In 2018-09, I visited Shenzhen, and spend 1 RMB and purchased 1GB cellular data package. This change absolutely is critical to China's booming gig-economy, and general digital transformation (I'll leave the privacy and propaganda debate outside, just for economy).

At the time, can China Mobile claim that "people do not care"? They absolutely can. But government is created to think in long-term prospect.

[1] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201803/23/WS5ab491d8a3105cdcf...

TBH silicon valley broadband is way worse than the service I had in rural PA

I'm hopeful for that satellite internet from SpaceX to solve availability.

Why should that be what it takes to solve this issue, though? We have the capabilities down here on Earth; they're just stymied by crony capitalism and regulatory capture.

It’s pretty exciting for rural areas — not that it should be hard to run fiber everywhere (not my area of expertise). It just seems like a very quick way to turn on access for a lot of areas. Especially places just beyond towns and cities that are still well within civilization, but just not connected. Current satellite is ok but the latency is pretty unfortunate.

Who needs electricity when we have candles?

Right, and 40A was good, so let's deliver 400A to every house. Actually 4kA. 4MA! Yes, every house needs a little mini-nuke, tear up everybody's backyard to put in a coal plant - no wait, that didn't happen because it turns out "enough electricity" is good not "more electricity is better".

Always On Internet access matters. But bandwidth, like electricity, is something that you can just have enough of and then more doesn't make much difference. And because of Buffer Bloat people tend to wildly over-estimate how much bandwidth they actually need/ benefit from.

You snark, but what happens when EV adoption picks up and suddenly those houses need to move a lot more electrons?

A large (probably over-size for most users) EV battery is 360MJ.

It seems reasonable we should be able to fill the EV battery overnight, let's say 10 hours between we plug the EV in to charge (empty) and expect to find it full.

So that 36000 seconds, and conveniently that gives us 10kW power input. Which sure enough is about 40A.

So, not "a lot more" electrons. Transitioning other energy uses to electricity will increase the load at individual homes and to the grid but it isn't an order of magnitude thing.

A mistake commonly made here is that people look at energy equivalence charts and they assume that 10GJ of gasoline means we'd need 10GJ of electricity to do the same job. But in fact ICE is hideously inefficient, we used it because it was convenient and for no other reason, so electric cars have always been several times more efficient than 1:1 on that basis - that just wasn't good enough reason to switch before.

I have a 200 amp panel. Today that's fine, but my home is heated by gas, my food is heated by gas, my pool is heated by gas, and my transportation is powered by gasoline.

Let's be naive and say that the panel was properly provisioned for the loads in the house when it was built in 1975. Now let's switch out gas heating for a heat pump, costing us 40 A. Induction cooktop? 50 A. Oven? 50 A. Two EVs? 100 A. Pool heater? 50 A.

Having a 400 amp panel quickly starts to sound pretty good. On the other hand, so does having a huge solar array and a bunch of batteries. But code and permitting and PG&E does not smile on such beefy residential installations.

Multiple cars. 2 is pretty standard,3 is not unusual.

An average US home has 240 volts at 40 amps which is 24,000 watts.

Isn't it 9600? (240*40).

And maybe less because it's 240V,AC?

So basically you are advocating that someone else (the taxpayers) picks up you internet connection bill?

Have you considered to move somewhere else with a better internet rather than complain about everything and everyone?

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and commenting in the intended spirit of the site? We'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html