this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
409 points (91.1% liked)

Games

32948 readers
852 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So that's about 15 hours before exceeding your Comcast data cap for the month (1.2TB) assuming you don't use your internet for anything else that month. Then after that it starts costing you about $16/hr to play in data usage alone. ($10 per 50GB)

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I keep seeing comcast mentioned, why do you guys across the pond pay for a broadband service with a maximum download amount like it's a 3G phone?

[–] Master@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I live in a monopoly area. My only choice for internet is comcast at 10/5mbps down up and it costs me 180 a month. Two blocks away fiber costs 40 a month.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Wait, so does a single company own all the cabling or something!? We have a despised-for-their-incompetence company called Openreach in Britain but the cables they manage cover almost the entire county and any ISP can use them.

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's other options, but they're all MUCH slower. If you want a different ISP with comparable or faster speeds, you need to move. In my case, internet is bundled with HOA fees. And there is no other fast option available at my address anyway.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So why don't other ISPs offer comparable speeds in the same location?

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Short simplified answer: nobody wants to pay for the infrastructure. Especially in the last mile. There's probably a Planet Money episode about it. If not, there should be.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

I'm guessing the ISPs aren't forced to share their cables with other ISPs then?

Over here we have "fibre to the kerb" for people whose houses aren't fully supported yet, meaning it's fast fibre-optic cable all the way to somewhere near your house, then it uses your existing copper wires for the last bit. It's not at fast as proper fibre-optic but still a lot better than old copper wires.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@Intensely_Human is correct. ISPs sign contracts with your city or county (depending on state/province laws) for a designated area. They are the sole provider of one type of Internet there. So you have one cable company and one phone line Internet company. The exception to this is the wireless companies that you buy your cell phone line from. Some cities may allow a second choice in one location but it's not common outside the largest cities.

From the customer point of view, when you move in you are told what cable company serves your area. Then you have a choice of cable, phone line, satellite, or cell phone. Our government pretends that choice makes it not a monopoly.

Also, municipal run Internet is explicitly banned in many states. So if a town doesn't like any of the options or no private company will serve the town, they cannot setup their own.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yup, America, eternally asking the question, "but what about my 10th super yacht?"

[–] UnfairUtan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In the US, ISPs are government-enforced monopolies.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What exactly does that mean? I thought you had anti-monopoly laws?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Those are actually just for show. We've let like 3 companies buy up all of our grocery stores too.

We're finding out that anywhere our laws say the government can hold rich people accountable or rich people should do something it actually means they can just do whatever they want. Even the hard line laws like price collusion have gone unenforced for decades now. And now that there is an (a single) enforcement action, it's a civil suit that's not even threatening to cost them more than they made.

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not a full monopoly. You can choose another ISP, but it's just that in practice you'd need to physically move to a new location to make that change of vendor.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why are you bickering with me about it? I don't appreciate people asking questions in bad faith just so they can make a spicy comment. Think I like it?

There are choices, it's just they all suck unless you're willing to move. Nobody's arguing that it is a local semi-monopoly.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I'm not the guy you responded to, I'm just pointing out that it is a full monopoly. Which is important because part of the story they sell is that the ability to pay thousands of dollars in moving costs is a reasonable cost of switching providers. We're never going to get the situation changed if we don't acknowledge that it's a full monopoly, complete with rent seeking.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago

Lol, we had 10-20MB/month packages with 3g....