• Alphane Moon@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Funny thing is dialup has been non viable for ~15 years if not more where I live. When you can get 100 mbit fibre for like $5 a month and it costs a whopping $12.5 dollars a month for a 1000 mbit fibre line, it makes no economic sense to offer dialup.

      • Alphane Moon@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Of course not.

        I remember when I first moved to the US and saw the broadband and cell phone prices. Corruption american style.

      • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah, probably not. If your country is the size of a postage stamp, it doesn’t take a whole lot of capital investment to run fiber through the entire thing. Whereas if your country is the size of the United States, it takes a fuck ton of capital investment to cover even a decent portion of it by laying lines like that.

        • Anarch157a@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          My country is as big as the US and we can get 500 Mbs fibre for $23, less than half what AT&T charges.

          Is not the size of the country that make fibre costs to be so high in US, it’s unchecked, exploitative capitalism allowed by a corrupt plutocratic government.

          • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            You mean Canada? Or Australia? Countries where they are as big of a landmass but people dont actually live in remotely close to the entire thing? 95% of people in Canada live in a 100 mile stretch of the southern part of it. Australia is the same way with the coasts versus the interior… its not remotely comparable even if they are the same size on a technical basis

        • Alphane Moon@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Less to do with absolute size and more to do with urban density and population concentration.