We all know the nightmare games we need to play with ISPs like RCN, Comcast, and the rest — threatening to cancel, switching names on accounts to maintain intro rates, etc. As a result, folks can be paying very unequal rates for the same service, which itself is arguably a basic utility almost like electricity and natural gas. Has possible state rate regulation come up before on the public agenda? Obviously there’d be pros and cons to this, but it seems somehow we just accept that some people get fleeced by ISPs, while others labor to stay one step ahead of the next surprise rate hike … none of which seems satisfactory. What do you guys think?
Comments
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_ixe92hx wrote
Norwood has municipal internet, tv, and electricity. Best service I've ever had in my life and it's not even close.
bitpushr t1_ixem61k wrote
What does municipal TV look like? Do they just rebroadcast Verizon/Comcast content, or something else?
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_ixere37 wrote
I don't have cable tv (or landline) but it seems to have all the same channel packages you would expect.
Here: https://norwoodlight.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFDirectory/NumericalCLU092022.pdf
coldflame563 t1_ixkfkjj wrote
Im a couple towns over. V jealous
wallet535 OP t1_ixdy7rn wrote
LOL! I’ve heard of municipal broadband before. I have no idea if it’s generally thought to be a good idea but definitely worth discussing.
ThrillSeekingDoggo t1_ixe0pw5 wrote
It's 100% a good idea. Everything that everyone "needs" should be public, as in access to needs should not be driven by market pricing. It's the most obvious place to land at if you care about people other than yourself to any degree.
Food, Medicine, Housing, Clean Water, Internet access, safe and efficient transit, Energy, it's all 100% necessary to live a comfortable life today. All of our policy should be designed around guaranteeing access to all needs for everyone. Instead we have hellscape capitalism where like 10k families have 50% of the wealth and 160 million Americans are a month away from destitution.
Michelanvalo t1_ixhhy7t wrote
It failed in Braintree. They sold the internet wing of Braintree Electric to Comcast this year.
I agree it's a good idea but it needs to actually succeed
[deleted] t1_ixed8qa wrote
[deleted]
booksaboutthesame t1_ixegykr wrote
It's fucking amazing. Fast, cheap, reliable. I've had it for 2+ years and I think it's gone down, like, once.
aaronroot t1_ixg3h4k wrote
Damn man, seriously? You must not know anyone in a community that has taken on the project. I, sadly, do not live in a place that has it either so I have worship at the teat of Comcast. My brother lives 20 minutes away in another town with municipal fiber and pays $75/month for gigabit up/down. I pay $125/m to Comcast for 300/10
Old_Travel8423 t1_ixh71tn wrote
Yeah. Even ONE competitor can be a game changer. I had RCN at $35/mo for 500/15. They upped it to $80/mo after the contract. Then, I cancelled, my gf signed up with RCN for… $30/mo for 600/15. We have Comcast in the area too but I’d rather use anyone else if possible. But just having another name to put on the account is great.
wallet535 OP t1_ixg420p wrote
OMFG. Eff Comcast, that’s obscene. I also don’t have municipal broadband and this is why I’m raising the question.
aaronroot t1_ixg6cmp wrote
Yeah, tell me about it. I unfortunately live in a place where Comcast is the only “high speed” internet provider available. Nowadays “high speed” doesn’t mean what it did in 2005. It just means, useable internet in 2022. I work from home. Like most people my family streams our entertainment, etc. My other options are literally fucking DSL (there’s 2005 again) or satellite at a fraction of the speed for the same price. It’s a racket and I hate it.
I know this is r/Boston. I don’t live in the metro area or even the east side of the state anymore but we are all victims of this to some degree. Affordable and “high speed” internet access is as much a necessity today as all utilities. It’s not a luxury. Municipalities need to take note, especially if they want to attract residents.
ckfinite t1_ixgu9wz wrote
One interesting note here is that Starry (a Boston-based WISP) is suffering serious financial trouble right now, and it may be possible for the city to pick their assets and staff up seriously on the cheap.
LordFaquaad t1_ixe6dc5 wrote
And our internet will then be just as shit as the govt services e.g. mbta. I'm not a fan of private internet but having lived in countries that have public internet, it's absolute shit
RogueInteger t1_ixe8n08 wrote
Government services are dope. Fed came in and smacked some sense into the MBTA and made them fix shit. Keolis and the lack of oversight of the MBTA are the problem, not the government.
Source: I drink state water, consume municipal contract power, and actively visit state parks and beaches.
coldflame563 t1_ixkfpt8 wrote
It’s your tax dollars at work!
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_ixe9abs wrote
Norwood has municipal internet and it's great. Id sooner eat a plate of my own shit then get back on Comcast or Verizon.
narkybark t1_ixdv4cy wrote
Seems like a good idea
wallet535 OP t1_ixdyi4g wrote
I know, right? Is it me or has there been like zero discussion of this?
Nyama_Zashto t1_ixf4af2 wrote
It’s really simple, the broadband companies literally fund whatever party is in power and hire armies of lawyers to write laws that then get passed so they never have to compete in the market.
Then they literally brag about being against capitalist competition to their investors and insiders.
The idea that you can create public competition against a private monopoly with an unlimited money printing machine who then bribe politicians (both parties) to pass laws to underwrite or outright fund their infrastructure…
I mean look at least Elon bought twitter right? Lol
wallet535 OP t1_ixf8dnm wrote
Based on what u/thedoormaan wrote below, it sounds like one party is trying to help, while another isn’t.
thedoormaan t1_ixe0ssm wrote
State public utility commissions regulate telecommunications services through guidance laid out by the FCC, which currently designates broadband service as an “information service” and not a communications service. This means it is not subject to Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, which designates landline telephone providers as “common carriers” who are charged with establishing universal service of landline telephone. The problem is the internet’s current definition by the FCC, which leaves no room for regulation currently.
wallet535 OP t1_ixe3o63 wrote
Any push to change the FCC definition?
thedoormaan t1_ixe4vrk wrote
The Obama admin’s FCC was able to get broadband classified as Title II in 2015, but it was revoked by the Trump Admin soon after. I’m not sure if any internet regulation was able to be implemented at a state level in that time span. To the best of my knowledge there’s no real push to reclassify broadband currently, however the FCC created the Affordable Connectivity Program which is a $30 monthly subsidy towards internet for low income consumers so that’s a start I guess.
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ixfkibz wrote
Not really a start, that's tax payer money going to a corporation with nearly zero competition.
Bostonosaurus t1_ixf1iqk wrote
Why hasn't Biden unrevoked it?
laricaine t1_ixfrz29 wrote
He’s still trying to get the deciding vote on the committee (Gigi Sohn) appointed. Republicans are holding up the process, for exactly the reasons stated above.
wallet535 OP t1_ixftjit wrote
This is why we can’t have nice things. :-/
Bostonosaurus t1_ixg19wg wrote
Why can't they just skip committee stuff and just bring the vote to the floor.
Anyways, just gave $20 to Warnock. Hopefully they can just get to 51 votes and control the committees.
wallet535 OP t1_ixf2esz wrote
I’m guessing lack of public pressure?
wallet535 OP t1_ixe7f3x wrote
Super-helpful, thanks. And I guess based on what you wrote that the FCC truly does limit the states; I’ll do some Googling to see if there have been any creative legal attempts to do an end-run around them (or batter through them lol). Appreciate the insight.
thedoormaan t1_ixejgyj wrote
No problem. I do think broadband should be regulated to some extent, but idk how much I would want an ISP to look like currently regulated utility companies like eversource or national grid because they are pretty much monopolies. There should definitely be billing and termination protection for consumers and I think state government should be able to regulate the prices of basic plans, but I’m not quite sure how that could be implemented tbh.
bryanhealey t1_ixdzh9a wrote
I'd rather we have true public internet. The state can be it's own ISP.
Michelanvalo t1_ixhhvg4 wrote
The state as the ISP is a bad idea. Too much power given to the state. It needs to be more regulated like the power grid but not actually run by the state.
bryanhealey t1_ixhsju1 wrote
what power would this give the state that it otherwise doesn't have today?
Proof-Variation7005 t1_ixe3kew wrote
That's a nice idea but it raises some serious privacy / ethical concerns that would need to be addressed. There's pretty much nothing nefarious in my internet traffic but I sure as shit that cops have to jump through a bunch of hoops and compel a judge before they can see it.
Removing that figurative firewall would be.....not great.
Not to mention you're empowering the state to exploit the lack of net neutrality on traffic it deems inappropriate. And just the simple reality we've observed where things managed by the government are not inherently better or more efficient.
wallet535 OP t1_ixe6u6g wrote
I guess I’d trust that firewalls can be maintained between government agencies. That’s like the whole separation between, say, prosecutors and judges.
Selfeducation t1_ixgm9yv wrote
They wont and dont already
Selfeducation t1_ixgm9eo wrote
Youre downvoted but youre correct. Im in networking, the infrastructure is already horrid, would be worse knowing how shit our govt is with these things. Govt can definitely already spy on the citizens but making it even easier to manipulate would be a bad idea. Plus like you said, opportunity for censorship.
Heavy regulation is the way to go but itll never happen. The big companies are the only ones who can afford to build the lines. Currently what the “solution” is, is to force the big isp’s to wholesale at cost the usage of the lines to third parties who can then “compete”
Proof-Variation7005 t1_ixhnyar wrote
I think people really fail to grasp just how much work and manpower goes into an ISP. Are they subcontracting out installation, maintenance, repairs, support, and all the back-end shit that needs to exist?
I've worked with a LOT of ISPs and the municipal ones like Norwood Light has are a clear step down in terms of pretty much every factor except for cost. Available service, reliability, support, repair time, etc are all garbage.
Selfeducation t1_ixj9xp2 wrote
Same, and I agree
downthewell62 t1_ixevili wrote
Well, yes. Obviously.
Instead we give tax money to Comcast and Verizon, who then don't spend it on infrastructure, who split up territory like cartels, and trap us in an upward financially devastating spiral.
It's a shame that Starry is basically dead. It stopped just like, inches from my apartment. I have literally no options for internet other than Verizon, in the second biggest tech city in the country. That's FUCKED
ckfinite t1_ixguevj wrote
>It's a shame that Starry is basically dead
They really overexpanded and tried to get into single-family markets that they couldn't serve economically; unfortunately, they're in really bad financial straits right now.
One interesting possibility that this might enable is for the city (or cities - they're in a number of markets) to pick their assets up for really cheap. It'd facilitate continuation of service and could serve as a jumping off point for community internet.
RogueInteger t1_ixe8x4y wrote
[deleted] t1_ixg3ea1 wrote
[deleted]
Beantowncrash t1_ixdub1b wrote
Yes.
SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixei5sh wrote
Price per speed has fallen by a factor of…I don’t know…1000 in the last decade? And stability has been significantly improved.
What’s the problem?
wallet535 OP t1_ixeldmz wrote
Folks are paying wildly different rates for such a basic service. Our Internet costs aren’t internationally competitive. Poor people can’t afford service. More speed arguably isn’t what’s needed.
SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixens7h wrote
I disagree with or dispute every sentence.
wallet535 OP t1_ixeo4k8 wrote
All ears if you’d care to elaborate….
SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixer9es wrote
I don't believe people are paying wildly different rates. Most people are paying +/- $30/mo for comparable service.
Our internet is internationally competitive. This is especially true when you consider the fact that the US is so huge and lacks population density. Plowing fiber in rural areas is very expensive. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars just to reach a single house.
Internet costs are the least of a poor person's concerns. Regardless, there are already govt programs that assist with internet expenditures for poor people.
We will always need more internet speed. More speed enables new technologies. Imagine if we were still stuck with 56kb internet. It'd be almost useless, even if it was free.
wallet535 OP t1_ixex7rp wrote
I understand your opinion but am not really convinced. As one data point, my sister didn’t know how to play the game with her cable company, and as soon as she did, her bill went from like $95 to $45 for basic Internet. Mine’s like $75 for the same service from the same carrier in the next town over. These arbitrary fluctuations are nuts for a basic necessity. You said you don’t think swings of $30 are a big deal, but yeah, they are. You can quibble about speed/cost of living in the many international comparisons of Internet costs that show the US at best is average, but I think it’d be challenging to make the case that we’re leaders. I agree rural connectivity is costly and a continuing problem. Maybe 5G will help? Not an expert there but I’m open to repeating what we did to electrify rural America, and in any case I am talking about Massachusetts, a pretty dense state. If you think Internet costs aren’t a big issue for low-income neighbors, I would invite you to reconsider, because I know from family experience they can be. Hell, folks can struggle to buy food, let alone pay Internet bills. Obviously Internet speed has marched on, to great benefit, and will continue to do so, but for the use case of household Internet, speed needs are nowhere near what’s on offer now. Even the slowest plans can handle multiple highest-resolution Netflix streams, etc. Right now there’s a lot of deceptive marketing falsely claiming households will notice speeds above, say, 100/250 Mbps, meaning that faster Internet is mostly about overcharging folks for speed they don’t need.
SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixfgmz5 wrote
The price of internet has fallen on average over the last 25 years. Yes, that's right, internet service has averaged nearly -1% inflation per year for 25 years.
Additionally, there are programs for low income households that help get internet for free or cheap (eg Affordable Connectivity Program).
So again, I disagree. While ISPs certainly aren't perfect, I think there are much bigger issues.
wallet535 OP t1_ixfjcvj wrote
I appreciate your willingness to be like the only one in this thread to state an opposing view. I’m actually kinda surprised no one’s raised stifling innovation as an objection. I don’t have your sources but it’s plausible that Internet costs have declined over the years. But that’s not really the core question, which instead is: Have they declined as fast as they should have? Yes, the subsidies are helpful, but no, I don’t think they’re a complete solution, and yes, of course there are bigger fish to fry (e.g., climate change). Thanks again.
SpiritedCamel_ t1_ixfo89c wrote
> Have they declined as fast as they should have?
I always find this thought experiment interesting. It's fun thinking about the path dependencies of tech and gov't policy.
In hindsight, it's quite clear to me that given where we are today with the current state of internet technology, it would have been beneficial for maximal government intervention. We'd probably have broader coverage, lower prices, and the fast speeds we're starting to see today would've been rolled out more quickly if the government just built it all itself.
But this is in hindsight, and doesn't necessarily apply to the future. It very well may be the case for the intermediate future, too, but I would generally bet on the (sort of) free market over long time horizons when it comes to things that aren't quite broken. Housing and health care and energy (for f*cks sake, can we just utilize the super high energy density of uranium already!) = badly broken. Internet = 👌🤷 pretty decent.
oldcreaker t1_ixe172k wrote
Given recent utility price hikes, even that may not sufficient to control pricing.
Current-Weather-9561 t1_ixe9ase wrote
There’s no way to win. I pay $118/month for 1000 down and like 20 up? Internet only. Then another $60 for YouTube tv. Which doesn’t include everything.
mileylols t1_ixexb61 wrote
… people pay for youtubetv?
RogueInteger t1_ixf6ylv wrote
It's actually a convenient and comparatively less expensive option.
wallet535 OP t1_ixec27f wrote
Ugh I know, it sucks. May not help much but consider getting the lowest speed possible and buying your own modem/router if you haven’t already.
Selfeducation t1_ixgmv9r wrote
Your advice is not bad but damn, that article SUCKS. Most of it is wrong
wallet535 OP t1_ixhdcs5 wrote
Haha, in general what’s the main part that’s incorrect?
Selfeducation t1_ixj9tvd wrote
Their testing is flawed long story short. I can break it down later maybe but essentially streaming services can detect the bandwidth on customer side and pass off different types of bit rate. Its not just about resolution.
wallet535 OP t1_ixjan54 wrote
Noted! You shared the main point, no need to belabor. :-)
mshelikoff t1_ixel5mx wrote
Instead of governments at varying levels regulating services similar to utilities, it should own them. This doesn't just apply to ISPs but also to cable TV, electricity, gas, telephone, cellular telephone, everything. The federal government should also own and operate google and amazon.
riski_click t1_ixf6h0w wrote
If you're interested in this, I strongly recommend reading "The Division of Light and Power" by Dennis Kucinich about his time as Mayor of Cleveland.. Talk about fighting windmills, man.. but he get limitless props from me for fighting against big business and for the people.
wallet535 OP t1_ixem6fh wrote
Don’t forget Reddit.
mshelikoff t1_ixemjex wrote
I don't think reddit has engaged in the monopolistic and anti-competitive tactics of google and amazon.
wallet535 OP t1_ixemmci wrote
Haha, I was kidding.
DooDooBrownz t1_ixe9l6u wrote
well considering my electic bill pretty much doubled im not exactly sure what you think the state is doing to "regulate pricing"
wallet535 OP t1_ixeajgt wrote
Yeah I know it sucks, but what would have happened to rates without the regulator?
DooDooBrownz t1_ixeb6px wrote
does it cap increases or something? im genuinely curious, cause a rate hike of 100% seems like they can charge whatever they want
wallet535 OP t1_ixecvd7 wrote
Basically utilities are allowed to recover their operating expenses plus earn a reasonable return on their capital investments. See here for a quick overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_ratemaking
jtet93 t1_ixewykb wrote
They had this in Finland when I visited Helsinki literally a decade ago. We stayed with my partner at the time’s grandma who was like 87 and had dementia and had no clue what the internet was and she had high speed wifi in her home lmao. It was convenient and made sense which is probably why we don’t have that here.
aoethrowaway t1_ixf4lzv wrote
The city should run municipal river but Verizon is too deep in Boston’s pants as being a pilot digital city with the 5g support for the city services. It’s terrible and a shame the city did that.
Necessary-Celery t1_ixgilnd wrote
It wouldn't be necessary if the state did its job of not tolerating monopolies.
But sadly the local governments were heavily lobbied to create monopolies.
brufleth t1_ixhcoe9 wrote
The state should just rollout their own ISP and undercut the shit out of RCN and Comcast. It would save residents a boatload and the state could probably even make money off it after the initial rollout.
[deleted] t1_ixehtm3 wrote
[deleted]
BackBae t1_ixemnu8 wrote
Yes, and everyone should write to their elected officials letting them know this. While you’re at it, write to your councilors letting them know you’re in support of municipal broadband :)
wallet535 OP t1_ixfpf0j wrote
This is an underrated comment!
spedmunki t1_ixeqgqx wrote
It’s shambolic that a city which is so quick to tout itself as “high tech” and “progressive” doesn’t have municipal fiber
Ok_Fox_1770 t1_ixeu22z wrote
Xfinity cost me more than double my power bill. Gonna get a dvr thru their office window soon enough
the_dDev t1_ixf8zdi wrote
I’ve been paying $80 for 1000 up and 1000 down for the past 2 years with FiOS. Sounds like Comcast and RCN just want to screw people.
Angri_1999 t1_ixfkh7o wrote
RCN just jacked my rate for that speed from $45 to $105/month, and I did not catch it fast enough to avoid paying for the first two months.
Switched (back) to FiOS - I hate Verizon but they were offering the same service for $70/mo (after various discounts like, oh you have cellular with us) WITH A TEN YEAR RATE LOCK.
Man, I hate dealing with Verizon, but a ten year rate lock means 9 years I don’t have to be hyper vigilant about this BS.
Itchy-Marionberry-62 t1_ixfa0ow wrote
Does RCN still do cable TV?
wallet535 OP t1_ixfegaf wrote
Yes.
ShawshankExemption t1_ixfs3le wrote
I don’t think your argument that if it was state owned, prices would be stabilized. There are broadly to paths, municipal level, or federal. At the municipal level you’d be relying on individual municipalities to set up and maintain the broadband system. You’d get widely varying quality, procedures, and prices, just based how those locales manage this ish. At the state or federal level, you’d have fewer fiefdoms of policy, but then the prices and costs would vary widely because of political pork barreling. Some places would get economic boondoggle projects because their Congressperson is stellar, while others place few burdens and both end up paying the same? That’s not really right.
Yes the major broadband provides should be more heavily regulated but it should be in a way that forces them to compete more directly with each other and introduce other competitors into the market.
Another issue is technical choice, what if in 10 years satellite internet becomes the default Choice for access? Without competition or choice those determinations aren’t made and we end up locking into legacy tech hindering development. This akin to telephone access in the ‘developing’ world. Many of these countries don’t have land line infrastructure because they skipped straight to cellular.
wallet535 OP t1_ixft31p wrote
What I and most other people are talking about is potential state (not municipal or federal) regulation (not ownership) of ISPs. The direction of that regulation takes depends I’d think on whether broadband constitutes a natural monopoly, as other utilities do. If it is in fact a natural monopoly, encouraging competition might be a fool’s errand. Innovation might indeed be an issue, but is there evidence it’s being stifled in already-regulated utility markets? These I’d think are the relevant questions.
ShawshankExemption t1_ixfvlm2 wrote
I think it’s pretty reasonable to look at energy providers in electricity to see how particular regulation/utility status can hinder innovation. MA opened up its electricity markets in the 90s which cause more generators to enter the market, and then further liberalized generator regs to allow for wind, solar, and attempt at hydro. The variety of alternative sources wasn’t available until a variety of measures were introduced to allow more players in the market. IMO another issue with them being ‘natural monopolies’ is the products are able to be differentiated, somewhat technically but also business services (contract length, bundling, etc). Could you put regs in place that would limit those options and thus push them toward NM? Sure but I don’t think it would be popular. Personally, I switch from xfinity to Verizon recently and it’s made a world of difference.
It would be very difficult for the state to pass regulations that don’t end up superseded by FCC or other federal regulation, muni ownership is the only real way around that, which is why I jumped there. Your original prompt didn’t raise that prospect just some other commenters so my bad.
wallet535 OP t1_ixfx27k wrote
No worries, and I think we basically agree. u/thedoormaan summarized the FCC issues and also suggested ISP regulation, but probably not exactly how we regulate electricity, for example. I totally agree with this approach. Electricity itself was an interesting example of decomposing the natural monopoly analysis to distinguish between those parts that truly naturally monopolistic (delivery) from those that aren’t (generation). I don’t think broadband can be similarly decomposed, but maybe one day?
IdkWhatIwant895 t1_ixfw8rj wrote
ISPs make alot from their high profit margins and government subsidies to build infrastructure. Something should be done to lower prices. One way of doing that is to end local monopolies. In most of the country if you want broadband then you only have one company to choose from.
wallet535 OP t1_ixfz1d5 wrote
I think the problem is that broadband might be a natural monopoly, like electricity delivery, precisely because of the infrastructure you mention. https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3267
YurthTheRhino t1_ixfx4fu wrote
I've really enjoyed Starry so far and it's been no bullshit same price never had an outage. And the customer support was excellent when I had to deal with them during setup
reveazure t1_ixhxx9y wrote
I don’t know if there’s easier ways to do this. But one idea I had was that the state guarantees a certain level of internet connectivity anywhere in the state. If someone isn’t getting that, the state loans them a starlink dish and they pay some fee cheaper than any internet provider. The internet providers would then be incentivized to finish running fiber throughout the state so they can continue receiving revenue.
wallet535 OP t1_ixi2yh5 wrote
Interesting. I was talking mostly about ratemaking but this also may have merit.
reveazure t1_ixjsd66 wrote
Well the problem I have isn’t the rate but I just can’t get anything better than 1 Mbps DSL. If they said “you can’t charge more than $10/Mbps” that might also work.
Vivecs954 t1_ixi0cbx wrote
If you live in a neighborhood or city/town with multiple options for internet it’s fine.
I lived in Hyde Park and I could get RCN or Verizon FIOS and RCN was cheap it was $29.99 a month.
I live in Mansfield now and we can get xfinity or Verizon. Xfinity was a ripoff, I went with Verizon $39.99 a month for 300mbps up and down.
It’s sucks for people in places with only xfinity which I think is the north end, and Cambridge. No options there.
Sheabird_26 t1_ixefnaj wrote
i mean national grid is a nightmare... do I want some bid out and then stuck with the service those 1-2 providers give? I mean dont this companies comcast, RCN, Verizon etc. all have to have agreements with the towns they are in?
wallet535 OP t1_ixem2ig wrote
That’s a good question. Idk exactly what municipalities agree with the cable/telecom companies. Anyone?
drtywater t1_ixf4i6k wrote
Department of public utilities are the same folks responsible for regulating safety on the T….
Present-Evidence-560 t1_ixe273z wrote
I’ve been paying $40/mo for xfinity for the past 2 years. Not an intro price, and not the most basic plan. Idk what y’all are doing, obviously not doing enough shopping around for deals. Look into different credit cards and their offers, that’s where you get the best prices for things. If you pay with a certain credit card, you pay a significantly reduced price for things.
theurbanmapper t1_ixe2vxy wrote
Do you live somewhere with internet options? When FIOS came to the neighborhood, I could get good cheap internet. Before that there were no options to shop around. Not sure about other neighborhoods.
Present-Evidence-560 t1_ixe3y6z wrote
I do but I’ve never used anything but xfinity growing up so it’s part loyalty, part capital one deal that led me to using xfinity. Capital one also has another card that pays 3% back on streaming services so I have those automatically come out of that and I essentially get a discount because I use that card. I’d like to think that I’m attempting to beat back inflation with little things like this.
Ok-Nefariousness8541 t1_ixdv88o wrote
Asking the site that has been the MOST wrong on internet regulation is certainly something you can do, but what ever redditors think the opposite policy will be the correct one 😂.
Net neutrality anyone ? 😂
Conan776 t1_ixdxqqo wrote
Reddit opposes Net Neutrality? I had no idea.
Loose-Cloud-4356 t1_ixdv999 wrote
Regulate?
We should take them from private rich greedy crooks, and make them public utilities.