Comment by nemomarx
4 days ago
The telecom hasn't tried to get them on DSL? There's subsidized low income programs for it (or where, idk what the status is now) so I can't imagine the cost was much higher. And if I were an ISP I might eat the cost of the upgrade just to avoid support complications for a small set of customers.
DSL is expensive to install and has a limit on distance from a central office. Any new construction today would be fiber instead of copper anyways. I've seen fiber being strung in remote mountain valley where DSL/cable were unavailable. The area was just too far for DSL and the equipment in the CO wasn't up to snuff for it, and cable just never felt enough customers were there to justify running the cable. Everyone in the valley had the old school large satellite dishes. MaBell finally decided to run fiber instead, and there was much rejoicing.
DSL isn't available at all to them. The phone infrastructure in their neighborhood is ancient, there's zero cable.
Comcast and/or Century Link would be willing to set the neighborhood up, for a pretty sizable fee.
Here is an excellent use case for SPA web apps. See - a lot of low bandwidth connections still exist in the US.
(Sorry to slightly hijack the thread. It's been an ongoing debate on HN)
How does this make sense? SPAs have notoriously large bundles shipped to the client. Maybe in a PWA where the service worker gets saved for offline use.
Traditional server-rendered HTML should be orders of magnitude faster than most SPA bundles though.
4 replies →
Exist, yes; a lot, no. Dialup accounts for around 0.25% of households with an Internet subscription according to the 2019 census: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2019.B28011?q=ACSDT1Y20...
2 replies →
Around me, near Seattle, some of the DSLAMs are port limited. If you want DSL, you've got to wait for a port to open up.