[axaxs]

I feel like this is some form of Stockholm Syndrome. You shouldn't pay more. You should be getting better speeds for the same or lesser price. Technology is advancing and the carriers are purposely holding us back, for exactly the reason you gave.

[takeda]

If ADSL is cheap I actually would prefer to have it for redundancy. Phone line and cable is generally the only lines that are routed to a home that can be used for Internet.

[rhino369]

Deploying fiber is expensive. He’s going to have to pay for it—AT&T isn’t a charity.

[JustSomeNobody]

You sure? We tax payers have given it $Billions and AT&T hasn’t met its obligations for that money. I bet if one were to trace it, it was funneled to rich shareholders.

[zmzrr]

ISPs should lay out an expensive fibre network (so expensive that Google Fiber had to give up on it) and I should pay less money? That's just crazy.

[kstrauser]

Why? We already paid them $400 billion dollars to get you decent Internet access (see: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5...). I think that gives us the right to expect you to have something better than 14Mbps DSL at a decent price.

[keanebean86]

> so expensive that Google Fiber had to give up on it

Part of that cost comes from ATT and Comcast using their government sugar daddy to make running fiber as expensive and difficult as possible.

Example: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/att-and-comcast-...

[axaxs]

Absolutely! Even ignoring all the stimulus money and tax breaks probably given, municipalities all over the US are building out their own fiber that is blowing the others away in performance and even price usually.