said by swhx7 :

I think what we're seeing here is the ISPs trying to exhaust all alternatives to wring more money out of subscribers without spending on upgrades. Only when they reach the point of diminishing returns on these tactics - or face competition, whichever comes first - will they finally resort to upgrading the infrastructure for more capacity.

said by xsiddalx :

Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice?

said by thevorpal :

For most people, competition does not exist. It took me 4 visits from Time Warner to determine that my new home was NOT able to be serviced with cable. I then explored the options.

Wireless: Would require me to build a 50' tower to receive the signal

CellPhone based wireless: Latency and very poor signal at my house. The result would be dialup.

Satellite: Large initial investment, resulting in a sub-par and expensive internet service.

ISDN: Another fairly expensive option with lackluster results.

DSL: My CO isn't equipped for DSL.

Fiber: If I can't get DSL, this won't be around soon.

T1: Yes I considered it. I even considered starting my OWN ISP.

I lived off dialup for a year.

Eventually I paid the cost of running a cable line to my house, it just took 10 months for the cable company to get around to it and cost me a good amount.

So competition? No, it was hard for me to get anything, and I was willing to sink costs into the infrastructure to get it.

said by xsiddalx :

I'm really not being a snot, really!

You have quoted 6 viable choices. None of them really optimal in my opinion, but they are choices. This is why the various regulatory entities argue competition exists. It does. Even if you have to pay an arm and a leg, you have options with regard to whom you pay an arm and a leg to.

Internet access is only worth what your willing to pay given your choices. Seems obvious, but all of us know real competition to drive prices lower...especially when some of use used to pay a buck an hour on time shares.

It sounds like dial-up is your best choice. Depending on how you use it, I have discovered that it ain't quite as bad as everyone thinks it is unless you need the ads and other shockwave junk. Tough to get into details, but even MMO games I played as well on dial up as "broadband" when I had no "broadband".

Again, I am not being a snot, it just sounds like you do have quite a bit of competition. The competition doesn't sound like they are at your price point yet to compete with dial-up...it'll come. You're willingness to sink costs into their infrastructure development will possibly make your neighbors happy if that run financed a terminal.

Then again, your neighbors will just think the build out made sense for the cable company. Did you think about talking to them to share the costs of a build out?

Out of curiosity, was it worth it? Are you free and clear or tied to a contract? If your really bold, what was the cost of the run?

FWIW, from what I have seen, some people are getting fiber based connections before DSL is made available. It depends on the telco and their current network. Sometimes FTTH is relatively equivalent or the same as deploying a DSL terminal with copper to the home. The downside is that your home can create "noise", old inside wire is old inside wire.