Considering how much they are charging for basic interhet access in USA i wonder why they can't provide better service. Granted with large distances in low population suburbs it's harder to build a network but from what i hear they suck even in densely populated areas.
There is plenty of fiber in most places. Plenty of unlit still, long ago strung up.
Issues with crap quality and throughput on cable company side is monopoly market share and local regulatory folks refusing to do their jobs.
Simply, they oversell at rates that would make even GVH blush.
Then they either fail to monitor the flows and schedule needed upgrades or they just don't care.
In my local clog situation, they just don't care. They've been monkeying with the main local node end build for 4-5 years. Every year out here though the service degrades more and more.
Believe me, if another cable company were to come in and threaten to take their contract, they'd straighten up, for a while. So in my instance, yeah, I'll be working that angle with other folks who would run a better network and do right by customers, while attacking their franchise agreement and filing the FCC complaints.
Time Warner is bad enough in many markets that old school DSL is actually much higher performing. That's unless you only use your internet in the middle of the night. Cause overnight, the cable retards finally show some throughput.
Cable can provider better service. It just bites into their profit hoarding to reinvest into their network and they refuse to do that. All about profits and cranking up bills for no reason. I love my internet, yesterday doing transfers for hours at < 100KB/s. Great speeds for $80-100 a month service
In like 1990.
