US Broadband: Still No ISP Choice For Many, Especially at Higher Speeds (arstechnica.com) 95
Despite things getting better with adoption -- however slow -- of Google Fiber in several regions of the United States, the broadband market has gotten slightly less competitive since 2013, says a new report from the FCC. The report adds that, as a result, Americans still have little choice of high-speed broadband providers (PDF). From an ArsTechnica report: At the FCC's 25Mbps download/3Mbps upload broadband standard, there are no ISPs at all in 30 percent of developed census blocks and only one offering service that fast in 48 percent of the blocks. About 55 percent of census blocks have no 100Mbps/10Mbps providers, and only about 10 percent have multiple options at that speed. At the 10Mbps/1Mbps threshold -- which captures slower DSL technology in addition to cable and fiber -- about 90 percent of census blocks have at least two providers. These numbers exclude satellite, which is available nearly everywhere but has high latency and often low data caps. Even these numbers overstate the amount of competition, because an ISP might offer service to only part of a census block. The percentage of households with choice is thus even lower.
And why, from their perspective (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From their perspective they should not. Which is exactly why, from a consumer perspective, the FCC needs to regulate ISP's to ensure that a reasonable level of competition exists in the market.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
From their perspective they should not. Which is exactly why, from a consumer perspective, the FCC needs to regulate ISP's to ensure that a reasonable level of competition exists in the market.
Yes, but regulating ISPs and/or giving internet access a "common carrier" status means that you will:
1. Become a vegan
2. Howl at the moon on high tides
3. Binge on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
4. Get another tattoo
5. Put a basket on your bicycle
6. Write in Bernie Sanders for president
7. Roll up a bi-sexual Female Elf Druid for your 5th edition D&D game
8. Move to Brooklyn, but still keep your place in Portland for Airbnb
9. Consciously avoid using micro aggressions while waiting in l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fair enough, but a lack of regulation (and enforcement) gives you:
1. Bernard Madoff
2. Kenneth Lay
3. Jeffrey Skilling
4. Dennis Kozlowski
5. John Rigas
6. Joe Nacchio
7. James McDermott Jr.
8. Sam Waksal
9. Sam Israel
10. Bernie Ebbers
Re: (Score:2)
Either may be more profitable, but competition ill (Score:5, Informative)
Competing for two million customers in Queens (where there is one existing provider) would be much more profitable than expanding to underserved areas of New York state, such as parts of Hamilton County. Most underserved areas are underserved precisely BECAUSE they are unprofitable.
However, it's ILLEGAL to compete by bringing faster service to Queens. The franchise board assigns each neighborhood to a single provider. The map of assigned providers is gerrymandered in weird ways, too. A company might be allowed to serve 110th street and 112th street, but not 111rh.
Re:Either may be more profitable, but competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly this.
I get tired of hearing that $municipality has given a particular vendor a monopoly on cable TV/Internet. It simply isn't true. This has been illegal for 20 years, but still the myth persists.
Re:Either may be more profitable, but competition (Score:4, Informative)
Only in theory. See the NYC franchise map (Score:3)
The 1996 Act says that a city may not *unreasonably* grant *new* exclusive monopolies *if* the new competitor will be offering the exact same service under the exact same terms, and the new change will not impact (huge list of excuses).
A great example is New York City. One company has a franchise for one side of the street, the other gets the other side, with no overlap allowed.
The cable companies wrote into the law a huge number of number of ways to maintain exclusive monopolies. Here's one obvious and stu
Re: (Score:1)
Oh really! Then why is the municipality that I live in has given Time Warner an exclusive contract that bars anyone else from providing service?
Re:Either may be more profitable, but competition (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not illegal at all - how do you think Verizon is rolling out FiOS? If you wanted to launch the Raymorris Cable Company, and deploy service in NYC, you could certainly do so, provided you (a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern, and (b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods.
Oh, you mean like Google, who is being fought at every turn, by incumbent carriers as it seeks to expand into those underserved markets. I'll say it, Internet service is a utility. It should be treated as such and regulated as such. There a many ways to do this, some better than others. If we look at electricity, for example, the public utility model is demonstrably the best. The operators of the utility are beholden to the ratepayers/electorate, not stockholders, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Do some research before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern
What are the common ways for startups to show (a)?
(b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods
Is a franchisee allowed to propose a multi-year plan to cover "a large portion of the city", using revenue from one neighborhood to fund expansion into adjacent neighborhoods, or does it have to be at least borough-wide from day one?
Re: (Score:2)
(a) could show you had sufficient financial backing to be a viable concern
What are the common ways for startups to show (a)?
Show cash on hand, show borrowing capacity, show a business plan.
(b) agreed to cover at least a large portion of the city, if not all, and weren't just going to cherry-pick affluent neighborhoods
Is a franchisee allowed to propose a multi-year plan to cover "a large portion of the city", using revenue from one neighborhood to fund expansion into adjacent neighborhoods, or does it have to be at least borough-wide from day one?
It can be a phased rollout (don't need to have the entire network built to light it up), but reasonably rapid, and not just "attractive markets first." (can't say "we'll do Richguy Heights in 2016, and then 2% of Poverty Falls per year for the next 50 years").
Re: (Score:3)
However, it's ILLEGAL for franchise contracts to establish geographical monopolies, since the Telecommunication Act of 1996.
What the real problem is, is that installing wires takes millions of dollars, and modern capitalists can't invest that much capital without an ROI measured in quarters or their stock takes a dive. Thus we have Google (who has billions of dollars in
That was the original intent, didn't happen (Score:2)
Initially the 1996 was supposed to put an end to exclusive franchises, or at least it was pitched as trying to do that. Didn't happen that way. See the New York City cable franchise map for some ridiculous examples of not just exclusivity, but gerrymandered exclusivity based on the franchise fees paid to the city.
The 1996 Act says that a city may not *unreasonably* grant *new* exclusive monopolies *if* the new competitor will be offering the exact same service under the exact same terms, and the new change
Re: (Score:2)
So why doesn't someone like Google (who would probably make a lot of money if they were able to roll out Google Fiber in an area like NYC) throw a bunch of lobbying dollars at the relavent governments so the governments will end the monopolies?
Or would Google be unable to out-bid the incumbent in such a situation?
Lower hanging fruit: cities that allow competition (Score:2)
Google, and some of the cable overbuilders, have been quite clear that they'll focus first on cities where they don't *have* to out-bribe the incumbent. Why spend a ton of money and many years trying to be allowed to build in Seattle when you can build in Austin *today*?
For this reason, Austin now has as many as four high-speed providers competing, Seattle has none.
AFTER they've built out their networks in areas where the govt allows them to without undue restriction, then it might make sense to start looki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If even that. I live in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle on the edge of downtown and have ISDN at home. I'd love to have over a full Mbps at home like the T1 we have at work.
Time for government to take it over. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A good analogy would be cars.
Governments build roads, companies build cars and trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be one of the few times a car analogy is actually appropriate...
Re: (Score:2)
In the Eastern states you can only rent a car or small truck from one company and have to pay a toll on their network of roads.
You can rent any sized car or truck but only from the one company and you have to stay on their toll roads.
The company toll roads are planned to be fully paved in the fly over states over the next few decades.
If you move to the Western states you have the freedom to rent from just one different company and drive on their toll roads.
Freedom of choice is in the opt
Re: (Score:2)
Except none of that is true, there are multiple models and styles of cars to rent and buy and roads to build and pave a number of ways.
Nice try though, and I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight...
Re: (Score:2)
Hows that muni broadband going?
ISPs and FCC Republicans celebrate FCC’s court loss on muni broadband (8/12/2016)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
"States rightly can limit government-operated broadband networks
Re: (Score:2)
States are governments. So states can limit state-operated broadband networks?
Governments can affect all utilities in their domain...
Nice try though
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the phone companies do have that power - FUCK THEIR PROFITABILITY and get a goddamned halfway decent internet connection to my rural house!
I haven't needed a landline phone in over a decade, and since the FCC doesn't require the cable companies to serve my area, they won't serve my area. Remind me, again, how it benefits me to have telephone poles growing in my front yard, when I'm not "profitable" enough to run on
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the road technology keeps changing and the government is not going to be that motivated to spend the money to keep updating these roads unless there is heavy pressure from voters or more likely special interests.
Re: (Score:2)
But they do have to keep spending money on roads for maintenance, this would be no different.
Separate the pipe and the data (Score:2)
We need to have the government build the infrastructure once, and then lease space on it to any ISP who wants to compete. It's the only way that makes any sense and the only way that will ever allow any form of competition in this space.
I would suggest a simpler solution is to basically force a separation of pipe providers from ISPs. All that would require is for companies like Comcast to spin off one operation from the other. Having a single regulated private company providing the pipe is far less of a problem if there are multiple service providers competing for the data that goes across that pipe. Right now we have companies like Comcast being the line provider and the data services provider which gives them way more control than is
Re: (Score:2)
This separation can also fix network neutrality issues without difficult to enforce regulations. If you are free to jump from ISP to ISP, you can change providers easily.
If you don't think this is viable, think about when we used to use dial-up. You bought your pipe from one company, and Internet access from another. If your ISP didn't treat you well, you simply dialed another provider via the independent pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
It also works today with MVNOs for cellular service, and in the internet-based television with services like Netflix, Amazon, Sling, and Hulu (definitely interested in where their new live TV service goes).
They already have (Score:1)
Time for government to take it over
Why do you THINK we mostly have only one reasonable choice of iSP? It's because of government regulation!
If you want better ISP options you want LESS government, not an incompetent government that will certainly monitor and record all traffic after taking over your ISP.
Come of think of it, posting AC is a little too easy for someone from the CIA isn't it? You could have at least spent a few years working up some kind of believable Slashdot persona. You guys are getting l
Re: (Score:2)
If you want better ISP options you want LESS government, not an incompetent government that will certainly monitor and record all traffic after taking over your ISP.
You know Ken, your posts crack me up on a regular basis, but this here is good one!
Re:They already have (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta love the Randians and their inability to grasp the concept of natural monopoly.
The ISP stuff is less capital intensive, you just need permission to run cables out to a location
You're forgetting the "minor" step of actually running those cables. That "minor" step is why the incumbent has a natural monopoly and zero competition in most places.
You ignore reality (Score:2)
You gotta love anti-capitalist idiots with no understanding of market forces...
The REALITY is that running new lines is easy enough, and the rewards high enough, that companies will do so if they can.
I know this is the case, because I saw it happen - I had a provider (WideOpenWest) that was willing to pay to run fiber to the curb, they did so, and so for a few years I had faster (MUCH faster) internet speeds than my cable modem offers today at the top end of what I could even buy. And was pushed out of Col
Re: (Score:2)
So fuck off moron.
Re: (Score:2)
The REALITY is that running new lines is easy enough, and the rewards high enough, that companies will do so if they can.
The REALITY is the incumbent has already spent the money to run those lines, and already amortized the costs. They can easily cut their rate such that the "rewards" are no longer high enough for a new entrant.
See, the expensive part of rolling out new service is running the fucking wires. It is not technically difficult, but it costs WAY more than every other part of creating a new ISP/Telco/Cable company/Electric utility.
Which is why cable companies and telcos and electric companies coalesced into natura
Re:They already have (Score:4, Funny)
Then how comes that we over here in socialist commie pinko Europe routinely get speeds in the 50/10 ballpark even in remote rural areas with like 10 huts, a church and a place to get wasted on the weekends?
When I read that the FCC considers 25/3 "broadband" I had to check whether the posting is current or whether the /. database barfed and smuggled a post from 1999 into the feed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy with 6 Mbps internet. I downgraded my comcast plan to that to get it down to $50. Unfortunately, my choices here are Comcast, Comcast or Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
50 bucks get you 6mbit around here too. Upload, that is. With 30 down. But then again, this is deep in the countryside with little competition (iirc I only have 3-4 providers to choose from here), it's cheaper in larger towns.
Watchdog (Score:2)
If you want better ISP options you want LESS government, not an incompetent government that will certainly monitor and record all traffic after taking over your ISP.
That's cute that you think deregulation of Comcast and AT&T would result in more competition and/or better service. Honestly I have more control over the government than I do over a monopoly utility company. (not that I have much control over either) I very much desire the government to serve as a watch dog when monopolies are involved.
You don't need to have government involved beyond playing referee and setting the ground rules. There is no problem with private companies providing the services. Wh
Re: (Score:1)
Infrastructure providers should provide transport / access only. They connect an end user to an ISP. If you want regulation, you should put it at this layer.
Customer should be able to buy transport to a plethora of ISPs over this infrastructure. Once true choice of ISPs is in place, it becomes obvious that network neutrality as it exists, is silly. My ISP should be free to swing whatever deals they want to sway me to use their service.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how many of the current cable networks would have been built if no government right of way clearance and limited term monopolies had been on offer?
That would be next to zero.
Do you REALLY think they could build anything if they had to negotiate right of way with each and every property owner in the area?
Re: (Score:1)
The telco providers (both DSL and cable) stomped on choice of ISP as soon as they were allowed to do so.
We need to separate the *transport* infrastructure from the ISP *service* that rides on it. Regulate the transport, allow the service to run free of regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The infrastructure is already built in many places and the companies are making large profits so they could put the money towards upgrading/building the networks. In Canada the government didn't take over the infrastructure but forced the incumbents to share their networks with other ISPs. An incumbent charges, with a prescribed amount of profit, an independent ISP for the use of the last mile of their network (cable or DSL) and after that all traffic is routed onto the independent ISPs network. The incumbe
Right, but for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
First, you have to understand why this happened. It's unrealistic for a private company to string up cables or run pipes throughout a city. There's just too much private property, and it would take forever to negotiate for access rights with each property owner, never mind the few loonies who will never grant those right
Re: (Score:2)
There's a good reason for this - broadband infrastructure is crazy expensive to build. Some of the incumbents received big government subsidies to build their systems, but those days are gone and new companies can't compete. If they stole customers from the incumbents everyone would go bankrupt because nobody can afford to build these systems and only pick up a fraction of the homes passed as customers. We need to have the government build the infrastructure once, and then lease space on it to any ISP who wants to compete. It's the only way that makes any sense and the only way that will ever allow any form of competition in this space.
I think there's more to it than that, here in Norway we have ex-telco, ex-cable and ex-power companies all competing to roll out fiber first, because it seems to be the last round of vastly superior technology that can steal incumbent areas from their competitors. I just checked the latest national statistics and 679005 / 2042340 or one in three fixed broadband connections are now fiber, up 16.1% since last year. The competition once you have fiber is near zero because there's no incentive to run a second f
Gov't already took it over (Score:2)
I'm all for letting the gov't manage critical infrastructure we all want and need. I don't want Facebook & Google building my roads. But why lease it out so that some lucky a-hole can skim 20% off the top? Just socialize it already and be done with it. Trying to privatize stuff like this doesn't lead to efficiency, it just lets some
Still No ISP Choice For Many (Score:2)
And the reasons cannot be more obvious. I needn't say anything more.
North Georgia is the worst (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
most 3rd world countries have blazing fast internet for super cheap (at least in the big cities)
Re: (Score:1)
most 3rd world countries have blazing fast internet for super cheap (at least in the big cities)
Oh.. so we just have to wait till the end of the Trump presidency and then we'll have blazing fast internet in the U.S?
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. It does not have even close to the capacity to deal with any significant numbers of users. Spot Beams help a lot but your still not going to cram a lot of users into it especially not if they are living close to each other.
Caps are why (Score:2)
These numbers exclude satellite, which is available nearly everywhere but has high latency and often low data caps.
I think its a viable option.
Satellite Internet has monthly caps comparable to cellular. Would you want to drop your wired Internet and switch solely to mobile broadband, and then just eat the overage on each of your PCs when Microsoft or Canonical pushes the big six-month upgrade? Just because others are [slashdot.org] doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Satellite internet is not price-competitive. It manages to cost way more than even Comcast, for much less service.
Comcast starting to lock people in in Utah (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Comcast starting to lock people in in Utah (Score:4, Interesting)
With Google Fiber coming to areas in Utah, it's interesting to see Comcast start to push heavy contracts but at a discounted price. I think they want to make sure that people are at least locked in from changing to Google Fiber for a couple of years. Seems like a last-ditch effort to protect market share in the face of an obviously much superior competitor.
When I bought my house around a year ago, Comcast was the only service offering any kind of high speed internet to my area. Everything else was dial-up. They offered a pretty decent discounted price for 75Mbps for a 2 year contract. Break off the contract early and there's a $10 per month remaining fee. Of course a few months ago AT&T finally added service to my area offering 1Gbps service (we knew they were coming months before because we could see utility paint markings and saw AT&T vans). As soon as my contract is up-or almost up anyway-I will switch to the 1Gbps plan with AT&T. They had to have known AT&T was moving in, that's why they were trying to lock people into 2-year contracts. Wouldn't surprise me if they start offering 1Gbps, or at least 100 Mbps for a cheaper price, within the next 6 months or so.
Thank you, Big Government (Score:1)
First, FDR, the beloved Illiberal icon, still dizzy from success of gold-confiscation [wikipedia.org], gives us FCC [wikipedia.org] — providing for AT&T phone monopoly among other niceties.
Then, in 60-80ies, they allowed local governments to regulate cable-TV providers — which suffocated competition. By the time of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org] was passed — increasing competition among its stated goals — it was too late. The cable-TV and telephone giants were already too big. Vast behemoths, they are too
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
High-speed bandwidth requires a conduit (Score:3)
If you're providing only wireless service, that means cell towers and crowded radio spectrum. The phone companies are already doing this, so expanding from 3G to 4G to 5G is basically a hardware upgrade at designated points (unless someone tries WiMax 2.0).
Cable companies spent *decades* building out coax networks, and then 20 more years upgrading to digital cable (ie, fiber to area). Most fiber in use nowadays still goes over fiber that was laid down (or over paths that were originally built out) during the dot com era, the creation of which led to many of those companies' bankruptcy. Speaking of dot com, we tried the ILEC sells circuits to CO-provider which is resold by an ISP to provide consumer competition market and it collapsed along with everything else back then. (Thanks, COVAD.)
So aside from wireless upgrades, everything else requires a last mile physical path to homes. New homes can be built with whatever in an urban or suburban area, but existing homes outside of downtown cores, and rural homes of any type, don't justify additional, non-unified wireline build-outs for the cost. If you're hitting 25Mbps, you should ask yourself how much more you're willing to pay to go up to 50 or 100Mbps. Then, add in all of your neighbors and divide by the cost of the build-out. If the math doesn't work, you won't get it. If the math does work, a local provider should step in. If no one steps in, go to a bank and do it yourself and make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Cable companies spent *decades* building out coax networks
And there is the problem. Last mile monopoly breaks everything. Move the problem away from Last Mile, and everything starts to work as it should.
Google Fiber? (Score:1)
Despite things getting better with adoption -- however slow -- of Google Fiber in several regions of the United States
Really? It's in six fucking cities. Slow doesn't describe that. Google Fiber doesn't exist. Please stop sucking the Google dick.
Re:Google Fiber? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, they're not exactly taking over, but they have helped expose some of the lies. For example, the ISPs would have us believe they're absolutely gutted that they can't possibly offer faster connections or raise their data caps even one iota or they'll go broke. Then as soon as Google announces their expansion into the area, the laws of physics change and they start offering an order of magnitude faster connections and triple the data limit.
downgraded to 25/3, they are messing with it (Score:1)
back when 25/3 was the max speed, it was seamless.
Now that I downgraded to 25/3, I get a 2-3 second lag before youtube videos start.
Comcast is messing with to make it have poor performance.
it's okay, I can still watch multiple videos while downloading and playing boom beach. But there is that 2-3 seconds of lag at the start.
No lag before web browsing.
Don't worry, the free market solves everything! (Score:2)
It's very sad that socialist countries beat USA (Score:1)
We get overcharged, get less service per dollar, and can't even buy 250 Mbps or 1 Gbps in most major cities, when virtually all first world socialist countries can buy faster internet for less cost.
At least some of us can get 40 Gbps at widespread Internet 2 campus ports, or 100 Gbps at a few Internet 2 campus ports, but it must suck for the 99.99 percent of America that doesn't have that.
So very, very true! (Score:2)
I had Centurylink try to sell me 1M DSL when I moved into an old apartment (a downgrade of about 15M that I had with Centurylink before), so I bit the bullet and got Xfinity internet (no phone, no cable) for about 30M. More than I wanted to spend, but it isn't sucktastic in speeds.
Still waiting for Google Fiber to move into the neighborhood.