Slashdot Mirror
Non-Cable Internet Providers Offer Faster Speeds To the Wealthy (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: When non-cable Internet providers -- outlets like ATT or Verizon -- choose which communities to offer the fastest connections, they don't juice up their networks so everyone in their service area has the option of buying quicker speeds. Instead, they tend to favor the wealthy over the poor, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity. The Center's data analysis found that the largest non-cable Internet providers collectively offer faster speeds to about 40 percent of the population they serve nationwide in wealthy areas compared with just 22 percent of the population in poor areas. That leaves tens of millions of Americans with the choice of either purchasing an expensive connection from the only provider in their area -- typically a cable company -- or just doing the best they can with slower speeds. Middle-income areas don't fare much better, with a bit more than 27 percent of the population having access to a DSL provider's fastest speeds. The Center reached its conclusions by merging the latest Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data with income information from the U.S. Census Bureau. The non-cable Internet providers -- the four largest are ATT Inc, Verizon Communications Inc, CenturyLink Inc, and Frontier Communications Corp -- hook up customers over telephone wires that are Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), or they use hybrid networks that include some fiber connections near (and sometimes directly to) homes. The Center included all types of connection in its analysis. These companies account for nearly 40 percent of the 92 million Internet connections nationwide. Cable companies, such as Comcast Corp and Charter Communications Inc, operate under a different set of conditions. These providers offer the same fast speeds to almost every community they serve, in part because of franchise agreements with local governments. But a previous Center investigation and other reports have shown that cable firms sometimes avoid lower-income or hard-to-reach areas based on how franchise agreements are written. Poor areas not served by the cable companies are not included in the Centerâ(TM)s analysis, which results in what seems like an equitable distribution of speeds across income levels. "Society said it did not matter if you could pay for electricity; we wanted everyone to have it. Society said we would not limit dial tone to those who could pay the most, we gave it to all," said telecommunications lawyer Gerard Lederer of Best Best and Krieger LCC in Washington, D.C., in an e-mail. "Broadband is quickly becoming that utility, and if applications only work at high speeds, then the universal availability of that speed must be the goal, otherwise you are providing everyone with water, just some of the water is not drinkable."
When seeking money, they tend to seek out people with more money. More news at 11:00.
It is just unfair, that the rich have a better life than the poor... The government must mandate equal quality of life for all!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Problem with that is that only the wealthy areas would get any infrastructure. Had this applied to power, the power company would have New York lit up, but everywhere else would have to bring their own generators. Vital services need to come under the eyes of government, otherwise, it will only be a rich man's toy, and the digital divide will only grow larger.
In a better world, we would have a wireless mesh system by now, spanning entire cities, with LTE used to be able to get people who are further away.
But who cares about decent access to the Internet? Company quarterly profits uber Alles is the motto of these times.
Of course, the ability of the residents in wealthier neighborhoods to actually PAY for the faster internet service has nothing to do with it...
Next up on Slashdot, "This just in, Tesla has yet to build a new car showroom in a lower-income neighborhood!"
Ken
> They built none of the infrastructure they profit from.
> They're rent seeking parasites.
Some of the cable companies are ASSHOLES. No doubt about that. Personally I've had pretty good experiences with them, but I'm Texas, where there's competition. I know that people on the coasts particularly often continue to live with the cable monopolies their government created years ago, and those monopoly providers sometimes suck, particularly, their customer service sucks and Comcast has questionable billing practices.
To be honest, however, those assholes DO each spend over a billion dollars every year upgrading their networks. Here's $300 million / year just in Chicago alone, for example:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
Verizon has spent $15 billion on FIOS. Goldman calculated that for Google to become a national ISP, it would cost them $140 billion.
It is honest and right to criticize their customer service, and to point out Comcast's illegal billing. It is false, and makes one appear rather uninformed, to claim that they don't invest HUGE amounts of money in building and constantly upgrading the infrastructure. When you make a claim like that which is so easily shown to be absolutely false, you appear to be either clueless or disingenuous, at which point people stop listening to you and don't hear your legitimate complaints about customer service or other real issues.
Really... So those excavators digging up the streets and the Comcast trucks swarming around pulling cables and testing stuff on the street I live on maybe 15 years ago wasn't Comcast? Now, we all get (for a price of course, but water costs money too and it truly is needed for life) effectively 180mbps down (unfortunately, only about 12mpbs up) and could go higher with a business account. Who was pretending to be "Comcast" - was it the FBI, the CIA, the FCC, the FDA (sorry, my tinfoil hat is a bit loose so I am not up to date on the latest conspiracy theories).
Specifically which Tier 1/2/3 network providers providing transit for consumer packets are using infrastructure built by the government now? Hint, it's not 1985 any more.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
And if they didn't try to block anyone else (like city councils) from providing it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Car Dealerships selling Porsche and Ferrari build in higher income neighborhoods. News at 11.
All joking aside. Of course businesses with expensive products target higher income areas. Next we'll be demanding Apple build Apple Stores in the ghettos.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Look up the universal service fund.
OK
We were taxed extra to pay for those lines.
Not exactly. Here is the right information, straight from the horse's mouth.
Universal Service Fund
Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) operated as a mechanism by which interstate long distance carriers were assessed to subsidize telephone service to low-income households and high-cost areas. The Communications Act of 1934 stated that all people in the United States shall have access to rapid, efficient, nationwide communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional definition of universal service - affordable, nationwide telephone service to include among other things rural health care providers and eligible schools and libraries. Today, FCC provides universal service support through four mechanisms:
1. High Cost Support Mechanism provides support to certain qualifying telephone companies that serve high cost areas, thereby making phone service affordable for the residents of these regions.
2. Low Income Support Mechanism assists low-income customers by helping to pay for monthly telephone charges as well as connection charges to initiate telephone service.
2. Rural Health Care Support Mechanism allows rural health care providers to pay rates for telecommunications services similar to those of their urban counterparts, making telehealth services affordable.
4. Schools and Libraries Support Mechanism, popularly know as the "E-Rate," provides telecommunication services (e.g., local and long-distance calling, high-speed lines), Internet access, and internal connections (the equipment to deliver these services) to eligible schools and libraries.
I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I can certainly see that the subsidies you are referring to are used to provide service to the exceptional locations, not every customer Comcast serves.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.