Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Brings Fiber To Rich Areas While the Rest Are Stuck On DSL, Study Finds (arstechnica.com)
According to a new study from UC Berkeley's Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, AT&T has been focused on deploying fiber-to-the-home in the higher-income neighborhoods of California, giving wealthy people access to gigabit internet while others are stuck with DSL internet that doesn't even meet state and federal broadband standards. Ars Technica reports: California households with access to AT&T's fiber service have a median income of $94,208, according to "AT&T's Digital Divide in California," in which the Haas Institute analyzed Federal Communications Commission data from June 2016. The study was funded by the Communications Workers of America, an AT&T workers' union that's been involved in contentious negotiations with the company. By contrast, the median household income is $53,186 in California neighborhoods where AT&T provides only DSL, with download speeds typically ranging from 768kbps to 6Mbps. At the low end, that's less than 1 percent of the gigabit speeds offered by AT&T's fiber service. The median income in areas with U-verse VDSL, which ranges from 12Mbps to 75Mbps, is $67,021. In 4.1 million California households, representing 42.8 percent of AT&T's California service area, AT&T's fastest speeds fell short of the federal broadband definition of 25Mbps downloads and 3Mbps uploads, the report said.
who would have tought
They'll go where the money is.
That's the proper way to run a business.
Rich people also drive Teslas, were the first to have HDTV and before that, the first to have home computers.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This is such a stupid article. Seems to incite flame, but it's like stating: Rolex builds stores in affluent shopping centers only, study finds.
So? Gigabit internet costs more than DSL, and it costs more to build out. So if they go to where there are a high number of subscribers who can likely afford it, they are more likely to recoup the buildout investment, and the service then won't die off. Otherwise the headline would read: AT&T kills off GPON service due to low subscriber rates.
The rich get the product first, lowering the N'th's cost and so by making it more affordable for the products to be moved down market. Everyone knows this.
The thing is, telecom companies don't operate in the same environment as Rolex or (as suggested above) Tesla.
First of all, Rolex or Tesla won't refuse to sell you their products if you come along with cash just because of your address.
Secondly, and most importantly, those companies don't get massive subsidies from taxpayers to provide services to all, not just a privileged few.
Finally, if you are looking at Tesla or other products in their initial phase, there is certainly a time when the costs are high and they drop as adoption rates increase, but at this time, GPON is well established technology. Costs are not likely to drop very much.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
maybe not so stupid when you consider how many hundreds of millions of dollars AT&T was given to build out better than DSL service to underserved and rural areas. And just where did all that money go?