Slashdot Mirror
Comcast, Charter Dominate US; Telcos 'Abandoned Rural America,' Report Says (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Comcast is the only choice for 30 million Americans when it comes to broadband speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream, the report says. Charter Communications is the only choice for 38 million Americans. Combined, Comcast and Charter offer service in the majority of the U.S., with almost no overlap. Yet many Americans are even worse off, living in areas where DSL is the best option. AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos still provide only sub-broadband speeds over copper wires throughout huge parts of their territories. The telcos have mostly avoided upgrading their copper networks to fiber -- except in areas where they face competition from cable companies. These details are in "Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom," a report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). The full report should be available at this link today. "The broadband market is broken," the report's conclusion states. "Comcast and Charter maintain a monopoly over 68 million people. Some 48 million households (about 122 million people) subscribe to these cable companies, whereas the four largest telecom companies combined have far fewer subscribers -- only 31.6 million households (about 80.3 million people). The large telecom companies have largely abandoned rural America -- their DSL networks overwhelmingly do not support broadband speeds -- despite years of federal subsidies and many state grant programs."
Cheating bastards. They need their loopholes closed NOW.
This is one of those areas where I advocate for more government involvement. Allow cities/counties to build out their own local infrastructure, and allow regional ISPs to then piggyback on it ( for a maintenance fee ) and provide services.
Internet access ranks up there with utilities anymore, so let's start treating it as such.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Broadband is broken, we have known this for YEARS.
The problem is that we have GOVERNMENT regulation preventing competition (Franchise Agreements) and until we figure out a way to get out of them, and allow for more competition over the last mile, we're going to be stuck with ever increasing government rules and regulations trying to fix the problem of government's own making.
My solution, is fairly simple, yet radical. The Local Municipality owns and operates the LAST mile itself (like a road), then the problem will remain. There are ways to bring competition to the marketplace, allowing consumers to choose who their provider, rather than the one size fits all approach government tends to bring.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What free market?
The last mile cable monopoly is actually government regulated and sponsored monopoly called "Franchise Agreements". There is little or more likely, no "choice" for consumers.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think taxpayers have plowed something like $4B into rural broadband, it is time for Ajit to call Comcast and Charter and ask for a refund. $2B each.
Or, municipalities could just grow their own, oh wait, they can't, every time they try Comcast and Charter sue them.
Because people don't oust the legislators that are bribed at the state and federal levels with campaign contributions. The history of utilities has shifted dramatically since the breakup of the Bell Companies.
First the telcos tried to get state authority ceded to federal jurisdiction, then found a way to get an FCC Chair to actually believe that they were exempt from Title II so that net neutrality was another fuzzy issue that could be propaganda-controlled to cede the FCC's authority to provide a truly neutral space. Game won. But not by you, or I.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
despite years of federal subsidies and many state grant programs.
But if you just give us some more money, we'll get Right On That. Oh, did we mention our last contribution to your election campaign?
I was an AT&T customer 2 decades ago. I had ISDN at home (work paid, dial-up was just too slow) and they were rolling out Pronto, their higher-speed system in my area "in 6 months or so." After calling like every 6 months, I gave up after 5 years.
I now (different house) have Comcast Business Internet, 30MBit. It works, no caps, I can call and get an actual tech in 30-60 seconds that can speak bits and DHCP. It's great, but I'm sure I'm paying for it.
Before that I had AT&T DSL at 1.5Mbit with caps. It was funny, they charged me for going over my monthly limit which I did every month -- at a cheaper rate than my normal monthly bill. Instead of being a penalty for me, it was almost a bonus.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
This is actually a perfect example of government regulation run amok.
This is not surprising considering these guys lobby the government to consider broadband deployments acceptable at 50% of a large swath of an area. Really, the entire system is broken, not just the telecom industry but the way we do business altogether in America.
I live 20 miles from the apple headquarters in silicon valley and can not get broadband to my house. I would bet that the majority of people who cant get broadband live less then 20 miles from the nearest available broadband but for one reason or another (topography) can not. Telcos could fix these blind spots but wonâ(TM)t unless forced.
This is the root of the 'problem' - local governments negotiate exclusive agreements for various physical plants; cable cos get pole space which they usually actually have to rent from some entity, be it the ILEC, power utility, or the government. Telcos (ILECs usually, though CLECs are not different in this) either owned the pole space and so have the physical plant via incumbency and so offer DSL, or rented from the 'owner' and have virtually perpetual agreements, given that POTS was once critical, and now telephone is just a must-carry issue...
If the local government won't permit competitive cable TV-style franchises, this will not change soon. Wireless solutions are inadequate, even 5G will not really work in urban areas, though 600MHz could revolutionize rural delivery. Ethernet/MPLS-type delivery would work, but pole rentals are the problem, and that is the equivalent of competitive Cable TV-style delivery, with the competitive issue still in play.
New York seems to actually intend to kick out Charter Spectrum, for failing to deliver. This is actually NY invalidating the TWC/Bright House mergers, essentially making Charter unwind these and go away. No good can come of this, but perhaps it goes to appeal, and then NY says the era of exclusive agreements is over, and competitors come in to fight for share.
I truly doubt this is fixable in my lifetime. Geography and population cause problems in the US that just don't exist in Europe and Asia, where density solves the cost equation so much easily. Britain has a very different governmental structure, good and bad, and other nations for better or worse are just not the US. Several wireless technologies were promised, none delivered. But we hope and hope. And pay and pay.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Satellite is not a viable replacement for many high-speed internet needs. You can't use it for any sizeable Netflix/Hulu usage due to bandwidth limits and online gaming... forget it.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
While you can live with that, not everyone can. Gaming is a more prominent usage that needs lower ping times. I'm sure VOIP and VPN would be happier with lower pings. 20-30ms slower may not cause enough of a delay itself, but that also depends on the baseline
On top of that, the speeds aren't really any better than DSL. They're also usually either much more expensive, or heavily datacapped.
It's not a monopoly. has been illegal to do this for years.
It's been illegal for properties to do this. That is, apartments, condos, and HOAs. City and county governments on the other hand...
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
should any of those rural counties wish to create their own broadband services Comcast will be happy to send in lawyers to point out that there are state laws explicitly prohibiting municipal broadband services in there area. I mean, "abandoned" implies they'd be left alone...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The problem is they grant this monopoly in exchange for the ISP promising to give broadband to rural communities. The ISPs promise, they get their monopoly in the lucrative cities, then drag their heels and do as little as possible to support the rural parts of the state. The state doesn't take them to task for this, and believes their promises of 'some day soon'. Or perhaps they don't believe the ISP, but believe they have no way to break the monopoly.
A federal 'Your Service Sucks Tax"
love is just extroverted narcissism
Satellite is not a viable replacement for many high-speed internet needs.
A) Gaming, or anything where lag is an issue.
B) Rain. I was on vacation one night in our hotel (in the middle of nowhere) got caught in a rainstorm. Their satellite TV and internet went straight to hell.
Fiber has become cheap enough that overhead/aerial service can be competitive pretty easily on a local scale with an average distance between passed homes of ~300' and 30% penetration, as long as the utility owning the poles will be cooperative. A 1-mile aerial "spur" is competitive with an $800 installation fee, using existing poles.
About the only people that cannot be competitively served are those that can't pool 100 customers in a 10-mile radius.
When there aren't utility poles that can be used, the density requirement generally doubles, and if you need to go underground (in a rural area), the cost doubles again.
And, wireless has gotten to the point that offering competitive "broadband" speeds works well if you have the terrain to support it.
Regardless, allowing municipalities to create their own infrastructure would encourage competition and render the "Net Neutrality" debate largely moot; there would be more ISPs to choose from and cities could rule that their infrastructure is only usable by those who follow NN ideals. ...assuming, of course, the idea would be to merely provide the infrastructure and not the internet connectivity, reserving that for companies to come in and provide.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
In the recent past, whenever a story would come up here about how poor the broadband service is in America, there would be posters here proclaiming "Fiber? Feh! Luddites stuck in the 20th Century! America is far ahead in wireless broadband which totally superior in every way!". But thus far (with 70 posts) there is not one of these wireless corporate shills around.
Perhaps it is because TFA is not pointing the superior service and pricing in many other countries. That is what often seemed to trigger the trollish claims of US wireless being "more advanced" and superior to fiber.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
New York is one of the most densely populated cities in the world, with a population of ~ 8.6 million and that's the best you can do?
That's a totally broken system, and the fact you think a choice of 3 in New York is good is a bit odd.
As far as making their investment back, TFA explains
despite years of federal subsidies and many state grant programs.
They're being paid to supply rural Internet, and they still won't do it.
that is not true. If it was truly gov. regulated, there would be net neutrality. In addition, any company would be able to offer services over the lines. They can not. This is about oligarchies and how detrimental they are.
We need to remove the monopolies along with allowing ANY local gov to run broadband, but then farm out services.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
exactly right.
This is why we need to allow real competition to take route. That means that local gov should also be able to compete .
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...government regulated by telco captured agencies, AKA regulatory capture. The telcos love and lobby for regulations which prevent competition. And that's free market capitalism in action.
"If they want better internet they should move to where it exists." - And contribute to further pollution, traffic and overcrowding of large cities? I don't see how that helps at all. Besides, this is classic blaming the victim reasoning. The problem is not that I chose to live in a rural area. The problem is that the broadband monopolies did not live up to their end of the bargain.
I'll give you an example. Where I live every lot is zoned at one acre minimum. Less than 5 miles away some developer is building a subdivision with thousands of houses shoehorned one beside the other. I choose not to live in an HOA managed neighborhood where the next house is 10 feet from my lot line. The HOA is getting high speed broadband while the acre dwellers are left to fend for ourselves. Luckily, I have a fixed wireless provider that provides about 25MB/sec and that's good enough for Netflix. But I can't get Gigabit speed because Cox Communications won't expand the service to the "rural" area - 5 miles away.
As others have pointed out, the TelCos have been granted this virtual Oligopoly in part because they agreed to service rural areas. They have not held up to their end of the bargain and our governments appear to do nothing about it. Yet another example of a problem caused expressly by our elected officials.