ISPs Fight To Keep Broadband Gaps Secret

Aaron writes "Broadband Reports notes how Maryland was working on a law that would force ISPs to show exactly where they offer service and at what speed. The goal was to help map coverage gaps, since FCC broadband data is worthless for this purpose. Cable and phone company lobbyists have scuttled the plan, convincing state leaders the plan would bring 'competitive harm,' 'stifle innovation,' and even close local coffee shops. Of course the real reason is they don't want the public to know what criteria they use to determine the financial viability of your neighborhood — as they cherry-pick only the most lucrative areas for next-generation services. The Center for Public Integrity is trying to obtain the unreleased raw FCC penetration data, but these companies are also fighting this tooth and nail."

Funny thing...

[AnswerIs42]

I had that figured out 4 years ago. I have been waiting 4+ years for some kind of broadband to get to my location.. and all I get from Verzon is "we are expanding to your area by the end of the year" .. for the last 4 years. While they keep improving the areas where they make most their money.

I am sure once more "City Folk" move out by where I live, broadband will come flying in and those poeple will only have waited maybe a year and think it is "Amazing how fast broadband came here!"

I'm on the other side of the donut.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're sitting outside the broadband donut, but the same problem exists inside the donut hole. We're apparently never going to have our lines upgraded to support DSL, etc.

Apparently, our subdivision is too close to low-income areas. We were among the very last in town to get cable internet access, and we were literally right across the street from the cable company's center of operations. (I could have run ethernet through the storm drains and not been out of spec!)

Franchise Agreements?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Has anybody here successfully negotiated a franchise agreement which specifies universal coverage, especially in more rural communities?

A friend pointed out to me that the companies running these networks only have so much money to invest, so to the extent that they're allowed to, they will *always* invest money in areas with higher returns over areas with lower returns, which means there's *never* going to be rural investment while they have other opportunities and no requirements. Phone service and electric service are everywhere because they have to be and that's good for society. This is one case where the guiding hand seems to be important.

I know innumerable folks around here who would happily pay the monthly bill, if only the [cable/phone] company would run a cable up the street. The streets aren't that long, the population isn't that sparse, and the net is short-term profitable -- only it's less profitable than running FiOS in urban centers.

Re:money well spent

[Paladin144]

Excellent point. Talk about the scam of the century. Is there no one in Washington with the balls to stand up the cable companies?

I'm currently experiencing blinding, piercing rage at Comcast. First they "traded" Time-Warner for all of the subscribers in the Twin Cities (for some other city) and the next thing they did was jack up their prices for high-speed internet-only subscribers by 18 dollars a month. Unless I can talk them down I'm going to go with DSL -- no matter how shitty it is -- simply out of sheer spite (and the whole blinding, piercing rage thing).

These ISPs are out of control. They're abusing the system every single way they can think of (Network Neutrality might be a necessary evil), and no one seems to be able to stop them. I think city-run wireless might be our only defense because it makes the ISPs howl with pain at the very idea of competition. Can somebody tell me with a straight face that this is what capitalism is supposed to look like?

Large telecom vs. small telecom

[nortcele]

My parents live a very rural part of Idaho. 22 miles from the nearest town (and by town, I mean one of 700 people. The next closest is 36 miles in the other direction. Albion telephone provides the phone service to the area. I figured he would never see broadband before 2010... and even then it would have to be in some wireless/satellite form. The good folks of Albion telephone spent some serious time putting on and taking off various things in the phone switching boxes in the path to the house. Long story short, they figured out how to get DSL broadband stretched several miles beyond the normal limit. And the cost? Same as if he had been in town. Where he used to be lucky to get a 26.4k connection, it's nearly 500k.

The small companies know how to treat small customers. They know you personally and care. To Verizon/Sprint/AT&T - you're just a number with a dollar sign behind.

Re:Marketability?

[mandelbr0t]

You raise some interesting points, but your example is flawed. I'm from Canada where we have Universal Health Care and regulated Telecoms. To me, these are both decisions based on the same level of social responsibility. We regulate health care to ensure that there's no free market influences which will drive the cost of health care up for anyone. A good example: someone has a rare disease, which only a very few doctors in the entire world will likely be able to be cure. My understanding is that in the US, a fund-raiser coupled with large amounts of media publicity is the only way for anyone but the wealthiest citizen to be able to afford the doctor's fee, and any travel/hospitalization expenses, etc. Even if cured, the individual will have had her privacy invaded for many years hence. In Canada, even the poorest family would be provided with coverage for the expensive, experimental treatment. They wouldn't even need to show up in the newspaper.

The idea of regulated telecoms comes from the same school of thought: allowing large monopolies to control such important infrastructure AND set the price on the lease of said infrastructure inherently favours the wealthy. If telecoms were allowed to provide higher quality service to only the wealthiest neighbourhoods, then the poorest neighbourhoods would have only the worst service. Having used both the best service (business DSL) and the worst (@Home network), I'd say that the gap is nearly 10 years of technology. Given that the current privatized telecommunications industry in Canada was built from huge amounts of Public (i.e. paid for by taxpayers) infrastructure, there'd be a LOT of pissed-off people when they found out that the money they'd paid for Internet and telephone service was being used mostly to fund development in rich neighbourhoods. Everyone paid equally for the infrastructure right up until the late '90s. There's no way some gigantic monopoly that appeared out of the blue should be able to keep all that infrastructure away from the people who paid for it.

Regulation is always a poor choice; it's more bureaucracy and it stifles development. However, modern society is built on the Internet. Keeping it in the hands of the commoners allows a society to succeed as a whole rather than by a few elite individuals. Unless you're one of the 0.000001% of the population in that elite group, regulation favours you in this case.

New Media

[mandelbr0t]

I don't understand why everyone is concentrating on the economic factors and nothing else. Watching Canadian society change in the last 10 years as our regulated telcos and cable companies rolled out thousands of Gbps in bandwidth across the country to all but the most rural farms has been simply amazing. The Internet is a medium. Just like it's a benefit to a government to have televisions and radios in every house in the country, it's a benefit to have high-speed Internet as well.

My lifestyle has changed significantly. Other than the time my employer pays me to be in the office, I do what I want when I want. I don't have to worry about remembering to record a television program I'm not around to watch; someone else will do it and I can download it later. Or go to the video store and rent it on DVD. I don't tune into the evening news; RSS feeds come straight to my desktop. The CBC has become the same Juggernaut on the Internet as it remains on public airwaves. Public transit is filled with people texting and e-mailing each other on the way to work: even commuting time is productive now. Our society truly does work smarter, not harder. Using my PC and network and a few automated tasks has made keeping current a natural state, not something you need to work at.

But American society seems stuck in it's rut of being a TV Nation. Sorry, but television is too slow and prescriptive. I need to watch the show at the same time as everyone else and be exposed to the same mind-numbing advertising (or remember to set up my recording device). Political campaigns stick to traditional media, as do the pollsters who monitor the results of the campaign. Plus, there's no good search feature. There's a whole new medium to conquer for the government who's progressive. Ours already owns our Internet and the results have been truly beneficial, IMO. America as a whole can certainly afford to catch up with the rest of the world in a big hurry. Unfortunately, your wealthy have decided to bicker and negotiate for top dollar rather than take the opportunity to provide a new opiate to the masses.

Re:Easy web business opportunity

[EtherMonkey]

I think that anything over 1meg download is considered 'broadband'.

Would it surprise you to know that anything at or above 200kbps download is considered "High Speed" Broadband by the FCC? Reference. [freepress.net]

DSL Tech: Here you go sir, all done.
Customer: Great, I can't wait to try out that blazing Internet speed.
Customer: Hey, what gives? This is slow as hell. I can't even watch one live video feed.
DSL Tech: Well what do you expect across 200kbps?
Customer: But I was promised "High Speed Internet" for $29.95/month.
DSL Tech: According to the FCC, this *IS* High Speed Internet.
Customer: But your TV ad said "Guaranteed 500x faster than modem"
DSL Tech: 200kbps *IS* more than 500x faster than a 300 BAUD modem!