The Tech Antitrust Problem No One Is Talking About: US Broadband Providers (arstechnica.com) 66
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: After years of building political pressure for antitrust scrutiny of major tech companies, this month Congress and the US government delivered. The House Antitrust Subcommittee released a report accusing Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook of monopolistic behavior. The Department of Justice filed a complaint against Google alleging the company prevents consumers from sampling other search engines. The new fervor for tech antitrust has so far overlooked an equally obvious target: US broadband providers. "If you want to talk about a history of using gatekeeper power to harm competitors, there are few better examples," says Gigi Sohn, a fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy. Sohn and other critics of the four companies that dominate US broadband -- Verizon, Comcast, Charter Communications, and AT&T -- argue that antitrust intervention has been needed for years to lower prices and widen Internet access. Analysis by Microsoft last year concluded that as many as 162.8 million Americans do not use the Internet at broadband speeds (as many as 42.8 million lack meaningful broadband), and New America's Open Technology Institute recently found that US consumers pay, on average, more than those in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere in North America.
The Department of Justice complaint against Google argues that the company's payments to Apple to set its search engine as the default on the iPhone make it too onerous for consumers to choose a competing search provider. For tens of millions of Americans, changing broadband providers is even more difficult -- it requires moving. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which promotes community broadband projects, recently estimated from Federal Communications Commission data that some 80 million Americans can only get high-speed broadband service from one provider. "That is quite intentional on the part of cable operators," says Susan Crawford, a professor at Harvard Law School. "These companies are extracting rent from Americans based on their monopoly positions." The United States has suffered, and broken up, telecom monopolies in the past. AT&T had a government-sanctioned monopoly for much of the 20th century, until it was broken up in 1984. The 1996 Telecom Act included rules for phone providers aimed at encouraging competition, but it excluded "information services," leaving broadband companies freer rein. The White House and Congress will both need to act in order to make US broadband more competitive. "Options worth considering include reversing some of the acquisitions that turned Comcast and others into nation-spanning giants and mandating that companies allow competitors to use their networks, as is common in Europe, [says Joshua Stager, a senior policy counsel at New America's Open Technology Institute.]
The Department of Justice complaint against Google argues that the company's payments to Apple to set its search engine as the default on the iPhone make it too onerous for consumers to choose a competing search provider. For tens of millions of Americans, changing broadband providers is even more difficult -- it requires moving. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which promotes community broadband projects, recently estimated from Federal Communications Commission data that some 80 million Americans can only get high-speed broadband service from one provider. "That is quite intentional on the part of cable operators," says Susan Crawford, a professor at Harvard Law School. "These companies are extracting rent from Americans based on their monopoly positions." The United States has suffered, and broken up, telecom monopolies in the past. AT&T had a government-sanctioned monopoly for much of the 20th century, until it was broken up in 1984. The 1996 Telecom Act included rules for phone providers aimed at encouraging competition, but it excluded "information services," leaving broadband companies freer rein. The White House and Congress will both need to act in order to make US broadband more competitive. "Options worth considering include reversing some of the acquisitions that turned Comcast and others into nation-spanning giants and mandating that companies allow competitors to use their networks, as is common in Europe, [says Joshua Stager, a senior policy counsel at New America's Open Technology Institute.]
The ISP has always been the real problem (Score:3, Funny)
I guess they have to be. They have to do all the governments dirty work for them. Who else can block access to all those "offensive" sites out there? And who better can protect facebook et al from competition with all the upload and server restrictions etc?
Re: The ISP has always been the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The day that they installed prisms at the major peering points in order to clone the optical feed, the FCC ruled special circumstances that exempt major carriers from the 1994 Telecom Act. And so began the downward death of independent ISPs. Later the Patriot Act got signed, project Carnivore started reading that optic feed, and later project PRISM launched. No coincidence to the actual prisms installed at the peering points (heavy sarcasm).
Are you really surprised that after granting warrantless access to the entire internet feeds, they would be overlooked in the antitrust crap? Its easier to spy on people when you only deal with 5 or 6 gatekeepers.
Re: (Score:1)
Independent ISPs went away with the transition from modems to cable/fiber. The independent ISPs all used a handful of nationwide back haul providers, all going through the same peering points. Nothing has changed about the points of access for spying. Technology changed and the line going to your house is now an actual data connection, not something which the internet (data) merely piggybacked on top of.
wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also very, very unsexy. Broadband is sort of like the plumbing. Boring infrastructure. Nobody thinks about where the sewage goes until every toilet on the street runs backwards simultaneously.
Re:wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody thinks about where the sewage goes until . . .
Like a utility?
Re:wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
And I don't see this changing for quite a while. We'll eventually get to China's level, where the baby formula contains paint ingredients. After that episode, the Chinese government finally got serious about food safety...hahaha just kidding they executed one low level factory owner and swept it under the rug.
Re: (Score:2)
A good example would be Taiwan. It rank top for internet access and broadband speeds. Sounds great. But Taiwan is a small island. It's super easy to generate good coverage when your geographical target area amounts to "Taipei".
About 80% of Taiwan's population has internet access. Ok, that's a decent number. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But then you check and find out that it's also about 80% in the US. Reference: https://www.pewr [pewresearch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
As a general rule, our society has bought into the story that all regulation is evil, communist thought control, and any regulatory rollback amounts to ringing the bell of freedom.
In this case, regulatory rollback would amount to ringing the bell of freedom. Regulatory capture is the primary way that the big broadband providers have built and maintained their position.
and utilitys have certified meters will ISP's be a (Score:2)
and utilitys have certified meters will ISP's be able to have one that will pass the test?
Re: (Score:2)
Not all utilities are metered. There is no requirement for a utility to charge on a use basis; it's perfectly acceptable for a utility to charge a flat rate for all-you-can-eat.
Also yes, metering of broadband has always been available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
They dont lobby. They let the government spy without demanding warrants. There is a keu difference. This is more like a mafia relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why (Score:2)
I'm sure it has nothing to do with big broadband companies like Comcast owning an extremely large number of subsidiaries, including quite a few news outlets.
Re: (Score:2)
That is part of it. Comcast does own NBC.
The biggest "gatekeeper" to competition is the crushing capital cost of building competing infrastructure. Sure, the government could force the incumbents to allow "middlemen" to ride their copper/fiber/wireless/whatever and "compete," but do you really think that would result in any meaningful cost reduction? I doubt it. It could potentially result in services that consumer prefer based on service levels, and customer service, but I doubt anyone would be seeing
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the government could force the incumbents to allow "middlemen" to ride their copper/fiber/wireless/whatever and "compete," but do you really think that would result in any meaningful cost reduction?
It sure as hell didnt when they forced the telephone companies to do exactly this. Some might say its lucky that cell services sprang up at around the same time, others might recognize that one caused the other.
Re: (Score:2)
when they forced the telephone companies to do exactly this
I only recall that they had to do that with the copper line directly from the CO to a residence. After SBC finished buying back almost every baby bell then AT&T for its name, they built out remote terminals (Project Pronto) which broke that connection and was automatically exempt from the DSL line sharing rule, then did it again (Project Lightspeed aka Uverse) just to be sure.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do I need better support for something that just works? In 20 years of using Comcast, the only time I've needed support is when moving. If the need for support were a thing, no matter what company resells you the service, it would still be the same company that owns the data lines and infrastructure doing the actual service. Whatever service person you talk to would have to be a relay point between you and the network owner. There is no gain to be made from forcing the network provider to allow rese
Re: (Score:2)
Color yourself lucky. I have Comcast residential service and it goes out (requiring a truck roll to repair) several times a year, which is usually associated with inclement weather, but not always. It's never been anything on or near my property that caused the issue. Their customer service is lackluster, and disinterested, at best.
Lanes (Score:2)
It's probably unrealistic to outright split them, but at least keep them "in their lane" and not let them own, dictate, or force-bundle content of any significant proportion.
Ban forced rented hardware / must in base cost (Score:2)
Ban forced rented hardware / must in base cost for areas / systems that force it.
Comcast does in
gig-pro
metro-e
https://www.xfinity.com/suppor... [xfinity.com]
if you want static ip (pay for static ip + forced rent)
a few other cases
ATT does and they don't have true bridge mode
Lower prices already available (Score:5, Interesting)
While prices are higher overall I suppose for most people for broadband, there are easy ways to lower them for more knowledgeable customers
For example, I have verizon fios where I live and I know the "slowest" internet speed they offer (200 mbs symmetric for $40) is more than enough for virtually anyone though most people will buy more even though it offers no benefit
I've been buying the "slowest" broadband available for 15 years and it's always more than enough for me (and would be for 98% of users)
Re:Lower prices already available (Score:4, Insightful)
200 Mbps symmetric is the *slowest* speed? I'm sitting here paying 3x that for 50/10. Business class, to be sure, but... yikes.
You must have at least a little bit of competition where you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
this is in a fancy suburb of a major us city
that said, I think most of the less expensive areas nearby also have this deal
I haven't scrutinized this with tor or another proxy but the verizon fios site shows me 200/200 without entering any address info (that said, it could derive the pricing/speeds from my ip address...)
Re: (Score:3)
For regular subscribers where I live (Bryan/College Station, Texas), the cheapest broadband plan that doesn't have a data cap is $105/month for 400/40 through Suddenlink cable. They're also the only company offering broadband service across the area. Sure, you can downgrade your speed to save money, but then you lose unlimited data. There's no way around it. You can also switch to Suddenlink's fiber at some addresses, but that costs even more and comes with higher speeds that most people frankly have no use
Re: (Score:2)
While prices are higher overall I suppose for most people for broadband, there are easy ways to lower them for more knowledgeable customers
For example, I have verizon fios where I live and I know the "slowest" internet speed they offer (200 mbs symmetric for $40) is more than enough for virtually anyone though most people will buy more even though it offers no benefit
I've been buying the "slowest" broadband available for 15 years and it's always more than enough for me (and would be for 98% of users)
The "slowest" broadband where I live is the only broadband, Charter Spectrum that I just tested with 61.3 mbs down, 7 up. I can't get any other internet here, even though I can throw a rock and hit a Comcast line (the closest through road, which my house is next to the house on the corner) and can walk half a mile to find a U-verse box. Yet where I live, they can only get us one provider.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been buying the "slowest" broadband available for 15 years and it's always more than enough for me (and would be for 98% of users)
Maybe for Individual needs, but, household needs are often higher. Basic broadband was enough until our two children started their post-secondary educations. Both had their own computers and smart phones, and almost all their school work was done on-line. Add in two adults needing internet access for their jobs, and there was near-constant heavy competition for the available band width most evenings. We upped our broadband service to the next tier.
The kids graduated, and we went back to "slowest" and chea
Re: (Score:2)
Seemingly where you live the slowest tier was indeed too slow though in my neighborhood, 100mbs or 200mbs is the slowest which should be enough for even a large family unless multiple people are watching 4k streams simultaneously
I know of people near me who swear by needing more than 200 mbs though despite the fact they just browse the web and watch netflix...
Isn't that what LEO ISPs are meant to solve? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Starlink is only targeting rural customers and special markets like HFT. The technology works better with a wide sky view (troublesome in suburban areas, harder in urban areas unless you have roof access) and a low customer density (bandwidth is based on visible satellites divided by visible customers). The rural US has a large number of single residences on multi-acre lots that are too expensive to wire up. The main competitors are fixed wireless (where cell towers are available) and GEO satellite.
I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, it might have made sense to give a provider the exclusive for an area to make it economically feasible to roll out. And some of those exclusive agreements also made the cable providers connect the edges of town where that one connection was expensive, but were aggregated with the whole town.
But, those exclusive deals should not have been perpetual. The rights of way
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, those that laid the cables often got big fat subsidies from the feds, so it could be considered to be the feds demanding what they paid for.
Re: (Score:1)
Franchise agreements were made to prevent this type of redlining while also enriching the local government with fees collected from the cable companies.
Fibre in New Zealand (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or half the price and you get 1Gbps
$150 gets me internet, landline and cellphone, static IP+DNS records.
The best I got with a speed test was about 950/450 down/up.
Service is above 99.9%
Aristocracy vs New Rich. (Score:2)
Split them up. Worked here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Split wholesale infrastructure and retail operations.
Regulate the wholesale side of the industry - prices, service levels and investment.
That lets the market dictate the retail side and you'll get some actual customer focused competition.
It allows small companies to directly compete with the incumbents, since they get the same access to the same customers for the same cost, without spending billions in infrastructure. Or as Google found out, not even being allowed to spend on infrastructure because another company has been given exclusive rights to the poles in an area.
Re: (Score:1)
When the same company provides the cable and all of the layers of service that can run on that cable, there is no competition.
Similar to wholesale/retail, what's required is:
- ban cross ownership between physical cable and any services that run on top of it
- if you provide networking services, you can't own or by owned by a company that provides entertainment services
- if you provide entertainment services, you can't own or be owned by a company that provides network/cable services
etc.
- require that all pro
Not a lack of competition per se (Score:2)
Where I live, we have Xfinity cable, Ziply fiber, Verizon and AT&T wireless broadband. And soon, Starlink. So we have choices.
But what we don't have is any kind of common carrier rule. Which states that any one of these broadband providers must connect me to a service provider/web site of my choosing. Right now, my broadband provider is playing games with a few local news sites. "Gee, that's a nice website you've got there buddy. It would be a shame if it kept timing out."
Make it illegal for broadband
Some Places Are Better Than Others (Score:2)
When I lived in Citrus Heights. CA, the choices were Comcast or Consolidated Communications or Dish. Consolidated was the "Tin Can and a String" telephone company, but even they had better customer service than Comcast.
Now I live in San Antonio, TX, and there are three or four choices.
And in the "Hill Country" west of San Antonio, another "dark horse" candidate exists, which OUGHT to be available everywhere. The Bandera Electric Cooperative is the power company - and provides gigabit fiber internet at ast
Re: (Score:2)
San Antonio
Technically it's a Google Fiber city, but haven't heard a word on their status in two years, since they announced the first two of ~20 "fiberhoods". But I'm in one of the few adjoining small cities, so they'd have to go out of the way to make a new build-out agreement. Still, I'll probably be able to get it before I would have in far NW Austin.
There's also "AT&T fiber", but all I've seen of it nearby is a 100Mb service. I know I can get it, but I've seen no sign of FTTC build-outs. When I got Uverse a
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at GVTC when we were househunting, and trying to decide on a location. (Househunting during Covid-19 was an adventure in itself. We ended up buying this house sight-unseen, with an excellent realtor, Google Street View and Zillow. I think we lucked out, but it worked pretty well.)
But Spectrum provides 400Mbps here in this "far west San Antonio" neighborhood, and so far, it's working well. AT&T advertises service here, but the folks on NextDoor.com are often complaining about the quality of t
Re: (Score:2)
That’s because rural fibre is cheap. People seem to think it expensive, people have been fooled.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s because rural fibre is cheap. People seem to think it expensive, people have been fooled.
It used to be that it was expensive. The actual material being put in the ground was so expensive that any labor cost mostly didn't matter. Times have changed, but ISPs have been exploiting the fact that people think nothing has changed and don't know that now labor by far dominates the installation expense.
Solar panels are suffering the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The blockages that prevented competing ISPs from getting going were right-of-ways for cables. The ELECTRIC UTILITY already HAS right-of-ways to every building they provide power to. So it makes perfect sense for the POWER COMPANY to also provide fiber internet.
Municipal broadband (Score:1)
Allow cities to build their own infrastructure. Hell, even offer their own service too, but I see it more as a win if they just handle the infrastructure and let other companies build on top of that.
Lots of people talk about it (Score:4, Insightful)
The Tech Antitrust Problem No One Is Talking About
Anybody who complains about shitty Internet service and is unable to switch to a competitor because there isn't one in the area, is talking about an Antitrust Problem. The fact that they may not use those words is irrelevant - if they don't have a choice of providers and the service sucks, then there's obviously some trust busting that needs to be done.
Broadband is not an antitrust problem (Score:2)
The problem here is over-regulation (government only allowing a single broadband Internet provider), not under-regulation (companies exploiting a natural mon
Re: (Score:2)
Government granted monopolies are only part of the problem...
The other is that even in the absence of regulation, it is often not economically viable to lay the physical cabling - especially if a competitor has already done so, so it doesn't get done and no competition exists.
The government granted monopolies were a misguided attempt to encourage development - in some areas no provider may have built the infrastructure at all without the incentive of monopoly control over the area.
Building infrastructure is
Re: (Score:2)
The broadband ISP monopolies are not natural monopolies. They're government-granted monopolies. If the government doesn't like these companies having a monopoly, all they have to do is stop awarding service monopolies and give other broadband ISPs permission to offer service in the same area. No lengthy ant-trust lawsuits or court trials necessary.
Nope. Flat wrong. Missouri Revised Statutes 67.1842 Prohibited acts by political subdivisions paragraph (5) Enter into a contract or any other agreement for providing for an exclusive use, occupancy or access to any public right-of-way;
It has been illegal for any local government entity in Missouri to establish exclusive franchise agreements for any utility, including broadband, since 2013. It's not even legal to grant a preference to any public utility right-of-way user (paragraph (2)). Is Missouri some M
A long standing problem (Score:2)
This is a problem that has existed for a while and the current FCC is apparently not willing to do anything about it. Cities have tried stepping in to solve the problem, but lobbyists and lawyers of these “monopoly” ISPs ensure that the situation does not improve.
Looking on the other side of the pond, it would appear that in France you can get gigabit internet speeds for less than the price many in the US pay for a sub-100 megabit connection. Taking a look at Orange [orange.fr], a 1Gb connection is €31
Nobody? (Score:2)