Report Again Finds Broadband ISPs Charge Minority, Poor Neighborhoods More
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
The regional monopolization of U.S. broadband (and the widespread corruption that protects it) comes with all manner of nasty side effects.
The lack of competition at the heart of the country’s telecom economy contributes to high prices, comically bad customer service, slow speeds, spotty coverage, annoying fees, and privacy and net neutrality violations (since there’s often no market penalty for bad behavior). But it also results in “redlining,” or when a regional monopoly simply refuses to upgrade minority neighborhoods because they deem it not profitable enough to serve.
The National Digital Inclusion Alliance has done some interesting work on this front for years, showing how companies like AT&T, despite billions in subsidies and tax breaks, routinely just avoids upgrading minority and low income neighborhoods to fiber. Not only that, the group has long showed how users in those neighborhoods also struggle to have their existing (older and slower) services (like 911) repaired.
Recently the Markup released another phenomenal report again highlighting how telecom giants like AT&T routinely redline, refusing to upgrade lower income or minority residents who often live just a few blocks away from more affluent, whiter folks:
The Markup gathered and analyzed more than 800,000 internet service offers from AT&T, Verizon, Earthlink, and CenturyLink in 38 cities across America and found that all four routinely offered fast base speeds at or above 200 Mbps in some neighborhoods for the same price as connections below 25 Mbps in others.
The neighborhoods offered the worst deals had lower median incomes in nine out of 10 cities in the analysis. In two-thirds of the cities where The Markup had enough data to compare, the providers gave the worst offers to the least-White neighborhoods.
This is usually the part where some Libertarian-leaning free market devotee steps in to say something like “what do you expect, for them to deploy broadband where they make less money?” At which point the response is a resounding yes, given we’ve thrown countless billions in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors to these companies under the agreement that they’d do exactly that.
The FCC by and large has ignored this practice for twenty years. Every so often you’ll see somebody at the agency pop up and claim they’ll “take a closer look” at the problem (as the agency did last year), which is promptly followed up with zero substantive action of any kind whatsoever (granted it’s important to recall the telecom industry has launched a successful smear campaign to cripple the agency).
But generally, all you’ll get from US politicians and regulators is a lot of hollow rhetoric about how much we care about “solving the digital divide.” Though we don’t apparently care quite enough to do things like seriously crack down on AT&T subsidy fraud, promote municipal/cooperative/utility competition (see our recent report on just this subject), penalize redlining, or even acknowledge the fact that U.S. broadband is heavily monopolized and protected by rampant state and federal corruption.
Instead, we get regulators like the FCC’s Brendan Carr, whose top priority is hyperventilating about TikTok, a company in an industry he doesn’t even actually regulate. Regulators who gut the FCC’s consumer protection authority, demonize community broadband alternatives, support unchecked consolidation, slather monopolies in billions, then turn around and pretend they’re doing all of it for the little guy.
Filed Under: broadband, competition, digital divide, discrimination, fcc, high speed internet, low income, minorities, red lining
Companies: at&t
Comments on “Report Again Finds Broadband ISPs Charge Minority, Poor Neighborhoods More”
Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.
– James Baldwin
Citizens only exist to provide money to corporations.
The poor are just the easiest to rob because no one cares and they do not feel they have enough power to fight back.
When cops are stealing $40 from a citizen because it “might” be the proceeds of drugs & they end up adding millions to their budgets this way it should be clear its just taking from those left with no way to fight back.
(See also: Where is the Sackler Family perp walk we should have gotten given the number of people they helped kill in the name of profits.)
“the group has long showed how users”
I hope this is a cut and paste, as I dont think even TD would miss this one.
As to the rest of the article..
Nothing new in the capitalist regime. If ya cant make money from it, even in your own mind, then Dont do it.
Even after you have been PAID to do it anyway.
“Of course those people should pay more for one eighth bandwidth and worse service.”
Libertarian? Don't you mean republican?
umm, anyone who is left of the current version of “right” would generally say that this is a problem that needs to be solved by the government protecting it’s citizens. now, since usually this area of politics is considered libertarian, and what you tried to say is the exact opposite, I would respond your bias is showing
Re:
Sounds like somebody is confusing libertarian with liberal.
Re: Re:
Not really. Most of the Libertarian parties generally favour protecting and expanding public utilities.
the democrats who want to throw money at “poor” neighbourhoods.
The republicans don’t care at all.
It’s the libertarians that support a publicly owned public controlled ‘internet for all’ idea.
Hmmmm…
Ah yes, and enjoy the deafening silence you’ll encounter when you ask those same libertarians what role
should play in their vaunted “free market”.
Re:
… I just called the national Libertarian-Hotline:
they said government subsidies and tax breaks and regulatory favors cannot exist in a true free market.
maybe you have an incorrect view of their libertarian thinking
when politicians control buying & selling, the first things bought & sold are politicians
that’s why there’s no Competition in Broadband
Re: Re:
It’s the same as any other political buzzword: you don’t have to “mean” anything as long as you’re saying the words people want to hear. Yeah, subsidies wouldn’t exist under “true” libertarianism, but no politicians seriously propose to use that system—presumably because people wouldn’t vote for someone who proposes to privatize roads etc.
Re: Re: Re:
… so what economic ‘system’ does U.S. operate under currently?
how come it failed on Broadband (and Inflation, housing, poverty, etc)
Re: Re: Re:2
You said it already: the system in which politicians are bought and sold. Sometimes they say “libertarian” or “conservative” or “liberal” or “America!” while doing so.
The “systems” described in economics textbooks are like the “spherical cow in a vacuum” satire of physics. The models may have some value, but should not be confused with reality. The American economy may take inspiration from various economic theories, but isn’t really based on any and will never quite match any idealized description (most of which tend to ignore politics altogether).
The system didn’t fail: the politicians involved got very wealthy.
It's infrastructure
The network hardware is a natural monopoly. The state should own and maintain it. Private companies should be able to operate on it and compete. Same as we’ve seen with community broadband, but at the national level.
We’ve already paid for it. I have no problems with the government just taking it.