Tired Of Being Ripped Off By Monopolies, Cleveland Launches Ambitious Plan To Provide Citywide Dirt Cheap Broadband
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
Cleveland has spent years being dubbed the “worst connected city in the U.S.” thanks to expensive, patchy, and slow broadband. Why Cleveland broadband sucks so badly isn’t really a mystery: consolidated monopoly/duopoly power has resulted in a broken market where local giants like AT&T and Charter don’t have to compete on price, speeds, availability, customer service, or much of anything else.
Data also shows that despite billions in tax breaks, regulatory favors, and subsidies, companies like AT&T have long refused to upgrade low-income and minority Cleveland neighborhoods to fiber. These companies not only engage in this deployment “redlining,” but data also makes it clear they often charge these low income and minority neighborhoods more money for the same or slower broadband.
Last week I spent some time talking to Cleveland city leaders and local activists about their plan to do something about it. On one hand, they’ve doled out $20 million in COVID relief broadband funding to local non-profit DigitalC to deliver fixed wireless broadband at speeds of 100 Mbps for as little as $18.
On the other hand, they’ve convinced a company named SiFi Networks to build a $500 million open access fiber network at no cost to taxpayers. SiFi Networks will benefit from a tight relationship with the city, while making its money from leasing access to the network to ISPs.
We’ve noted (see our Copia report on broadband competition) that such open access networks routinely lower the cost for ISP market entry, boost competition, and generally result in lower prices. Monopolies like AT&T, of course, have long opposed the idea, even if they would technically benefit from lower access costs, because it chips away at their consolidated monopoly power.
Local activists like DigitalC CEO Joshua Edmonds tell me they hope the project teaches U.S. towns and cities that there are alternatives to being feckless supplicants to regional telecom mono/duopolies:
“This is a major victory, and I hope that people don’t look at it as just a major victory for Cleveland. Every city where there’s a prevalent digital divide, where there’s political will and ability to execute, people should be paying close attention to what happens in Cleveland, paying close attention to how DigitalC was able to fight and navigate with our coalition of stakeholders.”
We’ll see what the finished network looks like. And now that Cleveland is challenging monopoly power, it will be interesting to see if local monopolies focus on challenging Cleveland. Big ISPs like AT&T and Charter want to have their cake and eat it too; they don’t want to uniformly upgrade their broadband networks to next-gen speeds, but they genuinely don’t want others to do so either.
It’s a lot easier and cheaper to throw a bunch of campaign contributions at corrupt policymakers (remember with the GOP wanted to ban all community broadband networks country-wide during the peak of the pandemic? or how the telecom and GOP worked in concert to pass laws in 20 states effectively banning towns and cities from making these choices for themselves?).
Community-owned broadband networks aren’t a magical panacea. Such efforts are like any other business plan, and require competency in design and implementation. But the community-owned and operated networks in more than 1,000 U.S. cities can (and routinely do) prompt a very broken and federal government-coddled status quo to actually try for once, much to its chagrin.
Filed Under: broadband, cleveland, community broadband, digital divide, digitalc, high speed internet, municipal broadband, telecom
Comments on “Tired Of Being Ripped Off By Monopolies, Cleveland Launches Ambitious Plan To Provide Citywide Dirt Cheap Broadband”
And just watch as, like clockwork, AT&T and Charter file a lawsuit against the city of Cleveland for billions of dollars in an attempt to maintain their oligopoly in the city.
Re:
They can try…but “at no cost to the city” means they can’t complain about “boondoggle” spending (at least with any credibility). The main avenues they have to obstruct will be in the permitting process and denying right of way access or pole access for cables.
Re: Re:
They can complain about boondoggle spending all they want. It’s called lying and they are very good at it.
You’re telling me Cleveland is #1 at something?
Re:
That’s really hard to nail down and define, because Cleveland can’t even win for losing.
Broadband opposition
This is only tangentially related but I came across this group running ads in the local school board election https://www.accountabilityprojectinstitute.com/about. The goals of the organization is to disparage the Democratic candidates and limit governments who want to establish public internet utilities.
This seems like two completely different and specific goals and since the ads are showing up in Ohio I thought I would share it here. I can find any information on the group but I suspect they will be voices agains the Cleveland project.
depending on whats there
The REAL problems are going to Popup as soon as a few things are found out.
#1, Any cable lines RUN, Should be shared between the cable/ISP/TV corps. WOULD BE GREAT.
But wont happen.
#2 HOW far have the current purveyors gotten on Installing FIBER? Odds are, NOT very. At the MOST only the main line to the hubs. LOTS of digging ahead(yes digging)
#3 Who here has ever seen the MEAN spirited outcome of a Company REALLY getting pissed off? Random Sabotage? Its NOT that hard when you have Builtin hardware. If they go Wireless, that will mean a Startup price for the customer. Probably $200-500 per location.
And Wireless has problems. Always has, always WILL. As well as Promises that cant be reached.
Re: The interesting part of this
Is that a Solid system, if not broken into pieces, is a job for bill collectors and installers.
ComcastCares is $10 a month.
From the TANSTAAFL Dept.
Finished product prices of actual end-user providers, hooked up to SiFi Networks’ backbone in Fullerton, Calif., for 1 Gig residential service:
– Ting: $79/mo.
– GigabitNow: $79/mo. ($69/mo for first 6 months)
See how much money Open Access backbones can save consumers?
The millenium has arrived!
Now, compare this to a non-open-access fiber network provider in California:
– Sonic.com: $50/month for 10 gigabits/sec.
So, Open Access networks are thereby proven to save you at least minus $29 per month, due to the inherent massive economic benefits of a shared, for-profit backbone.
Wait…
Never mind.
https://legacy.ting.com/internet/town/fullerton
https://www.gigabitnow.com/fullerton/residential/#pricing
Re:
Now do a comparative analysis for all open access networks. Until you do, what you have there bud is what we call an anecdote which is just a nice way of telling you that your argument is shit.
Wait, don’t forget that Cox Communications also serves the Cleveland market.
Toronto chow
Yeah she would instead of being in robbers_heĺl Canada etc back pocket chow would fu fiber by adding in some asinine tax along eith loony left rules for use like killing access if you don’t add a pronoun etc…