Study: Community Broadband Drives Competition, Lowering Costs

from the Do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

For all of the talk about being #1, America's broadband networks are routinely mediocre. The U.S. consistently ranks among the middle of the pack in speeds and overall availability, while Americans continue to pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for both fixed and mobile broadband. The reasons aren't mysterious: we've let a bunch of telecom giants monopolize the sector, dictate most US telecom policy in exchange for campaign contributions, and literally write state and federal law with a relentless focus on hamstringing competition.

We then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces, wondering what went wrong. Rinse, wash, repeat.

While this has been true for 30 years or so, the pandemic has finally started shining a brighter light on the problem. After all, an estimated 42 million Americans can't get access to any broadband whatsoever despite endless billions in subsidies and mammoth industry tax breaks. Millions more can't afford service thanks to monopolization and a lack of competition. A new report by the Open Technology Institute revealed last week once again that Americans pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world:

"We find substantial evidence of an affordability crisis in the United States. Based on our dataset, the most affordable average monthly prices are in Asian and European cities. Just three U.S. cities rank in the top half of cities when sorted by average monthly costs. The most affordable U.S. city—Ammon, Idaho—ranks seventh. The overwhelming majority of the U.S. cities in our dataset rank in the bottom half for average monthly costs."

Why Ammon, Idaho? It's a community owned and operated open access fiber network that encourages, you guessed it, actual competition. Data repeatedly shows such networks offer faster, better, and cheaper service -- in part because they're more accountable to the local community being locals themselves, but also because they can spur incumbent providers to improve service and lower costs. It's something the OTI study noted quite clearly:

And yet, there's an entire telecom-sector backed cottage industry of folks who attempt to malign community broadband and public/private partnerships. Time and time again, such networks are demonized (incorrectly) as inevitable boondoggles and not simply an organic response to market failure. Why? Because such networks challenge the status quo enjoyed by AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, which all but own a bipartisan laundry list of state and federal lawmakers and a chorus of "experts" happy and willing to try and argue that US broadband is both competitive and hugely innovative.

But the data doesn't budge. US broadband simply isn't competitive, particularly at faster speeds of 100 Mbps or greater:

“When you factor in price at [100 Mbps] speed,” FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has written, “the United States is not even close to leading the world." Our findings support this statement. At the 100 Mbps minimum download speed tier, the United States has the most expensive average monthly price, followed by Asia and Europe. Eight of the 10 most expensive cities in this speed tier are in the United States."

That didn't happen by accident. And none of this should be surprising to anyone.

US phone companies have given up on upgrading their aging DSL networks because it's simply not profitable quickly enough for Wall Street's liking. As a result, cable giants like Comcast and Charter Spectrum have secured a monopoly over faster broadband speeds across huge swaths of the nation, driving up costs and ensuring some of the worst customer service in any industry in America. Contrary to industry's claims, wireless is not some panacea for this problem for reasons we've well explored. And while low orbit satellite might help a little, that too isn't going to be a miracle cure.

Study, after study, after study make it clear: US broadband is patchy, expensive, and slower than a long list of countries due to limited competition and state and federal corruption. We know this, the data repeatedly shows it, and yet year after year we simply double down on the same mistakes for what, by now, should be a fairly obvious reason: it's what wealthy US telecom monopolists want.

Filed Under: broadband, community broadband, competition, muni broadband


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2020 @ 6:51am

    thing is though...

    I don't believe in the internet

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Celyxise (profile), 21 Jul 2020 @ 9:28am

    I remember when Google Fiber was still hyped up, my city was on the list of probable future deployments. A week after the announcement, I got a notification from Comcast saying that i got a free upgrade, doubling my speed.

    If just a rumor of competition does that, I can only image what real competition does.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2020 @ 12:45pm

    Eight of the 10 most expensive cities in this speed tier are in the United States.

    In other words, the USA is leading the world.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 21 Jul 2020 @ 1:18pm

    I think...(I hate that)

    Out of 225 countries, the USA in around 170 on a reverse list of Internet speeds...
    That makes us around #55 in speeds around the world.
    But that depends on Who's list and How they define the speeds..
    But in most of the lists we arent even in the top 10...
    What is the connection speed,
    Actual speed..
    Avg speed..
    There are a few things to look at.

    So the corps look at things and say...WOW, whats the most they will use, whats the avg?
    20 years ago, it wasnt that high. NOW?? 1 1080 vid is 5mbps. Games?? WOW, 10-15mbps.. Watch 1 movie, can be 1-5 gig..
    And allot of this can be based on the Avg, output that the internet servers are set for. There are boost speed, where you can get 16 gig in 5-10 minutes. Some game servers will HOG your connection, take every bit of it, and if you TRY to do something on the net...SLOW's it down by 1/4 then 1/2 the speed.. WHO wants to wait 4-10 hours for a 100 gig game to be sent to you?? really?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.